CEV (Block 2) - Interplanetary Configuration

[dreada5]

This thread relates a bit to RadarRedux's "Non-lunar CEV missions" thread.<br /><br />Just reading through the following wiki doc on Orion/CEV development and was wondering what are the essential modules required for the typical deep-space, 6-month manned interplanetary cruises (assuming the following destinations are still on the cards 2015-2020: NEO / Martian moons, Solar-Earth Langrange point / planetary fly-by missions)?<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29#Stage_II<br /><br />Obviously stage/block 1, just involves the crew module (CM) for missions to ISS.<br /><br />Typically for a mission to the moon, you'd need:<br /><br />- Crew Command (CM)<br />- Service (SM)<br />- Earth Departure (EDM)<br />- Lander (LSAM)<br /><br /><br />Presumably, CEV-stage/block 2 are all three of those, excluding the a lunar/martian lander - but in addition to those in Dr Griffin's "Extending Human Presence into the Solar System" study he mentions the need for other modules.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Stage 2 requires the development of an interplanetary cruise vehicle configuration that must include at least an extended duration CEV or an appropriate derivative vehicle, in addition to a modest laboratory for surface robot control, returned sample analysis, and physiological experiments. A habitation module also is required. These might be derivatives of the current ISS laboratory and habitation module designs. Such commonality is, however, limited by the fact that considerable differences will exist between the requirements for use on the ISS and those for interplanetary missions, including the need for additional radiation shielding, upgraded avionics, and longer-duration life support. Consumables carriers for propellant and other crew expendables also will be required. Humanrobotic synergism is expected to play an essential role in the scien</p></blockquote>

 

[mattblack]

One idea I've had as an alternative to beefed up Bigelow Inflatables could be disposable Mission Module(s) for the transit out to Mars, made out of a tripled-up SpaceHab modules, similar to the Double-SpaceHab currently used on Shuttle flights, but obviously with an extra segment. The middle segment would be the Sleep quarters/Wardroom and the end module segments: each would contain the food, water and other logistics and one would contain the life-support & electrical systems, fed by 2x sets of Orion-CEV type arrays attached to each end segment. Also, the middle segment would have lots of extra radiation shielding, so as to act as the mission's 'storm shelter'. Three times the polyethelene thickness of the Orion's Command Module walls ought to do it.<br /><br />Also, each end segment would have docking ports; one would have the Orion attached, acting as the Command Cockpit & Control center, and the Mars Lander (or whatever) would be attached to the other end.<br /><br />For interplanetary missions, I'd strongly advocate a 'stretched' Service module with lots more propellant for mid-course corrections and attitude control. I'd prefer they use LOX/Methane over hypergolics, but we'll see what happens after Block 1 is finalised. <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>

 

[john_316]

I am pretty sure that they need both the Cm and SM for any stage of flight.<br /><br />I however had to jump on this thread...<br /><br />I once mentioned many moons ago using an ET from a shuttle as a fuel system for a Nuclear Gas Core Rocket.<br /><br />Shielding<br />Command Module <br />Habitation Module<br />Docking Port (Module)<br />Engineering Section<br />Modified ET (Propellant Storage)<br />Strut/Spar Engineering Extension<br />GCNR (Gas Core Nuclear Reactor) or possibly *<br />*Any Nuclear Cored rocket<br /><br /><br />The entire diameter would that of the ET from ET to CM. Approximately 27 to 33 feet in diameter. The weight I have no conclusive idea of yet but possibly up to 3000 tons.<br /><br />The Nuclear rocket engine (Weight less than 20 tons possibly)would connected to a shielded ET by an erector like strut that extends 20' from the ET. Offhand its weight should be less than 15 tons. That would extend fuel lines and cabling lines and the shielding would be for micro-meteoroids and radiation.<br /><br />The ET would contain a empty tank where the LO2 would normally be. The rounded top would be blunt and flat and connected to the Engineering section. This section would be less than 20 feet in size and house the reactor control equipment. It should weight less than 30 tons proper. The engineering section would be connected to a docking and making adapter which would be able to have up to 6 docking ports. These ports would/could dock several CM at once. This docking module could be less than 15' in length and weight less than 30 tons.<br /><br />Then the habitation module which would be 30-50' in length house a shielded crew compartment and sustain a crew of up to 18 personnel at its maximum. Its weight in around 50 to 125 tons depending on its configuration.<br /><br />Next would be the Command Module or Command Center in the front of the vessel. It would be 20 to 30 feet in length and weight less than 50 tons. It would also contain back up systems and in an emergency break

 

[soccerguy789]

Alright, so as a big fan of Zurbin and his approaches known as Mars Direct and Mars Semi-Direct. Here I've taken Mars semi-direct and put some CEV hardware in places where it fits. In general the idea revolves around 3 major launches (and one single CEV launch) per launch window.<br /><br />One full set as displayed ( save the CEV) are launched unmanned, the MAV (Mars Ascent Vehicle) without supplies but stocked with fuel, so there is a fueled backup in case of an emergency.<br /><br />During the next launch window, the same set is launched again, this time, with people in the hab/CEV combo. they reach Mars, and the hab detaches, leaving the CEV in orbit (possibly alone, possibly remote docked to the ERV). a long ground stay ensues using supplies loaded into the new MAV which has room for supplies because it produces its fuel instead of carrying it.<br /><br />after the mission, the crew loads onto the newly fueled MAV and launches. the MAV will then dock with the CEV, transfer everything they want to bring home. and then dock the CEV to the ERV(Earth Return Vehicle) (unless the ERV has a multipul docking ports, which would allow for 1 docking instead. The ERV then powers back to Earth. the crew meanwhile loads everything into the CEV, and upon return home, returns to earth via CEV. the ERV habitation area could simply detach from its propulsion stageand dock with a new set, await some kind of refueling. <br /><br />I havent done the broken down math, but the Aries series of rockets along with whayt I know about the Orion hardware seems to fit within the weight parameters of the 3-launch Mars Semi-Direct mission described by Zubrin in his book The Case For Mars.

 

[john_316]

Interesting Idea...<br /><br />I propose nuclear propulsion of course, would you propose chemical means? I don't think Ion can do it alone.<br /><br />I am also looking at short trip duration there and back. So the Astronauts wont have a long space flight ahead of them. Less than 180 days.<br /><br />The system I also mention is large yes but in size it would probably be 300 feet in length at its max. With exception to the fuel for the GCNR I think the weight could be well within 500 tons or less for a 12 man crew. The space shuttle can handle crew of 7 for 30 days with a mission pallet, I think a crew of 12 can be handled in a craft with twice+ the size of the shuttle interior volume. Okay I include the cargo bay as well. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The fueled Mars lander is also practical where you can send an unmanned one there, land it and refuel it and land your new lander nearby when you visit. Thats a *safe* position to take with landing a lander ahead of time and I would still encourage that mission profile even if something larger were planned.<br /><br />I like bold projects but also with a safety factor as well. I am not a Zubrin Mars Direct kind of guy so much as he has with his other ideas with small ship approach but you and him and I all do agree we need something feasible to get us there and back.<br /><br />I guess I just dont want to see 4-6 astronauts in a small tin can traveling to Mars when they could have more flexibility in the mission and a large presence with a base set up and long presence guaranteed.<br /><br />A point of interest would that the Mars Vehicle could remain on orbit and that crew could also be doing work on surveying the moons of Mars as well. Possibly a lander there to collect samples if need be. <br /><br />They could always leave while another Mars Craft comes with another crew or what have you. (Future options)<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />But I do like many ideas that people do

 

[dreada5]

The problem with nuclear is that I doubt NASA could have it designed, manufactured, tested and flight-ready in time considering its already heavy CEV workload from now till 2020.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Alright, so as a big fan of Zurbin and his approaches known as Mars Direct and Mars Semi-Direct. Here I've taken Mars semi-direct and put some CEV hardware in places where it fits. In general the idea revolves around 3 major launches (and one single CEV launch) per launch window. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Isn't the Mars Direct approach really geared for a full blown mission to Mars (circa 2025-30) with surface operations et al??<br /><br />I think Block CEV2 is really concerned with missions to NEO and quasi-cislunar fly-by missions in ten years time. As such I doubt we'll have something very advanced. In fact I'd suggest there's just enough time to get the two launchers up and running and get the CM and a few other modules in orbit... ie. the basic CEV backbone. <br /><br />No "off-world" lander/surface operations would be involved. As those responsible for that would be busy preparing for lunar landings (circa 2020).<br /><br /><b>NASA CEV-dev schedule:</b><br /><br />2006–2007 — Engineering review of selected CEV design <br />2009 (April) — First suborbital flight of a CEV-mock-up <br />2009 (May) — AA-1 unmanned ascent abort system test (transonic) <br />2010 (August) — AA-2 unmanned ascent abort system test (Max Q) <br />2011 (February) — AA-3 unmanned ascent abort system test (low-altitude) <br />2011 (September) — AA-4 unmanned ascent abort system test (high altitude) <br />2012 — First unmanned flight of CEV in Earth orbit.[25] <br />2014 (September) — First manned flight of CEV in Earth orbit. <br />2015–2018 — First unmanned flight of Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM). <br />2016–2018 — First manned flight of LSAM. <br />2020 — First manned lunar landing with CEV/LSAM system. <br />2020 — Start of planning for Mars missions <br /><br /><br />* So these missions discussed in this thread would happen between 2015 and 2020.<br /><br />

 

[dreada5]

In terms of module requirements - in another thread <b>kadetken</b> posted the following mission scenarios. Block 2 CEV would need have the correct modules to support this:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br /><b> Re: Wow ! "Space Station L-1" ! What do you think of this? [re: nacnud][link to this post] </b><br /> <br /><br /><br />Good points, but a good early mission for the CEV is a shakedown cruise to EML-1. While there it could drop off an instrument package designed to look for Sunward NEOs. <br /><br />It would be up out of the clutter of cis-GEO space, and could take nice long looks for the blindsiders coming out at us from their passage 'round the Sun. <br /><br />Later you add more instruments. Drop off a Bigelow Nautilus. Maybe leave some tanks of water and solar panels. <br /><br />Work up from there. It's not only a good spot to service SEL-1 & 2 instruments, but also a good place to launch low energy free-flyer platforms on long, slow production runs. Free-flyer platforms can also be placed in halo orbits around EML-1 for more ready access. An EML-1 facility is also a good place to study the longer-term effects of deeper-space exposure, not just on people but on materials as well. <br /><br />And of course it offers access to -anywhere- on the Moon and back for the same delta-V (a little over 5 km/s, IIRC). <br /><br />EML-1 is just ripe with possibilities for business, from selling the NEO data collected from the scopes, to leasing space on free-flyers, to freight forwarding and logistics services, to GEO sat emplacement/repair/servicing/refuel/removal services, to fueling facilities, to construction platform for the first crewed vessel to Mars (EML-1 is, after all, the lowest delta-V launch point to deep space escape from cislunar space [less than 150 m/s IIRC]). <br /><br />And half the world would be able to look up in the sky and see it leave... <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /> <br /> http://uplink.space.com</safety_wrapper

 

[soccerguy789]

Mars direct is an architecture, not a timetable. true, it is greared toward gretting to mars now, but then agian, it was hoped origonally to be there in 2010.<br /><br />Mars Semi Direct is a version of Mars direct which allows fro a slightly larger crew (5-6) than Mars Direct (4) and involves more equipment, but alsois far more feasable, and as I've seen, it syncs with CEV architecture rather well. The CEV is a long term design. It's essentially designed to do anything we'll need it to do for the next 20 or so years. that includes it,. and other parts of the Orion system being used in Mars missions.<br /><br />Also, one thing that I appreciate about Zubrin's plan is that it is surprisingly resiliant. the number of habitable volumes on the surface is astounding, as is the number of power sources, and the sheer amount of supplies that make it to the surface.<br /><br />Compaired to the 90-day-report and similar "super-ship" designs, the brilliance of mars direct and semi-direct lie in it's simplicity. It provides an amazing amount of surface time and crew space and supplies, in an astoundingly efficient package. So efficient, in fact, that it can be done with chemical rockets with very little trouble. the aries HLV should be all we need launch vehicle wise.<br /><br />Now look at Nasa's planned lunar mission frequency. Last I heard, they were gonna try for 2/year. now, that equates to 4 every two years. considering the Mars mission launch envelope, you could launch consistent Mars missions and have crew rotations on a long term lunar base wihtout any additional lauches added to that kind of schedule! Throw in the use of the Dragon capsule to visit the space station, and we could be running up to Three seperate scientific missions at 1 with now extra launches. That is why i like this architecture, it looks like it will work, and is very very near-term and reasonable. Thank Zubrin.

 

[john_316]

The task of building it would the Dept of Energy and possibly the US Navy as back when they threw some money at they where working together on the project with Boeing prior to the delay/cancellation of JIMO.<br /><br />However they could build the Snap reactors in no time and I think that a solid core nuclear rocket could be built with current funding within the 15 year time frame they set up with the money appropriated to the DOE's work.<br /><br />As mentioned with Block 1, 2, and 3. I can see that since the program is in spirals and phases that the Orion itsself can be enlarged as well. I guess even a 100 ton orion could be built for the Ares-V but I doubt that.<br /><br />If the mission is a small package it has to have redundancy especially for the crew safety and as proposed would all be small manned missions under 6 crew.<br /><br />I personally feel that if we plan to go and stay to make it a larger crew and committed to that rather than just plant a flag and come home.<br /><br />I still have some questions about Orion in the long run but I think they will solve many of those problems with the methane rockets or if my knowledge is correct that the Orion capsule will never reach the surface of Mars. Thats my opinion but I think I am right here. The Mars Lander will be another craft and I think it will be based on the DC-X or the Goddard type craft. <br /><br />Also remember project Constellation will change in 10 years as well. It won't be the same. It may have more funding or it might get less. Its hard to say.<br /><br /><br />I think the block 3 Orion Capsule may be in truth a Command Module that is more earth-mars on the Transit Craft but not part of the landing package.<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Also remember project Constellation will change in 10 years as well. It won't be the same. It may have more funding or it might get less. Its hard to say. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's true. And as I said configuration of interplanetary Block 2 vehicle is partly just an educated guess at this point. The only thing we can see with any certainty is probably Block 1 (ie. Orion to ISS missions).