New Mars Forums

no

the direct-lunar is known as unefficient and needs a bigger CaLV, not little

the upper part of the SLV must be like planned with some changes to increase the astronauts safety if someting goes wrong (like extra life support sent on the moon before the manned landings)

however some changes to the "traditional" apollo-like architecture can be made, but only if they increase the efficiency and safety, not if they increase the payload's weight

.

|||||||||||
That is only 2 CLV/CEV and 2 CaLV how can this lead to more failed moon missions...
|||||||||||

no matter if the moon missions will be 2 or 20 per year, if the 1.5 l.a. will be 65% reliable 1/3 of (2 or 20) missions will fail

|||||||||||
Maybe but Nasa could buy 10 times as many if we could make them at there costs...
|||||||||||

buy more Soyuz and Progress for ISS missions (instead of use a vehicle that costs 10-15 times) is absolutely the smartest choice (especially for NASA budget...)

|||||||||||
That would mean approcimately 4 days out plus 4 days back with no landing
|||||||||||

no, I don't refer to the entire travel, only to the moon exploration: ten days on the moon with three astronauts instead of one week with four (that menas... same moon exploration time but 25% less weight of CEV/SM/LSAM/EDS/SLV)

.

|||||||||||
Overall gaetano, you are still completly ignorant...
|||||||||||

where are the moderators of this forum?

|||||||||||
It is probably impossible with modern technology to build a rocket that is safe enough just because it doesn't fail...
|||||||||||

true! this is the main reason the 1.5 l.a. will cause many moon missions fail

||||||||||||
The engine that NASA has chosen for the CaLV, the RS-68...
||||||||||||

this is not my problem, I post only my opinion (that may be different, of course)

||||||||||||
Segmented solid rocket engines don't generally explode...
||||||||||||

but, when explode, they are too fast to save the crew

||||||||||||
None of the EELV models except the big tripple barrel can lift any capsule...
||||||||||||

when (and if...) the CEV will fly with its solid rocket five times more russian and chinese capsules will still fly (reliably and successful) with their EELV-like liquid engines rockets

||||||||||||
which means the CEV capsule itself should be big enough...
||||||||||||

Gemini, Apollo and Soyuz astronauts have accomplished spacewalks without a giant capsule like the CEV

||||||||||||||
Now you have TWO LSAMs then, and TWO EDS modules...
||||||||||||||

no

the 10 days exploration time of three astronauts equals 7 days with four

no need of two LSAM/EDS

.

|||||||||||||
My point is that slapping an escape system...
|||||||||||||

after the LAS is jettisoned the abort-procedure MUST be different, before that moment, the procedure must be the better to save the crew, of course

|||||||||||||
about Challenger and the SRB burnthrough...
|||||||||||||

the images and the sequence of events of the Challenger accident are well known in the entire world, then, it's useless to discuss of it

|||||||||||||
Your "suggestion" is irrelivent...
|||||||||||||

I don't agree

.

|||||||||||
When are you going to stop saying dumb things, gaetano?
|||||||||||

since you don't have any courtesy nor education I post my answer only for the other users of this forum

I suggest to build, only ONE capsule, 4.5 mt., bell-sized, for a crew of FOUR (not six) and use it ONLY for moon missions launched with an SLV

an ISS' version can be made with an SM-light and 3/4 crews (but I don't think it is necessary) with a 10-12 tons total weight to be launched with ready available rockets

I don't think that "mars" is a problem to talk now nor in the next 20 years!

this is "my choice"

|||||||||||||||
NASA is also obliged by international treaty...
|||||||||||||||

interantional treaties changes every days, it's a matter of politics

||||||||||
space suits...
||||||||||

I think that future spacesuites will be lighter than to-day's and past apollo suits

you will see so many innovations of materials and technologies in next 15 years that now we (and, especially, you) can't imagine

||||||||||
The cost of the rocket fuel is so small....
||||||||||

but not the cost of the tank and the rockets to launch the extra-weight

||||||||||||
don't built an orbit-only CEV with a half-sized service module...
||||||||||||

I suggest to don't build ANY orbital-CEV, onlu the lunar version

||||||
about the CLV...
||||||

in the story there are thousands of vehicles (of any kind) good "on paper" but wrong in real life... we need to wait to see how much the CLV is good or bad

|||||||||||||
EELVs would require such extensive changes...
|||||||||||||

all past capsule have used rockets (Titan, etc.) like to-day's EELV... now the EELV is "not good" only because many wants to sell the SRB...

||||||||||||||||
The "real costs" are not that difficult to know...
||||||||||||||||

ask NASA, ESA, etc. about Shuttle, ISS, probes, etc. "planned" costs and REAL costs...

|||||||||||||||
but it CAN with multiple capsule/ATV flights...
|||||||||||||||

when the Shuttle will retire, this is the only destiny of the ISS

the unpressurized cargoCEV is deleted, the pressurized (and VERY expensive) cargo-CEV was planned to send 3.5 tons of payload to the ISS in the 5.5mt. version (the 5mt. probably less than 3tons), the Progress carry 2.4 tons (and costs like a car!), I don't see so much advantages with the cargo-CEV

|||||||||||||
two seperate assembly lines for big and small service modules...
|||||||||||||

this only because all insists to build an ISS version of the CEV (that, I think, is completely unnecessary), with so many present and future (VERY CHEAP) vehicles the ISS cargo-crew CEVs are only a giant waste of time and money (that can be used to make more moon missions and sooner)

||||||||||||
what technology is used....
||||||||||||

of course, the technology is used on materials, not on volume

the planned 6x 5mt. CEV is very light if compared with the apollo CM

why?

new technologies and materials!

||||||||||||
jet airliners would be so...
||||||||||||

all products never born perfect including airplanes (many problems are known and solved only after air accidents)

||||||||||
Your "Plan C" involves direct flight to the Moon...
||||||||||

no

only to launch three astronauts for 10 days missions, the moon-hardware for 5+ missions separately with a cargo-LSAM, etc.

||||||||||||
adding more SRBs...
||||||||||||

my "first choice" is to build a 100 tons payload SLV with to-day's 4-seg. SRBs and lighter missions

.

||||||||||||
The escape system has a 0% chance...
||||||||||||

this verbal contrast is a non-sense, in the first part of the flight the astronauts life is 100% in LAS' hands, in the second part of the flight it is 0% (because the LAS is jettisoned...)

||||||||||||||
It will absolutely be far, far safer then Shuttle...
||||||||||||||

true at Shuttles' lift-off and part of the flight, not for the entire Shuttle flight

however... we need to see 112 successful CEV launch to make a true comparison...

||||||||||||||
Now you are just jibbering
||||||||||||||

please avoid personal attacks, thank you

|||||||||||||
The reality is that the CEV/CLV combo will have much less risk...
|||||||||||||

the (old!) SaturnV-SLV was 100% successful, the Shuttle-SLV is 112 times successful

we will see the real 1.5 launch reliability... (but I don't believe it will be so good)

|||||||||||||||
And if any of the 2, 3, or 4 SRBs fail the mission is over....
|||||||||||||||

all single-launch missions may fail due to system problem, the 1.5 l.a. may fail ALSO for hundreds stupid reasons that will make a big "sum of delays"

the 1.5 launch will BORN with "failure-option" BUILT-IN

the 3SSME+2SRB Shuttle-SLV was 112 times successful, the 11-engines (very old!) SaturnV-SLV was 100% successful

NASA is able to build a safe SLV (that will not have any "sum of delays failure option" built-in)

||||||||||||||
Didn't Challenger teach you anything? Not to put the crew on a vehicle that combines big segmented solid rockets beside tanks of liquid fuel!
||||||||||||||

really absurd claim!

the (NEW) side-mount-CaLV (or SLV) will fly only 12 times on the next 20 years while the (OLD and DANGEROUS) side-mount-Shuttle will still fly (as planned) 17-19 times in the next 5 years

if the risk of an SRB leak exist, why launch the old Shuttle 50% more times than a (manned or unmanned) CaLV???

also, if the SRB's leak is possible with the CLV that may don't mean a crew risk but mean a further reason of possible mission fail!

||||||||||||
None of the medium models could lift even a mini-CEV...
||||||||||||

I suggest to don't build any orbital-ISS-CEV

|||||||||||||
"Shuttles' failure at lift-off was due to an SRB fault!!!"
Wrong again! The failure was due to using the SRB out of its design specification...
|||||||||||||

then, if the SRB is used for the SLV "within its specs" it (and the SLV) is completely safe!

||||||||||||
If there were no tank next to the SRB, the little leak in the booster would not have caused the explosion either
||||||||||||

absurd claim, it's like say "if the airplanes don't fly never crash!"

the shuttles' tank is side mounted with the SRB but if the SRB don't have leaks the tank don't explode!

|||||||||||||
we can already calculate the risk right now with very good accuracy...
|||||||||||||

like with the shuttles' foam?

|||||||||||||
You don't seem to have much of a grasp of engineering at all
|||||||||||||

please avoid personal attaks, thank you

|||||||||||||||
Wrong again! Its only safer if the engine shuts down, instead of explodes...
|||||||||||||||

true if the engine explodes, not true if one engine will fail and the other engines have sufficient thrust (like with apollo13's 2nd stage of saturnV)

more later

.

unfortunately the CaLV can't do the same job of the Shuttle for ISS because its payload will be giant but "stupid", without any navigation systems and engines

the navigation system is the most critic part to design (the DART has failed and the ATV was delayed)

to-date, only Russia has a big experience in orbital navigation system of capsules and cargo like the Progress (in fact, Japan, China and ESA have used or will use the russian technology and know-how for their orbital vehicles)

another problem with the CaLV, used as ISS cargo like with Progress, is that 60%+ of the payload's weight will be for cargo-vehicle, engines and fuel, then, a 125 tons CaLV can deliver about 50 tons NET of cargo to the ISS, much more than the 2.4 tons of a Progress but with an higher cost per ton

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

since the thread was changed from "man-rate rockets" to EELVs, I wish to tell you the full story of my article about the SLV and of this thread (since I'm still interested to know something more about "man-rating")

last december I've made some posts on a forum about the high risks to fail of the VSE "one-and-half" launch architecture, but only in April 12 I've written and published the article about the SLV on my website

after publishing the article, I've posted the link on a few space-forums and space-blogs and I've sent also an email to space experts of some newspapers and space-websites

in April 15 I've sent an email with the link to some addresses including a famous space-website: http://usspacenews.com/

in April 16 I've read on usspacenews this article:

CEV Update
April 16, 2006
This coming week is a time of decision for the CEV/CLV .................................
..............................................................................................................
......................................................................................................
........................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
.....................................................................  One more idea from this week
you might find interesting. Cancel the CLV and man rate the HLV. That will most likely not
happen. It should, saves a ton of cash and gets us to one design. Two
SRB's, one on each side of the new upperstage. Looks a lot like the Shuttle C concept with the
CEV on top. Could happen. Solves the energy problem. But, it's not Monday yet.
Lastly the ISS CEV will have very small version of the SM (sort of a limited propulsion module).

(unfortunately, in the article there is no link to my article nor info about the source nor info/link about a different source ...if the "idea of the week" was suggested the same day of my article/email but on another website or newspaper...)

well, since I don't know how rockets/engines can be "man-rated" (and how much time and money may cost) I've decided to open a thread on a space-forum (this) to know something more about that procedure, to prevent the (possible) main critic against my proposal: the time, costs and problems to "man-rate" the SLV-CaLV (as explained in my first post of this thread)

but ONLY about man-rate an SLV for moon missions NOT to man-rate any EELV since I think that an orbital-CEV for ISS is very expensive and completely unnecessary with the great choice of crew and cargo orbital vehicles that will be available in the next decade

.

sorry, but I've made hundreds posts about this (and other) proposal on another space forum (from october 2005), WEEKS before Jeff Bell's article... (maybe he reads space forums...?) and, of course, I agree with "his" (or my???) opinions...

.

Internet (sci-fi only 15 years ago!) is so useful and interesting that, a few misunderstandings on discussion boards, is a very little problem if compared with the opportunity to talk of our ideas and interests with the entire world!

.

NASA plan is terrible and totally unworkable

no, NASA plans may simply have mistakes, like all "plans"

The Shuttle and ISS were mistakes, but they were mistakes based on the desire to maintain the political status quo, and were not the product of engineering decisions. The ESAS plan is largely founded on engineering, so either the engineers are right or they are wrong, Shuttle and the ISS were a different kind of mistake.

I don't agree

the Shuttles and ISS was not only a "political mistake" but (most) an engineering mistake: its LEGO-like design, all modules different without any standardization (to reduce costs), Shuttle-based assembly (without any cheaper alternative), its orbit inclination, etc. (and about the Shuttle... side-mounting, cargo-and-crew launch, no escape mode, etc.)

Really? How?

see the changes alerady made and those that will happen in the next 10 years...

This makes no sense. The LSAM/EDS will burn Hydrogen fuel just like the CLV's upper stage, and the CLV will be just as tall as the CaLV, so you won't be any further from danger anyway. One of the most dangerous things is getting enough altitude to open the parachutes, which n this the CLV's rapid acceleration is superior to the CaLV or EELV.

true, but the lift-off (with so much fire and the tanks full of fuel) is very dangerous

Your analogy is stupid.

please avoid personal opinions about me, thank you

The big SRB is the safest engine of its size ever built, bar none.

to-day's SRB is safe but CLV's SRB will be different and the entire CLV/SM/CEV system will be very complex

we must know the (real) reliability of the entire system, not only part of it, and the full system will be "new and experimental" because there are thousands of (big and little) parts that may work or not

a new car my be perfect but the accident may happen due to a defective wheel

The RS-68 has no good emergency shutdown modes

I hope that NASA will use the SSME

You picked the "15+" number out of thin air

I say "15" but may be 10 or 20, it's a problem of statistics, with only two successful launches (or fails) we can't say that a rocket is 100% safe (or unsafe)

we need 10, 15, 20 or more flights to have REAL statistics of its reliability (and we need 250+ successful flights to claim that the new CLV is "safer" than Shuttle+Soyuz...)

No, even if the big SRB fails shortly after liftoff, the J-2 upper stage would have enough fuel to boost the CEV suborbital over the Atlantic most likly. Anyway, the burn time of the SRB is short compared to the EELV or CaLV, so this is actually a smaller risk then these "slower" rockets.

true, but only if the altitude is sufficient, if the failure is not too fast, if all works well, etc.

.

First, the CEV is sized to hold four men for long periods, but six is [i]only for a short time. Let me say that again, that the six-seat condition would only be used for short periods, like one day tops. The trip to the Moon will require the crew to spend two or three weeks in the capsule. The only time six seats would be used would be for emergency return from the ISS or Earth return following a Mars mission. Again, the CEV will primarily be a four-seater, and it is sized as such, with the six-seat mode only being for short times. Its not dead weight, Apollo was really a bit too small for three men to spend two weeks in, and I think the CEV is about the right size.[/i]

The six-seats-CEV is unnecessary for ISS rescue and Mars travel (if and when will happen...) because can be simply used TWO capsules (like to-day's Soyuzs) docked to two ports (that have two more advantages: up to eight seats and the opportunity to save minimum half crew if one capsule will fails)

In the new moon missions the astronauts will use the CEV only for THREE days (when they will come back to earth) because in the earth-moon travel they can live in the GIANT lunar module that will have 5+ times the volume than an old-LEM, then, a 4.5 mt., "bell-sized" (with 70% more volume of the Apollo CM) and two SM ("full" and "light") launched with ready available rockets may do both job fine.

[i] "Each tonne launched into orbit"[color=violet] is irrelivent when you are talking manned vehicles versus satellites or bulk cargo. The only question is can the rocket carry out the mission? It costs nearly nothing for the CLV to launch ~25MT compared to 20MT, and adding a few feet or another cheap $15M RS-68 engine to the CaLV tanks costs nearly nothing as well. And "...it's "hardware costs" will be (minimum) 50% more than a 16 tons launcher" is also a fallacy, because it won't cost any more to make the 25MT CLV then the 20MT. Infact, it might cost less over all. Your complaining is just like the irrational Mark Wade, bemoning tonnes just because "a big number is bad." This likewise applies to the CEV for use as an ISS transport, that it won't cost any more to launch the service module tanks full as it would empty, so why not? The fuel could be burned to re-boost the station so the Russian Progress and ESA ATV could carry more cargo. [/color][/i]

The costs counts if the extra-tons sent without any reasons are many.

true, a 20-tons-CLV may cost like a 25-tons-CLV... but I suggest to don't build any CLV but use other rockets

the costs of a CLV and an Atlas/Delta was comparable with the first version of CLV (with ready available SRB and SSME) but not with the new version that may cost 30-50% more than to-day's rockets

I've read the Mark Wade's blog, but I've made the same considerations months before on a space-forums

a bigger SM will weight more due to its own structure, not only the fuel and, if you compare the fuel weight of a Soyuz vs. the CEV, you see that the CEV's fuel is too much also if it need to re-boost the ISS

I think that facts wins on words... the fact that an old and little Soyuz/Progress do the job of support the ISS from years clearly demontrates that a bigger capsule may be good but not absolutely necessary

the extra fuel could be burned to get you back down to a safer landing site quickly. The cargo-only CEV can also haul much more payload if it trades that fuel for mass. The added fuel that a fully loaded service module has is a tremendous advantage and costs NASA nothing!

you're right, but the "extra-fuel" we are talking about is too much since it will need to leave the lunar orbit

I think that a cargo-CEV will NEVER be used because its launch cost (CLV+cargoCEV) will be 10+ times the cost of the Progress, ATV, etc. (and NASA/ESA don't have money to burn)

true... the "added fuel" don't cost nothing... unfortunately, send in orbit that extra-fuel (that in 90% of non-rescue and non-reboost missions will be NOT used) will need a bigger rocket... that costs!

Comparing the CEV to Soyuz or Shenzou is nonsense, because the CEV isn't intended to do the same thing. If you were to put Earth-return fuel on either of the foreign capsules, they would weigh ~15MT at least I would imagine. The Soyuz is really only a two-man capsule, modified to cram a third man in. The CEV will hold four for much longer times, and six in the "return only" role. The CEV will also be more reuseable then these capsules, because Soyuz and Shenzou both disguard their orbital module as well as their service module. NASA does intend to reuse the CEV capsules you know, at least from gentler ISS trips, which will overall save money versus these three-piece capsules despite being heavier.

true... the CEV can't be compared with a Soyuz, the CEV is bigger, with 4 astronauts, more fuel, etc. because it is designed for moon missions, in fact, I suggest to use it ONLY for the moon missions (with the SLV) and use the Soyuz, etc. for the ISS (this is not only my opinion since NASA buys Soyuz and Progress every years...)

You also make big talk about "light material" making a rather large difference in the CEV's mass. This is not going to happen, because the materials available aren't that much lighter then regular materials. They are also more difficult to use, since carbon composites or ultralight aluminum alloys don't withstand high temperatures very well. The CEV service module structure and tanks will likly be made from carbon composite however.

it's 50% true because some materials will be similar to the Apollo but great part of internal devices and materials will be 2 to 10 times lighter and smaller than Apollo (computers, electronics, panels, displays, spacesuits, etc.)

Again, while it might be possible to modify the medium Delta or Atlas rockets to carry a down-graded three seat or a cramped multi-module four seat capsule, but doing so would be very difficult. These large liquid rockets with engines designed to be cheap not reliable should not be much easier then to build the CLV. Only the heaviest configuration of either launcher would suffice, which means four of those little flimsy problem-prone solid rocket motors too, while the CLV will have only two of the safest engines of their class available. It will be easier to build and man-rate the CLV then it would to man-rate the EELVs.

you forget that this is the way ALL past (Apollo, etc.), to-day's (Soyuz, etc.) and future capsules have (reliably) made 150+ succesful flights... CLV will be completely new and its REAL advantages and reliability will be known only when (and IF...) will really fly...

The increased cost of the CLV due to the inclusion of the five-segment booster is also a fallacy, because this cost would have simply been incured later when we start building the CaLV anyway. Pay it now or pay it later, we would eventually have to pay. Paying it now permits us to abandon the four-segment SRB production line and to abandon the expensive SSME, both of which would have reoccuring costs that now NASA won't have to pay.

true, but (as I explain in my article) I suggest to build a 150-tons SLV with three 4-seg. SRB or a 120-tons SLV (with resized CEV, LSAM, etc.) with two 4-seg. SRB and NEVER build the 5-seg. SRB saving $2 billion of R&D, 2-3 years of time and $30+ million per SRB

And what is with the exclamation marks? So what if NASA could launch the dinky little EELVs lots of times, where would it fly them to? The worthless ISS? If you average their payload masses, they only add up to ~800MT, which can be lifted by just six of the big CaLVs.

you're right, in fact in my article (and here) I don't suggest to send 50 missions to the ISS but to use the GIANT quantity of (R&D+hardware) money saved to make 20+ moon missions (instead of only 12 missions) from 2015 to 2020 (instead of 2020-2025)

Whatever any of us thinks about the ISS is unfortunatly irrelivent, that barring as serious station accident or the loss of another Shuttle, NASA is obliged by treaty and legeslation to support and have access to the ISS for some time, so it doesn't matter a bit if other countries could perform these duties instead. 

not true, this is a matter of politics, then, if the Shuttle is too dangerous and the CEV too expensive for ISS' missions, politics MUST change their decisions (and NASA/ESA will do the job in adifferent way)

The only person concerned with your triade who aren't being rational is you, gaetano, not NASA. These choices, with exception to ISS duty perhaps, are perfectly rational, and the greater capability and safety of the ESAS plan comes at a negligible additional cost. NASA needs this new hardware, and the only thing not [i]NEW NEW NEW!!! in your babbling is the EELVs, which using them instead of the CLV won't save much money if any. [/i]

I can say you a dozen of "opinion" I've written on my articles and/or posted on space-forums that are the same of recent NASA decisions and changes... I think that SLV will be one of the next...

.

"I think I will have to invoke the concept that all the engineers at NASA can't be that stupid, so you must be wrong, gaetano."

No, they are NOT stupid, but, since they are "humans" like us, can make mistakes.

Six months ago in an interview Griffin defined both ISS and Shuttle "giant mistakes"... well, if that is true (like hundreds of space experts and forums' users say every day) means that thousands NASA engineers, scientists and officials have (repeatedly) made lots of mistakes for 30+ years!

And look also at the VSE/ESAS plan... two years of preparation after Bush's announcement, three months of study of the best NASA engineeers, then, after publishing the "final" and DETAILED plan in the december, EVERY DAY (from the first week after its publishing!) there are one or more little and BIG changes to the plan!

My question is: "how have they used the last two years, if the ESAS plan loses water from every hole?"

The answer is that NASA engineers are excellent but "humans", then, can make "mistakes", like everyone of us... and the next GIANT and INCREDIBLE mistake they are doing is the "one-and-half" launch architecture!

"The idea that the launch escape system is the cure-all and the rest of the rocket is irrelivent to man rating is nonsense, nothing could be further from the truth!"

right

despite the CEV will have the LAS, the rocket to launch it (CLV or SLV) must be made as good and reliable as possible!

"The launch escape system for instance will do you no good if it doesn't activate in time to save the crew: how does the system know when to activate?"

true

but that means no rocket is 100% safe, not even the CLV!

also, I think that an SLV is safer than a CLV or an EELV because the main risk of a launch is at lift-off when the rockets is a giant bomb of fuel

well, with an SLV the astronauts will be over 350 ft. away from engines' FIRE and fuel's tank, then they will have much more time to activate the LAS and much more probabilities to save their life!!!

"NASA's CLV has advantages in all of these traits"

not true

if you use an old engine in a completely new car don't mean that the car is reliable

the new SRB will be completely different and made to work alone (without Shuttles' energy and controls), the J2X will be a new version and the entire "system" (SRB, interstage, J2X, tanks, SM, CEV, LAS, software, etc.) will be completely new and never used before, then, experimental

only after 15+ test/unmanned/manned flights we can know if (and how much) the new rocket is reliable

Delta, Atlas and Ariane are more complex but they have already made dozens of successful launches (and are well known in all their aspects)

"...so if there is a leak, it will be small, and it will inherintly cause the engine to shut down..."

...and will falls on itself from 1, 10, 30+ km... that (I think) is NOT so safe for the astronauts!

"you might be close enough to orbit to burn your Earth-return fuel so you can avoid a dangerous hypersonic emergency reentry over the freezing Atlantic and instead have a whole orbit to land normally in California"

...but only if the SRB's failure will happen at high altitude... then, the problem is only if the astronauts will be lucky or not

.