Well. Considering the budget the CEV would most likely end up being a capsule.

It was the impression that since we had built Apollo 40 years ago it would be easier and speed up the design process if the CEV would “look like” Apollo, and there certainly is something to that notion. The only problem being that most Apollo engineers were long gone and people had to relearn how to design it. Then of course other problems started to show like the size, the side wall angles, the heat shield material, etc.

One interesting requirement though was that the CEV had to be monostable. Monostable means that no matter what the capsule would orient itself so that the heatshield comes in first during reentry. The Apollo shape does not work for monostability. The Soyuz shape on the other hand does. Unfortunately for a bunch of people supposedly bent on crew safety it was not politically correct that the new A.M.E.R.I.C.A.N. CEV looks like a Soyuz. So the hell with crew safety. Requirements driven by politics.

By the way some early requirements were not working either. Like high L/D performance, which is generally achieved at high angle of attack on reentry but bring in instability for a capsule. But high L/D was required to perform land-landing in the US since you needed downrange and crossrange as well. AND land-landing was required since we did not want to bring the whole US Navy to recover the capsule – as recently demonstrated by SpaceX you don’t really need the whole US Navy. But a high L/D capsule? Well that does not exist, not really. There were studies with non symmetrical heatshield even though the increase in L/D was not that significant. It might have helped with packaging which is very important in a capsule since it dictates the location of the CG which in turns drive angle of attack hence L/D. Anywho.

Lifting bodies of sorts were suggested but feared too complicated.

So stupid requirements took over mission requirements so that in the end the CEV would look like Apollo just bigger.

The rest is history…

Hope this helps.

The “obljective [sic]” in this discussion is to find viable offsets for the reductions in NASA’s planetary science budget. Spending more of NASA’s budget on Soyuz purchases doesn’t achieve that “obljective [sic]”.

Think before you post, dummy.

“Or are you one of these people who only flies domestic carriers and never virgin or Air France…”

Once again, your ignorance exceeds your grasp. I flew Air France on my honeymoon. I’m flying on Virgin this summer to a wedding in California.

“The obljective”

“they’re launchec”

“‘domesticc’ launch”

“no plae”

“no where fast”

Learn the English language, you illiterate idiot.

Apollo was a stunt. Multiple primary and secondary sources have stated such:

“[President Kennedy]: ‘… you can learn most of what you want scientifically through instruments and putting a man on the moon really is a stunt and it isn’t worth that many billions… it does look like a stunt’”

http://spaceksc.blogspot.com/2011/05/jfk-feared-apollo-would-look-like-stunt.html

“Thomas Evans headed up the Advanced Lunar Missions Study Program in the NASA Headquarters Office of Manned Space Flight… Evans told assembled members of the AAS that ‘the idea of a manned [landing] on the moon was so spectacular. . .that [it] dominated most pronouncements and thoughts on the space program.’ He argued, however, that this objective had ‘too much the flavor of a stunt to be the final goal of a $20 billion national effort.’”

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/the-proper-course-for-lunar-exploration-1965/

“But although President Kennedy’s objective was duly accomplished,” wrote the Director of NASA’s Ames Research Center in 1987, “the Apollo Program had no logical legacy.” It was a technological dead end. One reporter likened the whole race to the Moon to a dog chasing a car… The dog, somewhat uncertain what to do once it had the car, hesitated, marked it as dogs will, and then walked away… Like the Apollo Program, the Space Shuttle was a spectacular stunt with little or no payoff.”

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ax9ZoMomcCIC&pg=PT65&lpg=PT65&dq=apollo+program+stunt&source=bl&ots=TtRGwxlv-O&sig=KZG-EpqlcxnWROHmGFzhifN6QFI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p492Ud7OLcT84APN44HYCg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ

“Project Apollo: Stunt or Portent?

Magnificent as they were, the launch vehicles that carried men to the moon turned out to be too expensive for other missions. The choice of lunar-orbit rendezvous as the mission mode – largely dictated by the end-of-the-decade challenge – produced two spacecraft ideally adapted to their function but without sufficient margin for growth to advance the exploration of the moon as far as scientists wanted. Apollo’s scientific results were of vital interest to only a very small fraction of the scientific community and did not authoritatively answer the questions scientists hoped they would answer before the first landing. (As one critic caustically commented, the scientists were able to obtain ‘a neater fix, so to speak, on the number of angels who can dance on the point of a pin.’)”

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4214/contents.html

“As fascinating and awesome as the Apollo program was, there is some truth behind dissenters’ opinions that the program was little more than a stunt.”

http://amyshirateitel.com/2011/06/21/what-to-do-after-the-moon/

“At the height of the Cold War, the superpowers spared no expense in funding the latest space spectacular. Dazzling stunts in space, not cost-cutting, were the order of the day. No one bothered to read their price tag.

But after 1969, the Soviets dropped out of the race to the moon and, like a cancer, the land war in Asia began to devour the budget. The wind gradually came out of the sails of the space program; the Nielsen ratings for each moon landing began to fall. The last manned mission to the moon was Apollo 17, in 1972.

As Isaac Asimov once commented, we scored a touchdown, then took our football and went home.”

http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/16/apollo-moon-landing-anniversary-opinions-contributors-cost-money.html

“Face the facts. The Mercury program was a stunt. The Gemini program was a stunt. And the Apollo program was a stunt. President Kennedy’s original challenge for lunar landing had to be done ‘by the end of this decade’ meant that a magnificent stunt was all that could be accomplished. There was not time to develop the basic technologies, techniques and infrastructure that would make manned space exploration safe, reliable, and sustainable, or even to simply actually explore the Moon. All Apollo could accomplish — and that just barely — was to send two men to the surface of the Moon and then bring them back again after a stay of no more than a matter of hours. The ‘giant leap’ was in reality a tiny step away from just grabbing a handful of moondirt and scooting quickly back to Earth, never to return. That was all that was required to prove that the United States was the technological and organizational superior to the Soviet Union, and that was the real objective.

It was a stunt. That does not mean that great engineering wasn’t done, or that tremendous courage wasn’t required, or that good science wasn’t accomplished. But it was a stunt, because it truly was not designed to lead to anything else.

We have to stop thinking of manned space exploration in terms of doing stunts.”

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/870/1

“Well, we’ve outed an elbow-patched faculty lounge setter”

Once again, your ignorance exceeds your grasp. I don’t serve on any faculty.

And you can’t even get your stereotypes right. Planetary scientists don’t wear elbow patches, dummy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steve_squyres.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carolyn_porco.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eugene_Shoemaker.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:David_H._Levy.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alan_stern.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maria_Zuber_-_GRAIL_MoonKAM_Student_Expo_2012.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Planetary_society2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Lunine

“who prefers his expensive toys to government HSF ops”

I’ll take the robotic “toys” performing actual exploration of multiple planets and solar system bodies over the “HSF ops” that hasn’t left Earth orbit in over four decades.

Duh…

I am a young scientist. The keys to the kingdom are not being shared by the senior scientists who are at retirement age or a few years away.

Instead, senior scientists spend their days plotting about how to keep the young folks away, since these guys don’t want to retire.

Young scientists get marginalized for speaking out. I see this first hand.

I applaud the Planetary Society for the efforts they’ve made to garner public support and lobby for continued funding. What is NASA if not the agency that explores other worlds? (Please don’t think I’m making a robots vs. Humans arguement, as I believe there is room for both)

But it will be a travesty if we sacrifice planetary missions, of any class, to cover deficits for launch vehicle shortfalls.

As for the “tweed jacket and ivory tower” crowd-I think that’s an unfair assesment of the planetary science community. There is a disproportionate number of under 40-somethings who are actively participating in exploration missions. Every year at the annual Lunar & Planetary Science Conference, hundreds of students and young researchers are present to take part in the sessions covering the latest discoveries. And despite what some may think, there is A LOT of enthusiasm for MSL and it’s impact on Martian research.

It would be a diservice to the future if space exploration to ruin now the enormous strides that are taking place in planetary science

I’m sorry, but it’s one thing to be critical about cost and schedule management. It’s another thing to be critical about what you pay technicians to do.

Take a look for yourself. We know the poll is biased towards MSNBC readers. It is tough to say how many of them are opposed to spending federal money on manned flight to Mars. It may be az high as 1 in 3, perhaps more.

We never get polls taken on NASA and planetary defense.
I suspect they would run about 90% favorable.

“Veetle Bailey

Nr. Obama”

Unfortunately for you, now whenever I read what you write I’m only looking to see the hilarious typo’s.

If you want to be “heard”, I suggest you upgrade your 60’s era keyboard…