"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
On the other hand, complaining about others (e.g. Soyuz) doesn't
accomplish
much.

On the other hand, attempting to learn from the problems of others
rather than lionizing them and handwaving away the issues may be a
path to accompling much.

One of the carved-in-stone doctrines of the Capsule Cabal is that
capsules are utterly and completely safer and more reliable than any
other form of space transportation. So Mote it Be. Let he who
questions this be cast beyond the pale. Amen.

Out here in the real world, we find that doctrine to not entirely
accord with reality. Answers to the question 'why?' could be crucial.

The latest info about the Lockheed Martin CEV proposal shows that it's crew
module would be a lifting body landing by parachutes and air bags. This may
be a reasonable compromise between a winged vehicle and a capsule. The
lifting body would presumably give higher hypersonic lift than a capsule,
reducing the g-loads on the passengers and increasing cross range, while
falling back to (capsule proven) parachutes for final descent allows you to
land "almost anywhere".

You still have a more complex design than a capsule (the movable aerodynamic
surfaces and likely lack of a completely passive reentry mode), but you do
eliminate some complex equipment like landing gear, brakes, nose wheel
steering, and the like that you need on a vehicle intended to make a runway
landing.

I personally think the ability to land on water and pretty much any other
flat surface (can you say US Great Plains) is a good thing when you're
returning from the Moon or Mars.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.