Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

Vir Stellae · 2004-01-15 08:34:10

lets try to centralize and consolidate our info on this; post any new info you have for this here in this message.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-15 16:25:57

Let us speculate what Bush's Crew Exploration Vehicle is... Is it a new Heavy Lift launch vehicle?

"We will begin the effort quickly, using existing programs and personnel."

Sounds like a readaption of the Shuttle hardware, i.e Magnum, Ares, Shuttle C... (Wishful thinking on my behalf)

Also, now that we have made human goals, and not science goals, the focus of NASA, will we finally drop the idea of leggo space stations and space vehicles, as a heavy lift launcher now makes more sense? (More wishful thinking on my behalf)

"The Crew Exploration Vehicle will be capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the Space Station after the shuttle is retired. But the main purpose of this spacecraft will be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo Command Module."

Here it sounds like some sort of breakthrough spacecraft, a multifunction exploration vehicle (Wishful thinking on the Presidents behalf)

So... What is it?

wgc · 2004-01-15 20:58:22

When I listened to Okeaf, I did get the impression that they were at least thinking in that direction. it would make sense. I also found it interesting that when asked about what would happen to the launch centers during the period between shuttle retirement and the cev, He kind of hinted they would be testing the cev. So when they say that the cev won't be ready for human flight until 2014. do they mean as an operational vehicle or a test vehicle. I get the impression that manned flights to leo would probably start much earlier. I doubt its going to be an automonous vehicle which means piloted test flights. I would not be real surprised if the first big test of the cev is a hubble servicing mission. It would make sense now to not spend funds on a new generation of telescopes but the astronmy community then would push to extend the hubble lifetime.
I don't agree with President Bush on many things but I think he purposely taking this slow to avoid the program being killed by congress.

First if Congress doesn't give the program a chance than all the stuff about nasa not having goals, coherent plans that came about out of the CAIB is going to fall back on Congress. They will deservely get the egg on their face.

Secondly the plan retires the shuttle, no costly recertification.
It fullfills our international obligation, but places the space station in the proper perspective.

Does this plan have a chance of surviving administrations , why not the shuttle and ISS did. I think the public may be more willing to spend the money if they have more cofindence in Nasa, if Nasa can rebuild its image, this is the best chance they have at doing that. This is not a billiant plan by any means but its by no means the work of some nieve child space cadet (as the president has been labeled). This is a plan designed by politicians for politicians.

Technology isn't going to get us to Mars, presentation and image building will get us there more than 99% of the way.

Just an opinion.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-16 21:09:58

Hey, Let's hope this isn't the new CEV: [http://www.cheapdisposable.com/~bchan/cevspec.jpg]CEV: Speculative Configuration

Where'd this come from anyhow?

Rxke · 2004-01-17 02:41:56

looks good, modular, but not sure about the nuclear part: won't that take too much time to develop?
I hope someone can answer 'no' with some substantial proof. This configuration would kick some butt, mission-wise

another question: isn't this a bit big? (read: heavy)

Rxke · 2004-01-17 02:45:37

The good thing about such a design is they can start *quickly* with the basic configuration, and use low thrust launchers, and gradually add new stuff, when new modules, heavier launchers get developed... Until they have a very capable config.
A quick start would be good also for publi opinion, money-backers etc...

Now, where does this come from?

Rxke · 2004-01-17 15:31:38

looks remarkably alike the Gemini,Apollo, escape system.. Or am i missing something?

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-17 23:12:01

This escape tower concept from Boeing is obviously not going to work with a 'Hang off the side' space vehicle, as in Energia, Shuttle C... Boeing's looking at an Apollo type capsule here. Perhaps this vehicle will be developed in conjuction with a new heavy lift booster?

More clues? -Have a look at the preliminary long-term budget plan: During the next six years, 7+ billion will be devoted to the CEV, and an additional 11+ billion after Shuttle funding is cut; Arguably too little money for a Shuttle Orbiter replacement, but enough for a new booster...

Also, I don't see a new Heavy Lift Booster coming under the 'Exploration Missions' title.

Aww fiddlesticks...

Have I gone off me rocker?

*Need more information...*

RobS · 2004-01-18 01:49:45

The hint in Bush's speech that I heard was that the CEV would be first ready 2008. I am not sure why it won't be available until 2014 for lunar flight; probablyu because that requires other modules. But 2008 is the date of the old Orbital Space Plane, which was looking more and more like a capsule back in the fall.

So my guess is that the CEV is just the OSP renamed, with more capacity to carry consumables (because a moon flight takes longer). The CEV will then need a booster to get it to lagrange 1 or all the way to the lunar surface. If the CEV masses about 11 tonnes or less, it can be launched with a 15 tonne stage that is big enough to push it to Lagrange. There it could rendezvous with a refuelable lander to lower it to the lunar surface. If this scenario is true, the CEV will need only a Delta-IV Large to be launched.

Since there has been no talk of a heavy lifter derived from shuttle hardware and no talk of saving all those shuttle-related jobs--which is politically important--I infer the plan is to do everything with EELVs. With solar-powered ion engines, you can get cargo to lagrange. If there's no water at the lunar poles you can use solar-ion to push a lunar lander to Lagrange, to which the CEV will dock for landing.

-- RobS

Vir Stellae · 2004-01-18 07:36:20

I bet that this craft will use the Delta IV familiy of Rockets. Depending on how much 'extras' are added to it, it could use up to the Delta IV heavy.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-18 16:06:18

Okay, now my legs have turned wobbly...

Once we have returned to the moon, a plan like this will leave us with nothing, no heavy lift booster, no large craft, nothing to help us to Mars after 2020.

And what about lunar bases... Will they be constructed of tiny modular pieces too?

What the hell is wrong with NASA, or specifically O'Keefe, if he's the one who got us into this... There is no vision...

Rxke · 2004-01-18 18:39:39

Yes Michael...:(

I initially went 'cool design'... but imagine this elongated tin can on a mission to Mars? Worthless...
Dead in the water. It's great for the moon, not for Mars...

But still all these plans are 'rumours,' nothing's official yet.

Bill White · 2004-01-18 20:08:30

Okay, now my legs have turned wobbly...
Once we have returned to the moon, a plan like this will leave us with nothing, no heavy lift booster, no large craft, nothing to help us to Mars after 2020.
And what about lunar bases... Will they be constructed of tiny modular pieces too?
What the hell is wrong with NASA, or specifically O'Keefe, if he's the one who got us into this... There is no vision...

Exactly, my friend. Yet add shuttle B/C or Ares to send mass to the Moon and all is well, even if we accept MOON FIRST. Add shuttle B/C or Ares to the plan and I can readily support the Bush vision.

In any event, the party line seems to be, don't worry the private sector shall supply the missing heavy lift.

RobW · 2004-01-19 02:08:15

Okay, now my legs have turned wobbly...
Once we have returned to the moon, a plan like this will leave us with nothing, no heavy lift booster, no large craft, nothing to help us to Mars after 2020.
And what about lunar bases... Will they be constructed of tiny modular pieces too?
What the hell is wrong with NASA, or specifically O'Keefe, if he's the one who got us into this... There is no vision...

Why do you feel a shuttle-derived HLLV is necessary to get to Mars? What's wrong with assembling (well, docking separately launched stages) and outfitting your Mars vehicle at L1, fueling it with Lunar hydrogen and oxygen (or just hydrogen for a nuclear system), and setting off from there. In the meantime, all the Delta IV Heavies and Altas Vs you use end up creating economies of scale and making space launch a little bit cheaper.

In terms of being left with nothing to help you go to Mars after the Lunar missions, don't you think that not having to life the fuel for your Mars trip out of Earth's gravity well is something useful? It might not make sense if you only planned to go to Mars three or four times, but for regular trips, its a big deal. I also think the experience gained flying the CEV and living on the moon will literally save the lives of martian astronauts. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, our experience with human spaceflight beyond LEO is far too limited to commit a group of five or six astronauts to two or three years of interplanetary travel. I will have a lot more confidence once we have had crews living on the lunar surface for a year, or rehearsing a mars mission in a hab parked at L1 or L2. I am all for a Mars mission, and I'm pleased that Bush made it the overarching goal of his spaceflight policy, but regardless of what Bob Zubrin might say, there is work to be done before we go there, and it is reasonable to do some of that work on the moon.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-19 03:01:32

What you have to realize here, Rob, is that space is an extremely expensive place to visit. Nothing will happen there unless it is really economically efficient, and/or makes really good science. Unfortunately, NASA is not a corporation about factualizing science fiction, and grand visions come at considerable expense. Columbus arguably didn't have the experience, but he had the passion. If Columbus wanted too, he could have waited for new, larger, safer exploration ships to be developed. But he knew America was waiting. He chose to push the limits of what he had.

We have the shuttle hardware, we have chemical propulsion. And we have the know-how.

Let's push the limits of what we have.

RobW · 2004-01-19 04:02:58

Michael,

The ISS is not really economically effient, nor has is displayed really good science, and yet more billions of dollars have been spent on it than really bears thinking about.
The same is true of the shuttle. Bush's plan in any case is not justified by science, but by exploration.

Nasa is exactly about factualizing science fiction - what do you call flying people to other planets? I get your point that it's not about building the Battlestar Galactica, but can you tell me what is wrong with multiple launches and on-orbit rendesvous/docking?

As for the comparison to columbus, passion will not help a crew of mars explorers breathe vaccuum if their life support fails six months from Earth because its a brand new design that hasn't already clocked up several years of operational experience in space. Columbus already had all the experience he needed - he knew how to sail his ship, and how he could expect it to perform. I'm not saying we should stay at home until somebody invents the warp drive, and I agree with you that a Mars mission is completely possible with chemical propulsion and technologies that we have in hand - I'm just saying that some operational experience with those technologies would be a good thing before we commit a crew to a three year mission. We don't need a HLLV to get that experience, and we probably dont need one to go to Mars.

The point is, if you are really serious about seeing people on Mars (I'm sure you are, and so am I) then you should be prepared to wait an extra few (five or less) years while we carry out some prudent rehearsal missions. The moon is a reasonable place to carry them out, and while we are there we should take advantage of whatever that location has to offer in terms of basing of telescopes, ISRU, or whatever.

Why do you feel we have to go to Mars exclusively and ASAP? So long as Mars is the stated goal, and in a reasonable timeframe, other preparatory work at L1 or the moon is IMHO a good thing, that only makes planned Mars missions more robust and realistic. Are you worried about the rehearsal eating up all the money for the real mission? You should be more worried about sprinting off to Mars without adequate preparation.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-19 04:36:40

I'm afraid if Bush's plan starts too repeat the cost overuns and expense of ISS/Shuttle, it won't show its true worth. I don't feel as though we should go to Mars exclusively, indeed I am in support of a new Lunar program, but I don't feel it's a necassary step; We can get to Mars on what we have, as far as life support (If we use artificial gravity; also, I don't see the need for spinning hardware in lunar transit ). And we don't have to go to the moon to test hardware, we can do that much closer to home. Beyond that, I think we have all the experience we need. And I'm sure we can do the whole Apollo2 thing a lot easier with an HLLV. Also, NASA's manned program has been unnecassarily inefficient during its recent history, and I strongly feel we should use this chance to correct that; to show how inexpensive space travel can be.

The Columbus reference was obviously from Zubrin. Destination drives transportation. I'm afraid once we start investing in novel transport infrastructure without a worthy destination, people will start to ask where the money is going.

We will undoubtedly need more preparation, but is a new Lunar Program going to give us what we need? And at what expense?

Bill White · 2004-01-19 07:42:38

We don't need a HLLV to get that experience, and we probably dont need one to go to Mars.

This is the key question. If you are right, everything is fine. If you are wrong, Mars is "off the table" for 50 years maybe more. Until a new HLLV is built from scratch.

Will six Delta IV launches be more politically feasible than one Ares launch, come 2020? Actually, its twelve Delta IV rather than two Ares. All for one Mars mission and return. For a robust Mars program, will it be easier to accomplish 120 Delta IV launches or 20 Ares launches?

The most expensive step is Earth to LEO. Lunar fuel does NOTHING for that. What is cost per pound to LEO for Delta IV and cost per pound to LEO for Shuttle B/C or Ares? Plan to use nuclear for trans-Mars insertion? Okay, the Earth to LEO equation remains unchanged in that scenario as well.

Also, these lunar bases would be cheaper to build and test using Ares rather than Delta IV.

JasonF · 2004-01-19 22:50:03

Are there any internal layout drawings of the CEV? I'm specifically curious about the capsule concept. How would the seats and cargo sections be arranged? Thanks.

RobS · 2004-01-19 23:47:21

You don't need twelve Delta-IVs to equal 2 Ares because you can manage with less mass in low earth orbit. You can manage because you get stuff from LEO to Mars, or most of the way to Mars (or to the moon) with propulsion OTHER THAN hydrogen/oxygen lifted from the surface of the Earth. The alternatives could be nuclear thermal (politically unlikely), lunar hydrogen/oxygen (you fly the water to LEO from the moon and make fuel there, IF there's enough polar ice on the moon), solar powered ion (well developed), solar-thermal (undergoing development), and VASMIR (probably too far distant in the future right now). There's gas-core nuclear and Orion as well, but they're politically dead in the water right now. You can manage a robust mission equivalent to Mars Direct with five or six Delta-IVs per opposition. At $180 million each, that's about a billion bucks.

Ares would be about half a billion per launch, but there's the development cost, which in today's environment will be expensive (yes, there are estimates it won't be, but with Boeing and Lockheed being involved, how could it be cheaper than the OSP, which was $15 billion?). I suspect Ares would cost as much or more for about twenty years when develpment costs are included, unless there is an explosion in demand for mass in LEO. Right now, there isn't enough commercial demand for mass in orbit to even support Delta, Atlas, and Ariane.

-- RobS

RobW · 2004-01-20 15:22:22

Thanks RobS,

Those were just the words I was looking for.

Cheers,
Rob Wilson.

Michael Bloxham · 2004-01-20 18:34:18

Okay, so should we spend the money on HLLV development, or complex vehicle/infrastructure development? We will either have an expensive Ares and a cheap, simple CEV. Or, we can use cheap Deltas, and design expensive, complex CEV's. Take your pick. :;):

RobW · 2004-01-20 19:20:59

We will either have an expensive Ares and a cheap, simple CEV. Or, we can use cheap Deltas, and design expensive, complex CEV's

The relationship you imply, big booster=simple spacecraft, small booster=complex spacecraft, does not exist. Any mission to Mars or anywhere else for that matter is going to require a number of different spacecraft and boosters. Look at Apollo - from Earth orbit you have SV third stage, LM, CM and SM - four separate systems. The only difference between HLLV and DIV Heavy is whether you launch them together or separately. (Ok, a delta IV would be struggling to launch the saturn third stage in one throw, but the way you would do a moon landing with EOR or EML1R is sufficiently different that you wouldn't be using a TLI booster sized that big in any case)

I favour the delta and atlas approach because then NASA can just go and buy launches, and does not have yet another very expensive launch vehicle development that it can stuff up. However you look at it, NASA has to develop the CEV. No CEV, indeed no spacecraft, is going to be simple, so NASA's going to be struggling to do a good job of that. Shoulder it with the distraction of having to build a new HLLV (and a shuttle derived vehicle is still a new vehicle - shuttle components are not leggo) and you are (IMHO) setting them up to fail. Besides which, you then have two big vehicle development projects going on simultaneously - with both driving requirements for the other, and that's just asking for trouble.

The conceptual simplicity of Mars Direct is just that - conceptual. The basic concepts of a safe haven on Mars, prepositioning hardware and ISRU are excellent and should be part of any architecture, but as for the rest eg HLLV - that only looks simple. The devil is in the detail, and asking NASA to build an HLLV now is a brute force solution to a problem that calls for elegence. It's not necessary, it can't be justified economically, and it would likely tip NASA over the edge.

Cheers,
Rob.

Ian Flint · 2004-01-21 12:03:26

Here's an idea to help keep CEV on track with Mars Direct. Zubrin's ERV would be a great vehicle for the CEV.

The core component of the ERV/CEV would be the habitation area with the heat shield. This core component would be light enough to lift to orbit on a medium lift expendable booster. Fully loaded it could support four astronauts for 6 months (will need a Delta IV Heavy class booster). In this simple configuration it could serve the supply/crew rotation needs of the ISS and it could also be a stand alone 6-month station.

For use on the Moon the ERV/CEV core component need not be modified. A Moon ascent/trans-Earth injection stage can simply be fitted to the core component. This will of course be heavy enough to warrent developing an Ares class booster.

A natural extension of this is to slap on a second return stage and send it off to Mars.

Here everyone gets what they want. We Mars buffs get half of the Mars Direct hardware. The Lunartics get a series of 6-month Moon bases. The ISS folks get an overkill supply ship (just like the shuttle). And, the president gets a cute little "do-all" vehicle.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-15 08:34:10

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#2 2004-01-15 16:25:57

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#3 2004-01-15 20:58:22

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#4 2004-01-16 21:09:58

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#5 2004-01-17 02:41:56

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#6 2004-01-17 02:45:37

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#7 2004-01-17 15:31:38

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#8 2004-01-17 23:12:01

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#9 2004-01-18 01:49:45

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#10 2004-01-18 07:36:20

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#11 2004-01-18 16:06:18

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#12 2004-01-18 18:39:39

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#13 2004-01-18 20:08:30

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#14 2004-01-19 02:08:15

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#15 2004-01-19 03:01:32

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#16 2004-01-19 04:02:58

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#17 2004-01-19 04:36:40

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#18 2004-01-19 07:42:38

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#19 2004-01-19 22:50:03

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#20 2004-01-19 23:47:21

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#21 2004-01-20 15:22:22

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#22 2004-01-20 18:34:18

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#23 2004-01-20 19:20:59

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

#24 2004-01-21 12:03:26

Re: Post central for information on CEV - iformation station for the spacecraft

Board footer