Transterrestrial Musings  


Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
Journoblogs
The Ombudsgod
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
Joanne Jacobs


Site designed by


Powered by
Movable Type
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Someone Call PETA | Main | Happy Birthday, Bob »

Back To The Future

I still plan to write something about this soon, but Jeff Faust has a good overview of the latest concept to meet NASA's Shuttle replacement/complement needs, an Apollo capsule derivative.

Posted by Rand Simberg at May 07, 2003 11:43 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/mt-diagnostics.cgi/1223

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.
Comments

As Faust says in the linked story,

...the report makes it clear that an ?Apollo-derived? CRV or CTV will place far more of an emphasis on ?derived? than on ?Apollo?. Other than the generic shape of the capsule and a few minor subsystems, very little of the original Apollo design was deemed suitable for a future design. This should put the brakes on speculation that all NASA needs to do to build a new capsule is to simply dust off the old Apollo design.
This should be obvious, since even the Shuttle Orbiter can't be cheaply replicated today -- too much of the technology is antiquated and no longer readily available; the additional decade and a half between it and Apollo only makes matters worse for Apollo.

The issues surrounding land-landing and the trajectory of the deorbit module only make capsules worse as a successful CRV design. I don't have much faith in the Apollo-derived solutions -- I see them as a good way to find yet another corner to work ourselves into, and NASA has shown itself to be a master of that.

Posted by Troy at May 8, 2003 12:32 AM

The pic over the article isn't Skylab- it's
the last Apollo removing the docking mechanism
for the Apollo-Soyuz mission.

Posted by Dave A Burroughs at May 8, 2003 08:13 AM

I'm sorry, I don't get it (yeah, call me stupid.) To keep cost down you only want to send up the absolute minimum required to get people back down. That means a reentry vehicle only large enough for passengers and heat shield. The command module doesn't need to go up but once and never has to come down (until it's useful life is over.)

Once the RV hits the atmosphere it should self orient (heat shield directed by center of gravity) and allow for unconscious passengers. Add airbags and parachutes to a teardrop.

Don't call it a command module (call it an orbital tug) it's job is to catch the RV before it plunges safely back into the atmosphere.

Since you only have to send the tug (or fleet of tugs) up once, you can make them big and powerful (and not aerodynamic.)

Somebody tell me what I'm missing (or is this just not glamorous enough?)

When the space elevator become real I'll buy a ticket, until then we should concentrate on cheap and scalable.

Posted by ken anthony at May 8, 2003 06:08 PM


Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments: