CEV down select is near, wanna guess?

gunsandrockets · Aug 30, 2006

"Anybody have a good set of reasons why one proposal is better than the other?" Judging from recent years of Boeing mis-management I'd give the edge to Lockheed.

JonClarke · Aug 30, 2006

"So Orion is only relevant to LEO, moon missions and will only be used for return from LEO on Mars missions? Sure sounds like it.' No. The "pretty stressing requirements" for the CEV implies something more demanding than returning from a trans lunar trajectory, like a return from Mars. This is consistent with what little was said about Mars missions in the original ESAS document where the CEV ferries the crew to the Mars bound spacecraft, travels to and from Mars with them, and then is used for the final return to Earth. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

tomnackid · Aug 30, 2006

So Orion is only relevant to LEO, moon missions and will only be used for return from LEO on Mars missions? Sure sounds like it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No, the CEV will be used to reenter earth's atmosphere from a mars return trajectory not LEO. This will save having to carry enough fuel to slow the whole mars return stack down enough to rendezvous with a ferry in earth orbit.

holmec · Aug 30, 2006

>Oh that's right: because it doesn't have a pair of wings to use for a FEW MINUTES at the end of a 2 week (or more) mission. Geez, man; change the record why don't ya??!! LEO is a Prison; it's time for a Jailbreak!!< I agree. CEV is supposed to be a work horse, not a sports car or a rolls royce. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

holmec · Aug 30, 2006

I'll take NG and Boeing. Mostly because I hear that Boeing is stopping production on the C-17 here in St Louis. So I'm guessing that they could really use the contract. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

j05h · Aug 30, 2006

> Fact is I want to have a flying car and a big screen TV that roles up like a poster and safe, clean, cheap energy...oh well. The difference between a flying car and ticket to space is that with $20 Million you can buy that ride to space. There is a proven market for space tourism. Nobody has succeeded in producing a flying car, but your roll-up TV is only a few years away. /> NASA isn't in the paying passenger business anymore than the US Air Force or Navy is. I know that, which is why CEV is so... boring. The jet engines that the Air Force perfected (but didn't invent) have helped civilian aviation immensely. NASA's only recent contribution to private spaceflight has been licensing TransHab to Bigelow. I don't want to "fly to Europe in an F-15", however it is entirely reasonable to use a 747 to do so. There is nothing crazy about expecting the same from Boeing and other companies for spaceflight, except for the past 30 years of stagnation. At least the Energia forged their Cold War systems into something that makes hard cash - again this is the equivalent of Boeing opening a spaceline, not NASA. NASA should be insisting the CEV architecture be part of a commercially available system. I think the VSE is great, but the current plan is going to render it unaffordable. I'm concerned that NASA is marginalizing itself by sticking to Socialism. Get with the 21st Century. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

nyarlathotep · Aug 30, 2006

>"No. The "pretty stressing requirements" for the CEV implies something more demanding than returning from a trans lunar trajectory, like a return from Mars." A return from Mars isn't happening before 2030. Wouldn't we be much better off designing a brand new vehicle using all the knowlege gained from 25 years of materials science research over that time? Hell, we'll probably have dirt cheap carbon nanotube composite tanks and pressure fed SSTO vehicles by then. Why the hell does NASA think it will be allowed to continue to use monstrously expensive steel cased solids?

frodo1008 · Aug 30, 2006

As for Boeing mismanagement, they certainly seem to be able to increase their stock value by very large amounts! And THAT is the only management that really counts with the stockholders (who also happen to be American taxpayers). And for those that would move the eventual commercialization of space forward, what do they think that the largest COMMERCIAL aircraft amnufarturer in the world is doing, if not making commercial aricraft? If Boeing even thought (and I am certain that they keep their fingers on the pulse here) that there was going to be a real commercial business in designing and building needed craft to place people into space in a large way, they would be already building such craft right this minute! But what all these people that are so for such commercialization don't seem to realize is that it is PROFITS that drive such efforts! And right now there really is either no or very little profits to be made here! When such profits appear I can bet that Boeing will indeed be right there! In the meantime, I am more than happy with NASA's "Corporate Welfare" programs! At the very least this employs tens of thousands of good American middle class aerospace workers! Is it better to have "Iraqi Welfare"? I do have a tendency to get disgusted at the ignorance and stupidity sometimes even shown on this forum, let alone the downright insanity over on free space! The "lets NUKE an entire nation to stop said nation from gaining NUKES!" types! They abandon reason as well as logic over there! Please people take a little time to think before posting! In the meantime, do "Live Long and Prosper!"

nyarlathotep · Aug 30, 2006

>"But what all these people that are so for such commercialization don't seem to realize is that it is PROFITS that drive such efforts! And right now there really is either no or very little profits to be made here!" Primarily because NASA refuses to contract out launch services to private vendors. If NASA announced tomorrow that they would immediately make available $5B per year for the purchase of American commercial launch services, Lockheed and Boeing would start cranking out cores and have a capsule built to throw ontop of them by the end of next year. Hell, Gemini only took two and a half years to develop from scratch, and that was early 60's technology. With that sort of market I'm sure that Musk and every other Newspace company in the country would get enough venture capital to get something built damn quick too.

j05h · Aug 30, 2006

> Primarily because NASA refuses to contract out launch services to private vendors. I am more concerned with seeing private companies develop privately-needed space applications than with NASA contracts. Don't get me wrong, COTS is the single best HSF program at NASA in the past few decades. I'm not against NASA helping to grow NewSpace. The real "market" of it is going to come with consumer and company level products that have real use and paying users. I write this somewhat hypocritcally as one of my projects, if flown, will compete for the Solar Sail prize. NewSpace, taken as an overall concept, should not just engender a new set of defense contractors, otherwise none of us will get to fly. I'm glad SpaceX got a chunk of COT$, but notice that Elon has been up-front about his goals from the start, and that involves civilian spaceflight. I still don't understand why Boeing or Lockmart aren't interested in creating a spaceline. Either could have been first with modest internal investment over last several decades. They knew this market was emerging and failed to act. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

tomnackid · Aug 30, 2006

NASA has paid a private company to launch the space shuttle for close to 20 years now. They have bought EELVs from Boeing and Lock Mart for unmanned laucnhes for over a decade. Check your facts.

nyarlathotep · Aug 30, 2006

Bull excrement! NASA has mandated that all their spaceflight missions not outside of LEO be monopolised on their precious STS and given a private company a cost plus contract for maintenance.

radarredux · Aug 30, 2006

> NASA has paid a private company to launch the space shuttle for close to 20 years now./i> I think few people consider United Space Alliance a truly private company. What is needed is an opportunity for NASA to buy launch services from multiple companies, and, similarly, those companies need to be able to offer their launch services to multiple customers. Once there is a many-to-many relationship, then I think people will perceive a free market environment for launches.

vt_hokie · Aug 30, 2006

Oh that's right: because it doesn't have a pair of wings to use for a FEW MINUTES at the end of a 2 week (or more) mission. Geez, man; change the record why don't ya??!! It's a waste of money because it will be more expensive than it needs to be for the sake of preserving existing jobs. Also, it will cost far more to operate in the long run than the money saved up front by using "proven technology" and antiquated designs. And frankly, I find the CEV to be boring and uninspiring, and a sad "replacement" for the space shuttle. That's just my opinion.

geminivi · Aug 30, 2006

This COTS thing is only an experiment for the foreseeable future. Some things governments don't subcontract. Like flying F-15's, driving submarines and aircraft carriers. Its a job that for whatever reasons, governments think is too important for others to do for them. Up to know, NASA has been in the same category. COTS may change this incrementally. But not with a CEV or a EDS or a LSAM attached to their launchers. NASA, whether you love em or hate em, will be launching people in space to places that are between the Earth, Moon and hopefully Mars. The Bigelows and Rutans might get to LEO and spend a few days there, but NASA will be the only American game in town landing outside the Earth.

tomnackid · Aug 30, 2006

I think few people consider United Space Alliance a truly private company. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you consider any government contractor a "truly private" company? The fact is rabid Libertarians not withstanding there is no hard and fast line between public and private. NASA's job is to push the envelope--which means they are inherently doing things for which there are no off the shelf solutions. If they make big mistakes it is because they attempt the near impossible to begin with. All of the research done by NASA is freely available to American citizens. How many companies have taken advantage of it to build their own private space programs? Boeing and LockMart will sell you a rocket and launch services, but they are hurting for business. Bigelow is just starting to deploy his (NASA invented) modules. That's about it. Most private companies can't afford to invest in space travel because the returns are still too far in the future. Government is nothing more than people getting together to do useful things that simply can't be done by smaller groups. Its been around since language was invented. Don't fear it, use it. We are still at a very very early point in the space age. Consider how long it took to go from the first flight (I'm talking about the Montgolfier brothers not the Wright Brothers) to air travel become widespread and reasonably priced. I have spoken to a number of NASA representatives at various functions over the years and one thing they all seem to have in common is that THEY DO NOT WANT NASA TO HAVE A MONOPOLY ON SPACEFLIGHT! They DON"T want NASA doing things that can be done by commercial providers. They want NASA on the cutting edge. Unfortunately private industry has not been ready to take the chance. If you want more private spaceflight don't complain to NASA buy some stock with Boeing or LockMart then ask the board of directors why your company isn't develop

mattblack · Aug 30, 2006

>>More expensive than it needs to be<< They ALWAYS are. Especially the Shuttle. Blame the "Stick" CLV for most of that. />>Doesn't inspire<< That's your right. However: The ability to finally leave Earth Orbit for the first time since 1972. An escape system during launch for the crew. What are we missing here?? Anyway... Whatever. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

edkyle98 · Aug 30, 2006

"And for those that would move the eventual commercialization of space forward, what do they think that the largest COMMERCIAL aircraft amnufarturer in the world is doing, if not making commercial aricraft?" Airbus is still the "largest commercial aircraft manufacturer in the world". It has outdelivered Boeing for several years, including last year and through the first seven months of this year (253 planes delivered versus 225 for Boeing in 2006 through the end of July). http://za.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-08-09T084040Z_01_BAN931205_RTRIDST_0_OZABS-TRANSPORT-AIRBUS-20060809.XML Boeing has been winning a lot of orders for its yet-to-fly 787 "plastic airplane", but the company still has plenty of time to screw that project up. - Ed Kyle

radarredux · Aug 30, 2006

> Can you consider any government contractor a "truly private" company?/i> There are many truly private companies who are contractors to the government, but most are for smaller items (e.g., military clothing (sometimes made in China!)) or areas for which there is an existing large commercial market (e.g., telecom). For example, I was speaking to a Cisco person working in government relations this weekend, and she mentioned that the US Government represented less than 1% of Cisco's sales. This is why the US Government has little influence in what Cisco puts in its products. /> The fact is rabid Libertarians not withstanding there is no hard and fast line between public and private./i> It is very complex, and Boeing is a great example. In some areas (e.g., commercial airplanes) Boeing is clearly a private company that must duke it out with competitors. In other areas (e.g., EELV) it is a greyer area because the government is such a big player in the market (will there be two US EELVs, one, or a merger of ULA?). Finally, in the case of the Shuttle, there is clearly only one player (United Space Alliance) with only one customer. /> Most private companies can't afford to invest in space travel because the returns are still too far in the future./i> There is also a huge barrier to entry, namely the up front cost that the company must front before the first successful launch. Software and Internet companies can get off the ground (metaphorically speaking) with very little up front money. Rocket companies cannot. This is one reason even people who do not support ISS should at least consider supporting ISS -- it will help create a market for commercial launch services. Completing ISS and then immediately retiring the Shuttle is probably the best thing NASA could do to encou

vt_hokie · Aug 30, 2006

That's your right. However: The ability to finally leave Earth Orbit for the first time since 1972./i> With additional hardware that may or may not ever get built. CEV by itself cannot leave LEO. And even if things go as planned, the most we'll see is a couple of Apollo style flights per year at a cost of billions of dollars. Big deal. An escape system during launch for the crew. What are we missing here??/i> High flight rates. Significantly lower operational costs. An abillity to make a controlled landing instead of having crews parachute back down in a tin can 1960's style.

josh_simonson · Aug 30, 2006

Commercial human spaceflight is too high a risk and long a horizon investment for boeing or lockmart to engage in it. Instead they'll allow the startups to spend billions developing spacecraft, then when one is working well they'll either buy that company or copy them. Lockheed tried to build such a thing with venturestar, but that turned into a very expensive belly flop.

propforce · Aug 30, 2006

Probably 10% of the taxpayer dollars spent on some Atlas mission go to Russia... Hey Ed, Since you are in the insurance business, do you know what % of cost of a launch vehicle is incurred by the engines? I've been told it's approx. 30%, but figure a insurance man probably will have better data <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

propforce · Aug 30, 2006

Northrop Grumman has unfortunately associated itself with Boeing (the Boeing of grossly overbudget/behind schedule projects), so Lockheed Martin will win. OTOH, if grossly overbudget/behind schedule projects don't scare NASA, Northrop/Boeing will win. Now that's a CYA statement if I ever read one. Either way, you'll be proved correct in your prediction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

edkyle98 · Aug 30, 2006

"Hey Ed, Since you are in the insurance business, do you know what % of cost of a launch vehicle is incurred by the engines? I've been told it's approx. 30%, but figure a insurance man probably will have better data" I am frequently hired by insurance adjustors as an engineering consultant, but I'm also hired by non-insurance types so I don't think of myself as being "in" the insurance business. But I do have some numbers on hand that address your question. The answer, of course, is that it depends. Take Atlas V-401 and Delta IV Medium as examples. Scribbles in my weathered space stuff notebook tell me that an RD-180 may cost $12 million or more, an RS-68 $14 million, and an RL10 something like $6.5 million. Other notes say that an Atlas V-401 launch, including all of the launch services, costs $136 million and that a Delta IV Medium might cost about the same. For these two examples then, the main propulsion costs are roughly 14% (Atlas V) and 15% (Delta IV) of the total price. OTOH, a higher-thrust LEO version of Atlas V (402 with two RL10s) would have a propulsion cost percentage of more than 17%, while a Delta IV Heavy might be something like 20%, etc.. Solid rocket motors would also have an effect on the propulsion cost percentage. - Ed Kyle

kane007 · Aug 30, 2006

May or may not be relivant but do note the only heavies to have flown thus far is Boeings Delta IV (Partial success, only DemoSat reaching orbit). Another pro, is the RS68 is 100% American.

CEV down select is near, wanna guess?

gunsandrockets

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

holmec

Guest

holmec

Guest

j05h

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

j05h

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

nyarlathotep

Guest

radarredux

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

geminivi

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

mattblack

Guest

edkyle98

Guest

radarredux

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

propforce

Guest

propforce

Guest

edkyle98

Guest

kane007

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page