The Return of Apollo?

hpulley writes "Bell bottoms are back, the Stones are still touring and Time has a piece on how NASA's _new_ space vehicle may actually be the return of a very old friend, a highly modified and modernized version of the Apollo Space Capsule. Manned spacecraft might actually leave low earth orbit again! Initially they'd fly with Delta and Atlas but more powerful boosters could be developed. We could go to the Moon again, and perhaps to Mars but I'm getting ahead of myself. Does that mean the last 30 years of space flight have been for naught? Expensive steps backward?"

Comments

Re:Are you kidding me?

[arth1]

Didn't they just come off of serious embarassment with the Columbia disaster and now they are going to re-instate 50-year-old technology?

Just wait until you hear about their Icarus project.

Regards,
--
*Art

Yay!

[PD]

I'm a big fan of capsules to go into space. There's no reason why a capsule can't be reusable. They sit on top of the rocket, the best place for a payload. A rocket can be attached to the top for an escape option. They are a lot cheaper. On and on. NASA can still work on reusable boosters, without having to change the basic capsule design.

Re:Yay!

[RayBender]

How you you rather land back on Earth: parachuting into the ocean or landing smoothly like an airplane? Those aren't the only two options. Russian and Chinese spacecraft parachute onto land. One could land smoothly like an airplane, without the ridiculous wings, by using a parafoil (indeed, such was seriously studied -- well, a similar idea Rogallo wing -- for the Gemini program). Or one could land smoothly yet vertically like a helicopter, Harrier jet, or Bell rocket pack.

The real issue is not capsule vs. winged, the issue is whether or not you want to be able to accomplish a controlled, low-impact landing at a precise location. If you want to be able to re-use your spacecraft you pretty much have to be able to avoid bodies of water, large boulders, cliffs etc etc. A low-impact landing is important so that you don't break things when you land. As shown by the Shuttle, extensive refurbishment before every flight is a good way to make this too expensive. Almost as importantly, you want to be able to put down close to recovery facilities so you can get back to flying again quickly.

Now, to get such a precise landing requires mass. If you use wings, they are heavy. If you insist on a capsule then you'll either have to have a big para-wing (heavy, complex to deploy, perhaps not so reliable), or landing rockets (heavy, and definitiely complex). Either way, you pay a mass penalty.

The point I want to make is that you shouldn't be arguing over wings (at this point in the deisgn process), you should be deicing whether or not you need controlled landings.

Re:Yay!

[eriko]

"The most critical mistake: designing a spaceship to fly horizontally like an airplane but launching it vertically like a rocket."

I agree with you, and the experts, why the hell does a spaceship need wings?

To land in a specific place? The Apollo capsules had a whole fleet spread across the Pacific to retrieve it and the crew.

The problem with the Shuttle that flies today is simple -- the specifications, part NASA, part DOD, specifiy a mission that requires the use of attached booster rockets. Namely...

1) The cargo bay is too large, and,

2) The cross range capability is extreme.

Why? The Air Force insisted that the Shuttle be able to, in one orbit, take off from Vandenburg AFB, put a KH-11 or similar sat into orbit (or retrive one) and land back at Vandeburg. The problem with this is that in one orbit, Vandeburg moves quite a way, since the earth is rotating.

So, the huge bay was needed to handle the KH-11s, and the very large OMS engines were needed to get the Shuttle back to Vandenburg in one orbit.

Drop these two requirements, and you can cut the OMS system by a half, the payload bay by at least a third, and, suddenly, you don't *need* the SRBs anymore. Indeed, the flyaway liquid fueled boosters become a possibility. You can drop one of the SSMEs off the craft, as well -- and lose the structure needed to hold it. And so forth -- or, even better, ride flyaways almost all the way up, and just have one SSME take you to orbit. Less OMS means less fuel tankage to deal with. And so forth.

NASA wanted about 10 Billion in 1975 to build the Shuttle. They were told that they were getting 5. They said that they weren't even going to try -- it wouldn't work. DOD said that they'd be interested in the Shuttle as a military craft, with a few modifications and a couple of extra mission requirements, and wouldn't protest the extra budget money. So, the deal was made -- DOD got the huge cargo bay and the cross range capability, and NASA got the money to build it. Alas, they ended up with an impossible spec to build to -- and were only able to make it work with the SRBs and 3 SSMEs.

NASA's biggest mistake with the Shuttle was taking that deal.

Re:Yay!

[georgewilliamherbert]

To land in a specific place? The Apollo capsules had a whole fleet spread across the Pacific to retrieve it and the crew.

I have in front of me NASA SP-2000-4029, Apollo By The Numbers by Richard W Orloff.

From pp 305, Entry, Splashdown and Recovery table

Mission - Distance to landing target point - Distance to recovery ship
(distances in nautical miles)
Apollo 7 - 1.9 mi - 7.0 mi
Apollo 8 - 1.4 mi - 2.6 mi
Apollo 9 - 2.7 mi - 3.0 mi
Apollo 10 - 1.3 mi - 2.9 mi
Apollo 11 - 1.7 mi - 13 mi
Apollo 12 - 2.0 mi - 3.9 mi
Apollo 13 - 1.0 mi - 3.5 mi
Apollo 14 - 0.6 mi - 3.8 mi
Apollo 15 - 1.0 mi - 5.0 mi
Apollo 16 - 3.0 mi - 2.7 mi
Apollo 17 - 1.0 mi - 3.5 mi

Not one Apollo landed more than 3 miles from its landing target point, including Apollo 13 which had such troubles even getting home safely.

Even if you double that miss distance to 6 miles, there are plenty of bays and lakes in the US which you could safely land in (12 mile diameter or more). San Pablo Bay or San Francisco Bay, any of the Great Lakes, 6 miles offshore basically anywhere, etc.

The precision landing question is validly "Do I land on a runway or do I need a 5-10 mile wide open space?". But that's very different than "needing an ocean full of recovery ships". If it's accurate enough that I can land it in San Francisco Bay and recover it with a coast guard boat or tug, and Apollo was, then there's no big deal at all unless there's an emergency urgent deorbit away from the usual landing zone (a problem which Shuttle shares, and if it lands mid-ocean is SOL).

Retro is in....

[banzai75]

First we bring back the Apple I, now Apollo. Please tell me disco isn't coming back too.

Only fools don't learn from failure

[stratjakt]

Does that mean the last 30 years of space flight have been for naught?

No, it doesn't. We've learned a LOT about spaceflight in the last 30 years, from both successes and failures. The shuttle program had both hits and misses, and a lot of important research was conducted regardless.

And I don't think anyones going to mars in one of those little tin cans. Imagine a year in that thing?

RTFA?

[(54)T-Dub]

maybe you should RTFA first too

Beyond the general shape of the capsule, however, the report reveals that little else from the Apollo CM would be retained.

Bad Decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Initially they'd fly with Delta

Bad decision. They should fly with Southwest or Jet Blue.

Avoid Delta. United too, for that matter.

Build a Saturn VI to go with it?

[chiph]

Atlas, etc. are good rockets, but they can't beat the sheer power and relatively low G forces of the Saturn V. Since they'll (mostly) be going to LEO, as well as building a capsule that is 5-8% larger to accomodate a 4th passenger, why not take another look at the Saturn series of rockets?

They could use the upper stage as a cargo hold -- arrive in orbit and unlock/unbolt the sides (can't use explosive bolts that close to the ISS) to remove your stuff. Anyone know the diameter of the Saturn V third stage compared to the shuttle's cargo bay?

Chip H.

Escape velocity

[cybermace5]

So, we still do things the way they were done 40 years ago. I refuse to believe that the best way to get into space is to fill a monstrous tube with combustibles and light it all up, just to get a few tons of gear in orbit. Before serious interplanetary exploration, we should establish a good moon base, and do vehicle construction and launches from there.

Re:Escape velocity

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I refuse to believe that the best way to get into space is to fill a monstrous tube with combustibles and light it all up, just to get a few tons of gear in orbit.

A few tonnes?

Saturn V could lift the best part of 100 tonnes into orbit. It could have lifted the whole ISS in 2-3 launches, pretty much. (Skylab was huge compared to the ISS, and was at a much higher altitude).

By way of contrast, the Shuttle has only just got up to 30 tonnes, and the Shuttle is more expensive per tonne; and can't achieve the same altitude, and certainly isn't capable of lunar missions.

So what's the point of the Shuttle anyway? Because it's partly reusable so therefore it's cheaper isn't it? Umm, actually...

The Shuttle wasn't a huge leap forward

[ducomputergeek]

By the time the shuttle was designed, it became a tool that did a lot of things okay, but nothing all that great. It has always been more expensive than the rockets it replaced and now with no more Soviet Russia (no jokes) we may be able to co-develop better booster technology. Russia has always had more powerful rockets and seem to be able to hit orbits more accurately than the US.

Also, I honestly think this Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) idea is foolish and stupid. Most of what I have read seems to indicate that a dual stage system would lower the cost per pound from USD 100k to about $6k and one could have two pieces that are reusable. To me that makes a lot more sense and by all acounts more doable.

If we are serious about keeping the ISS up there, the next generation of space craft could save space to be a delivery and construction/repiar work on satelites and the ISS, then save expiraments for the ISS.

Back to the Past?

[ChuckDivine]

Not quite.

We're finally seeing an admission from the aerospace establishment that the shuttle has failed as an experiment. Wings on space craft are essentially a burden. Mercury-Gemini-Apollo demonstrated that you could come back to earth -- even in a controlled fashion -- without wings. Shuttle had wings to meet an Air Force requirement on cross range capability. Now the Air Force doesn't even use the shuttle.

So, the immediate future of vehicles intended to reach orbit looks like something that's been proven to work for both the United States and Russia. It's good to see people actually looking for something that works well.

In other ways, though, this development is a further criticism of the NASA culture. Much has been reported about the suppression of dissent in the safety culture. This is one aspect of a larger suppression of independent thinking in aerospace culture. The lack of new ideas shows another aspect. The unwillingness to examine things outside the industry (the "not invented here" syndrome) demonstrates still another.

New ideas and technologies thrive in free atmospheres. People are more willing to try new things. Good ideas get promoted. Faulty ones, even if held by people with power, are more likely to be challenged. For the aerospace industry to succeed, such a model must be embraced, not shunned.

The Russians figured this one out years ago ...

[s20451]

The Russians have had to do space on the cheap for years, and their response was to stick with the Soyuz capsule, which has now been in service for nearly 40 years, and is one of the most reliable launch vehicles available, and certainly far less expensive than the shuttle.

The last fatal Soyuz accident was in 1971. In 1983, a Soyuz rocket exploded on the pad, but the crew was whisked to safety thanks to an escape rocket, which is lacking on the shuttle. Given the choice, I would fly to space on a Soyuz any day over the shuttle.

Still thinking small...

[gaijin99]

The biggest problem with the US Space Program is that ever since we got to the moon they've been thinking small. Nothing really works well, or does much for you, until you scale it up to a decent level. Imagine if post-Columbus the various European nations had sent out a couple of row boats every few years...

As with so much in life an investment is necessary to get the returns. To really benefit from space we must spend tens of billions on basic infrastructure. The ROI will be worth it. Big projects. A catapult for bulk loads would be a good start and possible with off the shelf technology.

Even better would be a genuine attempt to build a space plane. All the half-assed three or four million dollar projects to date were nothing more than a waste of time.

Best would be to immediately begin work on an elevator. Current best estimates say that an elevator could be built in about ten years, with a budget of six billion. Considering that the US is spending more than $8 billion per month in Iraq, I'd say we obviously have $6 Billion to spend over the course of ten years...

When you think small, you get small results. I don't care if its NASA, or a private corporation, or a group of various space agencies and corporations, but we must begin thinking big or else nothing will ever happen.

from red thunder by john varley

[Unknown Poltroon]

"Say Columbus took the Apollo route to the New World. He starts off with three ships. Along about the Canary Islands he sinks the first ship, just throws it away, deliberately. And it's his biggest ship. Come [163] to the Bahamas, he throws away the second ship. He reaches the New World ... but his third ship can't land there. He lowers a lifeboat, sinks his third ship, and rows ashore. He picks up a few rocks on the beach and rows right back out to sea, across the Atlantic ... and at the Strait of Gibraltar he sinks the lifeboat and swims back to Spain with an inner tube around his shoulders.
"If that's what it took to cross the Atlantic, this part of the world would still belong to the Seminoles."

Re:Are you kidding me?

[kfg]

Yes, I remember. Literally. Because I lived through it. I'm an old fart. I remember watching Alan Shepard's flight on TV and dreaming about someday working in the space program myself.

When the day came that I could, and the offer was made, I had to turn it down because I could bear the idea of associating myself with the shuttle.

Some of my oldest friends, we're talking from childhood here, do. None of them are especially happy about because every one of them knows they could do much better.

You seem to have missed the point here. Look, when people talk about ressurecting our rail system they don't mean that we should replace all of our modern trucks with 1950's railroad technology. They mean we should return to using rail as a concept for mass transportation of goods and people with new and up to date trains because it's a concept that works.

No one is suggesting that we return to using 1960's computers, radar, engines or space suits.

What they're suggesting is that conventional payloads on top of a conventional rocket booster is a superiour solution to getting masses into space and returning a live crew.

And they're right. Apollo never had a tile fall off, a wing fail or some Rube Goldberged solid booster glued onto the rocket explode and set off the liquid fuel in the main tank.

The only failures of Apollo systems were systems that are still necessary for the support of a live crew; and those systems are already markedly better.

So is our recovery technology. We recover the booster shells from the space shuttle. What makes you think we couldn't recover them just because they launch a capsule instead of a "plane?"

Need I really go into the expense and support staffs required just to deal with the ludicrous heat tiles after every flight?

The shuttle does many things poorer than a capsule on top of a booster can. It does nothing better than that system does. It is more complicated, less sensical. . . and fails in ways that conventional boost system can't while retaining all possible ways a conventional boost system can fail.

It's silly.

You want a reusable space plane? Fine, so do I. I remember how completely cool the X-15 was. Let's build an up to date version. I'll help. For food.

You want to put a pile of hardware into low earth orbit? Fine. Put it on the nose of a rocket and send it up. It's the right thing to do.

Each technology according to its abilities, each mission according to its technological needs.

KFG