T/space Offers Earth Orbit CXV by 2008

[thermionic]

It looks like they are slightly above the clouds in that picture. That's where I prefer to be. Rock on! /jd

 

[najab]

Yeah, when catching something falling from space, it's probably better to be above the clouds than below them.

 

[mattblack]

I'm sceptical of this concept. How much spacecraft/booster mass could be air-launched on a 747? Could a 747 carry a vehicle big enough to carry 4-6 people to orbit and back with recovery systems, life support and plenty of propellant, including reserves?<br /><br />I certainly hope Mike Griffin doesn't just select this concept on the strength of merely being an intriguing idea. Though I imagine Mr Griffin is a much better engineer than I! It would be a shame to go for this idea, only to find that it has heaps more teething problems and bugs than anticipated and costs lots more than anticipated.<br /><br />The level of risk reminds me a little of the discussion comparing a robot Hubble servicing mission to a manned one: One method is a sure thing, but the other merely looks intriguing and is totally untried, a huge risk when money is so tight.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I like the various capsules that Boeing is tying into their architecture concepts. They appear to have a handle on the versatility needed. The only thing I'd insist on, no matter who wins the CEV prime contract, is that a CEV should be able to be launched on Delta IV, Atlas V or an SRB. I reckon that in a lunar mission, you'd launch the crewed CEV (25-30 tons?) on an Atlas or Delta to rendezvous with a 70-to-80 ton stack of mission modules launched on a Shuttle derived heavy lifter. That way, you might never have to launch humans on a Shuttle-derived rocket ever again. This would also fulfill a long-stated desire to seperate the crew from the cargo from this point onwards. <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>

 

[jurgens]

A 747 can hold the Space Shuttle, I don't think a 747 will haev a problem holding a rocket designed to lift 10,000lbs into orbit.

 

[nacnud]

A 747-400ERF can lift about 50,000kg from airliners.net stats page.<br /><br />The A380 Freighter will carry a 330,000 lbs/150 tonnes (150,000kg) over 5,600nm/10,400km from Airbus<br /><br />An Atlas V weights 546,700 at launch and puts 12,500 kg. to: 185 km Orbit from astronautix<br /><br />A Delta 4 Medium weighs 249,500 kg at launch and puts 8,600 kg. to: 185 km Orbit, from astronautix<br /><br />A Falcon V weights 181,400 kg at launch and puts 4,200 kg. to: 200 km Orbit from SpaceX

 

[spacefire]

yeah but the orbiter itself is a big ass machine <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>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.<<br /><br />YEAH! Thats what I'm talking about. Infrastructure, Infrastructure, Infrastructure. We're going nowhere without it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>"The air-launch is also strange given that Falcon-V flying in the next 5 years is a better bet and is based on a more proven technology (vertical rocket launch). Frankly, I'm puzzled by the technical side of their approach" <<br /><br />Perhaps rockets have been launched more from the ground, but air launch is not new.<br /><br />X-1 was air launched, many air to air , air to ground missles have been air launched, X-15 was air launch. And numerous other systems were air launched.<br /><br />Air launch is an older way of launching air and space vehicles. So it is a known approach. And it happens to be cheaper as a first stage than a ground based rocket using a good percentage of its fuel just to get off the ground.<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>

 

[holmec]

Yes, these numbers are nice, but the 747 will be launching the payload and the last two stages. We should probably compare apples with apples. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[grooble]

Well it'll be modified whatever that means. If it was me, i'd build an enourmous deltawing with a dozen big turbine engines, like a big brother to the whiteknight.

 

[holmec]

Hate to burst you bubble, but NASA is only looking at using the CXV for the four year period form when the Shuttle is retired to when the CEV will be online.<br /><br />We could only hope it would lead to something more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

I wonder if a letter that would be like a petition to Griffin or The White House written and signed by us would help them decide.<br /><br />What do you think? <br /><br />http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_050509.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Hate to burst you bubble, but NASA is only looking at using the CXV for the four year period form when the Shuttle is retired to when the CEV will be online.</font>/i><br /><br />I have not heard any word from NASA on its position with respect to the CXV approach. Links?</i>

 

[ldyaidan]

I didn't see this posted, so forgive me if it's a repeat. Here is a link to their website. If you'll take a look, they address a lot of the questions that have been asked. This looks like the best plan I have seen, and they've actually been working with NASA since Sept 2004 on the project.<br /><br />http://www.transformspace.com/index2.html<br /><br />Rae

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I wonder if a letter that would be like a petition to Griffin or The White House written and signed by us would help them decide.</font>/i><br /><br />Possibly, but from what I have heard, letters (not email) to congressional representatives carry a fair amount of weight</i>

 

[gladiator1332]

Yeah definatley. A letter to Griffin has little chance of actually being read by the man himself. <br /><br />Also, I too have NOT heard anything from NASA on how they stand on the CXV.

 

[lycan359]

<br />How long does NASA have to decide? Anyone know?

 

[R1]

t/space is definitely right. The biggest engineering idea of separating the earth to space,<br />from space to space, (and even the crew from cargo from earth to space) is totally<br />good. ITS AWARD WINNING ! <br />Someone really has been learning from our successess and failures. Think about it, right<br />now we have a few shuttle payload modules for the ISS that are being kept<br />in life support on the ground because a whole entire space shuttle was lost in a single disaster. We should have built CXV taxis to orbit, and send payloads up separately probably. <br /> Disasters do happen, but the principle<br />from t/space is better even for disasters. If the taxi to orbit needs improvement<br />as technology advances, the CXV, you don't have to ground an entire fleet of interplanetary<br />spceships trying to merely reach low orbit. t/space may appear like a business, but it<br />is, and so is Lockheed and Boeing, and it's actually business surgery why some projects are delayed. One disaster and boom, we can lose our crew, our payload, and a whole entire expensive interplanetary spaceship. Then comes retirement, must you retire an entire spaceship (or fleet of them) at once and suffer a gap? I don't think so, I think the CXV human taxi would be easier to keep in good shape, because it's easier to replace them periodically<br />than it is to periodically replace earth landing spaceships.<br /><br />I think comfort is very important, however. You don't just want space travelers to just <br />drop in a little cone from outer space into the ocean, so it is going to cost for<br />t/space to provide some wings, but without a big burden on the United<br />Space Alliance to build a ship that does everything for everybody, and so they can devote<br /> more to the actual spaceships.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thermionic]

<br />They seem to have their priorities straight. I notice that the very bottom image of their slide set shows an astronaut on the moon with his golf club. :*}

 

[radarredux]

Earlier in this thread we talked about the relative cost of the t/Space plan ($400 million) to other things (from the X-38 to Harry Potter movies). I found two other data points in Griffin's recent Congressional testimony:<br /><br /><ul type="square"><li> over $400 million in Congressionally-directed items in next year's budget -- read "pork barrel". Griffin's letter to Sen. Shelby lists the number at $426 million.<br /></li></ul><ul type="square"><li> $400 million cost overrun for FY06 to return the shuttle to flight.<br /></li></ul><br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16605

 

[gunsandrockets]

Thanks for that Griffin testimony link, very informative, including this vital bit about nuclear power and Project Prometheus.<br /><br />"This budget also includes $320 million for a restructured Prometheus Nuclear Systems and Technology Theme for space-qualified nuclear systems. The technology and capabilities being developed by the Prometheus Nuclear Systems and Technology Theme are critical for enabling the power and propulsion needs of the Vision for Space Exploration. As part of the Agency's effort to define an Exploration Systems Architecture, NASA will examine alternative nuclear systems, including surface nuclear power, nuclear thermal, and nuclear electric systems. NASA will restructure Project Prometheus for space- qualified nuclear systems to support human and robotic missions with clear priorities focused on near-term needs. We expect to make program decisions to focus our nuclear technology efforts on our highest priorities for near-term applications as part of the Exploration Architecture study, to be completed this summer."

 

[crix]

Interesting... i was just rereading the above linked statement by Griffin and came across a subtle line I hadn't noticed before.<br /><br />One of the products of Griffins new study:<br /><br />"Complete assessment of the top-level CEV requirements and plans to enable the CEV to provide crew transport to the ISS and to accelerate the development of the CEV <i><b>and crew launch system</b></i> to reduce the gap between Shuttle retirement and initial CEV flights to the ISS."<br /><br />I suppose this could be referring to the rocket that might have a manned CEV strapped to it, OR that the crew launch system might refer to a t/spacesque, dedicated CXV. I really, REALLY, hope the CEV is a permanent space bound vehicle that is intended for launch on a non-human rated rocket, EELV, HLLV, or otherwise. T/space has been in NASA's face about their proposed seperation of crew Earth-to-LEO and LEO-wherever architecture so we probably don't have to worry about this importance slipping under Griffin's radar. He's wicked smaaht and damnit, I think he's gonna make us all proud.

 

[holmec]

I hear ya! But we will have to wait and see. Realistically I don't have my hopes up for a permanent space borne CEV.<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>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Regarding a permanent "space based CEV", has anyone looked at the Boeing moon transportation architecture? Boeing is the lead contractor in the Boeing/Grumman partnership for CEV Spirals 2, 3 and 4.<br /><br />Instead of the NASA plan, Boeing wants a reusable single stage moon lander. This lander would rendevous with the Earth launched CEV at the Earth-Moon L1 Lagrange point for crew transfer. The Boeing plan includes refuelling the lander on the surface of the moon.<br /><br />From the artwork I've seen the Boeing lander has a vague resemblance to the Eagle spacecraft from the old TV show Space: 1999.

 

[frodo1008]

The idea of having separate vehicles for Earth to LEO, and then another vehicle for LEO to Moon orbit or even to moon landing (the moon only having 1/6th the gravity of Earth, and no atmosphere) is NOT a new concept. Wherner Von Braun wanted this kind of system (including LEO transfer space stations) back even before Apollo. Both the time and monetary constaints (yes, even Apollo had some monetary constraints) dictated the direct approach.<br /><br />What I am saying here is that there is nothing radical about this approach. As a matter of fact I can not see a true sustained program for either moon or Mars exploration and exploitation being done any other way!!<br /><br />The thing I am having trouble with here is the Earth to LEO part of the equation. I am confused. What seems to be proposed here is some kind of system that avoids having to have a thermal protection system? As I said I am somewhat confused, and may very well be wrong here, but LEO can not be maintained at less than 17,500 mph. When you come back from this velocity to the Earth's surface you must slow down from this high velocity. To do this you must go through the Earth's atmosphere, and this generates very high temperatures. Thus the use of a Thermal Protection System. This has proved in the past to be both hazardous, heavy, and expensive.<br /><br />Then there is the idea of launching a space vehicle capable of carrying as many as six people from an aircraft. Does anybody here have any actual idea how heavy such a craft is liable to be? I am not saying that it can not be done, but I do think that it will perhaps be more difficult than the extremely enthusiastic people on these threads seem to think that it is going to be. <br /><br />Please, do not get me wrong here, I would LOVE to see NASA get enough funding to try a large number of such ideas, then be able to select the safest (number one consideration), and then the cheapest for true Cheap Access To Space (CATS)!! Whether or not this wi