News from the Mars Society Conference re: CEV & LV

[gunsandrockets]

http://www.marsblog.net/archives/001592.html<br /><br />Interesting stuff.<br /><br />Particularly this bit...<br /><br />" Chris Shank, Special Assistant to Mike Griffin, spoke this morning at the Mars Society Conference on the VSE and related topics."<br /><br />"* NASA and DoD have made an agreement concerning launch vehicles (the story going around was that the DoD wanted CEV to ride an EELV to enhance the economics, and was willing to fight any plan by NASA to develop SDVs). The agreement was signed a week ago, with Ron Sega (new space policy pooh-bah?) signing for the Pentagon, and follows from the January space transportation policy calling for NASA/DoD cooperation on the decision. This allows NASA to proceed with new launcher development: Shank announced that the single-stick option with new upper stage would come first, to support initial CEV operations, with a Shuttle-derived heavy lifter to follow after Orbiter retirement in 2010 (didn't say what form of SDV it would be, though). The primary factor in the single-stick decision was that internal NASA configuration studies were unable to get to a CEV with less than 23mt launch weight, putting it out of reach of the EELVs. The single-stick launcher will be designed to launch 25mt to allow for weight growth and payload. CEV is now firmly intended to service ISS as well as the Moon and Mars missions."<br /><br /><br />That's the most sensible answer I've seen yet for why a modified SRB was choosen instead of the EELV for the CEV launch vehicle. It also tells us the GLOW of the CEV is from 23 to 25 tonnes. Don't know if that includes the mass of the launch escape system though.<br /><br />The modified SRB will be able to lift the CEV to orbit because of a new design 100 tonne upper stage. But if the SRB had to use the 23 tonne Centaur upper stage of the EELV, then the SRB couldn't lift the CEV to orbit either. That makes me wonder why the EELV coul

 

[shuttle_rtf]

This is very cool. T.L. James writes a superb round up...been a while since I've seen someone write up one that well.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Ooo, someone's posted on there about the document we published, thanks <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. Although maybe someone can add that it's not from the forthcoming AIAA, it was from the July AIAA. <br /><br />Actually, I'll do it, could do with noting my appreciation for this update.......hmmm, maybe they have to approve as that didn't work. Anyhoo <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Interesting (to me anyway) other bits from the linked summary:<br /><br />The MTO was cancelled because it was not needed.<br />MS and Zubrin thanked for their efforts to give NASA a goal.<br />ISS will mainly be used for proving technology used in manned spaceflight etc.<br />Space science experiments might be conducted using the private sector. (Although I don't see why NASA should pay for science experiments not within its remit, I suppose an argument can be made for using these as seed corn to establish a private sector in this area.)