Lockheed Martin unveils Space Shuttle replacement 549
Vegan Bob writes "Lockheed Martin released its proposal for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) in a recent Popular Mechanics article. NASA will choose this vehicle scematic or opt for the yet-released Northrop Grumman design in 2008. The CEV will replace the Space Shuttle program, and will eventually go to the moon (between 2015 and 2020)."
One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Insightful)
Why add an orbital rendezvous requirement to all missions? Why use a shape like this which, I presume, requires the use of failure-prone ceramic tiles for reentry protection instead of a tried-and-proven heat sheild when you're planning to use parachutes to land the thing anyhow? What's the advantage to using this thing over just a regular capsule if it's not necessarily reusable?
How does it possibly make sense to use the same vehicle for LEO missions as for moon and Mars missions? What happened to the important ideas behind Mars Direct or Semi-Direct (aka, having a seperate hab module that you can leave for future missions and making your fuel on Mars instead of hauling it with)? Does this signal that NASA is planning for Mars as just a set of "footprints and flagpoles" missions? Why are they planning a fly-by of Mars at all when the most dangerous part of a well-planned mission would be the part in transit rather than the part on the planet?
And perhaps most of all, why is it going to take us fifteen years to get back to the moon when we got there from scratch in less than ten the first time around? Heck, what's our goal in going back to the moon in the first place instead of concentrating on the much-more-promising Mars? Did we miss something the last time around?
In short: Just what, exactly, is going on here?
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:2, Interesting)
Lipservice and political grandstanding? I don't think there will be political will to carry out even a "footprint and flagpoles" Mars mission in the near future.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was one thing to race to the moon in the 60s when the US was all caught up in beating the Soviet Union. It's quite another to sust
Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, everyone, stop a moment and think about this
Who is "terror", and have they been threatening us? Utterly unexamined assumption.
We got hit by a few dozen nutters a few years ago, and now we are under a "terror threat".
Firstly, a threat is a statement of intent -- a SPECIFIC statement -- that someone is coming to hurt or kill you.
Secondly, what the hell is "terror"? Bush has slapped the label on so many disparate factions and actions so as to make the term meaningless.
Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you asserting that there are no people who wish to kill Americans and other Westerners simply because they are not radicalized Islamists? If not, then you are merely arguing, ineptly, about the scale of the threat, not its reality.
I fear, like the people you claim are nonexistent, you have allowed your own irrational and unsupportable beliefs to cloud your rational mind.
Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't mean there aren't real terrorist organizations out there - obvi
Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror (Score:3, Insightful)
A government's cynical use of a real threat doesn't remove that threat from reality. The poster and others like him would have us believe that terror simply does not exist.
No one ever expected to find Osama in Iraq. Regimes like Saddam's -- which are immune to internal overthrow -- are precisely the kind of environment that fosters and nourishes radical fundamentalist terror. As much as I disagree with Bush on almost everything, he did
Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror (Score:3, Insightful)
Your anecdote about your uncle in Syria is irrelevant. I've lived -- not visited -- the Arab Middle East, more than a decade ago. I was greeted with warmth and hospitality everywhere. Yet, terror existed. Movie theaters were bombed for showing Bollywood films. Westerners and Westernized locals were frequent targets of attack in the central business areas of cities. Fathers murdered their daughters for spe
Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:2, Informative)
You seem to be forgetting that the vehicle will be on top of the stack, not bolted to the side.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:2)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Insightful)
We didn't use it to get to the moon, and certainly didn't use it to rendezvous with Skylab or the Russians. It didn't prove itself to be a fabulously versatile spacecraft at all; nope, not one iota.
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe there was NOTHING WRONG with the capsule design in the first place, and that the only reason the Shuttle has wings is so that the Air Force could have warm fuzzies about it?
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Interesting)
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe there was NOTHING WRONG with the capsule design in the first place, and that the only reason the Shuttle has wings is so that the Air Force could have warm fuzzies about it?
Mabye people like shuttles because they don't leave a trail of trash from here to the moon. Or mabye because less material resources are expended in recycling something that you know already works. Or perhaps because they don't smash into the ground like a meteor if the parachutes fail.
The various shuttles have flown a LOT more than the Saturn V ever has, so I would venture to say there is nothing wrong with a shuttle design. Perhaps one should try focusing on the real problem with NASA, which is the bureaucracy.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Insightful)
I also don't know of any engineer who thinks that the Apollo CSM was greatly flawed, though we had a couple of accidents with it (Apollo 1 pad fire, Apollo 13 flight).
There's nothing inherent about reusable vehicles that makes them all bad designs. Shuttle, however, is not a good reusable design. In retrospect, it was not good enough.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Insightful)
Both were risky endeavours ; however the parent's point is not completely moot. Apollo 1 was a new design and caused the death of 3 people on the ground. The rest of the missions went OK, even Apollo 13 who had massive systems failures, but enough redundancy built-in to make it back safely. Moreover you are not counting the Apollo predecessors which were somewhat similar in design, but simp
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Insightful)
The shuttle was too big and expensive and had to be basically rebuilt after every mission.
What nasa needs is a reliable, relativly cheap modular space craft(s) that can be bolted to gether for different missions. Orbit, Moon Mars
So it probably will be nothing impressive, the big thing will be reliablility and operational costs ( or less of them).
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:4, Interesting)
The CEV is not designed to glide upon re-entry like the shuttle; rather, it will be equipped with parachutes and airbags to set down on land or water. Interchangeable computer systems will increase adaptability between modules.
I'm thinking it *is* a Big Gemini. In which case...
Way to go Lockheed! Reusing proven technology rocks! (Maybe they actually listened to my comments on reusing the design?
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Informative)
It was actually going to be named after Richard Nixon, which is ironic because most of the shuttle's drawbacks are his fault. NASA wanted something completely different, Nixon made it cost less in the short term and a ton more in the long term, and wouldn't fund it at all unless it could be used for military
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:2, Troll)
NASA have to find some way to spend $16,000,000,000. It's not as if you could find any another way to spend that kind of money on space is it?
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:2)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Funny)
Well (Score:3)
The craft does not appear to use ceramic tiles. They mention a carbon-carbon heat shield. Also, it would appear to be reusable. Capsules are limited in terms of maneuverability - this design appears to have some control over its descent into the atmosphere.
And it makes sense to use the same craft for LEO as well as M
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Insightful)
Orbital rendezvous is good for a number of things. It allows you to have modularity so you can assembler larger crafts, add special modules later on that you haven't even thought of now (as more advanced technology becomes available 10 years down the road), use it to dock with the International Space Station, use it to dock with possible rescue crafts, etc.
This is a vehicle for carrying people. It's not the full set of technologies needed to get to and land on Mars.
And it's taking 15 years because there's no Soviet Union that's making everyone piss in their pants in fear.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the big point of it will be to either:
a) Dock with new engines for the trip from LEO to the moon
b) Dock with a specialized moon courier to transfer the passengers.
Isn't it intersting, one of the primary goals of the Gemini program was to develop space docking technology? Then they design a much larger version just before the end of the program. Now we're getting a craft 50 years later that looks like the Big Gemini design but with a new body. Coincidence?
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Informative)
You need some lift in the reentry vehicle or else it's a pure ballistic reentry; lift is used to stay higher up for longer.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:2)
According to the linked Wiki article: "Its airplane-shaped design makes it far easier to navigate during high-speed returns to Earth than the capsule-shaped vehicles of the past, according to Lockheed Martin."
Whether this makes sense or not, I don't know, but there's the answer to one
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, this is not the final design, this is the one that Lockheed submitted for consideration in the competition. Final one to be chosen in 2008 with manned flights by 2014.
I think that it's 'taking us so long to go go the moon' because the moon is most assuredly dead. It seems that the focus of everything is looking for life, which is great. Either that, or long-term bases on Luna, which is also great. If it's the latter, well, damn skippy it should take more than 15 years!!!! We've never tried to exist on another solar body, let alone one without supportive water or atmosphere.
So, in answer to your question, this design is a stop gap measure to longer-term and better technically advanced systems to further our goal of living, flourishing and colonizing space and other bodies.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, because private companies can make money from pixie dust and love to spend it on projects with zero ROI. Or are you suggesting we give private companies taxpayer money?
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:2)
Other than even more welfare under a different name and more big government sponsorship of high tech R&D, what is "much-more-promising" about going to Mars? What does it give us other than a hideously expensive pissing competition?
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Interesting)
We didn't go to the moon for science and exploration, we went there to give the Reds a big fat middle finger.
Further, NASA was a part of the United States Air Force at the time, not a separate entity with its own (very limited ) budget.
Third, the Apollo project cost over $25 billion. In modern dollars, that's aover $100 billion. And believe or not, government spending was more efficient back then. Environmental impact studies weren't necessary, the cost of doing business was lower, the bidding process was simpler and cheaper. NASA's entire budget for this year is under $17 billion.
You can't just reproduce the Saturn V and fly it. The Saturn V was too big for the launch facilities and it had to be assembled with its own tower and hauled out to the launch site.
The Apollo program was also cut short. We'd made our point: America can reach the moon, and the Soviets can't. Neener neener neener. The last three moon missions were cancelled due to budget cuts.
So why will it takes 15 years to get back there? Because none of our current technology is appropriate for the task, the old technology is not only unavailable (there's no more Saturn V's left that could fly) but updating it to modern standards and safety requirements (not to mention refocusing the moon landing to a science mission more than thumbing our nose at the Eastern Bloc) would probably cost as much or more than just starting from scratch.
What's going on: I have no idea, but I honestly don't think they'll even hit the moon in 15 years unless some thing major changes about how NASA or the government does business.
NASA has always been a separate civilian agency: (Score:5, Informative)
Further, NASA was a part of the United States Air Force at the time, not a separate entity with its own (very limited ) budget.
Erm, what?!?
NASA has always been a separate, civilian agency. It grew out of the old National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), itself a civilian organization.
The Air Force did have its own space program during the late 1950s and early 1960s (around the same time as the creation of NASA), which centered around the X-20 Dyna-Soar [aerospaceguide.net] and the Manned Orbiting Laboratory [af.mil]. The USAF even built an astronaut school at Edwards Air Force Base [af.mil], and Chuck Yeager was the commandant [af.mil]. However, that whole program lost steam in the mid 1960s and was abandoned by 1969. This led the USAF to send its best remaining astronaut pilots to NASA, and convert the school into a test pilot school.
Even so, many of the most famous astronauts from the Apollo days were not USAF pilots. Neil Armstrong [nasa.gov] was a civilian (he worked for NACA in the X-15 program), and Buzz Aldrin [nasa.gov], Jim Lovell [nasa.gov] and Alan Shepard [nasa.gov] were US Navy pilots.
The difference between then and now, in terms of budgets is this: First, the entire nation was deathly afraid of the Red Menace and national pride was on the line (nobody wanted go to sleep by the light of a Commie moon); Second, a very charismatic US President had staked his legacy on the US getting to the moon before the end of the 1960s (this at a time when the US had only put one man in space, and briefly, at that) before being assassinated and leaving the entire nation in shock.
Congress voted big dollars to the space program because it helped fight the blasted Commies, and because Lyndon Johnson, among others, helped spread the pork to important states (California, Texas, Missouri, New York, Florida, etc.). It also helped the nation pay its final respects to JFK. By the early 1970s, however, Americans began to question the investment in the space program, regularly saying things such as, "I don't think it makes sense to spend so much money to send people to the moon when we have so many problems here on Earth that we need to deal with first, such as hunger, pollution, disease, poverty, etc."
You made some valid points in the rest of your piece, but your glaring fallacy about NASA's status kind of undermines your credibility, don'tcha think?
Modern Safety Requirements? (Score:4, Interesting)
One glaring safety issue that I can see is that the Shuttle lacks the crew-saving 'abort modes' that Saturn V and even Gemini / Mecury had ie: The Launch Escape Tower.
If anything had gone wrong ie: vehicle exploded on pad / during initial climb, the Launch Escape System would drag the capsule clear of the rocket and then land using the normal parachute system.
The Shuttle has very limited launch abort modes and very optimistic ideas about how the crew could leave the vehicle. Ultimately, if the Shuttle's main tank burnt fast / exploded on the pad, that would be curtains for the crew. As Challenger demonstrated, the Shuttle is vulnerable during ascent too where a catastrophic failure of the SRBs would destroy the entire vehicle and crew.
If you search around, you can find the NASA descriptions of both Shuttle and Saturn V abort modes and just in the way they read, you can see that the Saturn V escape system was a *serious* concept whereas the Shuttle abort modes are no more than lip-service to any significant malfunction.
Although the NASA launch escape systems were never tested on an exploding rocket, the Russian space program did demonstrate on a couple of occasions that the escape towers (I think on N1 boosters) worked. This is the same launch escape system used on manned Soyuz flights to this day.
If someone told me I had to ride in a rocket to LEO tommorow, I would choose a Soyuz flight over a Shuttle flight purely for the ammount of 'options' provided throughout the flight.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Interesting)
Jerry Pournelle [jerrypournelle.com] is way ahead of you.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Insightful)
Orbital Sciences Corp would get 2 billion dollars just for strapping a heat shield to one of their Pegasus rockets instead of a payload - congrats we just wasted 1/3 of a CEV's development cost to accomplish nothing. Or did you not already know that private companies, using private funds, have already launched orbital rockets? It's not a very profitable business - that's why there aren't too many companies doing it.
Number 3 would never be done without subsidy. The costs
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:4, Insightful)
"1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.
Wake me up when a Pegasus comes back to earth and goes back up once, much less twice. In three weeks. And hey, if they can do it in such a fashion that people can survive the up and down, then we *have* a CEV already, and wouldn't it be nice to know that?
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:2)
I read TFA, trollboy. As far as I can tell, this means that they're using the same sort of tiles that are on the bottom of the current shuttle, except in a double layer.
I admit I could be wrong, but it sure looks like the thing's meant to re-enter on it's belly...
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:4, Informative)
Carbon-carbon is the material that forms the leading edge of the wings, which failed from impact damage on Columbia. By backed-up I presume they mean that the material will be structurally supported underneath, probably by a continuous backing layer. The leading edge of the space shuttle wings were not structurally supported underneath. The interior of the carbon-carbon pieces on the shuttle wings is hollow.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Interesting)
How hard is it to make a replaceable ablative heat shield anyway?
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Informative)
Why add an orbital rendezvous requirement to all missions?
We don't use the Shuttle for all missions, and the Russians don't use Soyuz for all missions. If we don't need humans or a rendezvou, we use Delta and Atlas rockets. You build to the mission, and this is built to the mission.
Why use a shape like this which, I presume, requires the use of failure-prone ceramic tiles for reentry protection
It says no such thing. In fact, from a reentry standpoint, this craft looks like what the shuttle was *supposed* to be, but wasn't because of budget constraints. It uses a titanium frame - this allows it to run hot on reentry, which means that heat dissipation issues aren't as serious, and damage isn't as threatening. A side advantage is you'll get a far better payload ratio.
With a titanium frame, you generally only need to protect your leading edges, and they're using RCC, which is the best material out there in the present-day for such extremes (and isn't tiles). It's expensive, but it's a one-time production run, barring damage.
Titanium frames also fatigue a *lot* less. In short, you get a safer, much lower maintainence, and longer lifespan craft. The only downside is higher initial cost.
instead of a tried-and-proven heat sheild
RCC is a tried and true heat shield. If you mean "ablatives", don't delude yourself into thinking that they're cheap, either - this will be far cheaper than ablatives when amortized over a few flights. Ablatives are costly and tricky to apply properly (just like other spray-on things, such as foam insulation) - and are very difficult to use around moving parts.
when you're planning to use parachutes to land the thing anyhow?
Parachutes don't slow you from orbital velocity. You might have noticed, if you had read, that it has wings. Do you know why? It's not to meet Buck Rogers Stylistic Guidelines(tm) - wings let you skim the atmosphere longer on reentry, burning off your heat slower. Then, on this craft, a drogue chute will fire, followed by the main chute. It's the best of both worlds - the wings can be smaller and optimized for hypersonic flight only, while they still give you a gentler reentry profile.
it's not necessarily reusable?
What cave are you living in that you didn't learn that the CEV was to be a reusable vehicle? The *launch vehicle* isn't expendible - it will probably be a modified Atlas or Delta, which are very good launch systems. Sure, I'd love to see a fully reusable booster that doesn't cost a fortune (which, by all means, should be possible), but one thing at a time.
Overall, this is a great looking craft, and it will benefit greatly from all of the research that went on from the Shuttle program (and there was a *lot* - cost-reduction and safety-enhancing research was a good portion of the Shuttle's budget). My only real question is that its hypersonic drag profile looks a bit odd. Namely, there's no visible pinch as the wings widen (drag at hypersonic velocities is largely proportional to the maximum cross sectional area, so you typically pinch the fuselage as the wings eat up more cross section). I guess I'd also like to know why they chose ethanol biprop propulsion over, say, kerosene or LOX/propane. Still, great basic design principles on this craft.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:4, Interesting)
We don't need fusion any time soon to solve our energy problem.
The problem with fusion is that plasma dynamics are not as easy as we thought they were going to be in the seventies. We have yet to break even. And even the types of fusion that are supposed to be low-temperature and not produce neutrons still produce a lot of neutron radiation. It'll just get worse if we scale it up to power-generation levels.
We can solve our power problem right now, with fission power. The problem isn't that we don't know how to do a proper fuel cycle with reprocessing, stimulated rapid decay with a neutron bombarder, breeder reactors, etc. The problem is, people have been spending money that could be spent on progressivel better and more efficent reactors and an economy based on this... on generally stupid stuff that hasn't shown to be any better of an idea than old fision power.
Couple LocMart Links (Score:5, Interesting)
Main CEV Page [lockheedmartin.com] Has the graphics shown in the other articles, etc.
Couple Page PDF Early on stuff about CEV [lockheedmartin.com]
Interesting.... [lockheedmartin.com] This page doesn't say much but what it does say is this, "The Space Exploration Vision Center is now open in Washington D.C. This facility showcases the latest developments in space exploration, concepts and technologies for NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle program, including a full-scale cockpit simulator. Government tours and meetings are available five days a week." I want on one of those tours.
curious... (Score:3, Insightful)
50 years is bad enough (Score:2)
Re:curious... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe we have to get to the moon to put footprints and flag up before some other country finds out the truth. We can always *make* more money.
Re:curious... (Score:2)
Sa y hello to the new kid, same as the old kid (Score:3, Insightful)
We should/could have been out there by now. There are overwhelming reasons, political and economic, to get this freaking horse to run already.
So now they give us a 'new and improved' assbox that has limited mission goals, is incapable of leaving orbit, and cant get itself to space. Whats new in that?
Shields! (Score:3, Funny)
One step closer to Ionized Hullplates, then real Shields!!
Before everyone goes crazy (Score:5, Informative)
Also, this is NOT the CEV that is going to be going to Mars. The Mars mission isn't until past 2020 and when that happens, the CEV will have been updated quite a bit.
So now, lets have a Capsule vs Lifting body debate!
Where's the CRV? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Where's the CRV? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not again! (Score:2, Insightful)
Hasn't the space shuttle program done enough damage to the pioneering heritage of the US already?
First, NASA delivers a space transportation system with a cost per lb to leo that is an order of magnitude higher than it promised.
Then, NASA stomps out private investment in launch service companies because it would dilute the monopoly value of the bad technology NASA produced.
Then when grassroots space enthusiasts try to get NASA to stop stomping out privately financed space transp
Re:Not again! (Score:2)
you're being completely illogical here.
Also Let's not forget the CEV is designed to go to the moon and mars, not just LEO.
Re:Not again! (Score:3)
Re:Not again! (Score:3, Interesting)
The real history of the Delta Clipper (Score:3, Interesting)
My experience with Truax was to get him to cross the street (literally) and meet with Ron Packard -- the congressman who sponsored the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990. The LSPA was signed into law. I testified before Congress [geocities.com] on follow-up legislation for commercial incentives. While in Washington DC, I met with Dana Rohrabacher and told him of Truax's desire to do a trans-Pacific rocket-delivery system for over-night "FedEx" type services base
I can see it all now... (Score:5, Funny)
1. Moonbase 1 is built with a modern, high-tech arrivals terminal for the new craft.
2. First craft arrives and personnel enter the arrivals lounge.
3. Crew awaits baggage only to discover it's been sent to Mars.
LockMart? (Score:2, Informative)
They are notorious for delivering under spec'ed products many millions above budget.
Re:LockMart? (Score:3, Informative)
IE a sub-contractor decides that a series of bolts were not up to specifications, so they
Lockheed vs. Boeing (Score:2)
old design, made new again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bring back the Saturn rockets! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bring back the Saturn rockets! (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, as I recall, someone on a previous thread said that all of the Saturn V blueprints were destroyed as part of the deal that lead to the creation of the original Space Shuttle (doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?) But, as the guy above me suggests, an updated Saturn V-scale rocket is the form-factor for their
Re:Bring back the Saturn rockets! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I am no rocket scientist, physicist, engineer or whatnot. I am just a very curious person with a penchant for sites like astronautix.com (BTW, I recommend a visit there to all and sundry). But that is beside the point...
First, the Soyuz line is still in production. But I can dream, too, so let's assume the Saturn concept is an option...
Could we launch a Saturn? Well...
Second, American space launch infrastructure has been down-graded from the Saturn days. What wasn't downgraded (or cross-graded, or otherwise euphemistically condensed and compacted) was left to rot-in-place. It was more cost effective to let it rot and rust--after all, we had the shuttle, and everything rebuilt to its associated scales.
Therefore, any sort of similar shift to "ramp-up" to Saturn V levels would carry multiplier costs, what with the need to chop out the walls again at the Vehicle Assembly Building, upgrade or newly-design and construct Saturn-rated launch platforms and support structures, yada yada yada. This paints a very unfortunate situation. Bleak, I must confess, as I am a Saturn baby, born in 1968. Ah, the days of the TRUE boosters--I get sentimental for Skylab, sometimes...
Finally, current capability trumps the theoretical capability of as-yet unrealized systems, ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, if you are a bean-counter (and there are a few out there, I understand.... Bean-counters, I mean). Soyuz beats US Brand 'X' launcher with what I feel is an INHERENT advantage to them: they are (in my opinion) overbuilt in order to compensate for launching, historically, from facilities further from the equator. It isn't a big shocker, then, to read that Russian rockets will soon actually be launching from South American bases, where this translates into larger load capabilities, or higher orbits, being closer to the equator.
So, it would seem easier and more cost-effective, in my fantasy/opinion, to recycle current American facilities for Soyuz launch business: in the end, Soyuz is a well-proven product with a good number more launches on its resume, and an arguable launch advantage, to anything in current production inside or outside of Shuttle-Land, USA.
So, sorry. As much as I'd like to see more Saturns launch, I think it is more likely I'll get a chance to see a Soyuz launch without ever leaving the USA.
Too many technical details! (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, that's way to complicated... could you please explain that in layman's terms?
Re:Too many technical details! (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't the mission module tiny? (Score:2)
So -- I'm guessing this means a whole new operational strategy, reliying on the presence of large permanent space station for orbital research facilities and unmanned launches to get big stuff up there?
Size Matters (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone is missing the obvious here. (Score:3, Insightful)
What about schoolbus sized satellites?
This looks like a simple space taxi, not a space truck...
Waste of money..
I think we need to go back to basics and use the simple rockets to lift huge payloads, like the Russian Energia.
The Russians space program is pretty basic and could be very effective..
First step is to keep meddling politicians out of it all...
Re:Everyone is missing the obvious here. (Score:3, Insightful)
The space shuttle can launch 20ish tons to LEO. But what if youre just going to the space station for a crew transfer? Its about as economical as taking a semi-truck down to the drugstore instead of a 4-cylinder coupe.
We dont always needs huge payloads. The other interesting idea with this concept is that this vehicle is being designed to be launch from current launch vehicles. Given the current budgetary situation, doing more with less is vital.
Space taxi makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
A reusable crew vehicle beats a capsule any day, no?
And what sense is there in us
Re:Everyone is missing the obvious here. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's much cheaper to launch equipment on Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs) and people on a small system designed to get just people up. In orbit rendezvous is easy for us now and this way you don't have to launch wasted mass in the form of quadruple
Re:Everyone is missing the obvious here. (Score:3, Informative)
This is a "space compact car" to carry humans up. The shuttle is a "space SUV" that is horribly inefficient as a cargo platform or a people-mover. "Space trucks" should be (and are) unmanned.
The CEV is a step back (Score:4, Interesting)
Still has to survive re-entry so losing the ability to land like a plane is a great loss. While it makes it possible to land anywhere I dont believe our money is best put to use in this fashion.
Re:The CEV is a step back (Score:3)
Re:The CEV is a step back (Score:4, Interesting)
The Big Gemini (upon which this design appears to be based) used a parawing. This gave it the best of both parachute and landing gear systems. i.e. Slow rate of descent and horizontal flight path.
Parawing Video [nasa.gov]
Big Gemini [wikipedia.org]
Holy crap -- that's MY LEGO set! (Score:5, Funny)
At least NASA won't have to put much engineering into future spacesuits, what with the limited arm/leg mobility of LEGO peeps.
IronChefMorimoto
who cares?? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:who cares?? (Score:3, Insightful)
X-33!?!? VentureStar!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:X-33!?!? VentureStar!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
The X-33 is an example of how NOT to design a good spacecraft. If your design relies on not one, but several totally unproven systems (the main two being a composite fuel tank and Aerospike engines) it should not surprise you when it doesn't pan out.
My personal jury is still out on this Lockheed design, but remember: just because it has a lifting body does not mean it has anythin design-wise in common with the Shuttle.
For the Nth time (Score:5, Funny)
Don't go to the moon, blow it up (Score:5, Funny)
Duct tape? (Score:3, Funny)
Exposed Insulation (Was Re: Duct tape?) (Score:3, Informative)
What concerns me in that picture is what looks like exposed superinsulation material with no aluminum shell covering it around the propulsion stage. Seems rather susceptible to ice damage. Now that insulation is probably covering a tank that is strong but if you lose the insulation your fuel could boil off rather quickly. And if you can afford to have less fuel, you wouldn't be carrying it in the first place. And what about all the wires and plumbing on the outside of the tank that are not as strong a
Better than the Shuttle (Score:4, Interesting)
This would work well with space elevators (Score:3, Insightful)
The space elevators bring up the fuel mass (split by solar cells in orbit), the solar cells, and the supplies, which are then transferred from the space elevator orbital end to the space station (or the spacecraft going to Mars to find Oil).
But what will they do with the military space shuttle?
better late than never (Score:3, Interesting)
Whereupon they'll be given a warm welcome by Mike Melville and the crew of Tycho Station, who'll present them with their very own "Welcome to the Moon, Inc." wings.
Max
So they admit it!! (Score:3, Funny)
2015 - 2020 - First moon landing by astronauts in lunar spacecraft.
So they finally admit it never happened in the 1960s!
Re:But... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Titanium?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly, who the fuck cares? Wouldn't it be cheaper to use carbon fiber composites and stronger steal alloys where needed. Sure it'll be heavier, but it's definitely a lot more cost effective. Unless NASA has the power to make the government turn over a few decommissioned SR's to them.
Re:Titanium?! (Score:5, Informative)
The element itself is rather common; over
As such, it is no longer thought of as an exotic SR-71 class material by engineers. The A380 is 9% titanium by weight; that's just under 30 short tons of titanium per aircraft.
New processes [cam.ac.uk] are being developed that should help drive the cost of processing ores down substantially. There also happens to be large titanium content in moon rocks.
Re:Uh, cargo space? (Score:5, Informative)
With that in mind, we've already got the cargo craft in the form of the Delta, Atlas, and Titan rockets. Now all we need is a human capable craft that doesn't haul 80 metric tons of (mostly) useless material into orbit.
Re:Uh, cargo space? (Score:5, Informative)