|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Capsule for new space initiative
Hi
There's always been something that I couldn't understand about space 'technology'. As much as I want to see new things and new technologies employed I'm afraid that design time these days seems to take even longer than ever before. And then to make matters worse it seems like they continue to reinvent the wheel. Why will it take 10 years to get humans on the moon if it's been done before? If they really want to use a capsule like appolo then why not use appolo? Why can't we at least use that technology. Surely they still have the blueprints of everything they used in the Apollo era. And with new and better computers (that surely take up less space and weight), shouldn't they be able to get to the moon quicker and much cheaper. What am I missing? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Capsule for new space initiative
"CA Zuke" skrev i melding m... Hi There's always been something that I couldn't understand about space 'technology'. As much as I want to see new things and new technologies employed I'm afraid that design time these days seems to take even longer than ever before. And then to make matters worse it seems like they continue to reinvent the wheel. Why will it take 10 years to get humans on the moon if it's been done before? If they really want to use a capsule like appolo then why not use appolo? Why can't we at least use that technology. Surely they still have the blueprints of everything they used in the Apollo era. And with new and better computers (that surely take up less space and weight), shouldn't they be able to get to the moon quicker and much cheaper. What am I missing? They do not have the tools (or blueprints ?) and the knowlege to repeat it ! It has been 30 years and NASA has forgotten how to do it. Also one does not want to use 30 year old computersystems etc. The sollution is then to design the whole thing from scratch. Also, in my opinion, the problem with designtime is a lot due to lack of funding. This new moonrace is not going anywhere without some serious funding. None seen so far... Just my opinion... Ole |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Capsule for new space initiative
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Capsule for new space initiative
In article ,
CA Zuke wrote: Why will it take 10 years to get humans on the moon if it's been done before? Partly because the problem really isn't quite the same -- objectives this time will be different and probably more demanding. (And it doesn't help that you first have to figure out what the objectives *are* -- Kennedy's clear directive saved a lot of floundering and debate.) Partly because NASA has gone from a young organization that could make decisions quickly, to a top-heavy arthritic bureaucracy full of people whose emphasis is on process rather than results. Partly because NASA's budget was increased greatly to do Apollo, and that has been explicitly ruled out this time. If they really want to use a capsule like appolo then why not use appolo? Why can't we at least use that technology. Surely they still have the blueprints of everything they used in the Apollo era... They do... but almost nothing in Apollo is a reasonable way to do things any more. We'd have to re-engineer almost everything anyway, because while the plans are still around, the tooling is gone and the experienced people are gone and the available components and materials have changed. And given that we have to do that, it makes no sense to duplicate the old subsystem designs when we can do a lot better now. Even the Apollo guys would have done things differently if they'd had to do it again -- many decisions made in haste turned out to be less than ideal. with new and better computers (that surely take up less space and weight), shouldn't they be able to get to the moon quicker and much cheaper. Smaller and lighter computers would help -- and they're one reason why you would not just copy the old subsystem designs -- but not enormously. Apollo was not seriously limited by its computing capabilities, so an improvement there does not radically change the budget or schedule. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Capsule for new space initiative
CA Zuke:
*snip* If they really want to use a capsule like Apollo then why not use Apollo? ----- What should be reused from Apollo is the outer shape of the capsule and it's associated aero-thermodynamic data. From there it would seem prudent to review and blend system requirements from both American and Russian capsules. You then have to let the engineers free reign for a while before reviewing concepts with all the engineers and scientists. From that detailed specifications and budgets get generated. Lunar Lander control algorithms have seen some more recent use to demonstrate powered landings on a single stage to orbit concept. The electronics and hardware were completely different but the math and the lessons learned getting to the Moon were there to build on. The early phases are where most any program flounders. Usually the patience required for detailed specifications and budgets does not exist. Programs often start detailed designs with generalized hand waving and budget WAGs. The discipline to complete specifications and budgets first and to follow through by building to specification and budget is a rare thing. The what-if and desire to experiment have to be recorded for the next program without the contentious late jamming of personal glory into the design/build cycle. Sorry a sore point, but some managers and chief scientists will change things quite late as a demonstration of power and importance. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Capsule for new space initiative
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Capsule for new space initiative
dave schneider
Are there specific examples from space programs? My personal experience is with aerospace materials and the equipment involved in producing them and in civil sector production hardware. Yet, I don't believe it would take long to spot personalities in any program where the hardware looks nothing like the specifications and the budget has gone out of control. Another source I didn't comment on is in marketing a program (again this isn't specific to any one sector). Specifications go up and costs are understated to attract funding. Politics may dictate use of specific contractors or specific regions of the US. Liberal use of unobtanium might be invisioned to fund specific research....It is unfair to use such a wide brush, that only space programs suffer this, or that there is only the first source stated for project slippage. For me personally, I've been involved in both a multi-million dollar program that was delivered on time and under budget and a similar program using many of the same engineers, but specifications changed after metal was already being cut and trying to pin things down was like stabbing at a loose hamster with a dull fork, very bloody. If you compate the understatement of costs and time with real costs it ran 300% of budget and delivery ran one year late (est ~ 18 mil) This Capsule program should be one year to specify and budget, one year to design, and one year to build within 10% of a real estimate. The problems, related science, and materials are knowns. Sadly I see this turning into a ten year program with many false starts and at five times the projected cost (perhaps even canceled). I am sure the profits are greater in the latter (as will be the science), it's just not an efficient way to field a system. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Capsule for new space initiative
Ok, a capsule. If we assume KISS a place one can survive for
a time and return to Earth. Items like oxygen-candles, the capability of landing on land would be good, a replaceable heat shield, on board diagnostics, and modular serviceable systems. Already enough to label it a new system, but the Apollo size and outward shape are sound. Now what this attaches to will be very different because the mission has changed. Since I only consider the capsule the up and down part, I see no reason the same system couldn't be used on the International Space Station or a Mars mission. Any further capability should be added to attached modules and not by redesigning the capsule. Propulsion, habitat, and mission payloads should attach. The habitat and propulsion seem straight forward, the LEMs and lunar base logistics seem both very critical and very open ended. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Capsule for new space initiative
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Capsule for new space initiative
Anvil wrote:
CA Zuke: *snip* If they really want to use a capsule like Apollo then why not use Apollo? ----- What should be reused from Apollo is the outer shape of the capsule and it's associated aero-thermodynamic data. From there it would seem prudent to review and blend system requirements from both American and Russian capsules. You then have to let the engineers free reign for a while before reviewing concepts with all the engineers and scientists. Even if they reuse the Apollo shape and config, there is enough of an argument that there will be a radically different density variation that the thermal loading figures might be off by quite a bit. IIRC, thermal loading is a combination of aspect ratio and wing loading. With wing loading being the greater portion of the equation. You change the density of the capsule by using lightweight materials and shrinking the avionics systems and you are essentially designing a new thermal environment that would have to be analysed from scratch. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |