Rutan: CEV doesn’t make sense

• Rutan: CEV doesn’t make sense by Jamie Young on 05 May, 2006 00:54
• http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060505/ap_on_sc/space_technology;_ylt=AiXj2fyXGkz_IXntO0xUCc5vieAA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
• #1 by James Lowe1 on 05 May, 2006 01:08
• That'll teach Griffin for inviting him into his office!  
• #2 by hyper_snyper on 05 May, 2006 02:08
• I have respect for Rutan and all he's accomplished but that was one of the most arrogant things I've ever read.
  
  He claims the CEV is archaic and also complains that NASA has "only pennies to do it."  Thank you captain obvious.  If this isn't good enough for you ask congress to give NASA enough money to build the Starship Enterprise.  The design of the CEV was built around the notion of having a limited budget to work with.
  
  

  Quote

  “The budget forecast [for NASA] is to go out and spend hundreds of billions of dollar to go to Mars and yet you don’t have the courage to go back to the Hubble … it looks like you got the wrong guys doing it,” Rutan concluded.

  
  Don't have the courage to go to Hubble?  Excuse me?  Okay let's replace the Shuttle with a safer system .... that would be CEV.  Oh wait that isn't a "breakthrough."
  
  Let's get something else straight.  SS1 and SS2 aren't technical breakthroughs either and I have a sneaking suspicion that SS3 is going to look like a capsule for the same reasons that CEV is a capsule.     http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/misc/ss1.html
  
  I don't really participate in any of the arguments on the architecture on this forum but I drew the line here.  I'm just tired of all the complaining that's been happening lately.
  
  
• #3 by seminole AJ on 05 May, 2006 03:13
• He raises VERY good points about us not working on the Hubble...only reason I can see for this i that they might have a replacement in the works, then I'll forgive them...
• #4 by Spacely on 05 May, 2006 03:55
• They do have a replacement in the works: The James Webb Space Telescope.
  
  http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
  
  Launch is sometime in the 2011-2015 frame.
• #5 by shuttlefan on 05 May, 2006 04:02
• Does Rutan not realize that the CEV will be a _ of alot safer than the Shuttle?
• #6 by seminole AJ on 05 May, 2006 04:30
• Quote

  Spacely - 4/5/2006  11:55 PM
  
  They do have a replacement in the works: The James Webb Space Telescope.
  
  http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/
  
  Launch is sometime in the 2011-2015 frame.

  
  I rescind the previous comment...
  
  (I was out of the loop for the longest time on the NASA issues, so thats probably why I didn't know what was going on...)
• #7 by MATTBLAK on 05 May, 2006 06:57
• Well of COURSE he'd say that!!  But it is hypocrisy in a way. SS1 & SS2 are TOYS. Magnificent toys to be sure, but toys nonetheless. I respect the man a lot but he's been a Nasa basher forever. If he claims the CEV is 'archeology' he MUST also acknowledge that large, fully reusable and 'sexy' spaceplanes cannot be afforded by Nasa and aren't much use beyond low Earth Orbit, unless one plans to fly in the Venusian or Titan atmospheres.
  
  Also, the T-Space CXV design, which I LOVE (strongly affiliated with Burt Rutan), could easily be described as a flying badminton shuttlecock or washing tub, if you were only interested in being unkind with just a pinch of added truth.....
• #8 by MATTBLAK on 05 May, 2006 06:59
• James Webb wont be servicable or upgradable beyond software patches, nor will it have all the same capabilities in the visible light spectrum that Hubble does. I'd prefer the money went into the Terrestrial Planet Finder and for one more "super service" of Hubble.
• #9 by Tap-Sa on 05 May, 2006 07:05
• Quote

  “They are forcing the program to be done with technology that we already know works. They are not creating an environment where it is possible to have a breakthrough,” Rutan advised. “It doesn’t make sense,” he said, contending that programs must encourage risks “in order to stumble into breakthroughs.”

  
  Did Rutan offer any tangible description of this alternative 'environment' ?
  
  

  Quote

  “The budget forecast [for NASA] is to go out and spend hundreds of billions of dollar to go to Mars and yet you don’t have the courage to go back to the Hubble … it looks like you got the wrong guys doing it,” Rutan concluded.

  
  I don't quite get it what Rutan tries to say here. NASA should do HSM with risky vehicle, no safe heaven possibility and probably higher costs than building&sending a completely new space telescope just to show courage? And this relates to hundreds of billions and Mars mission ... how? NASA should send people to Mars in equally or more dangerous missions in order to allow them stumble into breakthroughs on the way?
  
  
• #10 by Tap-Sa on 05 May, 2006 07:11
• Quote

  MATTBLAK - 5/5/2006  10:57 AM
   
  Also, the T-Space CXV design, which I LOVE (strongly affiliated with Burt Rutan), could easily be described as a flying badminton shuttlecock or washing tub, if you were only interested in being unkind with just a pinch of added truth.....

  
  Actually it's almost half century old Corona return capsule with film replaced with people. Shame on Rutan for resorting to such archaic designs, no risks, no environment for breakthroughs and yadda yadda yaa...
• #11 by Dana on 05 May, 2006 08:03
• SS1 is basically the same mothership/rocket-plane flight profile that has been flown since the days of Slick Goodlin and Chuck Yeager, on up through the X-15....only slower. Burt, we love ya, man, but just because something's funny-looking doesn't mean it's INNOVATIVE. (cough!)XP-35Ascender!(cough!) And even then, "innovative" doesn't neccessarily mean, "BETTER."
• #12 by Stardust9906 on 05 May, 2006 12:24
• Quote

  seminole AJ - 5/5/2006  4:13 AM
  
  He raises VERY good points about us not working on the Hubble...only reason I can see for this i that they might have a replacement in the works, then I'll forgive them...

  
  In all probability another servicing mission will go ahead anyway providing they have enough confidence in the tank modifications to dispense with safe haven for that one mission.
• #13 by aero313 on 05 May, 2006 15:01
• Quote

  Rutan said there needs to be a technological breakthrough in spacecraft design that would make it affordable and safe to send humans anywhere in the solar system. But he said he doesn't know what that breakthrough will be.

  
  Boy, it must be nice to be able to throw stones without having to come up with a solution.  Face it, Burt hates the capsule design because it doesn't have canards...
  
  (Actually it WILL have deployable canards on the escape tower... just like Apollo)
• #14 by aero313 on 05 May, 2006 15:40
• Quote

  Maverick aerospace designer Burt Rutan on Thursday criticized NASA's decision to use an Apollo-style capsule to return to the moon, saying it "doesn't make any sense" to build a new generation of space vehicles using old technology.

  
  Isn't this the same guy who built a modern copy of the 60 year old Bell X-1?
• #15 by publiusr on 05 May, 2006 17:13
• I don't know why anybody listens to Rutan. I will give him this. The Global Flyer could make a good UAV platform. That is fine. But I wouldn't ride SS1. White Kniight is more surprising than that little ME-163 (that I call The John Denver Special) slung under its belly. Rutan's craft are made so near to the point of structural failure to where it isn't funny.
  
  Seinfeld voice on:
  
  And what is with him and fuel monitoring?
  
  Global flyer and Voyager seemed to have fuel problems--so you can't blame that on being Rocky Mountain High, Vari-eze style.
  
  
• #16 by vt_hokie on 13 May, 2006 20:34
• At least he's taking the initiative to do something!  I share his opinion on CEV, but unfortunately I don't have the knowledge or resources required to go build my own space plane!  I do hope that a reusable, orbital space plane comes along, whether it be from within the United States or elsewhere, that renders NASA's porkbarrel CEV program obsolete.
• #17 by gladiator1332 on 13 May, 2006 20:51
• Quote

  aero313 - 5/5/2006  11:27 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Maverick aerospace designer Burt Rutan on Thursday criticized NASA's decision to use an Apollo-style capsule to return to the moon, saying it "doesn't make any sense" to build a new generation of space vehicles using old technology.

  
  Isn't this the same guy who built a modern copy of the 60 year old Bell X-1?

  
  And the CXV is nothing but a giant modern Corona film return capsule, which I might add came years before Apollo. If Rutan thinks NASA is archaic, he himself is going back to the Stone Age of spaceflight.
• #18 by vt_hokie on 13 May, 2006 20:59
• Quote

  gladiator1332 - 13/5/2006  4:38 PM
  
  And the CXV is nothing but a giant modern Corona film return capsule, which I might add came years before Apollo. If Rutan thinks NASA is archaic, he himself is going back to the Stone Age of spaceflight.

  
  I'd love to see what he could do with $14 billion a year, though!  Isn't that NASA's approximate budget?  Surely he'd come up with something better than a glorified Apollo capsule.  I can't believe that we are replacing this beautiful and capable machine with this thing.  Yeah, that's real inspiring!  
  
  If and when NASA gets back to designing a true space shuttle replacement, I'll get behind the agency again.  Until then, I am absolutely against my tax dollars being used for this giant leap backwards.
• #19 by Bill White on 13 May, 2006 21:16
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 13/5/2006  3:46 PM
  
  

  Quote

  gladiator1332 - 13/5/2006  4:38 PM
  
  And the CXV is nothing but a giant modern Corona film return capsule, which I might add came years before Apollo. If Rutan thinks NASA is archaic, he himself is going back to the Stone Age of spaceflight.

  
  I'd love to see what he could do with $14 billion a year, though!  Isn't that NASA's approximate budget?  Surely he'd come up with something better than a glorified Apollo capsule.  I can't believe that we are replacing this beautiful and capable machine with this thing.  Yeah, that's real inspiring!  
  
  If and when NASA gets back to designing a true space shuttle replacement, I'll get behind the agency again.  Until then, I am absolutely against my tax dollars being used for this giant leap backwards.

  
  Here's one reason for that replacement you don't like.
• #20 by vt_hokie on 13 May, 2006 21:20
• I have yet to hear a compelling reason for returning to the moon.  When you factor in the cuts in science and research programs, both ISS related and otherwise, needed to fund this "Apollo 2.0", it really seems foolish.  What is so urgent about sending 4 astronauts to perform a weeklong lunar excursion that justifies gutting ISS research and utilization and cutting numerous other programs?
• #21 by Jim on 13 May, 2006 21:43
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 13/5/2006  4:46 PM
  
  

  Quote

  gladiator1332 - 13/5/2006  4:38 PM
  
  And the CXV is nothing but a giant modern Corona film return capsule, which I might add came years before Apollo. If Rutan thinks NASA is archaic, he himself is going back to the Stone Age of spaceflight.

  
  I'd love to see what he could do with $14 billion a year, though!  Isn't that NASA's approximate budget?  Surely he'd come up with something better than a glorified Apollo capsule.  I can't believe that we are replacing this beautiful and capable machine with this thing.  Yeah, that's real inspiring!  
  
  If and when NASA gets back to designing a true space shuttle replacement, I'll get behind the agency again.  Until then, I am absolutely against my tax dollars being used for this giant leap backwards.

  
  I have worked in the space program since '83, while in the USAF, Boeing and now, NASA.  My spent my Boeing time on the Spacehab program, 5 years of my USAF time was in the AF Shuttle program office and a few years of processing DOD payloads for the Shuttle and ELV's.  I actually left Boeing to work for NASA to get away from the shuttle.  And honestly, the shuttle is a pig.  It is literally the aerospace version of a committee's camel.   Aside from mixing cargo and crew, which is the wrong thing to do.  It take more ASE to support a payload than it does for an ELV. All systems to land it detract from its primary mission to haul things into orbit.    Bringing back a launch vehicle and refurbing it  takes more man power than building a new ELV for the flight rates  in the next 15 years
  
  Additionally, I doubt we will see a totally reusable system in our lifetime for spacecraft.
• #22 by vt_hokie on 13 May, 2006 21:46
• Quote

  Jim - 13/5/2006  5:30 PM
  Additionally, I doubt we will see a totally reusable system in our lifetime for spacecraft.

  
  If true, that's sad.  And that's one reason I have no desire to stay in the aerospace biz.  Maybe if I ever have kids, they'll be able to work on ambitious programs like NASP, and hopefully live during a time when we embrace challenges, like during Apollo, instead of saying, "That's too hard, let's find something less ambitious to do."
  
  The shuttle to me is somewhat like the de Havilland Comet.  It is a vehicle ahead of its time, and is perhaps just one step away from the 707 of RLV's.  We should be taking the next step in RLV development, rather than retreating back to the DC-3 of spaceflight.
• #23 by Jim on 13 May, 2006 22:25
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 13/5/2006  5:33 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 13/5/2006  5:30 PM
  Additionally, I doubt we will see a totally reusable system in our lifetime for spacecraft.

  
  If true, that's sad.  And that's one reason I have no desire to stay in the aerospace biz.  Maybe if I ever have kids, they'll be able to work on ambitious programs like NASP, and hopefully live during a time when we embrace challenges, like during Apollo, instead of saying, "That's too hard, let's find something less ambitious to do."
  
  The shuttle to me is somewhat like the de Havilland Comet.  It is a vehicle ahead of its time, and is perhaps just one step away from the 707 of RLV's.  We should be taking the next step in RLV development, rather than retreating back to the DC-3 of spaceflight.

  
  You are looking at it from the wrong point of view.  It doesn't matter how you get there, it is what you do when you get there. (I think I am repeating another post of mine).  I support the spacecraft that fly on ELV's, that's where the interesting missions are.  I have worked on MER, MRO, ICESAT and now MSL.
• #24 by vt_hokie on 13 May, 2006 22:29
• Quote

  Jim - 13/5/2006  6:12 PM
  You are looking at it from the wrong point of view.  It doesn't matter how you get there, it is what you do when you get there.

  
  If that were 100% true, you'd have as many people flying on DC-3's as on 777's today.
  
  

  Quote

  I support the spacecraft that fly on ELV's, that's where the interesting missions are.  I have worked on MER, MRO, ICESAT and now MSL.

  
  I support unmanned exploration as well, but for human spaceflight, I believe this nation should take on the challenge of a next generation RLV.  Maybe someday, this can be more than just a mockup.
• #25 by nacnud on 13 May, 2006 23:33
• Quote

  If that were 100% true, you'd have as many people flying on DC-3's as on 777's today.

  
  Well it comes down to economics and the 777 is probably cheaper/more profitable that a DC-3 these days.
• #26 by hyper_snyper on 13 May, 2006 23:58

• It seems we have this debate at least once a week.  Is the fact that the CEV doesn't look like an airplane really the problem here?  We spend so much time making analogies to airplanes that, I think, we miss the point that spacecraft are not airplanes.  They're not even close.  In fact, they're more closely related to submarines.  John Pike of Global Security said it best in this article :

  Quote

  "We spent three decades trying to make a spacecraft look like an aircraft," Pike said of the shuttle. "We finally concluded that they are two different things."

• #27 by vt_hokie on 14 May, 2006 00:23
• Quote

  nacnud - 13/5/2006  7:20 PM
  Well it comes down to economics and the 777 is probably cheaper/more profitable that a DC-3 these days.

  
  And we won't be able to accomplish much in space until access to space becomes more economical.  Three or four weeklong excursions to the moon per year, with a crew of 4, at a cost of hundreds of millions per launch?  We're not going to get much out of that!
• #28 by vt_hokie on 14 May, 2006 00:36
• Quote

  hyper_snyper - 13/5/2006  7:45 PM
  Is the fact that the CEV doesn't look like an airplane really the problem here?  We spend so much time making analogies to airplanes that, I think, we miss the point that spacecraft are not airplanes.  They're not even close.

  
  Well, the shuttle does look a lot more impressive than any capsule, but that's not the main point.  The fact is that to approach aircraft style operations, we will need to move beyond capsules launched on ICBM relics.  A winged vehicle does have the advantages of greater crossrange, lower g loads, and the ability to perform a soft runway landing.  Furthermore, it allows for more down mass capability than capsules.  Try bringing Hubble back in the CEV!  (It's really a shame that Hubble will never see the Smithsonian.)  
  
  They may not be airplanes, but spacecraft that return to Earth do have to be designed for atmospheric flight.  The space shuttle is a lot more graceful than a capsule falling like a rock and relying on parachutes, you must admit.  Perhaps a true space plane can make better use of the atmosphere, as NASP would have done.  The shuttle isn't so much a true space plane as it is a winged vehicle strapped to the side of a rocket.  (True, the shuttle orbiter has its own engines, but fed from the expendable external tank.)
  
  The bottom line is that we seem to have stopped advancing.  CEV will ensure that we spend billions keeping spaceflight dangerous and expensive, as we maintain antiquated launch vehicles to launch simple ballistic capsules.  If the simple, "proven technology" strategy were affordable enough that it freed up money for exploring technologies such as scramjet propulsion, I might feel differently.  But it's not.  This program will continue to cost billions and eat up the lion's share of NASA's budget, hence ensuring that there are no resources available for newer, more innovative, or more advanced concepts.
  
  If we must go to the moon on a shoestring budget, then yes, the CEV might be the best available option.  But I question whether the entire "VSE" gives us the right goals in the first place.
• #29 by hyper_snyper on 14 May, 2006 01:02
• ^^You know, part of me agrees with you.  I'd love to see another reusable Shuttle-like spacecraft.  It would surely make the space geek in me smile.
  But at the same time I disagree with you.  You say that we've stopped advancing.  Well, I claim that we stopped advancing the day we locked ourselves in LEO.  No disrespect to the Shuttle and ISS, of course, I support them wholeheartedly.  But it seems that we retreated after Apollo.  If the VSE pans out, wouldn't going to the moon, setting up a base, then going to Mars be considered as advancement?
• #30 by vt_hokie on 14 May, 2006 01:09
• Quote

  hyper_snyper - 13/5/2006  8:49 PM
  If the VSE pans out, wouldn't going to the moon, setting up a base, then going to Mars be considered as advancement?

  
  I don't see us setting up a base, much less going to Mars, in our lifetimes.  We'll be lucky to see the 4 person, 7 day lunar excursion by 2018, and it comes at a heavy cost.  To me, it seems premature to worry about going beyond LEO when we don't even have a decent transportation infrastructure in place for LEO operations.  What's the compelling reason for sending humans back to the moon, other than the fact that footprints on the moon are kind of cool?  All of the reasons typically given (lunar bases, telescopes, mining, etc.) will require more affordable, routine access to space anyway!
• #31 by Bill White on 14 May, 2006 02:22
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 13/5/2006  5:16 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 13/5/2006  6:12 PM
  You are looking at it from the wrong point of view.  It doesn't matter how you get there, it is what you do when you get there.

  
  If that were 100% true, you'd have as many people flying on DC-3's as on 777's today.
  
  

  Quote

  I support the spacecraft that fly on ELV's, that's where the interesting missions are.  I have worked on MER, MRO, ICESAT and now MSL.

  
  I support unmanned exploration as well, but for human spaceflight, I believe this nation should take on the challenge of a next generation RLV.  Maybe someday, this can be more than just a mockup.

  
  Deploy a reuseable lunar LSAM and lunar LO2 extraction. That will cut the cost of lunar access very substantially all by itself.
  
  Rendevouz at EML-1. Heck you can get three astronauts to EML-1 today for $100 million using Proton + Soyuz.
  
  Once a re-useable LSAM is deployed, lots of people will invest time money and energy figuring out how to rendevouz with that LSAM as inexpensively as possible.
  
  = = =
  
  The trans-continental railway was built in both directions, St. Louis going west and California going east. The X Prize lunar hopper challenge is all about methane engines that can start and re-start hundreds of times. That is what we need for an LSAM that has NO disposable parts.
• #32 by zerm on 14 May, 2006 04:40
• It's kind of intresting- I've seen the CEV VSE debates on some other forums and they always seem to focus so closely on today that they neglect to learn the lessons of the past. That's just the human factor in any process, but as a professional historian, I'd like to chime in with the way that we, who make a living looking at the past see it. The issue here isn't CEV or VSE or STS... it is G-A-P. The Gap, and I do not mean the clothing store. I mean the gap that results or can be caused when one program of human spaceflight terminates or is terminated. Always keep in mind that the manned space program is a political football that the Washington vote grubs will willingly use in whatever manner they see as being an advantage to their personal careers. Currently, we sit about where we did exactly 40 years ago. Most in on the hill see the program as something that they dare not slash at... for the time being, because if the public saw such actions they'd likely withhold a few votes. If, however, the public with its VERY short attention span should begin to grow distant from the glory of these space events, then the program is ripe for gutting and having its funds spent on good ol' pork which can equate to an increase in votes. Much the same as when the Apollo 11 high was followed by a public yawn, there in was the chance to gut and cancel- and they did. Logic and actual figures of dollars were thrown aside- Apollos 18, 19 and 20 were cut- even though MOST of the expense had already been paid for, most of the hardware was paid for, all that was really cut- were jobs. In 1975 we saw how big a gap really could be. When ASTP splashed down STS 1 was a half decade away- the weeds grew tall at LC39 and it was only through a good deal of scrimping (as compared to Apollo) and quiet work under the media radar that the Shuttle survived. Even with that, Senator Plugsmier the hair plug king came out time after time and asked to "kill it!" For those of you who did not live through those days- things were pretty bleek. The only ones flying rockets on a regular basis were the Soviets and Estes.
  
  The space program is still in danger- if the Shuttle is terminated on schedule and we do not have a replacement program either running or within a tight few months of the last STS landing, and a non-space friendly adminsitration and or Congress comes into power- these CEV debates may fall into the gap like blueprints tossed rusty flame bucket at LC19. We must have a NEW program or the public will revert to their yawn state and the media will do their best to help. Think about it- it could all END. Seriously, that will be the end of the manned space peogram and once ended it will never be restarted in our lifetime. Heck- it took 30 years for a serious effort to return to the moon to actually get started... 30 years! That should be a national embarrassment... but it is not. The concern here IS the gap- period. Issues of engines, methane, vehicle size- all of it simply would go away along with the program as our nation fast tracks toward third world status. Of course a few people in DC would get another term or two out of it. Remember, the vote grubs did it once before, right after Apollo 11 made the most historic voyage in human history- they gutted it. It can happen again. But as long as big rockets are blasting from pads at the cape on a regular basis and there is enough glory  and "new" to compete with the bloody lead stories on the 24/7 cable news channels- there's some protection from the cut and gut vote grubs.
  
  So far as Mr. Rutan is concerned- I was at X-Prize and sat in that packed press room and heard him run down NASA then- he always runs down NASA- he likes it. Frankly, it degrades his own image more than it does NASA's. He does, however, also take their money to fly vehicles aboard White Knight and is not above using DFRC's tracking network for SS1. That says a lot too.
  
  Just my point of view... hey... anyone here ever shout into the abandon flame bucket at LC-19? I hear there's a great echo.
• #33 by mlorrey on 14 May, 2006 04:41
• Quote

  Tap-Sa - 5/5/2006  1:58 AM
  
  

  Quote

  MATTBLAK - 5/5/2006  10:57 AM
   
  Also, the T-Space CXV design, which I LOVE (strongly affiliated with Burt Rutan), could easily be described as a flying badminton shuttlecock or washing tub, if you were only interested in being unkind with just a pinch of added truth.....

  
  Actually it's almost half century old Corona return capsule with film replaced with people. Shame on Rutan for resorting to such archaic designs, no risks, no environment for breakthroughs and yadda yadda yaa...

  
  You're not getting his point. It is private industry's job (i.e. Rutan's job) to take existing technologies (motherships, rocket planes) tested and proven, put them together in a better way (composite materials, hybrid propulsion, minimizing the bells and whistles, feathering control surfaces) to make a commercially feasible product that sells tickets and flies billions of cargo/passenger miles.
  
  Conversely, it is NASA's job to be out developing the new technologies in their flight test labs, wind tunnels, and x planes, then handing them off to private industry, so private industry can apply those technologies in commercially viable ways (as described above), rather than hogging the technology within NASA, burying it completely (as with many you'll never hear about), and building exclusively NASA designed and assembled launchers, treating private industry merely as a source of subcontracted parts and subassemblies.
  
  The Navy learned a long while ago it can have private industry build its nuke subs for less than half the cost of building them in the Navy's own shipyards. It is time NASA learned the same lesson, and I believe that is what Rutan was trying to get across: what NASA is doing should be left to private industry. If NASA wants people in orbit, they should open design competitions completely. CLV/CEV's only design competition was on the capsule, and the winner was the group that most closely hewed to what NASA said it wanted from the start. Thus, it was merely going through the motions of appearing to have a competition. Every other contractor was predetermined like some socialist government keiretsu.
• #34 by imfan on 14 May, 2006 12:11
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 13/5/2006  7:23 PM
  
  Well, the shuttle does look a lot more impressive than any capsule, but that's not the main point.  The fact is that to approach aircraft style operations, we will need to move beyond capsules launched on ICBM relics.  A winged vehicle does have the advantages of greater crossrange, lower g loads, and the ability to perform a soft runway landing.  Furthermore, it allows for more down mass capability than capsules.  Try bringing Hubble back in the CEV!  (It's really a shame that Hubble will never see the Smithsonian.)  
  
  They may not be airplanes, but spacecraft that return to Earth do have to be designed for atmospheric flight.  The space shuttle is a lot more graceful than a capsule falling like a rock and relying on parachutes, you must admit.  Perhaps a true space plane can make better use of the atmosphere, as NASP would have done.  The shuttle isn't so much a true space plane as it is a winged vehicle strapped to the side of a rocket.  (True, the shuttle orbiter has its own engines, but fed from the expendable external tank.)
  
  The bottom line is that we seem to have stopped advancing.  CEV will ensure that we spend billions keeping spaceflight dangerous and expensive, as we maintain antiquated launch vehicles to launch simple ballistic capsules.  If the simple, "proven technology" strategy were affordable enough that it freed up money for exploring technologies such as scramjet propulsion, I might feel differently.  But it's not.  This program will continue to cost billions and eat up the lion's share of NASA's budget, hence ensuring that there are no resources available for newer, more innovative, or more advanced concepts.
  
  If we must go to the moon on a shoestring budget, then yes, the CEV might be the best available option.  But I question whether the entire "VSE" gives us the right goals in the first place.

  
  add ICBM relics: current LVs are way too far from their predecessors. If U mind that they are using the same physical principles you are free to propose something better. good luck. Nowadays the situation is that if you want to go to orbit or beyond the limiting/cost driving factor for launch is mass. and guess what kind of design has lowest mass? CAPSULE. CEV is not only designed to go to LEO, but even further which makes mass criteria even more important
  if the feeling that the craft is graceful is important to you please yourself and watch Star Trek.
  ad crossrange: CEV will not be silly brick falling down back to earth. it will be capsule wit L/D= 0.3 which gives it 180km crossrange(I know its much less than shuttle-2000) and 1.5Nmi chute deploy accuracy-thats pretty good. The reason ehy shuttle has so big crossrange is because it needs it since it can land only on very few places(few because it is expansive to build them-dont know the figures for building SLF but I am sure it wasnt cheap) and although this crossrange is big it cant do miracles and shuttle is restricted on few landing windows. as well as the CEV will be.
  G loads: ISS return peaks at 3Gs is that that much?
  Soft landing: Is there something important that really makes things different when comparing shuttle landing whit the  CEV one on airbags? in both cases U get spacraft landed on groung and able to go to space again after some processing
  return capability: to be honest this wasnt used very often on shuttle. and would you launch shuttle mission just to get huble to museum?
  keeping spaceflight dangerous and expensive: from what I know CEV will improve both compared to shuttle.
  
• #35 by Jim on 14 May, 2006 13:42
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 13/5/2006  8:56 PM
  
  

  Quote

  hyper_snyper - 13/5/2006  8:49 PM
  If the VSE pans out, wouldn't going to the moon, setting up a base, then going to Mars be considered as advancement?

  
  I don't see us setting up a base, much less going to Mars, in our lifetimes.  We'll be lucky to see the 4 person, 7 day lunar excursion by 2018, and it comes at a heavy cost.  To me, it seems premature to worry about going beyond LEO when we don't even have a decent transportation infrastructure in place for LEO operations.  What's the compelling reason for sending humans back to the moon, other than the fact that footprints on the moon are kind of cool?  All of the reasons typically given (lunar bases, telescopes, mining, etc.) will require more affordable, routine access to space anyway!

  
  NASA already got burned trying to operate a "National Space Transportation System"  It is not NASA's job to find a way into LEO.  Commercial companies are supposed to.  NASA is only to develop "unique" capabilites it requires to carry out its mission.  A RLV for a few flights a year is not the way to go.   An RLV can not do the work of a CaLV for the near term.
• #36 by edkyle99 on 14 May, 2006 16:01
• Quote

  imfan - 14/5/2006  6:58 AM
  
  

  Quote

  vt_hokie - 13/5/2006  7:23 PM
  
  Well, the shuttle does look a lot more impressive than any capsule, but that's not the main point.  The fact is that to approach aircraft style operations, we will need to move beyond capsules launched on ICBM relics.  

  
  add ICBM relics: current LVs are way too far from their predecessors.
  

  
  That is right.  The only U.S. launch vehicles in use today that are derived at least in part from ICBMs are smallsat launchers Taurus (MX) and Minotaur (Minuteman).  Atlas and Titan, the original ICBMs, are gone.  Delta 2, with its Thor IRBM lineage, is the last "classic" in the U.S. lineup, and it is not powerful enough to launch manned missions.
  
  With the new EELVs having failed to nail their planned cost goals, it could be argued that the U.S. was better off with the old ICBM-based launchers.  
  
   - Ed Kyle
• #37 by vt_hokie on 14 May, 2006 17:32
• Quote

  Jim - 14/5/2006  9:29 AM
   A RLV for a few flights a year is not the way to go.   An RLV can not do the work of a CaLV for the near term.

  
  Why not?  Imagine where NASA would be today if it had a vehicle with the same overhead costs as STS, but capable of flying a couple of dozen times per year.  ISS might have been finished in a couple of years, instead of taking well over a decade.  Surely, a next generation STS would improve at least incrementally on both costs and flight rate.
  
  But hey, there are people with more degrees, more experience, and far more knowledge than I have making the decisions.  So, I guess I can't argue too much.  (Although, there are also a lot of clueless politicians with more influence than they should have.)  I just know that the possible existence of "Blackstar" was far more exciting to me than VSE.  I'm interested in seeing aerospace advance, and in seeing some of the advanced concepts of my youth become reality.  I have zero interest in re-creating Apollo, and I doubt I will ever be very excited by or interested in CEV.
• #38 by Jim on 14 May, 2006 18:21
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 14/5/2006  1:19 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 14/5/2006  9:29 AM
   A RLV for a few flights a year is not the way to go.   An RLV can not do the work of a CaLV for the near term.

  
  Why not?  Imagine where NASA would be today if it had a vehicle with the same overhead costs as STS, but capable of flying a couple of dozen times per year.  ISS might have been finished in a couple of years, instead of taking well over a decade.  Surely, a next generation STS would improve at least incrementally on both costs and flight rate.
  
  But hey, there are people with more degrees, more experience, and far more knowledge than I have making the decisions.  So, I guess I can't argue too much.  (Although, there are also a lot of clueless politicians with more influence than they should have.)  I just know that the possible existence of "Blackstar" was far more exciting to me than VSE.  I'm interested in seeing aerospace advance, and in seeing some of the advanced concepts of my youth become reality.  I have zero interest in re-creating Apollo, and I doubt I will ever be very excited by or interested in CEV.

  
  The real reason that RLV won't work in the near, it because LEO is not where the money is made.  It is at GEO and most ELV's optimized to deliver spacecraft to GTO.   RLV can not used for this orbit because dropping off a spacecraft with an upperstage at LEO is inefficent.
• #39 by vt_hokie on 14 May, 2006 19:50
• Quote

  Jim - 14/5/2006  2:08 PM
  The real reason that RLV won't work in the near, it because LEO is not where the money is made.  It is at GEO and most ELV's optimized to deliver spacecraft to GTO.   RLV can not used for this orbit because dropping off a spacecraft with an upperstage at LEO is inefficent.

  
  Why does it have to be about making money?  How about getting more for our dollar out of NASA, which is not a profit driven enterprise.  What if, instead of getting 4 flights per year at best out of STS, we spent the same amount on a system that gave us 20 or more flights per year?
• #40 by Jim on 14 May, 2006 20:02
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 14/5/2006  3:37 PM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 14/5/2006  2:08 PM
  The real reason that RLV won't work in the near, it because LEO is not where the money is made.  It is at GEO and most ELV's optimized to deliver spacecraft to GTO.   RLV can not used for this orbit because dropping off a spacecraft with an upperstage at LEO is inefficent.

  
  Why does it have to be about making money?  How about getting more for our dollar out of NASA, which is not a profit driven enterprise.  What if, instead of getting 4 flights per year at best out of STS, we spent the same amount on a system that gave us 20 or more flights per year?

  
  Other than ISS, NASA doesn't need to get to LEO, it needs to go further.  It is about making $, because usually the more inexpensive processes are the more profitable.  NASA doesn't need 20 flights a year to LEO.  It needs to go further.  NASA has been stuck in LEO.  Let commercial companies find the better way.
  
  How about this for a scenario.  
  
  A RLV is used to fly components of the ESAS to LEO, which may be the cheapest way.  But to get the men to it, a system similar to CEV and CLV is used.  
  
  That would be more likely to occur.
• #41 by vt_hokie on 14 May, 2006 20:15
• Quote

  Jim - 14/5/2006  3:49 PM
  Other than ISS, NASA doesn't need to get to LEO, it needs to go further.  

  
  Again, why?  What is the need to go further?  Let's be honest, we don't have the technical capability to go beyond the moon right now, and it will take better radiation protection, more advanced propulsion, and more reliable, self sustaining craft before we do.  So, it's a choice between LEO and the moon right now.  What's so much more pressing about getting to the moon than LEO?  Seems to me we could do more in low Earth orbit with ISS utilization than we can do on the lunar surface given present technological and economic limitations.
  
  

  Quote

  NASA has been stuck in LEO.

  
  Mainly because there has been no compelling reason to return to the moon.  Do I want to see humans go back?  Yes, but I always figured the next humans to travel to the moon would be flying on something more advanced and capable than the CEV, while dozens more humans lived and worked in LEO.  
  
  

  Quote

  How about this for a scenario.  
  
  A RLV is used to fly components of the ESAS to LEO, which may be the cheapest way.  But to get the men to it, a system similar to CEV and CLV is used.  
  
  That would be more likely to occur.

  
  The way I always pictured it, a vehicle like NASP or VentureStar would transport crews to LEO, where they would enter an Earth departure vehicle that was assembled on-orbit.  I actually agree with the concept of the "SDHLV", and I think we should have both a reusable space plane and a heavy lift cargo vehicle.  But it's a shame that NASA will have to spend billions to replicate the heavy lift capability that Russia had 20 years ago with Energia.
• #42 by imfan on 14 May, 2006 20:48
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 14/5/2006  3:02 PM
  
    But it's a shame that NASA will have to spend billions to replicate the heavy lift capability that Russia had 20 years ago with Energia.

  I agree. I have read somewhere that there was possibility to get licence to build energias in US. that would be great. but politicaly unrealistic
• #43 by Jim on 14 May, 2006 20:58
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 14/5/2006  4:02 PM
  
  but I always figured the next humans to travel to the moon would be flying on something more advanced and capable than the CEV, while dozens more humans lived and worked in LEO.  
  

  
  Define "more advanced"  Wings does not equate to more advanced.  You are getting hung up on aerodynamics.  The inside is going be more advance.
  
  Not everything that is forcasted becomes reality.   Nuclear powered aircraft, gas turbine cars, Hi speed cars, personal aircraft, LEO comsats, etc
  
  ISS experiments are a farse.  There is nothing new under the sun.  The same experiments that flew on the Spacelab missions and on the Spacehab module are still flying on the ISS.  What disappointed me the most while working on all the Spacehab missions was that we flew the same experiments over and over.  There wasn't much difference in the experiments on the first to the last mission.  And I then I saw that most of them are still flying on ISS.
• #44 by vt_hokie on 14 May, 2006 21:11
• Quote

  Jim - 14/5/2006  4:45 PM
  Not everything that is forcasted becomes reality.   Nuclear powered aircraft...

  
  Well, that's a disaster waiting to happen!  Some ideas are just bad.
  
  

  Quote

  gas turbine cars

  
  Why was that ever a proposal?  So that we could get the fuel mileage of an Abrams tank?  
  
  

  Quote

  Hi speed cars

  
  Too dangerous, but high speed trains work quite well!  
  
  

  Quote

  personal aircraft

  
  See the last example.
  
  

  Quote

  ISS experiments are a farse.  There is nothing new under the sun.  The same experiments that flew on the Spacelab missions and on the Spacehab module are still flying on the ISS.

  
  That may be true now, but what if we completed ISS, including the now cancelled centrifuge and everything else?
  
  Personally, I just don't find CEV to be very exciting or inspiring.  It is what it is, and it seems that this is the future of NASA whether I like it or not.  But I don't think I'll ever be as enthusiastic about our space program again because of it.
  
• #45 by mong' on 14 May, 2006 21:31
• I will have to join jim on that: NASA needs to go further.
  
  There is nothing to do in LEO, nothing to explore, nothing to exploit, nothing to settle.
  The best you can do in orbit is some basic science and maybe have a small scale factory for very special (thus expensive) goods.
  
  Compare that to the surface of a planet (or a moon for that matter). you can use the available resources to produce supplies, oxygen, fuel for rockets and rovers, metals to upgrade your base and ultimately start to settle the entire planet. opening a whole new world in the process
  
  Access to orbit is only a step, not a goal. the planets are the goal, when we talk about exploration of space it's really exploration of the planets. and only when we will have (semi) permanent manned outposts, bases, colonies (whatever you call it) THEN we will have a real need for the kind of RLV you talk about, but for now the ELV's do the job and they're good at it, the only improvement we might see right now is the development of cheaper ELV's ala Falcon1.
  
  so vt_hokie you might want to stay around, there will have some reasons to be enthusiastic again in the future !  
• #46 by HailColumbia on 15 May, 2006 00:23
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 13/5/2006  8:56 PM
   What's the compelling reason for sending humans back to the moon, other than the fact that footprints on the moon are kind of cool?  

  
  Whats the compelling reason to fly around LEO forever, other then the fact that winged spaceplanes are kind of cool?
• #47 by vt_hokie on 15 May, 2006 01:42
• Quote

  HailColumbia - 14/5/2006  8:10 PM
  Whats the compelling reason to fly around LEO forever, other then the fact that winged spaceplanes are kind of cool?

  
  What's the compelling reason for sending 4 people to the moon for a week, other than the fact that footprints on the lunar surface are kind of cool?  
  
  Seriously, I do want to see humans go back to the moon and then beyond.  This country should be able to do that while also pursuing NASP type programs.  If it cannot afford to, then we've got bigger problems as a nation.
• #48 by HailColumbia on 15 May, 2006 02:05
• well look, its not really space exploration unless you like, ya know, explore stuff.  I think we have thoroughly explored the hell out of Earth orbit.  Spaceplanes will eventually happen, but they will complement deep space systems like CEV, they shouldent be the primary focus.
  
  In my ideal world, ESAS go off as planned, including a permanant lunar base, and missions to Mars. This is all then complemented with a new space station made of a few bigass 125 ton modules lifted by the CaLV, and serviced with an OSP type vechicle.  It would be nice to regain the ability to do shuttle type missions with a robot arm etc.  so eventually adding some type of "space plane" to the fleet would be nice, but not at the expense of exploration.
• #49 by wannamoonbase on 16 May, 2006 01:13
• Grumpy old man syndrome creeping in.
  
  I agree that CEV and VSE aren't exactly designing on the bleeding edge of a vehicle's configuration but the intent is to explore not develop a flying saucer.
  
  There is always room for constructive criticism in any endeavour, especially in a multi billion dollar a year venture, but you also have to give credit where due.
  
  Rutan ranted about STS for years (with lots of valid points) but now they are leaving shuttle behind to explore and its not good enough.  
  
  He looses lots of credibility over this.  Perhaps too much wine, or maybe he has been using the same speech for too long to be creative in this part of his personnality.
• #50 by kraisee on 16 May, 2006 23:15
• The VSE is not planned to be a test program, but a fully operational program which we can truly rely upon for decades to come.   That requires a totally different approach to space hardware.   Truly bleeding-edge hardware is not going to be a requirement for this particular program. NASA doesn't have to re-invent the wheel to go back to the moon and to start to open-up the rest of the solar system through this program.
  
  NASA does have a long and very respectable history of experimental programs where they push the limits of space and aeronautical research.   I'm sure they will continue to do a lot of research work on the bleeding-edge of space (going to have to wait until the Shuttle is finally retired and they have more money again though).
  
  Cutting-edge hardware research can be integrated into the VSE program, when it makes the transition from research hardware to proven reliable hardware.   But the VSE does not want to be tied to completely unproven hardware which has no safety history at all.   Instead, this program wants hardware we know we can rely upon for safety and sustainability.   Cutting-edge stuff just can't promise either of those requirements, so we won't see a lot of it here.
  
  The VSE will create an ever-growing and solidly reliable infrastructure for the long-term human and robotic exploration of our solar system, and promises to continue long after I pass away.
  
  Of course, the relatively 'mundane' VSE hardware will eventually allow astronauts to do an awful lot of 'cutting-edge' missions and science all around the solar system!
  
  If Rutan thinks he can do better he needs to put-up or shut-up.   We have seen many countries and organisations saying they can do things better.   Yet how many of them ever succeed?
  
  Right now, Rutan hasn't even accomplished a real manned re-entry.   Space Ship One didn't have much in the way of re-entry heating at all.   NASA still accomplished that with their very first manned sub-orbital flight with Alan B. Shepard in 1961, so Rutan hasn't even matched that yet.      Rutan is simply not credible in this field yet.   Comments like that from his "infant" program is just "infantile".   He should never have lowered himself to that level, it made *him* look stupid, not NASA.
  
  Ross.
• #51 by yinzer on 17 May, 2006 00:33
• Quote

  kraisee - 16/5/2006  4:02 PM
  Right now, Rutan hasn't even accomplished a real manned re-entry.   Space Ship One didn't have much in the way of re-entry heating at all.   NASA still accomplished that with their very first manned sub-orbital flight with Alan B. Shepard in 1961, so Rutan hasn't even matched that yet.      Rutan is simply not credible in this field yet.   Comments like that from his "infant" program is just "infantile".   He should never have lowered himself to that level, it made *him* look stupid, not NASA.
  
  Ross.

  
  Well, look at it from Rutan's perspective.  He's designed and flew the SS1, which was a manned, rocket powered, supersonic aircraft/spacecraft, for something like $20M.  NASA spent nearly 10 times that much on the X-34, and got precious little to show for it.  NASA MSFC couldn't figure out how to drop the X-37 from their B-52 without it taking out the horizontal stabilizer, then NASA gave the project to DARPA who gave him a call, said "hey, can we fly this thing?", and a few months later, they did.
  
  NASA might have been able to build spaceships better in 1961 than he can now, but the NASA of 2006 is not the NASA of the 1960s.
• #52 by Avron on 17 May, 2006 03:51
• Quote

  yinzer - 16/5/2006  8:20 PM
  
  NASA might have been able to build spaceships better in 1961 than he can now, but the NASA of 2006 is not the NASA of the 1960s.

  
  
  NASA MSFC of 1961 is not the the same for the 2006 version, this version is in the news more often... Alas, with absolutly zero in the way of positive news..maybe I am wrong...  someone post anything that NASA MSFC  has done in a positive light in the last say... no you pick the period post 1975..
• #53 by mlorrey on 17 May, 2006 18:43
• Quote

  kraisee - 16/5/2006  6:02 PM
  
  The VSE is not planned to be a test program, but a fully operational program which we can truly rely upon for decades to come.   That requires a totally different approach to space hardware.   Truly bleeding-edge hardware is not going to be a requirement for this particular program. NASA doesn't have to re-invent the wheel to go back to the moon and to start to open-up the rest of the solar system through this program.

  
  A. With the capsule design, they ARE, in fact, reinventing the wheel. Worse, it is reinventing the horse in the age of the automobile.
  B. So long as NASA refuses to allow any third parties to buy CEVs on an open and free market, the solar system will not be opened. The Western US was not opened by the US Cavalry, it was opened by trappers and settlers riding their own animals and wagons.
  C. So long as NASA refuses to allow third party capsule and launcher producers to compete for manned launch services to ISS on an equal footing to its own CEV, there will be little venture capital incentive to invest in private launch programs. Capital tends to avoid companies that have to compete against an established government subsidized program, which is why there are absolutely no private passenger rail services in the US beyond small boutique routes in tourist areas. Ask any US airline what it is like competing against a foreign government owned airline.
• #54 by Jim on 17 May, 2006 19:01
• Quote

  mlorrey - 17/5/2006  2:30 PM
  
  

  Quote

  kraisee - 16/5/2006  6:02 PM
  
  The VSE is not planned to be a test program, but a fully operational program which we can truly rely upon for decades to come.   That requires a totally different approach to space hardware.   Truly bleeding-edge hardware is not going to be a requirement for this particular program. NASA doesn't have to re-invent the wheel to go back to the moon and to start to open-up the rest of the solar system through this program.

  
  A. With the capsule design, they ARE, in fact, reinventing the wheel. Worse, it is reinventing the horse in the age of the automobile.
  B. So long as NASA refuses to allow any third parties to buy CEVs on an open and free market, the solar system will not be opened. The Western US was not opened by the US Cavalry, it was opened by trappers and settlers riding their own animals and wagons.
  C. So long as NASA refuses to allow third party capsule and launcher producers to compete for manned launch services to ISS on an equal footing to its own CEV, there will be little venture capital incentive to invest in private launch programs. Capital tends to avoid companies that have to compete against an established government subsidized program, which is why there are absolutely no private passenger rail services in the US beyond small boutique routes in tourist areas. Ask any US airline what it is like competing against a foreign government owned airline.

  
  A.  wrong.  RLV's are not cost effective at the low flight rates, and taking wings to the moon is a waste.  As posted on other threads, trains haven't changed in the last 100 years.  CEV is for lunar flight but with a secondary mission to service the ISS post shuttle.  
  B.  Why would some one want to buy the CEV?  Don't see anyone wanting to by C-17's or F-16's.  The trapper and settlers had their own transportation.
  C.  What do you think COTS is for?  NASA would like to offload ISS resupply and not use the CEV for it.
  
  
  
• #55 by vt_hokie on 17 May, 2006 22:27
• Quote

  mlorrey - 17/5/2006  2:30 PM
  Capital tends to avoid companies that have to compete against an established government subsidized program, which is why there are absolutely no private passenger rail services in the US beyond small boutique routes in tourist areas.

  
  Every major passenger railroad in the world is heavily subsidized.  It is a fallacy to think that if Amtrak didn't exist, private companies would be interested in getting into the passenger railroad biz.  Prior to the introduction of the taxpayer funded interstate highway system and other heavily subsidized competition (including airlines and their supporting infrastructure), the private railroads in this country did manage to operate passenger trains.  But now, it is not an even playing field.  The only way you could have a true free market system would be for all subsidies to be eliminated for all forms of transportation.  However, if the capital investment for modern high speed rail were to be covered by taxpayer funds, there are regions of the country where an operating profit could be made.  (Amtrak's Acela Express makes an operating profit, I believe, but certainly is not profitable when considering capital costs for Northeast Corridor infrastructure.)
  
  Likewise, I think it's unrealistic to think that a large number of private companies would rapidly produce state of the art launch vehicles if NASA got out of the business.  It's sort of a tricky transition, because NASA would like to have commercial providers available for ISS resupply, but it cannot bet the farm on such a commercial capability emerging.  It does need to ensure that it has its own means of supporting ISS.  I do agree with you, though, when you say, "With the capsule design, they ARE, in fact, reinventing the wheel. Worse, it is reinventing the horse in the age of the automobile."  NASA made it clear that it was not interested in innovation when it shot down Lockheed Martin's original CEV design and mandated the Apollo CM shape.  Also, the launch vehicle design just screams pork.  I never thought I'd see the segmented SRB that doomed Challenger become the basis for our next generation launch vehicle, but I guess Thiokol/ATK has a lot of political clout.  
  
  
  
  
  
• #56 by vt_hokie on 17 May, 2006 22:31
• Quote

  Jim - 17/5/2006  2:48 PM
  A. As posted on other threads, trains haven't changed in the last 100 years.  

  
  I disagree, but if you think that the French TGV or Japanese Shinkansen is to a 100 year old steam locomotive what CEV will be to the Apollo CM, I can buy that analogy.  I would say, then, that Germany's Transrapid maglev system is the NASP of rail technology.  Such new technology will ultimately change the face of transportation, and the countries that invest in new technology today will be the leaders of tomorrow.
  
• #57 by hyper_snyper on 17 May, 2006 22:46
• Even though I do not agree with vt_hokie on the CEV, he brings up a question that's been bugging me ever since ESAS was released.  Why did LM choose a lifting body as its original design?  What was their architecture plan like.  (Atlas V launcher I would imagine).  I'm just curious because people keep saying lifting bodies are no good for lunar reentry speeds.
• #58 by Jim on 18 May, 2006 01:48
• Quote

  hyper_snyper - 17/5/2006  6:33 PM
  
  Even though I do not agree with vt_hokie on the CEV, he brings up a question that's been bugging me ever since ESAS was released.  Why did LM choose a lifting body as its original design?  What was their architecture plan like.  (Atlas V launcher I would imagine).  I'm just curious because people keep saying lifting bodies are no good for lunar reentry speeds.

  
  Passive reentry is the requirement.    The Apollo CM shaoe  is marginal in this respect and the way out is a independent system, that has its own power, attitude determination, controls and thrusters/propellant.   Other than launch, most accidents/incidents have occurred during entry.  The current shape will right itself in most conditions but there are some that it won't.  Additionally, the lifting capabilities, if uncontrolled, could result in the lift vector in the wrong direction steepening the entry.
  
  The backup entry control system is enough (using only 2 pitch and 2 roll thrusters), even with total power loss, to determine the attitude and move the correct angle and cancel the lift vector by rolling, making a ballistic entry
• #59 by yinzer on 18 May, 2006 05:12
• Quote

  Jim - 17/5/2006  6:35 PM
  Passive reentry is the requirement.    The Apollo CM shaoe  is marginal in this respect and the way out is a independent system, that has its own power, attitude determination, controls and thrusters/propellant.   Other than launch, most accidents/incidents have occurred during entry.  The current shape will right itself in most conditions but there are some that it won't.  Additionally, the lifting capabilities, if uncontrolled, could result in the lift vector in the wrong direction steepening the entry.
  
  The backup entry control system is enough (using only 2 pitch and 2 roll thrusters), even with total power loss, to determine the attitude and move the correct angle and cancel the lift vector by rolling, making a ballistic entry

  
  "Passive Entry" is only a rough description of the requirement.  For one thing, passive entry isn't possible during re-entry at lunar velocities.  For another, it turned out to be not possible to achieve totally passive entry during aborts and such, so they had to add the backup entry control system, which requires manual intervention.  On page 566 of the ESAS report:
  
  

  Quote

  However, the requirement for monostability, in the context of the entire system, is only one way to achieve the goal of safe trim during reentry given a loss of primary flight controls.

  Which makes you wonder why a fully redundant RCS system is deemed unacceptable.  IMUs are pretty damn cheap, light weight, and low power these days, and blowdown monopropellant thruster systems are pretty damn simple and reliable.
  
  I'm not sure what the actual requirement is; probably some combination of "recreate Apollo" and "seem to be learning from the Soviets/Russians".  I actually think that part of the ESAS is one of the weaker ones, which is saying something.
• #60 by vt_hokie on 18 May, 2006 05:22
• The Russians claim that the lifting body version of Kliper is capable of direct entry from lunar flights.
• #61 by lmike on 18 May, 2006 06:15
• Sigh, again the 'capsule' stigma thread...  
  
  So, after reading this thread, I still don't understand what the technical problem is with going the 'capsule' (not a strict technical term) route.  Some nebulous conjectures and opinions about how the 'capsules' are not 'cool'.  Are we at some fashion convention, or are we talking about a technical means to fulfill a given objective?  Anyway, the 'capsule' seems to be all the rage these days.  It does work.  And RLV has zilch to do with what shape the spacecraft is.  As is reusability.  Capsules can be made reusable.  What more do you need?  
  
  The last designed and produced known functional LEO/Moon spacecraft, the Shendzhou is a 'capsule'.  Lots of COTs participants use 'capsules', the SpaceX's Dragon, the t/Space's CXV, the SpaceHab's Apex.  
  
  The next breakthrough will be not an 'orbital space plane' (what an inane oxymoronic term! I can't believe NASA actually used it as a term for a space system for a decade) , but a new way to propel things to orbital velocity, new propulsion motors, staging schemes, or maybe even tethers.  Spacecraft as such need wings like a fish needs a bicycle (now *launch vehicles* may be another story, tbd)  I'm willing to allow and in fact, a 'capsule' is a lifting body!  Lifting body concepts are at least as old as capsules.  Are we now going to argue about the proper amount of the L/D ratio for a craft to be considered as advanced?  Wings, tail and wheels are the criterion?  That'd be silly.
  
  Oh, and I personally, have no problem with someone trying to design a space system with lifting bodies, wings, balloons, or helicopter rotors...   And if they work, great!  Why others shun the 'symmetric around the Z axis' lifting body, which is what a capsule is, concept specifically?  Rutan engineered some great *one-of-a-kind*  aircraft, but man, aircraft are not spacecraft at the fundamental level!
• #62 by vt_hokie on 18 May, 2006 06:40
• Perhaps I'm letting emotions dictate over technical merit despite my engineering background, but I just can't get excited over returning to the "spam in a can" approach to human spaceflight after the remarkable achievements of STS.  Something about parachuting back to Earth in this thing just rubs me the wrong way.  It's not exactly what I'd call inspiring.  After growing up with the space shuttle and the promise of even better things to come, this to me is a major disappointment.  And the fact that it will consume the bulk of NASA's human exploration budget for decades means there will be no NASP or VentureStar or anything similarly ambitious and groundbreaking, perhaps for the remainder of my lifetime.
  
  Oh, and I think "Crew Exploration Vehicle" is just as stupid a name as "Orbital Space Plane", personally.
  
  From the article referenced at the beginning of this discussion:
  
  NASA spokesman Dean Acosta said the crew exploration vehicle is a "fiscally responsible" project that achieves the space agency's goal of returning to the moon within its budget constraint.
  
  "If you want sexy, it will cost a lot more money," Acosta said.
  
  Translation:  If you want anything good, give us more money.  Otherwise, expect the Yugo of spaceflight.
• #63 by lmike on 18 May, 2006 09:35
• I think I understand your point of view.  It seems like a deeply held opinion about what constitutes progress and I respect that.  
  
  I'd just like to point out that the notion that "the mighty STS is being replaced by the puny CEV" which seems to make its way through these kinds of discussions is INCORRECT.  
  
  The fact is, the STS is being replaced by an exploration SYSTEM consisting of: CEV CM, CEV SM, CLV, LES, CaLV, EDS, LSAM, + some miscellaneous lunar base hardware and a host of mission specific technologies, and to top it off the COTS program.  Now if we could also add an orbital tug system to this line up.  Manned, unmanned, heavy lift, LEO, the Moon, it's all in there.  (well, no manipulator arm)  All of this for the price of the yearly STS/ISS upkeep plus some inflation compensations.  For my money, this ain't half bad.  In fact, this is better than we've had for quite some time.  Far from perfect, but oh, well...  Looking at this bag of goodies and just finding the 'capsule' and poking fun at it, seems a bit off.
  
  Of course, we can prognosticate that the plan won't pan out as planned (but what if the stock market crashes tomorrow, but people must make plans ), and poke holes in it on technical merits, but this exploration SYSTEM is the intent, and work order contracts that are being given out to pursue it.  Personally, I hope it works out as planned (although, I do have some reservations about some details of what they plan, mostly in the costs and schedule)
  
• #64 by GLS on 18 May, 2006 15:05
• I feel we're going back with this CEV thing... OK, a capsule is fine to get from LEO to the moon, but we need *a* shuttle to get to and from LEO... no, not *this* shuttle, it's old and it's not "as good as they wanted", but it was the first. Now we can do better! And now you're asking: "Why do we need a shuttle?" So you can have a couple spacecrafts making LEO-Moon-LEO... and when they need refurbishment you bring them down, work on them and send it back up. I think this is going to be important on the way to mars... How would you go to mars? I wouldn't want to go on anything less big than about half Mir's size, because you'll have to take all your entertainment with you as there's nothing outside for some months! Is it better to built and launch this big spacecraft everytime you go to mars and then scrap it or to bring down the modules (on *a* shuttle) when they need refurbishment?
  
  Now, all this costs money... more than what they are giving.... and this lack of funding forces NASA to kill programs and stuff to go to the moon, and this is wrong! If it keeps going this way, in a couple decades, when they turn to mars, they're going to scrap the moon base because they going to need the money to get to mars!!! To me, all this "Vision for Exploration" is way too narrow....
• #65 by Jim on 18 May, 2006 15:31
• Quote

  GLS - 18/5/2006  10:52 AM
  
  I feel we're going back with this CEV thing... OK, a capsule is fine to get from LEO to the moon, but we need *a* shuttle to get to and from LEO... no, not *this* shuttle, it's old and it's not "as good as they wanted", but it was the first. Now we can do better! And now you're asking: "Why do we need a shuttle?" So you can have a couple spacecrafts making LEO-Moon-LEO... and when they need refurbishment you bring them down, work on them and send it back up. I think this is going to be important on the way to mars... How would you go to mars? I wouldn't want to go on anything less big than about half Mir's size, because you'll have to take all your entertainment with you as there's nothing outside for some months! Is it better to built and launch this big spacecraft everytime you go to mars and then scrap it or to bring down the modules (on *a* shuttle) when they need refurbishment?
  
  Now, all this costs money... more than what they are giving.... and this lack of funding forces NASA to kill programs and stuff to go to the moon, and this is wrong! If it keeps going this way, in a couple decades, when they turn to mars, they're going to scrap the moon base because they going to need the money to get to mars!!! To me, all this "Vision for Exploration" is way too narrow....

  It would take too much energy to return anything from Mars other than the crew capsule.  There is no talk of reusablity wrt Mars spacecraft.  All mars return scenarios have a capsule performing a direct entry while the main vehicle flys pass earth into solar orbit.  The energy to brake into earth orbit (or to haul around a shield for aero braking) is too great
• #66 by hyper_snyper on 18 May, 2006 15:36

• Quote

  Jim - 18/5/2006  11:18 AM  

  Quote

  GLS - 18/5/2006  10:52 AM  I feel we're going back with this CEV thing... OK, a capsule is fine to get from LEO to the moon, but we need *a* shuttle to get to and from LEO... no, not *this* shuttle, it's old and it's not "as good as they wanted", but it was the first. Now we can do better! And now you're asking: "Why do we need a shuttle?" So you can have a couple spacecrafts making LEO-Moon-LEO... and when they need refurbishment you bring them down, work on them and send it back up. I think this is going to be important on the way to mars... How would you go to mars? I wouldn't want to go on anything less big than about half Mir's size, because you'll have to take all your entertainment with you as there's nothing outside for some months! Is it better to built and launch this big spacecraft everytime you go to mars and then scrap it or to bring down the modules (on *a* shuttle) when they need refurbishment?  Now, all this costs money... more than what they are giving.... and this lack of funding forces NASA to kill programs and stuff to go to the moon, and this is wrong! If it keeps going this way, in a couple decades, when they turn to mars, they're going to scrap the moon base because they going to need the money to get to mars!!! To me, all this "Vision for Exploration" is way too narrow....

  It would take too much energy to return anything from Mars other than the crew capsule.  There is no talk of reusablity wrt Mars spacecraft.  All mars return scenarios have a capsule performing a direct entry while the main vehicle flys pass earth into solar orbit.  The energy to brake into earth orbit (or to haul around an shield for aero braking) is too greatr

  So you would have to build a new Mars Transfer Vehicle every time you want to go to Mars?

• #67 by Jim on 18 May, 2006 15:37
• Quote

  hyper_snyper - 18/5/2006  11:23 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 18/5/2006  11:18 AM  

  Quote

  GLS - 18/5/2006  10:52 AM  I feel we're going back with this CEV thing... OK, a capsule is fine to get from LEO to the moon, but we need *a* shuttle to get to and from LEO... no, not *this* shuttle, it's old and it's not "as good as they wanted", but it was the first. Now we can do better! And now you're asking: "Why do we need a shuttle?" So you can have a couple spacecrafts making LEO-Moon-LEO... and when they need refurbishment you bring them down, work on them and send it back up. I think this is going to be important on the way to mars... How would you go to mars? I wouldn't want to go on anything less big than about half Mir's size, because you'll have to take all your entertainment with you as there's nothing outside for some months! Is it better to built and launch this big spacecraft everytime you go to mars and then scrap it or to bring down the modules (on *a* shuttle) when they need refurbishment?  Now, all this costs money... more than what they are giving.... and this lack of funding forces NASA to kill programs and stuff to go to the moon, and this is wrong! If it keeps going this way, in a couple decades, when they turn to mars, they're going to scrap the moon base because they going to need the money to get to mars!!! To me, all this "Vision for Exploration" is way too narrow....

  It would take too much energy to return anything from Mars other than the crew capsule.  There is no talk of reusablity wrt Mars spacecraft.  All mars return scenarios have a capsule performing a direct entry while the main vehicle flys pass earth into solar orbit.  The energy to brake into earth orbit (or to haul around an shield for aero braking) is too greatr

  So you would have to build a new Mars Transfer Vehicle every time you want to go to Mars?

  
  That is the plan
• #68 by GLS on 18 May, 2006 15:53
• Doesn't that sound wrong?
• #69 by mong' on 18 May, 2006 15:56
• If I understand the need for the CEV on lunar missions, I don't understand why you would need it to go the mars.
  Because all the mars direct and semi direct plans out there don't call for such a vehicle. except maybe to ferry the crew between earth and the mars transfer stage + Hab.
  But why would you want to carry 20+ tons of deadweight ? I could see it integrated at the top of the ERV as the earth reentry vehicle but that's all
• #70 by Jim on 18 May, 2006 16:23
• Quote

  mong' - 18/5/2006  11:43 AM
  
  If I understand the need for the CEV on lunar missions, I don't understand why you would need it to go the mars.
  Because all the mars direct and semi direct plans out there don't call for such a vehicle. except maybe to ferry the crew between earth and the mars transfer stage + Hab.
  But why would you want to carry 20+ tons of deadweight ? I could see it integrated at the top of the ERV as the earth reentry vehicle but that's all

  
  It carries the crew to the MTV (not with full load of consumables).  It then become alternate command center, safe haven and return entry vehicle.
  
  It is in the ESAS
• #71 by Jim on 18 May, 2006 16:26
• Quote

  mong' - 18/5/2006  11:43 AM
  
  If I understand the need for the CEV on lunar missions, I don't understand why you would need it to go the mars.
  Because all the mars direct and semi direct plans out there don't call for such a vehicle. except maybe to ferry the crew between earth and the mars transfer stage + Hab.
  But why would you want to carry 20+ tons of deadweight ? I could see it integrated at the top of the ERV as the earth reentry vehicle but that's all

  
  Mars direct and semi direct do not have crew escape mechanisms.  Zubrin made the same mistake as the shuttle, he has no abort system in Mars Direct
• #72 by mong' on 18 May, 2006 17:15
• yes but if you really want crew escape then you can use the CEV to dock to the Hab in LEO, transfer crew, undock and back to earth. that way you don't need to carry the heavy CEV all the way to mars.
  
  Anyway i gotta read that part of the ESAS again, must've missed something
• #73 by Jim on 18 May, 2006 17:21
• Quote

  mong' - 18/5/2006  1:02 PM
  
  yes but if you really want crew escape then you can use the CEV to dock to the Hab in LEO, transfer crew, undock and back to earth. that way you don't need to carry the heavy CEV all the way to mars.
  
  Anyway i gotta read that part of the ESAS again, must've missed something

  
  You need to carry some sort of small earth entry vehicle.  The current CEV SM can be offloaded.  The current idea is to dettach the CEV days before earth entry to allow the MTV to deflect away from earth.  Also it gives enough time for CEV check out
• #74 by mong' on 18 May, 2006 17:46
• ok I re-read that part of the ESAS and it looks like an awful lot of unnecessary complications.
  First it needs 4 launches (!) including 3 HLV's
  second, the HAB is supposed to survive for something like 30 months on its own plus 18 with the crew on board. that's a lot for something as critical.
  Third, it depends on the development of NTR for the MTV and that is kind of a long shot.
  
  I'm not saying that plan is bad, it's not my place, people much smarter than me have worked their butt on it, I just think that it's taking a lot of chances for just some marginal safety improvements compared to a more direct plan.
• #75 by mlorrey on 24 May, 2006 19:52
• Quote

  lmike - 18/5/2006  1:02 AM
  
  Sigh, again the 'capsule' stigma thread...  snip... Spacecraft as such need wings like a fish needs a bicycle (now *launch vehicles* may be another story, tbd)  I'm willing to allow and in fact, a 'capsule' is a lifting body!  Lifting body concepts are at least as old as capsules.  Are we now going to argue about the proper amount of the L/D ratio for a craft to be considered as advanced?  Wings, tail and wheels are the criterion?  That'd be silly.
  
  Oh, and I personally, have no problem with someone trying to design a space system with lifting bodies, wings, balloons, or helicopter rotors...   And if they work, great!  Why others shun the 'symmetric around the Z axis' lifting body, which is what a capsule is, concept specifically?  Rutan engineered some great *one-of-a-kind*  aircraft, but man, aircraft are not spacecraft at the fundamental level!

  
  There is no doubt that a perfect capsule has symmetric forces around the z axis, but that, even capsule builders admit, is NOT how capsules really reenter, because the g forces would be too high if they augered in straight along their z axis, particularly reentering from a lunar trajectory, would be over 14 g's sustained. Capsules kinda skid/skew their way into the atmosphere, to acheive an L/D over zero, and reduce the g load on passengers. Thus, capsules are, in fact, flying vehicles, whether or not they have wings.
  
  While lmike makes sense that spacecraft that are intended to stay in space, have no need for wings, the primary purpose of the capsule isn't really living and working in space (otherwise, Soyuz would not have separate OM, CM, and SMs, and Apollo would not have separate CM/SM/LMs). Thus, orbital modules, service modules, and lunar lander modules have no excuse to have wings on them, and I think everyone here can agree on that. It is a waste of mass to try to bring back to Earth equipment that has no use on earth, or in returning the crew to earth, unless that equipment is very expensive and can be made reusable.
  
  The primary purpose of a capsule is to fly, both hypersonically and subsonically, and land its crew safely on earth. Therefore, to maximize its capability for returning its crew to earth, it should have as wide a cross range and as great a maneuvering flight regime as possible.
  
  Now, hypersonic flight, the most crucial flight regime, doesn't have the same demands as subsonic or even supersonic flight. Its a whole different ball of wax. There are arguments to be made for having as blunt a leading edge as possible, as that dissipates reentry shock heating over as large an area as possible. That is the route the capsule takes as its primary design parameter. The spaceplane tries to duplicate this by reentering at a high Angle of Attack, to expose as large a cross section as possible to the thin atmosphere. With old TPS materials, that is what we were limited to.
  
  However, with new TPS materials, specifically the SHARP materials (hafnium diboride and zirconium diboride), sharp edged and nosed vehicles don't need to deal with large cross sectional areas, the nose and leading edges can handle all reentry braking, and enjoy a massive cross range maneuverability. Furthermore, the materials, as well as the shock wave they produce, are transparent to radio signals, allowing communication with ground control throughout reentry.
• #76 by imfan on 25 May, 2006 14:53
• Quote

  Jim - 18/5/2006  10:24 AM
  
  

  Quote

  hyper_snyper - 18/5/2006  11:23 AM
  
  

  Quote

  Jim - 18/5/2006  11:18 AM  

  Quote

  GLS - 18/5/2006  10:52 AM  I feel we're going back with this CEV thing... OK, a capsule is fine to get from LEO to the moon, but we need *a* shuttle to get to and from LEO... no, not *this* shuttle, it's old and it's not "as good as they wanted", but it was the first. Now we can do better! And now you're asking: "Why do we need a shuttle?" So you can have a couple spacecrafts making LEO-Moon-LEO... and when they need refurbishment you bring them down, work on them and send it back up. I think this is going to be important on the way to mars... How would you go to mars? I wouldn't want to go on anything less big than about half Mir's size, because you'll have to take all your entertainment with you as there's nothing outside for some months! Is it better to built and launch this big spacecraft everytime you go to mars and then scrap it or to bring down the modules (on *a* shuttle) when they need refurbishment?  Now, all this costs money... more than what they are giving.... and this lack of funding forces NASA to kill programs and stuff to go to the moon, and this is wrong! If it keeps going this way, in a couple decades, when they turn to mars, they're going to scrap the moon base because they going to need the money to get to mars!!! To me, all this "Vision for Exploration" is way too narrow....

  It would take too much energy to return anything from Mars other than the crew capsule.  There is no talk of reusablity wrt Mars spacecraft.  All mars return scenarios have a capsule performing a direct entry while the main vehicle flys pass earth into solar orbit.  The energy to brake into earth orbit (or to haul around an shield for aero braking) is too greatr

  So you would have to build a new Mars Transfer Vehicle every time you want to go to Mars?

  
  That is the plan
  

  Quote

  GLS - 18/5/2006  10:40 AM
  
  Doesn't that sound wrong?

  
  noone said going to mars is easy. U have to build spacestation because there is almost no difference in current ISS stays and mars missions. ah there is one. mars mission is longer.
  building new MTV each flight is one option. however I like energia proposal more. they want to build space station with BIG(I mean really BIG) solar array which would give power to ION engine. although it is reusable U will nedd few flights after each mision to get new fuel, bring new lander(I dont suppose these would be reusable) etc. and still U need something to get down to earth-so cev makes sence here
• #77 by vt_hokie on 26 May, 2006 11:31
• Quote

  imfan - 25/5/2006  10:40 AM
  U have to build spacestation because there is almost no difference in current ISS stays and mars missions. ah there is one. mars mission is longer.

  
  Radiation hazards are also much greater.