New Boeing Orbital Space plane design a capsule?

"Thomas J. Frieling" wrote in message
om...
"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?


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.

"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" 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.

This is a CRV/CTV, its form should follow function. It shouldn't look
like something straight out of Star Wars.

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

Ian Woollard writes:

Less said about Russian docking the better ;-)

To be fair, the most serious Russian docking incident occurred on a
remote controlled Progress under lighting and background conditions
that even the US, with zero remote docking experience, knew to be
bad. Soyuz dockings have a slightly better history and have a
configuration very similar to this Boeing design.

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

Brian Thorn writes:

The more I look at it, the more mysterious it seems. Note that this
module has its own RCS and those weird struts securing it to the CM.

What the heck is that thing?

Those struts are surely to handle launch and launch escape loads.
This thing looks to be in a Soyuz like configuration for launch and
launch escape.

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

Brian Thorn writes:
It could just as easily be launched below the CM and docked-with
later, a'la the ASTP docking module.

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

Not with those huge struts between the modules. This thing is clearly
intended to be launched with the orbital module attached to the
descent module. Surely this simplifies the overall system design by
eliminating docking mechanisms, perhaps a hatch on the orbital module,
and things like power, data, and cooling for the orbital module during
launch. All of these things become easier if you just launch it
attached (as opposed to the way the ASTP docking module was
launched).

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

"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?

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

--
-Rusty Barton - Antelope, California

"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

(Rusty B) wrote in
om:
http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...7196&release=t


Anyone know what is going on?

Has Boeing swithced to a capsule design?

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

That's a propulsion/adapter module. Used for launch escape or
orbital insertion. Look at the Delta IV middle CBC and you'll see
that it is modified too; it has been lengthened and the upper
cryo stage eliminated.

Looks more like the final version of Hermes before it was canceled.

--Damon

"Ultimate Buu" :

"Thomas J. Frieling" wrote in message
om...
"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?


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.

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 mistike 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?

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