-
#80
by
punkboi
on 26 Jul, 2006 16:13
-
zerm - 26/7/2006 8:23 AM
Here's my take on it- The CEV is going to keep us flying in space... PERIOD! And so far as "The Vision" goes, remember that, other than those few people who have hands-on the tip of the arrow of space exploration, for the public and humanity at large, spaceflight is more about inspiration than exploration. That is it's true value.
Totally agree.
-
#81
by
Jon_Jones
on 26 Jul, 2006 17:05
-
I like all things Human spaceflight related. one of my hopes is that the CEV (Block 1 or 2) will be able to do some near earth exploration as well as lunar exploration. There are many interesting physics experiments and investigations to be done at several points between earth and moon. I'd love to see something like a CEV + ATV rendezvous and then several little investigations of the neat places between earth and moon. Perhaps, maybe I’m too being silly, but I would like to be on a mission that had a highly elliptical orbit and could fling itself in and out of the various parts of the magnetosphere. (with proper protection of course.)
And before 2003, I had hoped that Columbia or Atlantis would have their Payload bays filled with a new, larger space lab and perhaps an irrationally overcomplicated additional fuel reserve to do long range high orbit missions… essentially turning a shuttle into a mini, retrievable, reusable space station. But, some dreams make better dreams than realities.
-
#82
by
Jim
on 26 Jul, 2006 17:21
-
Those type missions do not require a man.
-
#83
by
edkyle99
on 26 Jul, 2006 19:08
-
HailColumbia - 25/7/2006 9:25 PM
one problem with a capsule, if you want more interior space, you need to make it wider, which means a wider booster. other shapes you can make LONGER.
Interior spaced is not a problem for a capsule. A capsule is, or should be, designed to do one job well - crew protection during ascent and atmospheric reentry for the least mass (meaning smallest heat shield). Extra interior space, if needed, can be added by docking the capsule to an additional lightweight, non-heatshielded module (or modules) in orbit (hello, Bigelow?). For ISS missions, CEV's "module" is ISS. For lunar missions it is LSAM.
- Ed Kyle
-
#84
by
PlanetStorm
on 26 Jul, 2006 20:49
-
Jon_Jones - 26/7/2006 5:52 PM
I like all things Human spaceflight related. one of my hopes is that the CEV (Block 1 or 2) will be able to do some near earth exploration as well as lunar exploration. There are many interesting physics experiments and investigations to be done at several points between earth and moon. I'd love to see something like a CEV + ATV rendezvous and then several little investigations of the neat places between earth and moon. Perhaps, maybe I’m too being silly, but I would like to be on a mission that had a highly elliptical orbit and could fling itself in and out of the various parts of the magnetosphere. (with proper protection of course.)
And before 2003, I had hoped that Columbia or Atlantis would have their Payload bays filled with a new, larger space lab and perhaps an irrationally overcomplicated additional fuel reserve to do long range high orbit missions… essentially turning a shuttle into a mini, retrievable, reusable space station. But, some dreams make better dreams than realities.
If you are interested in magnetospheric physics you need a magnetically clean vehicle so that the highly sensitive magnetometers can operate undistrurbed. CEV will never be suitable for that. Far better to use specifically designed umanned experiments like Cluster.
-
#85
by
vt_hokie
on 26 Jul, 2006 21:05
-
zerm - 26/7/2006 11:23 AM
IMO- These arguments against the CEV in favor of some space plane that is not even close to development are really shot sighted.
By contrast, my opinion is that to be cheap now in developing our next generation spacecraft will cost us dearly in the long run. The arguments for the CEV seem to me to be very short sighted. Yeah, a simple capsule launched on existing launch vehicle hardware might be easier and cheaper up front than something ambitious like a next generation RLV, but it will ensure that we continue to spend billions of dollars a year on a handful of flights. At what point do we decide to stop stagnating, and get on with the next stage of technology development?
Here's my take on it- The CEV is going to keep us flying in space... PERIOD!
Barely. If we're going to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on 1960's style spaceflight, perhaps leading to a couple of feel good flag and footprints missions to the moon more than a decade down the road, I don't see how the cost can possibly be justified. If we revived programs like X-33 today, we could be doing a lot more in space by the time 2020 rolls around.
And so far as "The Vision" goes, remember that, other than those few people who have hands-on the tip of the arrow of space exploration, for the public and humanity at large, spaceflight is more about inspiration than exploration. That is it's true value.
Sorry, but I don't find replacing the amazing space shuttle with a glorified Apollo capsule to be very inspiring.
-
#86
by
Jim
on 26 Jul, 2006 21:12
-
The Venturestar (not X-33) couldn't lift shuttle class payloads. So in 2020, we would be stuck using components for spacecraft smaller than the current ISS components. Addtionally, the Venturestar was to be unmanned.
-
#87
by
vt_hokie
on 26 Jul, 2006 21:15
-
Jim - 26/7/2006 4:59 PM
The Venturestar (not X-33) couldn't lift shuttle class payloads. So in 2020, we would be stuck using components for spacecraft smaller than the current ISS components.
Actually, I recall that VentureStar was intended to have a roughly 50,000 lb payload capacity to LEO. But obviously, a scaled up, orbital version of X-33 was not realistic. However, a fully reusable two stage system is a logical follow-on to STS.
Addtionally, the Venturestar was to be unmanned.
Initially, but crewed versions were to have followed.
-
#88
by
zerm
on 26 Jul, 2006 21:37
-
So some would rather we go into another post-Apollo six year gap with a concept vehicle that needs a change in the laws of physics just to work? Then that gap turns into a decade while the vote-grubs in the congress chip away at the the NASA budget to build bridges to nowhere... yeah... that's a vision for space explorin'. I stand on what I said before- history will decide. Meanwhile, I plan to be at KSC to watch the SDLVs roll out and fly. Others may feel more comfortable sitting at home watching those computer graphics of the X-33 over, and over.
-
#89
by
vt_hokie
on 26 Jul, 2006 21:46
-
zerm - 26/7/2006 5:24 PM
Others may feel more comfortable sitting at home watching those computer graphics of the X-33 over, and over.
I have a model of X-33 sitting on my desk, as a matter of fact! It's a reminder of what might have been, with better leadership.
-
#90
by
Jim
on 26 Jul, 2006 23:00
-
vt_hokie - 26/7/2006 5:33 PM
zerm - 26/7/2006 5:24 PM
Others may feel more comfortable sitting at home watching those computer graphics of the X-33 over, and over.
I have a model of X-33 sitting on my desk, as a matter of fact! It's a reminder of what might have been, with better leadership.
Actually, it is where it should be, as a model. The leadership did the right thing and cancelled it vs dumping more $ into it.
-
#91
by
zerm
on 26 Jul, 2006 23:03
-
I sell flying model kits of the Ares I. Reminds me that the future looks pretty cool... errr... provided they put the fins back on that is
I just sprayed the first stage of the my Ares V prototype kit... but I swore I would not put that into production until NASA stops changing the darned thing! Seems like every time they put out a press release these days it looks different. Until this month it was one size from top of the thrust structure to the nosecone- so I had 50 nosecones custom milled in that size- then they scaled down the upper stage! Sheeeesh
Of course if I just wait... they'll change it again.
-
#92
by
vt_hokie
on 26 Jul, 2006 23:10
-
So, again, I'll ask this question: At what point is the time right to stop stagnating and start moving forward with technology development again? 20 years from now? 40? 100?
-
#93
by
nacnud
on 26 Jul, 2006 23:18
-
Just because it looks a bit like Apollo from the outside doesn't mean that it Apollo in the inside. There will be massive technology development in the Constellation program.
Can you please stop going on and on and on about it.
-
#94
by
zerm
on 26 Jul, 2006 23:31
-
Indeed, I'm sure the CEV critics would be singing a different tune if the next vehicle were the Max Faget "DC-3" short cross range orbiter on the full return fly-back booster- a concept that is 35 years old.
The CEV and the Ares I have some very exciting aspects that many overlook in their haste to arm-chair critic the program. The coming LES test flights are a good example. (I'm one who hopes they call those flights "Little Joe III"). A lot will be confirmed and learned and it will be really cool to see an unattached single SRB launched down the range. The CEV is the development of a whole new vehicle and system... and THAT inspires.
-
#95
by
Jim
on 27 Jul, 2006 00:14
-
vt_hokie - 26/7/2006 6:57 PM
So, again, I'll ask this question: At what point is the time right to stop stagnating and start moving forward with technology development again? 20 years from now? 40? 100?
The same time trains lose their wheels and use maglev.
It isn't stagnating. Let the market find a cheaper vehicle. NASA doesn't have the flight rate. The EELV's, Protons and Ariane are keeping you employed, so there must be a business model for ELV's that works.
NASA is more in the spacecraft and exploration than tech development
-
#96
by
vt_hokie
on 27 Jul, 2006 02:57
-
Jim - 26/7/2006 8:01 PM
The same time trains lose their wheels and use maglev.
So, now in other words?
Just because the U.S. is stagnant on maglev doesn't mean other nations are. You can ride a 270 mph maglev train in China, as a matter of fact!
(Of course, the Chinese merely paid the Germans to build it for them.)
The EELV's, Protons and Ariane are keeping you employed, so there must be a business model for ELV's that works.
You have a point, I suppose! But human spaceflight won't become accessible to the masses until we have RLV's to make that happen.
NASA is more in the spacecraft and exploration than tech development.
Maybe we need two agencies, then - one for aerospace research and development, and another for operations.
-
#97
by
simonbp
on 27 Jul, 2006 05:04
-
vt_hokie - 26/7/2006 7:44 PM
Maybe we need two agencies, then - one for aerospace research and development, and another for operations.
Strictly speaking, in the US, there are already at least four launch vehicle R&D organisations: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Orbital, and SpaceX...
Seguing a bit, that's why I'm not supprised that NASA aero research is being cut; most of it is airliner-focused, which in reality means the only real benefactors are Boeing's shareholders. Government work is good at two things, low-level technology development (something at least 5 years from the marketplace) and not-for-profit operations (like space exploration). If the "alt.space industry" wants to start making a profit, they need to start exploiting that gap more fully; COTS allows this, but it will only work long-term if it is actually competitive...
Simon
-
#98
by
darkenfast
on 27 Jul, 2006 09:21
-
"If we're going to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on 1960's style spaceflight, perhaps leading to a couple of feel good flag and footprints missions to the moon more than a decade down the road, I don't see how the cost can possibly be justified."
I keep seeing this phrase: "Flags and footprints", coming from critics of the VSE. I find that a little dishonest, a bit like a mudslinging political slogan that is repeated over and over again in the hopes that it will become one of those "everyone knows" statements that gains a life of its own.
Apollo 11 may have been a "flags and footprints" mission, with two astronauts spending less than three hours walking on the surface. The later Apollo missions had the two astronauts performing three EVAs of about 6-8 hours each, and covering a lot more territory.
If the ESAS Lunar program survives in spite of its opponents, the INITIAL mission should more than double the EVA time of the last Apollo. The capability to land in a wider variety of locations is also not to be sneered at, unless you are one of those who believe there is no scientific or other reason to go back to the Moon, in which case you'll be very happy if the program folds.
But let's get one thing straight. If ESAS is shot down, the United States is not going to be building an X-something miracle whiz-bang SSTO toy for a VERY long time. The only American manned presence in space will be the occasional purchased seat on a Soyuz or such, and tourists taking sub-orbital hops on Rutan's SS2. The space program has many political opponents, and they want that money for other things.
-
#99
by
MATTBLAK
on 27 Jul, 2006 09:55
-
darkenfast - 27/7/2006 8:08 PM
I keep seeing this phrase: "Flags and footprints", coming from critics of the VSE. I find that a little dishonest, a bit like a mudslinging political slogan that is repeated over and over again in the hopes that it will become one of those "everyone knows" statements that gains a life of its own.
But let's get one thing straight. If ESAS is shot down, the United States is not going to be building an X-something miracle whiz-bang SSTO toy for a VERY long time. The only American manned presence in space will be the occasional purchased seat on a Soyuz or such, and tourists taking sub-orbital hops on Rutan's SS2. The space program has many political opponents, and they want that money for other things.
You are
SOOOO RIGHT!!! Unlike you, some people just don't see the big picture; they are so full of their own sarcasm, negativity and not-invented-here mentality. Sheesh...
(Of course, the Chinese merely paid the Germans to build it for them.)