-
#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
Quotegladiator1332 - 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
QuoteJim - 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.QuoteI 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
QuoteJim - 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.QuoteI 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
QuoteMATTBLAK - 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
Quotehyper_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
Quotevt_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
QuoteJim - 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?
