G
gunsandrockets
Guest
Very interesting article in Aviation Week & Space Technology on the Project Constellation CEV, "First Cut: contractors deliver shuttle replacement proposals prepared before Griffin's call."<br /><br />The AW&ST article is about the CEV bids sent in response to the initial NASA RFP for the CEV. Since Griffin was appointed that initial RFP is in grave doubt. But the response of the contractors is enlightening anyway.<br /><br />Sadly Northrop-Grumman, one of the bidding contenders, didn't have much to say publicly, "There are indications that the new NASA administration may be considering changes to the CEV competition," said a Northrop Grumman spokesman. "As a team, Northrop Grumman and Boeing stand ready to support whatever new requirements NASA believes will best allow the nation to meet it's space exploration goals. We would prefer, however, to not publicly discuss our CEV concept until the requirements for the this competition become more clear." So most of the AW&ST article only has details on the Lockheed Martin bid. <br /><br />The baseline NASA requirements for the CEV are pretty simple and limited.<br /><br />The short version <br /><br />a) 20 metric tons GLOW <br /><br />b) 4 crew <br /><br />c) 14 cubic meters living space <br /><br />d) 16 days life support <br /><br />e) TEI burn from LLO (which is about a delta vee of 1 km/s)<br /><br />f) Fitting into the NASA moon flight architecture.<br /><br />But NASA also left a big loophole for those contractors willing to give it a go. Sort of a bonus section.<br /><br />"These IPP's are not meant to curtail innovation or alternate architectural concepts during Phase 1 activities. To that end, a set of focused cost and performance trades will be conducted prior to SRR against these IPP's to include:"<br /><br /><br />"1. Launch weight mass trades (both increases and decreases), including taking advantage of performance gains by mass reduction during ascent"<br /><br /> <br />"2. Ability to abort anytime during all missio