-
CEV Proposal Roundup
by
simonbp
on 30 Jan, 2006 01:13
-
-
#1
by
BogoMIPS
on 30 Jan, 2006 01:58
-
Interesting to see all of the proposals side-by side, as well as the similarities and differences between many of them.
I'm not sure what my take is on the overall tone of the article... Certainly not an unbiased article from my opinion.
It is a bit odd that NASA would solicit a bunch of designs, just to use it's own in the end. Heck, if they wanna give me a couple mil, I'm sure I can give 'em another one to reject...
-
#2
by
Dogsbd
on 30 Jan, 2006 16:38
-
I used to enjoy Wades site until he started letting his politics cloud his technical reporting.
His caption for this story (will this misbegotten decision mean the end of American human spaceflight?) is revealing enough without even following the link to his blog; it is totally against anything related to VSE, CEV, ESAS or seemingly even NASA itself. Relating ones dream about some fictional shuttle disaster as if it has some relevance to reality is borderline wacky.
-
#3
by
vt_hokie
on 30 Jan, 2006 21:00
-
That Lockheed lifting body design is still my favorite of the bunch. But while NASA shot that down, we still might get something similar in the Russian Kliper.
-
#4
by
simonbp
on 30 Jan, 2006 21:30
-
Is solicting many diverse ideas and then going back to where you started any worse than the early-Apollo era dogmatic adherence to first direct-landing and then EOR (as opposed to the apparently crazy LOR concept)?
Simon
-
#5
by
nacnud
on 30 Jan, 2006 21:40
-
I agree, Wade should drop the Blog as well there is just no need for such vitriol. Though I do miss t/space.
-
#6
by
kraisee
on 30 Jan, 2006 23:15
-
Dogsbd - 30/1/2006 12:38 PM
I used to enjoy Wades site until he started letting his politics cloud his technical reporting.
Yeah. Most of Mark's articles are pretty good reads, but that one reads like a seriously anti-NASA op-ed piece from one of "those" uninformed, but highly opinionated, tabloid newspapers. WAY off his best work.
And while I'm at it, and I apologise to Keith who I know reads stuff here, but why are so many of NASAWatch's articles, in particular anything to do with the VSE or Mike Griffin, always sounding so gloomy and opressively negative?
What is going on with all these guys? These are supposedly the 'pro-space' guys.
These guys are the ones who should be promoting the fact that NASA has a direction outside of LEO at last. It may not be their personal choice of direction, but if even our own media guys point-blank refuse to attempt to attract POSITIVE PUBLIC SUPPORT for the new plans, then don't expect the general public to support it either.
If the public aren't attracted to get behind this, I guarantee the money will get pulled and I ask Keith, Mark and anyone else wanting to bash on NASA to ask themselves if it will help or hinder the larger plan.
If we don't all get behind the VSE, and I mean vocally, then what chance do we have at all of getting ANYTHING at all?
Won't we'll all be left out in the cold with NOTHING if the public turns against this?
So please guys, c'mon! Give these negative op-ed pieces a rest and try writing something POSITIVE for a change, k?
*ALL* permanently negative comments can hope to accomplish is to kill this plan, and with it all our hopes of going beyond LEO again more surely than anything else.
Ross.
-
#7
by
MATTBLAK
on 31 Jan, 2006 04:51
-
As much as I strongly admire him, I've thought of e-mailing him on his SULKING about the choosing of the Apollo-like CEV. He really runs it down.
-
#8
by
Tahii
on 31 Jan, 2006 06:59
-
Crikey! He doesn't like NASA that much does he? It seems he likes the shuttle even less!
-
#9
by
Rocket Nut
on 31 Jan, 2006 10:24
-
MATTBLAK - 31/1/2006 12:51 AM
As much as I strongly admire him, I've thought of e-mailing him on his SULKING about the choosing of the Apollo-like CEV. He really runs it down.
I have to admit that I sulked at first, but I got over it. As a former airplane driver, I like wings and the ability to maneuver. But the current design seems to be so much simpler that I have grown to accept it, if not actually like it. Wings and flight controls, and all the complexity involved, seems like such a waste to be carried to mars and back for just a few minutes of use.
I really hate to rely on parachutes after being packed for so long. Again, that's from my pilot days. The first thing we checked was the packing date on the parachutes. I always wanted one that had been packed just yesterday.
Cheers,
Larry
-
#10
by
Jonesy STS
on 31 Jan, 2006 10:28
-
A lot of people did. NASA is going to lose millions of people interested in space flight because the CEV doesn't look like a space ship. The Shuttle did. People care about them. No one is going to care about a capsule apart from the "but it's good for ballistic travel" crowd. My fear is it'll become of interest to geeks and pocket protecter people only.
-
#11
by
Rocket Nut
on 31 Jan, 2006 10:33
-
Jonesy STS - 31/1/2006 6:28 AM
A lot of people did. NASA is going to lose millions of people interested in space flight because the CEV doesn't look like a space ship. The Shuttle did. People care about them. No one is going to care about a capsule apart from the "but it's good for ballistic travel" crowd. My fear is it'll become of interest to geeks and pocket protecter people only.
Good point.
I had not thought of it from a public support aspect. And that is a very important aspect, to be sure. I had only looked at the design from an engineering standpoint. Now you've got me worried.
Cheers,
Larry
-
#12
by
Hotol
on 31 Jan, 2006 10:40
-
Jonesy STS - 31/1/2006 5:28 AM
A lot of people did. NASA is going to lose millions of people interested in space flight because the CEV doesn't look like a space ship. The Shuttle did. People care about them. No one is going to care about a capsule apart from the "but it's good for ballistic travel" crowd. My fear is it'll become of interest to geeks and pocket protecter people only.
I totally agree before we go back to the Moon. 2010 to 2018 is going to be bad for public interest.
-
#13
by
Dobbins
on 31 Jan, 2006 11:49
-
Jonesy STS - 31/1/2006 6:28 AM
A lot of people did. NASA is going to lose millions of people interested in space flight because the CEV doesn't look like a space ship. The Shuttle did. People care about them. No one is going to care about a capsule apart from the "but it's good for ballistic travel" crowd. My fear is it'll become of interest to geeks and pocket protecter people only.
I never thought the Shuttle orbiters looked remotely like a spaceship. They look more like an ungainly cargo airplane to me.
The only people I have seen who are worried about what the thing looks like a a small group of die hard spaceplane fans. The American people didn't suddenly stop supporting the space program when Gemini looked like Mercury, or when the new Apollo design looked different from the two earlier designs. The Russian and Chinese people don't yawn because their space craft don't have wings.
What the thing does is more important to gaining public support than what it looks like. The Shuttle missions that attracted the most attention were the first flight, the mission when Sally Ride became the first American woman in space, the ill fated Challenger mission with the Teacher in space even before the accident, the first Hubble service mission that made the HST usable, and the RTF missions. The public has little interest in most shuttle missions, they find an ISS construction mission about as interesting as a semi-truck hauling a load of ree-bar to Podunk. That has been true throughout the program. I doubt that most people were even aware that Columbia was in orbit until it broke up on reentry.
The first CEV mission will attract a lot of attention regardless of what it does. After that ferrying crews to the ISS will get the same level of attention regardless of what it looks like. A CEV that looks like Darth's Vader's spaceplane isn't going to get any more attention than one that looks like Darth Vader's butt.
-
#14
by
Dogsbd
on 31 Jan, 2006 12:01
-
Dobbins - 31/1/2006 7:49 AM
A CEV that looks like Darth's Vader's spaceplane isn't going to get any more attention than one that looks like Darth Vader's butt.
A good canidate for this forums "Quotes" section!
-
#15
by
Dogsbd
on 31 Jan, 2006 12:06
-
kraisee - 30/1/2006 7:15 PM
And while I'm at it, and I apologise to Keith who I know reads stuff here, but why are so many of NASAWatch's articles, in particular anything to do with the VSE or Mike Griffin, always sounding so gloomy and opressively negative?
Agreed.
I was pretty shocked...... well, no I wasn't, I am used to it now.... when I saw Keiths comments on the Griffin interview with Michael Cabbage. A very good and lengthy interview, and all that Keith can comment on is the O'Keefe campaigning question? To paraphrase an old song he seems to want to "accentuate the negative, eliminate the positive".
-
#16
by
gladiator1332
on 31 Jan, 2006 12:50
-
-
#17
by
simonbp
on 31 Jan, 2006 13:39
-
Well, most people think the shuttle looks like an airplane, is significantly smaller than it really is, and flies to the moon...
The 2017/18 (whatever it is now) landing date is again only a really big issue to those really interested in spaceflight (like those that frequent this forum). Most people would be content if you tell them that NASA is building new spacecraft to go to the Moon, and hasn't yet gone over budget (unless they are a uber-lefty who doesn't belive in anything but social programs, or an uber-righty that doesn't belive in the government; either way, there's little hope
...
Simon
-
#18
by
Dogsbd
on 31 Jan, 2006 13:51
-
gladiator1332 - 31/1/2006 8:50 AM
Does anyone find this strange....the Lockheed "Final" proposal is a Soyuz/Shenzhou clone:
The idea of coping the Soyuz layout comes up quite often, Wade criticizes NASA for not doing so in his op-ed on the CEV, and I am always reminded of Max Fagets remarks on such a design. It’s hard to argue with the logic of someone with Mr. Fagets’ credentials.
Max Faget, in interview December 15, 1969:
“We had for a long while a command module and a mission module, the mission module being where everybody was supposed to do their business. This started off to be a very attractive idea but as we went through our own studies and the contractors went through their studies it became clear that less and less things were going on in that mission module, and everything that was vital for one reason or another also was vital during entry so you either did it twice, once in the mission module and again in the command module, or you did it once in the command module. So it seems that the mission module was turning out to provide nothing but extra room. There were no systems and no particular activity that anyone really wanted to carry out in the mission module other than to stretch out and perhaps get a little sleep. The consequence of this was that it didn't look like it was worthwhile to have a mission module. So in the final analysis we ended up with a single cabin version. You might have noticed that the Russians ended up going into something very close to our two-compartment vehicle that we were considering. I don't know where they got their ideas, but it might have been from us. We made no secret of these considerations.”
-
#19
by
gladiator1332
on 31 Jan, 2006 17:35
-
I remember reading that as well. That is what turned me away from a Soyuz type design as well. It just seems very unlikely that Lockheed would go against what NASA wants a second time. I'm not sure of teh accuracy of calling the Soyuz clone their "final draft" it really seems that they are going to go with the Apollo design that NASA wants. Maybe they'll keep the mission module, however, I don't see how theyre going to pull off a different shaped CM. Maybe we'll see something similar to the old Boeing concept or Andrews.
-
#20
by
vt_hokie
on 31 Jan, 2006 18:10
-
Jonesy STS - 31/1/2006 6:28 AM
A lot of people did. NASA is going to lose millions of people interested in space flight because the CEV doesn't look like a space ship. The Shuttle did. People care about them. No one is going to care about a capsule apart from the "but it's good for ballistic travel" crowd. My fear is it'll become of interest to geeks and pocket protecter people only.
Being an aerospace engineer, I guess I'm one of the "geeks and pocket protecter people"!
And even I would have much rather seen a lifting body design chosen.
-
#21
by
gladiator1332
on 31 Jan, 2006 18:17
-
My iideal CEV was the Schafer design. You can't really call it an Apollo capsule clone, and it's not really a biconic either. Somewhat similar to the CXV I suppose. But I love the whole DC-X approach to the landing. And it was fully reusable.
That is going to be the toughest thing for the public to swallow. After seeing the Shuttle fly again and again, even a spacecraft that is thrown away after 10 missions will seem to be a step backward. I almost wish NASA went with a reusable capsule like Schafers.
However, I am happy with what we've got. I personally think it is nicer looking than Apollo.
-
#22
by
Dogsbd
on 31 Jan, 2006 18:59
-
gladiator1332 - 31/1/2006 2:17 PM
After seeing the Shuttle fly again and again, even a spacecraft that is thrown away after 10 missions will seem to be a step backward.
The "general public" doesn't know or care, unfortunately.
-
#23
by
gladiator1332
on 31 Jan, 2006 19:35
-
Sucks for them....theyre missing out on a lot of fun!
I really wish Wade would post where he got some of the info on these concepts. Like I would like to see a few more images of the Lockheed soyuz. There are some tiny images of it in the Lokcheed final report, but you can't really tell anything from it. They are just there for the graph, no real artist renderings.
-
#24
by
Dogsbd
on 31 Jan, 2006 19:49
-
gladiator1332 - 31/1/2006 3:35 PM
I really wish Wade would post where he got some of the info on these concepts.
Well judging from statements in the article like this: "The selection of an Apollo-type configuration for the re-entry vehicle represented a step back sixty years."
I would guess maybe he just made some of it up.
Seriously, how does someone like Wade claim that CEV is a step back to 1946??? Or does he think he can make such outrageous exaggerated claims without anyone noticing? Most of what little respect I had left for him since he started his blog went out the window with the CEV article.
-
#25
by
BogoMIPS
on 31 Jan, 2006 19:50
-
gladiator1332 - 31/1/2006 1:17 PM
After seeing the Shuttle fly again and again, even a spacecraft that is thrown away after 10 missions will seem to be a step backward.
From Wikipedia (missions per shuttle):
Columbia - 28 flights, 300.7 flight days
Challenger - 10 flights, 62.41 flight days
Discovery - 31 flights, 255.84 flight days
Atlantis - 26 flights, 220.4 flight days
Endeavour - 19 flights, 206.6 flight days
ESAS lists two crew rotation flights per year. So, in four flights, a single CEV capsule will eclipse Columbia's on-orbit time (admittedly, it will be shut down for the majority of that time)
Two Block IA (ISS crew) capsules are enough to serve the ISS for 10 years at that flight rate.
ISS replaces STS's mid-deck and experiment area, (almost) giving it a reason to exist... ISS basically is CEV's permanent on-orbit mission module.
I do agree that it might be hard to sell to a casual observer. We'll see how NASA's PR does... (gulp)...
-
#26
by
gladiator1332
on 31 Jan, 2006 19:58
-
The problem is, your common Fox News / CNN idiot is going to see the CEV as a step back. They see parachutes and capsule and think old fashioned. The mentality is, "If it doesn't land on a runway, then its nothing impressive"...Yeah, NASA Pr is going to have a tough sell.
It doesn't help that supposed "space enthusiasts" like Wade are joining up with said Fox News / CNN idiot and making the same crazy claims.
-
#27
by
Dogsbd
on 31 Jan, 2006 20:33
-
gladiator1332 - 31/1/2006 3:58 PM
The problem is, your common Fox News / CNN idiot is going to see the CEV as a step back. They see parachutes and capsule and think old fashioned. The mentality is, "If it doesn't land on a runway, then its nothing impressive"...Yeah, NASA Pr is going to have a tough sell.
It doesn't help that supposed "space enthusiasts" like Wade are joining up with said Fox News / CNN idiot and making the same crazy claims.
Not necessarily, most in the main stream media don’t know or care much about the hardware used to get into orbit. But they are smart enough to know that going to the Moon is going farther than Earth orbit and that looks like progress.
I can cut those in the main stream media some slack occasionally, sometimes they just don’t know enough to even ask the right questions much less come to the right conclusions even when given answers to their questions. Most of the TV network news sections have a space expert or at least someone who specializes in space reporting on staff. Some of the bigger newspapers have someone like this too. But these few specialists and/or experts aren’t available to make every on air comment regarding space exploration, and sometimes when the others are called on to do so they show their ignorance.
But Mark Wade knows better, period.
-
#28
by
simonbp
on 31 Jan, 2006 20:43
-
gladiator1332 - 31/1/2006 2:58 PM
The problem is, your common Fox News / CNN idiot is going to see the CEV as a step back. They see parachutes and capsule and think old fashioned. The mentality is, "If it doesn't land on a runway, then its nothing impressive"...Yeah, NASA Pr is going to have a tough sell.
It doesn't help that supposed "space enthusiasts" like Wade are joining up with said Fox News / CNN idiot and making the same crazy claims.
'Course you could equally say that a spacecraft that lands on a runway is a reversion to high-performance aircraft, as opposed to one optimised for in-space operations. The only reason that high L/D lifting bodies have survived is that most "aerospace engineers" are actually aeronautical engineers and thus think that something that flys should have wings...
The Apollo program is still thought of (in the US, at least) as one of the better things the US did in the twentieth century; framing any debate in terms of whether to continue that quest or not could elict more support than bickering over the specific way to do it...
Simon
-
#29
by
gladiator1332
on 31 Jan, 2006 20:48
-
I should probably have said "common CNN / Fox News Watching Idiot" Miles O'Brien is no idiot, (interestingly enough he's a private pilot and was two weeks away from announcing he was going to space on a Shuttle mission when Columbia happened)
-
#30
by
gladiator1332
on 31 Jan, 2006 21:45
-
Then again, the articles Wade posted are just as bad, if not worse than some of the stuff I've heard on Fox. Atleast the people on Fox do not profess that they know something about spaceflight...they just try to report it and try to make it more "dramatic" (quoting Apollo 13, "as if going into space wasn't dramatic enough") But Astronatix is supposed to be a source of info on different spacecraft. I've used it several times for info for add ons for Orbiter and for different types of research. Wade should stick to the facts and leave the opinion out of the articles. He should have a seperate site for his opinions. It really lowers the professionalism of his site, and makes it look quite amateurish.
-
#31
by
kraisee
on 31 Jan, 2006 21:51
-
Honestly, I think the public will be more interested in the destination for craft rather than the design of the vehicle.
The public is bored with the "routine missions" to the frankly pointless ISS, even though many here seem to think STS is more sexy than CEV - it has just become boring to most taxpayers.
Shuttle could never go to the moon, let alone Mars. Constellation systems can and will.
And that's where the public interest can really come from. If the public can become interested in the people and the real "purpose" of the exploration missions themselves.
After NASA does a handful of practice landings (which the first few will be very cool to the viewing public anyway), they need to quickly move into building some really cool stuff on the moon - like a lunar telescope - call it Hubble v2.0 if you want the maximum public interest.
Create a lunar base call it "Armstrong Base" or something which will insite a personal interest aspect. Put some comm satellites "up there" and we can all watch Webcams from the moon! Plan from the start that commercial ventures like Space Adventures can buy flights for space tourists to go to the moon and you'll start getting some serious public interest.
I think the public will get quite interested in the prospects (excuse the pun) of starting to mine the moon and near-Earth asteroids, and eventually Mars.
Mars is going to be a major public spectacle. The MER's got normal people really interested, so imagine what landing people there is going to be like...
Frankly, sod what the vehicles look like, lets get the focus on what aspects of the missions themselves will "get the blood pumping" amongst the public. That's the most important bit.
The general public don't care HOW, they do care WHY and WHO.
Ross.
-
#32
by
Dogsbd
on 31 Jan, 2006 23:01
-
gladiator1332 - 31/1/2006 5:45 PM
He should have a seperate site for his opinions. It really lowers the professionalism of his site, and makes it look quite amateurish.
He does, he has a blog. But he's now letting his opinions "infect" his main site rather than sticking to facts.
-
#33
by
Dogsbd
on 31 Jan, 2006 23:09
-
kraisee - 31/1/2006 5:51 PM
Frankly, sod what the vehicles look like, lets get the focus on what aspects of the missions themselves will "get the blood pumping" amongst the public. That's the most important bit.
Absolutely!
If fishing boats had wings you could fly them to the lake and go fishing without hauling your boat around on a trailer, but the primary function of a boat is to navigate the surface of a body of water where wings are useless. Likewise wings are useful for one small segment of spacecrafts voyage, the last 10 minutes of it's flight. The primary function of a space craft is to navigate the vacuum of space, where wings are useless.
The CEV will do things the Shuttle can't possibly do, like go to lunar orbit, and it will be capable of doing just about everything the shuttle can do except haul heavy freight, which should never have been part of a manned spacecrafts job anyway. The CEV is a giant leap forward, not a step backward.
-
#34
by
gladiator1332
on 31 Jan, 2006 23:32
-
I just got back from the bookstore, and I picked up a copy of the latest Flight International....nice cover with the Grumman CEV (we've seen this image before) and the CEV looks amazing.
-
#35
by
Daniel Handlin
on 01 Feb, 2006 00:14
-
I'm constantly chagrined and frankly, quite often amused at the way in which the CEV/ESAS detractors manage to attack it at nearly every opportunity they get. When it seemed that O'Keefe/Steidle had chosen EELVs, we heard that we were wasting the existing man-rated Shuttle infrastructure. Now we're making too much use of it because it's too expensive. If you pick a lifting body, it's bad because it can't carry as much cargo as the Shuttle; if it's a capsule, well, it LOOKS like those Apollo capsules! Must be outdated. Surely no one did a 700-page report focusing on every conceivable option to return to the Moon that chose the safest, fastest, most reliable way of returning to the Moon - I very seriously doubt if most of these people have read the actual ESAS report beyond the NASA PR stuff.
I am also disappointed with the way that the once-excellent Encyclopedia Astronautica is becoming less impartial and more of a springboard for Mr. Wade's ideas. Encyclopedias are meant to be impartial, not dripping with attacks and phrases introducing the CEV as the downfall of all human spaceflight.
Electric cars were first used over 100 years ago. When companies now start to build new electric cars, do bloggers attack it as 'a step back 100 years'? Of course not- it's the same technology but optimized for today's world. Should we let go of the expensive 'car infrastructure' and build bicycles instead (like building EELVs instead of SDLVs) because they're cheaper and smaller and you can make more of them and discard all those big factories and lay off all the workers? Pragmatism needs to be the operative word here- we're only going to get to the Moon if the space community can stick together and mobilize public support, and a return to the Moon Apollo-style is better than 30 more years of LEO.
-
#36
by
vt_hokie
on 01 Feb, 2006 01:06
-
Daniel Handlin - 31/1/2006 8:14 PM
If you pick a lifting body, it's bad because it can't carry as much cargo as the Shuttle...
Personally, I think we should develop some vehicle with decent down mass capability. Imagine what a "Shuttle II" could be with today's technology, adequate funding, and without Air Force interference in the design. Perhaps something along the lines of a modern Lockheed "StarClipper" could match STS for payload capacity. I was excited by X-33, the first program I worked on out of college, even though I never had any realistic expectation of a SSTO vehicle. I think a two stage to orbit system that can be a true space shuttle replacement is well within our capability. So, I'm certainly not negative toward all programs. I would be very enthusiastic about a revival of RLV development.
...and a return to the Moon Apollo-style is better than 30 more years of LEO.
I guess that's the fundamental disagreement. I don't believe that we should return to the moon "Apollo-style", but rather first focus on developing a decent LEO transportation infrastructure.
-
#37
by
gladiator1332
on 01 Feb, 2006 01:31
-
We've been trying that for the last 20 years...its time for NASA to move out of LEO and leave it to the Private sector.
-
#38
by
Dobbins
on 01 Feb, 2006 01:58
-
vt_hokie - 31/1/2006 9:06 PM
I guess that's the fundamental disagreement. I don't believe that we should return to the moon "Apollo-style", but rather first focus on developing a decent LEO transportation infrastructure.
You can't ignore the laws of economics any more than you can ignore the laws of orbital mechanics when designing a space vehicle. A RLV has to have a high flight rate to be viable, that is the one lesson we have to learn from the shuttle. You have to have enough missions to justify the costs of a RLV service center.
There are not enough missions to justify a manned LEO RLV at the present. If we had a dozen space stations instead just one ISS then you might be able to make a manned RLV viable, but until then any vehicle with no place to go simply isn't going to be economically viable. You can't change that fact any more than you can achieve orbit with a vehicle that has a top speed of 1000 kph.
You can't get the Flight rate by using a manned RLV as a satellite launcher. We tried that with the shuttle and all it did was drive the costs of launching an unmanned probe as high as a manned launch. That is another lesson we have to learn from the shuttle.
That leaves us with an unmanned RLV. Even here the economics are against it. Lets say you have a ELV that costs 100 million dollars. I will be real generous and assume a RLV lowers the costs to 50 Million dollars. Do you have a 1/2 reduction in costs? No you don't because you don't launch empty rockets. You have to include the costs of the payload. Again I will be generous and assume a 200 million dollar satellite even though a 1 to 2 cost ratio is rare, most satellites cost a lot more than twice the cost of the launcher. A 100 Million dollar ELV and a 200 million dollar payload brings the total mission cost to 300 million dollars. Reducing the cost of the launcher to 50 Million by using a RLV results in a mission cost of 250 million dollars instead of 300 million dollars. You only get a 1/6 mission savings instead of a 1/2 mission savings, and that is with figures that are very favorable towards a RLV. In the real world the percentage of savings will be even less on most missions.
Costs of payloads are a bigger problem than launch costs. If that problem isn't addressed first then reducing launch costs isn't going to grow the market enough to make a RLV viable.
-
#39
by
Daniel Handlin
on 01 Feb, 2006 02:42
-
Dobbins - 31/1/2006 9:58 PM
vt_hokie - 31/1/2006 9:06 PM
I guess that's the fundamental disagreement. I don't believe that we should return to the moon "Apollo-style", but rather first focus on developing a decent LEO transportation infrastructure.
You can't ignore the laws of economics any more than you can ignore the laws of orbital mechanics when designing a space vehicle. A RLV has to have a high flight rate to be viable, that is the one lesson we have to learn from the shuttle. You have to have enough missions to justify the costs of a RLV service center.
There are not enough missions to justify a manned LEO RLV at the present. If we had a dozen space stations instead just one ISS then you might be able to make a manned RLV viable, but until then any vehicle with no place to go simply isn't going to be economically viable. You can't change that fact any more than you can achieve orbit with a vehicle that has a top speed of 1000 kph.
You can't get the Flight rate by using a manned RLV as a satellite launcher. We tried that with the shuttle and all it did was drive the costs of launching an unmanned probe as high as a manned launch. That is another lesson we have to learn from the shuttle.
That leaves us with an unmanned RLV. Even here the economics are against it. Lets say you have a ELV that costs 100 million dollars. I will be real generous and assume a RLV lowers the costs to 50 Million dollars. Do you have a 1/2 reduction in costs? No you don't because you don't launch empty rockets. You have to include the costs of the payload. Again I will be generous and assume a 200 million dollar satellite even though a 1 to 2 cost ratio is rare, most satellites cost a lot more than twice the cost of the launcher. A 100 Million dollar ELV and a 200 million dollar payload brings the total mission cost to 300 million dollars. Reducing the cost of the launcher to 50 Million by using a RLV results in a mission cost of 250 million dollars instead of 300 million dollars. You only get a 1/6 mission savings instead of a 1/2 mission savings, and that is with figures that are very favorable towards a RLV. In the real world the percentage of savings will be even less on most missions.
Costs of payloads are a bigger problem than launch costs. If that problem isn't addressed first then reducing launch costs isn't going to grow the market enough to make a RLV viable.
In fact, this was what made development of the shuttle economically "desirable". When the Shuttle costing studies were being done in 1969-1971, the BoB did an analysis that reflected the change of value of money with time (i.e. inflation) and, due to its high risk, found the Shuttle to be hard to finance.
In order to be competitive with expendable launch systems of the time such as the Titan III, NASA would have to save more money in the 1980s - meaning more dollars because each dollar is cost less - than it had spent on Shuttle development in the 1970s. It was found that if the Shuttle only flew 28 times per year, it was not economical, even without inflationary considerations. When that was taken in account, you'd need about 55 flights per years before the Shuttle began to save you money.
So about this point of payload costs; this was what NASA tried to justify the Shuttle on and eventually sold it on. Since the Shuttle was uneconomic at any realistic flight rate, NASA included what it called "payload effects", which essentially amounted to a standardization of payloads allowed by the frequent flights of the Shuttle. Also, spacecraft could be allowed to fail more often because they could be picked up later and repaired or otherwise inspected. Astronauts were to fix any problems on-orbit rather than on the ground. Only with payload effects could the Shuttle be justified, and then still only with ridiculous launch rates; a firm called Mathematica tried valiantly to justify the Shuttle economics, resulting in a whopping 736 flights between 1978-1990 (about 60 flights or so per year). But even WITH 60 flights per year, the Shuttle was STILL more expensive to build and operate than expendables without payload effects.
Neither the high launch costs nor the payload effects ever materialized, as we well know. But Dobbins's point is valid; without both an incredibly high launch rate and low-cost standardized payloads, RLVs will never be more economic launch systems than expendables. RLVs would be nice to have, but it makes no sense to wait for NASA and the USAF to quadruple their launch rate AND completely redefine the way that all payloads are built AND design, test, and fly a reliable, reusable RLV before going to the Moon. The approach is not logical.
-
#40
by
Dogsbd
on 01 Feb, 2006 04:02
-
vt_hokie - 31/1/2006 9:06 PM..
but rather first focus on developing a decent LEO transportation infrastructure.
The Russians have had a better than decent LEO transport system for almost 40 years, yet it has never gotten them beyond LEO.
-
#41
by
vt_hokie
on 01 Feb, 2006 04:51
-
Dogsbd - 1/2/2006 12:02 AM
The Russians have had a better than decent LEO transport system for almost 40 years, yet it has never gotten them beyond LEO.
I guess my question, then, would be what good is going beyond LEO if you can't afford to send more than a handful of people a couple of times per year for short excursions? We won't see any significant exploration or exploitation of resources until we can transport people and payloads much more cheaply and routinely.
-
#42
by
Dobbins
on 01 Feb, 2006 05:09
-
Building a RLV that costs more to operate than using a ELV certainly isn't going to lower any costs to LEO. We aren't going to see the flight rates that are needed to make a RLV viable for the next couple of decades at least, so that approach to lower costs needs to be avoided.
I wish we could lower the costs of space exploration and exploitation by something as simple as building a RLV. While I'm wishing I also would like a warp drive engine so I could go visit Mr. Spock and Luke Skywalker. However I accepted one fact a long time ago, the cosmos isn't under any obligation to grant me my wishes.
The quest for some revolutionary means of providing CATS has failed over and over. It's time to move to a different approach, evolutionary development and start nickel and dimeing the cost to death.
-
#43
by
vt_hokie
on 01 Feb, 2006 06:09
-
Dobbins - 1/2/2006 1:09 AM
The quest for some revolutionary means of providing CATS has failed over and over. It's time to move to a different approach, evolutionary development and start nickel and dimeing the cost to death.
Well, then forgetting about CATS for now, what type of evolutionary step do you think we could take if we started with a clean sheet of paper and developed STS version 2.0? Basically, I'm wondering what a modern space shuttle would look like if NASA were given the freedom to do what it wanted to do in the 1970's. That means no budget restraints resulting in design compromises like the external tank and solid propellant boosters, and no Air Force requirements interfering with NASA's design. Surely with proper resources and with today's available technology, we could develop a reusable space plane that is far more reliable and at least somewhat cheaper to fly than the current space shuttle, no?
-
#44
by
MATTBLAK
on 01 Feb, 2006 09:02
-
>>As much as I strongly admire Mark Wade, I regret his sulking about the choosing of the Apollo-like CEV. He really runs it down. Partly for good reason, but negative nonetheless. I pray, really pray that his comments aren't prescient.<< He seems to have the blinkers on in regards to not realising that Nasa isn't allowed the money or time to develop anything riskier, more expensive or better. The same reason Russia hasn't been allowed to go past the Soyuz for several decades.
I liked the CEV design proposals in order of preference:
1): The Boeing capsule with attached Mission Module.
2): The T-Space CXV derivatives.
3): The Schafer "blunt-biconic" (though it should have been bigger).
It's interesting to note that the ESAS Apollo-like CEV is closest to the Boeing proposal, and is now being sensibly down-sized to save weight.
-
#45
by
Dobbins
on 01 Feb, 2006 13:31
-
vt_hokie - 1/2/2006 2:09 AM
Well, then forgetting about CATS for now, what type of evolutionary step do you think we could take if we started with a clean sheet of paper and developed STS version 2.0?
We would get another spaceplane that costs more to fly than simply using a ELV. That gets us into the realm of having a RLV for it's own sake instead of the justification of lowering costs that has always been the core reason for having one. The problem isn't just that the design of the current shuttle is faulty, it that the entire concept of a RLV is faulty with any flight rates that are possible in the next 25 years.
-
#46
by
Dogsbd
on 01 Feb, 2006 18:08
-
Dobbins - 1/2/2006 9:31 AM
That gets us into the realm of having a RLV for it's own sake.......
And that covers about 90% of the justification I ever see for an RLV.
-
#47
by
vt_hokie
on 01 Feb, 2006 18:59
-
Dobbins - 1/2/2006 9:31 AM
We would get another spaceplane that costs more to fly than simply using a ELV. That gets us into the realm of having a RLV for it's own sake instead of the justification of lowering costs that has always been the core reason for having one. The problem isn't just that the design of the current shuttle is faulty, it that the entire concept of a RLV is faulty with any flight rates that are possible in the next 25 years.
Well, if you're correct about that, then I guess you win the argument. If that is all we would get, I suppose it isn't worth the development cost. But how will we ever get to the point of RLV viability if we don't start taking evolutionary steps with new generations of launch vehicles? It seems like a chicken and the egg dilemma - how will there ever be a demand for higher flight rates until there is an economical means of transport?
-
#48
by
gladiator1332
on 01 Feb, 2006 19:30
-
When it comes to RLV's and LEO, why does NASA have to provide the answer? I think NASA should focus on going to the Moon, and let SpaceX, T/Space, Virgin Galactic, all solve the LEO problem.
Whether you like it or not, it costs a lot more for the government to do something. T/Space is offering to do ISS flights for much less than what NASA does now. And with paying customers for Virgin Galactic, I'm sure the price to launch SpaceShipTwo's till come down as well.
-
#49
by
vt_hokie
on 01 Feb, 2006 19:37
-
Well, T/Space is proposing a capsule, and I just don't like capsules very much I guess! I want to see a real space shuttle replacement - a reusable vehicle with significant down mass capability that returns via controlled landing, rather than falling back by parachute. SpaceShipTwo would be exciting if it had the potential to lead to an orbital vehicle, but it really doesn't. A Mach 3 amusement park ride really has no practical value as a space transportation system. I guess I'm just enamored with "space planes"!
It's weird that the space shuttle might be the last one I see during my lifetime.
-
#50
by
gladiator1332
on 01 Feb, 2006 19:52
-
I wouldn't say that. Rutan does have plans for an Orbital version. How he works that coud be a decade away or so. I think SpaceDev is wokring on something as well. Originally their design was an X-34 clone, however, they switched to a lifting body design recently. I also think someone was also working on turning a Learjet into a winged space vehicle. Rather interesting.
Wings add comfort for passengers during re-entry and weight. When your payload is just cargo, it doens't make sense to use a winged design. That is why the winged spaceplanes we will see will be from Virgin Galactic and other similar companies. And even those these companies will start as "theme park rides" they will advance to something bigger.
The future looks pretty amazing. We'll get our capsule to the Moon. T/Space will build NASA's ISS transport, and then the private space ventures will build the sleek spaceplanes. The best part is, instead of just looking at these spacecraft, we may have a shot at flying in one. Hell, some of us guys who are looking to be commercial pilots once were out of college ma have a shot of flying one of these things some day. I sure hope I could....going to college next year to be a pilot, have my eyes on a nice 737, but I wouldn't turn up an oppurtunity to fly a spaceplane. That's my crazy "warp drive" type dream. :p
-
#51
by
Dogsbd
on 01 Feb, 2006 20:24
-
gladiator1332 - 1/2/2006 3:30 PM
When it comes to RLV's and LEO, why does NASA have to provide the answer? I think NASA should focus on going to the Moon, and let SpaceX, T/Space, Virgin Galactic, all solve the LEO problem.
Agreed, 100%.
-
#52
by
mike robel
on 02 Feb, 2006 00:18
-
While I agree that NASA does not have all the answers, I don't really expect that private industry will be able to fill the gap without substancial government subsidese. Just look at the trouble that airlines have in making a profit. And that is with proven technology, huge demand, and money to be made on both ends.
Airlines only have to bring a small amount of life support with them - and indeed, are bringing less and less every month - and they still can't make money.
No commercial entity has fielded a commercially viable booster, to say nothing of the space craft. The T/space concept is intreging, but how does it get to orbit? They are only proposing one part of the solution. Virgin's suborbital airline service may help to beat the door open, but I am reminded of the old adage, "What is the best way to make a small forturn in the airline business? Start with a large fortune."
So, so far as I can tell - Government will fund the manned spaceflight effort and trying to get commercial companies to provide this service will only sap money from the NASA budget.
-
#53
by
vt_hokie
on 02 Feb, 2006 00:21
-
mike robel - 1/2/2006 8:18 PM
So, so far as I can tell - Government will fund the manned spaceflight effort and trying to get commercial companies to provide this service will only sap money from the NASA budget.
I tend to agree, although I'd love to be proven wrong. As I've said before, it would probably take 100 Paul Allens to fund even a basic orbital transportation system. And given the recent failures of Kistler and others, it seems that even modest efforts don't stand much chance of success without government funding.
-
#54
by
mike robel
on 02 Feb, 2006 00:24
-
Jonesy STS - 31/1/2006 6:28 AM
A lot of people did. NASA is going to lose millions of people interested in space flight because the CEV doesn't look like a space ship. The Shuttle did. People care about them. No one is going to care about a capsule apart from the "but it's good for ballistic travel" crowd. My fear is it'll become of interest to geeks and pocket protecter people only.
I'm sorry, on the pad the shuttle looks like a kludge, Coming in for a landing, it looks like an airplane. It doesn't look like a space ship to me.
Apollo-Saturn IB looked like a space ship. The LM and the LSAM look like space ships. Heck, even the experimental DC-3 (prototype SSTO vehicle) looked like a space ship, and when it flew sideways, landed vertically, now THAT looked like a spaceship.
-
#55
by
gladiator1332
on 02 Feb, 2006 01:05
-
I have to agree with you. While I do find the Shuttle to be a really nice looking spacecraft, the CEV has some looks as well. The NG concept image looks really cool. Yes some of it is a bit spiced up to catch your eye, like the gold on the bottom of the CM and around the windows. (Actually the silver and gold pain scheme isn't so bad) and the solar arrays acutally look quite beautiful. Though it probably doesn't make sense from a technical standpoint, I beleive the X-Shaped arrays on the ATV and the old Lockheed capsule are a little bit nicer looking than the two arrays that NG and NASA picked. But were not trying to win beauty contests here, were going to the friggin moon! (With some style!
)
The Flight International cover and some of the discussion here has really solidified my views on the CEV, and I have grown to really like the design.
-
#56
by
Daniel Handlin
on 02 Feb, 2006 02:04
-
mike robel - 1/2/2006 8:18 PM
While I agree that NASA does not have all the answers, I don't really expect that private industry will be able to fill the gap without substancial government subsidese. Just look at the trouble that airlines have in making a profit. And that is with proven technology, huge demand, and money to be made on both ends.
Airlines only have to bring a small amount of life support with them - and indeed, are bringing less and less every month - and they still can't make money.
No commercial entity has fielded a commercially viable booster, to say nothing of the space craft. The T/space concept is intreging, but how does it get to orbit? They are only proposing one part of the solution. Virgin's suborbital airline service may help to beat the door open, but I am reminded of the old adage, "What is the best way to make a small forturn in the airline business? Start with a large fortune."
So, so far as I can tell - Government will fund the manned spaceflight effort and trying to get commercial companies to provide this service will only sap money from the NASA budget.
I think that the commercial spaceflight business is different than the airline model, in that they're operating a much smaller number of vehicles. While government subsidies might help, the private industry will, I think, get to LEO anyway eventually. Low-cost LEO access is desirable for these companies, so it will be developed. NASA should be a risk-taking high-tech agency, blazing the way to the Moon and Mars while the private industry follows and actually opens it up later on. NASA's efforts to develop an RLV are not relevant to its core mission, which is to promote exploration. People keep saying 'we need low-cost LEO access before we go to the Moon'; that's what people said through SLI. That's also what people said during X-33. It's also what they said during X-38. It's also what they said during programs like the X-37 and X-34. Investments in next-generation launch systems over the next 20 years at a low rate just will not work. We've been trying it for the last 20 years. A capsule is up to the task of going to the Moon, and NASA reaped far more scientific benefits through Apollo than it ever has in LEO.
-
#57
by
vt_hokie
on 02 Feb, 2006 03:02
-
Daniel Handlin - 1/2/2006 10:04 PM
People keep saying 'we need low-cost LEO access before we go to the Moon'; that's what people said through SLI. That's also what people said during X-33. It's also what they said during X-38. It's also what they said during programs like the X-37 and X-34. Investments in next-generation launch systems over the next 20 years at a low rate just will not work. We've been trying it for the last 20 years.
That's where I have to disagree. Maybe if we actually followed through on a single program instead of engaging half heartedly in half a dozen programs and then cancelling all of them prior to completion, we might actually get somewhere!
-
#58
by
vt_hokie
on 02 Feb, 2006 03:25
-
Not to get too far off topic, but why was X-34 killed? Orbital had the darn vehicle built already, fer chrissakes! And canceling X-38/CRV was also a travesty, imo. Meanwhile, X-37 lives on for now as a DARPA project, it seems...
-
#59
by
mike robel
on 02 Feb, 2006 03:46
-
Daniel Handlin - 1/2/2006 10:04 PM
I think that the commercial spaceflight business is different than the airline model, in that they're operating a much smaller number of vehicles. While government subsidies might help, the private industry will, I think, get to LEO anyway eventually. Low-cost LEO access is desirable for these companies, so it will be developed. NASA should be a risk-taking high-tech agency, blazing the way to the Moon and Mars while the private industry follows and actually opens it up later on. NASA's efforts to develop an RLV are not relevant to its core mission, which is to promote exploration. People keep saying 'we need low-cost LEO access before we go to the Moon'; that's what people said through SLI. That's also what people said during X-33. It's also what they said during X-38. It's also what they said during programs like the X-37 and X-34. Investments in next-generation launch systems over the next 20 years at a low rate just will not work. We've been trying it for the last 20 years. A capsule is up to the task of going to the Moon, and NASA reaped far more scientific benefits through Apollo than it ever has in LEO.
Then what is the business model? how would this resupply effort be profitable, without considerable government subisdy, for 4 - 6 flights per year to the ISS? Tourism is right out except for the super rich. It is possible that the somewhat less rich could use Virgin Airlines for superfast shuttle service between London, Paris, and New York as a replacement for the Concorde, but that lost money two and needed subsidies.
For the last two years we have paid the Russians to man and resupply the ISS. Clearly, they are not making any money doing so.
There are no goods to buy up there and return to earth to sell. Everything they need has to come from the Earth. Color me unimaginitive, but again, if we can't make airlines profitable, I don't see any hope for spacelines in the near future (10 - 25 years). Beyong that, who knows?
We certainly did not need LEO operations to get to the mooon. About the only use I can really see for the ISS is as a surrogate for a manned mars missions. Add a mission module for 4 - 6 astronauts hooked up to the things. As they bore holes in the sky, they rehearse some of the aspects of the Mars flight. At the end of six months, they land and are zipped off to Antarctica for a 12 month stay of exploration. A quick return to a launch site and it is back to the ISS for the trip home.
-
#60
by
Avron
on 02 Feb, 2006 05:11
-
Just thinking of what launch systems NASA has that can lift anything into LEO, nevermine beyond that... and before you jump at Delta, Atlas... who owns these...Nasa?.. Me thinks is all commercial with a little help from gov. The STS however, is not commercial, but components are supplied by vendors and the same is true for service...
-
#61
by
stargazer777
on 02 Feb, 2006 12:21
-
"Honestly, I think the public will be more interested in the destination for craft rather than the design of the vehicle."
"The public is bored with the "routine missions" to the frankly pointless ISS, even though many here seem to think STS is more sexy than CEV - it has just become boring to most taxpayers."
You are absolutely right. In fact, I believe that Griffin has said essentially the same thing in his public statements and internal messages. In allowing itself to be trapped in LEO, NASA lost the imagination of the Amercian public and the world. Even if the Shuttle had not had the terrible accidents and the ISS the repeated lengthy delays, that would still be the case. Although the NASA exploration architecture is not as sexy as we might wish, by having an ambitious exploration goal and being able to demonstrate real progress toward achieving it, we will begin to reclaim the crucial imagination and support of the public and through that ensure the long term survival of the program. This will also shift the debate away from why should we have any manned space to what we should be doing in space and, believe or not, pressure to do it more quickly. I am certain that we will see a rapid evolution in the hardware we send up and how we use it. Once we have the basic hardware capability -- particularly the heavy lift -- it won't take much additional funding (beyond the baseline budgets expanded for inflation and some small programatic expansions) to begin to put some significant improvements in capability in the program. For example: Orbital or L1 refueling and assembly of more complex vehicles and components; a quick and dirty space station along the lines contemplated by Bigelow in the right orbit that can actually be used to facilitate the Moon/Mars effort -- something that can basically be put up in a couple of heavy lift launches; a serious advance in the nuclear side with both power generation (for powering lunar and space based facilities) and propulsion for longer range exploratory missions; assembly of pure space vehicles that can be used to transport people and cargo back-and-forth to the Moon and later Mars and beyond so that we can quickly get beyond the throw-away mentality; and that is just the beginning. Of course, there will be plenty of opportunity for those "inherently superior" private sector concepts to support, supplement and reach beyond this program. Think about it -- does anyone care about the vehicles we use to support the Antarctic bases? Of course not. Once we are really out there, the destination and the mission becomes the "thing", everything else will fade into the background.
I would also like to add my voice to those who are deeply disappointed by the extremely negative web reviews of virtually everything NASA does by sources such as NASA Watch, Encyclopedia Astronautica, and others. Personal opinions are fine, but these and other sites are pose a real risk at poisoning the well. Clearly these are deeply disappointed people -- by the space program and probably other things in their lives. The problem is that they offer themselves as having a unique knowlege/insight into the space program and are widely read by those who either aren't sophistacated enough or won't take the time to see through the bias and frustration that runs rampant in their articles. No matter what course NASA chooses, these sources will never be satisfied. Actual supporters of manned space flight and exploration must realize that this program survives on a razor's edge -- with enemies on all sides who would love to take NASA funding in toto and devote it to whatever pet project they are advocating. The issue is not between funding NASA and some idealized space transportation system -- the issue is funding manned space flight at all. And, as several of the other commentators have noted, don't doubt the link between funding for robotic missions and support for manned space. If manned space goes, it won't take long for robotic missions to wind down dramatically -- perhaps even disappear. Manned space is the "long pole in the tent" as far as funding for space is concerned. Take it out, and the whole thing collapses.
-
#62
by
vt_hokie
on 02 Feb, 2006 16:31
-
stargazer777 - 2/2/2006 8:21 AM
No matter what course NASA chooses, these sources will never be satisfied.
This is the only part of your post that I must really disagree with. I would be quite satisfied with a reusable lifting body spaceplane!
I was even somewhat intrigued by Lockheed's lifting body CEV design, before NASA shot that down.
But I suppose a modernized Apollo capsule is better than nothing. I'm still not sold on the safety of using SRB's for launching it. Aren't there certain failure modes that will allow no time for the launch escape tower to get the capsule clear of the booster? People often criticize the space shuttle design for being a kludge that was defined by politics and budget restrictions more than technical merit. The same could be said for the CEV.
-
#63
by
vt_hokie
on 02 Feb, 2006 16:36
-
vanilla - 1/2/2006 11:36 PM
Keep it clean, buddy...some of us don't like that kind of language.
Sorry, no disrespect intended, just a bad habit I've picked up of using slang terms without even thinking about it.
-
#64
by
Dogsbd
on 02 Feb, 2006 16:42
-
vt_hokie - 2/2/2006 12:31 PM
This is the only part of your post that I must really disagree with. I would be quite satisfied with a reusable lifting body spaceplane!
Even though there is no logical reason, from a cost of operation and capacity to perform the given mission standpoint, that such a vehicle design should be chosen.
vt_hokie - 2/2/2006 12:31 PM
Aren't there certain failure modes that will allow no time for the launch escape tower to get the capsule clear of the booster? People often criticize the space shuttle design for being a kludge that was defined by politics and budget restrictions more than technical merit. The same could be said for the CEV.
Of course there may be "some" failure modes that prohibit escape/survival, but who expects perfect safety? We might as well stay on the ground if that is an expectation. There are failure modes on 747's that will kill everyone on board, yet we still fly 747's.
At this point it doesn't matter if Shuttles problems were manifested out of politics or budget restrictions, what matters is that the problems exist and we need something to replace it that doesn't have those problems, or at least fewer problems.
Suffice it to say that the CEV should be leaps and bounds ahead of the Shuttle with respect to safety.
-
#65
by
vt_hokie
on 02 Feb, 2006 17:11
-
Dogsbd - 2/2/2006 12:42 PM
Even though there is no logical reason, from a cost of operation and capacity to perform the given mission standpoint, that such a vehicle design should be chosen.
Developing a true STS version 2.0, freed from the Air Force interference that resulted in some of the space shuttle's compromises, would give us a more capable next generation space shuttle that would be capable of delivering the remaining ISS components, servicing ISS, and performing Hubble servicing types of missions (and even returning Hubble - it's a shame that it will never see the Smithsonian).
Can I say that it would be worth the development cost for the incremental improvement over STS version 1.0? That's hard to say. But I do think that the remarkable, and indeed unprecedented capabilities of the space shuttle are worth quite a bit.
Honestly, I would love to see both a reusable space shuttle for LEO operations and a "CEV" type of vehicle for beyond-LEO missions. It's a shame that we always have to choose between one thing or the other with our space program. But that is a good example of why we need to either double NASA's budget or significantly reduce launch/operations costs.
-
#66
by
Dogsbd
on 02 Feb, 2006 18:13
-
vt_hokie - 2/2/2006 1:11 PM
Developing a true STS version 2.0, freed from the Air Force interference that resulted in some of the space shuttle's compromises
The Air Force had nothing (or little) to do with the shuttle ending up requiring months worth of turn around time (and 10's millions of dollars, at least, worth of turn around expense) as opposed to the days of turn around time that it was supposed to require. Therein lies one of the major reasons that the shuttle is so expensive to operate and I know of no technological advancements that would change that to a great extent on STS 2.0. Plus the arguments on flight rates for RLV’s that have already been made in other threads of late.
We are nowhere near having the technology to the equivalent of an orbital DC-3.
-
#67
by
BogoMIPS
on 02 Feb, 2006 18:40
-
Dogsbd - 2/2/2006 1:13 PM
We are nowhere near having the technology to the equivalent of an orbital DC-3.
Yup. I think we need a couple more generations of technology before winged orbiters become more viable:
First, you need to achieve single-stage to sub-orbital winged travel, for a manageable cost. At that point, the military and/or commercial travel will grab on to it. Scramjets, or some similarly-revolutionary propulsion system will make a commercial skip-liner (or skip-bomber) possible at some point.
Once you have that, you can scale up to the point that you can afford the additional mass for add-on non-air-breathing engines, or some hybrid LOX-injected air-breather, for the push to LEO.
The development time on an STS v2.0 is probably an order of magnitude more than Apollo v2.0, especially if you want it to still carry the same payloads.
If we had the budget for both, even better, but we know how that's worked out in the past.
-
#68
by
gladiator1332
on 02 Feb, 2006 19:33
-
What I hope we see with the CEV is something similar to what we saw with Gemini....and I think this may be something NASA already has in mind. Right now we have the basic capsule, sm, parachute landing, ya know that whole bit. But I hope as the missions continue on, NASA still looks for improvement and tests out new methods for landing (maybe a return to the paraglider) New fuels for the SM. Instead of keeping the design frozen for the next 30 years like we have with the Shuttle, NASA should still continue to test new ideas as the Moon missions continue on.
The great thing about the CEV is that it will be cheaper than say a Shuttle to build. The only way to test a new idea for the Shuttle would be to fly it on a manned mission, and this would not be safe. With the CEV, and unmanned test version could be built and new SMs and landing methods could be tested.
-
#69
by
HarryM
on 02 Feb, 2006 23:24
-
Dogsbd - 2/2/2006 11:13 AM
vt_hokie - 2/2/2006 1:11 PM
Developing a true STS version 2.0, freed from the Air Force interference that resulted in some of the space shuttle's compromises
The Air Force had nothing (or little) to do with the shuttle ending up requiring months worth of turn around time (and 10's millions of dollars, at least, worth of turn around expense) as opposed to the days of turn around time that it was supposed to require. Therein lies one of the major reasons that the shuttle is so expensive to operate and I know of no technological advancements that would change that to a great extent on STS 2.0. Plus the arguments on flight rates for RLV’s that have already been made in other threads of late.
We are nowhere near having the technology to the equivalent of an orbital DC-3.
I think the changes that the AF required did make it harder to support, though the Max Faget version would still have had tiles, it would have had less of them. The sheer number of tiles seems to drastically impact the amount of servicing work required. The person-hours required to replace just 1 tile is amazing since they are all unique and have to be manufactured and precisely hand-fitted into place.
...
To give the Air Force its 1100 n.mi. of crossrange would impose a serious penalty in design, by requiring considerably more thermal protection. The change to a delta wing, even without crossrange, would add considerably to the wing area demanding such protection. Crossrange then would increase this requirement even further. The Shuttle would achieve its crossrange by gliding hypersonically, and hence would compromise the simple nose-high mode of reentry that would turn it into a blunt body. This hypersonic glide would produce more lift and less drag. It also would increase both the rate of heating and the duration of heating. Crossrange thus would call for a double dose of additional thermal protection, resulting in a shuttle that would be heavier-and more costly.
...
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch5.htm
-
#70
by
vt_hokie
on 03 Feb, 2006 04:38
-
gladiator1332 - 1/2/2006 3:52 PM
I think SpaceDev is wokring on something as well. Originally their design was an X-34 clone, however, they switched to a lifting body design recently.
If I remember correctly, SpaceDev estimates that it could develop the orbital version of its HL-20 derived "Dreamchaser" for ~$100 million. I have my doubts, but if that does turn out to be true, why does NASA need billions for even less ambitious projects? Heck, they spent over $1 billion on X-33 and didn't even have anything to show for it!
-
#71
by
MATTBLAK
on 03 Feb, 2006 04:46
-
I was FURIOUS when the X-38 was cancelled. An assured crew return vehicle that wouldn't have been effected by the Columbia tragedy AND with a possible upgrade path to a crew transport, to and fro from a lunar or Mars vehicle. In other words, with an attached propulsion module: a CEV, albeit a very basic one! The X-38 program had the misfortune of occurring during the most miserly funding for Nasa of recent history, and during a strong U.S. economy, too. During the days of X-38 and early ISS, manned spaceflight had powerful enemies...
-
#72
by
vt_hokie
on 03 Feb, 2006 04:49
-
MATTBLAK - 3/2/2006 12:46 AM
I was FURIOUS when the X-38 was cancelled.
Me too. But hey, it's never too late to bring it back!
-
#73
by
Dobbins
on 03 Feb, 2006 12:26
-
The X-38 is the poster boy of what is wrong with NASA development. At a time when the agency needed to be developing a replacement for an aging shuttle fleet it was spending scarce funds on a vehicle of very limited capabilities. One that couldn't even get into space on it's own, but which had to be lofted to orbit inside a shuttle's cargo bay. One that couldn't do squat after it got there, just stay attached to the ISS in case something went wrong. This is precisely the kind of project you don't invest in when you have limited funding.
So just where would we be if development of this thing had continued? If it was ready right now we would have a spaceplane that couldn't get to space until the shuttle passed it's RTF, and one that would then have to stand in line waiting for a spot on the shuttle manifest before it could perform it's very limited mission. That's real friggin' useful.
-
#74
by
vt_hokie
on 03 Feb, 2006 16:48
-
Dobbins - 3/2/2006 8:26 AM
So just where would we be if development of this thing had continued? If it was ready right now we would have a spaceplane that couldn't get to space until the shuttle passed it's RTF, and one that would then have to stand in line waiting for a spot on the shuttle manifest before it could perform it's very limited mission. That's real friggin' useful.
That's a fair point. I guess my reply would be this: we'd be halfway toward having a reusable crew transport. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to adapt the vehicle design for launch on one of our expendable boosters. I always pictured the CRV eventually ending up on top of an Ariane V. European collaboration was a no brainer after the failure of their Hermes program.
-
#75
by
Dogsbd
on 03 Feb, 2006 17:01
-
vt_hokie - 3/2/2006 12:48 PM
That's a fair point. I guess my reply would be this: we'd be halfway toward having a reusable crew transport.
X-38 was far from being even halfway to a "real" spacecraft, and I'm not at all sure that it's TPS was reusable. Why would what is esentially an escape pod need reusable TPS?
-
#76
by
nacnud
on 03 Feb, 2006 17:11
-
The TPS was reuseable and had been developed by Dasa for the ESA Hermies project. In fact I think all the X-38 TPS was provided by partnership with ESA.
Link
-
#77
by
publiusr
on 03 Feb, 2006 17:45
-
I think it is time that a gallery of CEV/Stick HLLV images like what is scattered around here be put together in a counter to Wade's CEV section. Then it could be linked to Wiki as a better source of info. Wade really needs to take a break. At least he is actually updating his website.
-
#78
by
Daniel Handlin
on 04 Feb, 2006 01:23
-
Honestly I wrote a good deal of the Wikipedia CEV article - nearly all of it, in fact. Then when I stopped updating it, no one else did. That's why it's stuck in time around late August or so. One of these days I'll get around to updating it. But I admit that now it's getting a little dated. Mr. Wade does often take a while to update his site. If only he stuck to the technical details, with which all of his other articles are so excellent... he bills himself as an encylcopedia. Never have I seen an encyclopedia where the main articles say "this is good" or lambast them for being really bad (and he certainly does a lot more of the latter). I can just imagine, in the Encyclopedia Britannica:
Macropaedia. Volume C.
Crew Exploration Vehicle:
A misbegotten decision that signalled the end of American human spaceflight.
Ridiculous. Give us the technical details! He should relegate his personal opinions to his blog, not to his articles. Or at least he should provide the counterpoints in his articles too; if you're not willing to fully examine both sides of the issue, then you do not really understand it and you can't support your own viewpoint.
-
#79
by
MATTBLAK
on 04 Feb, 2006 04:54
-
I agree!! Mark Wade is cheapening his considerable currency by editorialising his Encyclopedia this way. He should leave such comments to his Blogsite.
-
#80
by
vt_hokie
on 04 Feb, 2006 18:36
-
BogoMIPS - 2/2/2006 2:40 PM
Yup. I think we need a couple more generations of technology before winged orbiters become more viable:
First, you need to achieve single-stage to sub-orbital winged travel, for a manageable cost. At that point, the military and/or commercial travel will grab on to it. Scramjets, or some similarly-revolutionary propulsion system will make a commercial skip-liner (or skip-bomber) possible at some point.
Once you have that, you can scale up to the point that you can afford the additional mass for add-on non-air-breathing engines, or some hybrid LOX-injected air-breather, for the push to LEO.
What do you think the likelihood is that X-24C went deep black, and perhaps led to the long rumored "Aurora" that was causing the "sky quakes" over southern California, presumably on its way to Groom Lake, back in the 1990's? Perhaps the United States has more experience with scramjets and new TPS systems than we realize!
-
#81
by
simonbp
on 04 Feb, 2006 22:23
-
But why? The Soviets had a good enough tracking system to knock out hypersonic spy-planes, and spy sat return better pictures...
Simon
-
#82
by
Dogsbd
on 04 Feb, 2006 23:47
-
simonbp - 4/2/2006 6:23 PM
But why? The Soviets had a good enough tracking system to knock out hypersonic spy-planes, and spy sat return better pictures...
Simon
Airborn recce is needed because spy sats orbits are known values, if someone has something they want hidden they can hide it before the sat passes over. Spy AC can show up at any time, and with stealth tech they can show up, take pictures, and leave with the target never knowing. And pictures taken from 80, 100, 120 thousand feet will always be of higher quality than pictures taken from 100 miles.
-
#83
by
Rocket Nut
on 05 Feb, 2006 10:06
-
Dogsbd - 4/2/2006 7:47 PM
simonbp - 4/2/2006 6:23 PM
But why? The Soviets had a good enough tracking system to knock out hypersonic spy-planes, and spy sat return better pictures...
Simon
Airborn recce is needed because spy sats orbits are known values, if someone has something they want hidden they can hide it before the sat passes over. Spy AC can show up at any time, and with stealth tech they can show up, take pictures, and leave with the target never knowing. And pictures taken from 80, 100, 120 thousand feet will always be of higher quality than pictures taken from 100 miles.
Both of you are right on the mark. I like the move to unmanned recce with the same scheduling capabilities of the manned recce birds.
Back during the cold war, I was involved in both sides of this argument. We had to cover our classified assets during known satellite passes (and all satellite passes were known). I also flew the manned recce birds that could be replanned at the last minute. In some cases we were diverted after airborne.
Cheers,
Larry
-
#84
by
Jim
on 05 Feb, 2006 14:47
-
Dogsbd - 4/2/2006 6:47 PM
simonbp - 4/2/2006 6:23 PM
But why? The Soviets had a good enough tracking system to knock out hypersonic spy-planes, and spy sat return better pictures...
Simon
Airborn recce is needed because spy sats orbits are known values, if someone has something they want hidden they can hide it before the sat passes over. Spy AC can show up at any time, and with stealth tech they can show up, take pictures, and leave with the target never knowing. And pictures taken from 80, 100, 120 thousand feet will always be of higher quality than pictures taken from 100 miles.
It is one thing flying at mach3 and 60k but there are issues with trying to take images though the thermal and shock wave environments of a hypersonic vehicle
We digress
-
#85
by
vt_hokie
on 05 Feb, 2006 16:41
-
http://users.adelphia.net/~dmcgarvey/spyplanes.htmlProbably the most compelling evidence for an aircraft such
as Aurora is the unusual sonic booms heard, and recorded on U.S. Geological Survey
seismographs from 1991-1992 over southern California. The seismograph readings
had the aircraft above Mach 4 and heading northeast, directly towards the Nevada
deserts where two major Air Force test facilities operate, Area 51 and Edwards
Air Force Base.
...
A similar "skyquake" occurred over Orange County, CA in 1996. It was described as being
similar to an earthquake, causing loose rattling of some objects yet damaging nothing, and a
sonic boom of some kind. CalTech sensors confirmed that it was not an earthquake.
...
Also in April of '92 amateur radio hobbyists monitored trans-
missions between Edwards Air Force Base and an aircraft using the call-sign 'Gaspipe'.
The transmission from 'Joshua Control' to 'Gaspipe' went: "You're at 67,000, 81 miles out."
and "Seventy miles out, 36,000. Above glide slope." Clearly the base was directing a high-
flying aircraft in for a landing. Reports out of Europe of detecting and tracking such an
aircraft have also occurred.
-
#86
by
vt_hokie
on 06 Mar, 2006 04:19
-
-
#87
by
Pete at Edwards
on 06 Mar, 2006 04:58
-
-
#88
by
RRP
on 06 Mar, 2006 19:30
-
I have always wondered why the US gave up the SR-71 with no follow on aircraft or capability available. It didn't and doesn't make sense to me. There must be something....Let's hope it stays secret as long as needed to do its job.
-
#89
by
publiusr
on 05 Apr, 2006 18:23
-
Who can say.
-
#90
by
astrobrian
on 05 Apr, 2006 20:29
-
A plane like the SR71 isn't retired without a follow on black project. Along with the sonic booms there have some pictures though I am not sure if they were doctored up any, of pulse jet con trails that looked like popcorn on a string. Not sure if they are from aurora, but something secret. I think this thread is also geting a little off the topic title too
...