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

cDelta · 2004-07-08 10:16:42

Just imagine the day when you can hop on a Scaled Composites orbital craft and head up for a week vacation inside an orbiting Bigelow hotel...all without ever touching a piece of government hardware. I don't think this scenario is too far off.

Who knows, at this rate, private companies might beat NASA back to the moon. That is of course assuming that the jump from sub-orbital to orbital happens very soon. You know, Heinlein said, "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system."

These are definitely exciting times we live in.

cDelta · 2004-07-14 09:25:33

Mr. Bigelow seems to be getting a lot of press lately.

http://space.com/businesstechnology/tec … Inflatable Space Outposts: Cash Down on High Hopes

"While Bigelow wants to sprinkle Earth orbit with inflatable modules, the entrepreneur is looking into deep space too. Setting down expandable structures on the Moon and Mars has been given thought. Turning inflatables into durable bunkers on the lunar landscape is quite feasible, he said."

The article also discusses how most of the private companies who are developing space technology now all 'know each other' because they're aware that they're going to have to rely on what the other does.

I wonder if the success of SpaceShipOne has made people more comfortable with discussing the private space sector . . .

BWhite · 2004-07-23 08:37:42

EELV downselect - - terminate Atlas or Delta:

http://www.spacetoday.net]http://www.spacetoday.net

A proposed new federal policy would require the military to select only one of the two existing major launch vehicle providers to continue supporting by the end of the decade, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. According to the article a draft space transportation policy drafted by the Bush Administration would require the Pentagon to select either Boeing's Delta 4 or Lockheed Martin's Atlas 5 as its sole EELV provider by 2009. The downselect is being proposed because of the expense of supporting both launch vehicle programs given the current weak demand for commercial launches. The military has insisted that its "assured access to space" policy requires both vehicle lines be kept active, so that the military can continue launching critical payloads should a problem shut down one vehicle program for an extended period. The plan would also require NASA to use EELVs for its future space exploration programs, rather than develop its own successor to the space shuttle.

If NASA is ordered to design CEV around the surviving EELV, how can NASA possibly leverage the savings that come from using alternate lift technologies?

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-23 08:46:07

*coughs* What "alternatives?"

Lets see, the Falcon-V is supposed to be the equal of the Delta-II, which is almost exactly worthless for space travel. And he has not yet flown his dinky little easy rocket a fifth the size even one time with the engine he wants to fly Falcon-V with. And he is magicly supposed to come up with somthing even double the size of Falcon-V? Maybe with TEN first stage engines? How long will that take, since NASA has to decide which rocket to launch CEV on pretty soon... you can't suddenly swap out launchers without re-certifying the whole combo. I don't know if a rocket with ten first stage engines can even -be- man rated... So, he would have to come up with a whole new engine, or start straping on gaggles of little SRBs.

And Elon is the only player in the AltSpace game that has half a prayer of useful orbital launches... Congress is entirely justified in requiring NASA to use one of the exsisting EELV launchers or a derivitive, since there simply are no credible alternatives on the table.

clark · 2004-07-23 09:00:04

What the hell is going on here?

How long will that take, since NASA has to decide which rocket to launch CEV on pretty soon... you can't suddenly swap out launchers without re-certifying the whole combo.

CEV, when all is said and done, is a big piece of metal with specifications. It comes down to equations. Those equations dictate design of the launching rocket.

Might I add, NASA dosen't need to decide on a rocket right now because CEV first block isn't going to be ready until 2008. First man-rated flight, 2014.

What I see here with the Bush policy is a quiet push to get people on board with the CEV project. Military space, Lockheed and Boeing carry significant clout in Congress, and due to "The downselect is being proposed because of the expense of supporting both launch vehicle programs given the current weak demand for commercial launches. " they are going to look for a way to increase commerical demand (via redirected governmental purchase).

The big man has spoken. We're going to Mars. :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-07-23 09:01:20

*coughs* What "alternatives?"

Hee! Hee! Fair enough.

So, what incentive will there be for anyone to do better after Delta or Atlas is enshrined as the only lift the US government can purchase?

Cost plus forever!

= = =

Question? Can JIMO fit on a current Delta IVH without mission threatening (or price exploding) origami?

Last I recall, some NASA scientists were saying they needed SDV to lift the thing.

And didn't Prometheus just got cut by that House sub-committee and while Tom Delay blustered and postured for 2 days he then allowed the full Appropriations Committee to approve the cuts?

clark · 2004-07-23 09:07:26

And didn't Prometheus just got cut by that House sub-committee and while Tom Delay blustered and postured for 2 days he then allowed the full Appropriations Committee to approve the cuts?

I missed something? Delay let the full Appropriations Committee vote on this? I thought this was just the sub-committee... (okay, I don't think Delay has control over Committee votes- he has control over full House votes, so it means he won't let it be voted on by the full floor)

Never mind...

http://www.space.com/news/okeefe_congre … 40723.html

At least this part is somewhat promising...

The Senate has yet to take up the 2005 NASA budget and is not expected to do so until Congress returns from a six week recess in September.
Meanwhile, a NASA authorization bill scheduled for markup in the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday was pulled from consideration by the committee's chairman and one of the bill's sponsors, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). McCain said that there was not enough time in the Thursday's busy markup session to give full consideration to the NASA legislation.
McCain said the committee would take up the bill in September

BWhite · 2004-07-23 09:53:32

Jeff Foust's site posted a thought that maybe O'Keefe's letter was delivered after the full Committee vote.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/0 … #more]Link - - the first comment (not mine) is powerful:

So, to sum up:
-The House cuts the NASA budget by a large amount.
-NASA does not immediately object. It only objects AFTER the full committee approves the cuts.
-There is no statement from the White House about the cut.
-There is no statement by the White House on the Apollo 11 anniversary in support of the Vision for Space Exploration. (contrary to an earlier UPI article)

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-23 10:17:54

CEV, when all is said and done, is a big piece of metal with specifications. It comes down to equations. Those equations dictate design of the launching rocket.
Might I add, NASA dosen't need to decide on a rocket right now because CEV first block isn't going to be ready until 2008. First man-rated flight, 2014.

Welll there is another set of equations that you forget about Clark... the calculated probability of failure. Rockets are pretty complex beasts, and since NASA doesn't like putting people on rockets without an engineering study of the risk, then whichever EELV is selected to carry CEV will have to go through a pretty massive, expensive, and intensive engineering review. "They launch the same mass and follow the same trajectory roughly, just swap out the adapter" isn't gonna fly...

...It gets better too. Whichever CEV is developed will have to be modified to carry manned spacecraft. The emergency escape system needs signifigant health monitoring capability on the major systems of the rocket which you don't need for flying cargo. The CEV will also have to be able to control the entire rocket from its perch atop the upper stage. And then you have to consider the aerodynamics and dynamic loadings which aren't the same between Atlas and Delta (nor are their control electronics).

Right now, either Lockheed or Boeing could produce enough booster cores to satisfy the entire NASA program and probobly the USAF too. Boeing right now is able to crank out 20 CBCs per year, and while Lockheed can't match that they only need one for the HLV model. They're building an RD-180 factory in the States' too. The cost of modifying two boosters when you only need one is a waste of money that I don't think the program could tollerate.

BWhite · 2004-07-23 10:22:18

The big man has spoken. We're going to Mars. :laugh:

= IF = we can get to Mars on EELV or even EELV plus.

Its back to the http://www.thespacereview.com/article/185/1]Great Launcher Debate!

SpaceNut · 2004-07-23 10:28:08

That would all depend on if in orbit assembly of smaller pieces are ruled out. If in orbit assembly is done it would be better to have a new place to do this at. I feel that the Iss is the wrong place to do this subassembly at.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-23 12:22:12

A little bit of on-orbit assembly is okay in my opinion, have the vehicles simply dock Russian style, but ISS style construction with bolts and wires and trusses and such will be too pricey and dicey.

Using an extended version of the EELVs, to build an equivilent to the Saturn-IV for a minimum of cost, does make sense since these can be flown pretty rapidly and the cost less likly to spiral out of control if NASA can't get out of "son-of-Shuttle-at-any-price-mode." For a Lunar trip, two launches per payload, one with the payload+lander or payload+TEI stage and the other with the TLI stage.

For a Martian trip, a Saturn-IV class launcher could launch a tank of LOX (which is most of the mass of cryogenic fuel, low boiloff) or two, then launch the SMV/TMI with the hydrogen, engines, and solar pannels/radiators for the HAB which mate up by remote. Hopefully the manned HAB or unmanned ERV/Mars payload could be launched quickly to mitigate boiloff and mate to the TMI stack. Off you go, no HLLV required. Three launches per sortie, not 6+... or just one launch plus ion tug for a 20-25MT payload.

Or we can do HLLV which would definatly simplify the whole operation... if it will cost more than $10Bn to make and over $500M a shot, or if there is signifigant risk that it will, then it isn't worthwhile... thats a head scratcher at the moment if it could be done with an SDV or an EELV-derived clean sheet rocket.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-23 12:31:20

News release from Nasa http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/rele … 4-192.html

"NASA will officially open its Propulsion Research Laboratory July 29 at the Marshall Center with a ribbon-cutting ceremony. The facility is a state-of-the-art laboratory for cutting-edge research into advanced propulsion systems — systems that could enable more ambitious exploration of our Solar System. The 108,000-square-foot facility has 26 labs for large- and small-scale experiments."

I wonder if they will be working on Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket propulsion or some other nuclear based system.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-23 12:39:32

VASIMR is still a way-off thing... NASA will have to come up with a 1MWe reactor to power the thing, at the very least... such a powerplant is still down the road. VASIMR would really cook with a gas-core nuclear reactor, which is a pretty esoteric concept, or a fusion reactor.

In the short term, it looks like its going to be small nuclear thermal rockets or bigger ion engines.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-07-25 22:31:39

VASIMR is still a way-off thing... NASA will have to come up with a 1MWe reactor to power the thing, at the very least... such a powerplant is still down the road. VASIMR would really cook with a gas-core nuclear reactor, which is a pretty esoteric concept, or a fusion reactor.
In the short term, it looks like its going to be small nuclear thermal rockets or bigger ion engines.

If we can get NTRs that would be a huge boost to the program. If nothing else it really simplifies the ISRU you have to do on mars as far as getting fuel.

On a different note I would love to see someone do a extensive look at the viability of a gas core reactor as far as engineering goes, GCNR I'm sure you know more then I do if you could point me in the right direction of some sources.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-26 08:04:25

http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/research/gcr/
http://web.gat.com/pubs-ext/AnnSemiannE … A23877.pdf

The idea is that you have a vapor of Uranium or its Fluoride mixed with sodium or potassium vapor, which when a certain amount is permitted to collect in a small area will go critical. The vapor mixture is circulated around the primary coolant loop between the generators, radiators, and the reactor - which is just a big tank where the vapor will collect. The vapor gets so hot that, plus the ionizing effect of neutron and gamma radiation, it will partially ionize. The ionized vapor passes through a coil of wire and makes electricty directly with very high efficency and of similar type needed for the VASIMR which further mitigates powerplant mass. The vapor because of its very high temperature also requires a minimum of radiator area per MW, since the hotter the coolant the more energy per area the radiator can reject. Finally, there is a secondary coolant loop run with noble gasses to make power for the ship.

clark · 2004-07-26 09:09:33

More words from the big man:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=13456

Letter from OMB Director Bolten to Rep. Bill Young Concerning the FY 2005 VA/HUD Appropriations bill

In January, the President outlined his “Vision for Space Exploration,” a bold new initiative that committed the United States to a long-term human and robotic program to explore the solar system. This vision for space exploration invests in America's future. It will nurture the next generation of skilled workers and drive innovation, thereby helping the Nation ensure its technological leadership, security, and economic strength. While the Administration appreciates the Subcommittee’s words of support for the new exploration vision, the funding levels provided by the Committee would drastically delay plans for FY 2005 critical technology design efforts that are needed to begin to implement the President’s Vision. As reported by the Committee, the bill includes a total of $15.1 billion for NASA, a reduction of $1.1 billion from the President’s request, and $228.7 million below the FY 2004 enacted appropriation for NASA.

If the final version of this bill that is presented to the President does not include adequate funding levels for Presidential initiatives, his Senior Advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-26 12:29:13

Like everything else funding of the space program is under the wrong committee (VA-HUD). Space has nothing to due with human resource survival of the poor, VA, or anything else under welfare assistance housing or otherwise.

clark · 2004-07-26 14:35:47

Background filler. I said this was either an attempt to quietly kill the space plan, or force the debate... looks like it will be a debate.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 4356-2577r

WASHINGTON, July 26 (UPI) -- President George W. Bush's new space exploration plan has received a burst of hard-core support in Congress, aimed at blocking any attempt to cut its funding, and backed up by a rare veto threat from the president himself.

Presidential veto threats have been a rarity in the Bush White House. Also, no U.S. president has ever vetoed a spending bill because it contained too little money for space programs.
How did the veto threat emerge?
To a great extent, NASA's fortunes currently are riding with House Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas. Delay, who has been the most enthusiastic supporter of the space plan in the House, threatened to doom Young's bill from ever getting a full vote on the floor when Congress reconvenes in September.
Sources close to Delay said this was not an idle threat.
Preventing the bill from reaching a final vote has become the first layer of defense for space plan supporters.
Delay has moved to establish a second layer, however. Administration sources told United Press International that Delay asked the White House for the veto threat -- and got it. If the cuts in space spending approved by the House appropriators reach Bush's desk in the fall, he will not sign the measure.

The Senate's action on NASA funding is yet to come. Former O'Keefe mentor Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is widely expected to make sure the full Bush request for space plan funding will be contained in the Senate's mark-up of the legislation. If so, it would set up yet another chance for NASA to prevail, because the House-Senate conference would have to reconcile both versions of space spending.
With the veto threats, threats to undo the Republican budgeteer's work, and the Republican House leadership divided, the unusual and unexpected space budget battle will come right up to the beginnings of FY 2005 before its outcome becomes certain.

It's fun to be right. :laugh:

Rxke · 2004-07-26 14:46:02

I can't believe my eyes...

Ain't politics great, sometimes?

Hard-core support, wowza...

SpaceNut · 2004-07-27 12:42:38

No need for anti anything. We just need to find a different way to fund Nasa activity for the long term.

comstar03 · 2004-07-27 22:48:17

CEV,

Why ar we discussing that !!!! Why are we discussing humanflight instead of looking first at the processes around what we need in human spaceflight. The scale of objects required.

Just think of the structure required to build a space similar to the comman craft in 2010 Movie that the russians had. or even the original movie 2001. They are simple spacecrafts , not like babylon 5 or star wars or star trek.

Yes all are science fiction that we are trying to build into science reality. But in order to build these structures we need large scale platforms, that then denotes the development of large scale infrastructure across the world and a commitment from the world to meet this challenge.

That commitment is not there, the kerry Vs bush agendas are different. Space Associations are divided on the bestmodel for expansion. Even in this bulletin board is divided on issues.

So why discuss the CEV because that is at the end of the development cycle not at the beginning.

:bars3:

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-28 08:03:23

The 2001 & 2010 ships? Simple? Easy? Uhhh... no.

Hmmm you seem much too infatuated with the process of building CEV, which will make the project drag on and on, then actually building hardware. Our current near-term goal is to go to the Moon. The best way to accomplish this is either Earth orbit rendevous with a CEV and a Lunar Lander each being mated to a cryogenic TLI stage, launched by an uprated EELV with stretch fuel tanks... or to mate the CEV and the Lunar Lander to their TLI stages and launch them each on one of two heavy lifters. Both senarios will require the CEV, which should be able to double as an ISS crew ferry/return vehicle, able to carry a crew of four for ~2 weeks and survive hyperbolic reentry.

How is this not close enough for "process?"

SpaceNut · 2004-07-28 09:01:15

The problem with any CEV design is the need for the crew capsule to be developed first with the correct structure to support lower stages of interface from its control panels.

Any of the existing rockets could be modified to support this new capsule which would include clean slate designs, Shuttle Derived Vehicles and or any other derivatives of Atlas or Delta.

The next questions are for crew size, length of use and space accommodations inside for easy of movement.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-28 09:57:22

The next question would be since re-entry does take a toll on one's heat shield is the capsule to be reusable. This choice may be weighed against what type of landing is preferred; Parachute to splash down, Parachute to crash landing or parachute with some glide path on final approach.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2004-07-08 10:16:42

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

#202 2004-07-14 09:25:33

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

#203 2004-07-23 08:37:42

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

#204 2004-07-23 08:46:07

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

#205 2004-07-23 09:00:04

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

#206 2004-07-23 09:01:20

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

#207 2004-07-23 09:07:26

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

#208 2004-07-23 09:53:32

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

#209 2004-07-23 10:17:54

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

#210 2004-07-23 10:22:18

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

#211 2004-07-23 10:28:08

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

#212 2004-07-23 12:22:12

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

#213 2004-07-23 12:31:20

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

#214 2004-07-23 12:39:32

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

#215 2004-07-25 22:31:39

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

#216 2004-07-26 08:04:25

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

#217 2004-07-26 09:09:33

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

#218 2004-07-26 12:29:13

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

#219 2004-07-26 14:35:47

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

#220 2004-07-26 14:46:02

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

#221 2004-07-27 12:42:38

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

#222 2004-07-27 22:48:17

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

#223 2004-07-28 08:03:23

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

#224 2004-07-28 09:01:15

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

#225 2004-07-28 09:57:22

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

Board footer