Posted on 05/30/2006 12:13:48 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Please fix title.
Thanks!
Space Ping
Hopefully, the shuttle should never fly again. It's time has past.
This was viewed on FR last week as a smart move by NASA. There was an RS-68 launch a couple days ago--smooth, almost boring.
Old news!
The Lockheed team--consisting of six companies--came up with a CEV in three parts. The titanium crew module holds four to six astronauts and launches separately from the mission module and the propulsion stage. They rendezvous in orbit to create a 70-ft.-long vehicle that weighs just under 40 metric tons.
Is this still the current thinking?
I assume the RS-68's are throwaways, which is a shame.
One of the cost savings on the shuttle was the reusable engines.
This fuel is not available at your local Texaco or Chevron station. Liquid hydrogen is a liquid, though.
The "new" shuttle engines would have been throwaways.
And nothing about the Shuttle program was cost saving in spite of intentions.
At least they have the crew module where there won't be environmentally friendly junk falling on it.
I thought they were designing a runway take off and landing craft not a rocket with throw away boosters.
They decided over a year ago to take the cheaper and safer route.
No. The Delta-winged CEV has been replaced by a blunt-end-forward, Apollo-type crew "capsule." A separate vehicle, the LSAM, will do the actual lunar landing.
[One of the cost savings on the shuttle was the reusable engines.]
Cost saving and the Shuttle are two words that don't belong in the same sentence.
The derivitive of the SSME would also have been one use only. The tradeoffs considered was the cost per engine (SSME more expensive) vs. efficiency (Larger fuel tanks required for the RS-68's for equal performance.)
NASA apparently decided that it was cheaper to design a larger first stage tank system.
Does the new crew capsule parachute back to earth?
Will they then rendezvous in orbit like this concept (the crew, mission, and propulsion modules)?
Actually, the tolerances and reliability specs for a reusable engine are what made them cost $80 million in the first place; and the every-mission inspections and overhauls made them expensive to maintain and operate. As a general rule it costs a lot of money to add another "9" to your reliability numbers, and when you're talking about high-power, man-rated rocket engines, you're talking a lot of money.
This sounds like a good decision.
This is perfect. Cargo does not need as much safeguarding and equipment redundancy as passengers. Make the cargo carrier cheap. The passenger craft can be much more refined if it is only carrying 1-2 tons of people.
Launch of crew in CEV, using SRB first-stage Crew Launch Vehicle.
Separate launch of LSAM and fueled injection stage using a Shuttle-derived heavy lift LV
CEV docks with LSAM and lunar injection stage in Earth orbit.
CEV and LSAM arrive in lunar orbit. All crew transfer to LSAM for trip to surface (CEV left unmanned in lunar orbit)
Lunar surface mission.
CEV flies home
Landing of CEV and crew, likely at Edwards or in Utah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.