Brian Thorn wrote:
On 15 Jan 2006 20:58:02 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

The Stardust reentry capsule looks like it worked.

"http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stardust/multimedia/capsule-1.html"

Why does CEV have to be a cone? Wouldn't a more efficient
shape, that could provide more useful interior space, look
more like Stardust?

By the way, Stardust looks a lot like a truncated cone to me. The
difference between it and Apollo is that Stardust doesn't have the LM
tunnel sticking up from the middle (Apollo's was surrounded by
parachutes pre-splashdown). Stardust's chute is gone in that photo,
otherwise, it's main body is Apollo.

You're right. The cone angle does look to be about the same as
Apollo and the proposed CEV. It is the heat shield that is
different.

I suppose I am wondering why a cone won out for CEV over a
flatter side wall shape, perhaps something like Soyuz, which
could provide better interior space.

- Ed Kyle