Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

Rxke · 2004-09-05 10:36:29

Yes, that was my impression too: total underestimating the appeal of the challencge and hence the huge number of contestants... And lack of experience with communicating with 'the masses,' DARPA is used to work with uni's and the govmnt, they're not a fluid PR-machine...

Pity things went the way they did, IMO the negative feedback from the public was waaay over the top, you can still see 'funny' comments about the challenge on Slashdot, now and then...

Grypd · 2004-09-05 10:57:17

I was and I think so was DARPA surprised though at the quality of some of the amateur entries. And the competition had a very team orientated fair play to it, Was it not team firestorm who where helping out a schools entry with debugging. And there where fan bases around a few entries like the team that had a motorbike entry.

It was an amateur entry which DARPA was most interested in as the way its robot thought was vastly more efficient than the Million dollar entries from the big UNIs. And it seemed to be programming that backfired on most of the robots as they had too little time to debug programs. One of the favourites Firestorm due to a very slight computational change had there robot wrecked when it flipped two weeks before the challenge.

John Creighton · 2004-09-05 11:03:48

I was and I think so was DARPA surprised though at the quality of some of the amateur entries. And the competition had a very team orientated fair play to it, Was it not team firestorm who where helping out a schools entry with debugging. And there where fan bases around a few entries like the team that had a motorbike entry.
It was an amateur entry which DARPA was most interested in as the way its robot thought was vastly more efficient than the Million dollar entries from the big UNIs. And it seemed to be programming that backfired on most of the robots as they had too little time to debug programs. One of the favourites Firestorm due to a very slight computational change had there robot wrecked when it flipped two weeks before the challenge.

This is one thing I find fascinating about robotics. I find it fascinating how much you can do with a simple design. I often wonder if knowing too much theory sometimes works against you in this field. I have seen a four legged walking robot made out of one motor and the top of a fax machine.

Grypd · 2004-09-05 13:05:10

I was and I think so was DARPA surprised though at the quality of some of the amateur entries. And the competition had a very team orientated fair play to it, Was it not team firestorm who where helping out a schools entry with debugging. And there where fan bases around a few entries like the team that had a motorbike entry.
It was an amateur entry which DARPA was most interested in as the way its robot thought was vastly more efficient than the Million dollar entries from the big UNIs. And it seemed to be programming that backfired on most of the robots as they had too little time to debug programs. One of the favourites Firestorm due to a very slight computational change had there robot wrecked when it flipped two weeks before the challenge.
This is one thing I find fascinating about robotics. I find it fascinating how much you can do with a simple design. I often wonder if knowing too much theory sometimes works against you in this field. I have seen a four legged walking robot made out of one motor and the top of a fax machine.

I agree it does seem to make them most effective you must keep them simple. Overengineering is ok unless it adds to the things that can go wrong. A simple tough working robot seems to be the way to go and especially if one part fits all type of engineering standard is used. What would be better too is if the majority of parts can be made at a base. This could mean we send the parts that cant be manufactured so reducing launch costs.

Of course we can try this out on earth and see what we can learn here before being expensive and sending the mission out.

comstar03 · 2004-09-05 21:58:15

Well, back chatting about robotics again,

The formula and process for space based humanity on the long term approach is to expand into space using the resources out there, then when we have sufficient technology that could bring the excess resources back to earth.

Power Consumption is a major issue that effect humanity particular western developed countries. Has anyone thought the issues that we have with fusion reactors are based on gravity and and harness the energy derived not the process developing the energy. That could be fixed in space at L1-5.
then transmitting the energy back to earth or to the moon for industrial processing.

So why look at bring the resources back to earth side instead look at using the resources for the benefit of humanity. .

SpaceNut · 2004-09-10 11:55:14

Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
Budget Cuts Would Severely Hinder Exploration, O'Keefe Says
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow....104.xml

I find the CEV Image choice interesting by them. Do they know something?

deagleninja · 2004-09-10 13:18:04

Good article SpaceNut. It seems Bush might have asked too little since the Senate is going to push some cuts through. Perhaps Bush and O'Keefe should have asked for more to get what they need. And did you see the new estimates on return-to-flight? 2.2 Billion? Doesn't a new shuttle cost 3 B?

SpaceNut · 2004-09-13 07:27:36

Well this weeks the space review has the same graphics displayed.

CEV: a different approach
Conventional wisdom has NASA’s new Crew Exploration Vehicle being launched by an EELV. Jeff Foust reports that some people within and outside of NASA are promoting an alternative to the EELV based on an element of the space shuttle program.
Monday, September 13, 2004

comstar03 · 2004-09-13 07:48:33

SpaceNut,

But the CEV program is going backwards for space craft design and reusable space vehicles. We progress forward, if we have issues with engine performance then we fix it, if we have cargo size, then we fix that, It might mean, cargo transports are different then human flights, same as 747 cargo airliners haven't got windows and the structure is changed than passenger airliners.

I think that all we have learnt in new reusable technologies could be used for retofit the existing space fleet of pace shuttles and continue development of reusable space travel.

Rxke · 2004-09-13 07:49:07

Maybe they had a sneak preview:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … html]Today should be interesting.

Rxke · 2004-09-13 07:53:25

Hmmm... That picture is of a CEV mounted on an STS derived SRB ???

I always thought solid rockets were considered too 'agressive' (too much vibrations due to the less than perfect burn with solids) for humans? And too 'fast'?

Hmmm... http://www.thespacereview.com/article/226/1]from the article: "Horowitz said he ran the performance numbers of the SRB on his computer and found that, in his words, it would be “a hell of a ride.” The SRBs burn out after just over two minutes, and although powerful, a single SRB doesn’t have enough performance alone to put a manned spacecraft into orbit. At burnout “you’re going about Mach 18 and pulling about 20 g’s,” he said."

SpaceNut · 2004-09-13 08:22:27

Most of the G forces are a part of the burn speed and duration. There is on going military research into lower burn rates for solids. Adding none fuel agents that just burn would be a way to tame it down but the length of the segments would most likely need to be increased. Also changing the diameter to one that is smaller would have a simular effect.
I am wondering what effect of changing the output nozzle would have if it were an areospike style?

RobS · 2004-09-13 09:16:50

The International Academy of Astronautics did a report that I described a month or so ago. I think there's a link from the Planetary Society's main page. It proposes a family of launch vehicles derived from the shuttle, including a two-stage using a solid rocket booster as the first stage with a hydrogen-oxygen second stage. The added mass of the second stage decreases the burnout delta-v and the burnout gee load of the SRB. Their report has the image of a vehicle mounted on top of a SRB, and it's probably this image.

The reason they propose a family of vehicles derived from the shuttle, rather than from Delta and Atlas, probably is because the shuttle is man-rated and the others aren't; also, the existing infrastructure for the shuttle family is there, and the employees are already there as well. It makes sense. A heavy lift SDV would use the external tank as well.

-- RobS

SpaceNut · 2004-09-13 09:21:33

I guess with that design in mind, how long must we wait for the upper stage and capsule design to be finished? Can it be leverage from existing projects and or demonstartors? Such as the escape tower project. ect...

Grypd · 2004-09-13 09:37:53

With the way the shuttle was done we can probably expect progress in about 10 years. Of course this is without the "push" of private enterprise on NASA and we can expect there to be some changes on how the CEV is created.

Also there is the other space agencies and there operations which could spur NASA to actually move faster than the usual snail pace. But we also have to be aware that there are budget constraints against manned flight.

So for your answer SpaceNut the answer is we have no idea, there are too many factors to consider that effect the answer

SpaceNut · 2004-09-30 14:22:36

Current plan and developement scheduel not very speedy.

Spiral One: Early CEV capable of carrying crews into orbit for test flights.

Spiral Two: Early Lunar expedition spacecraft, capable of staying on the moon from several days to a week.

Spiral Three: Mature Lunar expedition spacecraft, capable of extending human presence on the moon for up to three months. This would establish an initial lunar base.

2008 - The first prototype CEV is to be launched with a candidate launch vehicle. Two contractor teams will also test their designs for lunar vehicle and launch vehicles.
2008 - 3rd Quarter - NASA plans to select the final design for the lunar spacecraft and its mission mode.

2014 - First uncrewed flight of winning lunar spacecraft design.

2015 - First crewed flight of lunar spacecraft.
2015 - 2020 - First moon landing by astronauts in lunar spacecraft.

Grypd · 2004-09-30 16:06:47

Current plan and developement scheduel not very speedy.
Spiral One: Early CEV capable of carrying crews into orbit for test flights.
Spiral Two: Early Lunar expedition spacecraft, capable of staying on the moon from several days to a week.
Spiral Three: Mature Lunar expedition spacecraft, capable of extending human presence on the moon for up to three months. This would establish an initial lunar base.
2008 - The first prototype CEV is to be launched with a candidate launch vehicle. Two contractor teams will also test their designs for lunar vehicle and launch vehicles.
2008 - 3rd Quarter - NASA plans to select the final design for the lunar spacecraft and its mission mode.
2014 - First uncrewed flight of winning lunar spacecraft design.
2015 - First crewed flight of lunar spacecraft.
2015 - 2020 - First moon landing by astronauts in lunar spacecraft.

Ah im right then snail pace.

Frankly they want to send people to the Moon and not build a base instead they get to hop about a bit and wait until the newer improved Lunar vessel comes around. We already know the Moon as in the quote is one Harsh mistress but why risk crews that are basically copying what the apollo missions already did. What is needed here is to use Rovers not people at first find a good base site and go for it. Then instead of developing a new LEM just go straight to the Larger lunar vessels and probably save billions.

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-30 16:23:13

One of the first reasons that come to mind is that this is not the same NASA that went to the Moon, that technology has so changed and so much of the skills lost that today's NASA is not capable of mounting a big Lunar base effort until they regain lost skills and how best to use today's technology. NASA has a long way to go before they can start thinking Lunar base.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-30 17:07:05

I'm afraid GCNRevenger might be right on that one. Beside NASA having to recapture the lost skills they had during the Apollo Mission, there not getting the funding they need to build a base on the Moon either. Also NASA doing a Apollo repeat which will not be the kind of space ship we need to build a base on the moon with or be able to maintain that lunar base either. This is a muti-billion dollar science mission and photo opt and when you leave there million or even billion of dollars of equipment laying around at your temporary camp site.

Larry,

Ad Astra · 2004-09-30 18:41:17

The reason they propose a family of vehicles derived from the shuttle, rather than from Delta and Atlas, probably is because the shuttle is man-rated and the others aren't;

The shutte is not man-rated, as http://www.transterrestrial.com]Rand Simberg often points out. You could say that the shuttle keeps vibrations, acceleration, and cabin noise to acceptable levels for humans, but that in itself doesn't constitute man-rating.

What goes into man-rating a vehicle? It has to do mainly with the crew escape system. If the rocket stages are equipped with health-monitoring equipment that could activate the crew escape system (or at least tell the astronaut when to activate that system,) that is what man-rating is really about.

On the space shuttle, there is no means of crew escape during SRB operation, and return to launch site aborts aren't really survivable. In other words, unless the emergency comes late in the launch, the astronauts may as well kiss their butts goodbye.

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-30 21:58:34

The concept of man-raiting is quite simple: what percentage of the missions the vehicle is sortied does the crew survive? For man-raiting, this really needs to be higher then 99% (one crew lost in 100 misisons), but preferably >99.9%. Engineers are good enough now-a-days to predict the operation of the system pretty well, and verify their statistical model with a limited number of test flights, so it isn't going to take 100-1,000 flights to be reasonably sure the vehicle meets the projected survivability.

How you go about achieveing system survivability doesn't matter; either trying to build the vehicle such that the chances of it failing are nil either through engineering the heck out of it or serious redundency or using a crew escape system (which is much more dangerous then it sounds) or an armored crew cabin... as long as you can fly X number of times with Y number of crew fatalities.

The easiest way to man-rate the CEV is probobly along the lines of what NASA has in mind, start with the already "just-about" safe enough EELVs, make provision for a crew module escape/separation system, and make sure that the crew can survive reentry following the deorbit burn unpowerd... That pretty much covers the most dangerous parts of the mission that you can do somthing about, a pad abort, launch abort, and reentry malfunction.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-01 07:49:30

The Nasa request for help is to find out whether the aerospace industry can provide more launch services for satellites, cargoes - even astronauts.
The requests within the aerospace industry and among others opposed to transferring operations from government craft to private companies have stirred up a little bit of controversy . Some experts think the move is not only essential, but overdue, however.

Quote:
NASA paid special attention to small business in the information request and also sought information on six types of space-launch services:

-- Ground to low-Earth orbit. These include vehicles that could launch satellites to orbits accessible from both Cape Canaveral and from southern California, and missions to geosynchronous orbits where most communications satellites fly.

-- Ground to interplanetary trajectory. Such flights consist of space probes powered by nuclear propulsion or what is described as large-scale, cryogenic propulsion, meaning new types of rocket engines that use super-cool fuels such as liquid hydrogen. In these cases, NASA asked potential builders to detail the size and scope of their planned craft.

-- Ground to low-Earth-orbit rendezvous. These include cargo flights from Cape Canaveral to dock with the International Space Station and offload supplies. Currently, no existing U.S. firm is capable of executing such flights, although several have expressed interest or have produced designs that could accomplish the task after the space shuttle fleet is retired.

-- Ground to high-Earth-orbit. Such craft must be capable of delivering supplies and fuel in orbit around the moon or on its surface. Here, NASA is most interested in the amount of fuel and supplies companies think they could carry.

-- Perhaps most controversial, NASA has asked if any firm is planning to gain the ability to send astronauts into Earth orbit privately. In such cases, NASA would be interested in how far along firms are in certifying their rockets to carry crews, and when such private, astronaut-launching capabilities might become available.

NASA Seeks Rocket Help
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04zd.html

SpaceNut · 2004-10-04 08:47:08

As many of the threads for exploration, ship concepts and such have indicated that there is a need for differing vehicles for cargo versus those for man to use for any and all destinations of the future.

Splitting Cargo and Crew
http://www.astrobio.net/news....thold=0

SpaceNut · 2004-10-06 07:17:48

For any and all of the plans for moon or of mars they all boil back down to a small group of variables that defines the ship or ships that we will use to do each.

1 crew size
2 Habitat
3 duration
4 consumables
5 reusuability or expendable
6 cargo or equipment to do mission
7 where are we going
8 transfer points to change or assemble vehicles ( earth to LEO, LEO to lunar orbit, Lunar orbit to lunar surface)

Unfortunately the numbers are linked together some more tightly than others. Man can not survive if he does not have food, water, oxygen, fuel, and power sources.

clark · 2004-10-19 07:15:14

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15303]NASA: Taking the Vision to the Next Step

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … ?pid=15303

Pretty PDF's from all the companies the have proposed architectures for the VSE (Vision for Space Exploration)

NASA is taking the next steps in moving The Vision for Space Exploration from concept to reality. Working with the best in the aerospace industry, the agency is already exploring and refining the concepts that will help America return to the Moon, and ultimately travel to Mars and beyond.
On Sept. 1, 2004, NASA tapped 11 companies (list at left) to conduct preliminary concept studies for human lunar exploration and the development of the crew exploration vehicle.
"These study contracts reflect NASA's new commitment to find the best outside expertise that will work in partnerships to benefit the nation's goals for space exploration," said retired Navy Rear Adm. Craig E. Steidle, Associate Administrator of NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.
"We are developing a sustained and affordable human and robotic program that will explore the solar system and beyond. We will accomplish this using the same ingenuity, commitment and unwavering determination that forged the success of the Apollo program," said Steidle.

Links to the presentations are located at the bottom of the webpage.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-09-05 10:36:29

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#102 2004-09-05 10:57:17

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#103 2004-09-05 11:03:48

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#104 2004-09-05 13:05:10

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#105 2004-09-05 21:58:15

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#106 2004-09-10 11:55:14

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#107 2004-09-10 13:18:04

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#108 2004-09-13 07:27:36

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#109 2004-09-13 07:48:33

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#110 2004-09-13 07:49:07

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#111 2004-09-13 07:53:25

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#112 2004-09-13 08:22:27

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#113 2004-09-13 09:16:50

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#114 2004-09-13 09:21:33

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#115 2004-09-13 09:37:53

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#116 2004-09-30 14:22:36

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#117 2004-09-30 16:06:47

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#118 2004-09-30 16:23:13

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#119 2004-09-30 17:07:05

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#120 2004-09-30 18:41:17

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#121 2004-09-30 21:58:34

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#122 2004-10-01 07:49:30

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#123 2004-10-04 08:47:08

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#124 2004-10-06 07:17:48

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#125 2004-10-19 07:15:14

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

Board footer