NASA: The Future as Past?
[I suppose we should praise NASA for being open-minded, but I just can’t help thinking that this is an implicit admission that current NASA techniques are not up to the job. The prospect of depending on retired engineers for a next generation system is an implicit admission of failure to perform since the days of Apollo. -Thomas]
NASA PONDERS APOLLO-DERIVED CAPSULE FOR ISS USE (from National Space Society Online Report - May 2003)
NASA recently convened a team of five experts to make a top-level
assessment of the viability of using the Apollo Command and Service Modules
as the basis for a Crew Return Vehicle (CRV), and potentially for a Crew
Transfer Vehicle (CTV), for the International Space Station. This assessment
was conducted 13-14 March 2003 by former Apollo engineers Aaron Cohen, Dale
Meyers, and Kenneth Szalai and former Apollo and Shuttle astronauts Vance
Brand and John Young.
The Assessment Team focused in on a small set of factors that might
make the application of the Apollo Command and Service Module (CSM) an
attractive option for serious consideration for the Orbital Space Plane (OSP)
CRV and perhaps the CTV:
1. The Apollo CSM proved to be a highly successful, rugged, and
robust system. The Apollo system was intrinsically simple. The Command Module
(CM), with its ablator heat shield and internal systems, afforded a low risk
entry and recovery system. The Apollo systems were thoroughly analyzed,
validated, developed, tested, qualified, and used operationally in Earth
orbit, in expeditions to the moon, and in entry at speeds 50% greater than
that from low Earth orbit.
2. The extant drawings/microfiche for all Apollo systems and
subsystems plus the library of reports from all specifications, test,
qualification, and operational results would be of use as guidance in the
design of a derivative system.
3. There are still many experts in Apollo systems, some still in the
aerospace community, and some in retirement. They could offer (part-time)
advice and technical support at some level and in so doing, transfer some
knowledge and experience to a new generation of designers.
4. The virtually full-envelope abort and recovery system provided a
very high level of safety for the crew. The Launch Escape System (LES) itself
was a very simple but robust system to provide for crew escape starting from
the pad through the most critical ascent phase.
5. The 1972 preliminary study of modifications to the CM concluded
that the CM could carry 5 crew members back to Earth from Skylab in a
contingency rescue mode.
The Team concluded unanimously that an Apollo-derived CRV concept
appears to have the potential of meeting most of the OSP CRV Level 1
requirements. An Apollo-derived CTV would also appear to be able to meet most
of the OSP Level 1 CTV requirements with the addition of a Service Module.
The Team also surmised that there would be an option to consider the Apollo
CSM concept for a common CRV/CTV system.
It was further concluded that using the Apollo Command Module (CM)
and Service Module (SM) as an ISS CRV and CTV has sufficient merit to warrant
a serious detailed study of the performance, cost, and schedule for this
approach.
Full Report of the Assessment Team:
Orbital Space Plane Level 1 Requirements:
Analysis by The Space Review:
