More New Details on NASA's CEV Launcher Studies

TheEqualizer writes "Continuing on the NYT story on NASA's current CEV launcher plans, spaceref has an even more extensive look with detailed assessments of the available options. By all accounts, it looks like NASA is picking up where it left off with Apollo but also combining it with established Shuttle technology -- the capsule concept of the 1960s atop the shuttle boosters of the 1970s being the winning combination under the current budgetary limitations. However, is this coupling of old technology and designs really the best we can do?"

Comments

The best we can do

[jmichaelg]

The best we can do, energy wise, is nuclear propulsion. Back in the late 50's, we designed a nuclear bomb propelled ship. Initial enthusiasm for using it to get off the Earth waned when Freeman Dyson realized each launch would kill 10 people. At the time, we were firing off atmospheric nuclear bombs all the time with no perceptible ill effects so Dyson's realization wasn't obvious. For some, those 10 lives were offset by the knowledge that any large scale activity kills people.

To alleviate the problem, the Orion team proposed a hybrid solution - use Saturn-class chemical rockets to launch an Orion booster. They figured they could build an Orion-class ship that weighed around 150 tons, well within Saturn's ability to loft 400 tons.

NASA's current proposal takes us back to being able to re-consider Orion. What killed the idea was NASA's aversion to risk. There wasn't any appetite for developing a rocket engine that could only be fully tested in space.

The idea of using nukes for Earth launch never completed died. Ted Taylor, one of the Orion team members, figured he could design a nuclear bomb that didn't emit any radiation at all. Ironically, the neutron bomb was an outgrowth of his work.

Re:If it ain't broke...

[punkass]

I'm so tired of people pulling Burt Rutan out of their ass every time a conversation about the shuttle comes up. It was a great achievement, but it didn't acheive LEO, has NO cargo capicity, and if by "built in his garage" you mean "built by a team of engineers for millions of dollars", well, cool. We got more done in the 60's with this kind of tech than we do now with our aging shuttle fleet. Also, since the boosters and fuel tanks are based on teh shuttles, we can utilize our current network of contractors to supply parts. I'm tired of spending billions just to get into space. Wouldn't you rather take the cheap way and then use the money to build a ship that goes elsewhere (re: Mars)?

Poor assumption

[tmortn]

Errrrr..... you seem to be thinking they will be 'landing' in the sense of sitting down on gear gracefully. They go back to capsules then they are going to go back to parrachutes and splashdowns... or possibly go with a solid earth landing like the russians whcih is essentially just a crash with shock absorbing seats for the occupants. They may dig up the old Idea of doing a parasail instead of a simple drouge parachute and actually doing a kind of glide landing like a skydiver might... but the control system for managing the airfoil was always a bitch in that scenario.

I can't help but think there has to be an air breathing way to do the SRB's... though if you can't shave any weight in the process of providing the same power it is essentially just a lot of work for no gain... unless the safety margian is greater.... a fly back and fast turnaround would make it worth it though.