Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

clark · 2005-05-07 17:14:05

CEV requirement is for a week of independant human support. This is a requirment that cannot be answered by a later habitation module. It has to be self-sufficient on it's own. Therefore the CEV module must provide space for a minimum of 4 (and up to 6) astronauts. It also has to be autonomous as in later spirals, the CEV will be abandoned and stay in lunar orbit.

It has to provide a whole range of abort options, and it has to provide controlled landings.

clark · 2005-05-07 17:56:18

What could you do with all this fun stuff?

http://exploration.nasa.gov/acquisition … awards.pdf

RobertDyck · 2005-05-07 22:15:13

Everything from soup to nuts. This is stuff for manned exploration, autonomy, lunar base construction. Some appears very relevant, such as "Friction Stir Welding of Thin Sheet Metallic Alloys to Create Affordable, Ultra Lightweight Cryogenic Tanks" and "Long-Life Lightweight Oxidation-Resistant Cryogen Tank", but then they have something lame like "Model-Centric Safety Critical JAVA for Exploration".

You can call me a "Keep It Simple Stupid" kind of guy, but I think rather than developing "Low-Power and Low-Complexity Video Compression for Deep Space and Sensing Applications" I would just use JPG, MPEG, or one of the new video compression systems for PC's.

Well, I was arguing that NASA has a plan and develops technologies that fit future missions, but I really don't see that all this stuff has a clearly defined mission. It reminds me of Robert Zubrin's "random house parts".

The "Microchannel In Situ Propellant Production System" by Battelle Memorial Institute is encouraging. Microchannel technology can make chemical reactions faster and more efficient, while making equipment smaller and lighter. I'm glad to see ISPP made the random technology jumble.

"Integrated In-Situ Resource Utilization for Human Exploration - Propellant Production for the Moon and Beyond", Lockheed Martin is jumping on the ISPP bandwaggon as well.

Boeing got a contract for "Fully Integrated Scaleable, Modular Two Fluid Propulsion and Power Module for Sustainable Architecture". What the hell is that!? It sounds like a fancy name for a bipropellant liquid rocket engine. Hasn't that been around since Goddard?

"Precision Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology Demonstration" ... A good one. You need a landing system for the Moon or Mars.

Lockheed Martin got "Alignment, Capture, and Mate (ACM) Docking System for In-Space Assembly" as well as "Automated Assembly and Reconfiguration of Future Large-Scale Space Systems". The ISS is nearing completion, this is too late. Well, I guess the ACM could be used to assemble the Moon/Mars stack.

It looks like the bottom line is no integrated plan. They still don't know where they're going.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-08 06:58:48

Total cost: $1.057Bn USD

I wouldn't be so quick to state that NASA is completly incompetant, the vast majority of these things do make some sense for a long-term Lunar program...

""Low-Power and Low-Complexity Video Compression for Deep Space and Sensing Applications""

MJPEG/MPEG/etc require a pretty good amount of CPU horsepower, which comes at a high energy-budget price. Makes sense for probes, but six million dollars for it? If it would save having to bring an additional RTG stack for a Jupiter probe, that would be a deal though.

""Fully Integrated Scaleable, Modular Two Fluid Propulsion and Power Module for Sustainable Architecture""

A Hydrogen rocket engine fluid handling system with a built-in fuel cell that runs on the boiloff. Great for powering reuseable landers where solar is too flimsy, but batteries won't last long enough.

If Lunar water isn't going to be available, then a heavy-duty ion drive tug would come in handy... though I don't know if its worth that much money.

Something interesting to note... a few million for VASIMR research. (aka an "MPD" thruster)

NASA isn't wholey guilty of "lets keep on making all the cool toys, except now lots more with VSE money, and then figure out how to get there" but nor is this a good sign that NASA's executives have got in their heads that "whoa, so, we have to build a lander?" etc etc.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-09 13:15:15

Then you have little ole t/Space which has Offered an Option for Closing Shuttle, CEV Gap

The Reston, Va.-based company already already convinced NASA to give it $6 million in exchange for advice on how the U.S. space agency can reach beyond the traditional aerospace industry to answer a presidential call to return to the Moon by 2020.

Now t/Space is hoping to convince NASA to part with $400 million in exchange for an Earth-to-orbit crew transfer vehicle, which company executives say they can have ready in 2008.

Read on to see how they will accomplish this task...

Rxke · 2005-05-09 14:50:53

Oh god that Lockheed design makes me want to barf... :down:

It made me laugh so loud, the neighbour's dogs started barking quite angrily

Come on, this looks like... No it does not look like anything at all.

It's just funny. Makes even the European Hermes (R.I.P.) look cool, after all those years.

Can't stop laughing...

RobertDyck · 2005-05-10 15:10:04

It looks like t/Space stole my idea. They want to build an air launched crew taxi from the back of a 747.
http://www.space.com/spacenews/business … ml]t/Space Offers an Option for Closing Shuttle, CEV Gap

t/Space would like to see NASA structure a competition that would allow companies to bid for a fix-priced contract to design and build an Earth-to-orbit crew transfer system that can be ready before the CEV.

Time to start preparing my bid.

Commodore · 2005-05-10 15:35:32

Seems redundant to the CEV to me. But if it can provide a cheap alternetive to Soyuz by private industry, more power to them.

Grypd · 2005-05-10 17:30:13

Seems Dr Bell is not so happy with the results of the CEV proposals.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05z … Spacedaily Article : CEV the last Battlestar

Actually reading the article, its given me a strange sensation, its called agreeing with Dr Bell. Now im depressed

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-10 18:15:24

Yeah, he is mostly right. The old NASA ways simply must go... now.

Its quite possible that Lockheed just slapped together a rough CEV knowing full well the request for proposals thing would be junked by Griffin.

Commodore · 2005-05-10 18:19:02

Is there a reason why these proposals are nit released to the public? There shouldn't be anything senstive in there.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-10 18:24:06

Sure there is... the "public" includes designers for competitors... which makes me think even more that the Lockheed CEV design is a dummy. It would have made a fine OSP, but Lockheed can't be that dumb.

BWhite · 2005-05-10 19:02:47

Seems Dr Bell is not so happy with the results of the CEV proposals.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05z … Spacedaily Article : CEV the last Battlestar
Actually reading the article, its given me a strange sensation, its called agreeing with Dr Bell. Now im depressed

The Battlestar CEV isn't a serious design for returning to the Moon. It's the kind of proposal you slap together cheaply at the last minute for a dumb program that you know will be cancelled – rather like LockMart's late X-33 program. But I don't blame the engineers or managers at LockMart for this idiotic design. They are just responding to an idiotic Request For Proposals generated by an idiotic planning process set up by NASA's late idiotic administrator Sean O'Keefe.

Hmmm. . .

Me-thinks Dr. Bell is not a fence sitting type of person.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-10 19:21:50

That said as the article puts it as just different names for the same thing. Then spiral one will be little more than Geminii on steroids otherwise known to some as Big Geminii. Even there (Boeings, Delta IV and Lockheeds, Atlas V) current platforms will not be able to do more without modifications to meet the 20Mt limit of need

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-10 21:26:10

Yeah Bill, ol' Bell doesn't ever stand half way on anything.

What'll it be launched on? 2-3 small SRMs on the Atlas-V, one big mega SRB for the Thiokol booster, or have to buy a $180M Delta-IV HLV for every CEV shot.

BWhite · 2005-05-10 22:40:03

I just saw http://www.space.com/images/h_b_osp_capsule_02.jpg]this.

Okay, what about a hard shell descent module with a Transhab/Bigelow style orbital module for CEV? Build a 4, 5 or 6 person super Soyuz style DM vehicle with a deflated orbital module. Inflate once in LEO for an oversized OM.

Have we discussed http://www.capitolsource.northropgrumma … up-Grumman yet?

Another thing that the Grumman document shows is the unusual method of transferring crew from a CEV to a lunar lander. After docking the lunar lander flies away with the CEV's own crew module transplanted to the lunar lander and used as the lunar lander's crew space. That's clever engineering. Though I wonder if Boeing will follow through with that idea since Boeing is the lead contractor of the Boeing/Grumman partnership for Spirals two and three.

Stolen from a space.com comment. But its a cool idea.

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Ca … ...=6&vc=1

Edited By BWhite on 1115787358

SpaceNut · 2005-05-11 05:14:08

Saw the Boeing design early on when they started putting out images of what they thought they could do back when I was visiting the projectconstellation site more often.
Did go and found these web links posted by others so will share.

From Andrew Space:
http://www.andrews-space.com/en/corpora … 00411).htm
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/r … ndrews.pdf
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/r … ndrews.pdf

Had never heard of them before this post so have not had time to go though all of the documents yet.

From Lockheed March dated Sytem of System:
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documen....tin.pdf

From Boeing March dated Sytem of System:
http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/r … Boeing.pdf

But then again Griffin has anounced rather than accepting these proposals at face value and running with them. He will be reviewing the goals of CEV to see where it needs changing.

Internal Letter from NASA Administrator Griffin: Exploration Systems Architecture Study Support

I am not one for more delay but if it fixes what is wrong with the current plans so be it. I truely feel that we have wasted the last 2 years as it is by not saving the cash from the shuttle program to put into building as some would put it Apollo Redu just modernized with more crew capability.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-11 13:15:35

Even t/Space Offers an Option for Closing Shuttle, CEV Gap for only a few 100million, to be exact 400 million for a paper solution.
Sounds to good to be true...

Grypd · 2005-05-13 03:09:25

With Dr Griffin giving interviews that state he only needs a further 18 flights to have the ISS complete to the standards his international partners would deem acceptable he plans to have the shuttle retired earlier.

He is concerned that there would result a gap of 4 to 5 years without an American manned vessel so his intention is to speed up CEV.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mp … 97]Houston Chronicle article

And what happens to the shuttle launch stack. Well quoting the article

According to Griffin, they could be recombined to provide the United States with a "Heavy Lift" rocket.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-13 05:58:27

But with the shuttle rate of launch only being 3 to 4 times a year at most it still will take us beyound the 2010 deadline to retire the shuttle and to get all those modules into place.
Why not drop the rate to 2 to 3 time, extend the years to retirement and save the money of the other yearly launches now to be put into the CEV program. But manage the personel such that they are not sitting idlely by waiting and not working.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-13 10:15:19

The problem with that, SpaceNut, is that you won't save any money. It takes about $2Bn a year besides the actual hardware & labor costs to make Shuttle fly, and you will be paying this cost every year that the Shuttle is in operation no matter how many times it flies.

I've been reading over those REAL VSE plans you linked to from the respective teams, and they make for interesting reading if you skim through the irrelivent stuff. Thank you for finding them.

Now that I have seen the Lockheed document, I am convinced that the current "OSP to the Moon" thing in Popular Mechanics is indeed a decoy to impress the public. Just with a quick skimming of either document, it looks as if Boeing has the better plan for getting to the Moon, but Lockheed perhaps has the better plan for getting into orbit.

The Boeing plan has some interesting advantages, such as the HAB for its Lunar Lander is the crew module for the CEV, which is neat idea that saves some weight. Also, with their two-stage TLI/LOC engine, you could either opt to use a single SDV or a pair of Delta-IV HLV+ to assemble the mission in either EOR or LOR configurations. The Lunar lander however may be a little overkill to use SDV on, and Boeing calls for the Detla-IV HLV+ to lift it. It is a good size though, with a 20MT cargo capacity. The Boeing plan also seeks to station a spare lander and CEV at L1 as a rescue option too, which sounds like a good idea to me. An upgraded Delta-IV Medium with five SRMs and enlarged diameter upper stage is spoken of as the CEV launch vehicle too... Oh, and there is talk of the initial lander having the option for reuseability.

The Lockheed plan puts more thought into getting into orbit in the first place and the most efficent orbit/rendevous scheme to get there. They have some interesting orbital tricks in mind to reduce fuel needs, which I don't entirely understand the differences.

They also have done a trade study on which vehicles of the Atlas family or the Thiokol launcher are good enough to launch the 20MT CEV with the desired >99.9325% (1/1500) safety and 99.3% (1/150) reliability.

Lockheed thinks they can make a single-barrel "Atlas-VB" lift ~25MT with no SRMs and hit the mark on safety, but not reliability. Noteably, they also mention a tripple-barrel varient of Atlas-VB with cross-feed, permitting engine out and payloads of around 70MT that is also safe enough and meets the reliability requirement. The Thiokol SRB launcher is also cited as powerful and reliable enough but a bit less safe, particularly with high G-loads and no engine shutoff, but also meets the reliability limit.

Its also worth noting that Lockheed isn't thrilled about trying to reach one of the polar moutains of eternal sunlight, since landing on the mountain top would be tricky, keeping temperatures regulated difficult, and getting anywhere on the surface by foot or rover would be very hard. They do some work on the satelites needed for communications/navigation all over the surface too.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-05-13 17:57:47

The fact that Andrews Space has entered a final CEV proposal along with Northrop Gruman/Boeing and Lockheed Martin is fascinating. T/Space was likely the only alt. space company that ever had much of a chance of making it at least to the flyoff stage of the CEV competition (which apparently will no longer occur if Micheal Griffin has anything to do with it), but Andrews has persevered and come up with an impressive proposal. Their suggestion of using an Atlas core with "Zenit strap-on boosters," while original, has just about zero chance of ever being taken seriously by anyone, and shows that they most likely realize that they cannot win in the face of competition such as Boeing and LockMart.

However, Andrews did recieve a substantial amount of money ($18 million) to demonstrate technologies for a cislunar cargo tug with the smattering of exploration contracts NASA handed out last month. "Demonstrating technologies" could mean anything, and likely won't lead to any flight hardware for some time to come at the very least, but it is an encouraging sign that NASA is reaching beyond its traditional contractor base. XCOR also recieved a contract of their own; these are likely harbingers of the future of NASA's relationship with private companies. It's heartening to see the government, big three aerospace, and alt. spacers working together for a common goal.

I really don't like the idea of sticking the CEV atop a shuttle SRM coupled with some upper stage. Aside from the very real issues of controlling the acceleration and the inherant danger of handling large solid rockets (they tend to blow up at the most inopportune moments), it will be very difficult to make the LV safe enough to use. As long as NASA follows its own guidlines the SRMs have shown themselves to be reasonably safe, but when something goes wrong on a solid rocket there's generally much less warning than one would have working with liquid engines. It would be an abort system nightmare, but perhaps it could be done.

Of the proposals submitted, Boeing by far looks the strongest. I don't see why Lockheed wouldn't have taken the VSE seriously, there are potentially billions of dollars worth of contracts to be had. However, I do agree, it appears as though they just didn't spend as much effort as Boeing did in developing a detailed beyond-LEO arcitecture. Of course, considering Griffin's comments on accelerating the CEV schedule, none of this may matter at all in the long run.

Dook · 2005-05-13 18:31:05

Does anyone think any of these designs will do anything other than shuttle people to and from the ISS?

Mad Grad Student · 2005-05-13 19:07:41

Does anyone think any of these designs will do anything other than shuttle people to and from the ISS?

Well, that's the whole point now, isn't it?

Xaliqen · 2005-05-15 03:25:10

Hello, I just thought I'd pop in since I find this discussion quite interesting.

Taking into account Mad Grad Student's quote:

Well, that's the whole point now, isn't it?

Well, what I see with the whole CEV concept as it is currently envisioned is rather a lot of points. And, indeed, a number of potential holes as well. However, I fail to see "the whole point." This, I think, is the crux of the potential problem with this program as it currently stands.
Now, one could be somewhat justified in saying that there is a rather intensive focus on creating a vehicle that may suit the needs of a Lunar exploration mission in the nearer term and a potential Mars exploration (presumeably with heavy modifications) in the longer term. But then adding in requirements such as docking-capabilities with the ISS and cargo ferrying & etc and eventually you've got quite the laundry-list.
In reality, designing a vehicle with a single mission in mind and with a singular focus and purpose of mind will, in the end, yield the best results. Now, this being my opinion, I am strongly in favor of creating some sort of modular adaptability. For instance, if you have one well-designed man-rated cargo and personnel shuttle, you could use that as your primary vehicle for LEO & ISS missions.
Now, I'm not the first to mention this, but why not just launch whatever additional components & modules are needed ahead of time and dock them with the cargo shuttle in space. Heck, it might even be possible to expand the ISS to the point where it could oversee this building phase (I recognize this might not be the most ideal option, but it's an idea).
It seems to me that if you try to make one vehicle wear so many hats, it would be best to add the extra components while already in orbit instead of trying to lift off with everything at once. At least, this seems a better way to provide focus for the engineering teams on the various systems they would be designing for the CEV. This way you have one LEO personnel & cargo shuttle module capable of Earth reentry, one Lunar modular attachment system and then, in the future, a Mars exploration modular system could be designed specifically around the challenges of such a journey and setting up the initial outpost. Anyway, those are my two cents.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-05-07 17:14:05

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#27 2005-05-07 17:56:18

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#28 2005-05-07 22:15:13

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#29 2005-05-08 06:58:48

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#30 2005-05-09 13:15:15

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#31 2005-05-09 14:50:53

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#32 2005-05-10 15:10:04

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#33 2005-05-10 15:35:32

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#34 2005-05-10 17:30:13

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#35 2005-05-10 18:15:24

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#36 2005-05-10 18:19:02

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#37 2005-05-10 18:24:06

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#38 2005-05-10 19:02:47

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#39 2005-05-10 19:21:50

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#40 2005-05-10 21:26:10

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#41 2005-05-10 22:40:03

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#42 2005-05-11 05:14:08

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#43 2005-05-11 13:15:35

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#44 2005-05-13 03:09:25

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#45 2005-05-13 05:58:27

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#46 2005-05-13 10:15:19

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#47 2005-05-13 17:57:47

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#48 2005-05-13 18:31:05

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#49 2005-05-13 19:07:41

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

#50 2005-05-15 03:25:10

Re: Post central for information on CEV IV - Before thread #3 melts down

Board footer