CEV may be UNNECESSARY for moon missions!

gaetanomarano · Dec 11, 2005

"...many professional engineers would tell him is full of holes..." the MAIN purpose of engineers is to FILL thousands holes of complex projects! "...a COMPLETE alternative to ESAS with no CEV..." building a 4xCEV/SM (without the DEAD-WEIGHT of a six-seats CEV) and launch it with a ready available and cheap rockets (without the expensive and, to-day, unexisting CLV) will NOT change NOTHING of main ESAS architecture!!! ...it only help ESAS to happen YEARS before planned, cost LESS and make 50% more (and more mass/volume efficient) missions!!! do you not like to have MORE for LESS and QUICKLY???????

gaetanomarano · Dec 11, 2005

"...panoply of stations: equatorial, 28.5, 51.6 and low Lunar orbit..." multiply my idea by 10, 100, 1000 is only "another way" to demnostrate that it is too complex and too expensive... then, impossible... so, the "only way" is CEV... etc. etc. etc. I don't suggest to build dozens space stations or complex multi vehicles, multi countries, multi launch pads projects, with space hotels, etc. I only suggest to use two low cost Shenzhou or a 4xCEV launched with low cost and ready available rockets to SPEED UP all plans, SAVE giant quantities of money (that can be used for more or different space projects) and LEAVE ON EARTH the DEAD-WEIGHT of a six-seats CEV-limousine ...a giant DEAD-WEIGHT that need OTHER giant (and VERY expensive) DEAD-WEIGHTS to launch it from earth (with a TWICE dimensions monster-rocket), enter the lunar orbit (with more LSAM fuel) and come back to earth (with a TWICE dimension SM)... my idea is to TRASFER all these GIANT (useless and unused) DEAD-WEIGHTS to LSAM, etc. as already explained in my previous posts why do you want to spend MORE TIME and MORE MONEY for LESS VEHICLES and LESS MISSIONS????

kdavis007 · Dec 11, 2005

Yawn!!!!

Swampcat · Dec 11, 2005

"sorry, but probably YOU don't have idea of what you're talking about! Perhaps I don't, but since you don't listen to those who do know what they're talking about, I figure you've lumped me in with some good company, so I consider that a compliment <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />. "please, LEARN more, READ more and... THINK more... before talk about it!" Back at you, Dude. Volume of thinking time does not equal credibility. You obviously spend a lot of time thinking up fantasies. I prefer to spend my thinking time in reality. I'm not going to waste my time nitpicking the rest of your ramblings since I'd just be talking to a wall. I'm just going to say that there are important things you do not consider in your proposals and then you get defensive when someone points them out. That's not very constructive. You think you have all the answers. That's arrogance. And your continued sarcastic references to CEV and other things is rather annoying. Oh, one other thing... You keep opining that it's wasteful and inefficient to send a lot of mass to the Moon and proposing cheap and efficient solutions. I want you to tell us all what kind of activities can be performed on the Moon in your cheap, efficient architecture. Are you going to have rovers, habitats, supplies, experiments, enough people to get some work done? You know those things have mass and that mass needs to be delivered to the Lunar surface. Or are you proposing to simply send two people to the surface for a little walkabout? How are you going to convince the US, Chinese and Russian authorities to cooperate with your scheme and have all this happen quicker and cheaper than the ESAS timeline? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

Swampcat · Dec 11, 2005

"Yawn!!!!" I agree. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

gaetanomarano · Dec 11, 2005

sorry, but I yawn reading only of CEV and Kliper mockups... again and again and again... for the next 8-10 years... "think different" is the only way to don't put my mind to a vegetative stage!

gaetanomarano · Dec 11, 2005

"...what kind of activities can be performed on the Moon..." lots of people here sustain that on the moon there are lots of things to do for years with manned mission with a 125 tons payload HLV it's CLEAR (and simple to calculate) that, if CEV/SM is little, LSAM may be 8+ tons heavier, so, astronauts may explore moon three weeks with twice hardware and experiments!!! now, cargo-bay of manned LSAM is planned for 2.2 tons only... with my idea (little CEV or Shenzhou) may be TWICE or more (+ the extra fuel to land extra weight) I think that this is a GIANT advantage if you want manned exploration of the moon! with a 4x CEV you save time and money... that mean... first moon mission 3-5 year before than planned... and... 50% more missions but, do you REALLY want more moon exploration... or only a big-CEV to build?

gaetanomarano · Dec 11, 2005

"...sarcastic..." the FIRST day [the FIRST day (the FIRST day!)] I've seen on TV the "new" NASA plan to abandon the multifunction-super-space-truck-Shuttle (instead of build a new, safer, cheaper and easierversions) to "remake" the Apollo (with another SaturnV, another little capsule, another LEM, another LEMrover, another moon laser-reflector, etc.) I've found it so INCREDIBLE that I was literally "without words"!!! it don't appear in my mind like an "advanced scientific space mission" but like a MOVIE... it appear to me like a Spielberg's or Howard's "remake" of an old movie... but with to-day's Special Effects, Dolby Surround, 16:9, hi-res TV, BluRay DVD, etc... another "Apollo13" or "War of Worlds"... not a serious plan of a serious and glorious space agency! then... I'm sorry... but... when I talk about CEV... I don't resist to be sarcastic...

ve7rkt · Dec 11, 2005

in the Apollo missions the SM engine and propellant was used to enter in lunar orbit the ENTIRE CM/SM/LM weight Come again? The Apollo CM/SM/LM were pushed out of LEO and towards the Moon by the Saturn IV-B (the top stage of the Saturn V). The SM's engine parked the stack in Lunar orbit and sent the CM/SM back home. So, in your plan, just to clarify, what will push the LSAM/2Shenzhou stack out of Earth orbit?

gaetanomarano · Dec 11, 2005

probably you think that is useless and annoing to talk about different CEV, different archirectures, etc... please see these images on astronautix: www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zaplemev.jpg www.astronautix.com/graphics/a/apoalt.jpg now, CEV, Kliper, LSAM, etc. are ONLY some ugly "mockups" and computer's simulations... they may (and WILL) change DOZENS times in DOZENS different ways before first real flight... so, talk about BETTER versions is NOT useless!

Swampcat · Dec 11, 2005

"with a 125 tons payload HLV it's CLEAR..." Well, now you're being inconsistent. Earlier, you were pointing out that smaller, existing launchers should be used so the money spent on bigger launchers could be put elsewhere. Now you want to use the HLV to launch a bigger LSAM with more stuff onboard. Huh? "it don't appear in my mind like an "advanced scientific space mission" but like a MOVIE... it appear to me like a Spielberg's or Howard's "remake" of an old movie... but with to-day's Special Effects, Dolby Surround, 16:9, hi-res TV, BluRay DVD, etc... another "Apollo13" or "War of Worlds"... not a serious plan of a serious and glorious space agency!" In that case, you are showing your ignorance again. Read up on the specs. The CEV bears only a superficial resemblance to Apollo. It'll be bigger, carry more gear, more people and be built with 21st Century technology, not 1960's technology. Again [AGAIN (AGAIN!)] you're letting your arrogance get in the way of learning something. "then... I'm sorry... but... when I talk about CEV... I don't resist to be sarcastic..." OK. I'm going to admit to using an inappropriate word. I should have said "your 'derogatory' references to CEV." My point still stands. Your use of that kind of language is annoying [ANNOYING (ANNOYING!)]. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

gaetanomarano · Dec 11, 2005

"...pushed out of LEO and towards the Moon by the Saturn IV-B..." of course... if you read my previous posts you may see that "my plan" INCLUDE the giant trans lunar injection booster launched with the 125 tons SDLV to send LSAM+CEV or LSAM+shenzhou toward moon I talk about "enter lunar orbit" with Apollo SM engine braking when Apollo-system was at its maximum total mass of 45 tons (to avoid continue its travel toward deep space...)

Swampcat · Dec 11, 2005

"probably you think that is useless and annoing to talk about different CEV, different archirectures, etc..." I don't know who this post is addressed to, but since you are replying to yourself it must be that you are, as so often is the case, talking to yourself <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />. I don't consider it useless and annoying to "discuss" these things, but this is not a discussion. This is you explaining your fantasies. A simple link to your website would suffice for that. We don't need post after post of you arrogantly claiming that the CEV is stupid and you have a better idea and nobody else's opinion or the facts are going to matter to you. You say you invite talk, but to what end? So you can ramble on some more or casually dismiss pertinent points? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

gaetanomarano · Dec 11, 2005

"...pointing out that smaller, existing launchers should be used..." the giant saving must be made on the CEV/CLV since, despite their dimension, may be VERY expensive because the planned CEV don't fit to-day's rocket's payload but need a new rocket if you read my previous posts you can see that a little CEV may cost 1/3 of a big CEV... FIRST because a 10 tons CEV may be launched NOW (not in 2015...) with a ready available mid-rocket for a cost around $150 million only!!! unfortunately, the same saving can't be made with LSAM launcher, because LSAM and trans lunar injection booster are too heavy, but, a good choice is to TRANSFER to LSAM the weight saved with a little CEV PLEASE, MAKE ATTENTION HERE: in my plan, SDLV remain the same, but LSAM moon autonomy may be THREE times to-day's NASA plan... THREE TIMES is like THREE "ONE WEEK" MISSIONS... then, with my idea... NASA will spend the same amount of money, but will have THREE MISSIONS IN ONE!!!!!!!! SAME MONEY, TRIPLE TIME ON THE MOON, THEN, TRIPLE SCIENTIFIC RESULTS = GIANT SAVING!!! "...bears only a superficial resemblance to Apollo..." of course... the new Apollo will be better and advanced... but I exactly talk about VSE-moon plan "resemblance"... "...annoing..." yes, annoing... but TRUE

gaetanomarano · Dec 11, 2005

probably an LSAM with a Shenzhou may remain a fantasy (FIRST for political reasons!) but a little CEV may be not so impossible now CEV is only a mockup.. probably it will remain like now... but may change... or may have different versions... if you've read my previous posts probably you may agree with me that a little CEV may have some advantages (no matter if NASA will build it or not...)

gaetanomarano · Dec 11, 2005

"...said in previous post that the 125 ton-payload HLV..." where? I've never talk about SDLV since I think that, unfortunately, this giant rocket is INDISPENSABLE to launch the big LSAM and trans lunar injection booster all my posts are about the useless and expensive bigCEV+bigCLV... this is a waste of money because a six-seats CEV is unnecessary for 3/4 astronauts missions a 4x, 4 mt., 10-12 tons CEV/SM can be launched NOW with a ready available $150 million rocket with a GIANT saving of time and money the weight saved with a little CEV/SM (about 8 tons) may be used to have a better LSAM with three times life support and three times moon hardware, so, each moon missions willl "produce" the same scientific results of THREE "one week" missions THREE MISSION IN ONE!!! then.... THREE MISSIONS FOR THE PRICE OF ONE!!!!

ve7rkt · Dec 11, 2005

It used to be said that the ISS required 2.5 crewmembers' worth of work to keep it running, which mean that with a 3 man crew, only half of one person's worth of time was actually spent on science. If that's true, I'm not sure how they've managed to keep the thing from falling apart with only two crew. But anyhow, it tells you that there will be a basic minimum of effort required just to live there, regardless of how many people you've got. Everything below this point uses made-up numbers. It is not a proof, it's a demonstration for the purpose of discussion. Let's say it takes two people to maintain the LSAM and return ship(s). On a six man crew, you get two people doing maintenance and four people doing science, for one week. Four person-weeks of science, for six person-weeks of life support. On a four man crew, you get two people doing maintenance and two people doing science, for three weeks. Six person-weeks of science. That's only 50% more work done, even though you had to bring twice the life support gear (4 crew * 3 weeks = 12 person-weeks) and design the LSAM to last three times as long (more fuel to ensure you still have enough to get home after three weeks of boiloff, bigger electricity source, etc.) What I'm trying to say is, whatever the actual numbers, the increase in productivity may not be as great as you think.

gaetanomarano · Dec 11, 2005

NASA claims that early moon mission will be one week but after and "x" number of missions they may be longer (many weeks of months), then, they think it's possible for crews to work on the moon much more than a week, also, when will be a lunar base, crews moonworking will be very much long with my idea, some long missions (two-three times than planned to-day) may happen also in early flights, with a giant saving and more exploration! make 20 "one week" missions instead of 10 "three weeks" missions is very good only for NASA contractors...

gaetanomarano · Dec 12, 2005

1. to-day's vehicles are made better than apollo 13 2. the "single in line" vehicle (apollo13) mean 100% failure with SM explosion, the "dual in line" mean 50% --OR-- 100% failure in the extreme case 3. the LSAM will have both life support (like apollo13 LEM) --AND-- autonomous engine and fuel for lunar orbit entry 4. the apollo13 crew was saved with capsule and LEM, not with one (or two) intact SM then... with LSAM and TWO capsules crews' safety will be ENHANCED

subzero788 · Dec 12, 2005

oh my god the CEV is unneccesary for moon missions?!?! This is terrible, NASA should instantly stop developing it and do exactly what gaetanomarano is saying!! why wont nasa listen?! WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!! *for the blind, please note the use of sarcasim in this post

gaetanomarano · Dec 12, 2005

the "CEV-killer" will be ITSELF CEV-lovers forget that we are in a global market a Soyuz launch costs $80 million a Shenzhou launch costs $110 million CEV don't exist and will not exist for 8+ years when it will exist, each orbital (3/4 seats) launch will cost over $1 billion, or twice if USA will withdraw from ISS in 2016 probably NASA will use the CEV for its own launches (3 test, 12 moon, 5-10 orbital) despite its very high cost, but I don't think will find so much countries, space agencies, companies and "tourists" that will buy orbital flights at $250+ million per seat! *for the blind... NO sarcasm in this post

mattblack · Dec 12, 2005

Gaeto needs to get it through his King Kong THICK skull that the CEV is necessary, is going ahead, he CAN'T stop it and although not perfect (neither was Mercury, Gemini, Apollo CSM & LM, Skylab, Shuttle, Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz) is the best vehicle for the job. He's b1tching about the "excessive" (??!!!) size of the CEV, like it's a bad thing to be able to carry only one less crew person than the Shuttle with MORE safety!! There'd be no point sizing one CEV for 4, then making another for 6. That's just dopey!! To underline my point to the part that cannot be argued with: The Soyuz can carry 1, 2 or 3 people. There'd be NO POINT complaining that it can carry 3 people if all you really needed it for was 2x people missions!! You've got to have the flexibility and capability for more crew and cargo!! It's a FACT that next to the Shuttle, the CEV will have the largest up/down capability. Complaining that it's not as good as the Shuttle is pointless, just as its pointless complaining its BETTER than a Soyuz, Shenzhou OR Apollo CSM!! I just can't get my head around his obssessive-compulsive rambling in this and other threads, so I wont try to anymore. If he wanted a fairly technically feasible alternative why doesn't he promote this: http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=media_gallery.viewalbum&albumid=EB16F697-96B6-175C-96CF328B2D46B0CD Here's how I KNOW the CEV is going to get built and that Mike Griffin and Scott Horowitz know better than poor, neglected Gaeto. All you have to do is READ their qualifications and it will all become apparent: http://www.andrews-space.com/content-main.php?subsection=MTk4 http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlight</safety_wrapper <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>

gaetanomarano · Dec 12, 2005

I give only my opinions... I can't "stop" nothing, of course I only suggest to build a 4x CEV instead of the 6x limousine NASA can build the 6x CEV or not, but, if build it, it will be very expensive and poor used the "CEV killer" will be ITSELF (due to its own very high costs, like Apollo, SaturnV, half-ISS, Shuttles, etc.) in 2020 the 6x CEV will be only another "good argument" for Griffin's successor interviews (about "past NASA's mistakes"...) the very expensive 6x CEV is simply unnecessary for both ISS and moon missions it can be used only as ISS' rescue capsule (a job that can be made with two Soyuz or two 4x CEV = 8 astronauts) and for "mars" unfortunately, mars mission will happen in 2040, 2050, etc. don't give links to me, I don't want and don't need to "promote" NOTHING I'm independend, my mind is independend, I'm not "paid" (....) from CEV's or spaceplanes' contractors to sustain that some things are better than other or post insults and angry comments to all peoples that have different opinions I write only about MY opinions

mattblack · Dec 12, 2005

GAHH!!! (sound of frustration over masochistically breaking my own new forum participation rules). />>Read my posts, Gaeto, PLEASE read them, as I've sometimes forced myself to read your ones that are ten-times LONGER than mine...<< **You provide links: I provide links, no one is holding a gun to your head to read them, it's a (mostly) free forum. And besides, buddy, If you're too AFRAID to read them in case you are proven wrong or you might learn something: NOT.MY.PROBLEM. AND I AINT PAID BY NO-ONE, to "promote" the CEV. In fact, a little like you, I think that other ways for crew to ISS would be cheaper. T-Space's CXV or ESA's manned ATV derivative MIGHT be a better ISS up/down crew transport than CEV, if only for the costs, as you say. But don't get too comfortable: just because we're in agreement over something, doesn't, COULDN'T be everything. As far as Nasa would be concerned, they'd like to put especially cargo out to tender. MIGHT happen!! CEV can do BOTH 4 or 6 people!! Read my post again and UNDERSTAND!!! My Mazda car can carry five people, but it rarely carries more than two: My Wife and I! Because it is a hatchback, it can function as a mini-station wagon, though it hardly ever does.... But it CAN and I like having the capacity just in case. The CEV can carry 3,4,5,6 or NO crew (just cargo), depending on the />MISSION REQUIREMENTS<. It is NOT a bloody stretch limousine: it is a manned spacecraft (design), and just like Soyuz or Shenzhou don't always carry three people, it wont always have to be loaded with 6 crew. But it will be loaded with SOMETHING, always. The lunar LSAM is sized for FOUR people, that's WHY the CEV will carry four. It was decided long ago by people FAR smarter than you or I that six crew would be optimum for a Mars mission, with four as a minimum. However: THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP NASA FROM ONLY USING FOUR CREW MEMBERS FOR A MARS MISSION. IF YOU WERE TO DESIGN A 4 <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>

holmec · Dec 12, 2005

Hey you dont have to use a return vehicle at all if the astornauts live out their days on the moon!......wth <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

CEV may be UNNECESSARY for moon missions!

gaetanomarano

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

kdavis007

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

ve7rkt

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

ve7rkt

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

subzero788

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

mattblack

Guest

gaetanomarano

Guest

mattblack

Guest

holmec

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page