Uprated, near-term fiction capsules

Hello All,

I'm trying to spec out a capsule-based launch system for some stories
I've been writing. One of my goals with this project is to be as
technically realistic as possible.

The main components are 3 and 10-seat capsules, loosely based on
Soyuz. The craft consist of three segments, appropriately sized
resource modules above the capsule and a tug/propulsion stage below.
They should be capable of launch on multiple rockets using appropriate
adapter and escape towers. They are 3x3m and 6x5.5m, use ballutes for
deorbit (ARD or Lgarde type?) and a combination heatshield/fuel cell.
They would have an exterior shell of carbon fiber or Al, and an
internal pressure vessel. General masses are assumed to be around 8
and 20 tons for the 3 and 10-man units, respectively.

The base of the craft would be a micro-printed structure (think
inkjet/3d printer) on a titanium outer shield. The ceramic prints have
thousands of microchannels twisting through it, above that is several
sandwiches of material forming a fuel cell. During deorbit, water from
the fuel cell is forced through the microchannels, forming a
transparational-cooled vapor barrier - aided by the ballute.

They would generally spend 1-3 months onorbit, hooked into a station's
power. They use an uprated 120cm version of the APAS adapter, adapted
from an Ebay purchase. 8)

The capsules are generally recovered from freshwater ponds, would use
a paraglider and GPS for accuracy.

The main issues I'd like to discuss a materials esp CF vs Al,
docking adapters, the "printed" heat shield. What would be the ideal
material to build a new capsule from? Would the ballute/vapor barrier
allow for a gentler G on descent, and simpler materials for the
heatshield?

Is a larger diameter APAS useful and appropriate? Whatever adapter
would be necessary, it would ideally be able to join together capsule
segments and space station modules alike. Is a 6m hammerhead fairing
on Proton launching from Texas to ridiculous to read about?

I'd like to discuss this on s.s.tech, or if several people are
interested we could move it to email. Any help will get credited when
I publish.

Josh

Art on Mars

[http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2599L6M1.JPG]

I would think the micro channels in the heat shield would be too small to
handle the heat and the circulatory throughput needed to carry off a
significant amount of heat in a hurry, whether you're boiling the fluid off or
recirculating it. Now, using the heat shield with printed circuitry matrix as a
sort of heat-powered battery during reentry, that's something I could buy.
Thermocouple effect, you know. What use that extra power would be, I dunno,
radio beacons?

In article ,
Josh Gigantino wrote:
...use ballutes for deorbit...

Doing deorbit with a drag device has serious problems.

For one thing, if you started from a reasonably long-lived orbit, the drag
device has to be huge to suddenly turn it into a very short-lived orbit.
(And if you used maneuvering rockets to take you into a low orbit first,
why not just do the whole job with the rockets?)

For another, it's very imprecise, especially since the density of Earth's
outer atmosphere is quite variable and not very predictable. Unless
you're willing to deflate and re-inflate it repeatedly for control, you
could come down almost anywhere with latitude=inclination. That means,
by the way, a high probability of coming down in open ocean.

For a third, if it's an inflatable drag device, what if it gets punctured?

You're going to need maneuvering rockets for rendezvous operations anyway.
You might as well use them for retrofire too.

Using a drag device for *reentry* -- to increase drag and do your
decelerating higher up, in thinner air -- is a different story. But
ordinary ballutes in particular suffer from being pure drag devices, with
no lift. This gives a purely ballistic reentry, and quite high G-loads,
7-8G, like Mercury. A shaped drag device that can supply some lift is
better, permitting a Gemini/Apollo-style lifting reentry at 3G or so.

They would have an exterior shell of carbon fiber or Al...

You're going to need some sort of outer thermal protection with either of
those materials. The trailing part of the body (trailing during reentry,
that is) doesn't get nearly as much heat as the leading part, but it does
get some. And neither carbon composite nor aluminum is very tolerant
of heat.

The base of the craft would be a micro-printed structure (think
inkjet/3d printer) on a titanium outer shield. The ceramic prints have
thousands of microchannels twisting through it, above that is several
sandwiches of material forming a fuel cell. During deorbit, water from
the fuel cell is forced through the microchannels, forming a
transparational-cooled vapor barrier - aided by the ballute.

I don't see the point of trying to integrate the fuel cell. Reentry is
not generally a time of particularly high power demand, but it does
require quite a bit of cooling, if you're using active cooling. Stored
water is preferable. (Whether it ultimately comes from fuel cells is a
separate question... but solar arrays are normally preferred nowadays.
And remember that you have to be able to make an emergency reentry
immediately after, or even during, ascent.)

The capsules are generally recovered from freshwater ponds, would use
a paraglider and GPS for accuracy.

This works, although some would argue that the pond is unnecessary -- if
you have glide capability already, you can do a flare maneuver to touch
down on a hard surface with essentially zero descent rate.

Note, though, that another problem with ballistic reentries is that they
are inaccurate. Coming down within glide range of your pond is likely
to require a lifting reentry, because it's more controllable.

The main issues I'd like to discuss a materials esp CF vs Al,
docking adapters, the "printed" heat shield. What would be the ideal
material to build a new capsule from?

Depends a little on your priorities. Aluminum is easier to work with and
hence cheaper. Carbon composites are generally lighter. If cost was not
a priority, or ample up-front investment was available to reduce overhead
mass, you'd probably go with carbon composites for almost all "cold"
structure.

Is a larger diameter APAS useful and appropriate?

If you do *not* have historical constraints, what you probably want to do
is forget about docking (in the strict sense of the word) and use
berthing. That is, instead of banging into the station :-) hard enough to
trip latches in the docking mechanism, you *stop* just clear of it, and an
arm reaches out and grabs you and positions you on the berthing adapter,
with the latches triggered electronically when the position is just right.
This is gentler and simpler, puts less stress on the station, and makes it
easier to accommodate a large pressurized passageway.

Berthing is how the non-Russian parts of ISS (including the logistics
modules that the shuttle takes up and down) are joined together, and in
the pre-Russian days, there was to be no docking at all on the station --
even the shuttle would berth instead. The CBM adapter is lighter than
APAS, and will pass an ISS experiment rack, which APAS won't.

...Is a 6m hammerhead fairing
on Proton launching from Texas [too] ridiculous to read about?

6m is quite a sizable hammerhead, but not ridiculous.

Proton launching from the US is not an impossible strain, Sea Launch
having paved the way there... although there will be difficulties with
environmental review, especially for a large rocket with toxic fuels.
(Probably the single hardest part of the FAA launch-licensing process is
environmental approval. Aviation has categorical exemptions from most of
it; rocketry does not.)

A big expendable rocket had better be launching from the Texas *coast*.
And that's going to severely limit launch directions, since it is probably
unacceptable to overfly Florida or the Gulf Coast, and overflying Cuba or
Mexico is iffy.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Josh Gigantino wrote:
...use ballutes for deorbit...

Doing deorbit with a drag device has serious problems.

Bad terminology on my part: the tug/propulsion module performs the
deorbit burn, the idea was to use a ballute during reentry.

For one thing, if you started from a reasonably long-lived orbit, the drag
device has to be huge to suddenly turn it into a very short-lived orbit.
(And if you used maneuvering rockets to take you into a low orbit first,
why not just do the whole job with the rockets?)



For another, it's very imprecise, especially since the density of Earth's
outer atmosphere is quite variable and not very predictable. Unless
you're willing to deflate and re-inflate it repeatedly for control, you
could come down almost anywhere with latitude=inclination. That means,
by the way, a high probability of coming down in open ocean.

Thank you, my goal is to have them be as precise in landing as
possible - they become part of a regular transport infrastructure.

For a third, if it's an inflatable drag device, what if it gets punctured?

That is an issue, it seems, with any inflatable. I'm assuming
materials as described by lGarde and ILC Dover for their ballutes.

You're going to need maneuvering rockets for rendezvous operations anyway.
You might as well use them for retrofire too.

yes.

Using a drag device for *reentry* -- to increase drag and do your
decelerating higher up, in thinner air -- is a different story. But
ordinary ballutes in particular suffer from being pure drag devices, with
no lift. This gives a purely ballistic reentry, and quite high G-loads,
7-8G, like Mercury. A shaped drag device that can supply some lift is
better, permitting a Gemini/Apollo-style lifting reentry at 3G or so.

What would be an appropriate shape for a steerable ballute? Could it
be a shuttle-cock design with an oval cross-section? Would it have to
mimic a lifting-body (vs a bigger-cross section axi-symetric) if a
goal was to minimize reentry Gs? I was under the impression that even
a simple drag-ballute would ease G-loading because it increased the
available time to decelerate. What would be a good source for more
information on this? The Web has been somewhat helpful, but it's
mostly pretty pictures of inflatables.

An alternative that I've considered for shape would be a toroidal
ballute with an edge-inflated skirt trailing behind. If the skirt was
rigged to deform (or had deflatable grid), it could take many shapes.
What if the skirt was 8-sections of inflated flap? The IslandOne site
has a section that goes on and on about biconic shapes as a happy
medium between blunt capsules and wings. A steerable/deforming skirt
could be shaped like that when needed. The biggest issue I see is
keeping shape at hypersonic speeds. What about a diamond shape (8
segments folded/tensioned together) for the skirt? The edges would see
more heating, but with proper rigging would be real control surfaces.

This is a quick ASCII cutaway of what i'm trying to describe.

\ /
\ /
\ /
=/__\=
|
| | |
| | | capsule
| |toroid
|skirt


Biconics: http://www.islandone.org/APC/Aero/01.html (how do i make
links w/ google? this is killing me, it's not in their docs)


They would have an exterior shell of carbon fiber or Al...

You're going to need some sort of outer thermal protection with either of
those materials. The trailing part of the body (trailing during reentry,
that is) doesn't get nearly as much heat as the leading part, but it does
get some. And neither carbon composite nor aluminum is very tolerant
of heat.

Would some kind of thermal blanket be enough, like the cloth used on
Soyuz or Nextel ceramic cloth? How much lighter could the protection
be with a ballute and transparation? I know that onorbit surfaces can
reach 400+ degrees F and several hundred below 0. Does the kind of
protection it would need during reentry far exceed in-space temps on
the trailing surfaces?

For thermal protection during reentry, would a capsule+ballute like
the one portrayed in the upper right be less demanding on the craft?
This also relates to the 'skirt' sketch - picture that kind of ballute
with a skirt.

http://www.ilcdover.com/SpaceInf/LandingAirbags.htm

The base of the craft would be a micro-printed structure (think
inkjet/3d printer) on a titanium outer shield. The ceramic prints have
thousands of microchannels twisting through it, above that is several
sandwiches of material forming a fuel cell. During deorbit, water from
the fuel cell is forced through the microchannels, forming a
transparational-cooled vapor barrier - aided by the ballute.

I don't see the point of trying to integrate the fuel cell. Reentry is
not generally a time of particularly high power demand, but it does
require quite a bit of cooling, if you're using active cooling. Stored
water is preferable. (Whether it ultimately comes from fuel cells is a
separate question... but solar arrays are normally preferred nowadays.
And remember that you have to be able to make an emergency reentry
immediately after, or even during, ascent.)

I was assuming the craft would launch w/ the microchannels + reservoir
full. I picked fuel cells more for the 'cool' factor, but am open to
solar panels. What other power options would be likely in the near
future?

The craft dock to stations that use a combination of solar and "SDyn"
solar-dynamic engines for power, storing it in flywheel batteries.
Water is plentiful from NEO-returns, H2O is part of their business
strategy. Earlier versions of the capsules would probably be battery
powered. The capability to generate limited amounts of methane and
hydrogen would exist in the story's mid-term, for fueling a fuel-cell
capsule onorbit. Alternatively, batteries+panels are very well
understood and there would always be electricity available.

The biggest question is probably for duration: which would store
better onorbit, a fuel-cell or panel+battery capsule?

The capsules are generally recovered from freshwater ponds, would use
a paraglider and GPS for accuracy.

This works, although some would argue that the pond is unnecessary -- if
you have glide capability already, you can do a flare maneuver to touch
down on a hard surface with essentially zero descent rate.

Many of the flights, esp. the 10-seat craft, would be tourist flights
to various entertainment stations. While a land touchdown is practical
maybe for workers/researchers/etc it seems that the added cushion of a
water landing would be popular with tourists. This is actually why I
started down the path with the ballutes - the reentry should be as
benign as possible. The ballute would be shaped so that it is
self-righting in water. From what i've written, the capsules touch
down in a variety of environments - land, water, mud, desert.

Note, though, that another problem with ballistic reentries is that they
are inaccurate. Coming down within glide range of your pond is likely
to require a lifting reentry, because it's more controllable.

Are any of the solutions above workable?

The main issues I'd like to discuss a materials esp CF vs Al,
docking adapters, the "printed" heat shield. What would be the ideal
material to build a new capsule from?

Depends a little on your priorities. Aluminum is easier to work with and
hence cheaper. Carbon composites are generally lighter. If cost was not
a priority, or ample up-front investment was available to reduce overhead
mass, you'd probably go with carbon composites for almost all "cold"
structure.

...They have the carbon-winder from Beal Aerospace - purchased at a
fire sale. I've been writing that they wrap as many structures as
possible, if it is reasonable to build the whole upper structure of
the capsules from CF, they would. They also build from aluminum and
later an orbital "wire-sinter" technique.

This brings up a related question: what kind of issues should I look
out for in describing other spacecraft being made of CF? I'm thinking
nodes, baseblocks (like Mir) and the cores of inflatable Habs (like
TransHab). Would you think that spacecraft will usually be built of
metal, or is CF a viable replacement? You mentioned brittleness and
thermal conductivity above, what about things like outgassing, wear
and protecting the craft's skin from the space environment?

Is a larger diameter APAS useful and appropriate?

If you do *not* have historical constraints, what you probably want to do
is forget about docking (in the strict sense of the word) and use
berthing. That is, instead of banging into the station :-) hard enough to
trip latches in the docking mechanism, you *stop* just clear of it, and an
arm reaches out and grabs you and positions you on the berthing adapter,
with the latches triggered electronically when the position is just right.
This is gentler and simpler, puts less stress on the station, and makes it
easier to accommodate a large pressurized passageway.

Berthing is how the non-Russian parts of ISS (including the logistics
modules that the shuttle takes up and down) are joined together, and in
the pre-Russian days, there was to be no docking at all on the station --
even the shuttle would berth instead. The CBM adapter is lighter than
APAS, and will pass an ISS experiment rack, which APAS won't.

Berthing sounds like a great method, robotics are a very realized tech
in the story. I've watched the Leonardo module docking on NASA-TV, and
read the ATV flight profile. The reason I've been writing using an
updated APAS was that the character that makes it had purchased one on
Ebay as a prank, then copied it. Modifying the situation to work with
CBMs is possible - or a totally new design.

One of the requirements in the architecture is for a (relatively)
cheap, androgynous adapter to allow easy reconfiguring of station
elements. Is a "one size fits all" adapter possible or even desirable?
Some of them would need to be undocked repeatedly, others only once
(rarely). The adapters would be as simple as possible mechanically,
fit together and lock in place like you suggest. There would be a
non-pressurized docking version for tugs and trusses.

An example of use of this clean-slate adapter: Hinayana capsule
(3-seater) docks to a node on orbiting station. When used for deorbit
the capsule+propulsion unlatch from the capsule's orbital module,
leaving valuable pressurized real estate on the node. Later an arm
swings in and moves the empty module to it's final location. This kind
of flexibility would create new opportunities in building spacecraft.

snip

A big expendable rocket had better be launching from the Texas *coast*.
And that's going to severely limit launch directions, since it is probably
unacceptable to overfly Florida or the Gulf Coast, and overflying Cuba or
Mexico is iffy.

After their first stunt launch from Waco, they would build several
pads, on the Texas coast, at the Las Vegas Spaceport, later on several
at Kourou. The geo-politics are messy, but the fictional Protons are
flexible and cheap enough to overcome a lot of limitations. Would a
"Proton" be possible using LOX and RP-1? It wouldn't really be Proton
at that point, but could use the same staging, tanks, etc.

thanx!
Josh

Ian Stirling wrote in message ...
Josh Gigantino wrote:
Hello All,

I'm trying to spec out a capsule-based launch system for some stories
I've been writing. One of my goals with this project is to be as
technically realistic as possible.

Generally a good plan, when it doesn't utterly wreck the plot.
I'm assuming glaring errors are glaring errors just in case.

Exactly! I'm striving to write the hardest science fiction ever.

You can't deorbit with a ballute in any reasonable length of time, unless
it's really huge, or you'r coming in anyway in a few hours.
A rocket is probably more sensible.

See my reply to Henry, I meant that the ballute is for reentry. The
capsules would use their propulsion module (like Soyuz/Progress) for
the deorbit burn.

For example, if the orbital lifetime is 6 months without the ballute,
then the ballute will need to inflate to around 15 times the diameter
of the capsule - some 45, or 70m, to get you down in a day.
This is huge, and has to deploy without fail.

That sounds more like trying to deorbit with a solar sail. yikes.

It also can't give you any crossrange, as a rocket can, when fired in
the appropriate direction, and if you want to be able to pick where
you come down at all, you'r still going to need at least some rocketry
(or fancy control of the ballute size).

I posted about using a toroid+skirt ballute to achieve some kind of
lift and cross range. Do you have any ideas for achievable shapes with
"controlled" ballutes or ways to make a capsule have a fairly gentle
(3G max) reentry?

Integration is nice, but I don't see any pressing reason to put the
fuel cell there.

It seemed like a good place for the main power source, and as a single
component would have less issues for getting H20 to the heat shield.
I posted some more thougths and questions regarding power solutions in
my other reply. What would you use for an ideal power source for a
capsule?

As a side-effect it would mean you were without power when reentering.

Hadn't considered that. 8)

If the paraglider is deployed at 10Km, this gives you some 30Km of
crossrange, which isn't great.
Especially if you'r coming down by ballute, you'd need the crew to
be able to survive at sea.

Is 30km of crossrange enough to land in a pond (with several others
downrange) when deorbitting using rocket thrust?

In no particular order.

CF is not a skin.
CF is carbon fiber. You need to put some sort of matrix supporting
it to bind it together, and transform it from a textile into
a structural element.
Epoxy/... tend to do poorly at high temps, and though it is possible to
make carbon-carbon composite, it's hard in large sections, and very very
brittle.
Al is maybe slightly better, but it fails at around 200C, losing practically
all strength.

Would some kind of thermal blankets (Nextel 312?) over a carbon fiber
fuselage work? During deorbit, would a toroidal ballute that protects
the flanks of the capsule reduce the need for protection?

G loading is basically a factor of how you hit the atmosphere.
If you want your astronauts to be comfortable, it requires a capsule
with some amount of lift.
This lets you keep high in the atmosphere, where the air is thin, and
you can slow relatively gradually, rather than dropping down ballistically
and enduring high G.
A ballute can help somewhat, on a ballistic trajectory, by making the
decelleration happen in two halves, by effectively changing the sectional
density of the vehicle. (assuming that the ballute can survive).
On a lifting one, you jettison it as soon as you can.
A lifting trajectory can also give some crossrange.

Can a Soyuz-type capsule perform a lifting trajectory, or do you mean
a lifting body hull? I thought they skimmed the atmosphere at
something around a 3 degree angle, slowly angling deeper in. The
emergency ballistic descent that was experienced by the recent ISS
crew was the direct 8G variety.

The capsules need to come in as gently as possible, the bulk of their
live cargo is tourists and gamblers.

I've been planning on an axi-symetric blunt end design, with as many
saftey features as possible for ensuring deorbit. Ideally it would be
able to do an emergency deorbit without relying on the ballute (or
paraglider) for survival.

What would be realistic methods of making a capsule safe throughout
flight, long lasting onorbit and fairly gentle on the way down?

thanx!
Josh

Josh Gigantino wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote in message ...
Josh Gigantino wrote:
Hello All,

I'm trying to spec out a capsule-based launch system for some stories
I've been writing. One of my goals with this project is to be as
technically realistic as possible.

Generally a good plan, when it doesn't utterly wreck the plot.
I'm assuming glaring errors are glaring errors just in case.

Exactly! I'm striving to write the hardest science fiction ever.

Got some competition out there.

I posted about using a toroid+skirt ballute to achieve some kind of
lift and cross range. Do you have any ideas for achievable shapes with
"controlled" ballutes or ways to make a capsule have a fairly gentle
(3G max) reentry?

Why are you picking 3G?

A ballute has the problem that it's got to sustain really high
temperatures.
By the time you get to lower temperatures, reentry is over, and you
want something much larger to slow down the rest of the way.

I think I'd strongly consider deleting it.

Soyuz nominally gets around 4G.
Sheznou (sp?) the chinese variant of this claims to get a bit less
by using more lift.

snip
If the paraglider is deployed at 10Km, this gives you some 30Km of
crossrange, which isn't great.
Especially if you'r coming down by ballute, you'd need the crew to
be able to survive at sea.

Is 30km of crossrange enough to land in a pond (with several others
downrange) when deorbitting using rocket thrust?

Probably, yes.

You'll want to add the capability to land on land, in case something
goes just a little bit wrong.
Ideally, you should be able to sustain the passengers for around
a week, landing on water, sea, or land.
Consider a navigation or life-support emergency that demands
immediate reentry.

A ballute can help somewhat, on a ballistic trajectory, by making the
decelleration happen in two halves, by effectively changing the sectional
density of the vehicle. (assuming that the ballute can survive).
On a lifting one, you jettison it as soon as you can.
A lifting trajectory can also give some crossrange.

Can a Soyuz-type capsule perform a lifting trajectory, or do you mean

Yes.
It does in fact.
The AOA is altered so that it keeps high enough to slow down a bit
more gradually.

a lifting body hull? I thought they skimmed the atmosphere at
something around a 3 degree angle, slowly angling deeper in. The
emergency ballistic descent that was experienced by the recent ISS
crew was the direct 8G variety.

This was caused by the failure of the autopilot, so it reverted to
a ballistic trajectory.

snip
I've been planning on an axi-symetric blunt end design, with as many
saftey features as possible for ensuring deorbit. Ideally it would be
able to do an emergency deorbit without relying on the ballute (or
paraglider) for survival.

What would be realistic methods of making a capsule safe throughout
flight, long lasting onorbit and fairly gentle on the way down?

What do you mean by long-lasting?
A day, or a week?

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Josh Gigantino wrote:

Is a larger diameter APAS useful and appropriate?

Berthing is how the non-Russian parts of ISS (including the logistics
modules that the shuttle takes up and down) are joined together, and in
the pre-Russian days, there was to be no docking at all on the station --
even the shuttle would berth instead. The CBM adapter is lighter than
APAS, and will pass an ISS experiment rack, which APAS won't.

NASAWatch.com had a link to Stargate Research being awarded a patent
for an androgynous electromagentic berthing system. It seems like an
interesting device. Here is the patent they refer to:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6354540

I posted a response to Ian several weeks ago, but have not seen it
posted. Who is the s.s.tech admin these days? I would like to ask if
he received it.

Josh

[Moderators note: Didn't see it. -george ]

Ian Stirling wrote in message ...
Josh Gigantino wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote in message ...
Josh Gigantino wrote:

Ian - I wrote a long reply when you first posted this but it never
came up on the board. Between your suggestions and Henry's, I have
some more concrete ideas. There are some material/technical items in
the last 2 posts I made as well.

Exactly! I'm striving to write the hardest science fiction ever.

Got some competition out there.

Some of that competition is right here in these newsgroups.

I posted about using a toroid+skirt ballute to achieve some kind of
lift and cross range. Do you have any ideas for achievable shapes with
"controlled" ballutes or ways to make a capsule have a fairly gentle
(3G max) reentry?

Why are you picking 3G?

3G seems to be the commonly accepted G-limit for semi-mass tourism. In
the story they sell a lot of capsules for service to orbitting
casino/hotels. The early capsules would be rougher, less accurate and
far more spectacular. The end goal is providing a ride that someone in
reasonable shape can pass in relative comfort after a couple weeks of
training.

A ballute has the problem that it's got to sustain really high
temperatures.
By the time you get to lower temperatures, reentry is over, and you
want something much larger to slow down the rest of the way.

I think I'd strongly consider deleting it.

Just a simple capsule with straightforward engineering and less to go
wrong? It does make sense to not include the ballute.

Soyuz nominally gets around 4G.
Sheznou (sp?) the chinese variant of this claims to get a bit less
by using more lift.

4G is acceptable, too. This is done by flying a "lifting reentry",
correct? Capsules are also able to do the higher-G ballistic decent
like the recent ISS expedition, as well.

Is 30km of crossrange enough to land in a pond (with several others
downrange) when deorbitting using rocket thrust?

Probably, yes.

excellent.

You'll want to add the capability to land on land, in case something
goes just a little bit wrong.
Ideally, you should be able to sustain the passengers for around
a week, landing on water, sea, or land.
Consider a navigation or life-support emergency that demands
immediate reentry.

With the paraglider and shocks in the couches, they could do
flair-landings in an emergency. The units would definitely include
all-weather survival gear - life-raft/tent, medkits, etc.

Can a Soyuz-type capsule perform a lifting trajectory, or do you mean
Yes.
It does in fact.
The AOA is altered so that it keeps high enough to slow down a bit
more gradually.

Does Soyuz change the angle during reentry using it's RCS thrusters or
some kind of gyrodyne?

What would be realistic methods of making a capsule safe throughout
flight, long lasting onorbit and fairly gentle on the way down?

What do you mean by long-lasting?
A day, or a week?

The basic capsules (3 and 10 seat) should be able to survive for
several months onorbit - not as long as Soyuz but long enough for
extended vacations and worksite visits. The basic capsules would
provide enough life support for a week and are assumed to spend time
on-station in a minimum power standby mode. Eventually the company
would also offer a "lifeboat" capsule of minimal capability and max
reliability for larger LEO stations. Habitation modules would usually
be left onstation to provide new sleeping and storage space.

Enhanced versions (heat shields, more thermal blankets, etc) would be
used to return from HEEO, cislunar and interplanetary flights.
Additional life support would be supplied mostly via the more
customized habitation modules mounted above the descent capsule.
Either the capsules or a heatshield derivative (mounted on an
FGB-style baseblock) would be used for aerobraking into LEO after
long-duration flights.

Any ideas on what would be needed to make a capsule system flexible
like this are greatly appreciated.

Josh