- - CEV RFP - One comment

BWhite · 2004-12-14 09:24:58

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/000446.html#more]CEV RFP - - is use of EELV mandated by this RFP?

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-14 09:53:42

Sounds like it at least initially. NASA might be afraid of Shuttle Derived turning into a fiasco, which is justifiable.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-14 10:08:20

Had posted the reference and then some under the cev thread a few days ago: Post central for information on CEV 2

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 · 2004-12-14 16:39:09

I'm assuming that the booster's acronym is "CEVLV," or Crew Exploration Vehicle Launch Vehicle. Under the RFP guidelines, it would be possible to launch the CEV on the CEVLV while launching the EDS and LSAM together on a heavy-lifter like the Shuttle-C.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-14 16:56:24

They could, but the bennefits of such an arrangement are dubious I think... A cryogenic TLI stage and a fueled lander could each be thrown in seperate flights, probobly not costing more then $250-300M each for EELV+ that you'll have to develop anyway.

So, from a purely economic standpoint, Shuttle-C has to cost under $400-500M a shot roughly to be competitive when you amoratize the few billion worth of development costs.

There is also the nagging question if NASA could "kick the habit" and radically reduce per-flight costs of the Shuttle Stack + engine pod over Shuttles' mindboggling $1.1Bn/flight, and do it in such a fasion that Shuttle-C would be better then building a "light" clean sheet launcher.

NASA ought to build some kind of HLLV, even a lighter 80-100MT one, but if money is the number one concern then its clear that NASA will likly stick with EELV+.

BWhite · 2004-12-14 17:54:26

NASA ought to build some kind of HLLV, even a lighter 80-100MT one, but if money is the number one concern then its clear that NASA will likly stick with EELV+.

Cheaper overall and substantially less capable.

If we go EELV for the Moon, GCNRevenger, then I suspect most of your arguments about MarsDirect being too light to be useful will apply to our "Return to the Moon" as well.

Try sending lunar mining gear one EELV+ at a time. :;): ???

PurduesUSAFguy · 2004-12-14 18:08:36

I think using the EELV is a big mistake, we will never get to mars 20tonnes at a time.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-14 18:15:56

Going to Mars with EELV will likly have to result in "battlestar galactica" type missions, or at the very least serious on-orbit assembly capacity.

We won't be using the standard EELV series Purdue, it'll probobly be the 40MT upgrade models. We couldn't even get to the Moon 20MT at a time.

Ad Astra · 2004-12-15 23:00:13

There is also the nagging question if NASA could "kick the habit" and radically reduce per-flight costs of the Shuttle Stack + engine pod over Shuttles' mindboggling $1.1Bn/flight, and do it in such a fasion that Shuttle-C would be better then building a "light" clean sheet launcher.

The shuttle's standing army is both a blessing and a curse. The army provides political clout to keep the program going, but it also adds to the cost and prevents us from doing anything cool with the NASA budget.

The price of a shuttle mission is estimated anywhere between $500 mil and over $1 Bil per flight. This is mainly a function of flight rate, as the standing army eats up a lot of the costs, while the price of a new ET and propellant is relatively small.

If an SDV is adopted, the standing army will take a hit, as most of the orbiter-related people (except the engine and payload people) will probably be released or reassigned. The marginal cost of an SDV launch should drop compared to the shuttle (especially if they launch 8 or more missions per year, now possible with the unmanned SDV,) but the standing army will not take the layoffs very well.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-15 23:29:00

Shuttle rakes in on the order of $4.5Bn/year I think the figure is, so for four flights a year thats in excess of a billion each.

What I am wondering is how much of the Shuttle Army and the budget goes to operating the orbiter, and if NASA would be able to bring themselves to terminate them wholesale... call up Boeing for an RS-68 engine pod and ditch the SSME nightmare...

I suppose one of the big questions over the economics of Shuttle Derived is if NASA can force itself to make painful cuts, which is what the agency has spent the last thirty years orienting itself to avoid.

Austin Stanley · 2004-12-16 00:19:53

Well if you introduce a HLLV that replaces the shuttle, it's increased launch capacity would improve the economics some what. Instead of spending ~1billion for 20MT in orbit you would be paying ~1billion for 80MT+ of payload. This is an improvment over the old Saturn V which was nearly 3 billion (inflation adjusted) for the same amount.

Not to say that some staff reduction is not a good a necessary thing. Certianly those persons who's job it is to inspect and refit the shuttle for flight will no longer be necessary if it is replaced with a HLLV, although they may just transfer over to the CEV.

Ad Astra · 2004-12-16 00:57:58

I had read somewhere that a Saturn V launch, in today's dollars, was just as expensive as a shuttle launch. So much for getting your money's worth.

The prospects for SDV improve if it can be marketed commercially. Few, if any, payloads require the 80 MT lift capacity of the SDV, but multiple payloads could be launched at one time.

The same idea was supposed to be tried with the shuttle, which could only thrive economically if it replaced all U.S. ELV's at the time it was conceived. Fortunately, the Air Force never trusted the shuttle to deliver, and kept its ELV's in production.

I hope that an SDV, operated by a private contractor for NASA, will inspire the industry to "think big" and come up with payloads to take advantage of its enormou size. If a decent flight rate is achieved, the development cost can be justified and America can be back in the heavy-lift business.

SpaceNut · 2004-12-16 05:49:48

So the real economic problem is the cost of the standing army of shuttle workers. Are they really idle, with no work or is there simply to much to work on for each of these shuttle orbiters?

If the answer is idle then I must ask where are the managers that would redirect there staff to other projects? They are definitely no managing cost by not taking action.

If the orbiter is the problem then why have improvements not been made to elevate all or most of this work to reduce costs as well. Then again where are the engineering managers on this issue.

C M Edwards · 2004-12-16 08:10:17

I hadn't considered that possibility, Spacenut. Surely not?

Does anyone have any anecdotes or information on what the shuttle people's work schedules were between normal flights (and what they are doing now that there are no normal flights)?

The idea of thousands of people in a daily diddle loop is... disturbing. Someone, please dispell this notion.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-16 08:48:07

No no, the shuttle engineers aren't idle and playing cards, they are infact kept busy trying to make the most complex machine in the world which must suffer the most brutal mechanical and thermal conditions and engineering constraints operate. The simple problem is that Shuttle requires too many of them to operate safely and cheaply. Shuttle requires an absolutely rediculous number of skilled man hours between flights, its just CRAZY. If you would get the labor costs free and build a new shuttle every launch, it would probobly be cheaper.

The notion that there will be any commertial payloads for HLLV is pretty much a lost cause. Shuttle-C, without a massive upper stage, wouldn't be able to put any payload at all into GTO since it wasn't designed for it. There really isn't any way you can beat smaller launchers in this respect, Delta-II or other launchers are unbeatable... that is after all what they are designed for.

As far as improving launch costs, unless there were a radical decrease I don't think it will save much money per-pound versus EELV+. If Boeing can build the uprated Delta-IV+ for $250M a pop, then that will be tough to beat. The whole point of HLLV is not so much to reduce launch costs but to be able to launch bigger things.

Euler · 2004-12-16 20:03:53

No no, the shuttle engineers aren't idle and playing cards, they are infact kept busy trying to make the most complex machine in the world which must suffer the most brutal mechanical and thermal conditions and engineering constraints operate. The simple problem is that Shuttle requires too many of them to operate safely and cheaply. Shuttle requires an absolutely rediculous number of skilled man hours between flights, its just CRAZY. If you would get the labor costs free and build a new shuttle every launch, it would probobly be cheaper.

The number of man-hours needed to operate the shuttle has decreased substantially since it first began operating. However, I think that much of the money in the shuttle budget wedge goes to things besides making the shuttle operate. For instance, it pays for all of the R&D used for shuttle upgrades, and for all of the shuttle-related infrastructure that NASA uses. I suspect that it also pays for all of the astronaut training programs that NASA has, and for most of the science projects that are carried out by shuttle crews. While the shuttle is expensive, I think that we would still be left with many of these expenses even we stopped using shuttle.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-16 20:15:34

*Frowns* Maybe getting rid of Shuttle won't be a panacea after all... If so, and if we switch to EELVs for our needs, then eliminating the whole KSC launch complex might be in the cards. Once Shuttle is gone though, the R&D bucks spent on it yearly will eventually be freed up.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-12-14 09:24:58

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#2 2004-12-14 09:53:42

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#3 2004-12-14 10:08:20

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#4 2004-12-14 16:39:09

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#5 2004-12-14 16:56:24

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#6 2004-12-14 17:54:26

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#7 2004-12-14 18:08:36

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#8 2004-12-14 18:15:56

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#9 2004-12-15 23:00:13

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#10 2004-12-15 23:29:00

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#11 2004-12-16 00:19:53

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#12 2004-12-16 00:57:58

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#13 2004-12-16 05:49:48

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#14 2004-12-16 08:10:17

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#15 2004-12-16 08:48:07

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#16 2004-12-16 20:03:53

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

#17 2004-12-16 20:15:34

Re: - - CEV RFP - One comment

Board footer