Does anyone have a link to a description of the new Apollo like capsule? Four crew members to the moon sounds reasonable, but it might be kind of cramped for a several month long mission to Mars.
The This article from Space.com seems to be about as accurate and comprehensive as anything I can find on it online, which is to say, not very. As I stated in [post=6610708]this post[/post], I got to sit in on a short (5 or 6 slides) presentation on the CEV and Shuttle-Derived Module Booster yesterday in we saw what were essentially the same pictures. The spec for the crew complement is six persons instead of four (though as far as I know initial crew size for a Moon landing would still only anticipate a four-man crew) and the spaceplane or lifting body design has been rejected in favor of an Apollo-like single conic capsule (but larger; approximately 5.5m in diameter). The Lockheed-proposed lifting body is rejected, but both the Lockheed-led and Boeing-Northrop Grumman groups are performing studies and submitting concepts based upon that design.
The actual capsule shape and moldline are being defined by NASA which is somewhat unusual–the previous “Spiral” proposal/development plan had prime integrators each going off on their own and submitting unique proposals, but clearly NASA is driving to go back to a traditional and proven technology–not necessarily a bad thing, especially if you are trying to minimize development costs, even if many enthusiasts are complaining that it is a step backward. The driving factor for this is that a capsule uses a relatively simple ablative shield for thermal protection upon re-entry, which worked better than anyone expected in the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs and espeically in comparison to the trouble-prone and expensive tile and carbon composite TPS on the Shuttle. (The development of the STS TPS was actually a major stumbling block, cost overrun, and schedule delay on the Shuttle; TPS problems alone caused the launch of Columbia to be delayed by nearly two years, though this may have masked other development schedule problems.)
As for the requirements for a Mars mission: to be honest, although I am not at all involved in the proposal process and don’t have any inside knowledge on it (and if I did, it would be proprietary anyway) I don’t see any evidence that the CEV is being designed around any requirements for an interplanetary mission. Although this will be larger than an Apollo, it’s going to have a habitat volume of RV versus a Volkswagon, roughly speaking; enough to allow a four man crew in relative comfort, a six person complement with “elbows and assholes”, but nowhere near the size, environmental capacity, or logistical stowage for a months-long mission. This is Apollo Plus straight up (with some Apollo Applications-type missions thrown in), although with a greater range of landing sites and abort return options if the spec for the Earth Departure Stage remains the same.
A Mars mission at this point is nothing but speculation, regardless of what some political figure in office or NASA might spout off about. When we decide we really need to go to Mars, we’re going to have to build a new system to do that. It might use a few components from the CEV development, like the heavy lift booster, but it’s going to require a completely different habitat module, command module/logistics support, and Mars Excursion Landing Module (and hopefully a propulsion system that doesn’t rely on lazy, low-energy multi-month Hohmann transfer orbits). I made another recent post [post=6605572]here[/post] on the general requirements for a Mars mission versus specified capabilities of the CEV. CEV is just a Moon/Eart orbit craft.
Stranger