Major design changes to the CEV!

[jamie_young]

The Service Module is cut in half. A Delta II engine at the back, new launch abort, lighter by 6,500 pounds, lots in here.<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4659

 

[crix]

WOOOOAH! I don't have L2 membership........... those pics! Looks like the stick has been tossed, replaced with mini inline SDV. Are those 3 seg. SRBs ??

 

[docm]

Name change too: Orion <br /><br />http://www.space.com/news/060720_cev_orion.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

And from the one graphic I saw of the new CEV and LV, they can use the current pad 39 configuration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>WOOOOAH! I don't have L2 membership........... those pics! Looks like the stick has been tossed, replaced with mini inline SDV. Are those 3 seg. SRBs ??<<br /><br />That's just the advert for L2 <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The 5 seg "stick" booster is stil the first stage. The 2x3 "Stumpy" is an alternative, as Atlas X EELV was. It's still the stick.<br /><br />The article is about the changes to the CEV baseline.<br /><br />Here's the latest pic of the CLV on the pad (new MLP etc.) Take into account it'll look slightly different at the top end with the SM smaller.<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4629

 

[crix]

Ooh, so you're saying the L2 advert had those pics before. I see. Sorry to scare anyone, haha, I just got a bit excited.

 

[crix]

How does Nasaspaceflight.com get these internal NASA images? Then they put their website watermark on it and charge subscription. Is that even legal?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

That is an incorrect statement to make given this is just one of many different elements of that area of the site.<br /><br />Feel free to mail, PM me or come over to that site if you wish to ask questions on the site. I'm sure uplink, or this thread, do not wish to have discussion topics turning into questions about another site. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[spacefire]

hey, let's take down the castle and big another one in the sandbox. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />for the metaphorically challenged, the sandbox is the budget, the acstle is the CEV and NASA is the child. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

I know that this has been debated to death and this is really a rhetoricall statement, but I just don't like the Ares-1. I will never understand why it supposedly costs less to essentially develop a brand new launch vehicle than to man-rate an existing LV, an LV that BTW was designed to have man-rated capability added on to it at a later point for this verry reason. And I just don't like the SRB. Ever since Challenger I've had a personall agenda against them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

It has been debated to death, and the general consensus from NASA is that 'it costs less because we say it costs less and we're the rocket scientists, so nyah.' Atleast, that's what I gathered from the Man Booker Prize winning fiction that was the EELV costings in the ESAS report.<br /><br />That roughly two fifths of congress want to rip NASA's exploration funding from them should be no surprise at this point.

 

[nacnud]

The cost of the CLV was done allowing for the cost of the CaLV. They should realy been seen as two facits of the same launch vehicle. You need the J2-X and the 5-seg SRB and probably the avionics for the CaLV anyway so why not use them for the CLV and spread the cost of developing the CaLV, and no less important the CLV was seen as the safest option for crew launch.<br /><br />It also makes it harder to cancel the CaLV because ineffect work has arleady begun on it. It is also politicaly astute because the work share is roughly the same as the STS.<br /><br />To paraphrase Clinton 'it's about the CaLV stupid' without that there will be no beyond LEO missions.<br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

What about Atlas V Growth Phase 2? That's a dirt cheap 70T to LEO beast right there. Surely someone can figure out how to send up an EDS on one, and an LSAM on another?<br /><br />The extra $20B we save from not developing two new vehicles entirely fron scratch could be used for say, missions. We'd hope to get atleast six off before the project is cancelled due to lack of public interest and a massive social security deficit in 2019.

 

[nacnud]

OK go with Atlas X then, I can't be bothers to argue again and again over this. Perhaps the 13 or more Atlas X launches that would be needed for a Mars Semi-Direct mission had something to do with going for the larger booster?

 

[nyarlathotep]

I dont see why it's a problem. Most of the mass is oxidiser, so launch it ahead of time on whatever can be procured cheapest and store it until the Mars vehicle is ready for boost. If that means a dozen protons or a hundred falcon I's to fill up the storage depot, so be it. Personally, I'm a fan of the Aquarius SSTO vehicle. I'm sure if the market was there for hundreds of tonnes of LOX, Loral could scale it up some.<br /><br />Liquid transfer isn't that big a deal, the ruskies have been doing it for decades. Granted, they're only transfering N2O4, but if the minor technical challenge of pumping LOX is beyond NASA one has to ask why they're planing a martian mission in the first place.

 

[vt_hokie]

I'm still holding out hope that this whole program will be canceled before too much time and money is wasted on it. Maybe if Gore gets elected in 2008, he'll revive VentureStar! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[thermionic]

Not sure which clause your smiley applies to...<br /><br />It would be good to cancel another NASA program?<br />Can VentureStar get to the moon? <br />Can Gore possibly get elected in 2008?

 

[vt_hokie]

More the last item. I don't even expect him to run, actually, but hopefully Democratic leadership, if it regains some power, will revise NASA's goals to be more responsible and less of an expensive PR stunt. To gut ISS research to pay for this nonsense is just ridiculous, and the low flight rate and high cost per flight of these lunar missions will ensure that it really is nothing more than a PR stunt. No, VentureStar couldn't go to the moon, but if we focus on reducing the cost of reaching LEO significantly, we'll end up doing more on the moon and beyond a lot sooner than if we waste our money on "Apollo 2.0". <br /><br />After all of the worthwhile NASA programs I have seen cancelled, I do believe it would be a good thing to cancel this one. It is a waste of money, is designed primarily to keep existing contractors employed, and will ensure that human spaceflight remains expensive, dangerous, and limited to only a couple of missions per year. And given NASA's recent COTS cutbacks, I must wonder if the agency really has any interest in anything other than pork. Lower cost launch providers should be a top priority for NASA at the present time.

 

[darkenfast]

Do you honestly believe that, in the REAL world, a new left-wing administration that decided to cut the only manned space program in the cards now would replace it with some new whiz-bang winged miracle space shuttle replacement? Unless it means jobs in their districts (hence their re-election prospects), the Left does not like the space program. They may like drug-addicts, illegal immigrants, tree-huggers, and whales, but they do not like the money spent on NASA. Period.

 

[nyarlathotep]

The left has absolutely nothing against the NASA space science program, that does a lot of good work. It's the other half of the agency they're worried about.

 

[vt_hokie]

Well, count me among the tree huggers, because I believe in environmental protection and NASA can certainly play a big role in studying and protecting our very own planet!

 

[mattblack]

Agreed! <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>

 

[subzero788]

What have you got against whales?

 

[darkenfast]

I have nothing against whales, and I agree that NASA has a role in preserving the Earth's environment. But, many on the Left (especially those with a Luddite tendency) regard the Space Program as being hostile to the environment (rockets pollute), and a waste of money that should be re-distributed elsewhere. I will say this again, if a Left-wing administration were to close down the VSE, they would NOT replace it with another, more expensive, manned program. I live in a liberal town. The day Columbia was destroyed, several people said to me words to the effect that, while it was a shame those people died, maybe now we'd stop wasting money on space. That is a view shared by many on the Left. They don't like the program because it is expensive and it involves the kind of elites that they are not fond of. It's an easy target for them.

 

[edkyle98]

"Do you honestly believe that, in the REAL world, a new left-wing administration that decided to cut the only manned space program in the cards now would replace it with some new whiz-bang winged miracle space shuttle replacement? "<br /><br /><br />Ugh. This "Left" "Right" "Tree-Hugger" "Whale" stuff. "Left" does not equal "Democrat". "Right" does not equal "Republican". That idea is ancient history. *So* 1980s. Clinton was more Republican than "W", for crying out loud. And how can a Republican, a member of the party that has held complete power for six years, honestly blame Democrats for the current wave of illegal immigration? <br /><br />At any rate, NASA has managed to sail the political seas fairly well for a few generations now. It has survived both parties.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle