CEV is Bullshi...

RedStreak · 2006-08-20 22:51:08

Now its time to expand the development of space with newer designed for the payload to carry personnel and cargo into orbit and beyond. All issues have solutions and we could develop a long term crew vehicle for ferrying personnel to orbit their to a space station / factory or another space vessel. I find that you want to throw things away all the time and yet don't want to move forward in creating a space industry that can accomplish the ideals of many of the mars society members and other space society members are working towards, which is Human Settlement in space NOT joyrides, NOT tourist missions, BUT permanent settlements and outposts.

People, keep in mind, don't tend to settle until an area is well established. Space will be littered with tourists for a few decades before anyone commits to abandoning Earth for a home elsewhere. Not many nowadays are willing to leave purely on ideals, we're not pilgrams anymore, we're suburbanites.

With a little luck it will happen, but alot of time is needed.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-08-20 23:28:14

What !!!, What !!!

Redstreak,

You mean we are going to have six to eight person missions for the next several decades landing on the moon or mars then lifting off and coming back to earth or having 50 -100 personnel on a permanent or rotational with earth for the moon and or mars ?

I hope the later or why put the effort into the Tourist trips , That is what NASA is paid for !!!! Not the Mars Society Experiments in Artic Circle or in the Desert .....

RedStreak · 2006-08-21 04:35:39

Probably the first crew number for the first twenty years of moon visits but, as soon as commercial spaceflight catches up....

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-21 07:07:19

"By Designed variations for the Ares V to have similar features would add the expansion of space. But, if they have decided to go for one use vehicle then , it shows the misuse of government funding again"

I'm not talking about the capsule, the capsule is not that important as far as reuseability, only being a modest cost savings for each crew launch. If we are to have anything of scale on the Moon its going to require more and larger launches to move the sizes of payloads required, which is what your reuseable plan tries to address. I am telling you that your plan doesn't make sense, because while the Earth/Moon vehicle might be reuseable, the rockets and tankers to refuel it are not.

The Earth/Moon vehicle is exactly the wrong place to start with reuseability too, throwing away the large rocket like Ares-V and a tanker to bring up fuel while trying to save the dinky Earth/Moon vehicle doesn't make much sense. Build a reuseable Lunar lander, sure, because that can make a difference with a ready supply of Lunar oxygen, but if you want to talk reuseability for the Earth/Moon leg then focus on launch vehicles, not transit vehicles. Small boost stages like Centaur or larger ones like the EDS cost only a small fraction what the rest of the rocket does too.

Except for the Shuttle solid rocket boosters, which are almost as expensive to refurbish as replace, there is no reuseability in launch vehicles. If you want reuseability, the best place to start would be to make a new launch vehicle in the 40MT region, with two or three Kerosene powerd boosters with wings & wheels, perhaps pushing an upgraded Delta-IV expendable core.

Something like this, but lifting a Delta-IV core instead of Shuttle. Make it man-rated. The USAF is already thinking about building something like this with their Hybrid Launch Vehicle plan if memory serves. This would make a much much bigger difference than piddling around trying to salvage spent upper & boost stages.

dicktice · 2006-08-21 09:57:18

The sky ramp approach up a mountain saves the boosters on the launching sled by not separating them, but retrieving them upon return of the sled back down the ramp. [See my save-a stage post.]

Grypd · 2006-08-23 07:21:06

well its to be called Orion. Apparently the statement had to be brought out early after being accidentally outed.

Project Orion

Rxke · 2006-08-23 08:55:07

Stupid name. Project Orion already exists, historically (The mega nuke-launcher)

RedStreak · 2006-08-23 10:23:45

Using past veto-ed names isn't unprescidented. The Voyager program, for instance, was originally the persuror of what later became Viking progam but at the time in the 1960s it was canceled for being too complex to undertake and the life-seeking experiments to expensive or ambitious. And, obviously, the name was reused for the wildly successful twin fly-by craft and...heh...a certain Star Fleet spacecraft piloted by a Captain Janeway

Orion itself is a pretty well-known astronomical name so it's not a bad choice. I certainly can't see "The Big Dipper" (or even "Ursa Major" if you will) being looked at as a respectable name...

RedStreak · 2006-08-23 10:27:31

Project Orion already exists, historically (The mega nuke-launcher)

No...at best Orion the nuke-powered-starship existed on theoretical papers. I think there may have been a model powered by dynamite explosions but either way, Orion was never actually built...and thankfully so!

The only name even remotely stupid to me would be "Project Uranus" - spearheaded by high school Beavis and Buttheads to probe the deepest darkest reaches of the black hole...

RedStreak · 2006-08-23 10:35:53

At the same time use the ISS as our luanch platform for interplanetary missions and lunar missions. The public would see the benefit for the space station and would continue the support into the space program and may even expand it towards the mars.
Overall GCNR, you don't understand the management of resource allocation, public support for the space program and the increasing demands on the space vehicle platform over the next decades to come.

Martin...do you realize the ISS is in a roughly 50+ degree angled orbit? That was decided upon because of our partnership with Russia that, while being useful, was basically a last-ditch effort that put the last nail in the ISS coffin for applications beyond its drying puddle of LEOresearch applicaions.

High orbital inclinations impose large correction maneuvers, therefore the more inclined the orbit the more propellants you must consume to get in alignment with your target. Inversely, given how the moon is only 3 degrees off the Earth's equator in alignment...to go from the ISS to Lunar orbit would involve an even larger version of those second stages you blogged to GCNR that you despise so much...

So...

*a giant second stage falls on top of Martin_Tristar* Enjoy you present. Maybe the ISS can use the remote manipulator arm to pry that off ya while the rest of us take a ride of the CEV to lunar orbit and moon ya.

In seriousness...the only application left for the ISS, and this is one included in the VSE - funding allowing - is research into the effects of space on human physiology. Even then we know the basics: without gravity the body slowly falls apart and the more radiation you're exposed to the greater your risk of cancer.

Space Station telescopes were scrapped because the vibration from life support would jarr their sensors, material sciences left because Earth-bound research is improving, and pharmacutical companies lost interest. Possibly, and even hopefully, ESA and Japan might add such equiptment to their science modules but even then no direct applications beyond life sciences.

Nothing that visits the ISS will actually go anywhere else...even the CEVs that are 'station-bound' will be modified for servicing it alone, never the Moon.

When I was maybe 10 I had hopes for the space station but politics pretty much f***ed it all up to be blunt. The CEV at least has a few hopes tied to it.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-23 13:10:51

Staging anything at the ISS has a litany of problems,

1 - It won't be there for much longer, 2020 or so I imagine, in anything but "run down space hotel" condition
2 - The orbital inclination involves a 10-20% payload penalty if launching from the US or to other planets/moons
3 - The ISS has no electrical power to spare to operate a fuel condenser for a tank farm
4 - The ISS was never designed to support large masses from its truss, the torque loads will be more than it was designed for perhaps during attitude/altitude adjustments

So I don't really see the point.

"the only application left for the ISS, and this is one included in the VSE - funding allowing - is research into the effects of space on human physiology. Even then we know the basics: without gravity the body slowly falls apart and the more radiation you're exposed to the greater your risk of cancer."

Except the ISS is in low Earth orbit below the protection of the Van Allen belts, and is thus useless for determining the health effects of cosmic/solar particle radiation.

RedStreak · 2006-08-23 17:23:35

"the only application left for the ISS, and this is one included in the VSE - funding allowing - is research into the effects of space on human physiology. Even then we know the basics: without gravity the body slowly falls apart and the more radiation you're exposed to the greater your risk of cancer."
Except the ISS is in low Earth orbit below the protection of the Van Allen belts, and is thus useless for determining the health effects of cosmic/solar particle radiation.

Err...kinda overkilling poor ISS I see. Still the Van Allen belt comment is true.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-08-23 21:26:53

RedStreak,

Then why build the ISS in that orbit , If it can't be used for Lunar Expansion and Mars Expansion ? Again Misuse of government and taxpayer money !!!!!! Again another reason for the public not trusting NASA to get to the Moon and Mars without spending 400 Billion dollars . !!!!!

I think we need better strategy thinkers for large scale projects like the moon missions, lunar bases, mars missions and mars bases. If we don;t we won't get there and that will slow the world down over the next century.

RedStreak · 2006-08-23 22:17:38

RedStreak,
Then why build the ISS in that orbit , If it can't be used for Lunar Expansion and Mars Expansion ? Again Misuse of government and taxpayer money !!!!!! Again another reason for the public not trusting NASA to get to the Moon and Mars without spending 400 Billion dollars . !!!!!

The only reason its up there is because of the ties to international cooperation otherwise it'd have been canceled years ago. Blame Regan and Space Station Freedom.

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-24 05:33:55

Then why build the ISS in that orbit , If it can't be used for Lunar Expansion and Mars Expansion ? Again Misuse of government and taxpayer money !!!!!! Again another reason for the public not trusting NASA to get to the Moon and Mars without spending 400 Billion dollars . !!!!!

I think we need better strategy thinkers for large scale projects like the moon missions, lunar bases, mars missions and mars bases. If we don;t we won't get there and that will slow the world down over the next century.

The ISS project was started first and foremost as a way to preserve NASA jobs for as long as possible, and like everything NASA has put honest effort into has suceeded beyond any expectation. NASA has an unbroken string of total sucesses with manned spaceflight, and Shuttle has been an achievement on par with Apollo... just not as a launch vehicle, but an "unkillable" gravy train for NASA engineers.

This is one of the two reasons the ISS exists, to give Shuttle an excuse to keep flying, doesn't matter if it accomplishes anything NASA didn't care about that, just so long as the thing kept going up until it couldn't anymore. The ISS had to be built on the cheap though, since NASA had to save its money to keep paying the ever-increasing launch costs of Shuttle, which led it to...

The second reason was to employ Russian rocket engineers to prevent them from going to foreign countries (Iran, North Korea) and helping them refine ICBM missiles. For that, the Russians needed a reason for their space program to exist, and following the long overdue end of Mir the ISS was the only game in town.

The Russians had to do it on a budget though, which meant no new vehicles. The Proton was big enough to carry modules half-built for Mir-II to become ISS parts, but only to the 52 degree orbit. So, NASA simply had to go to 52 degrees, or the Russians could not have afforded to make brand new light weight versions of the modules they had collecting dust in hangers.

RedStreak · 2006-08-24 14:28:30

Quite an interesting tale for the ISS and STS indeed. That helps to put their existance in perspective, and definetely shows the political aspects of them.

Let us hope the CEV remains on target for the Moon regardless of who wants to use it in their schemes.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-08-24 19:52:58

It also shows that NASA and other Space agencies throughout the world will do anything to keep jobs and their position in the world on the cutting edge of technology for space development. That is why they won't want a fully independent space complex not in control of any government because they can't use their " NAtional Interests" speech to the government requesting their support to deal with the other government's space developments or other countries space developments.

If you look at any of the Space / International Agreements the "National Interests" Clause is used to justify the limiting or stopping the development of space without their permissions. They like competition only when they are winning not when other countries or corporations are winning and not there's.

That is why the CEV Design will be the only design used to go to the moon or mars without the express permission on the US Government because the would use the NAtional Interest Policy to have economic / trade or resource constraints with suppliers to foreign space facilities.

RedStreak · 2006-08-24 20:39:34

That is why the CEV Design will be the only design used to go to the moon or mars without the express permission on the US Government because the would use the NAtional Interest Policy to have economic / trade or resource constraints with suppliers to foreign space facilities.

Well if it flies I won't have anything against it.

SpaceNut · 2006-08-24 20:59:26

I too would be glad to see the combination of the CEV/ CLV and the CaLV /EDS/ Lsam Which is now known as Orion built and in full use to explore with.

With this last bit of science vs exploration one can see the writing on the wall with those saying manned vs unmanned next.

RedStreak · 2006-08-24 21:17:12

Heh, indeed.

I think what we'll be seeing is unmanned exploration being more directed toward finding key resources, water, and locations to better optimize manned exploration.

What I'd hope for is, likewise, the LSAM vehicle being optimized, at least in the unmanned cargo varriant, being optimized to land scientific equiptment and habitat equiptment.

We need to make the two 'generes' of spaceflight compatable.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-08-26 22:55:41

Now its time to expand the development of space with newer designed for the payload to carry personnel and cargo into orbit and beyond. All issues have solutions and we could develop a long term crew vehicle for ferrying personnel to orbit their to a space station / factory or another space vessel. I find that you want to throw things away all the time and yet don't want to move forward in creating a space industry that can accomplish the ideals of many of the mars society members and other space society members are working towards, which is Human Settlement in space NOT joyrides, NOT tourist missions, BUT permanent settlements and outposts.
People, keep in mind, don't tend to settle until an area is well established. Space will be littered with tourists for a few decades before anyone commits to abandoning Earth for a home elsewhere. Not many nowadays are willing to leave purely on ideals, we're not pilgrams anymore, we're suburbanites.
With a little luck it will happen, but alot of time is needed.

There don't need to be many! We couldn't send many if we wanted to, but there are always a few, and that's all we need and all we can afford to send to Mars. The reason why we are Suburbanites instead of pilgrims or settlers is because we mostly work for someone else rather than for ourselves as our forebears used to do when they farmed their own land. Because we work for someone else, we must live near the city, and I hate the city, I don't like going near the place, but that unfortunately is where all the money and jobs are, so I'm tied to that damn stinking city as if it were a ball and chain, and the worst of it is, that its so vulnerable to nuclear attack, but because of economic necessity and the stupidity of employers, I've forced to live near their too. If I could live where ever I wanted too, I'd live out in the country, the real country, not this suburbs with million dollar homes that I can't afford.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-08-27 02:07:20

Tom,

The method for settlement , could be using the employee method of a company and the company (NASA or Private Contractor) employs people to settle on a planet or moon for a contract period to build the necessary infrastructure for a larger settlement. In this way they are going for a reason and not going to see what's there. The cost for moving them there and supplying them until food, power and human support environment are operational are part of the Deal with their employer, they are taking the risk.

The first three manned vessels ( plus numerous cargo unmanned vessels ) in convoy would bring all the necessary supplies, and housing for the construction /mining teams to commence development operations, this will happen after the initial survey / explorer missions already on the mission timetable. Over their term on the settlement they will build the environment to support up to 1000 people and other facilities including building space for business, science, transportation , mining, retail space, food outlet spaces and more to create a small city / colony environment.

Once ready then you bring forth the larger volumes of people in 6 to 10 vessel convoys ( up to 20 people per vessel ) . This is a rapid deployment of people and equipment including robotic systems for the industrial, mining and construction sectors of the settlement.

For Example we might want to sent a vessel to act as a mining and prodcing facility ( build in earth orbit as a space station with engines but can be compacted down for transit then anchor to an asteroid on arrival) for the asteroid belt first to get the mineral and water resources for the development of humans on the other planets and moons of the solar systems, not build on Mars. or combination mission, Mars / Asteroid belt cargo/ personnel runs the raw materials might be useful or we could take a shot at Mars only it depends on the factors involved.

It depends on what we want to do ????

What designs used for vessels ?????

What our ultimate goal for space is ????

Every person here would have different reasons, different concepts, but the only people that will get there are the people that will spend there money for the chance to succeed, and not for a monetary return but a share of the largest business market that humanity will ever see.

dicktice · 2006-08-27 12:33:51

The first, rich French "adventurers" first contacted the aboriginals where Quebec City is now, lived it up, and then they left. Luxury items proving this have just been uncovered, which will form part of the museum exhibits of the 400th anniversary of Quebec, in 2009. Some five years later the actual traders and settlers began to arrive--only to find the original natives replaced by other tribes.

As is well known, many of the settlers in the New World began as indentured servants, often no better than slaves, who had to work-off their loans for years, before becoming their own masters. The same presumably will take place on Mars....

dicktice · 2006-08-27 12:34:27

Sorry, I double-clicked. I'll save this space for another reply.

RedStreak · 2006-08-27 14:45:13

The first, rich French "adventurers" first contacted the aboriginals where Quebec City is now, lived it up, and then they left.
As is well known, many of the settlers in the New World began as indentured servants, often no better than slaves, who had to work-off their loans for years, before becoming their own masters. The same presumably will take place on Mars....

That's hard to picture happening today.

Initially, due to extreme expense and conditions, likely only scientists will be doing much of anything on both Mars and the Moon. Mars especially, since I doubt may people are willing to dedicate themselves to 6 months of boredom en route and then another 6 back and add 2 or so years waiting for launch windows. At the least it will weed-out those of the faint-hearted, the attention-deficet disorder(ly), and buisness entrepenaurs who think very short-term.

A few wealth adventurers akin to the Quebec and current Space Enthusiasts may come...but even if space travel becomes more commonplace people won't move so far unless there's a huge gain to merit the risk.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2006-08-20 22:51:08

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#77 2006-08-20 23:28:14

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#78 2006-08-21 04:35:39

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#79 2006-08-21 07:07:19

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#80 2006-08-21 09:57:18

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#81 2006-08-23 07:21:06

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#82 2006-08-23 08:55:07

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#83 2006-08-23 10:23:45

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#84 2006-08-23 10:27:31

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#85 2006-08-23 10:35:53

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#86 2006-08-23 13:10:51

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#87 2006-08-23 17:23:35

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#88 2006-08-23 21:26:53

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#89 2006-08-23 22:17:38

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#90 2006-08-24 05:33:55

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#91 2006-08-24 14:28:30

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#92 2006-08-24 19:52:58

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#93 2006-08-24 20:39:34

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#94 2006-08-24 20:59:26

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#95 2006-08-24 21:17:12

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#96 2006-08-26 22:55:41

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#97 2006-08-27 02:07:20

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#98 2006-08-27 12:33:51

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#99 2006-08-27 12:34:27

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#100 2006-08-27 14:45:13

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

Board footer