Community > Forum > National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) > CEV Mockup Pictures

CEV Mockup Pictures

Posted by: Klaus Schmidt - Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:39 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 64 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
CEV Mockup Pictures 
Author Message
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:30 am
Posts: 236
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Post    Posted on: Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:50 am
Ok if you guys really believe that NASA can get out of the poo they're in, but I for one, don't think so.

I agree that the conspiracy theory is a bit over the top but the general gist of the article - recycling old ideas, one size fits all vehicles, understating vehicle conversion requirements, and so on - still stands. In addition, there's still no firm science program for the Vision to stand on. That was one of the reasons Apollo died. No follow-on supporting program.

But the major reasons as I've previously stated aren't engineering-related, they're lack of political will, too many brands in the fire, old ideas recycled and so on and the time-line on the Vision is over 2 or 3 political administrations, the current one of which seems to have become embroiled in a war with no end in sight. And this is going to consume more and more of the US Budget.

In addition, NASA's managed to piss off to the max I would say, their partners in the ISS. Those partners are showing more and more signs of going their own way and bypassing NASA and NASA has stated that they're going to need international help (say dollars and lots of them) to achieve their objectives.

Good luck to NASA, they're going to need it to develop any decent human space program. Heck, they can't even fix the shuttle enough to fly again :!: :( :( :(

_________________
Beancounter from Downunder


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:00 am
I think on the whole Griffen is doing the best he can with the difficult hand he has been dealt but that is not to say that NASA is performing as it should. NASA has taken 3 decades to get into its current position the road back will take a couple of years at least, it remains to be seen whether it has those years.

I think that there are serious issues for NASA's international partners over the ISS. A week does not go by without the Russians commenting on the US's lack of commitment to it and I think all the partners have doubts whether the US will finish the assembly. Also there is the fiasco that ITAR has created, effectively making any cooperation with the US much more difficult. All this is causing ESA to move away from NASA and work more closely with Russia or even China (they recently signed an agreement with the Chinese to cooperate more closely on space projects).

I think that at the moment NASA has very little to offer that would make other agencies want to become involved on another multi-billion dollar space project with them. Looking at it from a European perspective I think that the alternatives offerred by Russia are much more attractive.

The Kliper project could give Europe the oppotunity of having its own access to space from Kourou whereas it is unclear what involvement with the CEV or the Vision for Space Exploration would give it. The infrequent flights of the shuttle and a lack of flights after 2010 for at least 2 years calls into doubt how credible NASA is as a way of getting Europeans into space. I think that ESA sees that 2 year gap as being stretched to 4 or even more years because of budget concerns. If they are forced to rely on Russian craft to get them to the ISS then it is beneficial if they have a stake in them so at least they will have some control over costs and timescales.

NASA needs to get to grips with its problems much faster and show a much greater level of commitment to the projects that it starts, abandoning the ISS before it was completed would be a political disaster that would turn it into a space pariah.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:36 pm
beancounter wrote:
old ideas recycled
You call it old ideas recycled, I call it not reinventing the wheel.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:58 pm
NASA has delayed the contractor down selection until july of next year. It has also supplied more information to contactors on what it is expecting from them and what it will be supplying.

http://www.flightinternational.com/Arti ... ction.html

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:07 pm
Here's some more details on NASA's CEV and the variants that NASA is planning to build.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19067

Also some info on its system architecture.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19066

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post    Posted on: Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:53 pm
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-05zzy.html

Although I don’t care for conspiracy theories, I found the full article very informative. I do wonder why, with extreme progress in small lightweight electronics and major progress in other aerospace materials, the planned craft needs to have 2.25 times the volume and 1.19 times the PROJECTED mass of the Apollo PER OCCUPANT. (In addition, the uncertainties are greatly reduced and the schedule is relaxed). I emphasize “projected massâ€


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:15 pm
A much lighter craft would make it possible to launch the CEV on other boosters so that if the proposed new launch vehicle hits problems during development then there is an alternative.

I know that using an EELV is not popular but it could be used to plug delays and possibly be a way of speeding the CEV program up. A smaller, lighter craft on an existing launcher would probably be quicker to develop than a larger CEV and new launch vehicle.

Delaying the launcher development until after the CEV is well underway would free up resources and finances which appear to be in short supply at NASA. I would much rather they just fully funded everything and speeded it all up but that doesn't look like it is going to happen at the moment so this would at least allow the CEV to be on time.

Like rpspeck says its difficult to understand why this new craft has to be so heavy and historically craft have gotten heavier so it makes sense to start with as light a craft as possible.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:04 pm
EELV will have to stand or fall on its own. Jeff Bell's conspiracy leaves me scratching my head. More Art Bell than Jeff Bell.

The oft touted 100 billion is half of JSF, and 1/3 of Iraq, or 1/4 Katrina's cost--and is to come out of standard NASA budgets.

We have a friendly Congress for once.


Some info:
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.d ... /512280340[/QUOTE]

That makes sense. The Stick only needs its LOX/LH2 high up--which is also where Titan IV had its cryogenics loaded for Centaur--so it's pad is a perfect fit.

Check out http://www.usspacenews.com/ for graphics of CEV abort-test boosters:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums ... &posts=229

"If anyone is interested, the mars progam mentioned in the CEV Documentation is the final version of Mars DRM 3, in which the crew transport is used for the round trip, rahter than travelling to mars in the hab, then return on a dedicated Earth Return Vehcile. The CEV will be used for crew transport between vehciles, and possibly as the mars ascent vehcile. this can then be re-used for earth retrun."

The entire programme can be found here http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2002/ ... 4-REV1.pdf

Speaking of HLV:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/ ... .html#more

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums ... 12&start=1

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums ... 86&start=1

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums ... 23&start=1

Attic 1/48 Mercury Atlas
http://www.metrocast.net/~petero/attic%20MA%203.jpg

Space Elevator images from Liftport's web:

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/groups/g_33777 ... DB.J.xsL.9

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/groups/g_33777 ... DBZs4kq905

OT Russia News:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums ... 1&posts=58

Anatoly Zak who runs russianSpaceWeb.com http://www.russianspaceweb.com/index.html has posted some nicely detaile images and a video of the Parom Orbital Tug here:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/dec/1241629.htm


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:42 pm
It seems that NASA is diluting the CEV requirement, the use of methane engines is no longer manditory. I think that a Mars trip just moved further away.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c ... V01126.xml

This is the 2nd time I've noticed that the requirements have been relaxed on a major point, originally the CEV was to be reusable but currently its "hoped" that it will be reusable. I guess the next step is not to be used at all. :(

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:34 pm
According to this SPACE.com article NASA are now reducing its size from 5.5m to 5m.

http://space.com/news/060120_cev_overhaul.html

Are all of these changes going to result in a much less capable craft, why not just dust off one of the used Apollo capsules at this rate?

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
User avatar
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:30 am
Posts: 236
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Post    Posted on: Tue Jan 24, 2006 5:02 am
I hate to sound pessimistic but NASA are in the *** big time. They've got Congress breathing down their necks due to their history of scrapping projects, blowing schedules out of the water with respect to time, cost, scope and so on, and they've lost a lot of public support. They've lost two shuttles due to things they knew about but discounted. Their new effort is currently being scaled back and not looking at all positive.
Now they say they're going back to the moon but with little science to do there - merely for the thrill of going there? And they haven't finished the ISS yet or even got firm plans on how to do it due to the big question mark over the STS.

Look, the only reason the US got into the space business initially was for military reasons. Methinks that the only way they'll ever get a successful program of human space exploration going again is if someone else looks like doing it ie. China or Russia. I don't think the Europeans are all that interested. And it'll be catch up all over again.

That said, maybe some private concern will get their act together and create relatively cheap human-rated access to space and the only ones out there at the moment are Musk (if he can get his vehicles launched) and Rutan who has proved up suborbital but not yet orbital but says he can. So suborbital will be the start. The big question is whether orbital can be made sufficiently cheap and safe to attract large numbers of the public as passengers and / or business for space-related research, production, etc. I think Bigalow will succeed with accommodation but as I've previously mentioned, he needs reliable cheap transport to his stations.

Here's hoping the privates can do it 'cause I think NASA's efforts are currently doomed. :(

By the way, I'm only talking about NASA's human space effort not it's research or robotic efforts which, although they've had a few failures, are on the whole, far more successful.

_________________
Beancounter from Downunder


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:10 pm
Andy Hill wrote:
It seems that NASA is diluting the CEV requirement, the use of methane engines is no longer manditory.


That suits me just fine. Hypergolics are perfect for fuel storage and require simpler engines. This is not a bad thing. I'm glad they are going back to hypergolics.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:25 pm
But it greatly reduces performance. ISP of Hypergolics is just too low and will greatly reduce the payload of the final vehicle.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 887
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:28 pm
But boil off is not a problem--and hypergolics are rather compact. It is actually safer to have a simpler systtem. Isp is not such an issue--after all, it will be riding hydrogen oxygen upper stages on the Stick. Hypergolics work just fine.


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:41 pm
When I speak of ISP I am thinking more of the missions to the Moon. If the engines used to supply the deltaV for lunar orbit insertion and escape and lunar landing and takeoff are all ISP 330 instead of 360 or higher, the payload to the Moon will suffer greatly. Methane and LOX are warm enough to not be a big boil off problem. LH2 would be great but it is much colder and does have major boil off problems.

For LEO only, like servicing the space station, especially the 6 month docked escape vehicle use, hypergolic makes perfect sense. Maybe the future versions of the vehicles intended for lunar trips could go back to the higher energy propellants.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use