CEV? Shuttle Stack?

[john_316]

Ok... I know more outlandish forces at work...<br /><br />Ok How about this for ideas....<br /><br /><br /><br />CEV Spiral 1:<br />Crew 4 minimum 6 maximum. Size longer length and breadth than the apollo CM and CSM but lighter with more habitation space and better systems (aka more robust).<br /><br />Can/Will launch with 5 meter faring on the Delta IV Heavy and Atlas 5 Heavy.<br /><br />Optional: Launch on a Titan IVB Heavy with 5 Meter faring.<br /><br />Optional: Launch on a STS Stack. x1 modified ET with twin RS-68 motors, x2 5seg SRBs, or x1 ET with twin expendible RS-68 motors on a new cannister (like Shuttle-C) in lieu of Shuttle.<br /><br /><br />CEV: Spiral 2<br />CEV can only be launched on a HLV such as Magnum or STS-2. The CEV is launched unmanned and is also the landing craft for the Mars Mission. It itself must also mate and carry added fuel and supplies from another STS-2 launch.<br /><br /><br /><br />CEV's first manned capsule/module should be built in numbers. A minimum of 10 CM can be built for around less than 15 million each. Ok maybe the price of an F-16 or less which is what.... About 15 million or so...<br /><br />Anyways I can't see why NASA needs so much time to develop the first CEV. It should be built to be upgradeable and reusable and either built as a capsule or like the X-38/X-37 liftybody style but a lil bit larger.<br /><br />I think you could add a parafoil to a capsule too though it would look funky right...<br /><br /><br />Several capsules could have been built in the last 2 years if they would have took this stuff seriously. They could have diverted 30-50 million to build an augumented rescue craft not associated with the CEV program to be launched on the Titan, Delta, or Atlas heavy Launchers. But did they do this? No. Did they prepose this. I highly doubt they did as well...<br /><br /><br />So we have to wait till summer before the designs start coming in right? Or is in another 2-5 years before we see anything in the progress of CEV.<br /><br /><br />I hat

 

[space_dreamer]

Hi john_316,<br /><br />Yes I agree with you that 10years till the first man flight (2004-2014) of the CEV is far too long. <br /><br />The boiler plate fly off is in 2008 so first manned flight should be 2010. After all the plan is to improve and evolve the CEV with each one they build anyway. <br /><br />Buy 2014 Russia's Clipper will be flying and will be much cheaper than the CEV. <br />The Chiense manned space program will be mature.<br /><br />The winner of the bigalow prize will be flying to private space hotels. Hopefully Armadillo Aerospace, Scaled Composites, Xcor, Starchaser etc.. Will have presents in Low Earth orbit as well!<br /><br />I think buy 2014 the CEV could be too little to late… <br />

 

[space_dreamer]

Hi Shuttle Guy,<br /><br /><br />As there is a back log of ISS components to be lunched from the cape. The holed up this time is the shuttle flights, (rather than then Russians being short of cash or behind with a module). <br /><br />As you said there will be three flights in 2005 the first two will check out the new safety upgrades then the flight in December will get back to ISS construction.<br /><br />My question is this, with only three shuttles and only being able to launch at night what would be the highest possible flight rate? <br /><br />If NASA had a bit more money and the political will was there, would a flight rate of 8+ flights a year be possible? <br /><br />My thinking being that the sooner the ISS is finished then shuttle the budget can be redirected to going back to the moon. If it could be finished even one year early then 4 billon more could go into the CEV/ moon budget.<br />

 

[najab]

><i>...with only three shuttles and only being able to launch at night what would be the highest possible flight rate?</i><p>I know you meant "with <b>not</b> being able to launch at night".<p>If the night launch restriction isn't lifted, don't expect more than 3, maybe 4 launches per year. Don't forget, there are 3 variables that have to line up perfectly: the ISS plane has to be passing directly over KSC (limits you to one or two 5 minutes launch windows per day) there has to be daylight from liftoff to ET sep (which means the launch window has to fall within a 4-5 hour time block every day) and the Sun-angle on the Station must be within constraints (which means there are 1-3 month periods when you can't launch to Station).<p>I'd have to go look it up, but for 2005 there were only 4 available launch periods, and I'm fairly sure I read somewhere that in 2006 there would only be 3.</p></p></p>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Don't forget, there are 3 variables that have to line up perfectly..."</font><br /><br />Going from memory (always fallable) -- isn't there a fourth restriction on the launch window such that the shuttle has to rendevous with the ISS in daylight as well?

 

[najab]

><i>...isn't there a fourth restriction on the launch window such that the shuttle has to rendevous with the ISS in daylight as well?</i><p>Fortunately that's not a constraint on the launch since it is easy to achieve by delaying the rendezvous by half an orbit.</p>

 

[space_dreamer]

"The number of MLPs (3) restrict our max launch rate to 12 per year"<br /><br />Wow, so In THEORY it would be possable to finnish the non-russan part of the ISS in 2008 ! The shuttle program could end mid2008 leaving about 10 billon dollars extra for the CEV return to the moon!! <br /><br />(I know this is unlikey and I'm being impatient) but hey, I just wont man to go farther than LEO!

 

[najab]

><i>I just want to point out that we can not launch to the ISS when it is on a descending orbital node due to folks not liking us to drop SRB's on them.</i><p>Hmm...if you <b>did</b> launch on a descending node (just as a thought experiment) to get a 51 degree orbit would require a launch azimuth something like 146 degrees, right? The SRB's land about 160 miles downrange, that puts us somewhere in the vicinity of Great Bahama Island. *ooh* Not good.<p>Now, where would the ET land?</p></p>

 

[scottb50]

That would probably not go over very well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>