Re: Astronauts like capsules


"John Doe" <jdoe@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:45247DDC.9079DBA2@xxxxxxxxxx
"mmaker@xxxxxxxxxxx" wrote:
As far as I can see, the only reason people have any real interest in
'winged shuttles' is because Von Braun wanted one in the 50s. They seem
to provide few real benefits and lots of costs: one of the most obvious
being that if you lose a wing you're dead.

Lose a parachute and you're dead.

That's why Apollo had three. There was at least one mission where one of
them didn't completely inflate. This resulted in a harder than normal
splash down, but nothing too serious. Also, Soyuz has backup parachutes.
They're not as big as the main chutes, but they're meant to be a backup.

What's your backup for a wing?

Winged vehicles provide for a more benign re-entry for passengers/cargo,
and definitely more benign landing for passenger and cargo.

This is only partly true. I used to have a graph on my wall showing the
G-loading for an Apollo capsule on a LEO mission. Looking for it in Google
Groups...

Apollo 7, an Apollo CM re-entering from earth orbit, experienced a
maximum of less than 3.5 g's.

That's not bad at all. Just about anyone can take that, since I've been on
amuzement park rides that advertize 5 g's.

Also, if you make the Apollo capsule bigger in size, but not scale up the
mass accordingly, then I believe you can have an even gentler g-loading
since you can get more lift to keep you in the upper atmosphere longer which
means you avoid some of the peak g-loads you'd get in the denser atmosphere
with a denser capsule.

Ideally, ther USA would have both a capsule and a shuttle and would use
the capsule for simple passenger ferry, and use the shuttle for complex
transport/assembly tasks in orbit.

Not if keeping both is too expensive, which is the situation today.

However, if one decides you must have only one vehicle, you can choose
to be like southwest and fly the capsule only. It forces you to abandon
complex tasks in LEO such as assembling stuff, but you get to be pretty
efficient at the simple task of ferrying a couple of passengers.

Actually, it just means that assembly in LEO needs to be done at an
appropriate site. Say something like an ISS node attached to an ISS
airlock, a solar array/radiator, and etc. This ISS lite would be better
placed in an orbit easily acessable by KSC (ISS isn't).

Keeping the shuttle only means you are inefficient at carrying just
passengers, but are able to perform the complex tasks.

Lets not forget that dropping the shuttle also drops the whole concept
of resupplying the station with MPLMs, returning failed ISS components
such as CMGs for post mortems etc.

No it doesn't. You send up an unmanned CEV filled with cargo and dock like
Progress. If you don't need to return cargo, you send up a CEV's SM with a
cargo module on the front (think ATV).

The CEV is both your taxi and your small pickup truck. What you lose is
your semi-truck that can go both up and down.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Earliest five?
    ... My admittedly simplistic analysis of spacecraft vs motor vehicle ... I worked on the Apollo capsules during the fire abatement modification ... They were trapped in the capsule behind a simple metal plate hatch with ... If NASA was as cautious in 1969 was they have been on the Space Shuttle ...
    (rec.motorcycles.tech)
  • Re: Congratulations NASA
    ... of the Apollo missions but using Shuttle components to minimize cost. ... capsule on top. ... reusing the solid fuel boosters -- the small one is basically a single ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: VSE Development vs. Shuttle Development
    ... ISS, and perhaps not until Ares is killing people. ... Compare the current approach to the VSE to that behind the Shuttle in ... Shuttle contractors busy. ... In 1972 we had just had the great successes of Apollo. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Shuttle flying till at least 2015
    ... Any manned vehicle could have done this, the shuttle ... The ISS could have build using the MIR ... only a dammfool thinks that a capsule could come anywhere close to ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Its Been Time To Scrap The Shuttle For Years
    ... >> seems to be more reliable than the shuttle. ... What am I overlooking? ... and nothing's collided with ISS yet and breached the hull. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
Loading