CEV and Shuttle going FORWARD... like it or not!

[nolirogari]

After reading all of the dribble from the anti-shuttle anti-ISS anti-VSE anti-manned spaceflight types, I've decided to start this thread so that we, who do believe this is an exciting era of new and developing spacecraft and a fantastic, although soon to retire, Shuttle can speak out. <br /><br />The simple fact is that NOTHING is going backward and changes in developing vehicles is both normal and for the better. The VSE is going forward and Gore-sat. has finally been cancelled. The shuttle will fly again, and again, and again and those who think in terms of Manned flight bad- robots good, can just spit at their TVs as it does. The rest of us will cheer, because we believe that all spaceflight is good. Also let's toink the noses of those who say that private industry can now do it all better... that's a lot of bunk. How about- private industry can now do it TOO! And bring it on! I wanna see it and cheer it on as well. IMO- this is perhaps the most exciting era in spaceflight since the early 1960s.<br /><br />This is also a great thread to trap the nay-say's like fly paper... you know who they are... and they just can't resist.

 

[kdavis007]

I think most of the anti-cev people are just anti human in space period...

 

[dwightlooi]

This whole shuttle derived thing is getting silly. First of all, the current proposal requires redesigning the SRB into a 5-segment booster and is ditching the SSME for the J2S. This in effect makes it s new rocket inside and out.<br /><br />If that is the case, NASA should simply develop a 5m diameter SRB. It won't cost much more or take much longer. You can use the same propellant, seal, casing and other technology from the 3.7m SRB just make it 5m instead.

 

[trailrider]

"If that is the case, NASA should simply develop a 5m diameter SRB. It won't cost much more or take much longer. You can use the same propellant, seal, casing and other technology from the 3.7m SRB just make it 5m instead."<br /><br />Not so! ATK-Thiokol has already successfully static tested a 5-segment SRM, which means that the new nozzle and any other developments are already underway. Designing a larger diameter SRM would not only entail a complete redesign, but considerable re-tooling, as well as horrendous logistical problems. (You've gotta get the segments from Utah to the Cape, and there are clearance limitations for highways and bridges.)<br /><br />I am NOT a big fan of solid rockets for "high-value" payloads, but this may prove to be the only feasible way to get out of LEO, or even to just keep the ISS from becoming a complete boondoggle! <br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>I think most of the anti-cev people are just anti human in space period... </i><br /><br />Certainly not me. I'm one CEV critic who is very much a proponent of human spaceflight, but who disagrees with the CEV design.

 

[yurkin]

Sadly I don’t think we passed the point of no return with the CEV.

 

[dragon04]

Amen. I want to see a continued manned space flight program. I just don't happen to think we need to slap something together to maintain manned space flight.<br /><br />I'd rather see us take another 20 years if need be, and come up with better and more multifunctional spacecraft.<br /><br />What's the hurry? We can buy rides from the Russians to send folks to the precious ISS. We'll settle for Apollo 18 rather than look forward. So be it, I guess. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Robots good, but mankind better.<br /><br />The anti-space people out there would complain if Spirit and Opportunity cost $50 bucks, let alone several hundred million. <br /><br />As for the CEV: I always thought the 5.5 meter capsule design was too big, one of the few things I'd agreed with Gaetomanaro about (shudder). But I went along with the designs and had faith in Mike Griffin and his people. But 5 meters is more doable and sensible and will still give much more capability than Apollo. And they MUST retain:<br /><br />1): Re-usability (keep hypergolics OUT of the Crew Module, use non-toxic RCS). Keep the landing on solid ground capability. If they can't re-use that capsule 5-to-10 times, then that'd be a real waste.<br /><br />2): The 5-meter diameter design will keep the weight down and make recovery, including loading aboard a C-17 or C-5, easier. An Apollo-sized CM would be clearly too small and the 5.5 meter would probably be too big.<br /><br />3): The Shuttle should be allowed to complete the ISS as much as possible. Now, I've said in this forum several times that the ISS design may not be optimum, with too much reliance on Shuttle, blah, blah etc. But it would be folly similar to the unflown Saturn Vs and Apollos NOT to launch the hundreds of tons and BILLIONS of dollars of Station hardware already completed, sitting around in clean rooms. It's better that the Shuttle workforce is retained doing SOMETHING for the next 5 years than be allowed to atrophy at billions-per-year, or worse; be laid off. Imagine trying to restart a Shuttle-derived infrastructure from scratch in a few years time. The best destiny of the Shuttle engines and boosters is to be ameliorated into ships that will take mankind to other worlds. <br /><br />And it would be far better to have a complete or mostly complete ISS than to have the 200-ton but only 3-man capable vehicle we have now, where not much science is being done. If ISS were abandoned now it would be more than the engineering and geo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

Brrrr... Titan would be an awfully cold and lonely place for a base. I would rather live on Callisto, at least the radiation isn't as bad as the inner moons and you have a far better view than trying to peer through the soup at Titan.<br /><br />I do think it's awfully optimistic to expect manned bases on either moon before 2100.

 

[nolirogari]

Anti- CEV flypaper.... tee hee... I knew it.<br /><br />I especially liked the comment that if we have to keep buying seats from the Russians (a national disgrace IMO)- so be it. Has anyone here given the thought that perhaps the reason why we are now forced to buy seats from Russians to rid aboard a vehicle designed by Korolev in the late 1950s, is because of negative dribble like this? We are the UNITED STATES for crying out loud. We should not have to buy seats from ANYONE to get into space.<br /><br />I fear that many of those "critics" posted here are infected with the opposite of "Go fever." They have "Can't" fever leading to "Won't" fever.

 

[BReif]

"I do think it's awfully optimistic to expect manned bases on either moon before 2100."<br /><br />First, I am a strong supporter of the VSE, CEV, ESAS, and manned spaceflight. Second, I have been poltically active lobbying and writing to members of Congress and the President about the space program. Form my experience in the political sphere, I have to say that unfortunately, I tend to agree with you on about the rate of accomplishments in space being too slow.<br /><br /> Undoubtedly, humanity should be able, and should have bases on both moons before the dawn of the 22nd century, but because of petty political bickering, and partisan politics, its won't happen by then. <br /><br />We, IMO, will be lucky to have a base on Mars by 2100. Why? I think that once we get back to the Moon, the partisan politics are going to start up again about "is it worth the cost", etc. I think there may end up being so much debate about the benefit of Moon exploration and colonization, that Mars will be delayed until that is resolved. <br /><br />This debate would be akin to the ISS usefulness debate and shuttle usefulness debate that is going on now, and has been for several years. This naval gazing is what is holding us back, and keeping us from moving forward.<br /><br />IMO, Titan and Callisto by 2100 should be done, but politics will bar the way.<br /><br />IMO, Mars by 2030 should be done, but politics will bar the way.<br /><br />IMO, Moon by 2020 should be done, but politics will bar the way, but not as long as the others.<br /><br />IMO, all our dates (with the exception of CEV and Lunar missions) will be pushed back about 40-60 years because of politics.<br /><br />

 

[nolirogari]

Now that is probably the most realistic view I've heard. You are correct- it is, sadly, always in the hands of the vote grubs.

 

[danwoodard]

I am concerned that a solid booster has some very rapid failure modes. While escape towers have been used on the Soyuz a couple of times, it takes at least a few seconds to make the decision to fire the escape system. With the SRB there may not be time.<br /><br />The SRB is also rather expensive and hazardous to manufacture and process, not least because it is fueled at the manufacturing faciity and hazardous from that point on. It requires the infrastructure of VAB, mobile launch platforms, crawlers, etc to be maintained indefinitely. The stacking process is time-consuming and involves significant hazards. It is difficult to see how the SRB-derived CEV Launch Vehicle can be significantly less expensive than the Shuttle, simply because it requires most of the same facilities and a substantial percentage of the same personnel.<br />

 

[frodo1008]

The true saving grace in going back to the moon first is that we will then be able to start to use the actual materials from the moon itself (in other words exploiting the moon rather than just exploring it) to make future space infrastructure far less expensive than having to drag such materials all the way up out of the Earth''s gravity well!<br /><br />Much of this obtaining of such materials will not even require the total presense of people, much of this type of operation will either be totally automated, or teleoperated (which IS why the moon, NOT Mars is the important source of such materials). <br /><br />There are two items necessary to building up such an infrastructure, one is energy. Energy in almost unlimited quantities is available directly from the sun in space. The other is large quantities of certain metals, such as iron, aluminum, titanium, and others, ALL of which are easily obtainable from the lunar regolith, as the results of the Apollo samples have shown these materials to be available in large percentages in such lunar regolith. Almost all of these metals are held in oxides of the metals themselves, so oxygen (both important for human breathing, and rocket fuel) would be available as a direct by product of processing such metals. Now, it is even possible that there are reasonable quantities of water itself in the deep craters of the moon at the poles!! <br /><br />Remembering that getting off the moon is very easy in comparison to leaving the Earth as the moon has only 0.16 g's, and NO atmosphere, it is even possible to mass launch these materials off the moon without even using rockets!! THIS is how it will become possible to build a true space faring civilization within the next 50 years or possibly even less.<br /><br />If for some reason this can't be done and EVERYTHING has to come up from Earth then I too, am afraid that even going on to Mars is going to take at least another 40 years or so! And going out even to the asteroid belt is no

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"The true saving grace in going back to the moon first is that we will then be able to start to use the actual materials from the moon itself (in other words exploiting the moon rather than just exploring it) to make future space infrastructure far less expensive than having to drag such materials all the way up out of the Earth''s gravity well! "<br /><br />Not at NASA's current cost per pound to drag the manufacturing infrastructure over there we wont.

 

[frodo1008]

Do you have any idea what the future cost per pound is going to be with a true 100 ton HLV? I will admit that I don't know myself, but it IS going to be far less than the shuttle! <br /><br />Do you really think that anyone but NASA is going to be even trying to go to the moon in the next 15 years?? Unless it will be another complete government such as China, which can also afford it, I don't think it is going to happen!!<br /><br />Perhaps we should at least wait unto the pure private start up companies at least get to LEO before we have them on the moon, OK??<br /><br />By the way, I am certain that you were being very clever indeed on that oher thread with your reference to that site, but being just an old and naive retired aerospace worker I just didn't get it??

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Not at NASA's current cost per pound to drag the manufacturing infrastructure over there we wont."</font><br /><br />Huh? The higher the transport costs the more ISRU makes sense.

 

[BReif]

I agree with you. Utilizing the resources on the Moon is essential to success in becoming a spacefaring civilization. And, since the political debates are always associated with costs, once that infastructure is in place, and costs drop, there would be less of an argument against it. The argument that will have to be made is one justifying the cost of creating the infastructure (ie. like the political debate over ESAS infastructure going on now).

 

[danwoodard]

>>Do you have any idea what the future cost per pound is going to be with a true 100 ton HLV? I will admit that I don't know myself, but it IS going to be far less than the shuttle!<br /><br />This would depend on the number of payloads per year that are actually launched, and the infrastructure required. Unless there are at least 10 launches per year that it's difficult to see how it can be much less than the Shuttle. This is 1000 tons of payloads per year, At $350M per launch, that's about $3500/kg, which is a good deal less than the Shuttle, but only if we can afford $3.5 billion/yr for HLLV cargo launches alone, exclusive of payload development or manned launches. Cost pr Kg would be higher if the flight rate is lower.

 

[subzero788]

I can see your point but seeing that the only American manned presence in space at this moment consists of the shuttle and ISS it doesn't seem wise to cutting them now. It won't speed up the development of the CEV, it might neglibably speed up development of the HLV + LSAM but I don't think this is worth the cost of a 6 year + gap in NASA manned spaceflight. I'd rather see the shuttle be retired immediately too but not at this price.

 

[nolirogari]

These anti- everything folks are pretty myopic and narrow minded- or pehaps they are just running a game on us. Gutting the ISS and shuttle only opens a wide gap for the vote grubs to step in and gut EVERY other manned effort. And that money would NOT go into any other manned space effort. So- in my book- those who say Gut the ISS and Shuttle are in the same exact mindset as those who said Apollo wasn't worth it back in the 60s and 70s. So although you SAY you are for manned spaceflight- I'm not buying it. Sorry- dog fails to hunt.

 

[BReif]

I am in agreement here. Usually, when a budget cut occurs to a NASA program, or any governemnt program for that matter, the "saved funds" are usually sent to a nother program in another agency, or are not re-distributed at all. I beleive that cutting the Shuttle program early, and abandoning the ISS would not free up more funding for the CEV, on the contrary, it would open up the CEV to possible future cuts, because it would then be squarely in the crosshairs of budget cutters, a place where the shuttle and ISS seem to be now. A program cut within NASA does not equal an increase in another NASA program. It equals an agency wide cut.