CEV or Apollo

Stover, Dawn. "CEV Vs. Apollo." CNN. 3 Mar. 2006. 10 Dec. 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/03/cev.vs.apollo/index.html.

This artifact is comparing the CEV v. the Apollo the article starts out with talking about when Michael Griffin unveiled the CEV. Many people say the CEV is an "Apollo on steroids." The shows that the CEV although similar in looks it is different from the Apollo spacecraft. They compare 5 things between the CEV and the Apollo. They are size, launch, range, controls and landing. In all of these categories the article sates that The CEV is better then the Apollo.

The article goes into detail about the difference in size. It states that the CEV will be bigger in diameter, 18ft versus the 13ft of the Apollo. Yet the spacecraft will only be 10 to 15 percent heavier. The CEV will also be able to hold more people and be less cramped. This will lead to a more comfortable and enjoyable experience for our astronauts. The article also talks about the launch. The Apollo lunched on the largest rockets ever made. The CEV will launch with smaller rockets then in earth orbit it will meet up with the rest of the rockets to reach the moon.

The next point was the range. The article states that since the CEV will hold more fuel than the Apollo it can land anywhere on the moon unlike the Apollo. Then the article talks about the controls, it states that the computers on the CEV are much more advance than the Apollo. This will lead to The CEV being able to fly on autopilot around the moon while the astronauts can be on the surface of the moon. The next point is about the CEV's capsule landing on land and not the ocean. This would mean no costly recovery mission/efforts.

The CEV seems more advance then The Apollo. The CEV has the advantage over the Apollo in all of these five fields.

Questions:
1. Are there any disadvantages to the CEV?
2. Can it hold as much as the Apollo?

CEV

Wilson, Jim, ed. "Frequently Asked Questions." NASA. 25 Feb. 2006. 10 Dec. 2006 http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev_faq.html.

This artifact is all about the CEV and other NASA projects. The CEV is supposed to be operational in 2011. The CEV will be used for space exploration. It can carry between three and six members on it. It can take trips to the international space station (ISS), and later is slatted to go to mars.

Another point of the article is about why we are going to the moon. The article states that going to the moon will help us develop new and better technologies so we can explore the space frontier. Also, missions on the moon will help us learn how to survive in space for extended periods. Also, we will ultimately do more tests on the moon and will use it to send vehicles to other planets like mars.

Another point of the article is about why we need the CEV over the space shuttle to go to the moon.

“ The space shuttle is not designed for use beyond low-Earth orbit. Wings are not necessary. There are several issues that prevent the use of the space shuttle for lunar exploration. To escape the Earth's gravity, any spacecraft must attain a speed of more than 17,500 mph. The shuttle is designed for re-entry from an Earth orbital speed of 17,500 mph, not the 25,000 mph speed of a moon mission. Entering the Earth's atmosphere at this high speed would destroy the shuttle because it would exceed the wing and fuselage load limits. Currently, there is no thermal protection system that would protect the wings from such a high heat load."(1).

The article later states that even though the CEV looks like the Apollo era space craft it is actually much more advance and reliable. In addition, they expect the CEV to lead the future in space travel.

Questions:
1. What are the advances over the Apollo?

Is the space shuttle safe

"The Great Space Shuttle Debate - is the Orbiter Safe?" Popular Mechanics. June 2005. 12 Dec. 2006
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1565327.html

I just read an article from Popular Mechanics on the issue of continuing to use the space shuttle until the 2010 retirement deadline. The article asked two separate experts with opposite views about the issue. One expert believes it should be retired now and the other believes we should continue to use it.

The person who is for the early retirement of the space shuttle talks about the danger and the cost. They state that the cost of the space shuttle has been too high from the beginning. He says that each launch is grossly more than what NASA’s budget was. They also talk about the danger of the space shuttle. They point out that the death rate of the space shuttle is one dead per every launch.

“ If NASA will not abandon the space station, there is an alternative to manned shuttle flights. A compromise would be to send people up on Russian spacecraft. NASA could engineer an unmanned shuttle to fly cargo to the station, and have the astronauts meet the components there for installation. It would be much cheaper since the shuttle wouldn't have to be made safe enough for human passengers. Russia has charged two civilians $20 million apiece to go up in its spacecraft--a piddling amount when a manned shuttle launch costs half a billion. (2)"

The quote shows what he believes to be the compromise. Send robots in the space shuttle. and send our people on the Russian space vehicles. He believes this will be cheaper and safer for NASA.

The other experts view was to continue to use the space shuttle. He is an astronaut himself and was on the international space station at the time of the Discovery disaster. He states that going to the ISS is important to research and our space program. The only vehicle in our fleet that can send humans to the ISS is the space shuttle.

“ Is the space shuttle both risky and costly? You bet. We will never fly without risk, even though NASA spends a lot of money minimizing it. For months before I board a shuttle, I ask myself, "Why am I really doing this? Is it worth the risk that my children may be without a dad?" And I say yes. (4)"

He is a astronaut himself and has been on the space shuttle. In addition, he believes that the risk is acceptable. He believes that NASA does all it can to minimize the risk. He believes that the risk is acceptable.

I believe that both of them have valid points and both options should be considered for use.

Questions:
1. Has NASA made a decision on whether to send the space shuttle?
2. What are the advances that the CEV has over the space shuttle?