CEV is Bullshi...

Michael Bloxham · 2005-05-24 00:44:49

May I be the first to say how bullsh*t this new CEV craft is. First off, we shouldn't make a jack-of-all-trades spacecraft, it's just bad principle. Space, as a term of destination, remember, is a huge generalisation. If space is anagolous to the ocean then it would be sufficient to describe the CEV as a boat. It is simply an airtight vessel capable of transporting stuff from one destination to another. Which does nothing at all to describe its capabilities, other than it's capable of being a boat. Is it a short range passenger ferry, a small dinghy, or a disposable life raft, or perhaps a house-boat? The CEV's purpose needs to be set in concrete before we start thinking about the design and funding and such. And what of this nonsense about accelerating the design schedule? Why must NASA insist on a 24/7 human presence in space? Why? Can we even afford it anyhow? I mean look at the year 2013: The CEV will be absorbing maximum funding (operational vehicle or not), the ISS will still be occupied with a full-time crew, all the while the Moon program will be demanding huge sums of money. We simply can't afford all three pursuits. We have to drop atleast one, preferably two. The ISS should go ASAP, so why can't we kill it in 2010, with the shuttle? That way we wouldn't need to accelerate CEV development, which we couldn't afford anyway, and we can put full effort into the Moon-Mars program.

We already have the ISS to hold us back, we don't need the CEV to justify the ISS when it is complete; It'll be just another shuttle. Pointless mutual justification. Kill them both and concentrate on a dedicated 'Moon vehicle', not CEV.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-24 03:38:00

Michael,

Its refreshing to see a person that finally come around to the thinking that the CEV vehicle must be designed on a multi-platform based craft. The craft must be developed through a central module and specific components for different mission profiles. For example different engine assemblies for short or long duration missions including roundtrip or one-way missions.

The Main issue is the overall strategy of NASA must be to have a long term generational strategy for 50+ year evolution of space vehicle design and development. Then revaluate the designs and development around the 2055 year mark for the next 50 years. The first fifty years are based on one modular designed platform to expand the understanding of space and the settlement of our "local street" of space bodies - Moon, Mars, Asteroids, Jupiter's Moons and Saturn's Moons.

The second 50 years will have different specifications for the space vehicle to meet including speed, endurance, crew and passenger size and technology improvements just to name a few changes. We need to make sure that the CEV reflects the needs of all space uses in the near term out to 2055.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-24 05:26:10

The only trouble with a modular design is that you must work each equation for the given stages from the top of the rocket to the bottom. Meaning that the final destination of splash down, to re-entry, to burn for orbit, to burn to leave lunar orbit and that all depends on a separate Lunar lander.
Also anything developed in this manner for the moon would not be usuable for mars and would need redesigning for mars durations, consumable mass and so much more...

RobS · 2005-05-24 13:39:43

A fifty-year space vehicle plan? Why? The technology changes too fast! Would you want to be operating on a fifty year plan for computers devised in 1975? The only way a fifty-year plan makes sense is if people have no plans to develop new spaceflight technology, and I hope that isn't the case!

A twenty-year planning horizon (such as VSE) is bad enough.

-- RobS

Commodore · 2005-05-24 14:37:24

The real danger in the CEV program right now is to expect too much from it.

The only thing we would should be conserned about right now is building a reusable craft capable of launching 6 people into X destination in LEO.

The VSE is suppose to involve a "system of systems". That means if you want to stay in LEO for an extended period of time, you need a Hab attachment up there. If you want to send it to Lunar orbit you need a a TLI and Hab attachemnt. If you want to land it on another body you need a lander attachment.

We don't want a Swiss army knife.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-24 16:52:44

We are talking about two different segments of space flight. One section is Earth to Orbit and the other section is Orbit and beyond. I was talking about the later ( Orbit and beyond).

Spacenut,

That's what computers / information systems are for !!!! and provide updating information throughout the mission. Secondly, by having a pre-determined components the missions can be assigned quickly and efficiently, by reducing the cost in manpower on earth, and in space.

Robs,

Yes 50 years because even with advances in systems they are modular and backwards compatible to integrate across the timeframe and provide a stable space platform for exploration and settlement across our star system.

Grypd · 2005-05-24 18:32:41

50 years, no chance. The only reason 50 years should be mentioned is as a statement of what you expect to be the situation in that time. An ultimate goal.

ie In 50 years I want there to be at least one Martian colony etc.

Then we should use smaller length plans to utilise existing technology and to develop new technologies so that the ultimate goal can be realised.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-24 18:55:39

The real danger in the CEV program right now is to expect too much from it.
The only thing we would should be conserned about right now is building a reusable craft capable of launching 6 people into X destination in LEO.
The VSE is suppose to involve a "system of systems". That means if you want to stay in LEO for an extended period of time, you need a Hab attachment up there. If you want to send it to Lunar orbit you need a a TLI and Hab attachemnt. If you want to land it on another body you need a lander attachment.
We don't want a Swiss army knife.

Almost, but not quite...

Since flying in circles around the Earth for two days to get to the ISS isn't much different then flying three days to Lunar orbit, the CEV manned-launch-thingie should be designed to get crews from Earth to Lunar orbit and back too.

This, however, places one constraint on the Lunar transfer vehicle then a LEO-only CEV, and that is the ability to reenter Earth's atmosphere at Lunar transit velocities. This dictates a capsule with (at least as backup) ablative heat shielding.

idiom · 2005-05-24 20:47:28

You could tape $10 BN worth of feasability studies to the bottom of it the CEV. That would take a while to ablate.

I'm not bitter.

Commodore · 2005-05-24 21:49:06

You could tape $10 BN worth of feasability studies to the bottom of it the CEV. That would take a while to ablate.
I'm not bitter.

srmeaney · 2005-05-24 23:33:57

The CEV's purpose needs to be set in concrete before we start thinking about the design and funding and such. And what of this nonsense about accelerating the design schedule?

The Crew Emergency Vehicle is not shit. Its simply marketed as mission-specific when it should be marketed as mission-diverse.

The CEV needs to be useable as:
1. the atmospheric entry vehicle for Mars Colonization teams (about ten million people).
2. the Gondola for a Dirigible that enables a team to move from the landing site to a Habitat site.
3. a temporary airlock/habitat where crews can get out of the space suit while they wait for remote control rovers to pick them up and take them to where ever the habitats are.
4. the crew cabin for a larger rover than was available on the moon. They just need to be met by the remote control rover frame on landing.
5. the standard unmanned food/equipment (forward deployed or emergency resupply) dropship for science (and other) missions involving the resupply of mobile habitats and teams.

Considering Mars & Space Colonization is going to need a very big space station for a transient colonization wave of ten thousand people at any given moment somewhere between the earth and the moon, the CEV is ideal.

Right now it's just a space life boat for the International Space Station and thats fine.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-24 23:53:55

What is CEV ---->

1. Crew Emergency Vehicle

2. Crew Evaulation Vehicle

3. Crew Explorer Vehicle

4. Crew Exploration Vehicle

5. Crew Exploitation Vehicle

6. Crew Elevation Vehicle

and more and more

All are different meanings and different uses.

Grypd · 2005-05-25 02:42:45

What is CEV....

Simply whatever Dr Griffin can make happen and at what stage.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/376/1]Space Review article

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-02-01 20:58:39

What is CEV....
Simply whatever Dr Griffin can make happen and at what stage.
Space Review article

another Space review

Asking the tough questions
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/546/1

Armed with six advanced degrees and a vision for sending astronauts back to the moon and on to Mars, Michael Griffin isn’t your average NASA administrator. The space agency’s 11th chief executive sat down with us recently after nine months on the job and waxed eloquent on topics as diverse as foam, Challenger, Mars, the budget, the astronaut corps and intelligent design. The free-wheeling, hour-long chat took place Jan. 19 in a conference room adjacent to the administrator’s suite at NASA headquarters in Washington.
blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2006/01/mike_griffin_af.html

NASA trying to look beyond shuttle program
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cf … -06&cat=AN

SpaceNut · 2006-02-01 21:56:23

[url=http://www.safesimplesoon.com/assets/documents/news/SenateHearing%20Horowitz.pdf]The Testimony of Dr. Scott Horowitz
Director of Space Transportation and Exploration, ATK Thiokol[/url]

This is the main site of the Simple Safe Soon ATK design for the CLV.

It was believed sometime ago that the J-2's engines that were in storage would serve as a model to do a redesign. There were back in November a total of 9 available for this task.

The SSME at this time only seem to be of value for the HLV and not the CLV as once was hoped. Making it even more problematic to get one launched before the shuttle is retired.

GCNRevenger · 2006-02-02 08:30:35

The SSME is very efficient and reliable, but it isn't the optimum solution; it was never designed for expendable rockets, and each engine is very expensive, perhaps $40-50M each. The engines for the big HLLV would cost as much as the rest of the rocket would combined.

Given the alternative available, the aproximatly man-rated J-2S for TheStick and the RS-68 (flown on Delta-IV) for the HLLV, the choice to use the SSME (at least for the latter) is very likly political and not technical nor financial. The SSME's superhigh efficiency is only realized at high altitudes, and infact its competitor the RS-68 has equal efficiency in the early phase of flight. The RS-68 has about 50% more thrust as well, which means fewer engines (4 vs 5) and lower gravitational losses, which largely compensates for the lower efficiency. And they would only cost $60-80M a flight as opposed to $200-250M.

A low-cost simplified version of the SSME is possible, but given the very high complexity of the engine required to achieve this efficiency, it would be very difficult to make an "economy" model that would retain performance advantages over RS-68.

Rxke · 2006-02-02 11:49:42

Horowitz, w/o exactly saying it, seems to be seriously in favor for the J-2S

a recent reliability and crew safety assessment of the SRB/J-2S Launch Vehicle conducted by... concluded "...the SRB/J-2S derived launch vehicle forecasted crew safety level, as measured in missions where the crew is lost in a total number of missions, is 1 in 3,145..." This is an order of magnitude better than today's capabilities.

AND he quoted Einstein, to back up the keep it simple approach, heehee...

publiusr · 2006-02-03 14:00:53

I like Scott. ATK understands that the laws of physics do not change. A nice beefy capsule is as good today as it was 30 years ago. It will be good for ISS and Moon useage, and also good for a Mars return capsule. It is a very simple shape--and is not to be compared to 1975 era computers.

Apple and Dump trucks.

Computers change. The Laws that govern aerodynamics do not.

SpaceNut · 2006-02-10 22:19:46

With all the changes to the CEV does it mean that Comercially off the shelf is a little harder than we thought or is it just Nasa...
Thinking out of the box: how to challenge conventional space systems

Spacecraft must evolve. Advancing space research is no longer just about swapping old components for new, now it is about entirely rethinking what a space mission can do and how it achieves its goals.

Is the shortcuts that we have made by dropping the Methane fueled engines and the use of air restartable SSME or changing to the 5 segment as well as going with an antique J2 engine all the right ways to do what we want in the end run.

Grypd · 2006-02-11 04:34:45

Depends where the source for commercial off the shelf parts comes from. NASA just wont buy from abroad without permission. Using Bigelow as an example he could not find a part he needed in the USA and the cost and time to develop would have been a major delay. He found the part he needed in Germany. But he is not a goverment organisation and can do what is commercialy sensible, NASA just cant.

And then there is the problem that the part NASA needs may well not exist or have a reasonable capacity to be retasked safely. Most of the costs of a space vehicle is the constant checks to ensure that it is safe and the parts will not fail. This will not change especially if NASA is not a 100% sure of the processes that made a part.

SpaceNut · 2006-02-13 09:04:28

While the CEV design is in a state of flux, it would also appear that Nasa can not even decide on a design center to handle its build.
It appears that Glenn wants a piece of the action with the Service module.

[url=http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1139737237317510.xml&coll=2]Glenn could get work on shuttle replacement
But management needs improvement, reports say [/url]

Due within months, the decision on which of the NASA centers will work on CEV could make or break Glenn, whose budget has been more than halved since 2003. For next year, its income is $317 million. Only last month, a $90 million propellant program on which Glenn was working was canceled.
If Glenn gets the service module, it would mean at least 300 jobs and more than $2 billion over the project's life. Some observers guess it could mean 500 jobs and $3 billion.

It would seem that the CEV is not first on managments mind but rather how many jobs that it will create.

NASA: Cleveland center can't handle major role in moon mission

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-02-13 19:00:40

final name for the CEV/CLV Human Space Transport will be announced in 2006.

the NASA website
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev_faq.html
questions

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-03-28 19:34:48

While the CEV design is in a state of flux, it would also appear that Nasa can not even decide on a design center to handle its build.
It appears that Glenn wants a piece of the action with the Service module.
[url=http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1139737237317510.xml&coll=2]Glenn could get work on shuttle replacement
But management needs improvement, reports say [/url]
Due within months, the decision on which of the NASA centers will work on CEV could make or break Glenn, whose budget has been more than halved since 2003. For next year, its income is $317 million. Only last month, a $90 million propellant program on which Glenn was working was canceled.
If Glenn gets the service module, it would mean at least 300 jobs and more than $2 billion over the project's life. Some observers guess it could mean 500 jobs and $3 billion.
It would seem that the CEV is not first on managments mind but rather how many jobs that it will create.
NASA: Cleveland center can't handle major role in moon mission

NASA has authorized contract extensions for development of the agency's new Crew Exploration Vehicle.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/conws/3751152.html
The companies, Lockheed Martin Corp., and a team of Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., and The Boeing Co., were selected as CEV Phase 1 contractors in June 2005. They have been working with NASA to define requirements and develop conceptual designs for the agency's next-generation vehicle for human space flight.

Exploration gap could cost NASA skills, jobs
“The budget submitted by the president still has a shortfall in the out years and how soon we bring the CEV on line. Those are questions that need to be answered soon,” said Rep. Tom DeLay, a member of the Science Appropriations Subcommittee.
DeLay, who represents the Johnson Space Center in Houston, has been a staunch supporter of NASA. “Our goal is to have the minimum amount of time where we are not flying and we do not have men in space,” he said. The Johnson Center will be at the core of the new exploration plan.
In December, DeLay sent a letter to the president asking for full funding of the space-shuttle program to complete the assembly of the space station; 35 members signed DeLay’s letter.
“I am very pleased that the president’s request represented a 3.2 percent increase in NASA’s budget,” DeLay said. “That gives support and impetus to what was a unanimous vote on the reauthorization of NASA and the president’s vision.”
NASA is working with industry to design the launch vehicle on existing shuttle capabilities. The vehicle will have solid rocket boosters derived from the shuttle to reduce development time and cost.
Industry giants are competing for the CEV, the largest research and development procurement for human space flight in the past 30 years.
A Boeing-Northrop Grumman team is competing against Lockheed Martin Space Systems for what could be a $30 billion contract over the years. NASA is expected to choose a contractor this year.
the transition from shuttle operations to the new exploration vehicle poses the challenge to industry of trying to keep its skills and work force intact.
NEWS ITEM
United Space Alliance, a limited-liability company equally owned by Boeing and Northrop Grumman, employs 10,000 people who manage the day-to-day operations of the shuttle.
“That gap means something very different to us. We intend to be the operator of the constellation systems, so we have to be able to negotiate and navigate that gap with our skill base and with our credentials intact,” said Jeff Carr, spokesman for the Alliance. “What is at stake are jobs and careers and economic stability. The work force that works on the shuttle right now represents the only skilled-operations workers with human space-flight experience.”
He said NASA and the company have “an interest” in seeing that the work force makes the transition along with critical assets.
Even though NASA is working on a transition from the shuttle flight to the new exploration vehicle, thousands of jobs could be lost from Texas to Florida and Alabama, creating a contentious political issue, according to a NASA official.
“In order for NASA to be cost-effective, we have to operate with fewer people. A lower-cost vehicle comes from the people associated with that,” the official said. “[NASA] is trying to minimize the impact and work out how to soften that blow.”
Industry’s main concern is funding consistency, the congressional source said. To have a gap shorter than four years, “money is key,” the source said. Not putting a lot of new requirements for the exploration vehicles also would ensure that the gap is closed earlier, the source said.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-04-06 13:16:53

What Bush didn't say - 2006-02-02

What was not in President Bush's State of the Union message was deafeningly loud bad news for NASA. Bush spoke of the need to reign in discretionary non-defence spending, except for a few research and education programs he mentioned specifically. Going to the moon or Mars was not one of these. With NASA patron DeLay out of the picture, it looks like hard days for the CEV. The snow man is melting. First Mars was gone (no methane fuel or ISRU)… now the moon is gone (no Cargo LV or Block II CEV funded); the cargo-delivery Block IB versions of the CEV have been deleted; and finally the earth-orbit Block I CEV is now being trimmed down to a diameter and mass that makes CLV development unnecessary. The ISS, the wallflower at NASA's big party, suddenly begins to look attractive again. Retaining continuing access to the ISS may be the only reason the CEV is funded.
http://www.astronautix.com/Mambo/
The parallels to the shuttle program are like an icicle in the heart. The shuttle was only one part of a grand 1969 NASA vision of giant space stations, lunar bases, and Mars expeditions. After 40 years the shuttle managed to get only part of the way into the space station part of that vision. Now the CEV was part of a grand 2005 NASA vision of lunar bases and Mars expeditions. And it may survive only as a way of completing that same 1969-era space station…

Martin_Tristar · 2006-04-08 20:16:15

CEV Designs are a joke for Large scale manned exploration !!!!!

We need development of larger space vessels for the exploration and settlement of our solar system over the next century of work ahead. Local space ( Our Solar System ) is like the industrial revolution 1800-1900s, the exploration and settlement of our planet for the last several thousand years we noe must move ahead. The CEV Designs are good for LEO business and returning from space until we come up with better transport, but it doesn't provide the long term expansion possibilities for human exploration.

We need space entrepreneurs to think outside the norms for building a income stream from space business and expand the space economy with the necessary critical mass to become a reality in human society.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-05-24 00:44:49

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#2 2005-05-24 03:38:00

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#3 2005-05-24 05:26:10

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#4 2005-05-24 13:39:43

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#5 2005-05-24 14:37:24

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#6 2005-05-24 16:52:44

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#7 2005-05-24 18:32:41

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#8 2005-05-24 18:55:39

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#9 2005-05-24 20:47:28

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#10 2005-05-24 21:49:06

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#11 2005-05-24 23:33:57

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#12 2005-05-24 23:53:55

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#13 2005-05-25 02:42:45

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#14 2006-02-01 20:58:39

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#15 2006-02-01 21:56:23

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#16 2006-02-02 08:30:35

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#17 2006-02-02 11:49:42

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#18 2006-02-03 14:00:53

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#19 2006-02-10 22:19:46

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#20 2006-02-11 04:34:45

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#21 2006-02-13 09:04:28

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#22 2006-02-13 19:00:40

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#23 2006-03-28 19:34:48

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#24 2006-04-06 13:16:53

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#25 2006-04-08 20:16:15

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

Board footer