New details on CEV

[tomnackid]

The standard crew size for a shuttle mission was 7. As far as I know the majority of shuttle flights had a full crew. Weren't there a few flights with 8? I haven't tried looking it up yet for some reason I have that in mind. Either way, currently the Shuttle has put the most people into orbit in a single launch.

 

[najab]

ISS crew rotations have been as many as 10up-10down though not the same 10. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[tomnackid]

Wow, I didn't know they went as high as 10.

 

[vt_hokie]

For those replying to gaetanomarano's posts, he contacted me on another forum and asked me to post this here:<br /><br />"gaetanomarano user can't reply to you since his account was deleted"<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Oh no what a terrible disaster!

 

[tplank]

I'm new here, but been on a lot of messageboards. That type never gives up. He will be back with a new handle and IP. As a lurker, I shall not miss them in the mean time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>

 

[grooble]

Well it is, he got a lot of threads going, now who will fill the void? cos i'm all out of space inventions, my space taxi was my last stand!

 

[tplank]

Hmmmmmm.... I'd offer to try and fill that void but I just don't think I'm [un]Man enough. I could get close by changing my signature to<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Listen up! You are stupid. I'm not! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br /><br />On second thought, nah... he'll be back soon enough anyway.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>The Disenfranchised Curmudgeon</p><p>http://tonyplank.blogspot.com/ </p> </div>

 

[moonmadness]

Thanks.<br />So they did make 10.<br />I remember hearing "crew of seven" quite frequently.<br />Sort of remember comments early on about a crew of a dozen for the shuttle.<br />Flight crew plus shuttlebay lab crew.<br /><br />P.S. Somehow feels safer to post here now. <br />Don't know why? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind.</p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

I believe what was happening was a change of the station crew via Soyuz at the same time.... which could result in 12 being on the station for enough days for the station to regain a window for the Soyuz to reach its reentry corridor.

 

[scottb50]

I think it's time we realize we can work in Space, there might be some medical problems for some people, but from what I have seen pretty much anyone should be able to go to Space. Maybe a Second Class Physical from the FAA.<br /><br />The problem I see with the CEV is it doesn't address re-usability, as such it doesn't get us an further than we already are. I look at it like the B-1, all ready way behind the times but ready to go. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

"That is a unusually hard number to pin down with the references I have."<br /><br />Wait...you might be right - 10 in total, 7 up, 7 down. <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" />

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The problem I see with the CEV is it doesn't address re-usability, as such it doesn't get us an further than we already are.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Perhaps. Reusability is only a desirable goal to the extent that it can be made more cost-effective than expendable vehicles. The experience of the STS demonstrates the folly of 'reusability' to the exclusion of everything else.<br /><br />Of course, it also depends on how you define reusability. I'm sure a scrap merchant would be happy to give you a few bucks for the returned metal, etc. There could be a marketing opportunity in Coke cans made from old launchers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[subzero788]

Does anyone know why the shuttle doesn't carry the full 8 crew complement more often? My only idea is perhaps it's a supply issue, though I don't think an extra person would dramatically increase the oxygen/food/water requirements of the mission beyond the value of having an extra person on board.

 

[chriscdc]

Also on the 'it doesn't get us further than we already are', it will allow us to do a re-entry from lunar orbit, so even if the VSE gets cancelled you could still do lunar flybys for not too much.

 

[holmec]

>In fact, when you consider that after the CEV docks with the LSAM the CEV doesn't maneuver again until the TEI burn, it makes more sense for the crew to pilot while sitting in the LSAM. Unlike Apollo, the CEV is the appendage and the LSAM is the main spacecraft.<<br /><br />I agree this makes the most sense. Maybe a remote control for the burn would be appropiate so the lander would have extra nav systems to do the burn. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>19 cubic meters, You know, add a modest consumables storage/crew habit module, and I could really see the CEV going to Mars.<<br /><br />Sure I have no doubt they will have their own aparment for the trip to Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Does anyone know why the shuttle doesn't carry the full 8 crew complement more often? My only idea is perhaps it's a supply issue, though I don't think an extra person would dramatically increase the oxygen/food/water requirements of the mission beyond the value of having an extra person on board.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm not sure. Seven seems to be the usual maximum; I think there were two flights (possibly only one) with eight crew, but I'm not sure; I'd look it up, but I have a telecon in a minute. It may be more an issue of logistics than anything else -- or declining added value of additional crew members. Maybe the eighth person just doesn't add enough value to make it worth the extra logistics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

STS-61A.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-61-A<br /> <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]

>...here is the 6 man version. <<br /><br />looks like the whole crew can puke on the controls during the burn (backwards for astronauts) to the moon from Earth orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Wow check out this idea for the CEV RCS and solar pannels over at nasaspaceflight.com <br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4182<br /><br />Gimbled joints called the 'Cranfield' joint after its inventor, its a realy neat idea.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The motorised Canfield joint - named after its inventor, Dr. Steve Canfield of Tennessee Tech University - would see four single RCS thrusters, placed 90 degree apart around the circumference of the service module, with the ability to direct thrust to any direction in a hemispherical motion, replacing - and capable of even more manoeuvres than - the current four groups of four (16 in total) body-fixed thrusters.<font color="white"></font></font>

 

[holmec]

Why orient the crew in the same direction?<br /><br />When you launch your flat on your back, when you land your flat on your back, so why not make good spacial use of not having to orient the crew with their heads in the same direction?<br /><br />Has anyone taken this into consideration?<br /> <br />For instance, if you have the lower crew (not the pilot or co pilot) spread out in a star shape or even wheel shape (head to foot), you could but a large piece of cargo in the middle. doesn't this make sense? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">The NASA requirement for the CEV is to be reused up to 10 times.<br /><br /><font color="white">Up to 10 or not less than 10?<br /><br />Is seems strange to build a reuseable system and then madate a new one after an artifical limit.</font></font>

 

[nacnud]

Thanks. <br /><br />Have you seen the ideas for the gimballing RCS and Solar Pannels yet, what do you think?

 

[najab]

Yeah, I realised that after I posted it - 10 total, 7 either way.