Brian Gaff wrote:
Hmm, if all you wanted was a one size fits all solution, as per the current
Shuttle, then I guess you could do this, but from what I read, this is not
what is wanted now. Times and ways of doing stuff change with the benefit of
hindsight...

What is wanted is the Enterprise with its light-speed capable shuttles,
transparent aluminium windows, shields etc.

What is wanted is $10 per pound launch costs.

It is, in my opinion, unrealisting to expect to go from $10,000.00 down to
$10.00 in just one generation of ship, unless you have made a very dramatic
discovery in the meantime. (anti-gravity engines or whatever).

So, unless/until you make a dramatic discovery, the best thing would be to
fine tune your current systems, instead of totally re-inventing what will turn
out to be the same thing with a different shape.

So, how can you add a crew escape option to the current design?Do you really
want to carry huge items to orbit with humans in the same vehicle?

is crew escape really necessary ? Or is is just a requirement inserted in
there to eliminate a shuttle-like solution ? Are cars equipped with ejection
seats in case the brake system fails while car is barreling down a long hill
with a steep curve at the bottom ?

NASA hasn't revealed much about the crew cabin of Columbia. *IF* just
protecting the aft bulkhead with thermal blankets would have been sufficient
to shield the crew from the fire (and proper use of suits to keep them alive
with O2 until low enough altitude), is there really a need for an escape
system that can be used during re-entry ? And as far as Challenger is
concerned, since it seems that the crew cabin did survive the explosion,
wouldn't current bailout procedures (had they been implemented back then) have
made it possible to survive this ?

As for advances in technology, you do have much smaller electronics and
with a better capability, you also have considerable experience with
composites for rigid structures.

That is just fine tuning. None of those will give you the dramatic cost
reductions.

None of the current "new" technologies in the works (ion drive, nuclear
engines) are usable at launch. So perhaps what is needed is to use a
conventional space truck to bring stuff to LEO where the new technologies can
then be launched.

Also, the avionics for a ship that goes to Moon or Mars are going to be very
different from those going from earth to LEO. So I am not so sure that NASA
should be putting all its eggs in one CEV backet.

I think having an improved shuttle as well as some form of space-only crewed
vehicle would be a better solution. Upon returning from moon, such a ship
would de-accelerate into LEO, and then crew would transfer to a waiting
Shuttle for the hot re-entry. (with the vehicle either staying in orbit, or
brought back in shuttle's cargo bay).

And when you consider the Mars mission, there is absolutely no way that you'll
be able to launch the whole kit and kaboodle in a single rocket. Assembly in
LEO will be required. And such a ship is much more liklely to look like the
ISS than a CEV/Soyuz/Apollo thing. (although it would include some form of
lander for Mars).