-
#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.
And even I would have much rather seen a lifting body design chosen.
