New Boeing Orbital Space plane design a capsule?

"Bruce Sterling Woodcock" writes:

But it seemed to work fine. Why through away
all the work done on it, just to re-invent Apollo?
Perhaps, starting from ground zero, an Apollo
style capsule is cheaper. But we're not at ground
zero.

I've been arguing against the X-38 style CRV since day one. The
requirements that led to X-38 are just as bad today as the day they
were written. At some point you have to decide to stop throwing good
money after bad.

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

"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message news:3f40cbf6$0$45371

TJF:
Just what I've been telling you--Apollo is the way to go.

LOL!! The U.S. will the laughing stock of the world if NASA goes with a
capsule.

Yes, and the world will look up to us in admiration the next time we
kill seven astronauts on a Shuttle flight. Right.

The best thing you can say about the Shuttle is 'it seemed like a good
idea at the time'.

It turned out to be a not so good idea and it's past time to begin
transitioning off of it. An Apollo style approach will be cheaper,
faster, and safer than any other alternative.

How many more winged vehicles to we need to waste more time and money
on before we just do the obvious?

"Dholmes" wrote in message ...
While trying to do research on the OSP I stumbled across four new
picturesreleased on 7-21-2003 by Boeing at
http://boeingmedia.com/photoreleases/index.cfm .

The four pictures are :

http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...7193&release=t

http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...7192&release=t

http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...7195&release=t

http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...7196&release=t


Anyone know what is going on?

Has Boeing swithced to a capsule design?

Is it possible that someday we will have an Apollo-Shenzhou joint
spaceflight? The more things change, the more they stay the same. ;-)

--
-Rusty Barton - Antelope, California

On 18 Aug 2003 06:23:13 -0700, (ed kyle) wrote:


But those thrusters seem to make it more reminiscent of Shenzou than
Soyuz. Just what is that module for?

It looks to me that this design breaks the old Apollo service
module into two functional modules. The capsule is obviously
a reentry module. The rear section seems to be a small
propulsion module designed primarily for de-orbit (at least
on an ISS mission).

With you so far...

The forward section looks like it most
likely is an "orbital module" designed to handle on-orbit
vehicle control, to provide electricity etc, to provide some
cargo space, and possibly to provide some on-orbit crew space.

But the other images do not show this module in place during launch,
so if it's a standard OSP configuration, it must be attached by
transpostion and docking, a'la Apollo.

In another recent thread, it was pointed out to me that such a large
"Service Module" would not be needed for OSP, and that most systems
could in fact be squeezed into the CM itself, especially a 16 foot
diameter CM possible with EELV launch. So whatever this large module
is, I don't think it is a standard OSP configuration.

Brian

On 18 Aug 2003 07:53:41 -0700, (Rusty B) wrote:

Look at this Boeing design with an Apollo shaped module attached to
the rear of the OSP plane.

http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cfm?image_id=6902

Looks to me like a Spacecraft / Launch Vehicle Adapter, with retro
thrusters to ensure no recontact at separation.

Brian

"Bruce Sterling Woodcock" :

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
"Ultimate Buu" writes:

LOL!! The U.S. will the laughing stock of the world if NASA goes with a
capsule.

You and hallerb must be brothers, because you think alike.

So, you'd prefer that public perception drive the design of NASA's
vehicles? That's the reason that we're still relying on Soyuz. NASA
tried to pursue the "lifting body" CRV approach and ended up with a
"lifting body" that had to make its final approach under the world's
largest parafoil. It's a stupid design who's requirements were
written such that the solution had to be a lifting body or something
with wings. You might as well stick the parafoil on a capsule
(easier, cheaper, lighter, better internal volume) and be done with
it.

But it seemed to work fine. Why through away
all the work done on it, just to re-invent Apollo?
Perhaps, starting from ground zero, an Apollo
style capsule is cheaper. But we're not at ground
zero.

Bruce

Because after trying something diffirent you find out the Apollo was the most
cost efficent after all. Just because you tried something new does not mean
you can't go back to the old way of doing things if the old way turns out to
be better.

Plus with modern engineering we can make Apollo style systems even cheaper
today.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

Ultimate Buu wrote:

Who gives a rat's ass what's "best", public opinion counts. A capsule is a
throw backwards to the stone age, it will put us on the same level with the
Chinese. The Chinese will be laughing their heads off if NASA picks an
Apollo-type capsule.

By any chance, is 'Buu' the word for 'idiot' in some language?

Paul

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 22:50:44 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

Look at this Boeing design with an Apollo shaped module attached to
the rear of the OSP plane.

http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cfm?image_id=6902

Looks to me like a Spacecraft / Launch Vehicle Adapter, with retro
thrusters to ensure no recontact at separation.

D'oh! The write-up says otherwise.

Brian

The OSP is a crew transport to orbiting assets that is needed ASAP. And it
needs to be as cheap and reliable as possible. Furthermore, NASA needs to
rebuild its credibility with Congress and bring in a manned project to a
finish while being close to on-cost and on-schedule. Given that, I think a
capsule fits the bill. Inspiring concept? I agree it isn't. But let the
astronauts be inspiring -- the spacecraft just needs to get the job done.

As for throw-away components, the tradeoff between reusable and disposal
components is strongly related to the expected missions of the program. OSP
is going to fly... what, maybe 3 times a year. Let's be optimitic and say
OSP is ready to fly in 2008. The station will probably be at its design
lifetime around 2012, but assume maybe it stays in operation until 2015. So
we're looking at 7 years of flights, between 20 and 30 flights total. If
it's cheaper to build certified expendable parts than it is to try to refit,
service, and certify reusable parts for that flight rate, then I'd say
expendable is the answer. Determining that answer is best left to the
systems engineers and the bean counters.

I don't think the recent lifting body work will go to waste. The
experiences those programs have given a new generation of engineers is
priceless, and will only benefit OSP and other programs after ISS.

Respectfully,
Gavin

"Doug Ellison" wrote in message
...

"Dholmes" wrote in message
...
While trying to do research on the OSP I stumbled across four new
picturesreleased on 7-21-2003 by Boeing at
http://boeingmedia.com/photoreleases/index.cfm .


Boody hell. Throw away a large cargo capsule, and a retro module every
time?

SURELY we've progressed since Gemini - or is a soyuz based design the best
we can do?

If NASA goes with this near throw-away design, while X37 and X38 research
goes to waste, then I'd be questioning what the hell NASA's trying to
achieve here.

Doug

"Ultimate Buu" :

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...

"Ultimate Buu" :
LOL!! The U.S. will the laughing stock of the world if NASA goes
with a capsule.

What? Making the best choice is what is needed. And if you mean that
it shows the wrong choice was made in the past, so what? Just because
you made a mistake in the past does not mean that you
must continue the mistake.

Anyway, in the real world 99% of the people in the world don't care
a hoot what the US uses to deliver cargo or people to the ISS, so
why care about the world's opinion?

Who gives a rat's ass what's "best", public opinion counts. A capsule is a
throw backwards to the stone age, it will put us on the same level with the
Chinese. The Chinese will be laughing their heads off if NASA picks an
Apollo-type capsule.

You design spacecraft on the basis of public opinion?
Not on best design/tech available?

Public counts for nothing when there is a 5,000 degree plasma wrap around you
during re-entry.

An Apollo capsule design with the latest tech will run circles around an old
Apollo unit or anything the Chinese can presently design. What will really
have the Chinese laughing at NASA if they successfully launch capsules while
NASA winged design keep on failing.

Let's revive the X-33, I say, or develop another SSTO (if feasible with
today's technology). At the very least an X-37 type shuttle should be used,
I don't care how much safer it is compared to the current Shuttle. Going
back to a capsule would be a national disgrace, whilst making poppycock out
of the billions of dollars in research spent on developing lifting bodies,
hypersonic aerodynamics and reentry systems.

You are either trolling or a fool, and I am not leaning towards troll.
Revive X-33? A program that cost over a billion dollars and did not even
give us a working airframe! For a fraction of that money an advance Apollo
system could be built even if designed from scratch.

What does the general public opinion have to does with OSP design choice?

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp