Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

Ad Astra · 2005-04-10 18:24:11

Musk reminds me of Andrew Beal, another self-made millionaire who got into the "alt-space" business. Beal's company built an H2O2 / Kerosene engine that could produce 3600 kN of thrust, and he had plans for a similar engine in the F1 class. Yet his business folded in 2000.

Elon Musk has already gotten farther than Beal, but that doesn't mean he's immune to the same fate. His people need to focus on lighting the candle that is the Falcon I. Only then should they start talking about Falcon V and beyond. Otherwise he will be a laughingstock and a flash-in-the-pan.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-11 05:06:55

Well it looks like the big leaders are striking out to end the possibility of only a single company maufacturing the CEV in its entirety if a flyoff were held.

March 28, 2005: An industry coalition of space shuttle contractors recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to develop Space Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle (SDLV) concepts to help meet NASA's future medium and heavy lift needs. Alliant Techsystems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and United Space Alliance, LLC signed the MOU earlier this month to formalize their collaborative relationship developing SDLV concepts. Potential missions for SDLVs would be to carry International Space Station and exploration cargo to low earth orbit, or launch a crew in the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

Industry coalition to develop launch vehicle concepts

An industry coalition of space shuttle contractors recently signed a memorandum of understanding to
develop Space Transportation System-Derived Launch Vehicle concepts to help meet NASA's future
medium and heavy lift needs.

Looks to me that they are trying to keep the shuttle army employeed for developing a SDV.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-11 05:34:38

In another surprise move when congress had ask for the possiblity of going to a single EELV from Boeing or of Lockheed for all launches the military has deceeded to devi up all future launches.

EELV Launches Dished Evenly to Boeing and Lockheed Martin

The U.S. Air Force plans to divide the third batch of Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) missions as evenly as possible between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, an Air Force official said.
The 23 missions will be allocated rather than awarded competitively based on price in order to keep both rocket makers viable through at least 2010

Now having this announcement and the other previous makes you wonder what sort of a CEV we will eventually end up with to take us to the Moon Mars and beyound? ???

Mad Grad Student · 2005-04-11 17:25:58

Beal Aerospace supposedly didn't fold, Beal just became dissillusioned with Boeing and Lockheed Martin's monopoly on government launch services. Perhaps this is just a case of the little guy blaming "the man" for all of their problems when they simply weren't up to the task, or maybe Beal really was capable of going through with his LV and becamed ticked enough at NASA to pull the plug. Whatever the cause, Beal Aerospace is an excellent example of why every development in space, especially alt. space, needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Whether or not Spacex's heavy lift concept amounts to anything all depends on how successful they are with the Falcon I and V. If they really can lower launch costs and be as reliable as advertised they should be flooded with enough launch contracts to recoup Musk's investment and finance the next generation of Spacex products. In a perfect world, that is. By this time next year we should know if Spacex can be a real contender or not.

The problem with SDV is that it cannot work effectively unless NASA gets rid of the Shuttle army. Once the Shuttle guys are gone so is the vast majority of the spending needs of STS. If they are left around, SDV will be a big, expensive boondoggle just like its Shuttle precursor. It won't be easy and will make many people grumpy, but NASA has got to rid themselves of the Shuttle and its army before they can get anywhere useful. Maybe they can find new jobs working on the CEV, but the fact of the matter is the army has to either do something useful enough to truly justify their work or go away.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-11 17:58:16

Amen MGS, though I am disinclined to think much of Elon's rockets until he actually flies one.

SDV is simply not an option unless the Shuttle Army can be radically shrunk. Period. We would be much better off using the EELVs, which are inexpensive enough right now and flight proven, and starting from scratch later for HLLV needs.

Commodore · 2005-04-11 18:24:49

How much of a Shuttle Army can there be without the Shuttle?

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-11 18:53:25

You mean without the Orbiter? IMO, the enormous expense of flying the shuttle has everything to do with the orbiter, and very little to do with the launch stack. Think about it: Delete the orbiter and the payload is intantly increased 5-fold, human flight safety expenditure is eliminated, and launch frequency is no longer limited by the prep-time of the orbiters.

It's just gotta be cheap!

The big question is, can NASA really afford to cull The Army?

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-11 19:03:32

SDV would need to be flown for about one half the whole Shuttle budget ($4.3Bn) a half dozen times a year to be what I consider economical.

RobertDyck · 2005-04-11 19:32:50

One of the design goals of the Shuttle project was to provide make-work for highly skilled personnel to ensure they didn't leave NASA. A lot of NASA's capabilities were in the skills of their employees, so they had to retain many of their people if there were to keep their organizational core competencies. There are many people who don't want to admit that to congress, many congressmen who don't want to hear that, and many employees who don't want to view all the work they've done over the last 33 years as make-work. Furthermore there is now institutional momentum: each space center will want to retain their employees, programs, and funding in order to perpetuate the institution. Radically re-orienting large institutions that employ 10's of thousands of people each is very difficult. However, this not only has to be done, but those employees need assurance they won't be unemployed. Those skilled individuals were retained specifically to maintain the ability to go back to the Moon or go on to Mars; now is the time to do so. Now is the time to re-assign personnel to build new stuff instead of maintaining a white elephant. Most engineers will be very pleased at the opportunity to design the next manned spacecraft, but the uncertainty of moving to a new job is always stressful.

Then there's the sales guys. Senior managers of all major contracting firms will attempt to maintain current contract levels and treat a mission to the Moon as new revenue, rather than re-assigning existing revenue.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-12 00:12:55

Yes, but remember the white elephant is the orbiter, not the launch stack. The other half of the shuttle army will probably find work in the CEV and other projects. If NASA can't cull The Army the only way to maximise efficiency is to up the launch rate (though cost per pound on SDV will be 5 times cheaper, either way). Now the critics might tell you we have no reason for launching 100 tonne payloads into space twice a month, citing the ISS, but imagine what could be built as justification... That's 2.4 megatons of hardware a year...

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-12 05:28:36

Only the orbiter? Tell that to the folks who have to handle the SRBs, and the labor-intensive integration procedure, and the virtually hand-built external tank, and all the people who run the huge KSC complex... Its not clear at all that the Orbiter absorbs most of the HR budget for Shuttle.

And increase the launch rate? What are you talking about? The idea is for NASA to lower its total cost, simply reducing the cost per-pound while still paying $5Bn a year for SDV would bankrupt NASA! And, since you will be adding expendable engines and guidence and such, each additional launch won't be that much cheaper.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-12 05:57:33

From an earlier post
United Space Alliance - Bringing the Northrop Grumman/Boeing team extensive experience in space operations, United Space Alliance's 10,000 employees in Florida, Texas and Alabama

These are all I think considered contractor employees and not directly Nasa's but that still begs to have an answer as to the head count to which is Nasa's for shuttle army contingent.

As for the Srb's refurbishing I think that it is done by the manufacturer and not the United space alliance or of Nasa.
So that makes it a contract sales problem there again and not a direct nasa shuttle army of employees.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-12 17:39:28

The idea is for NASA to lower its total cost, simply reducing the cost per-pound while still paying $5Bn a year for SDV would bankrupt NASA!

No, the idea is for NASA to be more effecient at what it does. 'Cheaper is better' was the flawed logic behind Goldin's faster, better, cheaper mantra.

RobertDyck · 2005-04-12 19:10:08

Actually, the idea is for NASA to go to the Moon with the budget it has. That means re-directing funds from Shuttle and ISS construction to the Moon effort. If an SDV costs the same number of dollars per year as Shuttle then NASA would have nothing left for the Moon.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-12 19:27:51

Actually, the idea is for NASA to go to the Moon with the budget it has. That means re-directing funds from Shuttle and ISS construction to the Moon effort. If an SDV costs the same number of dollars per year as Shuttle then NASA would have nothing left for the Moon.

*Claps* Precisely... Or Mars later on either

It doesn't matter if NASA can launch ten tonnes or or ten thousand tonnes with SDV anually; if it costs $4-5Bn a year to fly, then there will be nothing left to make anything to fly on it.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-04-12 22:56:22

The cool thing about SDV is that by eliminating the orbiter it should be possible to significantly reduce operating costs and develop a heavy-lift launch vehicle relatively quickly and affordibly. The potentially deadly thing about SDV is that NASA has every incentive in the world in the short-term to keep around as many of the technicians that make shuttle so mind-blowingly expensive as possible. Thousands of employees will petition the politicians who make NASA's long-term decisions to keep their jobs. There will be legions of grumpy engineers if they are laid of en masse, but it simply has to be done if NASA is going to be able to afford the VSE.

In short, SDV is a nice concept that stands a good chance of being accomplished effectively. However, in order for this to be done NASA must resist the temptation to maintain the shuttle army for the heavy-lift version of the shuttle stack. That's the risk involved with a shuttl-derived heavy lift system. To use GCN's phrase, NASA will need to learn to "kick the habbit" before they can return to the Moon and venture beyond.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-13 00:11:30

Actually, the idea is for NASA to go to the Moon with the budget it has. That means re-directing funds from Shuttle and ISS construction to the Moon effort. If an SDV costs the same number of dollars per year as Shuttle then NASA would have nothing left for the Moon.

The ISS soaks up about 3 billion a year alone. The orbiter and the ISS must be killed together, so that one is not left to justify the other.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-04-13 03:36:05

The CEV Development will fail to meet the requirements for taking humanity into space. Doesn't have the crew space, the cargo capacity and the ability for large scientific instrument packages for earth to orbit, orbit to moon or orbit to mars or orbit - beyond. I expect a new crew vehicle would be under development within 10 years after the creation of the first working vehicle hitting service.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-13 06:15:19

I think that the risk of NASA succombing to the temptation to retain The Army ("they offer a huge capability to... to... um" -Griffin) is such that SDV should be avoided unless the decision is taken out of NASA's hands.

For a decent Lunar program, with the destination only three days off, the EELVs can launch mission hardware in pieces large enough to do the job. They also offer more flexibility, and a less risky compared to SDV. The Delta-IV HLV is already being sold for aproximatly the price NASA could afford in absense of most STS/ISS funding. The Boeing factory and their pad at the Cape' can perform 15 flights a year with up to 40-50MT each, and when built in bulk the prices could be driven down further. The USAF might also buy into an accelerated EELV deployment that would ensure economies of scale.

I think there is a strong case with skipping SDV, using EELV today for the Moon, and build a new HLLV later for Mars.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-13 18:53:49

I think there is a strong case with skipping SDV, using EELV today for the Moon, and build a new HLLV later for Mars.

But if the ultimate goal is Mars, ...what's the point?

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-13 19:08:11

If Bush changed his mind and said "forget the Moon, lets go to Mars first instead," then SDV would STILL not be an option if it costs $5Bn a year to fly.

It doesn't matter where we're going, NASA needs that money, and it just can't count on Congress to pour in billions more.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-13 22:04:16

He doesn't need to change his mind. He said Mars, but the moon first, as a 'stepping stone', remember? The debate is not Moon vs Mars, the debate is whether the moon is a viable stepping stone. EELV's only make sense if the moon is the ultimate destination, and I think Bush made it pretty clear that it's not.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-14 05:14:46

Thats why when we look at the moon for the differences we can create a common list of what would need redoing when it comes to the design of moon products versus those that would differ for mars use.

1 manned and cargo vehicle launched from earth to either location are going to be different not only in size but possibly in number of stages.

2 quantities of them for LEO assembly is another possibility.

3 life supply recycling of air and water would be different for the journey but could be designed for the same amounts of stay on either location.

4 energy power resource due to duration would differ for flight to destination and once there if habitat is underground would be the same for both but above ground these would not be all theat close.

5 space suits for moon versus mars are very different and due to journey and possiblity of needing repair walks would be still needed for mars while an alternative lighter weight unit would be also required for mars

6 bio protection items for dust removal before entering habitat is another need that would differ due to environment of use to clean space suits

7 Habitat, cargo ect.. style landers for both destination can not be the same due to mars atmosphere

should I go on...

The point is unless you make design for what is common for both situations then you are going to be redesigning new hardware for each at very high cost of developement each time adding to the cost of doing Bush's Space vision of exploration.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-14 05:17:00

You miss my point completly, or else are just willfully ignoring it:

The destination is completly irrelivent, it doesn't matter where we are going or what we doing when we get there, not one bit. The reality is that NASA is never going to get a massive budget hike, so whatever NASA does must be accomplished within its $15Bn/yr. NASA cannot afford to go any place if a massive 1/3rd of the budget is spent on launch vehicles.

The risk alone that SDV could turn out to be this expensive dooms it. The only other option close at hand is the EELVs, which will work just fine for the Moon, and Mars is so far off that NASA will have plenty of time to develop a new HLLV for the trip.

The whole idea that Mars must be within easy reach of Lunar hardware is absurd given the circumstances, holding NASA to such a requirement would doom both programs.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-14 05:32:43

Actually I did not miss it but rather I am in a holding pattern waiting on the cev flyoff competition to begin.

Also GCNRevenger you are right Nasa must learn how to live within a budget and still get the job done.
But what is that job to which Nasa has been tasked to forfill. This needs to be better defined.

On a side note of the budget though a lot depends on how many flight can be produced for the money when it comes to SDV or is rather a question of how many of any vehicle design are going to be needed to accomplish the task of manned space exploration for any given budget years worth of dollars.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-04-10 18:24:11

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#102 2005-04-11 05:06:55

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#103 2005-04-11 05:34:38

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#104 2005-04-11 17:25:58

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#105 2005-04-11 17:58:16

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#106 2005-04-11 18:24:49

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#107 2005-04-11 18:53:25

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#108 2005-04-11 19:03:32

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#109 2005-04-11 19:32:50

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#110 2005-04-12 00:12:55

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#111 2005-04-12 05:28:36

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#112 2005-04-12 05:57:33

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#113 2005-04-12 17:39:28

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#114 2005-04-12 19:10:08

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#115 2005-04-12 19:27:51

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#116 2005-04-12 22:56:22

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#117 2005-04-13 00:11:30

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#118 2005-04-13 03:36:05

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#119 2005-04-13 06:15:19

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#120 2005-04-13 18:53:49

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#121 2005-04-13 19:08:11

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#122 2005-04-13 22:04:16

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#123 2005-04-14 05:14:46

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#124 2005-04-14 05:17:00

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#125 2005-04-14 05:32:43

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

Board footer