Back to the Future? The Command Module Flies Again?

Boeing is using Command Module shaped hardware
and an Apollo type escape rocket in some of its recent concept drawings:

According to NASA Watch:

"Boeing has placed a dozen or so graphics online depicting a varety
of spacecraft one would expect to see proposed as part of the
President's new space policy."

http://www.nasawatch.com/

http://boeingmedia.com/images/search...roduct_id=1525

Some earlier Boeing OSP CM capsule shaped concepts.

http://boeingmedia.com/images/search.cfm?product_id=986



- Rusty Barton - Antelope, California


--
Visit my Thor IRBM History Website
http://www.geocities.com/thor_irbm/index.html

(Rusty B) wrote:

Boeing is using Command Module shaped hardware
and an Apollo type escape rocket in some of its recent concept drawings:

I guess a good design is a good design, regardless of how old or
recycled it is. ;-)

Byeeeee.
--
Gadzooks - here comes the Harbourmaster!
http://www.geocities.com/brettocallaghan - Newsgroup Stats for Agent

On 25 Jan 2004 23:26:36 -0800, (Rusty B)
wrote:

Boeing is using Command Module shaped hardware
and an Apollo type escape rocket in some of its recent concept drawings:

Boeing is just trying to cover all options since NASA has not yet
clearly defined their CEV needs, even if we all have a good idea what
they will require. Think "moon".

Got the Delta IV-H in there I see, as well as a Mars craft, a Luna
space station, cargo modules, TLI hardware and a Luna Lander.

Not quite got what I envisioned myself, but then there is a long way
to go yet. Hopefully, Boeing will slap a bit of colourful paint (not
that paint is the best idea) on their capsule, when/if they build it
for real.

I do find it interesting that Boeing, mostly wisely, does not also
envision something colossal like the CEV displayed in NASA's own CEV
animation.

Now if only they could land that capsule of theirs on the Moon, when
then you could well have your real CEV.

Not too sure about their inflatable ideas, when it would pose a
serious temperature problem being so thin. Not of course to forget the
remote possibility of a puncture, even by the crew.

According to NASA Watch:

"Boeing has placed a dozen or so graphics online depicting a varety
of spacecraft one would expect to see proposed as part of the
President's new space policy."

http://www.nasawatch.com/

http://boeingmedia.com/images/search...roduct_id=1525

Boeing is sure wanting their slice of the CEV budget. :-]

Interestingly enough they have not yet considered making a larger
rocket better suitable for Moon launches, like with using those RS-84
engines that they are currently developing.

On a personal note, then if NASA ever does one of those Saturn V type
launches ever again with "U.S.A" flying past the camera, then I hope
following this they will also put "F*** You!" followed by a middle
finger sign pointing upwards. ;-]

Now there would be pride in their country and achievements, where the
USA rules and everyone else are just sad losers.

Ok, so it will never happen, but I would die laughing if it ever did.

Some earlier Boeing OSP CM capsule shaped concepts.

http://boeingmedia.com/images/search.cfm?product_id=986

Yes, their former OSP designs.

I see that Boeing's designs have changed a great deal in the past
year, when beforehand they also presented wing designs, while now they
show only capsules.

In other words they offer all that they think NASA may want, where
NASA helps a great deal in narrowing down their artist conception
designs for them.

I now wonder when NASA will start saying what hardware they want,
which I can imagine is not an easy choice.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Cardman wrote in
:

Not too sure about their inflatable ideas, when it would pose a
serious temperature problem being so thin.

Where did you hear that inflatables must be thin? Transhab, the proposed
inflatable hab for ISS, would have been a foot thick. I see no reason to
believe a lunar inflatable would be any thinner than Transhab.

Not of course to forget the
remote possibility of a puncture, even by the crew.

In hypervelocity impact tests at JSC, Transhab proved to be more impact
resistant than the aluminum hab it would have replaced. I don't think you
need to worry about crew punctures.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On 26 Jan 2004 13:53:25 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Cardman wrote in
:

Not too sure about their inflatable ideas, when it would pose a
serious temperature problem being so thin.

Where did you hear that inflatables must be thin?

They usually are, where Boeing's diagrams do not indicate thick walls.

Transhab, the proposed
inflatable hab for ISS, would have been a foot thick. I see no reason to
believe a lunar inflatable would be any thinner than Transhab.

Then why bother with inflation if the walls are so thick? As in that
case you could just use solid metal or some plastics.

Sure inflatable makes the launch size easier, but I doubt that it
would help the mass much.

The best idea for an inflatable is for an easy up greenhouse for your
space crops, where sure there is hope for making you own virtual
bouncy castle living area in space.

Not of course to forget the
remote possibility of a puncture, even by the crew.

In hypervelocity impact tests at JSC, Transhab proved to be more impact
resistant than the aluminum hab it would have replaced. I don't think you
need to worry about crew punctures.

Then I won't, but metal is never that good concerning impacts compared
to a layered textile approach.

So how these things do in terms of mass?

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Cardman wrote:

On 26 Jan 2004 13:53:25 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:


In hypervelocity impact tests at JSC, Transhab proved to be more impact
resistant than the aluminum hab it would have replaced. I don't think you
need to worry about crew punctures.

Then I won't, but metal is never that good concerning impacts compared
to a layered textile approach.

The real quations is: "How did it do compared to the combined hull and
meteoroid/debris shield actually flown on the lab?"

And then that answer has to be qualified by the results of:

"Is it worth it to toss out years of design and development of the aluminum
structures chosen as the baseline, especially in light of the
manufacturing, test and evaluation infrastructure already built up to
support that choice of aluminum structure?"

The subtext to all of this discussion of Transhab-like stuff goes back to
the not-so-secret fights between JSC (which wanted a bigger piece of the
space station pie after Space Station Freedom Work Package 1 - including
all the pressurized elements - was given to MSFC) and MSFC (which saw any
concept for a pressurized station element from JSC as a sour grapes/spoiled
sport attempt by JSC to grab back what it had lost in space station work).

The real problem with Transhab wasn't technical but it was the fact that all
of the preliminary (and most if not all of the final) design work for the
"standard" hard-shell Hab modules was already completed by the time the
Transhab folks really got going. A *lot* had been invested already and
time, money, and political capital was short in the program already.
Remember, test module structures had already been been fab'd and were under
test, program PDRs were completed, CDRs were planned or underway, many subs
were having CDRs of their own for components and subassemblies. Integrated
ECLSS systems tests had been ongoing at MSFC for several years, a whole
module manufacturing high bay/Class 10,000 clean room had been constructed
to build these modules. The whole process was *way* past just inflating an
empty shell in a vacuum chamber. Anything which derailed the final
design/dev process was not accepted lightly.


--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

Cardman writes:

On 26 Jan 2004 13:53:25 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:
Where did you hear that inflatables must be thin?

They usually are, where Boeing's diagrams do not indicate thick walls.

Those are not diagrams. They are artist's concepts. They do not
depict any actual hardware design. They are surely for publicity, not
engineering.

Transhab, the proposed
inflatable hab for ISS, would have been a foot thick. I see no reason to
believe a lunar inflatable would be any thinner than Transhab.

Then why bother with inflation if the walls are so thick? As in that
case you could just use solid metal or some plastics.

When you have a limited diameter payload shroud (or shuttle payload
bay) foot thick walls start to seriously eat into your interior
volume.

Sure inflatable makes the launch size easier, but I doubt that it
would help the mass much.

You mean that it doesn't use up enough mass to demand your HLV pet
project. Seriously, look at the Transhab project. Transhab would
have been a HUGE ISS module launched on the shuttle (the same shuttle
that had to launch the US Lab mostly empty due to mass constraints).

Now that Bush wants to return to the moon, in hindsight Transhab would
have been a very useful project to complete on ISS. Strangely enough,
some of its opponents, at the time, used the possible applications of
this technology (e.g. Mars mission) as a reason to lobby against the
project.

In hypervelocity impact tests at JSC, Transhab proved to be more impact
resistant than the aluminum hab it would have replaced. I don't think you
need to worry about crew punctures.

Then I won't, but metal is never that good concerning impacts compared
to a layered textile approach.

So how these things do in terms of mass?

Try doing a Google search on Transhab. In terms of mass, you get more
deployed volume per launched mass than you do with the aluminum cans
typically used on ISS.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

"Brett O'Callaghan" wrote in message
...
(Rusty B) wrote:

Boeing is using Command Module shaped hardware
and an Apollo type escape rocket in some of its recent concept drawings:

I guess a good design is a good design, regardless of how old or
recycled it is. ;-)

Absolutely. The Russians have been using them for years

jeff findley wrote:

Try doing a Google search on Transhab. In terms of mass, you get more
deployed volume per launched mass than you do with the aluminum cans
typically used on ISS.


Of course, more volume means more gas necessary for crew, which means
greater ECLSS requirements which means greater ECLSS power requirements.
Et cetera, et cetea, ad nauseum. Further, since the module is launched
deflated and packaged, ALL fitting out must be done after launch. No one
seems to remember or care that THIS REQUIREMENT alone killed Transhab as
part of SSF - there was a level one requirement for very thorough ground
integration testing, especially in wake of the Hubble fiasco (just such
testing would have easily discovered the flaw in the primary mirror). One
could argue that this requirement ended with the SSF -- ISS morph - after
all, many systems modules were installed on-orbit. Of course, by that
time, the project was in such flux that no one wanted to take a risk for a
whole new element design, especially in light of the investment already
made in the then-existing designs and the political situation between
centers.

Also, there is a substantial difference between plugging in and turning on
an ECLSS rack or an experiment rack, taking advantage of existing mount
points, installed power, data and fluid interfaces, etc. and building it
all up, piece by piece on orbit.

The real problem with an
--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

In article ,
Cardman wrote:
Not too sure about their inflatable ideas, when it would pose a
serious temperature problem being so thin. Not of course to forget the
remote possibility of a puncture, even by the crew.

As others have noted, with multi-wall design, this isn't an issue. In
fact, inflatables generally score better on debris/meteorite puncture
resistance, because the designers of rigid modules have trouble providing
adequate spacing between the bumper sheet and the backstop. Wider
spacing, to let the debris cloud spread out farther before it hits the
backstop, improves protection *much* more than adding mass... but since
the bad experience on Skylab, NASA has been afraid of *deployable*
bumpers, so added wall depth has to come out of interior space, which
discourages wide spacing. But inflatables deploy everything anyway, so
they can have quite wide spacings between the layers of their walls.

Interestingly enough they have not yet considered making a larger
rocket better suitable for Moon launches, like with using those RS-84
engines that they are currently developing.

The immediate money is going to be for spacecraft, not rockets, and the
ability to fly on the existing EELVs is certain to be a requirement. So
this is not a good time to be pushing new rockets. (They have surely
*considered* it, but have decided to put the idea on the shelf for a
while -- it's not what NASA wants to hear just now.)

On a personal note, then if NASA ever does one of those Saturn V type
launches ever again with "U.S.A" flying past the camera, then I hope
following this they will also put "F*** You!" followed by a middle
finger sign pointing upwards. ;-]

Now there would be pride in their country and achievements, where the
USA rules and everyone else are just sad losers.

It would be particularly amusing if the rocket in question was an EELV or
EELV derivative, since both of those use major foreign components, the
"sad losers" being able to do some things better than the Americans can.
Most notably, Atlas V uses Russian engines because no competitive US
engine was available.

(In fact, if one wanted to revive the Saturn V itself right now and didn't
have an unlimited budget, one would seriously consider Russian engines for
the first stage, and the obvious choice for the second and third stages is
the French Vulcain, which is available off the shelf and has specs broadly
similar to the old J-2 except better.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |