CEV Question?

Does anyone have news on the final config of the CEV? Also does anyone
know if they will really fly this, (Or will it be another paper rocket,
(i.e. Crew return, Venture STar, etc...)?

Thanks,

Carl

wrote:

Does anyone have news on the final config of the CEV?

No. It's still being designed.

Also does anyone
know if they will really fly this, (Or will it be another paper rocket,
(i.e. Crew return, Venture STar, etc...)?

No, no one knows.

On 17 May 2006 13:19:53 -0700, wrote:

Does anyone have news on the final config of the CEV?

No, NASA won't select a Prime Contractor (Lockheed-Martin or Northrop
and Boeing) until July-August. So that is the earliest we'll get
detailed configuration information, and of course, prototypes and
early testing will probably lead to changes, so a "final config" is
still years off. If there is a major political upheaval with the
mid-terms, the whole thing might get revamped into a Delta or
Atlas-launch system to save money versus NASA's inhouse Crew Launch
Vehicle, and that would cause further changes.

Also does anyone
know if they will really fly this, (Or will it be another paper rocket,
(i.e. Crew return, Venture STar, etc...)?

CEV itself seems to have fairly broad support on Capitol Hill, so I
suspect it will really fly. Whether the follow-on moon program moves
forward is a lot more iffy. Whether anything flies before, say, 2015
is even iffier.

Brian

The Dyna-Soar Project files should all be dragged out and update the
Electronics. We could be flying in a matter of a year or two. The leg
work was already done for design and the EELV's, (Atlas and Delta), are
fine for a booster. There are still a few Space Cowboy's left to help
with the Sim. planning! Why not use what we have already worked out?
And for LEO transfer of folks, an up scaled Peg. air Launched would do
just fine! Maybe I'm stupid but it really ain't rocket sci. no more. If
burt can have NASA's budget we could be on mars in 12 months, (LOL).

Carl

Well I was just making a joke about the rocket sci. The Dyna soar was
windtunnel tested on many profiles. The Atlas V or Delta IV config
would not be a problem for flight profile. The main thing would be the
center of gravity issue. That could be cured easy enough. It is time
for the NASA folks to stop playing around and apply the designs for
flight that area already ready. STOL may not be cool for a while but a
combination of one of the old paper tigers with a new booster can be
done now without all the bull that is floating around as new program
design. We need to get to LEO with human cargo. We can use a truck for
the rest. We can be back on the moon in 3 or 4 years without all the
pie in the sky stuff that NASA is putting out. The Space Station needs
to be completed and used as a stepping stone for a perm. base on the
moon. We need to do the research to put boots on Mars in 10 years! It
can be done and should be done! The crying about funding needs to end
and the work with data already in hand needs to begin. Hoist and set
sail, the stars are like dust!

Carl

On 18 May 2006 05:50:16 -0700, wrote:

The Dyna-Soar Project files should all be dragged out and update the
Electronics.

Note that this would be probably a bigger job than dragging out and
updating the electronics of Apollo, which is essentially what NASA is
doing. (Apollo actually flew, so we know the shape's aerodynamic
characteristics across all flight regimes, DynaSoar never progressed
beyond the mockup phase.)

We could be flying in a matter of a year or two.

The big problem with CEV (besides it being a government project
vulnerable to governmental whims) is that there is no money to build
it yet. This won't change if you decide to go with DynaSoar.

The leg
work was already done for design and the EELV's, (Atlas and Delta), are
fine for a booster.

No, they would face the same problem that renders them less than ideal
for CEV... they fly lofted trajectories that result in unsurvivable
abort options during certain phases of flight. This will get worse
with a DynaSoar on top, since DynaSoar would be even heavier (the EELV
would have to be beefed up to take the aerodynamic loads generated by
DynaSoar's wings. Note those huge fins on the bottom of the various
proposed DynaSoar launchers back in the 60s artwork.... they were
there to counteract the wings.)

Brian

See some of this stuff
http://www.transformspace.com/index....F15F270F2B83AA

This is air launched.

Bear in mind the purpose of the current architecture is not to cut
costs, rather to preserve exisitng jobs. I beleive the two launchers
have been christened Porklauncher 1B and Porklauncher V.

Thanks, Alex! The link is good! I have read it before. Cool idea but we
need to get going right now! I think the name Porklauncher V is right
on the money. The shuttle parts are are cool toys but need to be put
away now. The rubber needs to hit the road and hardware needs to be in
production! Brain is incorrect about the dyna-sor short falls. The main
problem again would be the center of gravity. The fins are not needed
for flight this was a artist moving into fantasy after a conver,. with
engineering. Gimble tech has come a long way since that coloring book.
Dyna Soar was much more than a mock up. It was ready for flight test.
The model on display in Dayton is a real spacecraft, (Not a mock up).
The Tooling is still around, (in storage for Dyna Saor, Gemini, & Big
Gemini). The projects where mothballed and stored for restart if
national need call for. The Apollo hardware did not fare so well, (Not
run by the Milt. folks). My Grand Uncle Dave Perry was shall we say in
the know on what was ready to fly. I know for a fact that the new
boosters with minor mod. would be just fine. And if it is a bell
capsule you want, then the Big Gemini data has also been fully
prepared. Just set up the tool and die and get to work. I hate to beat
a dead horse, but it is obvious that the history has been preverted to
spin professional, (LOL), opp. on this subject. We have done all the
studies we need. We have the tech and the config all worked out. just
chose a system from the shelf and go get the job done. This debate
should not be going on it is really a scam that we can't get going
right now! I have been a sitting back on this group for quite sometime.
It is amazing just how ignorant of fact and function some of the
posters are. I have been around these programs and know that we need to
unite under a flag of truth and fight off all this corp. B.S.

Let me know if you need the real story and no spin, for a future plan
that will work with research we've got in hand.

Carl

On 19 May 2006 08:46:12 -0700, wrote:

Brain is incorrect about the dyna-sor short falls.

Prove it, please. And I don't mean with "tales from your Grand Uncle."
(If I had a dollar for ever tall tale by grandfather told, I'd be a
rich man today.)

The main
problem again would be the center of gravity. The fins are not needed
for flight this was a artist moving into fantasy after a conver,. with
engineering.

You might want to do a little research on the subject, Duke, you're
making yourself look like a fool. The fins were needed to counteract
the bending forces caused by lift from X-20's wings. Gimabling only
gets you so far. You also need a stronger structure to handle the
aerodynamic effects of a winged vehicle on top, and that drives up
weight (which is why Dyna-Soar progressed from Atlas to Titan I to
Titan II and finally Titan III-C before it was finally cancelled.)

Gimble tech has come a long way since that coloring book.
Dyna Soar was much more than a mock up. It was ready for flight test.

No, it never progressed beyond early prototype construction. Only the
mockup was ever actually completed as anything resembling a
flightworthy vehicle.

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph31.pdf

"The X-20 program was cancelled before the first vehicle was
completed."

The model on display in Dayton is a real spacecraft, (Not a mock up).

Huh? The flight vehicle was never built and the big mockup was
scrapped decades ago. All they have at the Air Force Museum are two
scale wind-tunnel models.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/space_flight/sf.htm

The Tooling is still around, (in storage for Dyna Saor, Gemini, & Big
Gemini). The projects where mothballed and stored for restart if

That's funny, the people who were to build Dyna-Soar (Boeing) say the
tooling was scrapped.

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers...i_history.html

"The partially completed X-20 prototype and the mockup were scrapped,
as well as initial tooling set up for a production line for 10 space
planes."

Do you have a real source, besides your Grandpappy?

Brian

Yes I do and you do not know what the hell you are talking about son! I
was in Dayton many moons ago and witnessed the proto type being
transfered to the Air force collection!!! As for the tool and die,
(What alternate world do you live in), the standard line for any black
program is "We got rid of that"! As for proof write me off fourm and I
will scan some addresses for you to contact real folks who worked on
the program. As for my Grand Uncle. You have stepped into it there!
Dave Perry was the first true Aero. Eng.. He was a Prof. at Ohio State
in the 30's. He wrote the first course for teaching Aero. Eng.. During
the war he was the Gov.'s man who went to all the Plane Mfg. and set up
design standards and quailty assur. programs. After the war he was in
charge of Werner Von Brauns leash. He over saw the develp., (Quality
assurance and design standards), for the Redstone Ar. in Huntsville.
AL! You know that place don't you! Some people have been left out of
your historical rewrite due to the fact that they just wanted to be
right and did not want the lime light! Look up old dave and then let me
know that I am just another "Grand Pappy Story Teller!" The loading on
the frame was the reson for the atlas/X-20 drop. The Titan series was
better reinforced up top. You are dead wrong on the aero. problems
between payload and vehicle. You obviously have no formal training in
flow dynamics. The pressure decress as you move high will take care of
your concerns. You better save your dimes. I got plenty to spend kid!

P.S.
Don't come to a gun fight with a knife! You do not know enough about
the real programs to combat my attempt to educate you. The best thing
is to shut up and listen for a change so that the voice of reason can
force progress! Relax for a change and let someone who knows how to
lead. Like I said I am thru listening to B.S. I am going to start
speaking up!