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

comstar03 · 2004-08-11 18:38:45

RobertDyck,

Thank you for the additional Information about the Energia - Buran facilities, At this stage in our development, Its is confidential our detail plans, but when we are ready to announce we will contact all on this site.

RobS,

The first long term residents ( 5-10 years ) on Mars should be couples,( using new education graduate couples between 23-27 age group) and the social dynamics of the settlement must be taken into consideration when expanding it to include a social counsellor / co-ordinator. The social counsellor will have the responsible to oversee the cultural dynamics of the settlement as part of the settlement council.

That is why a modular CEV built for missions two - five can assemble additional living modules to increase the personnel movement to Mars. Also when mining production on the moon has be established the shipments will be sent to Mars for expansion purposes , and reducing the re-alliance on Earth based resources until there resource structure is established.

Once mining production is established on Mars is complete then shipments of resources are then transferred back to the moon and earth for expansion purposes of orbital platforms , vehicle development , exploration misions and settlement expansion.

This could be completed in the next fifty years, then humanity can expand the presence by going to the outer planets and working on larger technology to expand from our solar system.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-12 06:40:41

More news on the Kistler which has announce additions to senior management team for Kistler's K-1 Reusable Launch Vehicle.

I think if they really want there rocket to be a viable option for going to the ISS, IMO they should design a manned docking capable capsule to go with the remainder of the work that they have done.

If the time of unit is right they could come out smelling like a rose as an in between step to the CEV that Nasa really needs now.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-12 06:42:02

Sorry gang I forgot the news source link in the other post.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0408/11kistler/

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-12 08:14:16

The Kistler rocket? You mean that one thats only half-finished, and thats with off-the-shelf engines, and is about $400M in the hole, and nobody wants to fly on rocket? Ain't gonna happen.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-12 08:38:13

Yes you are correct in that it is not finished but the officail version of completeness is 75% as indicated on the web site.

http://www.kistleraerospace.com/

As to how much they are in the hole some creative fund drives and financing would take care of some of the problem. Especially if clients could be brought online for purchase of there vehicles. Whether it will happen is up to them if they have the drive and determination to accomplish the task.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-12 08:50:22

Ummm I don't think creative funding drives and financial trickery will fix a $400-$500M debt, if you are only going to sell launches for $17M a pop. Plus, the K-1 is a little too small for launching satelites to GEO, as it was designed for MEO launches like Iridium satelites, so who exactly is going to be buying launches? Its rumored that NASA sent some money their way as a "R&D grant," which i'm sure doesn't instill much investor confidance.

$17M a pop... with no interest at all... and not counting any expenses... will take about 30 flights. Throw in expenses and interest, and your looking at three digits before you make a single penny off the thing.

Oh, and it is certainly too small to carry people.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-12 09:33:56

So here are a few links for where Lockheeds thinks we are for the CEV.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/3582.pdf
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/5565.pdf
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/3581.pdf

I would say not much happening here either

clark · 2004-08-12 09:36:00

Kistler info I've heard...

The NASA grant was recinded by OMB due to SpaceX complaints. NASA will be giving out an open bid, and Kistler will try.

Two upper management types at Boeing (who have worked for NASA) who worked in the launch services have recently joined Kistler's management. They did so because they are confident that Kistler can come out of it's situation (why would they leave Boeing for a sinking ship?)

Kistler is planning on focusing on government (DOD) and NASA contracts (ISS delivery and other assorted launch services).

Bigelow is going to need low cost resupply for his hotels come the time too... things are changing GNC.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-12 09:57:55

I would say from the resources at Boeing that they are possibly ahead of the game but still way to slow for my likings.

Baa proposal
http://www.boeing.com/defense....nal.pdf

CES - CEV Launch Vehicle
http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cfm?i … &release=t

Building Blocks of Tomorrow
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/spa … locks.html

Achieving the National Exploration Vision
Propulsion Perspective
http://www.boeing.com/defense....ood.pdf

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-12 10:24:40

Two upper management types at Boeing (who have worked for NASA) who worked in the launch services have recently joined Kistler's management. They did so because they are confident that Kistler can come out of it's situation (why would they leave Boeing for a sinking ship?)
Kistler is planning on focusing on government (DOD) and NASA contracts (ISS delivery and other assorted launch services).

Well thats an easy one, because the Delta-IV rockets from Boeing are being scaled waaay back, since there aren't enough launches. The Delta-IV itself is no longer being offerd to commertial customers, since there isn't any business for it. The USAF is being pressured to pick one EELV line and eliminate the other to save money... So, there isn't that much business for Boeing rocket folks ATM. A sinking ship is better than a sunken one...

Sooo we have a competition... between a rocket thats half built, too small, and bankrupt versus a rocket that doesn't exsist and none of its hardware has ever been flown, all for a market that doesn't exsist (NASA small launches).

clark · 2004-08-12 11:07:14

Well thats an easy one, because the Delta-IV rockets from Boeing are being scaled waaay back, since there aren't enough launches. The Delta-IV itself is no longer being offerd to commertial customers, since there isn't any business for it. The USAF is being pressured to pick one EELV line and eliminate the other to save money... So, there isn't that much business for Boeing rocket folks ATM. A sinking ship is better than a sunken one...

They are leaving Boeing proper. They could easily transition to another unit within Boeing, so I'm not buying this theory. USAF may be pressured, but that's because of legislation- which can change given the fact that they support two EELV for entirely national security reasons.

Sooo we have a competition... between a rocket thats half built, too small, and bankrupt versus a rocket that doesn't exsist and none of its hardware has ever been flown, all for a market that doesn't exsist (NASA small launches).

Government (DOD) small launches are picking up. Long range plans are to invest in small sat/ large number constellations. USAF wants launch on demand, on the matter of hours.

Falcon does exsist. Falcon V is being built. Launch contracts have been signed. You are just being silly now.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-12 11:42:41

Transfer? To which unit? And why would they be needed elsewhere... with a limited or nonexsistant number of Delta-IV launches, there will be a few surplus employees... particularly high-priced manager types. And don't forget how Boeing has been placed at disadvantage to Lockheed because of the secret document scandal, which sold alooot of Atlas-V's. Plausable enough for me.

Yes the puny Falcon-I does exsist. No, it has not flown, not even one time. No, the Falcon-V does not exsist. It would surprise me alot if they've actually begun cutting metal for it yet. It is several times more complex than its little brother, which has never flown either. It uses the same engine which has never flown, similar electronics, etc. If the first one or two blow up, all those USAF nickel & dime contracts are going to evaporate... The Falcon-V is what is referred to as "vaporware."

And the Kistler rocket... without large (read: hundreds of millions) sums of money granted to it by the government, is a failed business proposition. It is simply not reasonable for the system to recoup its massive development debt (in the region of half a billion dollars) with a few $17M flights a year.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-12 12:32:58

Thanks clark for the earlier link posts.
I see from review of it that most of the info is somewhat dated from the 80's with cost projects toward the future.

I noticed that mars Heavy lift capability was at least reviewed but where do we stand today with that rockets developement?

clark · 2004-08-12 12:57:22

Much of it was done in the 90's, not 80's.

It provides the conceptual framework for CEV return to the Moon and beyond (since many of the concepts are pretty much in that vein).

Review of the matieral also indicates that many concepts favored a return to an Apollo-like capsule, ballistic options for transport.

Really, if you take the various elements from the different proposals it will shed more light on what to expect in the coming years. Most of those requirements involved rockets that would have to be developed- which have been developed since then.

International consideration around various launch service (European or Russian) may no longer be valid, but there are options available. Also, new options are available given recent developments around ion propulsion and new players in the rocket industry.

In terms of heavy lift, it isn't neccessarily a requirement. Some of the options looked at non-shuttle launches, which can be utilized to provide a framework for intital return follwed by a clean sheet development HLLV or revamped SDV after the 2010 time period.

There are two current proposals being evaluated by VSE for a return to the Moon and then Mars, both consider a HLLV at various points in the timeline. The one where we would develop SDV would lead to a smaller lunar exploration program (IIRC correctly), the other would wait for a clean sheet HLLV sometime during and after the lunar exploration (human). NASA is still evaluating which option to go with.

I've seen reports that guy in charge of CEV development is considering he option of competing arrays of CEV (in other words, the whole CEV line with all related parts). Basically, competing versions encompassing completely how to get to the moon and beyond (not just who has the best human CEV flyer).

SpaceNut · 2004-08-12 13:12:07

More like the apollo approach from specification per section to design within criteria.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/spa … /S3g1h.jpg

clark · 2004-08-12 13:53:42

Umm, that's a mighty big picture you linked to...

Any chance you can shrink it? It might kill some on dial up.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-13 07:45:51

There were 11 completed external tanks at Michoud when Columbia disintegrated over Texas and Louisiana. Those tanks, which cost $40 million apiece, must be retrofitted.

The Michoud plant's work force stands at about 2,000. Under existing contracts, Lockheed Martin will continue to produce external tanks through 2008.

Official: Redesigned shuttle tanks will be safest ever
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/081 … s001.shtml

So lets see if I have the thought on the number of tanks still yet to be made. Roughly 30 flights give or take to complete the ISS minus the 10 equals, 20 tanks at 40 million a piece to make. Or 800 million spead over the next 3 or 4 years in budgetary demands.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-13 09:28:04

Over on nasawatch I noticed that alot of shuffling of managers internally and also of some leaving to other outside space companies is happening. Has the commission report started to clear some of the dead wood or is something else a foot.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-25 10:13:53

Apollo Inspires New Moon Rockets, two teams at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are studying booster rocket design concepts.

One team, assembled by the space agency's Exploration Directorate, has been examining rocket designs from the top down, according to Michael Lembeck, who heads the directorate's Requirements Division.

Second team at NASA's Launch Services group is conducting a bottoms-up review, meaning the services group, which purchases launch vehicles for NASA missions and payloads, is accumulating background on and analyses of all available U.S. boosters and their capabilities.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04x.html

SpaceNut · 2004-08-25 11:23:24

Just found this site with regards to the shuttle from an ex employee who has tried the chain of command inside nasa to make the vehicle safer with an escape pod.
http://www.nasaproblems.com/

SpaceNut · 2004-08-25 12:25:22

Found this link on an old topic on what to do with a shuttle when retired. I thought that it would be easy to implement.
Plus it would give more places to do science and give the private industry more reasons to start spending some cash on space to develope infrastruture to service them.

STS-Lab: A Low Cost Shuttle-Derived Space Station

http://www.space-frontier.org/Project....tle.htm

RobS · 2004-08-25 20:13:22

Thanks for the fascinating link. How sad that something like this wasn't tried. It would have given us a Skylab, and considering we only have 2 or 3 people in ISS at any time, that would have been plenty!

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-25 20:34:49

Mmmm I don't think that its practical to modify the Orbiter for perminant-anything, and the STS-ET won't have a nice meteoroid shield like the Skylab station did.

We should have built SDV and done somthing like Option-C
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/spas19 … as1993.htm

Technical issues with this sort of station mainly have to do with the solar pannels, that it would be hard to mount them on gimbals unobstructed to avoid having to rotate the station. (see pretty pictures on the left column half way down).

Commodore · 2004-08-25 20:35:13

I'd like to see them send up one on each end of the ISS with the CanadaArm (I'm not sure if they can have that and the HAB at the same time) to provide a construction station that can be used to assemble Lunar/Martian transit craft, service satillites (or the Hubble), ect.

I think it was determined that it would never work cause the the life support systems were not deisigned to operate permenantly, and the rocket fuel would start to burn through its tanks.

Of course, if your going to replace all that, perhapes as a testbed for technologies needed in future long term craft, then it would be worth it.

If theres one thing I find disturbing about the new plan, its that it ignoirs the requirement for an orbital outpost.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-25 20:43:57

Among a host of other reasons... Shuttle is not well armored, life support systems not suited for long-term use, computers not suited nor serviceable, the OMS fuel is corrosive, attitude control system may not cope with the loads well nor have enough fuel, gyros would be hard to fool with, cooling system not well suited for long-term use, and basicly Shuttle is the most complex machine ever built by the hand of man... modifications of any kind except the smallest changes would be EXTREMELY expensive. $3Bn for such a setup is not a credible figure.

Why do we need an outpost in LEO again? Maybe an unmanned fuel depot, but if we are going to the Moon and Mars and we built a rocket of decent size, there is no need for a space station.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#301 2004-08-11 18:38:45

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

#302 2004-08-12 06:40:41

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

#303 2004-08-12 06:42:02

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

#304 2004-08-12 08:14:16

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

#305 2004-08-12 08:38:13

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

#306 2004-08-12 08:50:22

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

#307 2004-08-12 09:33:56

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

#308 2004-08-12 09:36:00

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

#309 2004-08-12 09:57:55

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

#310 2004-08-12 10:24:40

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

#311 2004-08-12 11:07:14

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

#312 2004-08-12 11:42:41

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

#313 2004-08-12 12:32:58

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

#314 2004-08-12 12:57:22

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

#315 2004-08-12 13:12:07

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

#316 2004-08-12 13:53:42

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

#317 2004-08-13 07:45:51

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

#318 2004-08-13 09:28:04

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

#319 2004-08-25 10:13:53

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

#320 2004-08-25 11:23:24

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

#321 2004-08-25 12:25:22

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

#322 2004-08-25 20:13:22

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

#323 2004-08-25 20:34:49

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

#324 2004-08-25 20:35:13

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

#325 2004-08-25 20:43:57

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

Board footer