Shuttle Successor Taking Shape

But the CEV's family lineage is obvious. The one on the left is the heavy-lift configuration for launching cargo. The one on the right is the crew vehicle. That's a capsule on top. Assembly in orbit. Lunar landing configuration.The capsules will land on dry ground with splashdown as a backup option. The fuel source of the upper stages will be liquid methane, chosen because it can be manufactured on the Martian surface.The capsules themselves are reusable up to ten times, the heat shield is removed and replaced each flight. Since that's on the top of the rocket, foam breakaway should not be an issue. Virtually all the booster components are off-the-shelf (or nearly so) from the Shuttle program.NASA - How We'll Get Back to the MoonNASA's New CEV Launcher to Maximize Use of Space Shuttle Components - SpaceRef

So, wait.These looks like Ol'school Apollo style rockets. Are they canning the idea of a reusable shuttle indefenetly?

quote:

---

So, wait.
These looks like Ol'school Apollo style rockets. Are they canning the idea of a reusable shuttle indefenetly?

---

From the articles, I would say yes and no. If you look carefully, the rockets use modules from the Shuttle system, they are just putting a capsule on top. The capsules themselves are reusable to a limited extent (ten times), with their heat shields each being used once and replaced. The spaceplane concept is completely gone, the capsules parachute down Apollo style, or actually more like the Russian system since they are supposed to be recovered from land. This simplifies the design quite a bit and possibly improves the safety margin since you have a much simpler and smaller surface exposed to heating on reentry. It's also much simpler to land. The capsule also has an escape rocket on the top, a throwback to pre-Shuttle days that greatly improves the abort option if something happens to the rocket on launch. After all, you can't turn off a solid-fueled stage once you light it.Since these capsules are also intended to service the ISS, it looks like spaceplanes are shelved for the time being.This message has been edited by gene90, 09-19-2005 04:38 PMThis message has been edited by gene90, 09-19-2005 04:41 PM

I think it's obvious that this is a reaction to China's ambition to go to the moon.

Thank the Gods for another communist menace so that capitalists will get off their lazy asses and explore the universe!On topic: I am glad we appear to be junking the space shuttle program. While well intentioned, it was patently a low expectations version of space exploration, which kept us navel gazing for years.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Amen to that! Saving face is as good a reason as any other... just so long as the job gets done.Two nights ago, heard some old Mission Control audios as Apollo 11 was "about to leave Earth orbit, and prepares for insertion into the interlunar trajectory". I felt tears well up. How long is it since humans last left Earth orbit other than to return to Earth? (Rhetorical)

I doubt it. A space plane has massive military implications and so can tap into a budget that is vast compared with NASA's budget. Who'd turn up their noses at a slice of that pie? How do you progress the next generation of missile defence without one?That this thing is a throwback indicates relatively small budgets and stop-gap measures whilst the main play continues behind the scenes...

quote:

---

I think it's obvious that this is a reaction to China's ambition to go to the moon.

---

I don't think anybody has forgotten that that is their stated ambition, yes.But it's more immediately traced to the Columbia disaster. That suddenly (and briefly) threw space exploration to the front of the public eye along with the realization that the program doesn't have any actual direction any more other than 'put payload X in orbit Y'. That and the perception of the Shuttle as a flawed vehicle made this political opportunity happen.China has been talking about the Moon for a number of years now, but within a year of the Columbia accident this came out of nowhere.

quote:

---

I doubt it. A space plane has massive military implications and so can tap into a budget that is vast compared with NASA's budget. Who'd turn up their noses at a slice of that pie? How do you progress the next generation of missile defence without one?

---

Well, okay, I was thinking about the American civilian program, not the military program. I've heard a claim before that the Air Force has a shuttle, I'm just not sure what they would use it for. But a spaceplane that could launch and land from a standard military runway, deliver a payload or interdict a satellite, and land, in one stage, and cycle in a matter of hours, would have immense military application.If you want to be technical, SpaceShipOne, the private sector's suborbital spacecraft, is a spaceplane. So in that sense, you're right.

quote:

---

On topic: I am glad we appear to be junking the space shuttle program. While well intentioned, it was patently a low expectations version of space exploration, which kept us navel gazing for years.

---

Right. And the latest version of the strategic plan I heard had much of the budget for the new program coming out of what we already spend on the shuttle.

Blasting missiles as they leave their silos perhaps. A lot easier to shoot at something sitting on the ground than trying to hit it when it's travelling at full whack. Satellites know as soon as a missile silo door opens. Shoot from space. Fish in a barrel....And 100% kill rate is all that is acceptable.

quote:

---

A lot easier to shoot at something sitting on the ground than trying to hit it when it's travelling at full whack.

---

This is certainly true, but why do you need a spaceplane to do this?Wouldn't it make more sense to have something from Star Wars (Reagan's version, not Lucas) already in orbit staring down at the silos?

quote:

---

Satellites know as soon as a missile silo door opens. Shoot from space. Fish in a barrel....

---

Then if I were the head of a rogue state, I would make it a habit to regularly open and close silo doors to see what the system's thresholds were. :-)

If I were the head of a rogue state - I wouldn't

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."