the cev

[ehs40]

how many will be built? will there be 5 like the shuttle fleet or 2 or 3? i couldnt find much info on this so if any one knows it would be a cool thing to know

 

[ehs40]

that would be why i couldnt find any info, thanks

 

[spacefire]

most likely answer: none<br /><br />how many Venture Stars, CRVs and NASPs are flying? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

then what kind of space vehicle are you expecting?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">how many will be built? will there be 5 like the shuttle fleet or 2 or 3? i couldnt find much info on this</font>/i><br /><br />When Griffin came in he swept away most of the other plans that had been worked up, and he swept away much of the senior management (e.g., Steidle, who was leading the VSE effort under O'Keefe). He then started a 60-day study to map out a new architecture for the new vision and how to transition from the current system (e.g., retiring the shuttle). The 60-day study is pretty much done but hasn't been announced for various reasons.<br /><br />So anything you might have found on the web is probably out of date.<br /><br />Griffin is a true rocket scientist, a smart guy, has been thinking about this vision for years, developed a basic plan for the Planetary Society last year (link), and I think he is really, really hungry for this. He speeches indicate he is greatly accelerating the original timeline outlined by Bush's Presidental Directive, and he is making hard decisions (and taking bullets from Congress for some of his decisions) to free up resources to make it work.<br /><br />Even the usually acerbic Robert Zubrin seems pretty happy with Griffin (interview). That is truely amazing!<br /><br />Keep an eye out for the release of the 60-day study.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">then what kind of space vehicle are you expecting?</font>/i><br /><br />As someone with zero inside knowledge but browses the web a lot, I think you will see:<br /><ol type="1"><li>An initial capsule CEV (LEO CEV) launched on a single-stick SRB for delivering humans to ISS.<li>An in-line shuttle-derived heavy launch vehicle (SDHLV) for taking cargo and eventually an updated CEV. The inline SDHLV avoids the tank debris problem, provides an escape strategy for the CEV, and can launch a very capable (read heavy) CEV.<li>A 2nd generation CEV (the Lunar CEV) launches from Earth on the SDHLV, lands on the Moon, and returns to Earth. No docking in space, no Lunar orbiter. Straight to the Moon and back.<li>Given the previous point, everything except the capsule may be thrown away by the time the CEV returns to Earth's surface. Sort of like Apollo, but somewhat simpler mission profile (no Lunar orbit rendezvous).<br /></li></li></li></li></ol><br />Links:<br />Planetary Society Report (link)<br />Zubrin's "Getting Space Exploration Right" (PDF report)<br />SpaceRef article on shuttle-derived vehicles (link)<br /></i>

 

[strandedonearth]

How many? I would guess like Soyuz: as many as they need. I seem to recall rumors that it would be partly reusable, but with a limited number of flights on the main structure (5 comes to mind).<br /><br />Mass production on a highly automated factory line! Pump those puppies out!

 

[mattblack]

I especially like the concise, no-bull truth Bob Zubrin lays out in this section I've quoted as a copy-and-paste below:<br /><br /> />>the O'Keefe people wasted a year and a half drawing up "roadmaps" of time wasting precursor activities, and they actually set the agency up for negative progress by proposing an absurd 10-year schedule to develop the CEV, during which time they would dismantle the nation's heavy lift industrial infrastructure - so that under the O'Keefe plan, the US actually would have in 2014 a smaller fraction of the required technology to go to the Moon that it has today. They justified this with a phony proposed quadruple-launch/quadruple rendezvous lunar mission architecture (so they could pretend that the nation didn't need heavy lift, and no one would object while such key capabilities were being destroyed - O'Keefe performed the same fakery with his robotic Hubble rescue proposal, which was bogus from the word go, and was just a placebo to prevent people from insisting on effective action to save Hubble). <br /><br />Griffin has turned much of this around<<<br /><br />All true and brilliant. Go Mr. Griffin!!<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>

 

[spacester]

Two angles on the apparent NASA strategy from the point of view of space entrepreneurs:<br /><br />1. The CEV on a stick sets a benchmark for alt.space to beat with their designs, at least in terms of user-friendliness. The above quoted cost per pound to orbit does not count the decades of design and refinement of the SRB, so alt.space does not have to beat the cost number, just the value to the customer.<br /><br />2. If NASA wants to throw all that hardware away, maybe alt.space can grab it and put it to work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"how many will be built? will there be 5 like the shuttle fleet or 2 or 3? i couldnt find much info on this so if any one knows it would be a cool thing to know "<br /><br />The latest rumors (from spaceref.com) say a 3 man CEV will fly 3 times per year to the ISS, an unmanned cargo CEV will fly to the ISS 3 times per year and a 4 man CEV will fly to the moon maybe more than once per year. The Lockheed-Martin CEV is semi-reusable, perhaps with a lifespan of 5 missions or more. But even if the Lockheed-Martin CEV wins the NASA contract that still means there are going to be a lot of CEVs made.<br /><br />My guesstimate is a CEV production rate of one CEV per year with six or more CEV in service continuously. If the CEV is not reusable than the production rate of the CEV could exceed seven per year.

 

[john_316]

I would have to agree with you on these numbers being higher than 2 or 3 but I am going out on a limb here to say the ILRP (Initial Low Rate Production) will be 3 or 4 then goto either 3 to 6 per year until the newer CEV designs are finalized. <br /><br />I think NASA has finally taken the gloves off and said not only will we have fords and chevys but we are gonna fly F150s and caddillacs as well...<br /><br />hehehe<br /><br /><br />I think a CEV processing and manufacturing center will be built or upgraded in an older building and the work will be ongoing thus giving people in United Space Alliance who work with the shuttle opportunity to transfer to new jobs within the new system... <br /><br />If you think about it... Its not just a jobs program.. We get the interest back and when interest is back there are still alot of hot shot cowboys who wanna fly and build these things with or without the shuttle as a hinderance...<br /><br />I envision a shuttle-2 that is SSTO in 30 years so hey lets do what we can with what we have and work from there. The team is already there they just need marching orders and alot enthuesism to do the job right and some practicality in the back pocket.....<br /><br />Get R Done!!!!!! .....and have fun<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<font color="yellow">"The Lockheed-Martin CEV is semi-reusable, perhaps with a lifespan of 5 missions or more."</font><br /><br />Just curious, where did you learn that? I'm definitely curious and eager to learn about the "CEV" concepts.<br /><br />For what it's worth, Russia claims that its "Kliper" spacecraft will be rated for something like 20 or 25 flights.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Just curious, where did you learn that?"<br /><br />Old news. See this thread...<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=224877&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=<br /><br />...I am always on the lookout for the latest CEV news.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"He must have had a inside look at the CEV requirements which NASA has not developed yet. "<br /><br />Nope. I just pay attention.<br /><br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=224877&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=<br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"As someone with zero inside knowledge but browses the web a lot, I think you will see:"<br /><br /> <br />"1. An initial capsule CEV (LEO CEV) launched on a single-stick SRB for delivering humans to ISS. <br />2. An in-line shuttle-derived heavy launch vehicle (SDHLV) for taking cargo and eventually an updated CEV. The inline SDHLV avoids the tank debris problem, provides an escape strategy for the CEV, and can launch a very capable (read heavy) CEV. <br />3. A 2nd generation CEV (the Lunar CEV) launches from Earth on the SDHLV, lands on the Moon, and returns to Earth. No docking in space, no Lunar orbiter. Straight to the Moon and back. <br />4. Given the previous point, everything except the capsule may be thrown away by the time the CEV returns to Earth's surface. Sort of like Apollo, but somewhat simpler mission profile (no Lunar orbit rendezvous)."<br /><br /><br /><br />LRO and a lunar lander is the way NASA is going according to this article from thespacereview.com...<br /><br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/418/1<br /><br />...the text...<br /><br />"After 2010, the focus of the exploration plan would shift towards human missions to the Moon, with the development of a heavy-lift launch vehicle, Earth departure stage, lunar lander, and other systems needed for human crews to live and work on the lunar surface. Robotic precursor missions to the Moon, starting with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter in 2008, would continue through much of the decade. “Our target, in the 2018 timeframe, is to make the seventh human lunar landing,” Shank said, alluding to the six landings that took place under the Apollo program. Future human missions, he said, would follow to gradually build up a permanent outpost."<br /><br /><br /> <br />