CEV Safe..Simple...Soon

[carp]

Here many answers to many questions: http://www.safesimplesoon.com/default.htm

 

[lampblack]

Ummm... I'm pretty sure that pretty close to everybody here has known about this link for eons. Some months back, there was a good bit of discussion -- mostly poking fun at how "simple" the site is, given how graphics-rich and numbers-poor it is.<br /><br />But thanks... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

ATK's SRB is the ONLY really "cheap" part of CEV/CLV "system"... unfortunately, it's is only 2% of CEV/CLV total cost...

 

[spacefire]

hey, if the CEV is that safe, and that simple, and that soon, does it mean private citizens will be able to take trips in space on it, say by 2020? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

you mean anger the dice that were thrown to decide the configuration of the VSE? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

>hey, if the CEV is that safe, and that simple, and that soon, does it mean private citizens will be able to take trips in space on it, say by 2020?<br /><br />So far, no. The CEV is baselined as another non-commercial, govt-only launch system. The cost of the system will be borne by an artificially limited pool, hence high costs in design & operations and possible cancellation. Citizens are still not going to be allowed on NASA vehicles. Citizen's choices right now are Russian Soyuz or wait for Virgin/Space-X/Bigelow. <br /><br />I actually support the Safe, Simple, Soon concept. I think it's a decent middle-ground between outright cancellation of Shuttle lines and the Shuttle-forever solution. NASA and the Air Force should have native manned spaceflight capacity. However. NASA and Boeing are really blowing an opportunity to shine. The CEV could be designed to be the DC10 of spaceflight - universal, commercially available and sourced, multiple customers - instead they are locking it into a NASA-only system. NASA threw a tantrum (don't deny it) over Dennis Tito's flight to ISS. I predict they will have similar reactions when Space-X offers to fly their capsule on an operational Falcon9. <br /><br />If Boeing had any sense at all, they would be making the CEV a universally available craft from the start. That they are still making "systems" that they operate for the government is part of their failing. Boeing should take a page from their own aircraft and treat the CEV craft as a mass-manufactured product like the 737, 747 and 7E7. <br /><br />ATK's marketting pitch is accurate, especially compared to some of the other options for reestablishing American spaceflight. The CEV project is stuck in the 20th Century way of doing things. You and I, as citizens, will not fly on CEVs, apparently. There is every chance some of "we" will fly on commercial rockets before CEV flies. I wish Dr. Griffin all the luck in pulling it off. It needs to fly. The project can produce our D <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[trailrider]

I agree that the ATK-T concept is probably the most feasible. I also would wish that whoever builds the LEO-capable CEV be allowed to offer it commercially, just as Boeing offered the KC-135 in the B707 configuration! BTW, what makes everyone think Boeing will be selected as the prime contractor? The revised RFP's haven't even been issued!<br /><br />What puzzles me is what alternative the "Apollo-on-steroids" crown can offer in "21st Century" design vs the "old 20th Century" design. Form follows function. With the funding available SSTO-reusable-to LEO is simply not presently feasible.<br /><br />I don't like solid rockets for "high-value" payloads (including human). But that is the choice now, and until we have a feasible alternative.<br /><br />Frankly, as I have said before, I don't care if NASA uses Wiley E. Coyote's Acme slingshot to get the payloads to the ISS and the Moon! As long as it is relatively safe and reliable. The commercialization could well come after the NASA contracts are fulfilled. I think (hope desperately) that the NIH thing will go away at NASA. If not, better see what dialect (Cantonese, Mandarin or Wu) you'll need to obtain a Lunar visa!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!<br />

 

[john_316]

<b> <font color="yellow">ATK's SRB is the ONLY really "cheap" part of CEV/CLV "system"... unfortunately, it's is only 2% of CEV/CLV total cost... </font> </b><br /><br /><br />Um /*Username distortion removed*/ you must have some wires crossed somewhere on the price tag there... <br /><br />Perhaps the over all cost analysis will be in the 2 digit billion range for the SRB/CEV/HLV but the ATK-SRB price tag is not 2% of the cost of the CEV....<br /><br />Your throwing out FALSE numbers....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

my name is Gaetano not "gauno"<br /><br />if you will see the end of my evaluation about CEV/CLV costs, you will discover its real price

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">BTW, a SRB runs around $40 million.</font>/i><br /><br />Got a rough estimate of the full launch cost of a CLV (minus the CEV)? That is, $40m + range costs + payload integration costs (but not the payload) + ground launch team salaries + whatever else I'm missing?</i>

 

[spacefire]

I think he meant 'guano'?!?!?<br /><br /><br />Is this proof CEV supporters can't spell? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

Hey, whats wrong with Guano? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>