kcowing - 9/10/2005 11:00 PMA Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecturehttp://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069More to follow.
While the Shuttle has a 1/200 loss rate (crew and vehicle) on ascent, Connolly said that NASA has calculated the CLV/CEV system as having a 1/2000 loss rate.
gyro2020 - 9/10/2005 11:36 PMInteresting and lots to look through here, but I'm already noticing the "correction" on some issues that drew attention post VSE address by Griffin.He said the CEV would be a LOV of 1/20000, yet from Keith's article:QuoteWhile the Shuttle has a 1/200 loss rate (crew and vehicle) on ascent, Connolly said that NASA has calculated the CLV/CEV system as having a 1/2000 loss rate.Who made the error? Griffin or Connolly?
One positive to come out of the announcement was the increase in the safety ratio that has haunted NASA since the loss of two Shuttles (Challenger and Columbia) - with the STS program currently under the 1 in 220 mission loss of vehicle (LOV) estimate. The new ship will have 10 times the safety ratio - rising to 1 in 2000 LOV.
kcowing - 10/10/2005 5:00 AMA Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecturehttp://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069More to follow.
Space101 - 10/10/2005 5:27 AMThis is way cool! Shoud it be on the CEV and SDLV forum sections?
Space101 - 10/10/2005 5:27 AM2x5 segment SRB and 5 (I thought it was four) x SSME SLDV Heavy. Yikes That's gonna be fun. Suggestion of actually being in service by 2015?Need more coffee
AndyMc - 10/10/2005 4:15 AMOne thing though - about the CEV. Where's the John, Bog, Khazi Toilet? I just gotta know ;-)
Jason Sole - 10/10/2005 2:21 PMUnimpressed, uninspired, basically don't even think this is more than a pipe dream anyway.
Cheaper to hire out Apollo 13 from Blockbusters.
Chris Bergin - 10/10/2005 11:14 AMForget about money for a second and consider this: Is what you see in Keith's article the best approach to the first elements and foundations of the VSE?
MKremer - 10/10/2005 7:22 PMthey tend to think most of that money is going straight into the bank accounts of the big corporate contractors' executives and directors.
kcowing - 11/10/2005 8:54 PMBudget numbers are in flux. White House is about to ponder the FY 07 budget and requests for large chunks of additional money (billions) Between that and the new NASA operating plan, some numbers - reliable numbers - will emerge. Until then - best to just sit and wait.My next article will be on the ISS situation.
FransonUK - 11/10/2005 9:15 PMOk, but say Bush lost the next election or there was enough political pressure to ut down the NASA budget to a point where the VSE couldn't be afforded, is that possible?
Chris Bergin - 11/10/2005 4:20 PMQuoteFransonUK - 11/10/2005 9:15 PMOk, but say Bush lost the next election or there was enough political pressure to ut down the NASA budget to a point where the VSE couldn't be afforded, is that possible?I think that's a risk that will always be hanging around. I'm not too savvy on the US political structure - but it would be a far bigger issue if this was a UK situation given the way policy is voted for here.
kcowing - 11/10/2005 7:19 PMCheck NASA Watch around 10 am EDT tomorrow (wednesday) morning.
FransonUK - 12/10/2005 2:33 AMQuotekcowing - 11/10/2005 7:19 PMCheck NASA Watch around 10 am EDT tomorrow (wednesday) morning.You tease Keith
Avron - 12/10/2005 1:16 PM"CEV will use two fault-tolerant subsystems and integrated system-health- management systems "ok, so fault-tolerant with one engine bell?
Chris Bergin - 12/10/2005 1:20 PMMaybe this huge headache is making me blind, but have we seen inside the service module yet?
Shuttle Man - 12/10/2005 4:22 PMAny main engine failure is bad, so we just have to assure it won't happen.
Space101 - 12/10/2005 7:41 PMsaid it before and I'll say it again. If you lose all your engines in LEO, you'll still get back. Not with this!
Flightstar - 12/10/2005 7:44 PMI think the important note to make is that space flight is a dangerous business. There's no getting away from that.
RedSky - 12/10/2005 6:26 PMActually, we really don't see the back end of the new Boeing CEV images released today at NasaWatch. Maybe there are two engines. , like this earlier version:
Multiple redundancy was where t/Spaces architecture came into its own. Send two 2 man expeditions at the same time. In the remote possibility of complete failure of a system on one vehicle the other can come to the rescue.
That’s neither here nor there, the t/Space architecture had certainadvantages because of its duel flight nature, however there were disadvantagesas well - for instance the vast number of launches needed to support the fuellingof the CEVs.I was just highlighting another possible method of introducing redundancy intothe system.
I thought the idea was that for a 2+2 mission that the other half of each vehicle was filled with science gear etc that could be dumped in an emergency allowing a single ship to carry 4.Yes there is extra inefficiencies involved but there is a lot of extra safety as well. Think of Columbus’s first American voyage, multiple ships for redundancy. Perhaps not the best analogy but you can see the similarities.
Flightstar - 13/10/2005 8:54 PMNicely put.However, I'm thinking as an Orbiter tech, as I would. I'm trained to know that every lb of weight taken uphill has to be nessasary in the absolute. I worry about SpaceX 2+2 systems as they are appear to reducing capacity for redundancy at a ratio that goes past my personal beliefs of efficiency and cost. There are factors alone with a tandem mission such as theirs. I have not seen there plan where a rescue would involve 'creating' redundancy through dumping cargo (which is risky in its own right). I'll have to look at that.
kraisee - 27/10/2005 11:20 AMQuoteFlightstar - 13/10/2005 8:54 PMNicely put.However, I'm thinking as an Orbiter tech, as I would. I'm trained to know that every lb of weight taken uphill has to be nessasary in the absolute. I worry about SpaceX 2+2 systems as they are appear to reducing capacity for redundancy at a ratio that goes past my personal beliefs of efficiency and cost. There are factors alone with a tandem mission such as theirs. I have not seen there plan where a rescue would involve 'creating' redundancy through dumping cargo (which is risky in its own right). I'll have to look at that.I agree that the tandem mission profile isn't the ideal. That's why I think they'll use the continuously replaced redundant system they use with Soyuz to the ISS currently.An initial lander will be sent to the moon unmanned. The first expedition crew will arrive in another LSAM. But they will return home using the "oldest" LSAM, leaving the "newest" LSAM as the escape vehicle for the next expedition.Further crews will continue to replace the oldest craft with a newer one which remains "on-surface". That way you always have a backup which is as new as reasonably possible.If there is ever a significant problem with the older craft, then crews can abandon it, and the newer one becomes the "emergency" crew return vehicle.