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

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-15 03:46:35

The CEV, must be designed to meet the fairings of the rockets it will be launched from. We could design a small shuttle craft for personnel and personal effects only for earth to LEO and using the CEV modules also use some in a LEO to Lunar surface craft. But remember the size of the launch vehivle being used.

Dook · 2005-05-15 06:57:49

It really seems to me that the CEV designs are too small for anything other than passenger and small cargo trips to the ISS.

Since that's the case why don't they just design a jet engine powered lift vehicle to take a small shuttle up to 80,000 ft then launch from there?

ISS modules could be sent up aboard some other rocket, probably for less cost.

Mad Grad Student · 2005-05-15 15:30:02

Welcome to New Mars, Xaliqen.

The idea behind the CEV is that it will be primarily a cislunar crew transport perhaps with the added ability to ferry crews and supplies to and from the ISS. Going from the ground to LEO and back is a whole lot easier than going to lunar orbit and back, so it shouln't be difficult at all for the CEV to fill in the ISS-servicing job as long as it exists. The only problem I see is that any lunar spacecraft will be somewhat overdesigned for use in LEO, but all you really have to do is swap out the radio and guidence systems with lower-quality (and cheaper) versions for use closer to home. This was exactly the plan for the Apollo post-lunar applications program before that was cut short after Skylab 4.

The problem with using the ISS for vehilce construction is that once the spacecraft is assembled it's stuck in a useless high-inclination orbit. It is very difficult and expensive to go from a 60+ degree orbit such as that of the ISS to the Moon or anywhere else. In order to beyond LEO efficiently you have to launch from a low-inclination, near-equitorial orbit or else the spacecraft ends up on a useless path that will take you nowhere. Because of this unfortunate bit of orbital mechanics the ISS is great for research but a really lousy place to launch an expedition from.

Going to Mars is so utterly different and more difficult a proposition than any other type of mission being considered today I don't see how anything designed for use on the Moon will be compatible with such a mission. We'll effectively need to start with a clean sheet, so developing a lunar architecture with an eye toward eventually expanding it towards Mars seems like a flawed idea to me. I'm all for talking about going to Mars right now, but it will take something far different from whatever takes us back to the Moon.

Xaliqen · 2005-05-15 17:57:11

I agree entirely that the best way to design any vehicle is to have a single destination and design everything accordingly. The real problem here is convincing the people with their hands on the purse-strings to fund three essentially different programs.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks it would be great if we could just focus on getting to Mars, but the unfortunate political liabilities that crop up in the event of abandoning our obligations to the ISS are difficult to ignore.

In the end it comes to one of two ways, as I see it, to get the job done and make sure it moves forward.
One, you can figure out a way to inspire the American people and instill in them the spirit of what it means to get to Mars. You can go to congress and do some heavy lobbying and then, maybe, hopefully, you can get some serious funding and support for a real, hardcore, take-us-there-now Mars initiative. I see this as a real long shot.

Two, you can see what incentives you can give to private companies to help with a Mars effort. Then, you see what can be done, realistically, with radical technological initiatives that can get us to Mars faster and, most importantly in this situation, cheaper. The problem is that you need drive, focus and at least a fair amount of money to fund radical new technologies. And you also need at least some 'luck' since no breakthroughs are gaurunteed.

A third way to go is simply to cut government out entirely and try to raise interest solely among corporations and individuals. Despite how attractive this option is, I believe it will be the most difficult in certain ways. The most difficult problem here is convincing really large investors that they're investing in a sure thing, or at the very least that they'll get significant return on their investment. Sure, it's easy to convince someone like me that this is awesome and we should do it, but drumming up the kind of money and support necessary to fund an initiative solely through private interests will be damn difficult.

Anyways, if we could just get congress to wake up to the realities of what needs to be done, then I think that would help a lot. But, who knows? For the time being I'm hoping for all three possibilities.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-16 06:17:37

Replacement shuttle: Astronauts not included

Well if this were all a darpa project we would be trying to make spiral 1 to orbit in a smaller craft, launched from a plane and based on a scaled-up version of the liquid-fuelled "QuickReach" booster that AirLaunch LLC is developing for DARPA. Sort of a Crew Transfer Vehicle.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-16 18:30:13

Xaligen,

You don't understand entrenpenuers, because they will use - market share as a motive, or control within a market to open the finances to invest into a project. Business needs only clear outcomes and income / revenue streams and when those stream become active.

The best method for space to grow with business is to make the expenditure provides a 100% Rebate against income tax, instead of deduction of 30% or less on corporate tax reports. In some countries foster research and development through rebates up to 150% the same could be used to build a commercial space environment from LEO - Moon - Mars.

eg. Spend US$200 Million in LEO Space development and received a rebate of US$300 Million against the future income tax. Tax bill = US$800 Million - US$300 Million Rebate = Net Tax Bill of US$500 Million

We would have billions of dollars going into commercial space development and with some load taken off the nation's budget directly into indirect supply but would increase employment in these higher income fields would increase income tax paid back into federal tax system would see minimum effect.

Dook · 2005-05-16 18:36:29

The government doesn't want private business going into space.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-16 18:44:28

Dook, What a Jester , you make me Laugh :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-05-16 19:55:42

The government doesn't want private business going into space.

Frankly, I think Dook may have a point.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-16 20:04:30

BWhite,

then you explain to me, why the US Government has placed the Space Operations and Launch Operations into Private Contractors under license of NASA and not government employees anymore and they will do the same in space and also tender the orbiting platform operations the same way .

Dook · 2005-05-16 20:10:19

When you finish laughing can you be more specific on what space operations the government contracted out to private organizations?

Do you mean t/space?

BWhite · 2005-05-17 20:01:37

BWhite,
then you explain to me, why the US Government has placed the Space Operations and Launch Operations into Private Contractors under license of NASA and not government employees anymore and they will do the same in space and also tender the orbiting platform operations the same way .

Boeing and Lockheed? Private sector? Now I need to laugh. :;):

Martin_Tristar · 2005-05-18 04:24:27

BWhite,

I know they are in the bed of DOD and NASA , but they are private companies that can make there own decisions. The Government wants the best price for their money and having private contractors sometimes works other times it doesn't work.

I don't care about the small narrow focus of NASA and their explorer missions and ideas. CEV ( Crew Exploration Vehicle ) is an explorer spacecraft again, nothing new there.

We need a vehicle assembly methodology and vehicle design for current level of technology both unmanned and manned designs that are flexible / modular and could be used for lunar bases, freighters, human-centric transports, power arrays (fixed and mobile), space stations, and orbital platforms. The methodolgy can be used to manufacture all these objects in LEO and provide the first generation in space migration.

If we don't we will just have the small explorer missions and might get up to a small outpost in 100 years, Because we won't have the large scale accumulative infrastructure investment in LEO, on the moon and around and on MArs.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-19 10:50:39

Todays article Griffin looks for ways to maintain work force

But at least in this comment he sees the light.

"The new system must have lower fixed costs," Griffin said of the proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle in a hearing before a Senate oversight committee. "Lower fixed costs means a smaller work force."

So are we still talking SDV or other?

The outcome of testimony from the Space Shuttle and Beyond hearing as it was put on the spacepolitics site, a whirlwind of a "lightning round".

The testimony can be found here at the Human Spaceflight: The Space Shuttle and Beyond just follow each panels members link.

Concerns aired over shuttle replacement plan

NASA’s shuttle programme uses 640 buildings and employs 17,000 government employees and prime contractors.

Griffin's testimony has better numbers but even still that is a huge army.

Now if only Nasa could get the space weapons side of the military budget and not put weapons in space we would be on Mars in no time.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-20 08:27:20

Well we have seen the likes of the big aerospace industry leads joining forces for the CEV if approved and one would think that no flyoff would then be in the offering.
But that has not stilled those in the alternative space trying to capture the small lift market.
Gee, even the price is russian competitive at a bargian for $5.9 million plus range costs for the Falcon I and $15.9 million for its larger Falcon V.

Then we have Moreover, t/Space which has offered to do the job fast and cheap, proposing to build the CEV for $400 million and launch it manned as early as 2008, six years ahead of any other bid. That would be a feat if it happens and for so little developement money. Why not build it any ways if the funds can be raised in some manner for the purpose of building it anyways.

Of course Nasa will want them to prove it and establish a track record first by providing simple cargo services, such as hauling water or food, to the International Space Station.

Then you have Burt Rutan of scaled composites SpaceShipOne, where is he in all of this?

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-20 12:33:08

The Falcon series of rockets are still most unproven and untested, even the smallest size has never flown once and the larger Falcon-V is just an engineering concept.

The T/Space people, whoever they are, are pitiful wannabes who are simply not of the same caliber as LockMart/Boeing/et al, and are not up to the task.

Burt has this little tiney tiny problem that his rocket plane needs about 300 times more fuel to reach orbit then suborbital, and is going no place fast.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-14 10:50:58

Well we have gotten the contestants in the next phase of the spiral plan for CEV developement.

Though this is about
NASA Excerpts from House Report 109-118 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2006

This section needs explaining:

The Committee supports the Administrator's plan to accelerate development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to minimize the gap between the retirement of the Space Shuttle and the first operational flight of the CEV. To help achieve this goal, the Committee supports the proposed `non traditional' competitive acquisition of a United States `earth to orbit' crew and/or cargo transfer capability.

What is meant by non traditional competitive acquisition?

Does it mean who can supply or is it still the same old contract ploy of low ball and then costs over run?

SpaceNut · 2005-06-15 10:24:46

Well when have these companies ever need to have as the headline puts it compete for developement rights.[url=http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20943~2920632,00.html]New spacecraft on tap

Firms competing for development rights with NASA[/url]

They have this anyways...

SpaceNut · 2005-06-21 09:13:43

With the two companies firmly in hand and only waiting a short time for the build to begin. Some Nasa facilities are wondering where do they fit in for the exploration vision. [url=http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1119345386116211.xml&coll=1]Marshall 'captive' no longer
Lawmakers expect bright future, talk to center director[/url]

Some say that just because they had the OSP that they should be the next to get the CEV. Or are they just trying to keep employment numbers at a status quo.

NASA is considering using space shuttle propulsion elements, managed by Marshall, to launch heavy pieces of cargo - in the 200,000-pound range - into low Earth orbit. This cargo could be the backbone for a new exploration vehicle.
"There are benefits to a shuttle-derived vehicle because it is a launch vehicle that we have so much experience with and already know

Sort of surprizing numbers for who works on shuttle.

For Marshall, one benefit is that the space shuttle work force would stay in place. Marshall manages the space shuttle main engines, the solid rocket boosters and the external fuel tank. About 500 of Marshall's 2,600 people work on shuttle programs.

SpaceNut · 2005-07-12 08:22:11

Lockheed lands $28 million pact

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Jefferson County has been awarded a NASA contract worth about $28 million to develop a crew exploration vehicle, the successor to the space shuttle.
The contract means that Lockheed will build its Denver workforce on the project from about 35 people to as many as 70. More will work in other locations.
If Lockheed is selected for the second phase over the Northrop Grumman team, it could mean as much as $2 billion to $4 billion to produce the CEV for its first flight, according to Larry Price, deputy program manager for the CEV for Lockheed Martin.

[url=http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/business/article/0,1299,DRMN_4_3919985,00.html]$28 million boost to Lockheed
NASA contract funds final phase of bid for shuttle's successor[/url]

A winner is expected to be picked by the end of March 2006.
NASA recently moved up its timetable for awarding the contract by about two years. The space agency has said it wants to get the new spacecraft flying in time for the shuttle's planned retirement in 2010.
NASA opted to skip a 2008 flight demonstration involving the contractors' prototype vehicles.
NASA chief Michael Griffin recently said scrapping the competition would save at least $1 billion.
Lockheed's Price said NASA may be downsizing the CEV. The spacecraft had been expected to transport up to six astronauts, but NASA's latest plans call for the vehicle to carry four to six crew members.
A price tag hasn't been attached to the CEV project.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-12 21:01:22

Theory #1: Boeing and Northrop conspired to force NASA to develop TWO capsules, one for ISS and one for the Moon, to squeeze more development money out of NASA... NASA however is not happy about the idea, and is considering the Lockheed "OSP redux" for ISS needs.

Theory #2: NASA believes that the Lunar CEV will be more expensive to send to the ISS versus a purpose-built vehicle then it will be to develop and operate two different vehicles.

Theory #3: NASA really, really, REALLY wants two seperate vehicles for redundancy, and can at least afford two different vehicles, but is just betting that The Stick will be reliable or can't afford to operate two different launch vehicles.

clark · 2005-07-12 21:10:50

Theory #4: NASA wants to develop a robust vehicle for basic LEO rendevous, orbit and deorbit capability. The intention being that any final beyond-LEO CEV configuration is assembled in orbit to some extent and a good deal of the hardware never returns to Earth.

You need to return the Human element, nothing else. You need to build up the L1 infrastructure and lunar pieces for LOX production.

Make sure you have a way of returning "just the people", and then look at options in Phase two for pieces that stay in orbit indefinitely.

Anything without humans actually sitting in it can fly on any non man-rated rocket. That creates a lot of choices and opportunity for CEV configuration.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-12 21:49:23

Everybody keeps talking about the CEV like its going to be that Kistler-Fanboy T/Space kludge or something... Its not, its going to be alot like Apollo, except the crew will be sent up seperatly in a "CSM" like vehicle before leaving orbit. This is pretty much a done deal for several reasons...

-You REALLY, honestly don't need a big ship for a three-day Lunar hop. Really. Its silly to burn rocket fuel to push more then this.
-Only a capsule can survive transit velocity reentry with passive cooling and control, so if you aren't riding with one, you can't abort. This disqualifies T/Space and similar plans entirely.
-Capsules are proven and relativly simple technology

There is no good technical reason that the CEV and whatever vehicle for the ISS should be signifigantly different vehicles (besides fuel tanks), as they operate in basically identical environments. The only reason is therefore either cost or politics.

Its really quite simple... you need a Lunar capsule for safety reasons, and this capsule can probobly do double-duty as ISS ferry. Whats the consternation here?

"You need to build up the L1 infrastructure"

No. No you don't. Not for a while. Only when system reuseability and serious Lunar LOX capacity are available would any Lunar-orbital infrastructure become possibly useful.

SpaceNut · 2005-07-13 05:46:29

More NASA Awards Crew Exploration Vehicle Contracts
articles show that Boeing also was paid.

NASA today authorized two eight-month contracts, to support a July 2006 review of the engineering systems for the agency's new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV).
During this contract period, in addition to performing sustained engineering in support of the CEV review, the contractors will continue to develop designs for NASA's next-generation vehicle for human space flight and demonstrate ability to manage cost, schedule and risk.

What makes Nasa think that a paper report will do what is intended by physical hardware. We all know of Nasa management decision making for the latter.

Boeing in 3-way race for next-generation spacecraft

Not sure who they think is the 3rd runner but further down in the article.

The final contract will be worth about $6.5 billion.

And what are the deliverables for this sum?

SpaceNut · 2005-07-25 17:59:00

This article indicates the possible fear factor of being reliant on other nations for US ships if Lockheed is to continue there design for the cev.

EADS could supply key part of space shuttle - paper

European aerospace group EADS could be a key supplier if Lockheed Martin wins a bid to build a successor to the U.S. space shuttle, the Financial Times Deutschland said.
The paper said in an advance copy of an article due to appear on Monday that EADS's Space Transportation unit would be responsible for one of the three modules of which the new shuttle could be built if the consortium won the bid.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-05-15 03:46:35

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

#52 2005-05-15 06:57:49

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

#53 2005-05-15 15:30:02

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

#54 2005-05-15 17:57:11

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

#55 2005-05-16 06:17:37

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

#56 2005-05-16 18:30:13

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

#57 2005-05-16 18:36:29

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

#58 2005-05-16 18:44:28

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

#59 2005-05-16 19:55:42

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

#60 2005-05-16 20:04:30

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

#61 2005-05-16 20:10:19

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

#62 2005-05-17 20:01:37

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

#63 2005-05-18 04:24:27

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

#64 2005-05-19 10:50:39

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

#65 2005-05-20 08:27:20

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

#66 2005-05-20 12:33:08

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

#67 2005-06-14 10:50:58

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

#68 2005-06-15 10:24:46

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

#69 2005-06-21 09:13:43

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

#70 2005-07-12 08:22:11

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

#71 2005-07-12 21:01:22

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

#72 2005-07-12 21:10:50

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

#73 2005-07-12 21:49:23

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

#74 2005-07-13 05:46:29

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

#75 2005-07-25 17:59:00

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

Board footer