CEV was never intended to make it off the ground

[edawg]

Iv been hearing some horrible things about the Ares I CEV and how it is missing 30% of the thrust needed to get off the ground. Does any 1 have any links ?<br /><br />~Only NASA would let people forget how we went to the moon

 

[ruff_house]

I really hope that's not true.<br /><br />Especially if they let the stick, which can easily be replaced by an EELV, ground the whole constellation program.

 

[bpfeifer]

We are still in the middle of the design cycle for this vehicle. So many changes are still on the horizon, so don't count it dead yet.<br /><br />One of the things that happens is that all of the groups working on the project list off all of the equipment/systems they think are vital to the CEV. They add up the weight and, not surprisingly, it's too heavy. So everyone is sent home and told to shave x kilograms from their proposals. Then after they get the design back under the weight limit, somebody decides/realizes they need to add some other absolutely vital piece of equipment. So now it is overweight again. Then the cycle keeps repeating until they actually fly the final mission. <br /><br />The final Apollo flight, the astronauts requested removing some safety equipment so they could carry additional rock sampling equipment and extra air for a short EVA. <br /><br />There are always compromises to make when designing a space vehicle. I don't think anyone loves the CEV, but right now, it has the best chance of going into production of anything we've designed in the last 20 years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[ruff_house]

i know that there have been a lot of people angry about this, So i just want to ask the question casually to anyone who knows, and hopefully people wont get angry at me for asking or angry at the answers that we may or may not get.<br /><br />The question being: if the CEV can be placed on an EELV, and the stick is having trouble in developement, and looks to be more expensive than a comperable EELV (does it? I'd imagine it would with developement) then why are we continuing with the Stick, and at what point , if any might the decision be made to look into use of an EELV?

 

[j05h]

<i>> why are we continuing with the Stick, and at what point , if any might the decision be made to look into use of an EELV?</i><br /><br />It already happened. It was called OSP - Orbital Space Plane. Several vehicles were proposed as crew/light-cargo taxis on EELV in the early 00s with projected first flights in perhaps 2006-08. The Columbia Tragedy put a stop to development and lead to the VSE, ESAS and the Stick. <br /><br />From an informed laymen's perspective, the decision to put the Orion capsule on EELV could be made anytime. Politically it looks impossible, technically it's easier than continuing with the Stick and financially capsule-on-EELV makes the most sense.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vulture2]

The CEV and OSP were pretty similar as spacecraft, although the latter was of course designed for LEO only. The OSP management had no problems with using EELVs.<br /><br />The CEV is different in that Mike Griffin was committed to the SRB-based design well before he was chosen as the NASA administrator, whether because he really believed it was better (like the shuttle it seems to have been chosen based largely on back-of-the-envelope sketches) or for political reasons. The plans for the CEV will not change until or unless a new NASA Administrator is appointed. <br /><br />We will have to see what the next president thinks of the VSE; unlike Apollo, it is so closely identified with George Bush that the candidates have little stake in it.

 

[edawg]

shuttle_guy i heard this bit of info from some NASA buddies .We need more networking of the space community and we shouldn't let Internal NASA policy get ignored by the government we pay the taxes and everyone forgot that we the people hold the govt responsible.Look at what happened with Bush stifling NASA on global warming...and what happens if Obma becomes president?<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[edawg]

NASA gets its rudder shot off every 4yrs.If we really want to be the leader in space exploration we need to change this becasue the rest of the world is getting ready to go without us.We are on the verge of losing manned access to space for the next 5 years and the "stick" is most likely going to fail or turn into a giant multi-billion dollar fireball.Who puts a liquid rocket engine ontop of a SRB!?

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA gets its rudder shot off every 4yrs.If we really want to be the leader in space exploration we need to change this<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Doesnt it deserve to get its rudder shot off if its stuck going around in circles anyway ? I am astounded that this circus has been allowed to continue on for like 30 years already.

 

[richalex]

Ironically, I read a few articles by some Russians over on Space Daily who were fretting that the U.S. is designing new space craft, but the Russians are sticking with their decades-old designs. <br /><br />The grass is always greener...

 

[tomnackid]

<br />NASA gets its rudder shot off every 4yrs.If we really want to be the leader in space exploration we need to change this becasue the rest of the world is getting ready to go without us.We are on the verge of losing manned access to space for the next 5 years and the "stick" is most likely going to fail or turn into a giant multi-billion dollar fireball.Who puts a liquid rocket engine ontop of a SRB!? <br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Um, who actually is beating the US in space exploration? We are still the only nation to put humans on the moon and no one else is even close to duplicating that feet much less going beyond it--and that is with our example to learn from plus 30 years of advancing technology! No other nation has sent probes to the outer planets much less beyond the solar system--the US has, and it was a pectacular success. No other nation has landed rovers on Mars. The US has and they have been a spectacular success. No other country has softlanded a probe on an asteroid or impacted a comet. The US has. No other nation has an operational launch system that can launch anywhere near as much cargo or crew as the shuttle, much less bring significant amounts back to a runway landing.<br /><br />So where exactly is all this NASA bumbling that is supposedly costing us our leadership in space exploration? A little perspective people.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Ironically, I read a few articles by some Russians over on Space Daily who were fretting that the U.S. is designing new space craft, but the Russians are sticking with their decades-old designs.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's so funny. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[ruff_house]

"no one else is even close to duplicating that feet"<br /><br />Since The last moon landing, neither have we. Frankly, once the shuttle flies it's last flight, we are back on the capsule track with both Russia, and china, And during that waiting period, NASA may very well have less crew launch capability than some private industry in they US.<br /><br />I was apathetic towards the stick until about the third round of downgrading of Orion to accomodate it. I am desperate to know why this is being accepted within NASA. Are the rumors we're heariong simply not true? is it political? is there a good engineering explanation?<br /><br />The choice to refocus the space program towards putting a man on the moon and mars, (for better or worse) has at least given the space program a goal, which I beleive was the one thing they lacked most of all (save consistent funding, and political non-interfierance) I would ahte to see it delayed or canceled, espcially for somethign as stupid as someone being too stuborn to trade a flawed design from within their organization, for a proven one from the outside.

 

[nexium]

Which proven one from the outside are you thinking of? Neil

 

[ruff_house]

well, I'm sure people will probably jump on my for using the term proven, I'm talking about an EELV (non in particular). I use the term proven to say it's proven to be able to launch said amount of mass. Man-rating aside. (although, I highly doubt that running a few tests and making some modifications on an EELV can be nearly as costly as building the stick from the fifth SRB segment up form scratch)

 

[vulture2]

>>No other country has softlanded a probe on an asteroid<br /><br />Don't forget Japan. <br /><br /> />>I highly doubt that running a few tests and making some modifications on an EELV can be nearly as costly as building the stick from the fifth SRB segment up form scratch<br /><br />I agree this seems counterintuitive but the LSAS claimed otherwise. Of course they assumed the VAB and LC-39 (and, I assume, the MLP) would have to be rebuilt for the D-IV, rather than using the existing pad at CX-37. If you _want_ something to be expensive, it is fairly easy to make it so.<br />

 

[ruff_house]

frankly I'm confidet Nasa could simply tell the company involved <br /><br /> "You get this much money if you produce a working system to us, after which we will pay you this price, which is similar to what it would cost to launch a commercial load on such a system." anything we give you in that initial lump sum reward that you didn't spend on development is your profit."<br /><br />I'm rather convinced we'd have a working system much faster and much cheaper than the Ares I, even if nasa honestly beleived the stick would be cheaper, I have trouble seeing how. There is nothing they wold have to do with an EELV that they arent already doing to make the stick. <br /><br />I mean, if there is good engineering reasoning behind their decision, then I support them 100%, but if not, and this possiby program-sinking choice is being made fore solely political reasons, I have to say that NASA needs to take a good long look at it's leadership.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Don't forget Japan."</font><br /><br />IIRC, the Hayabusa spacecraft you're referring to was not successful in its landing attempt. Story here.<br /><br />However, the NEAR spacecraft landed successfully on the asteroid 433 Eros in 2001. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"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."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"...if there is good engineering reasoning behind their decision, then I support them 100%..."</font><br /><br />The only justification that I have seen that makes any sense concerns life-cycle costs related to the use of the SRBs with Ares V. Using the SRB as the CLV first stage maintains production and expertise from the end of STS until start up of Ares V.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"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."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[ruff_house]

weak. very weak

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"weak. very weak"</font><br /><br />Yeah, and I'm not saying I agree with it...just reporting something said by someone involved with the design effort.<br /><br />Of course, one good justification doesn't necessarily trump other considerations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"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."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[edawg]

Nasa lost its best leader Waner Von Braun and it has never been the same since .And FDR was right about the dangers of the military industrial complex.Besides they make more money when Nasa tells them what they want, instead of the other way around

 

[ruff_house]

Hopefully, soon enough we will have companies Like SpaceX able to give these Lockheed/Beoing giants a run for their money in filling NASA contracts

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">And FDR was right about the dangers of the military industrial complex.</font><br /><br />That would be Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address in 1961, many years after FDR was worm food. <br /><br />It's interesting that in earlier drafts he referred to it as the <i>military-industrial-congressional complex</i>. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[edawg]

thats funny