ESAS Documents/Images/Info - CLV, CEV, LSAM, SDLV

[shuttle_rtf]

I believe it's a "bank holiday" in the US today? Good, you'll need the spare time to look this over!<br /><br />Keith kindly posted the link over on our forum in the early hours (so it's only been live for a matter of hours). Enjoy!<br /><br />"A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture"<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069

 

[tmccort]

It's Thanksgiving in Canada, so thanks <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[darkenfast]

Thank you! Just the kind of late-night reading I enjoy!

 

[shuttle_rtf]

The 3+1 Launch Escape tests have been previously mentioned, but get this: Two more tests in 2011 (involving orbits), then one unmanned to the ISS, then a crew on a CEV to the ISS in 2011 (not 2012, and not the recently assumed 2013 as some pundits have been claiming). Of course, if they stick to that plan and it all goes smoothly.<br /><br />Then the SDLV comes in for a 2017 test, with another (involving the LSAM), then manned, 2018 - off to the Moon.

 

[mattblack]

BRILLIANT!!<br />Thank you. I'm updating my previous ESAS posts now. <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>

 

[spacefire]

thanks! put all the images in my screensaver at work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[ace5]

quote:<br />While NASA had initially specified that the CEV be reusable - up to 10 times with a disposable heat shield, Connolly said that NASA "hopes" that it will be reusable. The level of reusability that eventually emerges will result from the actual design process itself. <br /><br />What about the docking system ring itself, being exposed to the reentry plasma sheath - 10 times?<br />Or will it be discarded after each flight and replaced by a newer one?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">There is a lot of information in the link supplied by Shuttle-RTF.</font>/i><br /><br />Perhaps most interesting, the ESAS details were <i>not</i> the most relevant to the National Academy of Science's purview -- those dealt more with the ISS. I eagerly await news on those efforts, as the purpose and uses of the ISS (other than providing a reason for flying out the shuttle) has been pretty much missing in action since Griffin took over.</i>

 

[wvbraun]

NASA wants to fly 18+1 Shuttle missions before retirement of the fleet (October 2010). Logistics flights have been eliminated. Kibo and Columbus are go, the centrifuge and the russian solar module won't make it into orbit after all...<br /><br />Link

 

[wvbraun]

I was responding to Radar Redux and it's not old news. Read the article. This is the most detailed look at NASA's plans for the ISS yet.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

The 18+1 is old as it came (in the form of quotes confirming even older news that the manifest was heading that way) when NASA Assistant Associate Administrator Mark Uhran spoke on the subject 8 or 9 days ago. Uhran was more specific on ISS elements that won't be making the remaining flights and the HSM.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Come on guys. This is exciting information, but most eveyone here wants to be negative and complain. Well I am excited about going back to the Moon, Mars and outward. <<br /><br />A bit shocked on the reaction here too. Very solid interest and support over on our forum on this.

 

[thermionic]

>> but most eveyone here wants to be negative and complain<br /><br />Not me. Count me as one of the enthusiasts. I was hoping for a little more naturally (in particular nuclear interplanetary drives in my lifetime), but this looks pretty good. I can only hope they pull in the schedule a bit. Is there any chance?

 

[lampblack]

I will confess to being mightily puzzled about something: how can they just *eliminate* the shuttle-based logistics flights without serious repercussions?<br /><br />What are they gonna replace 'em with? Are they going to put the astronauts on diets? Maybe tell 'em to just inhale every *other* breath? Let 'em go naked on odd-numbered days?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[kane007]

It looks like the LSAM will be used for lunar orbit insertion as darkenfast claimed in mattblacks post.<br /><br />From the Link "The descent stage will use a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen fueled RL-10 derivative engine which can be throttled. This engine will be used to perform lunar orbit insertion, nodal plane change, and lunar descent. The engine will be capable of 1100 m/sec Delta V for lunar orbit insertion and 1850 m/sec for lunar descent." <br /><br />LOI will be 100km (63mi).<br /><br /><br /><font color="red">DO NO HARM</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[spaceiscool]

Yawwwwnnnn. It's boring to read this. Scrap NASA, scrap the Shuttle, sack all the workers at Kennedy space center that do nothing most of the time but paint over corrosion on those shuttles. give all the money to the mars society and lets do something that isn't so boring like the last 35 years. don't act all surprised when there's no interest here. most people on this forum know drawings are just that, notthing else. If it has NASA on the side it should have a health warning. I've been to your forum and had a look and it's full of people saying how wonderful it all is to believe this trash and people pretending to be interested in what a truss looks like inside atlantis shuttle cargo bay. and 500 posts about foam falling of a fuel tank! Get a life!

 

[mattblack]

Get a life? What a great idea. Why don't you!! You must be 15 years old or something, as you clearly don't seem to have a grasp of how the real world of manned spaceflight works, at least historically. If you've got a problem with how it was done in the past (and let's face it; a number of us have) then use the here and now and the wide-stretching future to do something positive!!<br /><br />Help us!! You're obviously a space fan of sorts or you wouldn't be here. Help us all here on this forum build the future of manned spaceflight. Argue yes, criticize yes. But so many people of the internet generation haven't a CLUE how to exercise constructive criticism.<br /><br />It's all attack, moan, attack, ATTACK!!!<br /><br />At the risk of sounding like a corny politician: Let's help America and the world (Go China!!) make space a place to live and work, not something that's treated like a Sci-Fi frivolity. <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>

 

[holmec]

Great info.<br /><br />Thoughts. So the CEV is also a cargo vessel. That explains a lot. So you can return cargo from ISS in needed.<br /><br />Also, the CEV built form 2009 to 2011, and the heavy lift from 2017 to 2018. <br /><br />So several type of CEVs. Nice. Reminds me of the auto industry. "I'll take the turbo charged CEV with a CD player plz."<br /><br />LSAM with room. Nice. Also leaving behind some crew quarters, Very Nice. I wonder what they will do for room service. Hey mabe two or more landers and constitute a motel or spacetel.<br /><br />Lunar rovers. I wonder if they will be hybrids...lol.<br />(humor was built into this post- if you don't get it don't blame me.).<br /><br />My excuse for taking my time to respond is that I worked on the so called holiday. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Thanks, I may go to your site !!<<br /><br />We'd sure welcome you posting over there from time to time. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>I've been to your forum and had a look and it's full of people saying how wonderful it all is to believe this trash and people pretending to be interested in what a truss looks like inside atlantis shuttle cargo bay.<<br /><br />It's a forum that has specific sections for each of the Orbiters - it's not a daft question given it was on a thread about Atlantis' ISS mission (12A) cause that's what she's taking up!<br /><br /><br /> />and 500 posts about foam falling of a fuel tank! Get a life!<<br /><br />Actually, that thread is about 240 posts, relevant to the PAL Ramp story and images from MAF, has KSC people and former a former MAF TPS guy on it, so it's hardly as you described.<br /><br />Maybe now in return you'll address your crap spelling and grammar?

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Lunar rovers. I wonder if they will be hybrids...lol.<br /><br /><font color="white">No reason why an internal combustion engine won't work on the moon. A methane/oxygen one might be a good idea to develop, or at least look at to see how effeicent it would be.</font></font>

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow"><br />No reason why an internal combustion engine won't work on the moon. A methane/oxygen one might be a good idea to develop, or at least look at to see how effeicent it would be.<br /></font><br />I think if you have electrical power available at base, whether solar or nuclear, an electric rechargable rover is probably the way to go since you wouldn't have to land fuel and oxidiser for it.. on the other hand, for long-range treks it might be impractical.<br /><br />Any thoughts on whether the lunar flyer concept might make a return?

 

[spacester]

Hmmmm . . . which lunar flier concept are you referring to? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kane007]

Maybe the 1960's concept of the "lunar hopper". <br /><br /><font color="red">DO NO HARM</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

If and when ISRU gets going the oxidiser will be no problem (oxygen, which you want for obvious reasons), and given a carbon and hydrogen source, methane shouldn't be too difficult (once you have methane, keeping the exhaust gases would give you a carbon and hydrogen source!).<br /><br />But I agree - initially, and for short range, low payload etc., an electric vehicle seems preferable. Though an internal combustion vehicle might be chosen, even if you had to send the fuel from Earth, for a high-power vehicle - such as a bulldozer for instance.