NASA Says a Next Generation Spacecraft Would Use a Vertical ArrangementInstead of Side Mount

"Dr. Griffin, the NASA administrator, predicted Friday that the foam
problem would be quickly repaired and said engineers would consider
options that had not been tried before. But he added that the next
generation of spacecraft would place cargo and crew members atop the
tank and not on its side, where falling foam and ice invite disaster."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/sc...gewanted=print

John Horner wrote:

"Dr. Griffin, the NASA administrator, predicted Friday that the foam
problem would be quickly repaired and said engineers would consider
options that had not been tried before.

That's a contradiction in terms.
Any "options that had not been tried before" will take a lot longer to
qualify, pass all the needed tests and inspections, etc.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

"John Horner" wrote in message
news:AtaHe.1230$4e6.412@trnddc04...
"Dr. Griffin, the NASA administrator, predicted Friday that the foam
problem would be quickly repaired and said engineers would consider
options that had not been tried before. But he added that the next
generation of spacecraft would place cargo and crew members atop the
tank and not on its side, where falling foam and ice invite disaster."

Yea like they used to do with capsules! That's what I've been saying but
apparently some of these posters in here don't want to hear this. They've
fallen in love with the shuttle.

I wonder how hard it would be to put the shuttle on top of the booster.
It would probably look like hell but it would be safer.

John

John Slade wrote:
"John Horner" wrote in message
news:AtaHe.1230$4e6.412@trnddc04...

"Dr. Griffin, the NASA administrator, predicted Friday that the foam
problem would be quickly repaired and said engineers would consider
options that had not been tried before. But he added that the next
generation of spacecraft would place cargo and crew members atop the
tank and not on its side, where falling foam and ice invite disaster."


Yea like they used to do with capsules! That's what I've been saying but
apparently some of these posters in here don't want to hear this. They've
fallen in love with the shuttle.


Indeed, I thought it was surprising and interesting to see a NASA
insider say what Griffin said. The side mount architecture was a
sub-optimal design premise from the get go. The fan club seems to have
accepted that architecture with religious zeal. These are, however,
machines we are talking about ... not sacred objects.

John

"Bruce Palmer" wrote in message
...
John Slade wrote:
Yea like they used to do with capsules! That's what I've been saying
but
apparently some of these posters in here don't want to hear this.
They've
fallen in love with the shuttle.

You flatter yourself. It's not that people don't want to hear it, it's
that most have heard it all already. Since 1971.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/p377.htm

How did I flatter myself? I never said I was the first to say it. Wait
a minute. Let me guess. You're the resident know-it-all in this newsgroup
who thinks they know everything. Oh brother. Here we go. The bottom line is
NASA seems to be moving towards a vehicle on top of the boosters rather than
on the side. That solves the problem of the falling foam. Well at least
until they use a different form of propulsion.


I wonder how hard it would be to put the shuttle on top of the
booster.
It would probably look like hell but it would be safer.

John

It was discussed ad nauseum then and you're just rehashing the scenario.

No I was expressing myself. I don't care who talked about it before. If
it was discussed so much, then why don't you just ignore this conversation.
BTW. I'm not "rehashing" anything because I never discussed putting the
shuttle on top of boosters before. I'm in favor of capsules or smaller
shuttle type craft.

You've brought nothing new to the table.

Never said I did.


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do a little research and find out
why it is the way it is and not the way you want it to be.

No it doesn't. I know why it is the way it is. It has to do with foolish
pride and billion dollar contracts.

John

"John Horner" wrote:
options that had not been tried before. But he added that the next
generation of spacecraft would place cargo and crew members atop the
tank and not on its side, where falling foam and ice invite disaster."


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/sc...gewanted=print


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that has always been the idea for
lifting the CEV -- just sticking it on top of a rocket? Going back to the
old school, capsule-style, approach does make sense. Should be easier/safer
to abort anytime during ascent, anyway. Just break free and pop the chute.

(I'm also anticipating disappointment by some people that the CEV doesn't
"look like and land like an airplane".)

I'm curious about how much the CEV and the Russian Kliper are being
"cross-developed" with one another. (?) Both are based on the modular
philosophy, so why shouldn't the Kliper be able to use a module intended for
the CEV or vise-versa?

Cheers,
-E

erosz wrote:

(I'm also anticipating disappointment by some people that the CEV doesn't
"look like and land like an airplane".)


IMO that was one of the fatal flaws of the original shuttle design
brief. Wow, wouldn't it be cool to land a space craft just like a
glider? Yeah, that is the way we are going to go. Many critics made
the attempt to point out the flaws in that design back then, but the
NASA PR machine steam rollered right over 'em.


John

In article E_iHe.7965$Bx5.7658@trnddc09, John Horner wrote:
erosz wrote:

(I'm also anticipating disappointment by some people that the CEV doesn't
"look like and land like an airplane".)

IMO that was one of the fatal flaws of the original shuttle design
brief. Wow, wouldn't it be cool to land a space craft just like a
glider? Yeah, that is the way we are going to go.

That wasn't the reason for it.

It was more because during the original design and planning work, the
military and NASA were made to work together, since there was money for
one expensive human spaceflight program but not two.

The military wanted the capability to launch into a polar orbit, launch
or retrieve a satellite (or whatever) and then immediately land.

This type of flight normally would be done only during war, and was in
response to a potential future Cold War threat (at the time -- '70s).

The earth moves during this time (the single orbit), so they needed to
have a significant amount of crossrange to make it back to the same
launch site.

(This also was a safety margin that gave NASA some opportunities to
tweak for alternate landing sites in an emergency, too.)

A 3,000 mile / 5,000 km crossrange required a delta wing configuration
to make it feasible, I seem to recall?

By the time of Challenger's last flight, the military had lost interest
in human spaceflight programs and used Challenger's demise as an excuse
to quit, and focus solely on their own unmanned space program.

In his book, Dennis R. Jenkins has extensive coverage of the history of
the Shuttle program, including design and engineering decisions,
funding, concept drawings, why certain options evolved and others were
shot down, etc. Very highly recommended book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...l/-/0963397451

-Dan

"Bruce Palmer" wrote in message
...
John Horner wrote:
IMO that was one of the fatal flaws of the original shuttle design
brief. Wow, wouldn't it be cool to land a space craft just like a
glider? Yeah, that is the way we are going to go. Many critics made
the attempt to point out the flaws in that design back then, but the
NASA PR machine steam rollered right over 'em.

You don't have the foggiest notion what the **** you're talking about.

"Many critics ... back then"

Name one.

Didn't think so.

Troll.

Plonk.

Boy this guy has a real attitude problem.

John

Sounds like sound bytes taken out of context to me. My feeling is that with
the current technology, some cargo carrier could be designed around the
Shuttle bits and pieces, and the main gain is the actual physical shape of
what you can orbit that way. if you are not talking major reuse either,
then...

Unless of course you really do want to go for reuse and mixing your eggs
with your Beasts of Burdon.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"John Horner" wrote in message
news:AtaHe.1230$4e6.412@trnddc04...
"Dr. Griffin, the NASA administrator, predicted Friday that the foam
problem would be quickly repaired and said engineers would consider
options that had not been tried before. But he added that the next
generation of spacecraft would place cargo and crew members atop the tank
and not on its side, where falling foam and ice invite disaster."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/sc...gewanted=print