CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

Martin_Tristar · 2005-11-12 20:36:41

Well,

I was looking through the NASA website about the current Designs for the CEV and remembered that prior to the Saturn V rocket for the moon was the Saturn 1B Design. If we designed a larger Crew vehicle variation of the cargo rocket it should turn out to be the size of the old Saturn 1B but we could double or treble the crew for the space stations and tourism for space. Also the Private sector could fund a vehicle of that size instead a shuttle carft. We need larger return cargo transports from orbit to earth. ( Another Design Variation)

But, I still think we could design Horizontal Takeoff Cargo vessels to deliver cargo through one-way missions from earth to low earth orbit for disassembly and reuse of materials for expansion in orbit.

We could design various variations for the CEV Program and thus provide another expansion of humanity into space without increasing the costs. Development through innovation and reusability.

John Creighton · 2005-11-12 20:41:28

Well,
I was looking through the NASA website about the current Designs for the CEV and remembered that prior to the Saturn V rocket for the moon was the Saturn 1B Design. If we designed a larger Crew vehicle variation of the cargo rocket it should turn out to be the size of the old Saturn 1B but we could double or treble the crew for the space stations and tourism for space. Also the Private sector could fund a vehicle of that size instead a shuttle carft. We need larger return cargo transports from orbit to earth. ( Another Design Variation)
But, I still think we could design Horizontal Takeoff Cargo vessels to deliver cargo through one-way missions from earth to low earth orbit for disassembly and reuse of materials for expansion in orbit.
We could design various variations for the CEV Program and thus provide another expansion of humanity into space without increasing the costs. Development through innovation and reusability.

There is always lots of things we “could do”. The question what is practical given the current, political, technical and economic constraints. Designing a RLV is not really practical for NASA if, NASA wants to meet the timetable set forth by the VSE and maintain a strong science program at the same time.

Commodore · 2005-11-12 21:14:21

The basic CEV design has lots potential. The core of a lunar lander, a Mars sample return lander, or basically anywhere else. Just depends on the attachment.

You could also expand the end of it into a Gemini shape to add more seats.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-11-12 22:37:42

The fact is the private sector could pay for the development and use of these hybrid vehicles and could use them more effective then government or scientific community alone.

We need to promote the use of CEV platform for long term, space manufacturing, and innovative new resources, processes, and equipment for earth based business and space based enterprises.

The re-entry capsules are designed for multiple uses and thus reduce the overall cost per launch and by developing a larger version on the cargo launch vehicle then it will reduce the cost of people and cargo to space more so.

Austin Stanley · 2005-11-12 22:43:04

I like VSE because it finaly gives us some space infastructure (rockets/launch options) for doing something usefull in space. The shuttle is a dead end, we all know that. But the CEV and the new HLLV give us some new important options. Bigger/better space stations, moon base, Mars, whatever the VSE is going to make it possible. Right now it is simply not possible with our current infastructure.

That's why I like it, not because of the merits of our current Moon program or whatever (not that I dis-like the return to the moon).

publiusr · 2005-11-16 16:36:31

Go to www.nasaspaceflight.com and link on the forums for more:

http://68.205.251.208/Public/Rocket_Comparison.jpg
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 5&start=11
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 5&start=61

Martin_Tristar · 2005-11-20 05:48:59

I mean a larger Crew Module for the Cargo rocket that would carry 20+ personnel into low earth orbit for space station/s work, or a Cargo and crew design for low earth orbit. We need to bring larger numbers of personnel into space and place them in an artifical gravity environment for extended periods in space. Thus creating the first permanent presence in orbit for long term space exploration.

The current cargo and cev design would be great for lunar operations and eventually Mars missions but the Larger version would be for lower earth orbit. we could design a pure cargo re-entry vehicle for industrial products from low earth orbit part of a large effect to expand into space permanently.

Again private sector could look into this as a venture and future industry.

8)

Austin Stanley · 2005-11-21 02:32:35

I mean a larger Crew Module for the Cargo rocket that would carry 20+ personnel into low earth orbit for space station/s work, or a Cargo and crew design for low earth orbit. We need to bring larger numbers of personnel into space and place them in an artifical gravity environment for extended periods in space. Thus creating the first permanent presence in orbit for long term space exploration.
The current cargo and cev design would be great for lunar operations and eventually Mars missions but the Larger version would be for lower earth orbit. we could design a pure cargo re-entry vehicle for industrial products from low earth orbit part of a large effect to expand into space permanently.
Again private sector could look into this as a venture and future industry.
8)

I don't have anything against this line of thought, however the CEV wouldn't really be the CEV scaled up to this size. While the Shuttle might be able to accomidate a 20+ person load (mainly in the cargo bay) the CEV certianly can not. And once scaled up to this size the CEV wouldn't really resemble the CEV anymore. Furthermore, the capsulish design of the CEV probably would not scale up well to such a large vessle, a lifting body approach may be more appropriate.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-21 07:38:47

If you want large-scale personell and light cargo return on a regular basis, the only way to go is a fully-fledged "no kidding, really" 100% reuseable spaceplane.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-21 08:08:13

Martin_Tristar here are the few documents thus far on the CEV and of its use as a cargo hauler. These are all destined for DaStick and ISS LEO use. DaStick reminds me of the Titan 4 with the additional stap ons for its basic shape.

A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture

This is the view of the capsule for manned flight

While these are the differing ways that it may be used.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-21 18:00:11

DaStick should come as no surprise for the first stage but as the NASA Intends To Award Sole-Source Contract for CLV First Stage in that a formal notice on Nov. 18 by Nasa. To which it intends to forgo a competition and award a sole-source contract to Alliant Tech Systems Thiokol Propulsion for development of the Crew Launch Vehicle’s (CLV) first stage.

So much for making the base to get to orbit drop in price though competition.

NASA is giving companies that think they ought to be allowed to compete for the solid-rocket booster contract until Dec. 2 to submit their capabilities and qualifications for producing the Crew Launch Vehicle first stage.

There are a few that could do it but making them fully a one for one replacement per pound of ISP thrust and with how much they weigh exact.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-21 20:33:48

Something more important then the raw performance figures, which should be easy to match with todays' materials with some real investment money, is that ATK's rocket already flies and has the highest reliability of any engine of its class on Earth. The SRB is very reliable, with only two failures, one of which was due to operator error and neither of which would have been fatal to a hypothetical CEV crew. Methods and infrastructure for building the boosters are already well established, and so are even better for accelerated CEV/CLV development Griffin wants. Thats going to be pretty hard for any company to overcome reguardless what they promise NASA they can do.

BWhite · 2005-11-21 21:30:05

Two RSRM failures?

Challenger for one. What was the second?

= = =

Edit to add: Griffin wants HLLV.

A Thiokol 1st stage and SSME 2nd stage preserves the HLLV industrial base. End of debate over CLV.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-21 21:47:21

Here is a little more on the notice of which Mashal space Flight center is directing:

NASA/MSFC has a requirement for a Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) First Stage.
This effort will encompass the design, development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E), including long lead items for the initial production of CLV First Stage.
The First Stage will be a reusable solid rocket booster (SRB) stage derived from the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) SRB.
The activities include design, development, and flight testing of the CLV First Stage and long lead materials for a follow-on production.

This is why ATK is being selected:

Only ATK possesses the facilities, manufacturing capability, and current engineering and manufacturing work force to successfully manufacture the CLV First Stage as a single prime contractor in the DDT&E phase.
ATK is the only source for a large human-rated, reusable solid propellant motor.
ATK owns the facilities where the RSRMs are refurbished and manufactured in Utah. No other facilities exist that can refurbish or manufacture the RSRM. ATK maintains unique and specific design, processing, and testing knowledge and capability required to ensure the reliability required for large-scale human-rated solid rocket booster systems.

Ah the man rated question begins all anew, well maybe not but it does make you wonder..

Of course Nasa does not want to hear verbal claims and only wishes those that think they can to go though ATK for subcontracting.

I think Aerojet could build them but have not had the need to. I am sure that other solid booster rockets could if they have enough details for its construction.

Since shuttles began launching in the 80's wouldn't it be time to free up the documents and technology for constructing SRB's to more private industries.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-23 13:21:14

Two RSRM failures?
Challenger for one. What was the second?
= = =
Edit to add: Griffin wants HLLV.
A Thiokol 1st stage and SSME 2nd stage preserves the HLLV industrial base. End of debate over CLV.

Partial burn-through of a segment seal on an Atlantis flight, thankfully facing away from the main tank. It promptly resealed itself and the interruption in thrust was only momentary.

I am getting nervous about using SSME though, they are from Stennis which is alot like Michoud at the moment, and are hovering on the verge of complete disarray or complete inability to reign in costs.

Having a "plan B" where the main SDV core uses RS-68 with the TheStick and the SDV upper stage using good ol' J-2S engines should be considerd if it seems like SSME costs will get out of hand.

Again, its not that NASA wouldn't like to let there be competition over the SRB contractor, its just that NASA can't afford the risk nor the time it would take for another provider to step forward and come up with a comperable rocket. ATK is the only game in town that actually has their rocket in hand with a proven track reccord; it would be insane for NASA not to use them.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-23 13:51:12

But if the contract is an exclusive one then any chance of a competitor arising is then out of the question. Since the technology design is well over 20 years old it should be freely open for others to implement.
I believe Aerojet could make a comparable SRB, they are the manufacturer for the one's that are used on the Atlas V.

I hope there are others still in this game or when the number of flights ramp up that there are a stock pile of them just waiting for use.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-23 14:28:13

No, no other rocket company can compete with ATK in the most important criteria: no other competitor actually flies a sufficently powerful and safe rocket. Nobody. Therefore, of course there is no competition. NASA has to have a safe rocket and it NASA has to have it soon, and the ATK rocket has both a proven track reccord and is currently in production. No one else in the business can say that.

The smaller boosters on the Atlas-V are an order of magnetude too small and an order of magnetude less safe, Aerojet could possibly make a comperable engine, but the notion that the little dinky boosters are anything like what the CLV needs is nonsense.

publiusr · 2005-11-23 15:54:13

Well said.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-11-30 03:56:21

We need to use the current developed vehicles or the future designed launched vehicles that are under developed for accelerating the move into space. Future Spaceplanes and other reusable vehicles will come but we need to move now not later and later and later .

By resusing the First stage from the Cargo HLV and building a second stage CEV module that launches from the Cargo HLV we could reduce the overall per kg costs for humans in space. Also meeting the movement of cargo from orbit to earth via the re-entry craft space.

If we go with bigalow space station or other station designs we could need a larger CEV for orbital use in the 2010 - 2020 timeframe. The development of a spinning space station or gravity based platform will open more personnel into space for longer terms and will help the expansion for Orbit, Lpoints, Moon, Mars and Beyond.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-30 06:51:54

It isn't practical to try and reuse the big first stage from the HLLV, since it is pretty close to orbital velocity by the end of its burn it is moving much too fast to avoid burning up on reentry. The tank and the engines themselves are also a bit on the flimsy side, and wouldn't survive even a water landing on their own with reliability.

A big space station is the very LAST thing we need for the forseeable future. Stations do not provide a jumping off point, there is really no reason to have them from an exploration prespective at all any time soon.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-30 22:08:34

Well our buddy Mr. Bell has finally chimed in on the CEV, CLV and the SDV HLLV he is of the opinion that since the parts are way to heavy and expensive to make or use that it is not going to be what will save Nasa from it being Apollo 2 all over again.

Apollo 2 Will Take Real Money To Emulate The Original

In my view, it is exactly this multiple-use design philosophy that make this program unworkable and unaffordable. Space vehicles need to be as light as possible. To achieve this goal, they need to be designed for specific functions.

Making a design flexible in the long run saves design money from the process of specialized ship building IMO.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-01 16:37:51

Its so hard to not stop reading after "by Jeffery Bell" anymore

I don't think that any possible mission could make him happy, except building him a new space telescope to replace Hubble with. In fact, the short length of his article pretty much indicates that the "its too heavy" is about the only negative thing he could make up.

Two of the things that NASA could screw up on most are to build a whole slew of different rockets to meet every need exactly, or to build rockets too small. Better to build them too big, or at least with the option for easy upgrade (four segment to five segment SRBs, EDS versus no EDS, etc).

Commodore · 2005-12-01 17:02:10

In fact, the short length of his article pretty much indicates that the "its too heavy" is about the only negative thing he could make up.

If you really want to read more, you could scroll to the bottom of the page To read the full article please download or read online the word document here.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-01 17:21:35

No, not really, since his whole article is mostly NASA graphs and comparisons. Omitting these, and its signifigantly shorter then his usual rambling.

Bell effortlessly ignores the simple concept that NASA only has enough money to develop a small number of vehicles, and that intentionally making them big ensures you have enough capacity for what you have planned despite problems or for future growth.

Furthermore, just because vehicles of Apollo's size worked, doesn't mean they were really big enough. Sure you could cram five men into an Apollo capsule, but thats borderline for even a short hop to orbit. Even moreso with the lander: excess capacity means extra capability to make the most out of the program.

And so what if the CEV is a little big? It will use the same rocket, and won't have a much bigger heat shield, and so on... it won't cost any more to launch then a dinky Apollo-Copy on TheStick: in fact, its hard to make TheStick carry less than 20MT. Jeffy's comment that it would be impractical to control is hard to swallow with the advent of computer driven flight control.

Oh, and stretching the big Shuttle ET? The tank is already built in sections, so just add another section or two. Presto! This shouldn't be a problem with the SRBs either, since the addtional segment in the 5-segment models was going to ride above the attach point on Shuttle, so instead just put the attach point above the extra segment. C'mon Jeffy, losing your touch?

Complaining about TheStick's lack of power supply for SSME startup? Um... what about that powerd capsule on top? And somebody does build a long, thin hydrogen fueled rocket with a big engine... Maybe Jeffy has heard of the Delta-IV? Oh, and the 5-segment booster? Already been test fired.

"Possibly the lunar CEV will have rotatable seats."

Gee, good thing the capsule will be roomy. Convienant, no?

The rest is pretty much drivvel... the massive pricetag for each Shuttle launch and its complexity is due almost soley to the orbiter. Delete it, and each launch is much, much simpler.

Commodore · 2005-12-01 17:43:07

Some people have a vested interest in being pessimistic.

I don't see how he can conclude operations cost will be as high as he claims. The vast majority of the present costs come from the constant rebuilding the shuttle. Nothing I've seen indicates that the longer SRBs will cost significantly more to refill, nor will the comparitively tiny reusable CEVs cost much to maintain. Everything else comes straight from the factory to the VAB, to the pad.

It won't quite be the SLBMs Griffen talked about, but it will be a huge improvment. I would be more concerned about a low flight rate leaving people with nothing to do half the time.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-11-12 20:36:41

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#2 2005-11-12 20:41:28

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#3 2005-11-12 21:14:21

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#4 2005-11-12 22:37:42

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#5 2005-11-12 22:43:04

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#6 2005-11-16 16:36:31

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#7 2005-11-20 05:48:59

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#8 2005-11-21 02:32:35

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#9 2005-11-21 07:38:47

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#10 2005-11-21 08:08:13

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#11 2005-11-21 18:00:11

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#12 2005-11-21 20:33:48

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#13 2005-11-21 21:30:05

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#14 2005-11-21 21:47:21

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#15 2005-11-23 13:21:14

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#16 2005-11-23 13:51:12

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#17 2005-11-23 14:28:13

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#18 2005-11-23 15:54:13

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#19 2005-11-30 03:56:21

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#20 2005-11-30 06:51:54

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#21 2005-11-30 22:08:34

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#22 2005-12-01 16:37:51

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#23 2005-12-01 17:02:10

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#24 2005-12-01 17:21:35

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

#25 2005-12-01 17:43:07

Re: CEV Cargo and Crew Design Variations

Board footer