What is the simplest, cheapest CEV possible?

"Jeff Findley" :

This is essentially the argument that NASA has had all along for whatever
their current generation of CEV would be. The problem with this argument
is
that the CEV NASA wants to build has far more capability than you need for
a
simple, do or die, CEV. That's why the X-38/ACRV was canned, because it
was
so close to being an OSP that the administration decided to build the OSP.

Unfortunately, NASA has also had chronic problems with keeping its budgets
in line with projections. This is especially true for ISS.

It would have been far better for a bare bones, do or die, CEV to be
designed, developed, and tested before any ISS hardware made it into orbit.
No doubt that many within NASA would have complained that it wasn't good
enough (not enough crossrange or whatever), but at least the US would have
had something rather than nothing in this area.

My personal favorite for a low cost CEV (back in the late 80's) was an
Apollo derived capsule. Keep the exterior mold lines, TPS, and parachutes,
but update the interior and use a cold gas N2 RCS in conjunction with a
solid retro package. LEO Apollo missions had a relatively benign G
profile,
and with interior updates, you could have added a bit more lift to the
trajectory, further limiting G loading and providing more control
authority.

Instead, NASA has insisted on a new design based on a lifting body, that
still had to resort to parafoil to get the landing speed down to something
acceptable.

So how much would it cost to build something like this, and how much would it
mass? Meaning, what could be used to get it to the ISS for the least amount
of money?

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