Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-17 09:07:45

As nice as a brand new HLLV would be, something more modular then Shuttle-derived hopefully, I think that waiting for it would take too long, that we need to get going and put boots back on the Moon pretty fast if the VSE drive is to get anywhere. A new heavy lift rocket could wind up costing $8-10Bn probobly... Its probobly either going to be SDV, EELV+, or try and rush a new HLLV.

Commodore · 2005-04-17 15:15:11

The Boeing Sealaunch Zenit booster used a liquid propellent. Perhapes we can use them in a SDV instead of the SRBs. It would seem that they would be quicker to refuel. Plus the fact that it lands on land would reduce the maintainance needed on the SRBs due to a salt water landing. Although the SeaLaunch doesn't make use of the Zenits reuseability, theres no reason why it couldn't.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-17 15:22:07

Zenit-II or Ariane-V (with the new 2nd stage) should be powerful enough to lift CEV. Trouble is that neither of these rockets are built here (Russia and France respectivly), which pretty much dooms them as a contender for VSE. Zenit's launch pad isn't well suited to manned launch eihter.

I don't think that solid rockets are avoidable unless we build a whole new launcher from scratch. That said, I certainly prefer smaller ones on the sides of liquid rockets to big giant ones.

Atlas-V or Delta-IV with some upgrades would be able to lift CEV without its TEI stage probobly...

I am a little suspicious that NASA has already secretly made its decision to go with the Thiokol launcher, since they massed CEV out of reach of the other launchers without multiple SRMs.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-18 11:35:38

Griffin Begins in Whirlwind

Griffin also announced during his confirmation hearing that he intends to speed up the timetable for fielding the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), which NASA intends to use to ferry astronauts to the Moon and back.
NASA’s current plan calls for flying astronauts on board the CEV for the first time in 2014, a schedule that is especially worrisome for lawmakers from Florida and Texas who do not want to see a lengthy gap between the retirement of the space shuttle fleet and the fielding of a replacement spacecraft.

Griffin noted that in the 1960s the Gemini program took only three years and the development of the Apollo capsule only about six years from contract award to flight despite a launch pad fire that killed three astronauts. He characterized NASA’s current plan to fly astronauts aboard the CEV for the first time in 2014 as “unacceptable.”
“The program that NASA has outlined so far features a new Crew Exploration Vehicle – call it what you will --- that nominally comes on line in 2014. I think that is too far out,”

Like other's I to beleave that the time frame for a completely mannable CEV is way off and the giants in Lockheed and Boeing are just bilking everyone on there proposed flyoff in 2008.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-18 16:34:01

*cough* And how, pray tell, dear Michael do you intend to accelerate development while spending most of your manned flight budget on Shuttle/ISS? The reason why CEV is scheduled to fly in 2014 is because there isn't any money for it right now hardly, that NASA was intending to develop CEV in earnest with Shuttle money.

The Apollo capsules were built faster, but at a price... the finished production model was expensive (too expensive for a CEV probobly) and development was under the price-is-no-object philosophy in order to beat the Commies to the Moon.

Commodore · 2005-04-18 16:45:36

If the manufacturers are doing test flights in 2008, I don't see why NASA needs another 6 years to do a manned flight.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-18 16:51:43

Half of the capsules' complexity is the part that is involved with carrying people... but you don't need that stuff to test the heat shield/parachutes/airbag, landing rockets, OMS/TEI stage, docking system, and automated/remote guidence systems. There is indeed alot of work to be done between making it fly and making it to hold people.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-18 19:40:46

just a little bit more thou in electrical power for heating or cooling, lighting, air circulation plus scrubing, oh and lots of seats and buttons for the crew to push.
probably 80 percent of the vehicle to automate it for return was done with the dart program.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-04-18 19:46:22

According to astronautix the Delta IV Heavy will have a payload of 25,800 kg to LEO; shouldn't that be enough for a CEV without the Earth departure stage? My thinking had been that the plan with an EELV system was to launch the CEV, have it dock with a seperately-launched kick stage, and perform a TLI burn with the EDS. It would seem that neither of the EELVs would need SRBs on the side to support such mission architecture. In any case, from what I gather the EELVs are just as capable as Ariane or Zenit launch vehicles, so there shouldn't be a problem as far as payload capacity is concerned. Throw in some added safety features, maybe a lightened tank structure, and a Delta IV or Atlas V setup should be capable of supporting the CEV.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-18 20:33:25

Yes and no,

The Delta-IV HEAVY, the three-barrel version, is expensive (double the cost of Mediums aprox) and requires too many engines for a safe manned vehicle (preferably). The current plan seems to be to launch the crew capsule with the TEI stage, which adds up to 20MT. This way, the CEV could have extended power/supplies and probobly enough fuel for a direct abort without needing to dock with anything. This would also give it extra capacity to serve as an unmanned cargo hauler like the ESA's ATV or a mega Progress.

The Medium version of Delta is probobly unable to lift 20MT without some boosters, even with upgraded engines and light weight fuel tanks.

The Medium version of Atlas-V can lift 20MT with boosters, but 20MT is probobly out of reach without some boosters, though it could perhaps get pretty close with a more powerful upper stage. Lockheed needs to get over the secrecy bit and start producing proposals ASAP.

The Heavy version of Atlas-V would easily lift 20MT, and 30MT very likly, but it too would require more engines and be much more expensive.

The Thiokol launcher, a big upgraded Shuttle SRB with a Centaur on top, could lift 20MT... but if something goes wrong with the booster, you can't turn it off, and when something does go wrong... it tends to be much worse and much less surviveable. You'd only need two engines though, the big booster and the RL-60 on the upper stage.

I am wondering if the CEV mass has been decided already in order to prop up the Shuttle Army and justify keeping the infrastructure around, since the Thiokol launcher is the only one without upgraded technology that can do the job with only two engines... Smells of the same thinking as Shuttle though, to trust the crews' survival to the reliability of the launch vehicle, which has proven to be a fatal lesson for NASA and the Soviets.

Ariane-V pairs roughly with Atlas-V for payload and configuration, while Zenit-II is a bit bigger and more powerful without boosters. The Russians aren't very good at solid rockets however, so Atlas-V with boosters matches Zenit.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-19 06:51:23

There has been some updating of the documents for CEV
on the Acquisition Portal here are the links.
Updated 4.4.2005 ESMD System Engineering & Integration Services Procurement
Updated 4.8.2005 Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Procurement

Ad Astra · 2005-04-19 15:51:12

I think Griffin is right to expect CEV to be developed in a shorter time span than currently budgeted. The only way to cough up the money, though, is to retire the shuttle in the next 2-3 years, not waiting until 2010. I support this move, and I suspect Griffin does too. He has expressed his doubts about the usefulness of ISS in the past, and I suspect he will scale the station back and turn it over to the international partners on a quicker schedule than planned.

I also think we can do without the CEV flyoff in 2008. Some have suggested this is a good way to test TPS and landing technologies, but I feel that these are understood well enough to the point where they can be tested on the full-scale unmanned CEV rather than a boilerplate CEV. We'll save money if the downselect is based on paper proposals rather than expensive hardware. We've never done a spacecraft flyoff before, but I suspect that it will not have as much benefit as an aircraft flyoff.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-19 17:14:51

It would suit me just fine if the ISS and Shuttle were cut loose sooner rather then later... the ATV will be available in 2006 or 2007 for cargo.

The 2008 flyoff doesn't have to be a "boilerplate" so much as a CEV without the human support/interface and Lunar transit systems. Because the reentry and landing mechanisms are fairly well understood, this also means the flyoff vehicles need not be super expensive.

A flyoff is more likly to give us the ideal vehicle thanks to competition, and demonstrates how well the builders' operate, and not just how good the vehicle is. This is how Lockheed won the ATF contract for the F-22 over the technically superior F-23, not because their jet was better, but because Lockheed is better at following through on the execution.

Ad Astra · 2005-04-19 17:21:59

For every competitive flyoff that has produced a superior aircraft, there have been great combat planes built without flyoffs. The F-15 and F-14 come to mind. However, the F-14 is not the best example, as it was designed to make up for the deficiencies of the F-111B "Sea Pig." If there had been a competitive flyoff between the General Dynamics and Boeing proposals for the F-111, the controversial and scandalous nature of that acquisition program could have been avoided.

There are good and bad points to the flyoff. My hope is that the losing capsule will still see prodction, perhaps for space tourism. It will be interesting to see a space flyoff because we're entering uncharted territory here.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-21 05:34:17

Michoud facility to craft prototype Spaceship will replace shuttle

Sort of wondering about this contract and of why one is given before the flyoff?

NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in eastern New Orleans will build a prototype of a new astronaut capsule if its operator, Lockheed Martin Space Systems, wins a contract for the work from the space agency late this summer, the plant's manager said Wednesday.

We know which teams are the largest but are there smaller ones also in competition for the flyoff also?

Lockheed is leading one of at least two teams that are competing to build the CEV. The other announced team is led by Northrop Grumman Corp. and Boeing. The competition to build the rocket that would carry the capsule into space hasn't begun.
NASA managers plan to select two teams by September to build prototype CEVs.

Say what?

Each team would receive a $1 billion contract for the first phase of the potentially lucrative competition. NASA could spend $100 billion over the next decade developing and building the spacecraft.

NASA plans to choose a winner to build the CEV in late 2008 after the prototypes are tested.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-27 08:00:03

[url=http://www.space.com/spacenews/]
NASA Cancels Systems Engineering Contract for New Exploration Program, CEV Untouched for Now [/url]

WASHINGTON — NASA pulled the plug on an effort to outsource the systems engineering and integration work for Project Constellation, a major undertaking that includes building a new Crew Exploration Vehicle and all the other hardware necessary to transport astronauts to the Moon by 2020.

Will need a subscription to get more on this, of which I do not have.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-29 07:46:37

I did not want to get the Topic: Where Do You Stand?, Decision time is now about the future of the voyager and cancellation of missions funding versus the CEV and exploration off its focus.

So I hope you do not mind Grypd from last comment in that thread to start out further discusion here.

The reason it costs so much to keep voyager is that they are constantly having to design code to keep it pointed towards the Earth so its weak signals can be intercepted. Voyagers internal systems are struggling to get frame of reference with us and occasionly threaten to start tumbling. This is not that much of a problem as the yoyagers have plenty of hydrazine fuel on board to correct it is the electrical supply that will doom them. The voyagers will not survive past 2015 when there power generation will fall below operating levels.
But given the push and a choice between the voyagers and the CEV im sorry I will go for the CEV. We need to get off this planet and out of LEO. I beleive the Moon is a good place to start and have allways thought that for the cost of the almost useless ISS we could have had a permanent prescence on the Moon years ago.

Estimated cost of ISS some where around $90 billion does anyone have the exact or a link to it other than this one?

If estimated cost to build CEV is around 30 billion to get us to the moon that would leave 60 billion. Shuttle flight to move the amount of hardware are 100 plus. The fact that the cev is targeting only 20m tons when a shuttle moves more would have meant that way more than a 150 flights would have been need to build this base even if done over the say time frame. That means a maximum of 400 million per flight target zone.

SpaceNut · 2005-04-29 12:44:57

Well if we ever do get started into the need for heavy lift then possibly the shuttle derived will fit the bill the best.

Here is one of those links form ATK that have been pushing for that concept.

Ad Astra · 2005-05-03 05:27:18

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science … l]Lockheed Martin's proposed CEV

Behold! A 70-foot-long stack with wings!

I'm highly disappointed. I thought Boeing and LockMart were supposed to be designing capsules, not doing OSP all over again. LockMart's CEV design is heavier and more complex than it needs to be. I hope Boeing's design is an improved Apollo, so that at least one of the teams designing the CEV hasn't fallen victim to idiocy.

A message to LockMart: keep it simple, stupids!

SpaceNut · 2005-05-03 05:53:52

Well there is an even bigger monopoly coming in that the competitors have joined forces as indicated by the Interplanetary transportation forum Rocket Monopoly; United Launch Alliance to which last month there were these articles hint towards it.

Posted: April 11 2005, 07:06
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.

Posted: April 21 2005, 07:34
Michoud facility to craft prototype Spaceship will replace shuttle
Sort of wondering about this contract and of why one is given before the flyoff?
NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in eastern New Orleans will build a prototype of a new astronaut capsule if its operator, Lockheed Martin Space Systems, wins a contract for the work from the space agency late this summer, the plant's manager said Wednesday.
We know which teams are the largest but are there smaller ones also in competition for the flyoff also?
Lockheed is leading one of at least two teams that are competing to build the CEV. The other announced team is led by Northrop Grumman Corp. and Boeing. The competition to build the rocket that would carry the capsule into space hasn't begun.
NASA managers plan to select two teams by September to build prototype CEVs.
Say what?
Each team would receive a $1 billion contract for the first phase of the potentially lucrative competition. NASA could spend $100 billion over the next decade developing and building the spacecraft.
NASA plans to choose a winner to build the CEV in late 2008 after the prototypes are tested.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-03 06:12:00

Oh the lockheed design sort of looks like the klipper concept as well.
But if no one will fund it though contracts it is just more pretty art.

John Creighton · 2005-05-03 08:25:39

I’m not sure there is only one game in town. I thought Boeing was working on all three concepts with NASA. It just so happens since a lot of contractors worked on the shuttle they are working as a team for SDV concepts. At least that is what I thought

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 09:06:57

What? What is this? What in the world are you thinking Lockheed? What in the world is the back half of that spaceplane for? Why is the docking module a seperate piece? How would you get to the ISS or deorbit if you didn't have it? The astronauts don't need an ISS HAB module to ride to the Moon in three days! Your whole vehicle is double the mass it should be!

Arrrgh! Boeing had better CRUSH this stupid piece of junk!

BWhite · 2005-05-03 09:33:26

Over at Rand Simberg's site someone (not me) posted a great comment on the Lockheed CEV:

Its Kliper-iffic!

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-03 11:56:42

So thats how they'll keep it from burning up... the thing will use an RCC heat shield like Shuttle's wing tips (that flimsy brittle stuff ala Columbia) across its whole belly. Not very reassuring. Unless that propulsion stage is supposed to slow it down before reentry... and if that failed, well, you'd have a pretty bad day.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2005-04-17 09:07:45

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

#152 2005-04-17 15:15:11

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

#153 2005-04-17 15:22:07

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

#154 2005-04-18 11:35:38

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

#155 2005-04-18 16:34:01

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

#156 2005-04-18 16:45:36

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

#157 2005-04-18 16:51:43

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

#158 2005-04-18 19:40:46

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

#159 2005-04-18 19:46:22

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

#160 2005-04-18 20:33:25

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

#161 2005-04-19 06:51:23

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

#162 2005-04-19 15:51:12

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

#163 2005-04-19 17:14:51

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

#164 2005-04-19 17:21:59

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

#165 2005-04-21 05:34:17

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

#166 2005-04-27 08:00:03

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

#167 2005-04-29 07:46:37

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

#168 2005-04-29 12:44:57

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

#169 2005-05-03 05:27:18

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

#170 2005-05-03 05:53:52

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

#171 2005-05-03 06:12:00

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

#172 2005-05-03 08:25:39

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

#173 2005-05-03 09:06:57

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

#174 2005-05-03 09:33:26

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

#175 2005-05-03 11:56:42

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

Board footer