Future man in space/shuttle replacement vehicles

As a follow-on to recent discussions of the shuttle or manned space
exploration in several threads on these two groups, an illustration of
one of NASA's current concepts for future space exploration vehicles is
temporarily available at

http://www.stanford.edu/~siegman/shuttle_replacement.gif

If anyone can supply a link to this same graphic on an official NASA or
other website, I'd be glad to have it.

AES wrote:
As a follow-on to recent discussions of the shuttle or manned space
exploration in several threads on these two groups, an illustration of
one of NASA's current concepts for future space exploration vehicles is
temporarily available at

http://www.stanford.edu/~siegman/shuttle_replacement.gif

Gee, looks like we've gone back to the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo
design era with these two. The manned craft will obviously have
to splash down in the ocean!

--
Cliff

The manned craft will obviously have to splash down in the ocean!
Obviously, just like the Soyuz, right?

Oh wait.. Soyuz lands on... well, land. If Rogalo parachutes are
used, no reason these new guys can't land on a runway or the front lawn
at KSC.

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

Ben Hallert wrote:
The manned craft will obviously have to splash down in the ocean!

Obviously, just like the Soyuz, right?

Oh wait.. Soyuz lands on... well, land. If Rogalo parachutes are
used, no reason these new guys can't land on a runway or the front lawn
at KSC.

The Russians have been doing it for almost 50 years, I doubt the US has
learned the economics of this yet.

mrtravel wrote:
[ about landing on land instead of water ]
The Russians have been doing it for almost 50 years, I doubt the US has
learned the economics of this yet.

Another thing about the Russians... thank goodness they built that
Progress automated supply rocket. With all the shuttle delays the past
few years, their unmanned device has kept the ISS going. So unmanned
is handy sometimes.

OTOH, man is adventurous, and I believe we need the knowledge gained by
sending people into space. Think of it this way: would millions of
people around the world have watched as closely back in 1969, if it
were just a robot setting foot on the moon? No way. The whole point
was sending men to the moon and bringing them back again safely.

I cannot imagine not exploring space at least partly in person. That'd
be like all of us still sitting in Europe while robots roamed North
America since 1492.

Cheers, Kev

Ben Hallert wrote:
The manned craft will obviously have to splash down in the ocean!
Obviously, just like the Soyuz, right?

Oh wait.. Soyuz lands on... well, land. If Rogalo parachutes are
used, no reason these new guys can't land on a runway or the front lawn
at KSC.

Ben, my main point, that you apparently missed, is that NASA
intends to go back to the methods of 40 years ago. But with
the disaster that has been the shuttle program, I guess this
inclination is understandable.

--
Cliff

Ben, my main point, that you apparently missed, is that NASA
intends to go back to the methods of 40 years ago. But with
the disaster that has been the shuttle program, I guess this
inclination is understandable.

--
Cliff


I kind of agree... seems like a capsule program is a step backward... but
then again, isn't it cheaper to build a brand new Saturn V rocket and capsul
for every launch, then it is to refit a "re-usable" shuttle (just pulling
that out outa my rear, but i seem to recall somewhere seeing that building a
SatV in todays dollars is still cheaper than refitting a shuttle)? I still
don't see why a capsule system can't be "re-usable" boosters seperate,
deploy chutes and land, lower stages sep and land, upper stages will likely
be lost, but crew capsul can be reused..... The real downside i see to that
particular system is the need for two vehicles at each launch... cargo and
crew, why not beef up the cargo launch system, and throw the crew cap on top
of it, ship them individually as needed to support the ISS with
crew/supplies.

Frankly I think the ideal way to go would be a single stage to space
aircraft, that can land, get fuel/supplies, and be back in space within a
few days, but i don't see that anytime soon.

nooneimportant wrote:

I kind of agree... seems like a capsule program is a step backward... but
then again, isn't it cheaper to build a brand new Saturn V rocket and capsul
for every launch, then it is to refit a "re-usable" shuttle (just pulling
that out outa my rear, but i seem to recall somewhere seeing that building a
SatV in todays dollars is still cheaper than refitting a shuttle)?

Well, it might be, but we haven't had the capability of building a Saturn V for
well over a decade now. It would probably take 10 years to redevelop the
manufacturing facilities.

The Russians still have their mass lifters, though, and we collaborate with them
these days.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

nooneimportant wrote:





Ben, my main point, that you apparently missed, is that NASA
intends to go back to the methods of 40 years ago. But with
the disaster that has been the shuttle program, I guess this
inclination is understandable.

--
Cliff



I kind of agree... seems like a capsule program is a step backward... but
then again, isn't it cheaper to build a brand new Saturn V rocket and capsul
for every launch, then it is to refit a "re-usable" shuttle (just pulling
that out outa my rear, but i seem to recall somewhere seeing that building a
SatV in todays dollars is still cheaper than refitting a shuttle)? I still
don't see why a capsule system can't be "re-usable" boosters seperate,
deploy chutes and land, lower stages sep and land, upper stages will likely
be lost, but crew capsul can be reused..... The real downside i see to that
particular system is the need for two vehicles at each launch... cargo and
crew, why not beef up the cargo launch system, and throw the crew cap on top
of it, ship them individually as needed to support the ISS with
crew/supplies.

Frankly I think the ideal way to go would be a single stage to space
aircraft, that can land, get fuel/supplies, and be back in space within a
few days, but i don't see that anytime soon.





If the cost prevents developing a cheap cargo lifter then the space
program will continue to be a disaster.

wrote:

Ben Hallert wrote:

The manned craft will obviously have to splash down in the ocean!

Obviously, just like the Soyuz, right?

Oh wait.. Soyuz lands on... well, land. If Rogalo parachutes are
used, no reason these new guys can't land on a runway or the front lawn
at KSC.


Ben, my main point, that you apparently missed, is that NASA
intends to go back to the methods of 40 years ago. But with
the disaster that has been the shuttle program, I guess this
inclination is understandable.

I'm not sure I'd characterize the Shuttle Program as a "disaster".
Including the latest, the shuttles have flown 114 missions in a pretty
"grueling" environment. The fact that NASA and contractor engineers and
scientists may have under estimated the rigours and over estimated the
life expectancy of these craft wouldn't be strange given the novel
design considerations and virtual complete lack of experience. I suspect
that it they can fund a replacement design, it will prove to be a
significantly better craft and that they (and we) will have more
realistic expectations...

....Ken