Quote from: spacenut on 04/22/2011 02:48 pmHave you tried the Air Force? With the air launch capability, it would give the Air Force ability to quickly get men into space if necessary. What requirement do they have for it?
Have you tried the Air Force? With the air launch capability, it would give the Air Force ability to quickly get men into space if necessary.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/22/2011 07:44 amQuote from: JimP on 04/22/2011 05:23 amQuote from: M_Puckett on 04/22/2011 01:01 amThe thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle. Function distilled down to its most basic form.I Have to second that opinion.What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit. I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.Yeah, just call me a dreamer! During the 1960s, single astronauts trained to conduct docks alone. So I don't see any reason why a single CXV crewman could not do the same.What are your plans now?
Quote from: JimP on 04/22/2011 05:23 amQuote from: M_Puckett on 04/22/2011 01:01 amThe thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle. Function distilled down to its most basic form.I Have to second that opinion.What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit. I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.Yeah, just call me a dreamer! During the 1960s, single astronauts trained to conduct docks alone. So I don't see any reason why a single CXV crewman could not do the same.
Quote from: M_Puckett on 04/22/2011 01:01 amThe thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle. Function distilled down to its most basic form.I Have to second that opinion.What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit. I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.Yeah, just call me a dreamer!
The thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle. Function distilled down to its most basic form.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 04/21/2011 11:45 pmQuote from: HMXHMX on 04/21/2011 05:48 pmAttached for your viewing pleasure.I've found a YouTube link! Hope you don't mind :video:
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/21/2011 05:48 pmAttached for your viewing pleasure.
Anything that doesn't involve submission of a proposal for NASA or USAF.
I don't mind talking about the other proposals on this thread if the moderators don't.
An interesting idea, based on something someone up above mentioned.Could your orbital module be designed with multiple docking ports using different standards.Purpose being as a 'ready to go' emergency first responder vehicle. With the OM having different ports available, there would be no need to wait for a particular configuration to be assembled in the event of an emergency need. Stack and launch.As an example, the fire on Mir nearly cut off the crew from being able to access their Soyuz. If some similar disaster struck the ISS, multi-docking capability would be very very handy.
Quote from: Cherokee43v6 on 04/30/2011 10:46 pmAn interesting idea, based on something someone up above mentioned.Could your orbital module be designed with multiple docking ports using different standards.Purpose being as a 'ready to go' emergency first responder vehicle. With the OM having different ports available, there would be no need to wait for a particular configuration to be assembled in the event of an emergency need. Stack and launch.As an example, the fire on Mir nearly cut off the crew from being able to access their Soyuz. If some similar disaster struck the ISS, multi-docking capability would be very very handy.Indeed, the OM could be so configured. In fact, I have a sketch of just such a configuration, but it wasn't turned into a quality rendering for the proposal, since we had too many technical details to fill up the limited page count. Another factor was we didn't want to show any Russian hardware in this proposal, since it would be misinterpreted by certain elements at NASA.
Found this thread. So, going back to the question to bottom first vs nose first. This CCDev proposal is for a nose first capsule. Why not a bottom first capsule with hatch trough the TPS into the orbital module like the Chelomei's TKS?
Quote from: clongton on 04/19/2011 04:30 pmI like what you have done and I have 3 questions.1. I noticed that during launch the crew is forward facing, and during descent the crew is rearward facing. Is there no pilot station? I ask because I question the need for reorientation. The presentation says the re-entry loading is < 2g's and I don't understand why the seats need to be rotated in that benign environment.2. Was any design consideration given to the OM actually being a Bigelow inflatable? It looks to be a perfect match.3. What is the contingency landing mode if the helecopter misses the grab?Thanks for sharing this.1) I incorporated our 2005 rotating fabric seat into this design for a couple of reasons. One, it is very lightweight, 10% of an Orbiter middeck seat. Two, it can be stowed while on orbit. Finally, it is very G tolerant in the event of high flight path angle aborts. In such an abort, it can rotate to allow crew to take loads on their backs rather than eyeballs out, such the trajectory demand such a capability.There is no pilot station. Pilots use handheld multi-function device similar to but more capable than the Soyuz handheld to provide abort commands during ascent, on-orbit docking control and similar functions. They can occupy any seat and also float about the cabin (including into the OM) with the device.2) It is certainly possible the OM could be replaced by an inflatable for specific missions (say, tourism), but I didn't see any reason to do so at this point, and it would have added another uncertainty to the evaluation.3) The nominal ISS mission re-entry landing point is set as US West Coast, about 20 KM offshore. This eases FAA permitting. Helos stage from California, and perform the recovery. If they miss, the spacecraft lands in the water, which requires it be rebuilt at the factory. If the capture is successful, it is air-towed (stably, I might add, with high ride comfort unlike capsules) to shore where it is deposited in a cradle for easy crew egress. If it overshoots and comes down on land, the airframe is scrapped, but the crew survives due to the fabric seats. Finally, there is a crew bailout option that extracts the crew on a "stick" with survival gear should the mains become fouled or failed.
I like what you have done and I have 3 questions.1. I noticed that during launch the crew is forward facing, and during descent the crew is rearward facing. Is there no pilot station? I ask because I question the need for reorientation. The presentation says the re-entry loading is < 2g's and I don't understand why the seats need to be rotated in that benign environment.2. Was any design consideration given to the OM actually being a Bigelow inflatable? It looks to be a perfect match.3. What is the contingency landing mode if the helecopter misses the grab?Thanks for sharing this.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 04/21/2011 05:28 amI wonder if they (NASA) read the same proposal we wrote, frankly.Hey, "we" can start some cool conspiricy rumors going around about intercepted emails and stuff! I'm getting WAY out of practice in tweaking conspiricy theory's (and their supporters )QuoteFor example, they speak about lack of off-nominal landing calculations and other FAA license related analyses. Our proposal explained very clearly that we targeted open ocean off the California coast to reduce FAA license risks. Our off-nominal strategy is a "normal" water landing, or a hard land landing (both similar to Apollo), with the former case requiring refurbishment and the latter necessitating scraping the vehicle but with crew survival due to our unique fabric seats.Ok that's probably directly related TO the "seats" after all these are pretty much the same folks who keep insisting that "Mechanical Counter-Pressure" is an unworkable idea for space suits and then have to hand out cash awards to people who actually show it DOES work and work well...(And then they turn around and put out CONTRACTS for "advanced" work that keep going back towards full-pressure suits... THAT was a "kick-in-the-pants" news item for me )Maybe you need to convince NASCAR to put in a version of your seat, THAT might turn some heads QuoteIn another place they say we have unrestrained crew during entry and landing. WTF? The crew would be fully restrained.I don't see that anywhere in your proposal really... The crew seems fully "unrestrained" and could have all sorts of things happening during entry and landing. Wild parties, free-internet, cabin drinks, heck I don't see any imposed "restraint" listed at all! Where's the Sky-Marshall sit?(Running and Ducking now... )QuoteThen they complain that we provided insufficient detail to evaluate launch vehicle integration. Eh? We explained carefully that there was only a bolted joint between LV and spacecraft, no other interface (fluid, electrical, etc.).Well OBVIOUSLY if you don't need support from the LV then you don't need support from NASA so there ;P(Actually, now that I read that it actually makes a sort of "bureaucratic-think" kind of sense... But I REALLY don't want to think that through too much... Refer back to other statement about mental damage involved )QuoteThey state that we failed to provide sufficient detail on the technical risks of launch-escape-integral-abort recovery system. Pardon moi? Our partner HMX holds the patent. Their previous CCDEV1 proposal was highly detailed, and was referenced.All true of course and while not "defending" the question I WILL point out that there is a patent out there for a "Mobile Defense System" or some such that is a monsterous "vehicle" powered by half a dozen PBR-nuclear reactors, hovers on plasma jets and sprouts dozens of "plasma" cannon with about a paragrah of "jargon" and about 70 pages of "pictures" of the inner workings of the various weapons systems. (NICE art but totally un-realistic in any sense)NOT saying that the proposed ARS is ANYTHING like such but my point is having a "patent" doesn't neccesarily mean it will actually work....On the "gripping" hand however I'd have to call incorrect-check on this objection as the proposed system is fairly "conventional" overall and the ONLY major "difference" is you're not base-lining solid rockets for the system which is NOT sufficiently "different" from other proposals to require a highly detailed technical risk assesment.QuoteI have argued the issue of skin in the game in other forums here, and won't repeat myself, except to note that our reading of the RFP (and responses to questions from contractors answered by NASA) was that skin was not required if the amount requested for CCDEV2 was low enough, though they didn't give a figure of what was "low." We asked for thirty million dollars to perform more work that any of the of the contractors who won space Act agreements will do with both NASA and their own funds. Our past performance on CE&R shows we could have met our milestones...which were mostly hardware based, and not design reviews as other contractors proposed.Well THAT along with boldly pointing out in slide-2 of the presentation that NASA would NOT be your "primary" customer was probably some-what related to the reasons for not being among the chosen few I'm a HUGE agree though that CCDev should not EVER have been or be about "winning-or-losing" but encouraging the maximum amount of competition and inovation as possible.NOW of course all you or I have to do is manage to get appointed as Director of NASA.... :::GRIN:::Randy
I wonder if they (NASA) read the same proposal we wrote, frankly.
For example, they speak about lack of off-nominal landing calculations and other FAA license related analyses. Our proposal explained very clearly that we targeted open ocean off the California coast to reduce FAA license risks. Our off-nominal strategy is a "normal" water landing, or a hard land landing (both similar to Apollo), with the former case requiring refurbishment and the latter necessitating scraping the vehicle but with crew survival due to our unique fabric seats.
In another place they say we have unrestrained crew during entry and landing. WTF? The crew would be fully restrained.
Then they complain that we provided insufficient detail to evaluate launch vehicle integration. Eh? We explained carefully that there was only a bolted joint between LV and spacecraft, no other interface (fluid, electrical, etc.).
They state that we failed to provide sufficient detail on the technical risks of launch-escape-integral-abort recovery system. Pardon moi? Our partner HMX holds the patent. Their previous CCDEV1 proposal was highly detailed, and was referenced.
I have argued the issue of skin in the game in other forums here, and won't repeat myself, except to note that our reading of the RFP (and responses to questions from contractors answered by NASA) was that skin was not required if the amount requested for CCDEV2 was low enough, though they didn't give a figure of what was "low." We asked for thirty million dollars to perform more work that any of the of the contractors who won space Act agreements will do with both NASA and their own funds. Our past performance on CE&R shows we could have met our milestones...which were mostly hardware based, and not design reviews as other contractors proposed.
Quote from: clongton on 04/22/2011 12:21 pmQuote from: HMXHMX on 04/22/2011 07:44 amQuote from: JimP on 04/22/2011 05:23 amQuote from: M_Puckett on 04/22/2011 01:01 amThe thinkg I liked about your CXV proposal was the clever simplicity of it. A beautiful piece of engineering, like looking inside a Kalashnikov Rifle. Function distilled down to its most basic form.I Have to second that opinion.What I especially liked about it was it seemed to be a system that could launch on very short notice, to just about any orbit. I could see a system like it being used as an emergency rescue vehicle, although could a single crew member have managed docking with a crippled CRS vehicle?Likely be a loooong time before crewed traffic would be flying often enough to justify investment in such a rescue service.Yeah, just call me a dreamer! During the 1960s, single astronauts trained to conduct docks alone. So I don't see any reason why a single CXV crewman could not do the same.What are your plans now?Anything that doesn't involve submission of a proposal for NASA or USAF.
Quote from: RanulfC on 04/21/2011 06:11 pmQuote from: HMXHMX on 04/21/2011 05:28 amI wonder if they (NASA) read the same proposal we wrote, frankly.Hey, "we" can start some cool conspiricy rumors going around about intercepted emails and stuff! I'm getting WAY out of practice in tweaking conspiricy theory's (and their supporters )QuoteFor example, they speak about lack of off-nominal landing calculations and other FAA license related analyses. Our proposal explained very clearly that we targeted open ocean off the California coast to reduce FAA license risks. Our off-nominal strategy is a "normal" water landing, or a hard land landing (both similar to Apollo), with the former case requiring refurbishment and the latter necessitating scraping the vehicle but with crew survival due to our unique fabric seats.Ok that's probably directly related TO the "seats" after all these are pretty much the same folks who keep insisting that "Mechanical Counter-Pressure" is an unworkable idea for space suits and then have to hand out cash awards to people who actually show it DOES work and work well...(And then they turn around and put out CONTRACTS for "advanced" work that keep going back towards full-pressure suits... THAT was a "kick-in-the-pants" news item for me )Maybe you need to convince NASCAR to put in a version of your seat, THAT might turn some heads QuoteIn another place they say we have unrestrained crew during entry and landing. WTF? The crew would be fully restrained.I don't see that anywhere in your proposal really... The crew seems fully "unrestrained" and could have all sorts of things happening during entry and landing. Wild parties, free-internet, cabin drinks, heck I don't see any imposed "restraint" listed at all! Where's the Sky-Marshall sit?(Running and Ducking now... )QuoteThen they complain that we provided insufficient detail to evaluate launch vehicle integration. Eh? We explained carefully that there was only a bolted joint between LV and spacecraft, no other interface (fluid, electrical, etc.).Well OBVIOUSLY if you don't need support from the LV then you don't need support from NASA so there ;P(Actually, now that I read that it actually makes a sort of "bureaucratic-think" kind of sense... But I REALLY don't want to think that through too much... Refer back to other statement about mental damage involved )QuoteThey state that we failed to provide sufficient detail on the technical risks of launch-escape-integral-abort recovery system. Pardon moi? Our partner HMX holds the patent. Their previous CCDEV1 proposal was highly detailed, and was referenced.All true of course and while not "defending" the question I WILL point out that there is a patent out there for a "Mobile Defense System" or some such that is a monsterous "vehicle" powered by half a dozen PBR-nuclear reactors, hovers on plasma jets and sprouts dozens of "plasma" cannon with about a paragrah of "jargon" and about 70 pages of "pictures" of the inner workings of the various weapons systems. (NICE art but totally un-realistic in any sense)NOT saying that the proposed ARS is ANYTHING like such but my point is having a "patent" doesn't neccesarily mean it will actually work....On the "gripping" hand however I'd have to call incorrect-check on this objection as the proposed system is fairly "conventional" overall and the ONLY major "difference" is you're not base-lining solid rockets for the system which is NOT sufficiently "different" from other proposals to require a highly detailed technical risk assesment.QuoteI have argued the issue of skin in the game in other forums here, and won't repeat myself, except to note that our reading of the RFP (and responses to questions from contractors answered by NASA) was that skin was not required if the amount requested for CCDEV2 was low enough, though they didn't give a figure of what was "low." We asked for thirty million dollars to perform more work that any of the of the contractors who won space Act agreements will do with both NASA and their own funds. Our past performance on CE&R shows we could have met our milestones...which were mostly hardware based, and not design reviews as other contractors proposed.Well THAT along with boldly pointing out in slide-2 of the presentation that NASA would NOT be your "primary" customer was probably some-what related to the reasons for not being among the chosen few I'm a HUGE agree though that CCDev should not EVER have been or be about "winning-or-losing" but encouraging the maximum amount of competition and inovation as possible.NOW of course all you or I have to do is manage to get appointed as Director of NASA.... :::GRIN:::RandyRound 3 is about to start..will you put in another proposal???
