Is NASA Really Saying Goodbye to the Space Shuttle Program?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Universe_Man
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
AI Thread Summary
NASA is transitioning away from the Space Shuttle program due to high costs and operational challenges, opting instead for a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) that resembles older space capsules. This new capsule design, larger than the Apollo model, is being shaped by NASA's specifications. While capsules offer a higher safety factor for returning astronauts, they lack the lateral maneuverability that shuttles provide, which limits landing options. The use of a ballistic capsule requires precise trajectory predictions, as it has less aerodynamic capability for correcting errors. This shift marks a significant change in NASA's approach to human spaceflight.
Universe_Man
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
I heard somewhere that NASA is going back to the old days with space capsules and such because of the expense and other problems that the space shuttle is having. is that true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Universe_Man,
Universe_Man said:
I heard somewhere that NASA is going back to the old days with space capsules and such because of the expense and other problems that the space shuttle is having. is that true?
It is true. I am an engineer working on one of the two larger industry teams that is bidding on the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). NASA is the one dictating what the shape (Outer Mold Line or OML) is going to be. But it is going to be a much larger capsule than Apollo.

There is little doubt that a capsule has a higher factor of safety in bringing a human home to the Earth over a flyable shuttle. But the flyable shuttle offers a benefit that the capsule does not: High Lift-to-Drag ratio, which equates to a greater ability to provide lateral (crossrange) maneuvers. What all this mumbo jumbo equates to is an increased FLEXIBILITY of available places to land.

You have to be a lot more precise with trajectory predictions when you use a (ballistic) capsule because you have less aerodynamic capability to correct trajectory errors.

Make sense?
Rainman
 
Pilot training is critical to safe flying. I watched the following video regarding the crash of TAM 402 (31 October 1996), which crashed into a Sao Paolo neighorbood about 25 seconds after takeoff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_Regionais_Flight_402 The pilots were never trained to handle such an event (the airline had asked the manufacturer about training for this event), since it was considered too improbable (so rare) by the manufacturer. There was no...
Due to the constant never ending supply of "cool stuff" happening in Aerospace these days I'm creating this thread to consolidate posts every time something new comes along. Please feel free to add random information if its relevant. So to start things off here is the SpaceX Dragon launch coming up shortly, I'll be following up afterwards to see how it all goes. :smile: https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacex/

Similar threads

Back
Top