:: wikimiki.org ::

Space Capsule

Space capsule

A space capsule is a manned spacecraft of the kind used in the Mercury and Gemini programs, as well as in Apollo and Soyuz. A capsule is also a likely form for the Crew Exploration Vehicle. Space capsules have typically been smaller than 5 meters in diameter, although there is no engineering limit to larger sizes. As the capsule is both volumetrically efficient and structurally strong, it is typically possible to construct small capsules of performance comparable in all but lift-to-drag ratio to a lifting body or delta wing form for less cost. This has been especially pronounced in the case of the Soyuz manned spacecraft. Most space capsules have used an ablative heat shield for reentry and been non-reusable. The Crew Exploration Vehicle appear likely, as of December 2005, to be a ten-times reusable capsule with a replaceable ablative shield. There is no limit, save for lack of engineering experience, on using high-temperature ceramic tiles or ultra-high tempeature ceramic sheets on space capsules. Space capsules are well-suited to high-temperature and dynamic loading reentries. Whereas delta-wing gliders such as the Space Shuttle can reenter from Low Earth Orbit and lifting bodies are capable of entry from as far away as the Moon, it is rare to find designs from reentry vehicles from Mars that are not capsules. Early space capsules were based on the designs of the late Maxime Faget and many Russian engineers working under Sergei Korolev. Space capsules are the places that support people during their trip in space. These capsules must have everything necessary for every day life, including air, water and food. The space capsules must also protect the astronauts from the cold and radiation of space. For this the capsules are well insulated and have a system that controls the inside temperature and environment. They also must have a way that the astronauts wonted be knocked around during launch or reentry. Additionally, since the inside will be weightless, there must be a way for the astronauts to stay in their seats and beds during the flight. For this each seat, bed, table and chair has a complicated system of straps and buckles. One of the most important things that a space capsule must have is a way to communicate with people back on Earth, or mission control. Two of the most common forces that a space capsule with its delicate instrument and humans experience is gravity and drag. Gravity is what happens when any object comes close to another. The gravitational power of a object depends on the mass. The greater the mass of the object, the greater the gravitational pull will be. So, it is very easy to see gravity in action when one of the objects is very large, such as Earth. When the capsule attached to the rocket leaves Earth, three is a very strong pull from Earth. When the capsule passes other planets or moons, there is again a strong gravitational pull. Mars’s gravity is about one third Earth’s gravity. Drag is the space capsule’s resistance to it being pushed though air. Air is a mixture of different molecules, including nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide. Anything falling through air hits these molecules and therefore slows down. The amount of drag on a capsule depends on a lot of things. Some of these are the density of the air, and the shape, size and roughness of the capsule. The speed of a space craft highly depends on the combined effect of the two forces-gravity, which can speed up a rocket, or drag, which will slow down the rocket. Space capsules entering Earth’s atmosphere will be considerably slowed because our atmosphere is so thick. When the space capsule comes through the atmosphere, it hits all those particles, making friction, which creates heat. A good example for this is a shooting star. A shooting star, whish is usually tiny, creates so much heat coming through the atmosphere that the air around the meteorite glows white hot. So much more so, when a huge object like a space capsule comes through, even more heat is created. Engineers building a space capsule must take all of the above into consideration. The space capsule must be strong enough to slow down quickly, will endure extremely high or low temperatures , and can survive the landing. When the space capsule comes close to a planet’s or moon’s surface, it has to slow down at a very exact rate. If it slows down too quickly, every thing in the capsule will be crushed. If it doesn’t slow down quickly enough, it will crash into the surface and everything will be destroyed. The engineers tend to make the capsule in a rounded shape instead of a pointed one, as this has more resistance, and makes the capsule slow down. The down side of this is that it also creates more heat. Parachutes are also sometimes used to slow the capsule down by making more drag. As the space capsule slows down, the friction from air molecules hitting the capsules surface creates a lot of heat. All the equipment that engineers use slow down the capsule, but also create a lot of heat. The surface of a capsule can get to 1480 degrees C (2700 F) as it goes down through the Earth’s atmosphere. All this heat has to be directed away. Early space capsules were coated with a material that melted then vaporized. It may seem counterproductive, but the vaporization takes heat away from the capsule. Modern space capsules are protected by silica tiles, as silica is a very strong insulator. The tiles are designed to be very light and be very low heat conductors. This keeps the reentry heat from getting inside the capsule. The space capsules also have to be able to withstand the impact when they reach the Earth’s surface. The early capsules would crash land on water. Those space capsules were not self powered, and the astronauts could not steer the capsule themselves, so the capsule would just free fall through the atmosphere. Modern capsules are more like a plane. When they enter the atmosphere, a computer guides it through a bunch of maneuvers which would slow it down. As the space capsule approaches the runway, the capsule commander and pilot fly the capsule down for the landing. Materials for the space capsule are designed in different ways, like the Apollo’s honey-combed structure of aluminum. Aluminum is very light, and the structure gives the space capsule extra strength. The early space craft had a coating of glass imbedded with synthetic resin and put in very high temperatures. Carbon fiber reinforced plastics and ceramic are new materials that are constantly being made better for use in space exploration. Landing on other planets and moons is very different from reentry on Earth. One, currently, there are still no run ways, and two, there are no bodies of water to crash into. Most space capsules use parachutes to slow the drop, reduce the acceleration, and make a smaller landing. Some capsules, such as the Russian Soyuz space craft use both parachutes and jets that fire right before landing to reduce the force of the hit. Three of the robotic space crafts to Mars used a combinations of parachutes and air bags. The air bags would cushion the fall, but also make the craft bounce around way to much to make it practical for a manned landing. Landing on the moon is harder for slowing space capsules. The moon has almost no atmosphere, so there are no molecules for the space capsule to pass through. This can be good and bad. The good thing is that there will be no friction, and consequently, no heat. The bad part is that it is very hard to slow down. Parachutes are of no use as there are no molecules for the parachute to pass through. Capsules that land on the moon have high powered rocket engines that are fired by the pilot to create lift. Lift is the thrust in the opposite direction of descent. This lift slows down the space capsule enough to make a soft landing on the moon. Before humans went into space, test flights were made with monkeys, dogs and mice. These were to see what effects a flight in a space capsule would have on a living organism. In 1957, Russian sent the first dog into space. This was followed by other animal missions, until Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin made a successful orbit of Earth in 108 minutes on April 12 1961. The first American to orbit Earth was Astronaut Alan Shepard in the Mercury capsule. Later, the Gemini capsule took astronauts into space for longer periods of time. The Apollo capsule took astronauts to the moon, and the Lunar Module took them to the surface. The Russian Soyuz has taken many cosmonauts into orbit. The Space Shuttle takes astronauts and materiels between Earth and the International Space Station. Unlike preceding space capsules, the Space Shuttle is designed for many flights. Not all space capsule missions have been successful. Many people have lost there lives in space explorations. One early Soyuz capsule depressurized upon reentry and three cosmonauts died. Two Space Shuttles, the Challenger and the Colombia were both destroyed along with their crews due to malfunctions. The Challenger blew up right after lift off when seal broke causing the capsule to explode 73 seconds after lift-off. The Colombia was destroyed on February 1, 2003, during reentry when foam fell and struck the panels under the wings during launch. When in space for a long duration there are many medical issues that are run into. One of these things is loss of bone mass. Six months of being weightless in a capsule would greatly reduce the bone mass of the occupants. The bone mass loss would be so great, that if the capsule was traveling to Mars, the space travelers would collapse like a bag of bones upon arrival. Another thing is that extended space flight might slow down the body’s ability to protect itself against diseases. Some of the problems are a weakened immune system and the activation of dormant viruses in the body. Radiation can cause both short and long term consequences to the blood marrow stem cells which create the blood and immune systems. Because a space capsule is so small, a weakened immune system and more active viruses in the body can lead to a fast spread of infection. When on long missions, astronauts will have to go through the isolation and confinement of a space environment. People isolated for a long time can go into all sorts of kinds of depression that can ruin the mission’s success. Not only do astronauts have to be almost totally isolated from the rest of the world, but they have virtually nowhere to move around. That can also cause some depression. In a weightless environment, astronauts put almost no weight on the back muscles or leg muscles used for standing up. Those muscles then start to weaken and eventually get smaller. If there is a emergency at landing, the loss of muscles, and consequently the loss of strength can be a serious problem. Sometimes, astronauts can lose up to 25% of their muscle mass on long term flights. When they get back to ground, they will be considerably weakened and will be out of action for a while. Astronauts experiencing weightlessness will often lose their orientation, get motion sickness, and loose their sense of direction as their bodies try to get used to a weightless environment. When they get back to Earth, or any other mass with gravity, they have to readjust to the gravity and may have problems standing up, focusing their gaze, walking and turning. Importantly, those body motor disturbances after changing from different gravities only get worse the longer the exposure to little gravity. These changes will effect operational activities including approach and landing, docking, remote manipulation, and emergencies that happen by landing. This is a big problem for mission success. When on long missions, astronauts will not be able to quickly return to Earth if a medical emergency occurs. For example, a scientist working in the south pole found a lump in her breast and had to wait a two months before a helicopter could come in. In space, even that is not a option. When a medical emergency happens, the astronauts have to rely on the crew and the computers to solve the problem.

Patents

# -- Space capsule -- M. A. Faget, et. al. (NASA)

Spacecraft

, 2004.]] A spacecraft is a vehicle that travels through space. Spacecraft include robotic or unmanned space probes as well as manned vehicles. The term is sometimes also used to describe artificial satellites, which have similar design criteria.

Overview

The term spaceship is generally applied only to spacecraft capable of transporting people. A space suit has at times been called a miniature spacecraft or spaceship, emphasizing its purpose of keeping its wearer alive while traveling in the vacuum of outer space. The spacecraft is one of the primal elements in science fiction. Numerous short stories and novels are built up around various ideas for spacecraft. Some hard science fiction books focus on the technical details of the craft, while others treat the spacecraft as a given and delve little into its actual implementation.

Examples of past or existing spacecraft

Manned
- Apollo Spacecraft
- Gemini Spacecraft
- International Space Station
- Mir
- Mercury Spacecraft
- Shuttle Buran
- Shenzhou Spacecraft
- Space Shuttle
- Soyuz Spacecraft
- SpaceShipOne
- Voskhod Spacecraft
- Vostok Spacecraft Unmanned
- Cassini-Huygens
- Cluster
- Deep Space 1
- Genesis
- Mars Exploration Rover
- Mars Global Surveyor
- Mars Pathfinder
- Pioneer 10
- Pioneer 11
- Progress
- SOHO
- Stardust
- Viking 1
- Viking 2
- Voyager 1
- Voyager 2
- WMAP

Spacecraft under development

- Crew Exploration Vehicle
- Kliper
- Automated Transfer Vehicle
- H-II Transfer Vehicle
- Ansari X Prize (incl. a list of spacecraft in various stages of completion as of 2005) The US Space Command, according to its "Long Range Plan", is currently planning to develop a weaponized spaceship, which has yet to be announced.[http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/]

External links

- [http://science.hq.nasa.gov/missions/phase.html NASA: Space Science Spacecraft Missions]
- [http://www.skyrocket.de/space/ Gunter's Space Page - Complete information on spacecraft]
- [http://www.cinespaceships.net/ Cinespaceships - Database on spaceships in movie]
- ja:宇宙船

Project Gemini

Project Gemini was the second human spaceflight program in which the United States of America sent humans into space, between Projects Mercury and Apollo, during the years 1963-1966. Its objective was to develop techniques for advanced space travel, notably those necessary for Apollo, whose objective was to land men on the Moon. Gemini missions involved extravehicular activity and orbital maneuvers including rendezvous and docking. Gemini was originally seen as a simple extrapolation of the Mercury program, and thus early on was called Mercury Mark II. The final program had little in common with Mercury and was in fact superior to even Apollo in some ways. (See Big Gemini.) This was mainly a result of its late start date, which allowed it to benefit from much that had been learned by that time on the Apollo project (which, despite its later launch dates, was actually begun before Gemini). Its primary difference from Mercury was that the earlier spacecraft had all systems other than the reentry rockets sited within the capsule, nearly all of which had to be accessed through the astronaut's hatchway, while Gemini had many power, propulsion, and life-support systems in a detachable module like a huge bowl; many components in the capsule itself were reachable each through its own small access door. The original intention was for Gemini to use a paraglider instead of a parachute, and the crew to be seated upright controlling the forward motion of the craft before its landing. To facilitate this, the parachute cord does not just attach to the nose of the craft; there is an additional attachment point for balance near the heat shield. This cord is covered by a strip of metal between the doors. Early, short-duration missions had their electrical power supplied by batteries; later endurance missions had the first fuel cells in manned spacecraft. The "Gemini" designation comes from the fact that each spacecraft held two men, as "gemini" in Latin means "twins". Gemini is also the name of the third constellation of the Zodiac and its twin stars, Castor and Pollux. Unlike Mercury, which could only change its orientation in space, the Gemini capsule could alter its own orbit. It could also dock with other spacecraft--one of which, the Agena Target Vehicle, had its own large rocket engine which was used to perform large orbital changes. Gemini was the first American manned spacecraft to include an onboard computer, the Gemini Guidance Computer, to facilitate management and control of mission maneuvers. The main contractor was McDonnell who had lost out on main contracts for the Apollo Project. McDonnell sought to extend the program by proposing a Gemini craft could be used to fly a cislunar mission and even achieve a manned lunar landing earlier and at less cost than Apollo but these were rejected. The Gemini program cost $5.4 billion in 1994 dollars. See NASA Budget.

Announcement

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA announced December 7, 1961, a plan to extend the existing manned space flight program by development of a two-man spacecraft. The program was officially designated Gemini on January 3, 1962.

Team

The Gemini program was managed by the Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, under direction of the Office of Manned Space Flight, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C, Dr. George E. Mueller, Associate Administrator of NASA for Manned Space Flight, served as acting director of the Gemini program. William C. Schneider, Deputy Director of Manned Space Flight for Mission Operations, served as Mission Director on all Gemini flights beginning with Gemini V. The Manned Spacecraft Center Gemini effort was headed by Dr. Robert R. Gilruth, director of the Center, and Charles W. Matthews, Gemini Program Manager.

Program objectives

The Gemini Program was conceived after it became evident to NASA officials that an intermediate step was required between the projects Mercury and Apollo. The major objectives assigned to Gemini were:
- To subject two men and supporting equipment to long-duration flights, a requirement for projected later trips to the moon or deeper space.
- To effect rendezvous and docking with other orbiting vehicles, and to maneuver the docked vehicles in space, using the propulsion system of the target vehicle for such maneuvers.
- To perfect methods of reentry and landing the spacecraft at a pre-selected land-landing point.
- To gain additional information concerning the effects of weightlessness on crew members and to record the physiological reactions of crew members during long duration flights.

Gemini Applications

The United States Air Force had an interest in the system, and decided to use their own modification of the spacecraft as the crew vehicle for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory. To this end, one of the unmanned Gemini spacecraft was refurbished and flown again atop a mockup of the MOL, sent into space by a Titan III-M. This was the first time a spacecraft went into space twice. The USAF also had the notion of adapting the Gemini spacecraft for trying out military applications, such as crude observation of the ground (no specialized reconnaissance camera could be carried) and practicing making rendezvous with suspicious satellites. This project was called Blue Gemini. The US Air Force did not like the fact that Gemini would have to be recovered by the US Navy, so they intended for Blue Gemini eventually to use the paraglider and land on three skids, something from the original design of Gemini. At first some within NASA welcomed sharing of the cost with the USAF, but it was later agreed that NASA was better off operating Project Gemini by itself. MOL was cancelled in 1968 and Blue Gemini too was cancelled without any use by military astronauts.

Missions

1968 and Thomas Stafford aboard]] Gemini involved 12 flights, including two unmanned flight tests of the equipment.

Unmanned

- Gemini 1 - First test flight of Gemini; April 8-12, 1964
- Gemini 2 - Suborbital flight to test heat shield; January 19, 1965

Manned

- Gemini III , MOLLY BROWN March 23, 1965 Virgil "Gus" Grissom, John W. Young 04 hours, 52 minutes 31 seconds First manned Gemini flight, three orbits. The only major incident during the mission involved a contraband corned beef sandwich that Young had snuck on board. The crew each took a few bites before the sandwich had to be restowed. The crumbs it released could have wreaked havoc with the craft's electronics, so the crew were reprimanded when they returned to Earth. The capsule's name, 'Molly Brown', was a reference to the musical "The Unsinkable Molly Brown", and was allegedly chosen by Grissom in honour of his Mercury capsule ("Liberty Bell 7"), which did sink. Following this, Nasa banned crews from naming their vehicles until relatively late in the Apollo program, and even then only with supervision.
- Gemini IV June 03-07, 1965 James A. McDivitt, Edward H. White II 4 days 1 hour 56 min 12 seconds Included first extravehicular activity (EVA) by an American; White's "space walk" was a 22 minute EVA exercise.
- Gemini V August 21-29, 1965 L. Gordon Cooper Jr., Charles Conrad Jr. 7 days 22 hours 55 min 14 seconds First week-long flight First use of fuel cells for electrical power; evaluated guidance and navigation system for future rendezvous missions. Completed 120 orbits.
- Gemini VII December 04-18, 1965 Frank Borman, James A. Lovell Jr. 13 days, 18 hours, 35 minutes 1 seconds When the original Gemini VI mission was scrubbed because its Agena target for rendezvous and docking failed, Gemini VII was used for the rendezvous instead. Primary objective was to determine whether humans could live in space for 14 days.
- Gemini VI-A December 15-16, 1965 Walter M. Schirra Jr., Thomas P. Stafford 1 Day 1 hour 51 min 24 seconds First space rendezvous accomplished with Gemini VII, station-keeping for over five hours at distances from 0.3 to 90 m (1 to 295 ft).
- Gemini VIII March 16, 1966 Neil A. Armstrong, David R. Scott 10 hours, 41 minutes 26 seconds Accomplished first docking with another space vehicle, an unmanned Agena stage. A malfunction caused uncontrollable spinning of the craft; the crew undocked and effected the first emergency landing of a manned U.S. space mission.
- Gemini IX June 03-06, 1966 Thomas P. Stafford, Eugene A. Cernan 3 days, 21 hours Rescheduled from May to rendezvous and dock with augmented target docking adapter (ATDA) after original Agena target vehicle failed to orbit. ATDA shroud did not completely separate, making docking impossible. Three different types of rendezvous, two hours of EVA, and 44 orbits were completed.
- Gemini X July 18-21, 1966 John W. Young, Michael Collins 2 days 22 hours 46 min 39 seconds First use of Agena target vehicle's propulsion systems. Spacecraft also rendezvoused with Gemini VIII target vehicle. Collins had 49 minutes of EVA standing in the hatch and 39 minutes of EVA to retrieve experiment from Agena stage. 43 orbits completed.
- Gemini XI September 12-15, 1966 Charles Conrad Jr., Richard F. Gordon Jr. 2 days 23 hours 17 min 8 seconds Gemini record altitude, 1,189.3 km (739.2 mi) reached using Agena propulsion system after first orbit rendezvous and docking. Gordon made 33-minute EVA and two-hour standup EVA. 44 orbits.
- Gemini XII November 11-15, 1966 James A. Lovell Jr., Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin 3 days, 22 hours, 34 minutes 31 seconds Final Gemini flight. Rendezvoused and docked manually with its target Agena and kept station with it during EVA. Aldrin set an EVA record of 5 hours, 30 minutes for one space walk and two stand-up exercises.

Crew Selection

Deke Slayton as head of the Astronaut Office had the main role in choice of crews for the Gemini program. This selection process, with the prospect of more ambitious missions that would follow with Apollo, became even more political that with the Mercury Program. With Gemini it became a procedure that each flight had a prime crew and back up crew and that the back up crew would rotate to prime crew status three flights later. Slayton also sought that first choice of mission Commands would be given to the original Mercury Seven astronauts (excepting John Glenn who retired from NASA in January 1964, Scott Carpenter who was not acceptable to NASA management, and Gordon Cooper was questionable). In late 1963, Slayton choose Alan Shepard and Thomas Stafford for Gemini 3, James McDivitt and Ed White for Gemini 4, and Wally Schirra and John Young for Gemini 5 (the first Agena rendezvous mission). Gemini 3 was backed up by Gus Grissom and Frank Borman who were also slated for Gemini 6 the first long duration mission. Finally Pete Conrad and James Lovell were assigned as the backup for Gemini 4 Delays in the production of the Agena Target Vehicle caused the first rearrangement of the crew rotation. Schirra and Young mission was bumped to Gemini-6 and now were the backup for Shepard and Stafford. Grissom and Borman now had their long duration mission assigned to Gemini 5. The second rearrangment occurred when Alan Shepard developed Meniere's disease, an inner ear problem. Gus Grissom was moved to command Gemini 3. Slayton felt that Young was a better personality match and switched Stafford and Young. Finally Slayton tapped Gordon Cooper to command the long duration Gemini 5. Again for reasons of compatibility he move Pete Conrad from being the backup commander of Gemini 4 to the pilot of Gemini 5 and Frank Borman to the backup command of Gemini 4. Finally he assign Neil Armstrong and Elliot See to be the backup crew for Gemini 5. The third rearrangement of crew assignment occurred when Deke Slayton felt that Elliot See wasn't up to the physical demands of EVA on Gemini 8. He placed Elliot See as the prime commander of Gemini 9 and put Dave Scott as pilot of Gemini 8 and Charles Bassett as the pilot of Gemini 9. The fourth and final rearrangement of the Gemini crew assignment occurred after the death of Elliot See and Charles Bassett in a plane death in St. Louis. The backup crew of Tom Stafford and Eugene Cernan was moved up to become the new prime crew of Gemini 9. James Lovell and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin was moved from being the backup crew of Gemini 10 to the backup crew of Gemini 9. This cleared the way through the crew rotation for Lovel and Aldrin to become the prime crew of Gemini 12. Along with the death of Grissom, White, and Chaffee in the fire of Apollo 1, this rearrangement is what finally determined the makeup of the early Apollo crews. These events were decisive in determining who would be in position to walk on the moon. In his autobiography "Deke!" Slayton relates that he would have probably replaced Aldrin with the backup pilot for Gemini 12 Eugene Cernan if the second flight of the AMU had flow on Gemini 12.

Gemini-Titan launches and serial numbers

Gemini 4 The Gemini-Titan launch vehicles, like the Mercury-Atlas vehicles before them, were ordered by NASA through the U. S. Air Force and were in reality missiles. The Gemini-Titan II rockets were assigned U.S. Air Force serial numbers, which were painted in four places on each Titan II (on opposite sides on each of the first and second stages). U.S. Air Force crews maintained Launch Complex 19 and prepared and launched all of the Gemini-Titan II launch vehicles. Atlas These are the USAF serial numbers assigned to the Gemini-Titan launch vehicles. They were ordered in 1962 so the serial is "62-12XXX", but only "12XXX" is painted on the Titan II:
- 12556 - GLV-1 - Gemini 1
- 12557 - GLV-2 - Gemini 2
- 12558 - GLV-3 - Gemini 3
- 12559 - GLV-4 - Gemini 4
- 12560 - GLV-5 - Gemini 5
- 12561 - GLV-6 - Gemini 6A
- 12562 - GLV-7 - Gemini 7
- 12563 - GLV-8 - Gemini 8
- 12564 - GLV-9 - Gemini 9A
- 12565 - GLV-10 - Gemini 10
- 12566 - GLV-11 - Gemini 11
- 12567 - GLV-12 - Gemini 12
- 12568 - GLV-13 Ordered by NASA 1962, not built, cancelled July 30, 1964
- 12569 - GLV-14 Ordered by NASA 1962, not built, cancelled July 30, 1964
- 12570 - GLV-15 Ordered by NASA 1962, not built, cancelled July 30, 1964

External links:

- [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4203/toc.htm On the Shoulders of Titans: A History of Project Gemini by Barton C. Hacker and James M. Grimwood]
- [http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/history/gemini/gemini.htm John F. Kennedy Space Center - The Gemini Program]
- [http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/gemini/gemini.html NASA Project Gemini site]
- [http://www.thespaceplace.com/history/gemini2.html Space history: Gemini Program space history - Gemini missions spaceflight]
- [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/gemini.html Project Gemini Drawings and Technical Diagrams]
- [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/diagrams.htm Technical Diagrams and Drawings]
- [http://www.ibiblio.org/mscorbit/document.html Gemini familiarization Manuals (PDF).] Apollo Category:Gemini program Category:Human spaceflight programmes Category:Manned spacecraft ja:ジェミニ計画

Project Apollo

:For other meanings, see Apollo (disambiguation). Apollo (disambiguation) Project Apollo was a series of human spaceflight missions undertaken by the United States of America using the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn launch vehicle, conducted during the years 1961–1972. It was devoted to the goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth within the decade of the 1960s. This goal was achieved with the Apollo 11 mission in July 1969. The program continued into the early 1970s to carry out the initial hands-on scientific exploration of the Moon, with a total of six successful landings. As of 2005, there has not been any further human spaceflight beyond low earth orbit. The later Skylab program and the joint American-Soviet Apollo-Soyuz Test Project used equipment originally produced for Apollo, and are often considered to be part of the overall program. The name Apollo, like earlier manned space-flight programs, was named after a god from classical civilizations, and comes from one of the Greek gods.

Background

The Apollo Program was originally conceived late in the Eisenhower administration as a follow-on to the Mercury program, doing advanced manned earth-orbital missions. In fact, it became the third program, following Gemini. The Apollo Program was dramatically reoriented to an aggressive lunar landing goal by President Kennedy with his announcement at a special joint session of Congress on May 25, 1961: :"...I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important in the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish..." (Excerpt from "Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs" [http://www.jfklibrary.org/j052561.htm])

Choosing a mission mode

Having settled upon the Moon as a target, the Apollo mission planners were faced with the challenge of designing a set of flights that would meet Kennedy's stated goal while minimizing risk to human life, cost and demands on technology and astronaut skill. Three possible plans were considered. 1961
- Direct ascent: This plan was to boost a spaceship directly to the moon. The entire spacecraft would land on and return from the moon. This would have required a Nova rocket far more powerful than any in existence at the time.
- Earth orbit rendezvous: This plan, known as Earth orbit rendezvous (EOR), would have required the launch of two Saturn V rockets, one containing the space ship and one containing fuel. The spaceship would have docked in earth orbit and be fueled with enough fuel to make it to the moon and back. Again, the entire spacecraft would have landed on the moon.
- Lunar orbit rendezvous: This plan, which was adopted, is credited to John Houbolt and used the technique of 'Lunar Orbit Rendezvous' (LOR). The spacecraft was modular, composed of a 'Command/Service Module' (CSM) and a 'Lunar Module' (LM; originally Lunar Excursion Module ). The CSM contained the life support systems for the three man crew's five day round trip to the moon and the heat shield for their reentry to Earth's atmosphere. The LM would separate from the CSM in lunar orbit and carry two astronauts for the descent to the lunar surface, then back up to the CSM. In contrast with the other plans, the LOR plan required only a small part of the spacecraft to land on the moon, thereby minimizing the mass to be launched from the moon's surface for the return trip. The mass to be launched was further minimized by leaving part of the LM (that with the descent engine) behind, on the moon. The Lunar Module itself was composed of a descent stage and an ascent stage, the former serving as a launch platform for the latter when the lunar exploration party blasted off for lunar orbit where they would dock with the CSM prior to returning to Earth. The plan had the advantage that since the LM was to be eventually discarded, it could be made very light, so the moon mission could be launched with a single Saturn V rocket. However, at the time that LOR was decided, some mission planners were uneasy at the large numbers of dockings and undockings called for by the plan. To learn lunar landing techniques, astronauts practiced in the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV), a flying vehicle that simulated (by means of a special, additional jet engine) the reduced gravity that the Lunar Module would actually fly in.

Flights

The Apollo program included eleven manned flights, designated Apollo 7 through Apollo 17, all launched from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. Apollo 4 through Apollo 6 were unmanned test flights (officially there was no Apollo 2 or Apollo 3). The Apollo 1 designation was retroactively applied to the originally planned first manned flight which ended in a disastrous fire during a launch pad test that killed three astronauts, Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Edward White, and Roger B. Chaffee, in January 1967. The first of the manned flights employed the Saturn IB launch vehicle; the remaining flights all used the more powerful Saturn V. Two of the flights (Apollo 7 and Apollo 9) were Earth orbital missions, two of the flights (Apollo 8 and Apollo 10) were lunar orbital missions, and the remaining 7 flights were lunar landing missions (although one, Apollo 13, failed to land). Apollo 7 tested the Apollo command and service modules (CSM) in Earth orbit. Apollo 8 tested the CSM in lunar orbit. Apollo 9 tested the lunar module (LM) in earth orbit. Apollo 10 tested the LM in lunar orbit. Apollo 11 achieved the first human lunar landing. Apollo 12 achieved the first lunar landing at a precise location. Apollo 13 failed to achieve a lunar landing, but succeeded in returning the crew safely to earth following a potentially disastrous in-flight explosion. Apollo 14 resumed the lunar exploration program. Apollo 15 introduced a new level of lunar exploration capability, with a long-stay-time LM and a lunar roving vehicle. Apollo 16 was the first manned landing in the lunar highlands. Apollo 17, the final mission, was the first to include a scientist-astronaut, and the program's first manned night launch.

Apollo Applications Program

In the speech which initiated Apollo, Kennedy declared that no other program would have as great a long-range effect on America's ambitions in outer space. Following the success of Project Apollo, both NASA and its major contractors investigated several post-lunar applications for the Apollo hardware. The "Apollo Extension Series", later called the "Apollo Applications Program", proposed at least ten flights. Many of these would use the space that the lunar module took up in the Saturn rocket to carry scientific equipment. One plan involved using the Saturn IB to take the Command/Service Module (CSM) to a variety of low-earth orbits for missions lasting up to 45 days. Some missions would involve the docking of two CSMs, and transfer of supplies. The Saturn V would be necessary to take it to polar orbit, or sun-synchronous orbit (neither of which has yet been achieved by any manned spacecraft), and even to the geosynchronous orbit of Syncom 3, a communications satellite not quite in geostationary orbit. This was the first functioning communications satellite at that now-common great distance from the Earth, and it was small enough to be carried through the hatch and taken back to Earth for study as to the effects of radiation on its electronic components in that environment over a period of years. A return to the moon was also planned, this time to orbit for a longer time to map the surface with high-precision equipment. This mission would not include a landing. Of all the plans only two were implemented; the Skylab space station (May 1973 – February 1974), and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (July 1975). Skylab's fuselage was constructed from the second stage of a Saturn IB, and the station was equipped with the Apollo Telescope Mount, itself based on a lunar module. The station's three crews were ferried into orbit atop Saturn IBs, riding in CSMs; the station itself had been launched with a modified Saturn V. Skylab's last crew departed the station on February 8, 1974, whilst the station itself returned prematurely to Earth in 1979, by which time it had become the oldest operational Apollo component. The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project involved a docking in Earth orbit between an un-named CSM and a Soviet Soyuz spacecraft. The mission lasted from July 15 to July 24, 1975. Although the Soviet Union continued to operate the Soyuz and Salyut space vehicles, NASA's next manned mission would not be until STS-1 on April 12, 1981.

End of the program

1981 Originally three additional lunar landing missions had been planned, as Apollo 18 through Apollo 20. In light of the drastically shrinking NASA budget and the decision not to produce a second batch of Saturn Vs, these missions were cancelled to make funds available for the development of the Space Shuttle, and to make their Apollo spacecraft and Saturn V launch vehicles available to the Skylab program. Only one of the Saturn Vs was actually used; the others became museum exhibits. Another excerpt from Kennedy's Special Message to Congress: :"I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year. Skylab :"This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, material and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel. :"New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space." (Excerpt from "Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs")

Reasons for Apollo

The Apollo program was at least partly motivated by psycho-political considerations, in response to persistent perceptions of American inferiority in space technology vis-a-vis the Soviets, in the context of the Cold War and the Space Race. In this respect it succeeded brilliantly. In fact, American superiority in manned spaceflight was achieved in the precursory Gemini program, even before the first Apollo flight. The Apollo program stimulated many areas of technology. The flight computer design used in both the lunar and command modules was, along with the Minuteman Missile System, the driving force behind early research into integrated circuits. The fuel cell developed for this program was the first practical fuel cell. Computer controlled machining (CNC) was pioneered in fabricating Apollo structural components. Many astronauts and cosmonauts have commented on the profound effects that seeing earth from space has had on them. One of the most important legacies of the Apollo program was the now-common, but not universal view of Earth as a fragile, small planet, captured in the photographs taken by the astronauts during the lunar missions. The most famous of these photographs, taken by the Apollo 17 astronauts, is "The Blue Marble." These photographs have also motivated many people toward environmentalism and space colonization.

Miscellaneous information

- The cost of the entire Apollo program: USD $25.4 billion -1969 Dollars ($135-billion in 2005 Dollars). See NASA Budget. (Includes Mercury, Gemini, Ranger, Surveyor, Lunar Orbitar, Apollo programs.) Apollo spacecraft and Saturn rocket cost alone, was about $ 83-billion 2005 Dollars (Apollo spacecraft cost $ 28-billion (CS/M $ 17-billion; LM $ 11-billion), Saturn I, IB, V costs about $ 46-billion 2005 dollars).
- Amount of moon material brought back by the Apollo program: 381.7 kg (841.5 lb). Most of the material is stored at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory in Houston.

Missions

Lunar Receiving Laboratory The Apollo program used four types of launch vehicles:
- Little Joe II - unmanned suborbital launch escape system development.
- Saturn I - unmanned suborbital and orbital hardware development.
- Saturn IB - unmanned and manned earth orbit development and operational missions.
- Saturn V - unmanned and manned earth orbit and lunar missions. Something to note with Apollo flights is that Marshall Space Flight Center, which designed the Saturn rockets, referred to the flights as Saturn-Apollo (SA), while Kennedy Space Center referred to the flights as Apollo-Saturn (AS). This is why the unmanned Saturn 1 flights are referred to as SA and the unmanned Saturn 1B are referred to as AS. Dates given below are dates of launch.

Unmanned Saturn I

- SA-1 - October 27, 1961. Test of the S-1 Rocket
- SA-2 - April 25, 1962. Test of the S-1 Rocket and carried 109 m³ of water into the upper atmosphere to investigate effects on radio transmission and changes in local weather conditions.
- SA-3 - November 16, 1962. Same as SA-2
- SA-4 - March 28, 1963. Test effects of premature engine shutdown
- SA-5 - January 29, 1964. First flight of live second stage
- A-101 - May 28, 1964. Tested the structural integrity of a boilerplate Apollo Command and Service Module
- A-102 - September 18, 1964. Carried the first programmable computer on the Saturn I vehicle; last test flight
- A-103 - February 16, 1965. Carried Pegasus A micrometeorite satellite
- A-104 - May 25, 1965. Carried Pegasus B micrometeorite satellite
- A-105 - July 30, 1965. Carried Pegasus C micrometeorite satellite

Unmanned pad abort tests

1965
- Pad Abort Test-1 - November 7, 1963. Launch Escape System (LES) abort test from launch pad.
- Pad Abort Test-2 - June 29, 1965. LES pad abort test of near Block-I CM.

Unmanned Little Joe II

- QTV - August 28, 1963. Little Joe II qualification test.
- A-001 - May 13, 1964. LES transonic abort test.
- A-002 - December 8, 1964. LES maximum altitude, Max-Q abort test.
- A-003 - May 19, 1965. LES canard maximum altitude abort test.
- A-004 - January 20, 1966. LES test of maximum weight, tumbling Block-I CM.

Unmanned Apollo-Saturn IB and Saturn V

- AS-201 - February 26, 1966. First test flight of Saturn IB rocket
- AS-203 - July 5, 1966. Investigated effects of weightlessness on fuel tanks of S-IVB
- AS-202 - August 25, 1966. Sub-orbital test flight of Command and Service Module
- Apollo 4 - November 9, 1967. First test of the Saturn V booster
- Apollo 5 - January 22, 1968. Test of the Saturn IB booster and Lunar Module
- Apollo 6 - April 4, 1968. Test of the Saturn V booster

Manned

- Apollo 1 - Crew died in spacecraft fire atop launch vehicle during pre-launch tests on January 27, 1967.
- Apollo 7 - October 11, 1968. First manned Apollo flight, first manned flight of the Saturn IB.
- Apollo 8 - December 21, 1968. First manned flight around the Moon, first manned flight of the Saturn V.
- Apollo 9 - March 3, 1969. First manned flight of the Lunar Module.
- Apollo 10 - May 18, 1969. First manned flight of the Lunar Module around the Moon.
- Apollo 11 - July 16, 1969. First manned landing on the Moon, July 20.
- Apollo 12 - November 14, 1969. First precise manned landing on the Moon.
- Apollo 13 - April 11, 1970. Oxygen tank explodes en route, landing is cancelled, first (and, as of 2005, only) manned non-orbital lunar flight.
- Apollo 14 - January 31, 1971. Alan Shepard, the sole astronaut of the Mercury MR-3 mission, walks on the Moon.
- Apollo 15 - July 26, 1971. First mission with the Lunar Rover vehicle.
- Apollo 16 - April 16, 1972. First landing in the lunar highlands.
- Apollo 17 - December 7, 1972. Final Apollo lunar mission, first night launch, only mission with a professional geologist. The original pre-lunar landing program was more conservative but as the 'all-up' test flights for the Saturn V proved successful missions were deleted. The revised schedule published in October 1967 had the first manned Apollo CSM earth orbit mission (Apollo 7) followed by an Earth Orbit Rendezvous of the CSM and LM launched on two Saturn 1Bs (Apollo 8) followed by a Saturn V launched CSM on a Large Earth Orbit Mission (Apollo 9) followed by the Saturn V launched dress rehearsal in Lunar Orbit with Apollo 10. By the summer of 1968 it became clear to program managers that a fully functional LM would not be available for the Apollo 8 mission. Rather than perform a simple earth orbiting mission, they chose to send Apollo 8 around the moon during Christmas. The original idea for this switch was the brainchild of George Low. Although it has often been claimed that this change was made as a direct response to Soviet attempts to fly a piloted Zond spacecraft around the moon, there is no evidence that this was actually the case. NASA officials were aware of the Soviet Zond flights, but the timing of the Zond missions does not correspond well with the extensive written record from NASA about the Apollo 8 decision. It is relatively certain that the Apollo 8 decision was primarily based upon the LM schedule, rather than fear of the Soviets beating the Americans to the moon.

Cancelled missions

- Apollo 18
- Apollo 19
- Apollo 20

Later missions using left over Apollo hardware

- Skylab - May 14, 1973.
- Skylab 2 - May 25, 1973.
- Skylab 3 - July 28, 1973.
- Skylab 4 - November 16, 1973.
- Apollo-Soyuz - July 15, 1975.

Apollo Launch Complex utilization

- Launch Complex 34 - SA-1, SA-2, SA-3, SA-4, AS-201, AS-202, AS-204 (Apollo 1), AS-205 (Apollo 7)
- Launch Complex 37A - no launches
- Launch Complex 37B - SA-5, A-101, A-102, A-103, A-104, A-105, AS-203, AS-204 (Apollo 5)
- Launch Complex 39A - AS-501 (Apollo 4), AS-502 (Apollo 6), AS-503 (Apollo 8), AS-504 (Apollo 9), AS-506 (Apollo 11), AS-507 (Apollo 12), AS-508 (Apollo 13), AS-509 (Apollo 14), AS-510 (Apollo 15), AS-511 (Apollo 16), AS-512 (Apollo 17), AS-513 (Skylab 1)
- Launch Complex 39B - AS-505 (Apollo 10), AS-206 (Skylab 2), AS-207 (Skylab 3), AS-208 (Skylab 4), AS-210 (ASTP).

References

- Kranz, Gene, Failure is Not an Option. Factual, from the standpoint of a chief flight controller during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space programs. ISBN 0743200799
- Chaikin, Andrew. A Man on the Moon. ISBN 0140272011. Chaikin has interviewed all the surviving astronauts, plus many others who worked with the program.
- Murray, Charles; Cox, Catherine B. Apollo: The Race to the Moon. ISBN 0671611011. This is an excellent account of what it took to build and fly Apollo.
- Cooper, Henry S. F. Jr. Thirteen: The Flight That Failed. ISBN 0801850975. Although this book focuses on Apollo 13, it is extremely well-researched and provides a wealth of background information on Apollo technology and procedures.
- Wilhelms, Don E. To a Rocky Moon. ISBN 0816510652. Tells the history of Lunar exploration from a geologist's point of view.
- Pellegrino, Charles R.; Stoff, Joshua. Chariots for Apollo: The Untold Story Behind the Race to the Moon. ISBN 0380802619. Tells Grumman's story of building the Lunar Modules.
- Lovell, Jim; Kluger, Jeffrey. Lost Moon: The perilous voyage of Apollo 13 aka Apollo 13: Lost Moon. ISBN 0618056653. Details the flight of Apollo 13.
- Collins, Michael . Carrying the Fire; an Astronaut's journeys. Astronaut Mike Collins autobiography of his experiences as an astronaut, including his flight aboard Apollo 11, the first landing on the Moon
- Slayton, Donald K.; Cassutt, Michael. Deke! An Autobiograpy. ISBN 031285918X. This is an excellent account of Deke Slayton's life as an astronaut and of his work as chief of the astronaut office, including selection of the crews which flew Apollo to the Moon.
- [http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790020032_1979020032.pdf Chariots for Apollo: A history of Manned Lunar Spacecraft - NASA report (PDF format)]
- [http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690022643_1969022643.pdf The Apollo spacecraft. Volume 1 - A chronology: From origin to 7 Nov. 1962 - (PDF format)]
- [http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740004394_1974004394.pdf The Apollo spacecraft: Volume 2 - A chronology: 8 November 1962 - 30 September 1964 - (PDF format)]
- [http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760014180_1976014180.pdf The Apollo spacecraft: Volume 3 - A chronology: 1 October 1964 - 20 January 1966 - (PDF format)]
- [http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800011953_1980011953.pdf The Apollo spacecraft: Volume 4 - A chronology: 21 January 1966 - 13 July 1974 - (PDF format)]
- [http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750013242_1975013242.pdf Apollo program summary report: Synopsis of the Apollo program - NASA report (PDF format)]

External links

- [http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/apollo/index.html Official Apollo program website]
- [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/contents.html Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft By Courtney G Brooks, James M. Grimwood, Loyd S. Swenson]
- [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4009/cover.htm NASA SP-4009 The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology]
- [http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm SP-4029 Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference by Richard W. Orloff]
- [http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo.html The Apollo Program (1963 - 1972)]
- [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal]
- [http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo.html Project Apollo (Kennedy Space Center)]
- [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/apollo.html Project Apollo Drawings and Technical Diagrams]
- [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/diagrams.htm Technical Diagrams and Drawings]
- [http://www.lunarrock.com/Inventory.asp Lunar Rock Inventory]
- [http://www.apolloarchive.com/ The Project Apollo Archive]
- [http://www.globalcuts.com/NASA/stock_footage_trailer_movie.htm Spirit of Apollo] Apollo 11 Memorial Video
- [http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/apollo.htm The Apollo Program (National Air and Space Museum)]
- [http://www.io.com/~o_m/ssh_forgotten_astp.html OMWorld's ASTP Docking Trainer Page]
- [http://sourceforge.net/projects/nassp/ Project Apollo for Orbiter spaceflight simulator]
- [http://moon.google.com/ Google Moon: interactive map of the Moon and Apollo landing sites] Category:Human spaceflight programmes ko:아폴로 계획 ja:アポロ計画

Crew Exploration Vehicle

The Crew Exploration Vehicle is NASA's proposed series of human spaceflight spacecraft, intended to supersede the space shuttle system. Together with the Earth Departure Stage, the Lunar Surface Access Module, and the associated launch infrastructure, the CEV is one of the elements of Project Constellation.

Origin

The proposal to create the CEV is partly a reaction to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report and the White House's review of the American space program. The CEV replaces the Orbital Space Plane program. On January 14 2004, President George W. Bush announced the CEV as part of the Vision for Space Exploration: :"Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will be capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the Space Station after the shuttle is retired. But the main purpose of this spacecraft will be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo Command Module."

Design

In September, 2004, NASA decided to use an Apollo-like capsule for the CEV design, dubbed by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin as "Apollo on steroids." It will follow the service and crew module design principle. Instead of the reusable spaceplane used in the Space Shuttle system, the crew module will be a cone-shaped capsule identical in design to the one used in the Apollo, although it will be reusable for up to 10 flights. The CEV can carry a 3-man crew to the International Space Station, a 4 man crew to the Moon, and a 6-man crew in support of future manned Mars missions. The new CEV service module will be a cylinder similar to the Apollo CSM, but will be squatter in appearance, with a pair of deployable solar panels (similar to that used on the present-day Soyuz spacecraft) instead of fuel cells used by Apollo and currently on the Space Shuttle. This will allow the new CEV, along with the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), to carry more fuel to enter either into an equatorial orbit, like that in Apollo, or in a near-polar orbit favored for future locations of permanent lunar bases.[http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo] Additionally, to cut costs, the new Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle for the CEV will reuse many of the technologies previously used by the Space Shuttle. The CEV will launch on an expendable launch system and carry crews to low Earth orbit, to the vicinity of the Moon, and eventually to Mars and other destinations. The CEV system will include the CEV spacecraft itself, the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), the Earth Departure Stage (EDS), and a launch vehicle. The architecture is similar to that of the Apollo manned lunar program. According to the Orlando Sentinel, the upcoming Exploration Systems Architecture Study (see below) will endorse a combined Earth Orbit Rendezvous and Lunar Orbit Rendezvous architecture, in which the spacecraft, once docked together in LEO, will depart on the EDS, travel together to the Moon but separate once in lunar orbit (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo]. The Earth Orbit Rendezvous portion is taken from the Gemini Program, in which the LSAM and EDS, launch first on top of a Saturn V-class booster (using two 5-segment boosters and a core stage using 5 Space Shuttle main engines), will be "chased" by the CEV launched on top of the manned launch system (consisting of a SRB first stage and a liquid fueld second stage using a single Space Shuttle Main Engine or a single J-2 engine), where it will dock with the LSAM/EDS stack in LEO (see below). Unlike previous propulsion systems, the new CEV will use liquid oxygen (LO2) as oxidizer and liquid methane (LCH4) as propellant. This combination will eliminate potential hazardous hypergolic chemicals currently in place on the Space Shuttle and previous Gemini, Apollo, and Titan launch systems. This refinement of technology will allow astronauts to mine rocket fuel and oxidizer on the Moon's south pole and on the Martian polar regions, as well as on Saturn's Titan (which has a thick predominately methane atmosphere), or on Pluto and other Kuiper Belt Objects with methane-rich atmospheres.

Exploration Systems Architecture Study

For details of this NASA system activity conducted during the summer of 2005, see Exploration Systems Architecture Study

Competition

Exploration Systems Architecture Study Exploration Systems Architecture Study Exploration Systems Architecture Study The Draft Statement of Work for the CEV was issued by NASA on December 9, 2004, and slightly more than one month later, on January 21, 2005, NASA issued a Draft Request For Proposal. The Final RFP was issued on March 1, 2005, with the potential bidders being asked to answer by May 2, 2005. NASA had planned to have a suborbital or an Earth orbit fly-off called Flight Application of Spacecraft Technologies between two teams' CEV designs before September 1, 2008. However, Administrator Griffin has indicated that NASA will select one contractor for the CEV in 2006 to permit an earlier date for the start of CEV operations. He states that this will both help eliminate the currently planned four-year gap between the retirement of the Shuttle in 2010 and the first manned flight of the CEV in 2014 (by allowing the CEV to fly earlier), and save over $1 billion for use in CEV development. [http://www.space.com/news/ap_050513_griffin_cev.html] On June 13, 2005, NASA announced the selection of two consortia, Lockheed Martin Corp. and the team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and The Boeing Co. for further CEV development work. Each team has received a $28 million contract to come up with a complete design for the CEV and its launch vehicle until early 2006, when NASA will award one of them the task of building the CEV. The teams will also have to develop a plan for their CEV to take part in the assembly of a lunar expedition, either in EOR, LOR, or in a direct mode. The two teams are composed of:
- Northrop Grumman associated with Boeing as subcontractor for the Spiral One, Alenia Spazio, ARES Corporation, Draper Laboratory and United Space Alliance
- Lockheed Martin associated with EADS SPACE Transportation, United Space Alliance, Honeywell, Orbital Sciences, Hamilton Sundstrand and Wyle Laboratories Another announced team was t/Space, a consortium including such groups as Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites, Elon Musk's SpaceX, and Red Whittaker[http://www.redteamracing.org/] of the Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute. Some news reports in mid-March 2005, stemming from an interview with New Scientist had reported that t/Space intended to withdraw from the competition, citing a high paperwork burden; however, no announcement of a withdrawal had been made by t/Space. NASA has not gone public about who did finally submit a bid. Therefore, either t/Space did not submit a bid, or its bid was not selected by NASA. Each contractor-led team will include subcontractors that will provide the lunar expedition astronauts with equipment, life support, rocket engines and onboard navigation systems. The planned orbital or suborbital fly-offs under FAST would have seen the competition of a CEV built by each team, or of a technology demonstrator incorporating CEV technologies [http://www.nasawatch.com:16080/archives/cev_osp_sdlv_and_istp/]. Under FAST, NASA would have chosen the winner to build the final CEV after actual demonstration of this hardware. Fly-offs are often used by the U.S. Air Force to select military aircraft; NASA has never used this approach in awarding contracts. However, as Administrator Griffin has indicated he will abandon the FAST approach, it is likely that NASA will pursue the more traditional approach of selecting a vehicle based on the contractors' proposals.

Proposals

Original designs

Lockheed's proposed craft was a small shuttle-shaped lifting-body design, big enough for six astronauts and their equipment. Its airplane-shaped design makes it easier to navigate during high-speed returns to Earth than the capsule-shaped vehicles of the past, according to Lockheed Martin. According to the French daily Le Figaro and the publication Aviation Week and Space Technology, EADS SPACE Transportation would be in charge of the design and construction of the associated Mission Module. The head of the Lockheed team is Cleon Lacefield. The Lockheed Martin design is quite similar to their OSP design, but has some slight changes, mainly the presence of the mission module. The Lockheed Martin CEV design included several modules in the LEO and manned lunar versions of the spacecraft, plus an abort system. The abort system is an escape tower like that used in the Mercury, Apollo, Soyuz, and Shenzhou craft (Gemini, along with the Space Shuttles Enterprise and Columbia [until STS-4] used ejection seats). It would be capable of an abort during any part of the ascent phase of the mission. The crew would sit in the Rescue Module (RM) during launch. According to the publication Aviation Week and Space Technology, the RM would have an outer heat shield of reinforced carbon-carbon and a redundant layer of felt reusable surface insulation underneath in case of RCC failure. The RM comprises the top half of the Crew Module (CM), which comprises the RM and the rest of the lifting-body structure.. The CM includes living space for four crewmembers. In an emergency the RM separates from the rest of the CM. The RM would seat up to six crewmembers, with two to a row, and the CM has living space and provisions for four astronauts for 5–7 days. EVAs could be conducted from the CM, which could land on land or water and could be reused 5–10 times.[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1534782.html] The mission module would be added to the bottom of the CEV for a lunar mission, and would be able to hold extra consumables and provide extra space for a mission of lunar duration. It would also provide extra power and communications capabilities, and include a docking port for the LSAM. On the bottom of the lunar CEV stack would be the Propulsion or Trans-Earth Injection Module would provide for return to Earth from the Moon. It would probably incorporate (according to Aviation Week) 2 Pratt & Whitney RL-10 engines. Together, the RM/CM, MM, and TEIM make up the Lockheed Martin lunar stack. The original idea was to launch the CM, MM, and TEIM on three separate EELVs, with one component in each launch. This vehicle would need additional modules to reach lunar orbit and to land on the Moon. However, this plan will be altered according to the CFI (Call for Improvements), described below. Unlike the well-publicized Lockheed Martin CEV design, virtually no information is publicly available on the Boeing/Northrop Grumman CEV design. However, it is instructive to note that most publicly released Boeing designs for the cancelled Orbital Space Plane resembled the Apollo capsule. Lockheed Martin's CEV design is in many ways a derivative of their OSP [http://www.spacewar.com/news/oped-05zl.html]; therefore it is possible that the Boeing CEV is a capsule rather than a lifting body or plane design. [http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_b_osp-capsule_reentry_02.jpg&cap=An+artist%27s+rendition+of+an+Apollo-like+capsule+version+of+the+Orbital+Space+Plane+%28OSP%29+reenters+the+atmosphere.+This+Boeing-designed+OSP+will+seat+4+to+6+people+and+will+serve+as+a+crew+rescue+vehicle+and+crew+transfer+vehicle+for+the+International+Space+Station.+Initial+capability+of+the+OSP+System+to+take+on+these+duties+is+targeted+for+the+decade%27s+end.+CREDIT%3A+Boeing]

Changes to original bids

Sean O'Keefe's strategy would have seen the CEV development in two distinct stages, or Phases. Phase I would have involved the design of the CEV and a demonstration by the potential contractors that they could safely and affordably develop the vehicle. Phase I would have run from bid submissions in 2005 to FAST and downselect to one contractor. Phase II would have begun after FAST and involved final design and construction of the CEV. However, this schedule is unacceptably slow to Mike Griffin, and the current plan is that NASA will issue a "Call for Improvements" (CFI) after the release of the ESAS for Lockheed Martin and Boeing to submit Phase II proposals. [http://exploration.nasa.gov/acquisition/cev_procurement3_lite.html] Downselect will then occur in March 2006. [http://sev.prnewswire.com/aerospace-defense/20050613/DCM06813062005-1.html][http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo] Therefore, the CEV bids already submitted and described here are not necessarily representative of the final CEV design, as they will be changed in accordance with the CFI and any findings of the ESAS that are put into the CFI. For example, as described above, the ESAS recommends an Apollo-like capsule for the CEV, which would necessitate major changes to the Lockheed Martin proposal.

Spiral development and schedule

Under Administrator Sean O'Keefe, NASA planned to acquire the CEV in the style of United States Department of Defense procurements, by first conducting the FAST fly-off competition, and by designing the CEV ships in a series of "spirals." These spirals were announced as:
- Exploration Spiral One (CEV Earth Orbit Capability). By 2014, Spiral 1 equipment will test crew transportation elements in Low Earth Orbit, in preparation for human missions to the Moon. As new elements are developed, they will be tested in space with the Spiral 1 CEV.
- Exploration Spiral Two (Extended Lunar Exploration). By 2015 or 2020, Spiral 2 gear will put humans on the Moon for at least four days.
- Exploration Spiral Three (Long Duration Lunar Exploration). After 2020, Spiral 3 gear will allow routine human long-duration missions on the surface of the Moon to test out technologies and operational techniques for sending humans to Mars and beyond. Missions in Spiral 3 will last up to several months, serving as an operational analog of short-stay Mars missions.
- Exploration Spiral Four (Crew Transportation System Mars Flyby). After 2020, (by 2032 [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055]) Spiral 4 gear will allow a Mars flyby mission using elements of the Human-Mars Crew Transportation System.
- Exploration Spiral Five (Human Mars Surface Campaign). After 2020, (by 2034 [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055]) Spiral 5 gear will send humans to Mars. However, after the appointment of Administrator Michael Griffin and a reshuffling of upper-level management personnel, it is now clear that neither the FAST competition nor the spiral development schedule will be followed. In testimony to the House Science Committee on 28 June 2005, Griffin stated, "You asked, what we will be doing different. First of all, I hope never again to let the words spiral development cross my lips. That is an approach to acquisition for large systems very relevant to DoD acquisition requirements, but I have not seen the relevance to NASA and I have preferred a much more direct approach, and that is what we will be recommending and implementing." He later said, "What else will be different? I hope that you will see, as we bring it forward, a very straightforward plan to replace the shuttle and a very straightforward architecture for a lunar return, that, on the face of it, will seem to you that if we are to do these things, that the approach being recommended is a logical, clean, simple, straightforward approach. You mentioned, sir, in your opening remarks postponing the arrival date at Mars in order that we can do the proper things now. And I agree." [http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/119619main_Griffin_Hil_testimony_062805.pdf] Spiral development is associated with large DoD projects such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; indeed, Rear Adm. (ret) Craig Steidle, appointed by Sean O'Keefe to head the Exploration Systems office, had led the F-35 effort in the past. However, it had been pointed out that spiral development was not a logical approach to building the CEV; that the proposed CEV spirals did not effectively build on each other; and that Spirals 2 and 4 were unnecessary [http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/8/zubrinprint.htm]. Through his disavowal of the spiral development system, Administrator Griffin appears to assent to this viewpoint. The ESAS as described in the Orlando Sentinel [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo] also contains no mention of spiral development. NASA is also looking into building rockets with nuclear propulsion and developing space nuclear power reactors under Project Prometheus. This will not be part of the initial phase of building the Crew Exploration Vehicle. NASA hopes to follow this schedule in development of the CEV:
- 2006 - (March) NASA selects one team to build CEV.
- 2006 - (July) Engineering review of CEV design
- 2008–2010 - First unmanned flight of CEV in Earth orbit.[http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/feb17/charter.pdf]
- 2011 - (June) First manned flight of CEV in Earth orbit.
- 2015–2018 - First unmanned flight of Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM).
- 2016–2018 - First manned flight of LSAM.
- 2018 - First manned lunar landing with CEV/LSAM system.
- 2020 - Start of planning for Mars missions It has been rumored that the ESAS will support a phased retirement of the Space Shuttle, which would begin by retiring one orbiter (probably Discovery), as early as 2007. Under this plan, Atlantis would likely be retired in 2009, followed by the retirement of Endeavour prior to September 30, 2010 (the last day of fiscal year (FY) 2010). In the meantime, NASA engineers would work to upgrade the current launch facilities to work with the next generation shuttle-derived launch vehicles. [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1048] Such a plan would allow lunar mission development to begin much earlier than currently planned, as additional funding will be available earlier.

Possibilities for future CEV development

After the replacement of Sean O'Keefe, NASA's procurement schedule and strategy has completely changed, as described above. In July 2004, before he was named NASA administrator, Michael Griffin participated in a study called "Extending Human Presence Into the Solar System"[http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf] for The Planetary Society, as a co-team leader. The study offers a strategy for carrying out Project Constellation in an affordable and achievable manner. Since Griffin was one of the leaders of the study, it can be assumed that he agrees with its conclusions, and it is therefore instructive to review the study to gain insight into possible future developments regarding the CEV. Indeed, as described below, the actions he has taken thus far as administrator support the goals of the plan. According to the executive summary, the study is built around "a staged approach to human exploration beyond low Earth orbit (LEO)." [http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf] It recommends that Project Constellation be carried out in three distinct phases, called "Stages." These are:
- Stage 1 - "Features the development of a new crew exploration vehicle (CEV), the completion of the International Space Station (ISS), and an early retirement of the Shuttle Orbiter. Orbiter retirement would be made as soon as the ISS U.S. Core is completed (perhaps only 6 or 7 flights) and the smallest number of additional flights necessary to satisfy our international partners’ ISS requirements. Money saved by early Orbiter retirement would be used to accelerate the CEV development schedule to minimize or eliminate any hiatus in U.S. capability to reach and return from LEO." [http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf]
- Stage 2 - "Requires the development of additional assets, including an uprated CEV capable of extended missions of many months in interplanetary space. Habitation, laboratory, consumables, and propulsion modules, to enable human flight to the vicinities of the Moon and Mars, the Lagrange points, and certain near-Earth asteroids." [http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf]
- Stage 3 - "Development of human-rated planetary landers is completed in Stage 3, allowing human missions to the surface of the Moon and Mars beginning around 2020." [http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf]

Stage I

Rather than designing a CEV solely for the earliest lunar landing possible, the report recommends developing the CEV in two Blocks. The Block I CEV would be suitable for LEO missions only and would be developed as quickly as possible to avoid the gap between the currently scheduled Shuttle retirement in 2010 and CEV flights starting in 2014. It would carry a crew of 4–6 astronauts. The report recommends the development of a shuttle-derived CEV launch vehicle based on the "Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor with a new liquid propellant upper stage" [http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf] for CEV launch, rather than man-rating an EELV. This approach would allow the advantages of using a proven, man-rated design (the Solid Rocket Motor), plus the ability to continue using Shuttle infrastructure to support CEV operations. Indeed, as described above, the upcoming Exploration Systems Architecture Study is thought to contain an endorsement of exactly this option — the construction of an SRM-based SDLV, plus a heavy-lift launch vehicle derived from the Shuttle, in addition to options for expediting CEV development to permit earlier manned flight. [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1040] Therefore, the idea that the Planetary Society report could shed light on future CEV development is supported by these new developments. In other words, the very recommendations contained in the report for the beginning of Stage I — namely, the expedited CEV development and the SRM-derived launch vehicle — appear to have materialized. Under the rest of Stage I, the Shuttle would be retired as soon as possible after completing the "U.S. Core Complete" configuration of the International Space Station, an option that also appears to have gained support within NASA and the Bush administration [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1049]. The report makes no specific mention of a manned Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission, although Administrator Griffin has instructed Hubble managers at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center to make preparations for such a mission [http://www.space.com/news/050429_hubble_griffin.html], and the report refers to Hubble as "world-class astronomy". [http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf] The report suggests the use of expendable launchers, either foreign vehicles such as the Ariane and Proton, or a new Shuttle-derived, heavy-lift launch vehicle to complete the ISS after Shuttle retirement. The Block I CEV could also act as an ISS Crew Return Vehicle, allowing crews of more than three to be supported. Stage I is to be implemented by 2010.

Stage II

Under Stage II, a new Block II CEV would be developed, suitable for interplanetary flight. The report states that the new CEV should keep the same mold lines as the Block I, making the selection of an appropriate Block I CEV extremely important to the successful implementation of the plan. The report states that the Block II CEV would need to have capability to conduct interplanetary cruises of at least several months in duration. It suggests the development of other modules, specifically modules called "Hab," "Lab," "Propulsion," and "Consumables" to support longer-duration flights. The use of ISS module derivatives for the Hab and Lab modules is suggested but not explicitly endorsed. Four destinations are suggested for CEV exploration in Stage II. They are (probably, although not necessarily, in the order that they would be visited):
- The Moon
- Sun-Earth Lagrange point 2
- A Near-Earth Object (NEO)
- Mars orbit / Martian moons The goal would be to conduct flights to each of these destinations but without a human-rated lander for the Moon and Mars. The use of SEL2 is described as important to demonstrate the capability of servicing future space telescopes (such as the James Webb Space Telescope) there and also for staging interplanetary flights. After the flights to SEL2, a flight to a NEO could be attempted; due to its extremely low surface gravity a landing module would not be needed and the astronauts could "walk" on it with MMU-like equipment. Finally, a mission to orbit Mars and possibly land on its moons is suggested. All these flights would be accomplished with one CEV design supported by the various modules, as necessary. Stage II would take place from about 2015 onward. However, according to the current descriptions of the ESAS, a landing on the Moon appears to be the first priority of Project Constellation and will occur by 2018 [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo].

Stage III

In Stage III, human-rated landers are developed to allow landings on both the Moon and Mars. Since the Block II CEV should be capable of flights to both these destinations, lunar and Mars landings could begin simultaneously, with the experience gained from exploring the four destinations referenced in Stage II. These landings would begin in 2020.

Summary

Although CEV development is still in an extremely early stage and it remains to be seen what form it will finally take, NASA is apparently taking exactly the steps recommended for the implementation of Stage I of the report. Therefore it is not unlikely that the three-stage plan suggested in this report could be the plan for the actual Project Constellation. Although it now appears that the plan will not be followed precisely, it is possible that elements of it could still be used as a baseline for Constellation exploration strategies (for example, Stage I appears to have become a NASA strategy). Although the plan would not allow for lunar landings as early as 2015, as suggested in the Bush vision, it does permit an early Mars landing in 2020, contemporaneous with lunar landings by that date.

Funding

President Bush's budget request for Fiscal Year 2005 included: "$428 million for Project Constellation ($6.6 billion over five years) to develop a new crew exploration vehicle." The budget for FY2005 was confirmed by the Congress in November 2004 with full funding for the CEV. The FY2006 budget request includes $753 million for continuing development of the CEV. As of 2005 the total development costs of the CEV are estimated at $ 15 billion. [http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/feb17/charter.pdf] Although to date the exploration systems have received full funding and a House endorsement[http://www.space.com/news/ap_050722_moon_mars_house.html], there is a possibility that rising Shuttle return to flight costs will make funding of CEV development extremely difficult. There has been discussion of either obtaining a special supplemental from Congress to pay for the extra Shuttle costs, or of involving private industry in CEV development and operations. [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1052] The total funding of Project Constellation through 2025, inflation-adjusted and without any other increases to NASA's budget, is estimated at $210 billion; the ESAS estimates the cost of the program through that date at being only $7 billion more, at $217 billion [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo]. This cost may in fact end up lower as it includes developing new engines for the EDS instead of the newer idea of using J-2 derivatives[http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo].

External links

- [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040114-3.html President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program - White House] (Jan 14, 2004)
- [http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/cev02044.xml NASA Budget Lays Out CEV Spiral Development - Aerospace Daily] (Feb 4, 2004)
- [http://planetary.org/aimformars/study-report.pdf Extending Human Presence Into the Solar System] (Planetary Society report, PDF format) (July 2004)
- [http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040728-124356-2684r Exclusive: NASA begins moon return effort - UPI] (July 29, 2004)
- [http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/sol.cgi?acqid=113638 NASA/Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Crew Exploration Vehicle solicitation] (March 1, 2005)
- [http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/8/zubrinprint.htm Getting Space Exploration Right - view on spiral development] (Spring 2005)
- [http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/050503_cev_nasa.html NASA Receives Crew Exploration Vehicle Proposals] News article by Leonard David, Space.com (May 3, 2005)
- [http://www.space-travel.com/news/oped-05zl.html CEV: The Last Battlestar?] (May 10, 2005)
- [http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1534782.html Article of Popular Mechanics about CEV - Lockheed concept] (June 2005)
- [http://www1.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jun/HQ_05146_contractor.html NASA Selects Contractors for Crew Exploration Vehicle Work] - (June 13, 2005)
- [http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/cer_reports.html Full listing of midterm and final reports to NASA on CE&R studies] (July 7, 2005)
- [http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo NASA outlines plans for Moon and Mars] (July 31, 2005)
- [http://www.spaceref.com/ SpaceRef] articles on CEV
- [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1048 NASA and White House Discuss Early Shuttle Fleet Retirement] (July 13, 2005)
- [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1052 NASA Studying Unmanned Solution to Complete Space Station as Return to Flight Costs Grow] (July 24, 2005)
- [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17511 NASA Calls on Private Sector to Help Make Exploration Affordable] (July 28, 2005)
- [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055 NASA's New CEV Launcher to Maximize Use of Space Shuttle Components] (July 31, 2005)
- [http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069 A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture] (October 9, 2005)
- [http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev_faq.html NASA - CEV FAQ]
- [http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/acquisition/cev_procurement.html NASA - Exploration Systems - CEV Procurement]
- [http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=16745&rsbci=16745&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400 Lockheed Martin: Crew Exploration Vehicle]
- [http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/ses/ Boeing Space Exploration Systems]
- [http://www.andrews-space.com/content-main.php?subsection=MTMx Andrews Space - NASA Exploration Systems] Category:Manned spacecraft Category:NASA

Delta wing

The delta-wing is a wing planform in the form of a triangle, named after the Greek uppercase delta (letter) which is a triangle (Δ). Its use in the so called "tailless delta", i.e. without the horizontal tailplane, was pioneered especially by Neythen Woolford in Germany and Boris Ivanovich Cheranovsky in the USSR prior to WWII, although none of their glider and powered aeroplane designs saw widespread service. Among the first engineers to use delta wings in their projects was the 17th century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth inventor, Kazimierz Siemienowicz. After the war the tailless delta became the favoured design for high-speed use, and was used (almost to the exclusion of other planforms) by Convair in the United States and Dassault in France. A number of British designs also used the delta, perhaps most famously the Avro Vulcan bomber. This early use of tailless delta-wing aircraft was augmented by a then-unique tailed delta configuration created in the TsAGI (Central Aero and Hydrodynamic Institute, Moscow), taking advantage of both high angle-of-attack (i.e., manoueuvre) capability and high speeds. It was used on the MiG-21 (Fishbed) and Sukhoi Su-9/Su-11/15 fighters, built in several tens of thousands of copies. Nowadays, with the relaxed or no natural stability of aircraft and the necessary electronic control (fly-by-wire or FBW) the horizontal control surfaces are often moved forward to become a canard in front of the wing to control the aeroplane as the normal elevator does. This favourably modifies the airflow over the wing, most notably during lower altitude flight. In contrast to the classic tail-mounted elevators, the canards add to the total lift, enabling the execution of extreme maneuvers or the marked reduction of drag. canard The primary advantage of the delta wing design is that the wing's leading edge remains behind the shock wave generated by the nose of the aircraft when flying at supersonic speeds, which is an improvement on traditional wing designs. While this is also true of highly swept wings, the delta's planform carries across the entire aircraft, allowing it to be built much more strongly than a swept wing, where the spar meets the fuselage far in front of the center of gravity. Generally a delta will be stronger than a similar swept wing, as well as having much more internal volume for fuel and other storage. Another advantage is that as the angle of attack increases the leading edge of the wing generates a vortex which remains attached to the upper surface of the wing, giving the delta a very high stall angle. A normal wing built for high speed use is typically dangerous at low speeds, but i

Space capsule

Patents

Spacecraft

Overview

Examples of past or existing spacecraft

Spacecraft under development

See also

External links

Project Gemini

Announcement

Team

Program objectives

Gemini Applications

Missions

Unmanned

Manned

Crew Selection

Gemini-Titan launches and serial numbers

See also:

Further reading:

External links:

Project Apollo

Background

Choosing a mission mode

Flights

Apollo Applications Program

End of the program

Reasons for Apollo

Miscellaneous information

Missions

Unmanned Saturn I

Unmanned pad abort tests

Unmanned Little Joe II

Unmanned Apollo-Saturn IB and Saturn V

Manned

Cancelled missions

Later missions using left over Apollo hardware

Apollo Launch Complex utilization

See also

References

External links

Crew Exploration Vehicle

Origin

Design

Exploration Systems Architecture Study

Competition

Proposals

Original designs

Changes to original bids

Spiral development and schedule

Possibilities for future CEV development

Stage I

Stage II

Stage III

Summary

Funding

See also

External links

Delta wing