T/space Offers Earth Orbit CXV by 2008

[arobie]

t/Space Offers an Option for Closing Shuttle, CEV Gap<br /><br />Transformational Space Corp. (t/Space), a company founded in response to the new U.S. vision for space exploration, thinks it can help NASA close the gap between retiring the space shuttle fleet and fielding a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) to carry astronauts beyond Earth's orbit.<br /><br />The Reston, Va.-based company already already convinced NASA to give it $6 million in exchange for advice on how the U.S. space agency can reach beyond the traditional aerospace industry to answer a presidential call to return to the Moon by 2020. Now t/Space is hoping to convince NASA to part with $400 million in exchange for an Earth-to-orbit crew transfer vehicle, which company executives say they can have ready in 2008. . .<br /><br />~----------------------~<br /><br />That is exactly what I want to see. They offer a low-cost to Earth orbit transfer vehicle. It would remove the need for human rated launch and any reentry design on the CEV...greatly simplifying the entire thing. The CXV would allow the CEV to be a space and only space-based vehicle, our first true space craft.<br /><br />That's what we need: a vehicle designed for space, not with bonds to costly and dangerously return to Earth then launch again.

 

[holmec]

Absolutely.<br /><br />Less risk, less cost, safer, smarter. If this goes through it just may be the stepping stone for a new era in manned space flight. This may be no less than a revolution in manned space. (As far as launching and retrieving humans , and the methods used).<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>That's what we need: a vehicle designed for space, not with bonds to costly and dangerously return to Earth then launch again.<<br /><br />Precisely. Give us a real space bus/star ship.<br /><br />This could just push the CEV into a reality. Landers need to be built planet specific at this stage. Its too early in the development/evolvement process to do anything else. We should use our currnet resourses to the max and build on them (hence the first stage of the proposed CXV is a plane using airports).<br /><br />This is the time for the space program to part ways with the nuclear ballistic style systems to reach space and build what make sense, what is cost effective, and what is safe. Like it or not the Cold War is over and we need to move on. Human space exploration has started to be and will be an international affair. Making planes the first stage lets other international players into the game since they do not have to create a missile which to some would be new. A plane has infrastructure behind it (airports, commerce, laws, operations). This is really a matter of common sense. This method is also the route with the least resistance as far as physics. I guess the real resistance is that people don't like to change methods. But I believe we as a space fairing nation are at a juncture. A decision point in time. We should choose wisely.<br /> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[grooble]

This is how i envisioned my space taxi, but these guys could make it a reality in under 5 years! <br /><br />I'm gonna be out of a dream!<br /><br />Would this cut out the need for one of those shuttle derived heavy lift vehicles?<br />

 

[nacnud]

No it wouldn't cut the need for a SDV, but it could cut the cost of man rating it.

 

[holmec]

It may pave to way to a new SDV. One that uses a large plane like the C5 or the Antonov 225 (currently the largest transport plane in the world thats in operation). Which by the way I heard ther was plans for the Antonov 225 to be used as a air launch for space payloads. <br /><br />here is a web site on it:<br />http://www.airfoyle.co.uk/services/an225.asp<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I think you mean the An 225 but a HLLV SDV would be too big to launch that way.

 

[grooble]

"The t/Space team thinks it can build the CXV, develop a more powerful version of the QuickReach booster, modify a 747 and conduct a test program that included the first piloted space shot for $400 million - a sum, Gump and Alexander said, NASA can easily afford."<br /><br />So this would allow the actual CEV to be space only and not need heat sheilding and all that, it'd be optimised for earth - moon runs.<br /><br />

 

[holmec]

>but a HLLV SDV would be too big to launch that way<<br /><br />Not true.<br />A rocket, like the Shuttle launch system is mostly rocket. What you are sending up is the payload. The payload that the shuttle can carry is small for the An-225. Perhaps a 2 stage rocket can be created that the An-225 or slightly larger aircraft can carry. (The An-225 can carry up to 250 tons).<br /><br />With as system like this you eliminate a lot of overhead.<br /> <br />If you compare SpaceShipOne launch system with a simular 3 man rocket system you will see the great difference in overhead. (The closest rockets would probably be the mercury rockets. But NASA never made a launch system that took 3 men straight up and down. They did with one man.)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Well of course the unspoken subject here is that almost all main stream exploration concepts require continuous abort modes.<br /><br />This means the thing you're riding in needs to be able to perform a de-orbit burn and handle the landing requirements.<br /><br />A "true spaceship" implies docking and transfer in order to relocate people in a vehicle capable of landing.<br /><br />These activities in turn imply dV requirements, so guess what?<br /><br />If we're going to a true space ship strategy - which I love of course - we need orbital propellant resupply. That's what NASA needs to work on. Buy the rides, provide the propellant resupply infrastructure backbone. Develop the architecture to have private enterprise run the operations, then license the technology at affordable rates. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jurgens]

The Boeing, Lockheed, and T/space proposals all contain as part of their main goals, to be able to produce fuel from the lunar surface.<br /><br />http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/cer_reports.html

 

[spacefire]

how exactly is T/Space's vehicle air launched? can anybody point me to the specs?<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[grooble]

They say a Modified 747 with some kind of rocket booster which is dropped. See my previous post with the quote.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">how exactly is T/Space's vehicle air launched? can anybody point me to the specs?</font>/i><br /><br />Below is some additional (?) information from The Space Review:<br /><br />The post-X Prize hangover<br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/371/1<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The t/Space team—which includes AirLaunch LLC and Scaled Composites—plans to use commercial vehicles to launch most of the elements of the exploration system, including using EELVs to launch the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) unmanned. Crews would instead travel to orbit on a separate crew transfer vehicle (CXV) that would be launched by an enlarged version of AirLaunch’s QuickReach vehicle under development for DARPA’s FALCON program. That rocket would be carried aloft by a “stork” version of a 747 with lengthened landing gear, or by a custom-built aircraft that Scaled is developing “for other reasons,” said Muncy.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote></i>

 

[strandedonearth]

The article doesn't say anything about reentry after a lunar run. So the CEV would either have to carry enough propellant for an Earth-orbit injection and rendezvous, with the associated risks and cost of failure, or its own reentry module. Not a bad idea, since a Soyuz-style reentry module could serve as a lifeboat if the main CEV living quarters were to become unlivable for some reason. So for lunar missions, the CEV would be launching unmanned, while the CXV could be returning unmanned. <br /><br />I'm taking a WAG that a just a heat shield and 'chutes would weigh less than the prop needed for an EOI, while a full reentry module would weigh more. But an EOI and rendezvous adds another layer of risk.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Less risk, less cost, safer, smarter.</font>/i><br /><br />Obviously it is doomed then. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />What I like about the plan is that it is more versatile than a CEV-to-the-Moon approach. How many Moon missions does NASA plan to do before 2020? (originally 1, but even with the accelerated plan maybe a half dozen)<br /><br />On the other hand, the CXV can be used for Moon launches (linking up with a CIS-Lunar CEV), missions to the ISS, and missions to Bigelow's orbital stations, etc. There could easily be 50-100 such launches between 2010 and 2020, and if orbital tourism takes off, that number would be much larger.</i>

 

[grooble]

Man i hope Griffin goes for this.

 

[wvbraun]

"Man i hope Griffin goes for this."<br /><br />Somehow I doubt it. Griffin will be hard-pressed to find the funds for the accelerated CEV-program as things are. I don't think NASA can "easily afford" to spend an extra $400 million on t/space's program. Where is that money going to come from? So I'm skeptical that this will get off the ground but at the same time I certainly hope I'm wrong.<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">So the CEV would either have to carry enough propellant for an Earth-orbit injection and rendezvous, with the associated risks and cost of failure, or its own reentry module.</font>/i><br /><br />This is probably the biggest question about the approach.<br /><br />I would like to see a cislunar-CEV that does Earth-orbit injection, because then it could be re-used several times. However, I am not sure people (especially those in the government) would consider this an acceptable risk.</i>

 

[spacefire]

the CEV could also Aerobrake on return from lunar missions. the CEV could have a 'lifeboat' that would allow the crew to return to Earth in case of an emergency. <br />But here's the trick: the lifeboat (I agree to a capsule design for this), with a heat shield, would be placed at the very front of the CEV. Returning from the Moon, the CEV would pass through the fringes of the atmosphere using the lifeboat as an airbrake. The heat-shield of the lifeboat, designed to survive re-entry, should be able to withstand the heat generated by the comparatively mild aero-braking with no damage whatsoever.<br />This way, a lot of fuel is saved for EOI. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Look up the turtle space tug design. <br /><br />While I think that the first generation of CEV vehicles should be done as economically as possible, ie disposable, I agree that longer term a reusable design could be more efficient.<br /><br />I don't think that the added expense of the reusable designs is worth it until it is certain that they will be used for their designed number of cycles.<br />

 

[jurgens]

How the heck do they plan on using the QuickLaunch booster anyways? Unless im reading this thing wrong, the booster won't be ready until 2007, and it will only put 900kg into orbit, Is that enough to fit 6 people? (lets see, 6 100kg astronauts) 600kg would be just for the astronauts, would it be an unpressurized vehicle too? I dunno...<br /><br />A Falcon V could put them in orbit pretty cheaply and reliably though.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> I don't think NASA can "easily afford" to spend an extra $400 million on t/space's program.</font>/i><br /><br />Maybe doing the down select early next year instead of 2008 might free up some money for an "alternative" effort.<br /><br />Also, to put this in perspective:<br /><br />$300 million - X-38 Crew Return Vehicle, resulted in a handfull of subsonic air drop tests.<br /><br />$325 million - X-37 before being transferred to DARPA, which will fund some air drop tests.<br /><br />$700 million - approximate cost for a single shuttle launch.<br /><br />It would be sad if NASA couldn't find some money for this.</i>

 

[jurgens]

As far as NASA being able to afford 400million, remember its 400million from now until 2008, so thats about 133million per year for t/space. Not too much for a cheap reliable system to get humans into space.

 

[grooble]

Also you have to take into account that Harry Potter 4 has a budget of $300 million.<br /><br />How is that for perspective.