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

BWhite · 2004-11-15 22:45:41

I'm sorry to steer this thread in a totally different direction, but it is a thread for CEV information...
As some of you may know, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is fighting for a $100 million prize for a private, three-man spacecraft that can complete three orbits of the earth. When I see an elected official making such a bold call for an outlandishly large space prize, I have to say, "Why not set up the CEV as a cash prize contest?"
Let NASA write the mission requirements, while the private sector will have unlimited freedom to meet those requirements in whatever way they choose. NASA will offer a large cash prize, plus a guaranteed purchase of multiple CEV's for ISS and lunar missions.
It's quite a leap beyond the X-Prize, but its the kind of prize we need before we can aim for the ultimate goal: the Zubrin-Gingrich Mars Prize.

This would have my support. Dove-tail it with Bigelow and its $150 million total if you can meet both requirements.

Rxke · 2004-11-15 23:27:02

Dana Rohrabacher *really* wants to go beyond LEO. I've studied his body language, reactions etc on the different hearings, and the man is really, totally hung-ho for reaching beyond ISS.

If only there were more peole like him in high positions...

Ad Astra · 2004-11-15 23:35:33

I did find it interesting that Rohrabacher wants to create a $100 million prize for a 3-man capsule while Bigelow is putting up $50 mil for a 5-man capsule. Obviously, the government's pockets are much deeper than Mr. Bigelow's.

One point I wanted to make is that Rep. Rohrabacher wants this prize so he can stimulate the private space sector, although his proposed mission requirement is highly arbitary. I would prefer a more purposeful mission for this prize: carry a crew of six, and make the capsule able to spend 450 days in orbit if needed. That's your CEV in a nutshell. It's a more demanding requirement than the three-person capsule, so it would be appropriate to offer a bigger prize. But I still believe that a prize system for CEV would result in getting a quality product faster than under traditional contracting methods.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-16 06:30:59

Ok, So prizes for incentive to design the next CEV lets say for only a 100million payout. Lets for one moment think about the current pairing off the big space providers, do you think that they would be willing to shell out the needed cash that is estimated at 25billion for all possible flavors of the CEV or would they even start with no contracts, let allow finish, I think not. They are to use to the current gravy train system.

So that now only leaves the alternative space ventures as the entrants to this new prize contest foriegn or otherwise IMO. Also lets not rule out the Russians or possibly India and a few other developing space nations.

If the SpaceshipOne were a good model on the cost to develope then one would be looking to have for the 100million dollar prise an up front cash and or garentee of funds of at least 200million if not more. That would be to just provide one working model basically.

I would much rather put forth the idea or at least plant the seed that future contracts to and for the big space providers hinge on there own independ CEV to LEO to be launched on there own products as a direct purchase. That the prices for this unit would be some where between the current atlas V and the Delta 4 pricing per unit flat fee payed. With no garranty or contracts to ever purchase anything from either.

I know that this last paragraph is fantasy but it would shake things up abit.

John Creighton · 2004-11-17 09:43:37

Another reason to build really big planes.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology … 7.html]The Power of Light: An Airborne Laser for Missile Defense

SpaceNut · 2004-11-17 11:06:44

Yes john we are discussing that under Planetary transportation group but in a different light as weaponery that is an Airborne laser successful test topic.

Airborne laser success

But as you noted bigger planes as the first stage carrier will be required by that mode of launch. Also greater speed and higher altitudes as well will work into that equation as well.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-18 21:25:06

It would be interesting to see if you could launch MAKS from an Airbus A380. There's still the problem of clearing the single, tall tail. At least it can carry a heavier payload than the 747.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-18 22:11:16

Great idea! The http://www.airbus.com/product/a380_freight.asp]A380F freighter can carry 150 tonnes internally over 10,410km. Maximum speed is mach 0.89, but that would be when empty. An Airbus would be much more politically correct than an AN-124. The AN-124 could carry 150 tonnes, and its empty speed was 865km/h (mach 0.72455). A full AN-124 can go 800km/h (mach 0.67), but the faster empty speed of the A380F makes it a better choice.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-18 22:57:27

Again, my concern would be the vertical stabilizer of the aircraft. To launch the MAKS, the MAKS would have to be released at a significant nose-up attitude, and the mothership would have to make a steep, diving turn after releasing the MAKS.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-19 06:55:38

Thou not about CEV it is about how Nasa can get side tracked by the lessening of funding. How can we ever get start let alone actually maintain the exploration process if this continues.

EDITORIAL, Don't repeat history Our position: There still are unsettling questions about NASA's next shuttle flight.

The parallels are unsettling of schedule and budget pressures at NASA helped doom the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia. Now the space agency is rushing to get the shuttle Discovery ready to fly again while looking at ways to cut its already tight budget.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-19 09:59:21

Maybe (hopefully?) Dr. Bell is right, and Shuttle will never actually fly again...

The question about CEV funding is simple: The project is NOT going to get started in earnest until Shuttle is gone and ISS involvement axed, because the money for VSE is currently going to NASA's Golden Goose and the SS Freedom/Mir-II frankenstein.

Rxke · 2004-11-19 10:45:18

the SS Freedom/Mir-II frankenstein.

Excellent! You came up with that yourself?

It's the best short description for ISS I saw yet. And the analogy is close to perfect, too... Cobbled together from disparate dead or dying projects.. Ill fitting at the joints, lauded as the best thing since sliced bread, but turned out to be a menace... etc etc...

ISS *is* SS Freedom/MIRII Frankenstein.

But what, then, are the yet to be launched 'other countries' components?

BWhite · 2004-11-19 10:49:59

the SS Freedom/Mir-II frankenstein.
Excellent! You came up with that yourself?
It's the best short description for ISS I saw yet. And the analogy is close to perfect, too... Cobbled together from disparate dead or dying projects.. Ill fitting at the joints, lauded as the best thing since sliced bread, but turned out to be a menace... etc etc...
ISS *is* SS Freedom/MIRII Frankenstein.
But what, then, are the yet to be launched 'other countries' components?

May I suggest an edit?

ISS/STS: "The Golden Frankengoose"

SpaceNut · 2004-12-10 12:04:57

I know that I have seen or read this concept before as posted here by BWhite: Stennis Space Center tests paraffin-fuel rocket motor if not this thread it was under the SpaceShipOne's hybrid motor discusions but here it is anyways....

SpaceNut · 2004-12-10 14:02:43

There are some new documents out for the CEV.
Shades of Apollo all the way...

Crew Exploration Vehicle Request for Proposal Statement of Work

Draft Statement of Work (sow)
Or try this page

Comment from Frank Sietzen:

The CEV will be part of a Crew Transportation System (CTS) that consists of the CEV, the CEVLV, and a launch escape system.
The CEV shall dock in Earth orbit with the Earth Departure Stage (EDS)
The CEV shall be capable of rendezvous and docking with the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), which appears to perform the same function as the Apollo Lunar Module.
The CEV propulsive capability must be capable of returning the spacecraft from lunar orbit to re entry and landing on Earth.
The CEV shall utilize either parachutes or parafoils.
The CEV structure may include wheels or landing gear
The total weight of the spacecraft is undetermined
The initial crew size will be no less than four
The CEV shall contain a health monitoring system, a galley, and a waste management facility.
Launch escape capability must include on-the-pad, throughout the complete booster ascent, and Earth orbit in the event of a failure of the EDS.
A separate RFP SOW and description will detail the requirements of the CTS booster.

Nasa Announcement page
CEV synopsis

Ad Astra · 2004-12-10 17:57:36

It looks like NASA has chosen an architecture for the lunar return, or at least placed a restrictive condition on what kind of input the contractors will have in designing the architecture.

NASA is committing to at least two flights per mission by dictating a docking between the CEV and the Earth Departure Stage. This rules out Orbital Sciences' plan to launch everything at once on a Magnum-like rocket.

That's not to say that the VSE can't be saved. An 80 MT launcher (like Shuttle C) can put up the EDS and the Lunar Surface Access Vehicle, while a Deta IV / Atlas V Heavy would launch the CEV and its service module. That lowers the bar, so the engineers won't have to re-do Apollo with a Saturn V megabooster.

Speaking of lowering the bar, how about the minimum requirement for four astronauts? You would think that six would be the minimum, especially if Mars is the ultimate goal of VSE.

Euler · 2004-12-11 04:28:27

I think that it will end up using 3 launches of an upgraded Delta IV Heavy.

The requirements description also mandates that the CEV design be expandable.

What do they mean by that?

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-11 12:18:55

Depends on how upgraded... if Boeing can hit the 40-45MT range, then a two-shot-per-payload system could be built perhaps.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-12-11 14:24:02

When does an upgrade stop being an upgrade and start being a new design? Just curious.

Graeme

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-11 14:40:20

In this respect, the "Delta-IV+" is an upgrade and not a new vehicle...

-All dimensions of the rocket stages are unchanged, the tankage and structure design is mostly unchanged and are bascially the same as the current rocket, just using something besides Aluminum.

-Same engines on the first stage, the small SRMs and RS-68, except with a new regenerative nozzle on the RS-68. Same combustion chaimber, same pump turbines, same controls, same mountings. The SRM mounts are the same ones as on Delta-IV Medium.

-Switching to a colder & denser brand of Liquid Hydrogen. More expensive to produce, but the fuel is not a big part of expense to begin with.

Each of these upgrades will buy you about 4-5MT of extra payload over baseline Delta-IV HLV, and perhaps make the Medium single-barrel Delta powerful enough to carry the CEV with no SRMs at all... only two engines!

Basically the same everything else. Same launch pad, same transporter, same factory. The only really new things are trading out the venerable but underpowerd RL-10 with the new RL-60, and increasing the payload faring diameter by a meter and a half.

Euler · 2004-12-11 18:44:33

The only really new things are trading out the venerable but underpowerd RL-10 with the new RL-60,

Boeing will want to use their own engine, so that will be MB-60 rather than RL-60. It looks like they are planning to do this modification whether it is required for VSE or not.

RobS · 2004-12-11 19:06:28

Do these new specifications for the CEV suggest NASA has decided NOT to go the direction of a new heavy booster? That is will stick to upgraded Deltas and Atlas? It seems to suggest that to me.

-- RobS

BWhite · 2004-12-14 11:33:31

Do these new specifications for the CEV suggest NASA has decided NOT to go the direction of a new heavy booster? That is will stick to upgraded Deltas and Atlas? It seems to suggest that to me.
-- RobS

Me too, although CEV on Delta and ESM and LSAM together on shuttle C seems feasible as well.

Do we really want an all Boeing operation?

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-14 11:38:16

If Lockheed doesn't get their act together about future evolution of the Atlas-V or start going capsule in short order, then Boeing will win by default.

ftlwright · 2004-12-14 14:48:09

If Lockheed doesn't get their act together about future evolution of the Atlas-V or start going capsule in short order, then Boeing will win by default.

<homer simpson>The two greatest words in the english language. De fault! De fault! De fault!<homer simpson>

Coincidentally, this was the episode were homer was selected to go into space .

LM has definitely got some problems. As good as the RD-180 is for lifting payload, it has a nasty habit of generating 3g lateral kicks during staging; as far as I know this problem still persist. I honestly don't think they will be able to man rate the AtlasV for manned missions, some of the LM folks I talked to didn't take the prospect of man-rating the AV too seriously (though this was before Challenger).

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#251 2004-11-15 22:45:41

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

#252 2004-11-15 23:27:02

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

#253 2004-11-15 23:35:33

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

#254 2004-11-16 06:30:59

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

#255 2004-11-17 09:43:37

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

#256 2004-11-17 11:06:44

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

#257 2004-11-18 21:25:06

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

#258 2004-11-18 22:11:16

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

#259 2004-11-18 22:57:27

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

#260 2004-11-19 06:55:38

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

#261 2004-11-19 09:59:21

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

#262 2004-11-19 10:45:18

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

#263 2004-11-19 10:49:59

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

#264 2004-12-10 12:04:57

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

#265 2004-12-10 14:02:43

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

#266 2004-12-10 17:57:36

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

#267 2004-12-11 04:28:27

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

#268 2004-12-11 12:18:55

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

#269 2004-12-11 14:24:02

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

#270 2004-12-11 14:40:20

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

#271 2004-12-11 18:44:33

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

#272 2004-12-11 19:06:28

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

#273 2004-12-14 11:33:31

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

#274 2004-12-14 11:38:16

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

#275 2004-12-14 14:48:09

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

Board footer