Competition to Build the Space Shuttle's Successor 345
Neil Halelamien writes "The competition for the prime contract to build the Crew Exploration Vehicle, the successor to the Space Shuttle, is ramping up. Currently, 11 different companies are creating preliminary designs for systems and vehicles which could be useful in implementing NASA's Vision for Space Exploration. By the end of the year, NASA will select two teams to independently develop and build a CEV design. The two teams will launch competing unmanned prototypes in 2008, at which point NASA will award a final winning contract. Aerospace giants Boeing and Northrop Grumman have formed one team. Another "all-star" team, announced a couple of days ago, is headed by Lockheed Martin. A third team in the running is underdog t/Space, a company with a free enterprise approach to space exploration, which includes notable figures from the commercial spaceflight arena, such as Burt Rutan and Gary Hudson. There is concern that a NASA budget boost to help pay for the exploration program could draw some opposition, as most other government programs are anticipating budget cuts."
Enough with the links already... (Score:5, Interesting)
Where's the money going? (Score:2, Interesting)
decision making (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Common sense prevails at last! (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't really see why a spaceplane design is out of the question. The shuttle was hugely complex compared to SpaceShipOne. Couldn't a more modern design of the shuttle still be useful?
Good Designs (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, they self-orient on reentry, they don't have expensive and heavy control surfaces or landing gear, and from their position on the top of the rocket they can use escape systems like those in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.
About the only thing they can't do is bring things back down from orbit. But, really, if we want a real future in space the biggest issue is getting things up there.
Having the wrong goal is worse than no goal (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce
Re:Common sense prevails at last! (Score:5, Interesting)
The trouble with a spaceplane is its inefficiency. Too much of the energy expended in a Shuttle launch goes to carry the orbiter's main engines, wings and other structure into orbit. If you could leave those off, with a capsule design, you could either save a whole lot of fuel and get a cheaper launch, or use the same amount of fuel and carry a much larger payload.
The idea behind the Shuttle was that the engines were worth keeping, and reusing them could save money. Apollo used to drop its main engines into the sea... But it turns out that there are plenty of factories on Earth capable of producing rocket engines very cheaply, so that economy didn't really work out.
Re:I can see.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Common sense prevails at last! (Score:1, Interesting)
Spoken like a true Nasa zealot. It took the guys at Scaled composites to show you that they could build a cheap light, ingenious low-earth-orbit vehicle and launch it cheaply from its mother plane.
Sadly, it seems that once again it will take private venture to show us that a highly efficient fully fledged orbital insertion space plane is doable, and at a much cheaper cost than anything Nasa could come up with.
And less complex than the space shuttle??? The space shuttle may be complex but it's just a big rocket propelled glider. Space Ship One [scientium.com] utilises a far more complex design princple. It does much much more with far less..
Re:Where's the money going? (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, yes, the NASA could probally be a lot more cost effective, but just saying SpaceShipOne did for 20mio$ what the Shuttle does is way off and basically just wrong. SpaceShipOne will never be capable todo what the shuttle does, to accomplish that they have design a completle new vehicle.
Re:Back to the drawing board? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Common sense prevails at last! (Score:3, Interesting)
Further, a Capsule falling through atmosphere is kept in the proper orientation through simple newtonian mechanics, it requires no gadgetry to keep it stable, unlike a spaceplane, which is an inherently unstable reentry vehicle.
The capsule is the way to go for cheap and reliable missions.
Re:Common sense prevails at last! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Where's the money going? (Score:3, Interesting)
And with the short flights of SS1 you can get away with a lower fuel fraction than is needed to achieve orbt.
Re: A Replacement for the Shuttle (Score:3, Interesting)
It will work a whole hell of a lot better than on earth assembly. To get to lunar orbit, you don't have to worry about earth gravity or anything. You won't need a smooth skin either. It could look like a flying pig and be as ugly as you wanted. You also don't have to worry about the thing staying intact and not getting damaged on the way up.
As for a heavy lifter, That might be what heavy rockets are for. Though I wouldn't mind this: http://nuclearspace.com/a_liberty_ship.htm [nuclearspace.com]
Re:NASA Budget (Score:3, Interesting)
Pathetic, isn't it? Especially considering that space exploration is in the long run the most important and beneficial government program of all (with military being the second).
Re:Robotic Exploration? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Having the wrong goal is worse than no goal (Score:3, Interesting)
If the gub'ment dictates that the Shuttle shall be involved, now all components must a) break down to fit in a Shuttle cargo bay; b) meet Shuttle safety requirements; c) visit LEO and possibly the ISS before moving onward. Yeah, it uses the existing infrastructure, but certainly isn't an optimal solution.
We need a heavy-lift infrastructure element that'll send big payloads to the moon. I would further propose that the heavy-lift launch vehicle be explicitly not-man-rated. Cargo payloads only. Robotic and tele-operated missions as terraforming operations are appropriate for the initial missions. Sending the people up should be one of the last things on the list. When they arrive, there should be cargo containers and shelters waiting for them.
Every time I see the government funding another Crew ($synonym-for-"move") Vehicle, it just makes me cringe. If you want to send a larger crew to the ISS, send another Soyuz. And for chrissakes, install the damned ECLSS Module [nasa.gov] so the station isn't dependent on the water truck making a delivery.
Re:Common sense prevails at last! (Score:5, Interesting)
Taking aerodynamics into consideration, the best design is really like a sphere. The closer you are to a sphere, the better. Apollo took a cone and made a good aproximation of a sphere. The shuttle takes an airplane and makes a bad approximation of a sphere. Lifting body designs look a lot more like a sphere, but soon we probably will know if they are close enough to a sphere.
China, Science, the Economy and the Space Elevator (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought Buck Rogers spaceships landed on fins (Score:3, Interesting)
When I heard about the DC-X approach to reusable spacecraft reentry and landing, my reaction was "that is so Buck Rogers" meaning that I didn't think that landing on rocket thrust made sense.
But the Soyuz lands tail first on rocket thrust (it has braking rockets for the final ground contact to supplement the parachute), and that has advantages over wings and wheels.
So saying Buck Rogers should mean a solution without wings and wheels.
Re:Common sense prevails at last! (Score:5, Interesting)
And maintainance doesn't *need* to be high. If the shuttle had the budget for its initial design plan (a titanium frame, no solid boosters), it never would have had any of the problems that it's had that led to high maintainence costs and its 2% failure rate.
A couple of things about your list:
* A hugely increased heat shield: Not really hugely increased. An optimal shape for reentry is a large, slowly curved surface, and the further from that shape, the larger amount of shielding you need for a given size and density. However, the shuttle manages relatively well given its size and density compared to what an equivalent capsule would be by turning its bottom side into the direction of incoming air.
* Hydraulic motors for flaps: Not necessarily. Hydraulics in space are problematic because of temperature regulation (in the tanks, in the cylinders, in the lines, etc). However, it is possible to use electric actuators to replace them for most, if not all, tasks. Electric actuators are increasingly being used in high force tasks.
However, the key issue is reusability. Reusable capsules have never really come into their own - they tend to have a pretty rough landing. The more payload return you want them to be able to bring back, the rougher it is.
If one can get reusability without high maintainence, in any design, that truly is the holy grail of spacecraft design.
Re:Well well well (Score:3, Interesting)
Delta IV-heavy is a great craft. Its cost per kilogram is amazing for a rocket built in a first-world nation. The atlas series shouldn't underestimated either. In short, Boeing and Lockheed *have* been doing good work in the past 20 years. You have no right to pretend that they haven't (not that Delta and Atlas have been their only projects - far from it).
Most of these companies' work is military. They've designed more rockets than you can shake a stick at in the past 20 years.
I only mentioned blackbird to show what their materials and engine tech was like decades ago. In 20 years, we'll get declassified as to what sort of materials and engine tech they're using now. These companies do excellent materials engineering work that a small startup couldn't even dream of because they don't have the infrastructure.
How much is "new tech", "invented in the last 20 years"? The vast majority of their core rocket series. The engines used by both the Delta and Atlas rocket series' didn't even exist back then.
Perhaps you mean on a more fundamental level - say, the component level? Mostly new there. The alloys, coatings and other materials used many engine parts didn't even exist back then. Just the other day I was reading about a cheap nozzle throat that Lockheed patented made of a ceramic that has shown almost zero erosion - a critial step in lowering engine maintainence. They just cast it and fit it - a whole lot easier than carbon-carbon.
Just because you see a column of flame belching out of the back of an engine doesn't mean that what's "under the hood" is at all the same. Modern engines far outperform their 1960s counterparts. Modern propellant tanks (which more and more are based on lightweight alloys, such as lithium-aluminum) also far outperform their 1960s counterparts.
I mean, seriously, what do you want - nuclear powered rockets? What will it take for you to call something new?