CEV, going backwards one step at a time...

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">what about the moon base?</font><br /><br />It's a good question, I've been waiting for it. Someone should start a new thread on it. I'd like to see the level of interest here before I take the time to organize my thoughts on the subject.<br /><br />The short answer is that each landing leaves behind hardware and that hardware is only very loosely defined at this point in time. Also many of us expect that the difference between a NASA-only 'outpost' and a future-looking 'base' will be Commercial involvement. I'm hoping the ESAS folks are working on it right now.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Still, Rutan and those behind Russia's "Kliper" are the only spaceplane shows in town.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />What's the point of having a space<i>plane</i> if it's more expensive and less practical to develop and operate than a capsule design?<br /><br />If the Kliper can avoid cancellation, it might be a good way of orbital access. The main reason NASA don't use wings, is that their vehicle is going to the Moon. You just don't bring wings, control surfaces and landing gear along when you go to the Moon. Of course NASA could develop one design for going to the Moon, and another (winged) design for low Earth orbit, but that would have been at least twice as expensive.<br /><br />As for Rutan, he made a rocket propelled aircraft capable of a ballistic trajectory that just passed the 100km limit defined as "space". His aircraft flew 3 times, and while he could well have started taking paying passengers on board, his plane has only flown with 1 person in it. He's now gone back to the ol' drawing board trying to figure out how he can make his 6-seater safer than the rather scary ride of SpaceShipOne.<br /><br />Rutan is an innovative and clever aircraft designer, but he won't be able to put people in orbit for several decades. <br /><br />He'll probably be able to give millionaires the thrill of flying at 100.1 km altitude and a couple of minutes of weightlessness, and if he can make money from it, that's cool, but it's completely useless if we're talking about space exploration.<br /><br />NASA wants to keep carrying people into orbit. NASA wants to go to the Moon, to Mars, asteroids and so on. NASA probably wants to build several winged and wingless designs and lots of huge new rockets. They want to build a permanent Moon base, to mine the asteroids and build railways on Mars. They probably want to build a kilometre-long spacecraft to carry people to Pluto.<br /><br />But NASA faces a reality that we don't have to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

>>I just got a news alert from rocketsaway.net that Rocketplane Limited, Inc. has signed a Space Act Agreement with NASA for a loan of an RS-88 engine for 3 years<<<br /><br />Interesting news; let's see what happens. <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>

 

[mattblack]

Yup! I've said some of these things myself before, but rarely better. I'm a science fiction fan of course, but in sci-fi, your spaceships can have an unlimited budget. As most of us know, reality is showing us that budgets are tight and I for one am sick of manned interplanetary spaceflight being confined to the pages of hard science fiction novels and films.<br /><br />Let's make the good stuff REAL. <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>

 

[vt_hokie]

I guess I'm skeptical about whether the lunar flights will even happen. I think a lifting body spaceplane is the best way to go for LEO transport, and we shouldn't worry about going back to the moon before we even have a decent LEO transportation infrastructure in place. I still predict that we'll end up with the LEO version of the CEV and not much else. So, we'll have a 1960's style expendable capsule for Low Earth Orbit transportation while Russia surpasses the United States for the first time in terms of spaceflight technology with its Kliper.

 

[barf9]

Apollo left behind "hardware" too. What I really want to know is why the ISS isn't involved in any way (I'm thinking of the "2001" station as transport hub setup). I heard some talk about the fuel in the transport module boiling off to the point where mission would be scrubed if the CEV lift off was delayed. Why not launck the CEV to ISS 1st and than the HLV. Would really change the mission profile?

 

[vt_hokie]

The 51.6 degree inclination of ISS rules that out automatically.

 

[barf9]

So that makes the ISS a dead end... and means LEO is not half way to anywhere... so why do we keep building deadend systems in space? Did someone pass a law that opened ended systems are not allowed in orbit?

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>and means LEO is not half way to anywhere... </i><br /><br />No, it means don't put your space station in a high inclination orbit! Russia should plan to do more launches out of South America. As for the bigger picture, having a safe, affordable means of reaching LEO puts us a lot closer to reaching the outer reaches of the solar system!

 

[nacnud]

The ISS was designed as a science and technology experiment, not to directly support flight out of LEO.<br /><br />Wrong station, wrong orbit for the VSE but it was concived at a time when NASA was virtualy banned from thinking further than LEO.

 

[ldyaidan]

Being an Oklahoman, I'm thrilled to hear that our spaceport is doing well. I had the opportunity to work with General Edwards several years ago, through my kids' school. He is truly a remarkable man, and a driving force behind our space port. I want to wish them great luck in their adventures. Even though I haven't been able to make it to Florida, maybe I'll get to see a launch in our backyard.<br /><br />Thanks for the info, Spacester!<br /><br />Rae

 

[shoogerbrugge]

The ISS can still fit in the ESAS from my point of view. If you are dead serious about making a moon base and sticking to it. Then you'd better be sure what the effects of long space flight are on human bodies, and how to support a base of earth. The ISS is the ideal mean to gain the needed experience before going to the moon or mars. Is the ISS can't be properly maintained it spells out a bad future for a prolonged stay on the moon.

 

[tomnackid]

Everybody's overrated!! Still, Rutan and those behind Russia's "Kliper" are the only spaceplane shows in town.<br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />I would hardly call Kliper a "spaceplane". Its a capsule with a little more LD than Apollo/CEV and it won't be able to make a direct reentry from a lunar orbit. The whole winged landing version was just a marketing ploy to get ESA on board. Can you imagine trying to land a winged Kliper on a runway in Europe with no go around capability? I think it would make shuttle landing look almost sedate! Anyway the winged version will be too heavy anyway for any booster they have available in the foreseeable future. Even the parachute landing version will need a on-orbit space tug to reach ISS. Still I hope the Kliper is successful. Variety is the best way to stimulate growth and innovation. It will be interesting to see if there on-orbit tug system will lessen the long range costs of space flight.<br /><br />PS: Why hasn't anyone commented on Kliper "moving backwards". Dropping the orbital module and wings, needing an on orbit assist to reach ISS?

 

[nacnud]

Their still aiming for a runway landing with klipper. Russian Shuttle debut in 2012 [NSF]

 

[tomnackid]

Well, I hope they can pull it off! Still seems pretty dangerous at the current state of the art compared to "land almost anywhere" parchutes. Still its a capability we will want to see in the future for routine spaceflight.

 

[tomnackid]

"So that makes the ISS a dead end... and means LEO is not half way to anywhere... "<br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />I just want to comment for a second on the "LEO is halfway to anywhere." mantra that often comes up on these boards. As much as I owe Heinlien for my interest in science and space exploration that statement can be a bit misleading. Yes, its a good approximation of the situation from an energy standpoint, but that doesn't tell the whole story. <br /><br />If I want to cross a chasm I can't do by taking one jump halfway then another jump the rest of the way, even though from an energy standpoint it works out the same. Sometimes its far more practical to make the journey in one big jump as Zubrin pointed out in "Mars Direct". None of our planetary probes has had to make a orbital rendezvous--they have all been launched on direct trajectories. For some reason many still fixate on orbital rendezvous in LEO for manned missions. <br /><br />Sapce stations and orbital rendezvous were major aspect of Von Braun's plans but remember, he was envisioning rockets with much less lift capapbility and much heavier payloads (Remember computers and radios with vacuum tubes anyone?). Also he and his contemporaries could not imagine unmanned communication, weather and spy satellites. As A.C. Clarke once pointed out in the 50s the idea of electronics that could operate for decades unattended was even more astounding than orbital rockets! So Von Braun's space stations were not only way stations for spacecraft they were military outposts, weather centers, and communications hubs--filled with technicians running around replacing vacuum tubes and mechanical relays and peering through telescopes at the USSR. We (as yet) don't have a need or economic incentive to keep that many people in space. <br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

Gr8 post Tom. However, the reasoning behind putting people in LEO should be a different one:<br />The human race needs to expand and become a multi-planet species. Thus we need to learn to live in hostile environments, including outer space.<br />We need to create 'communities' there, and the ISS with only 2 occupants is not enough. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

either that, or a way for you to back your anti-ISS position without putting in the effort of writing about it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

actually I doubt it. The SSME would have been using LOX and LH2 LH2 has a very low density. Search for mlorry's early threads. They have very good actual engineering analysis of the volume and deliverable payload to orbit. Yes initial mass will go up but that doesn't mean that you can't launch within the same volume and put the same on orbit

 

[drwayne]

"actually I doubt it."<br /><br />Forgive the confusion, but what part of SG's post do you doubt?<br /><br />It is usually good form to quote what you are referring to.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[john_316]

I think the switch to the J-2S is also a logical step to open production with the J-2 again and not only have 1 but 2 second and primary stage engines to work with.<br /><br />Plus the J-2S can also be used for another spacecraft design if someone designs a new one for private industry. Hint hint Boeing Lockmart!!!<br /><br />I imagine the J-2S is further along than I thought. After all they made Aerospike engines with a couple of them. So I imagine the tooling is still around for them.<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[tomnackid]

Apparently NASA, or maybe its the contractor, has some tested J2-S engines already in storage. As much as I'd like to see an air startable SME I guess it can wait for the CLV Mark II. After all, how many of those Saturn engineers 40 years ago expected to see the engines they designed being revived for a launch vehicle in the 21st century!

 

[spacefire]

I don't believe we know yet that the J2-S is actually going to be used, rather than the J2. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

"Just read this on www.usspacenews.com <br /><br />It's Official - CLV will fly with a J2-S <br />January 25, 2006 <br />As reported by US Space News in November 2005 NASA <br />selected the J2-S rocket enginer for the CLV and HLV <br />upperstages. The J2-S is based on the proven J2 rocket <br />engine flown by NASA on the Saturn V and Saturn 1B. <br />However the J2-S variant has never flown in space. It has <br />undergone significant ground testing, live firing and <br />related engineering work (someas recent as the late <br />1990's). Several J2-S motors are in storage right now. "<br /><br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />So it looks like the J2-S is a done deal.

 

[nacnud]

Ask and astronautix delivers,<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The J-2S (J-2 Simplified) Engine was originally developed as a replacement for the J-2 Saturn vehicle upper stages, stages 2 and 3 on the Saturn V, and Stage 2 on the Saturn IB. The intent of the design changes was not only to provide performance upgrades to the engine but to greatly simplify the production and operation of the engine. The J-2S engine and components were developed between 1965 and 1972 and the effort was based on experimental engines tested between 1964 and 1968 (the J-2X engine series). The J-2S program consisted of six flight configuration engines tested at both sea level and vacuum conditions in 273 tests for a total operational experience of 30,858 seconds. At the completion of the program the engine was fully developed and ready to go into certification for flight operations.</font>