VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-02 08:52:57

No docking at all?
Your ideas become less coherent by the hour.

if you refer to my post/article...

the standard ISS assembly was accomplished with many "all-in-one" missions

every Shuttle launch was with the modules, tools, time and specialists to assemble it

my suggestion is a completely different (and safer) "step-by-step" ISS assembly:

1st step: send all the modules/hardware to the ISS with 15-20 crewless Shuttle launches

2nd step: hook all the modules/hardware to the parking-arm, that don't need any docking to the ISS (too complex and risky with a remote-controlled Shuttle)

3rd step: send the assembly-specialists (with one or more Soyuz) to dock and assemble all the modules/hardware with the canadarm2 and some EVAs

.

RedStreak · 2006-06-02 10:19:18

Sorry but there are only 2 at present aboard the ISS to off load what takes a crew of 7 on the shuttle to carry out during a 2 week period of time from a presurized cargo container which is close to max orbit time that the shuttle can stay before the fuel cells run out of fuel.
I suggest to build a parking arm to hook the new module sent in space with the crewless Shuttle (that never needs to dock to the ISS)
when all the modules/hardware will be near the ISS, one or more specialized crews will go to the ISS (with the Soyuz) to assemble the new modules with the canadarm2 and EVAs, that in many weeks or months, without rush or risks!

No offense, but why do we need a 'parking arm' when we've got CanadaArm2 already, an upcoming arm on the Columbus module, and possible a Russian arm to boot? Gez what, you want the ISS to become a squid-module or something with more arms?

RedStreak · 2006-06-02 10:22:21

...As I said before, if you're going to attempt to build a winged spacraft leave it to the commercial space companies, not NASA. Encourage NASA if anything to fund contests to promote them but not a direct program to construct one...
the private companies don't have the experience, technology and money to build a new Shuttle

...and NASA did and now we have the debris of two shuttles scattered across the Midwest and the Atlantic and a not-even-half-built X-33 in a hanger somewhere.

SpaceShipOne held together just fine for only a few million as opposed to the billions wasted on STS. You underestimate the abilities of commercial spaceflight.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-02 11:07:20

...and NASA did and now we have the debris of two shuttles scattered across the Midwest and the Atlantic and a not-even-half-built X-33 in a hanger somewhere.
SpaceShipOne held together just fine for only a few million as opposed to the billions wasted on STS. You underestimate the abilities of commercial spaceflight.

Challenger and Columbia are two accidents that happen every year to airplanes, that was close to happen with the Apollo13, that may happen with the CEV and LSAM, that may happen with the Kliper, that may happen with a new (NASA or private) new Shuttle, that may happen with our car or a train or ship or the StarTrek's Enterprise... they are NOT a good argument against a new Shuttle, they are ONLY two accidents of a vehicle built by humans (that, like all vehicles built by humans, can't be perfect!)

the SSO was built and reaches a suborbital altitude 50 years after the X-15 !!!

the problems, costs, structures, knowlendge, etc. to build an orbital vehicle are SSO x 100

the only "privates" that can build a new Shuttle are Boeing, Lockheed, etc. but they don't spend billions without a government contract NOR can play in competition with NASA...

.

RedStreak · 2006-06-02 11:12:51

Challenger and Columbia are two accidents that happen every year to airplanes, that was close to happen with the Apollo13, that may happen with the CEV and LSAM, that may happen with the Kliper, that may happen with a new (NASA or private) new Shuttle, that may happen with our car or a train or ship or the StarTrek's Enterprise... they are NOT a good argument against a new Shuttle

I seem to recall the Challenger also being barely 3 years old into its estimated-20 year, 100 flight lifetime so newer is not better.

*stamps into gaetanomarano's: NO NEW SHUTTLES PERIOD*

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-02 11:23:11

I seem to recall the Challenger also being barely 3 years old into its estimated-20 year, 100 flight lifetime so newer is not better.
*stamps into gaetanomarano's: NO NEW SHUTTLES PERIOD*

the evaluations made 30 years ago about the Shuttle safety/costs/lifecycle was a mistake because they was only "EVALUATIONS" that, like ALL evaluations, NEVER survive the impact with the REALITY (in fact, I think the same will happen with to-day's optimistic evaluations about CEV/CLV/CaLV/LSAM safety/costs/timeline/1.5 l.a. delays...)

the NASA decision to don't build a new Shuttle is ONLY a to-day's decision, then, like many other "final decisions" of the past, may change in next 5-15 years

.

RedStreak · 2006-06-02 15:40:38

the NASA decision to don't build a new Shuttle is ONLY a to-day's decision, then, like many other "final decisions" of the past, may change in next 5-15 years

If that's what's considered in 15 years so be it; however in 15 years there will be a commercial shuttle so the need would be moot.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-02 17:00:02

If that's what's considered in 15 years so be it; however in 15 years there will be a commercial shuttle so the need would be moot.

privates need to have profits from their business within MONTHS

they can't invest billions in next 15 years to build a Shuttle in 2020 and start earn profits in 2025

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-07 17:32:56

gaetanomarano

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 2:46 am Post subject:

10 years to see the first capsule that fly

15 years to see the first (new) moon landing

-------------

GCNRevenger

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:59 am Post subject:

-The basic CLV will begin testing as soon as four years from now, and CEV will enter service in six to eight years. Not ten.

-NASA plans to begin Moon missions in 2018, which is twelve years from now, not fifteen.

-------------

gaetanomarano

Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:46 pm Post subject:

CEV will enter service in six to eight years...

the "2012" was the date of the first manned CEV missions one year ago, before the 1-year delay of CEV choice and the 1-2 years to develop (10 years before the CaLV) the 5-seg.SRB... without further delays the CEV will fly in 2013-2014... but a realistic date may be: after 2015

-------------

GCNRevenger

hu Jun 01, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject:

GM Quote:
CEV will enter service in six to eight years... the "2012" was the date of the first manned CEV missions one year ago, before the 1-year delay of CEV choice and the 1-2 years to develop (10 years before the CaLV) the 5-seg.SRB... without further delays the CEV will fly in 2013-2014... but a realistic date may be: after 2015

More arm-waving. You seem to think that NASA is going to wait to start work on the CEV capsule until the CLV is ready maybe? And where did this "1-2 year to develop" come from? NASA hasn't signifigantly pushed back when it will start CEV design in earnest. You have no cause for stating CEV will be late.

-------------

from Spacedaily: www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_Astronaut … _2014.html

Washington (AFP) Jun 07, 2006

The space ship that will return astronauts to the Moon should be ready for tests in 2012 and for a manned flight in 2014, NASA announced Monday.

NASA plans to retire its aging shuttle fleet, which has gone through two tragic disasters, by 2010 and replace it with a Crew Exploration Vehicle to take astronauts back to the Moon by 2020.

"Our plan calls for first human flight of CEV in 2014, preceding that, is a flight test program that commences in 2012," said Jeff Hanley, director of Constellation, a program to prepare NASA for a return to the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars.

"We are studying right now a developmental flight test where we could fly as early as April 2009 ... a first stage with a dummy upper stage, with a dummy CEV on top, to validate the concept," he said.

A final decision will be made later this year, he said.

"We are confident we can meet the goal of the vision to get human boots back on the Moon by 2020."[/color]

--------------

a week after my evaluation... NASA claims I was RIGHT

.

dicktice · 2006-08-03 07:50:44

I wish you'd stop using all those colours, because they make your posts hard to read. Also, the self-advertisement blurb at the bottom (in red, yet!) makes your motives suspect. What exactly is it that you're trying to sell?

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-03 09:30:41

I wish you'd stop using all those colours

this is a two months old post, in my recent posts I don't use so much colors

Also, the self-advertisement blurb at the bottom

I give that link because I can't post all my articles in a thread nor all my threads in one forum

What exactly is it that you're trying to sell?

sorry, I don't sell rockets or spaceships

.

dicktice · 2006-08-03 14:21:47

Why sorry?--when it should be obvious to all that you're simply advertising your output (in red yet!) with every post, regardless of topic. Selling yourself, in other words. Besides, it's lazy to scatter-shot your stuff around like that. And colouring it red just makes it worse.

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-03 14:30:46

Why sorry?

all wish to have a space company, unfortunately we will never have it...

...with every post...

because the signature is "global", not written with every post

however, if its color hurt too much you, I'll change it

.

Josh Cryer · 2006-08-03 15:56:33

gaetanomarano, I am intrigued by your ideas and would wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

No, really, you make a very valid and compelling point on that page, surprised I haven't seen it before now.

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-03 16:12:44

...wish to subscribe to your newsletter...

thank you for your appreciation of my articles

todate I've not a newsletter, I've written some articles about space on my site but not so many to be more than a personal website

the link to my articles' directory is in my signature here, but, if you have not time to visit regularly the site, send me your email address and I'll send to you a message everytime I write a new article

.

Josh Cryer · 2006-08-03 20:00:50

gaetanomarano, I should say that that was a quote from The Simpsons.

It was a joke, but a geniune one. I really did like that page detailing the number of flights that CEV is going to be able to undertake, and it's quite a step back. I did bookmark the page.

gaetanomarano · 2006-08-03 20:21:58

...a quote from The Simpsons...

sorry, but I don't watch cartoons (next time I'll ask my nephew for an advice...)

however (according to the log of the counter on my webpages) I've (regularly) many interesting readers (I add to you and The Simpsons) like some (well known...) space agencies, aerospace companies, universities, webmagazines, big countries, etc.

maybe, it's time to add a newsletter to my site...

.

dicktice · 2006-08-04 10:02:36

Thanks, much less distracting without the red.

publiusr · 2006-08-11 16:04:58

Capsules now--spaceplanes later.

dicktice · 2006-08-21 10:16:42

It's too late in the game for more crewed capsule development along with the infrastructure for landing within the territory of the United States (or Canada). As long as the Russians maintain the capability to bring back crews, treat capsule return from orbit as the final choice remaining when all else fails--using this to buy time for the proper development and testing of a reliable and practical CEV system.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-22 08:10:08

Problem is an aerodynamic shuttle would have little use beyond LEO. Wings are exclusively a frill and prove more complex than a capsule design - even a lifting body is troublesome - just ask Lockheed and its X-33 program.
Here's my suggestion, and I think this should be the only route taken for space exploration in LEO from now on: leave winged, LEO vehicles to commerical space programs. SpaceShipOne (and Two) are already showing the way to this route.
If the government starts up a new shuttle-esque program believe me it will fly like a rock just like X-33...or should I say a rock with flimbsy wings? A commercial program with its focus on product and less on bureacracy will get the job done at easily 1/5 of the cost and without compromising safety either.
Once in a while perhaps a government-spondered contest but beyond that I don't think it's nessicary...much like the hundreds of repeatative JPEG pictures of shuttles and capsules on your page.
true
the new Shuttle will be only for LEO while the CEV will be only for moon missions
the Kliper (if Russia will have the money to build it) is winged and (maybe) also a (possible) future China-Shuttle ...
little privantes don't have the money, the experience, the technology and the knowlendge to build and fly a Shuttle
only the big space agencies and countries can... if they want, of course
.

Governments have the money, that is true. The problem is, governments often spend the money in ways that are politically motivated rather than the most efficient. The consideration of funcing the mission or completing the project is often secondary to the one of creating jobs for one's home district, or swaying the vote of a certain senator by awarding a fat jucy cost-plus contract to some supplier. The agency might end up buying things and services it doesn't need. The vehicle design itself might be changed to satisfy certain requirements and constituents. The matters of cost and efficiency are usually the last to be considered, and only by the congressional budget office looking to save money to spend on their own pork barrel project that has nothing to do with space travel. If the only matter to be considered is whose congressional district or state benefits from the added jobs from government spending, then NASA is ultimately going to lose out.

The Space Station thing is another matter, in that project we needed Russia's participation, not to share costs or to make use of their expertise, but to satisfy the Doves in our own Congress who wanted to see us making peace with the Russians and involving ourselves in collaborative projects with them. Another consideration is to employ Russian Rocket scientists, so they don't work for the Iranians, I think in that goal, the ISS project has failed, and its design was compromised to make use of russian components, and its orbit was made less usefull from the need to launch some of the components from Russia. A lot of energy was wasted by launching the ISS into a high inclination orbit, this served to make the ISS project more expensive and to take away funds from other endeavors such as space exploration, or building a successor to the Shuttle.

What government should do is provide the money and say what it wants, and then shut up. The government should keep what it wants constant, it should not say to the company how it wants it to be accomplished or what subcontractors they should employ, or where they should build their plants, so long as they are in the United States. The private companies should be allowed a free hand in design without government buerocrats and politicians looking over their shoulder, and so long as they meet the government's objective then the money should be rewarded after the fact to the company that delivers the goods for the lowest cost.

I think a stepwise process of intermediate awards would be best, with a first, a second and a third prize. The first prize winners product should then be used in the next step of the project. if the company is a third prize winner, it is still in the competition for the next step of the project, the second and third prizes serve to defray the cost of the investment for the investors, and keep them in the competion.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-06-02 08:52:57

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#27 2006-06-02 10:19:18

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#28 2006-06-02 10:22:21

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#29 2006-06-02 11:07:20

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#30 2006-06-02 11:12:51

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#31 2006-06-02 11:23:11

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#32 2006-06-02 15:40:38

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#33 2006-06-02 17:00:02

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#34 2006-06-07 17:32:56

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#35 2006-08-03 07:50:44

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#36 2006-08-03 09:30:41

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#37 2006-08-03 14:21:47

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#38 2006-08-03 14:30:46

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#39 2006-08-03 15:56:33

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#40 2006-08-03 16:12:44

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#41 2006-08-03 20:00:50

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#42 2006-08-03 20:21:58

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#43 2006-08-04 10:02:36

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#44 2006-08-11 16:04:58

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#45 2006-08-21 10:16:42

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#46 2006-08-22 08:10:08

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

Board footer