CEV Payload

Question about the future NASA space vehicle that's supposed to replace
the space shuttle:

Will this thing have the payload capacity of the current space shuttle?
I was always told you could fit a school bus in the payload area of the
space shuttle. With the current shuttle, don't they put a lab section in
the payload compartment or a satellite to be launched and a mechanical arm?

I've seen a few diagrams of the CEV on the net. But all I've found are
the diagrams of the main area were the astronauts sit and operate the craft.
I have not seen any area where they could put satellites and such.

Is this thing going to have a lab/living area and mechanical arm? Will
they be able to do with the CEV what they can do now with the shuttle?

If they plan on sending this thing to Mars in the far future isn't it
necessary they have a big lab/living area?

Thanks!

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:35:45 GMT, "Von Fourche" wrote:

I've seen a few diagrams of the CEV on the net. But all I've found are
the diagrams of the main area were the astronauts sit and operate the craft.
I have not seen any area where they could put satellites and such.

That's because there is none.

Is this thing going to have a lab/living area and mechanical arm? Will
they be able to do with the CEV what they can do now with the shuttle?

No. You really should do a little research on your own before asking
such questions here. In case you haven't noticed, you haven't been
making many friends here, despite it being a pretty friendly group. And
the patience of the few of us who haven't killfiled you yet is wearing thin.
BTW, if you "were always told" that astronauts carry cyanide, you were
always told wrong.

Just try looking up "CEV" on Google. You should learn a lot. Then
feel free to ask intelligent questions...

Dale

"Dale" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:35:45 GMT, "Von Fourche"
wrote:

I've seen a few diagrams of the CEV on the net. But all I've found
are
the diagrams of the main area were the astronauts sit and operate the
craft.
I have not seen any area where they could put satellites and such.

That's because there is none.

Is this thing going to have a lab/living area and mechanical arm?
Will
they be able to do with the CEV what they can do now with the shuttle?

No.


Ok, from what I've read on this group it sounds like the shuttle was a
not so good space vehicle with its wings and all that. But how can the
future U.S. space vehicle not be able to carry satellites or carry a robotic
arm to fix satellites up in space? You could argue that satellites in space
are one of the most important things for the U.S.

So NASA is building a new vehicle (CEV) without the capability to fix
satellites and also doesn't have a lab/living area like the currently
shuttle?
Isn't this a step back and not a step in the future?

"Von Fourche" wrote in message
.net...

Question about the future NASA space vehicle that's supposed to
replace
the space shuttle:

Will this thing have the payload capacity of the current space
shuttle?
I was always told you could fit a school bus in the payload area of the
space shuttle. With the current shuttle, don't they put a lab section in
the payload compartment or a satellite to be launched and a mechanical
arm?

I've seen a few diagrams of the CEV on the net. But all I've found
are
the diagrams of the main area were the astronauts sit and operate the
craft.
I have not seen any area where they could put satellites and such.

Is this thing going to have a lab/living area and mechanical arm?
Will
they be able to do with the CEV what they can do now with the shuttle?

If they plan on sending this thing to Mars in the far future isn't it
necessary they have a big lab/living area?

Thanks!

Try: http://www.nasa.gov/

Once you watch, or skip, the intro, look for the links under "The Vision for
Space Exploration". The first one, "NASA's New Spaceship" ought to help.
Come back when you have meaningful questions.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

shuttle would be wonderful EXCEPT it costs too much and kills
crews.....

CEV is basic people carrier with some cargo variants to orbit only

heavy lifter is for BIG LOADS, and frankly I doubt it will ever be more
than some pretty pictures

Really doesnt matter the entire shuttle derived idea is too high
operating cost wise, and within 10 years there will be low cost
commercials far surpassing shuttle derived.

"Von Fourche" wrote in
ink.net:

Ok, from what I've read on this group it sounds like the shuttle
was a
not so good space vehicle with its wings and all that.

That's what you'll get from most of this group, but it's learning the wrong
lesson from the shuttle. Wings are not necessarily a bad thing on an Earth-
to-LEO spacecraft.

But how can
the future U.S. space vehicle not be able to carry satellites or carry
a robotic arm to fix satellites up in space? You could argue that
satellites in space are one of the most important things for the U.S.

You can also argue that at current (low) launch rates, ELVs can do the job
more economically. Using a reusable vehicle makes sense only if the flight
rate is high.

So NASA is building a new vehicle (CEV) without the capability to
fix
satellites and also doesn't have a lab/living area like the currently
shuttle?
Isn't this a step back and not a step in the future?

Yes.


--
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 Mon, 09 Jan 2006 23:04:19 -0600, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

"Von Fourche" wrote in
link.net:

Ok, from what I've read on this group it sounds like the shuttle
was a
not so good space vehicle with its wings and all that.

That's what you'll get from most of this group, but it's learning the wrong
lesson from the shuttle. Wings are not necessarily a bad thing on an Earth-
to-LEO spacecraft.

Pegasus is the only example, and that may be because of the air
launch. Their later ground launched vehicle had no wings. Of course
I think that you meant LEO-to-Earth spacecraft above.

I know I am getting into an old argument, but I can't resist sticking my
nose into it.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Von Fourche" wrote in
ink.net:

Ok, from what I've read on this group it sounds like the shuttle
was a
not so good space vehicle with its wings and all that.

That's what you'll get from most of this group, but it's learning the
wrong
lesson from the shuttle. Wings are not necessarily a bad thing on an
Earth-
to-LEO spacecraft.

The wings are useful on return from LEO to the ground so you can land,
as the Shuttle does. If you are going to have a reusable vehicle or even
just a recoverable has anyone done an analysis about how much greater
the payload capacity would be if a simpler capsule rather than a winged
recoverable vehicle was used?

The Shuttle is a very inefficient vehicle for delivering payload to orbit.
Check the total weight delivered to orbit as compared to the Shuttle
payload. Most of the weight delivered to orbit is returned back to
earth, the final payload fraction is quite low.

In retrospect, it would have been less expensive to build a smaller
Shuttle for transfering people and small payloads to orbit and a
larger, less complex expendable vehicle to deliver larger payloads.
Such as vehicles studied under the Ten Tonne Orbital Carrier
by NASA back in the mid 1960's.

I used the "Tonne" spelling whereas the NASA study used "Ton"
because it was misunderstood at one of the study, companies, Lockheed
Burbank,
as being 10 short tons (2000 lb. tons) and the ex-Germans at NASA were
talking metric tons.

Of course, things weren't supposed to work out the way they did. There
were supposed to be many more flights and a much lower cost vehicle.


But how can
the future U.S. space vehicle not be able to carry satellites or carry
a robotic arm to fix satellites up in space? You could argue that
satellites in space are one of the most important things for the U.S.


It doesn't have to be the same vehicle and the Air Force would like a
nice robotic vehicle to do satellite repair.

You can also argue that at current (low) launch rates, ELVs can do the job
more economically. Using a reusable vehicle makes sense only if the flight
rate is high.


Quite correct.

So NASA is building a new vehicle (CEV) without the capability to
fix
satellites and also doesn't have a lab/living area like the currently
shuttle?
Isn't this a step back and not a step in the future?

Yes.


--
JRF


I don't see why a Shuttle replacement would need a lab/living area as long
as the ISS or other manned orbital stations are kept operational.

Getting rid of both the Shuttle and ISS sounds to me like the quickest
way to destroy US space capabilities in the near future.

Mike Walsh

"Michael P. Walsh" wrote in message
...
I know I am getting into an old argument, but I can't resist sticking my
nose into it.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Von Fourche" wrote in
ink.net:

Ok, from what I've read on this group it sounds like the shuttle
was a
not so good space vehicle with its wings and all that.

That's what you'll get from most of this group, but it's learning the
wrong
lesson from the shuttle. Wings are not necessarily a bad thing on an
Earth-
to-LEO spacecraft.

The wings are useful on return from LEO to the ground so you can land,
as the Shuttle does. If you are going to have a reusable vehicle or even
just a recoverable has anyone done an analysis about how much greater
the payload capacity would be if a simpler capsule rather than a winged
recoverable vehicle was used?

The Shuttle is a very inefficient vehicle for delivering payload to orbit.
Check the total weight delivered to orbit as compared to the Shuttle
payload. Most of the weight delivered to orbit is returned back to
earth, the final payload fraction is quite low.

In retrospect, it would have been less expensive to build a smaller
Shuttle for transfering people and small payloads to orbit and a
larger, less complex expendable vehicle to deliver larger payloads.
Such as vehicles studied under the Ten Tonne Orbital Carrier
by NASA back in the mid 1960's.

I used the "Tonne" spelling whereas the NASA study used "Ton"
because it was misunderstood at one of the study, companies, Lockheed
Burbank,
as being 10 short tons (2000 lb. tons) and the ex-Germans at NASA were
talking metric tons.

Of course, things weren't supposed to work out the way they did. There
were supposed to be many more flights and a much lower cost vehicle.


But how can
the future U.S. space vehicle not be able to carry satellites or carry
a robotic arm to fix satellites up in space? You could argue that
satellites in space are one of the most important things for the U.S.


It doesn't have to be the same vehicle and the Air Force would like a
nice robotic vehicle to do satellite repair.

You can also argue that at current (low) launch rates, ELVs can do the
job
more economically. Using a reusable vehicle makes sense only if the
flight
rate is high.


Quite correct.

So NASA is building a new vehicle (CEV) without the capability to
fix
satellites and also doesn't have a lab/living area like the currently
shuttle?
Isn't this a step back and not a step in the future?

Yes.


--
JRF


I don't see why a Shuttle replacement would need a lab/living area as long
as the ISS or other manned orbital stations are kept operational.

Getting rid of both the Shuttle and ISS sounds to me like the quickest
way to destroy US space capabilities in the near future.



Is the U.S. government/NASA really behind the ISS? I don't follow the
U.S space program like everybody else here, but I get the felling that most
Americans couldn't care less about the ISS.

"Von Fourche" wrote in message
ink.net...
Ok, from what I've read on this group it sounds like the shuttle was a
not so good space vehicle with its wings and all that. But how can the
future U.S. space vehicle not be able to carry satellites or carry a
robotic
arm to fix satellites up in space? You could argue that satellites in
space
are one of the most important things for the U.S.

Actually, I'd argue that with its high costs, the shuttle wasn't suited for
this mission. Even with Hubble, you might have been better off building
Hubble II, and possibly Hubble III than flying all the repair and missions
with the shuttle.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.