Author Topic: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture  (Read 38317 times)

Offline kcowing

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069

More to follow.

Offline SRBseparama

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #1 on: 10/10/2005 04:13 am »
Thanks for bringing that here without a delay. That's appreciated. I'm still looking through it but Apollo with Steriods? More like Apollo...................that's it!

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #2 on: 10/10/2005 04:19 am »
Well that's going to save a few people 300 bucks on the pdf file. I shall read through this in the morning. Kinda makes you feel wanted when a former Apollo guy didn't get to see this, seems retirement is closing in real fast :(

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #3 on: 10/10/2005 04:27 am »
Quote
kcowing - 9/10/2005  11:00 PM

A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069

More to follow.

This is way cool! Shoud it be on the CEV and SDLV forum sections?

2x5 segment SRB and 5 (I thought it was four) x SSME SLDV Heavy. Yikes  :o That's gonna be fun. Suggestion of actually being in service by 2015?

Need more coffee  ;)
Let's go and explore space.

Offline gyro2020

  • Member
  • Posts: 62
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #4 on: 10/10/2005 04:36 am »
Interesting 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:

Quote
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.

Who made the error? Griffin or Connolly?

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #5 on: 10/10/2005 04:39 am »
Quote
gyro2020 - 9/10/2005  11:36 PM

Interesting 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:

Quote
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.

Who made the error? Griffin or Connolly?

You made the error ;)

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=3713
Quote
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.

Article here as Griffin was making the presentation, so the LOV figure is as Griffin said.
Let's go and explore space.

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 16
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #6 on: 10/10/2005 04:47 am »
Now THAT's what I'm talkin' about!

Lots more follow-on detail.  Especially good to see that a "base" would be set up in stages, with the initial hab delivered and started up in automated fashion, a la Mars Direct.  Sanity may yet prevail.

Now if incremental improvements can be made later to promote reusability the components...


Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #7 on: 10/10/2005 06:05 am »
Looking at the 'CEV'...  The crew are really crammed in that little capsule, aren't they?  Of course, it's only for the ascend, descend and pre-rendezvous orbital portion.  Btw, will they be able to dock on the same orbit?  Or, will they have to play catch-up for 2+ days with the ISS/lunar transfer stage (to minimize propellant usage)?  W/o an orbital module with a toilet and some place to stretch their legs, it’s going to be quite a shock to the folks who are used to the orbiter.  How will it support an EVA, I wonder?  I dont' see an airlock.  Will they all don their suits and depress. entire cabin like in the olden days?

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
kcowing - 10/10/2005  5:00 AM

A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069

More to follow.

Thanks for bringing this here - just scouted through it, but to say you had more than the USA Today article was understatement of the year! Going to have a good read now!

Quote
Space101 - 10/10/2005  5:27 AM

This is way cool! Shoud it be on the CEV and SDLV forum sections?


This is not moving off the top of the site. I'm making this sticky at the top as it's that important - I would encourage those having a very interesting discussion on the CEV and SDLV sections to take relevant elements from the linked article into their deliberations.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
Space101 - 10/10/2005  5:27 AM

2x5 segment SRB and 5 (I thought it was four) x SSME SLDV Heavy. Yikes  :o That's gonna be fun. Suggestion of actually being in service by 2015?

Need more coffee  ;)

Been a launch fan, this is the first image I went right to.

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/nas.esas.23.l.jpg

Note, Flightstar got it on the money with the 3+1 Launch Escape tests, but get this: Two more tests in 2011 (involving orbits), then one unmanned to the ISS, then a crew on a CEV to the ISS in 2011 (not 2012, and not the recently assumed 2013 as some pundits have been claiming).

Then the SDLV comes in for a 2017 test, with another (involving the LSAM), then manned, 2018 - off to the Moon.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline FransonUK

  • Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me...don't ya
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #10 on: 10/10/2005 08:10 am »
Very interesting, but when will they have to start building to make 2011?
Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me

Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 89
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #11 on: 10/10/2005 08:23 am »
Good images, but this really is Apollo again. Somone tell me how this is not NASA going back to 1970 to get to 2020?

Offline Sergi Manstov

  • NSF Russian Editor
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 344
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #12 on: 10/10/2005 09:10 am »
Our old Soyuz still does the job, thank you very much :)

If it works, then it works.

Offline AndyMc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 405
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #13 on: 10/10/2005 09:15 am »
Hi,

It has Apollo written all over it, and thats a good thing. It offers the prospect of picking up where Apollo left off, including greater flexibility for the future. For the HLV increasing the boosters to 5 segment ones.  How about 4 boosters or even no boosters - what would they lift (any one worked it out?). An extended payload fairing for wider loads.

The lander has a spare capacity of 2,200 kg, so would a basic re-usable lunar ferry be possible? Delivery of 21 tonnes of cargo to the surface! - large plant and machinery for mining regolith, pressurised rovers, permanet Habs, and utilising the redundant tankage of these packages for LOX storage. All this will keep US industry very busy and at the cutting edge of technology.

With private companies adding to the mix, such as SpaceX, T-Space and Bigelow's inflatable habs/stations, all of which could support the mission/s there's lots of work to go around. Not just for the big companies.

I think the future looks very good for the project, just a shame it can't come sooner.

One thing though - about the CEV. Where's the John, Bog, Khazi Toilet? I just gotta know ;-)


Cheers,


Offline JamesSpaceFlight

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #14 on: 10/10/2005 09:21 am »
A facinating read, thanks.

Offline JamesSpaceFlight

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #15 on: 10/10/2005 09:23 am »
Quote
AndyMc - 10/10/2005  4:15 AM

One thing though - about the CEV. Where's the John, Bog, Khazi Toilet? I just gotta know ;-)


Tubes in the suits come to mind. The diagram doesn't show it very well, but I'm hoping they have some space to move around a bit.


Offline lmike

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #16 on: 10/10/2005 09:28 am »
Nah, just a set of military grade diapers...  just like in Apollo.  Maybe they can lift the microfiche on those too. ;)

Offline Chris SF

  • Regular
  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #17 on: 10/10/2005 09:38 am »
Excellent, this is very interesting and more positive than how Griffin presented it the other month.

Offline James Lowe1

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
  • New York City
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #18 on: 10/10/2005 10:35 am »
Good to see some more solid images and documentation on the efforts at hand. This is more worthy than the crap I've just read at the Marsociety which again has uneducated comments about scrapping the Shuttle (oh, but only after the HSM) and using HLV with the spare funds (which can't deliever to the ISS). Forgetting of course that ALL SPARE FUNDS WOULD GO BACK TO WASHINGTON.

Let's stick with news like this which is where everyone should focus on.

Offline Jason Sole

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Chicago
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #19 on: 10/10/2005 01:21 pm »
Unimpressed, uninspired, basically don't even think this is more than a pipe dream anyway. Cheaper to hire out Apollo 13 from Blockbusters.

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
Jason Sole - 10/10/2005  2:21 PM

Unimpressed, uninspired, basically don't even think this is more than a pipe dream anyway.

Better than LEO.

Quote
Cheaper to hire out Apollo 13 from Blockbusters.

They're giving away copies of Armageddon, what's your point ;) I'm still reading through it all, so enjoy it and stop whining :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Jason Sole

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Chicago
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #21 on: 10/10/2005 01:34 pm »
Heh :) just don't think it'll happen and we'll end up with no space program.

Offline Bruce H

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #22 on: 10/10/2005 01:37 pm »
Some people have noted complexities involved here, where as on the contray the systems (especially the launch systems) are part simplicity and part proven technology. Hense you see SSMEs (very good record) and SRBs (Very good record post STS-51L) along with Apollo type infrastructure mixed in with what will be new avionics and fkyby-wires.

It's hard to argue against as it's also cheaper that way.

Offline Chris Bergin

Forget 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?
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Shuttle Man

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • KSC
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #24 on: 10/10/2005 04:27 pm »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 10/10/2005  11:14 AM

Forget 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?

No.

But does that matter too much? I'll try and think of an analogy for you, think of Orbiter's flight computers. Should we have ripped them out and replaced them with Windows XP? No. Sure, the flight computers are no outdated in that regard, but still the best for the job and ones that don't crash, that's been reliable. We still have included new elements, so if the crew want to e-mail home, or require the power of your average good spec PC, they have it on board.

Should we line the RCC with titanium? So any debris bounces off, never a problem again? Expensive, yes. Too heavy, you bet. So no.

So yes, it looks old and it looks cheap and yes, it's inispiring as a ship on appearance, but it's done the job before and it'll do it again.
Ex-Apollo, waiting for NASA to finish what we started.

Offline Chris Bergin

Well I said to forget the money but you answered the question anyway :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #26 on: 10/10/2005 04:31 pm »
Don't forget everyone, this is still a competition on the final design. It will be aroundabout what you see, but it's still not finalized.

Offline SRBseparama

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #27 on: 10/10/2005 04:36 pm »
I think this discussion should be noted alongside this, it carries on from the article here on page 6.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=493&start=1

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #28 on: 10/10/2005 06:00 pm »
I suppose a broader analogy to the question of what’s best for accomplishing the proscribed mission would be what participants were facing back in 1959. Then, we were trying to find the best means of achieving earth orbit (forget the U.S.-Soviet rivalry aspect of the whole thing): X-15/DynaSoar-type vehicles or capsules. Each had their champions and detractors. As for the test pilot faction, as Tom Wolfe points out they could spend their careers at Muroc/Edwards flying hot jets to their hearts’ content, but the money and glory were all being focused elsewhere. So they sucked it up and made the jump. The compromises they endured turned out to be a plus for the broader manned space program. Humans were put in the control loop, systems were designed more robustly, and it all came together when JFK called for the moonshots.

The point being is that this Bush “vision thing” is now being translated into a workable solution for an early 21st-century mission-set (I didn’t say THE workable solution). Some good ideas WILL be squandered or missed in the run-up to ISS-Moon-Mars, but the ones that remain seem to best factor in cost and availability, if not the PR angle. It doesn’t mean we should stop pushing for something “better” or different. Maybe the private sector will take up some of the slack. I hope they do. Maybe there’s enough support in Congress. I hope there is.

I for one will miss piloted Shuttle landings. I also miss the von Braun’s/”Colliers” vision and “assume standard orbit, Mr. Sulu. Transporter room, four to beam down.” But the most assured road to space today runs right through the offices of Dr. Griffin/Spock, and I hope he’s got it figured right.


Offline Jason Sole

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Chicago
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #29 on: 10/10/2005 09:34 pm »
Slightly off topic but I think some of the negative press is a bit unwarrented, regardless of the pros and cons. This is down to the fact that Bush is visual on the VSE and he's not exactly popular!

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #30 on: 10/10/2005 11:22 pm »
As unpopular as the Bush administration is becoming, I don't think it's so much a political issue as a cost issue. Most 'average' citizens just don't trust that all that money is really needed to develop the new space technologies and hardware - they tend to think most of that money is going straight into the bank accounts of the big corporate contractors' executives and directors.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #31 on: 10/11/2005 12:40 am »
Quote
MKremer - 10/10/2005  7:22 PM

they tend to think most of that money is going straight into the bank accounts of the big corporate contractors' executives and directors.

I don't think that they think it is, but "know" it is, as its the American way. I don't like the price one bit or the timeline as it looks long when compared to the Apollo days... but it’s not my dollars, hell if anything my shares will do better. It’s the time line that is of some concern to me... I just don’t believe that they will make it, based one the way things operate. I would add 40% to the times given so as not to be too upset when there are delays, and there will be (delays means more money to the contractors).

But based on what I have seen/read, it looks great, at least we are moving forward on some vision, based on proven technology with an upgrade... SRB, are the most basic form of propulsion, capsule, may not look cool, but then you don’t need wings were you are going, and I don’t think getting fussed over reused is a big thing. Looks like the options moving forward are large, and yes it may be back to basics to a large degree.

Overall I am very happy that we are moving forward (with a little reset) and who knows the CEV will change, it may end up looking more in line with the lifting body design over time.

Lets get flying again, we really have had far too much down time over the last few years... good for you Dr Griffin, time for some action, you have good folks working for you, let them move the vision forward.

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #32 on: 10/11/2005 01:10 am »
And it'll come faster than you think. We'll be testing the new ship (a constructed ship) in just over three years time.

Offline SpaceMad

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #33 on: 10/11/2005 01:16 am »
Any idea on when actual construction of a CEV will begin? I think that milestone would be a real physical sign of the start of the VSE!

Offline Shuttle Man

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • KSC
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #34 on: 10/11/2005 01:18 am »
Well as Flight mentioned, there's still the small issue of who will build what. Obviously the SRB element with be ATK, this is one of the beauties of this. Take the CEV and SDLV and you can already say this is being constructed as there's proven flight hardware already in the pipeline.
Ex-Apollo, waiting for NASA to finish what we started.

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 16
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #35 on: 10/11/2005 02:12 am »
CEV downselect to a single prime is "early 2006" last I heard.

And here's the top 25 NASA contractors (FY 2003) to further enrage Avron:  ;)

http://www.govexec.com/features/0804-15/0804-15s10s1.htm


Offline SRBseparama

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #36 on: 10/11/2005 03:55 am »
I think Lockmart are in a weak position for going with their lifting body from the onset.

Offline NASA_LaRC_SP

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #37 on: 10/11/2005 05:04 am »
Excellent to see some firm documentation and images and the naysayers will soon be proved wrong. A note on Lockheed Martin's lifting body. I'm not too sure we can claim it lost out soley on design, but I understand it cost a hell of a lot more than the design that has been decided on as a template. So to answer the money question holds relevance to this issue.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #38 on: 10/11/2005 07:33 am »
I bet that LM will get the contract for the Upper Stage of the CLV & all the various fairings.   Probably to be built in parallel at Michoud while STS's ET's continue.

Then when the last ET rolls off the production line for STS, LM are the obvious candidates for the ET and thus also the Upper Stage of the SDLV too.

That means LM and ATK would wrap up all the LV production requirements.

For Spacecraft, the new Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) is all-but assured to go to the guys who built the last one...   Northrop Grumman.   Along with Boeing this time, I suspect that they'll also get the CEV CM & SM too to balance against the LM allocation.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 89
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #39 on: 10/11/2005 02:45 pm »
Steady on with the abrievations :) How much do we reckon the actual CEV will cost? A billion? two?

Offline FransonUK

  • Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me...don't ya
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #40 on: 10/11/2005 03:12 pm »
There's a breakdown somewhere I think. I think Chris isn't back till tonight cause of doing TV work so if anyone can help, that would be cool.
Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me

Offline Chris Bergin

Sorry about that, back now.

I've not seen a construction breakdown on the costs, only budget allocation. Keith said he's got more to come on his post, so maybe something there?
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline kcowing

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #42 on: 10/11/2005 07:54 pm »
Budget 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.

Offline FransonUK

  • Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me...don't ya
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #43 on: 10/11/2005 08:06 pm »
Thanks for the article you did, was very very interesting!

Can I ask, this $104 billion, is it in the bag or could a change of government say "Not going to get it, we're cancelling that cash"?
Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #44 on: 10/11/2005 08:10 pm »
Remember, Griffin said it's not a new check for $104 bn, it's the actual based on NASA budget projections and the money being used from that budget on the first part of the VSE. It's not like NASA getting 16bn a year (as it is about now) AND another $104 bn on top. It's about the FY budgets being able to be supportive of the VSE.

Offline FransonUK

  • Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me...don't ya
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #45 on: 10/11/2005 08:15 pm »
Ok, 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?
Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
kcowing - 11/10/2005  8:54 PM

Budget 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.

Looking forward to it, especially given the relevance with the remaining STS flights.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Chris Bergin

Quote
FransonUK - 11/10/2005  9:15 PM

Ok, 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.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline ProximaGemini

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #48 on: 10/11/2005 09:32 pm »
Well, Bush will lose the next election as he won't be in it. Presidents only get 2 four year terms. I think the next Prez will be a Democrat (Hillary Clinton perhaps). I personally think there's plenty of support in Congress on both sides. I have full confidence that most of the VSE will play out. The US would never take itself out of a manned space program (for national prestige and security reasons), so with the shuttle retiring, I have no doubt the next generation ship will be built.

:)

Offline Colby

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 182
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #49 on: 10/11/2005 10:05 pm »
Also, by the time the next President becomes inaugurated, it will be January 20, 2009.  So, by that time, the retirement of the Shuttles will be well underway I presume.
Colby

Offline Chris Bergin

You'd also assume the CEV will be just about ready for initial testing.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline kcowing

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #51 on: 10/12/2005 12:19 am »
Check NASA Watch around 10 am EDT tomorrow (wednesday) morning.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #52 on: 10/12/2005 03:47 am »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 11/10/2005  4:20 PM

Quote
FransonUK - 11/10/2005  9:15 PM

Ok, 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.

I just don't see BA LMT GD et al... sitting around, while a source of income is shut down... Nor do I see the various senators etc who have vested interests allow any cuts... the machine in DC will move, special interests/ lobbyists, a few dollars here and there ( make that millions) and all will be good for NASA... (note that all this is a lot simpler in Canada.. they just steal the money directly from the taxpayers, get caught, then spend 60% more on the investigation, with no final outcome, or charges..)

I am not that worried about the Nasa budget.. but then I could be dead wrong.. now with China again in orbit... its now a national defence issue for congress, the money will flow, unless the Airforce/navy have something up their sleeve.

Offline FransonUK

  • Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me...don't ya
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #53 on: 10/12/2005 07:33 am »
Quote
kcowing - 11/10/2005  7:19 PM

Check NASA Watch around 10 am EDT tomorrow (wednesday) morning.

You tease Keith ;)
Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me

Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 89
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #54 on: 10/12/2005 10:56 am »
Quote
FransonUK - 12/10/2005  2:33 AM

Quote
kcowing - 11/10/2005  7:19 PM

Check NASA Watch around 10 am EDT tomorrow (wednesday) morning.

You tease Keith ;)

Careful Keith, she's flirting for info again!  :o

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 16
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #55 on: 10/12/2005 03:08 pm »
From Nasawatch.com/spaceref.com:

Northrup-Grumman-Boeing Reveals CEV Plans:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18022


Offline FransonUK

  • Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me...don't ya
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #56 on: 10/12/2005 04:33 pm »
Don't mean to sound ungreatful, but that's a press release and doesn't really seem like what was more details from the previous very interesting article?
Don't ya wish your spaceship was hot like me

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #57 on: 10/12/2005 05:16 pm »
A bit different 'look' than the NASA concept (hatch & windows the most obvious), but that's to be expected. I wonder how accurate their service module design was shown in that art - the radiators are there, but no visible RCS locations.

They show the solar panels at the rear of the CSM, which is where I'd locate them. It makes for a cleaner launch configuration as the folded panels can be angled back beside the engine bell, inside the adapter shell. Having them externally exposed during launch would require very robust attachments and hinges, which means much more 'dead' mass.


Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #58 on: 10/12/2005 06:16 pm »
"CEV will use two fault-tolerant subsystems and integrated system-health- management systems "

ok, so fault-tolerant  with one engine bell?

Offline Chris Bergin

Maybe this huge headache is making me blind, but have we seen inside the service module yet?
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #60 on: 10/12/2005 07:30 pm »
Quote
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?

The CEV itself. Trying to add a redundant main propulsion system to the service module would eat up all your cargo and crew mass allowances.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #61 on: 10/12/2005 07:36 pm »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 12/10/2005  1:20 PM

Maybe this huge headache is making me blind, but have we seen inside the service module yet?

I've not seen or read about any specifics other than the recommendations for the construction of the main body structures.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #62 on: 10/12/2005 07:47 pm »
This is exaclt what I expected from NG/Boeing. They are playing it safe and being veyr conservative with their design. I don't think you can really blame them for going this route, they are just giving NASA exactly what they asked for.

The question is now, what will Lockheed do. I've been forming some possibilites in my head for a little while now and here's what I've come up with.

1) Apollo clone- CM will look like NG/Boeing's, diferences in appearance in SM.  Different ideas for interior of spacecraft.

2) Old CEV design- Lockheed can always go back to their old CEV capsule concept: http://www.skyrocket.de/space/img_sat/cev_lm_1.jpg

This is the closest they have come so far to the ESAS design. I like it much more than the ESAS/Boeing design, as it resembles the Apollo design without actually being a clone of it in resemblance.

3) Soyuz or Zond like capsule- Lockheed did look into a more Soyuz shaped design as well:
http://www.miomanager.com/Mio_Files/library/1016/cev-lm-capsule-wing-iss-mkr-bg.jpg

Rather interesting as it does have some similarities to the Zond spacecraft that the Russians intended to use for Lunar flights.

4) Biconic- Also in the image above is their old biconic deisgn, either they oculd go with that, or something closer to the biconic we saw on NASA Watch last month.

5) Lifitng Body- Maybe they will be stubborn and stick with their lifting body. In a google search I found this article:
http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/06/16/Navigation/244/199655/NASA+narrows+Shuttle+replacement+competition+to+two.html

Looks like they had a lot done on that design, besides the images we saw. I also wonder if LM even wants the CEV contract anymore. Maybe they've decided they'd rather build the SDLV and SRB Launcher, and develop their lifting body for ISS transport.

6) T-Space anyone?- Either Lockheed and T/Space join up, or Lockheed uses the T/Space "Corona capsule" shape for the CM. Kinda of a crazy idea, hence why it's at the bottom of the list.


Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #63 on: 10/12/2005 09:04 pm »
Quote
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?

I thought the very same thing.  I really think the main propulsion should be configured more like the new ESA ATV cargo carrier.... with 4 smaller engines (that would equal what's needed from the one large one).  The Apollo SPS was hypergolic and pretty reliable.  The new CEV engine is to be fueled by methane and probably represents a completely new development in technology.  With four engines, if one goes bad... the other three can probably compensate with longer burn times.  Even the shuttle has two OMS engines.

Yes, I know there's the issue of weight, cost, etc, etc.... but look at all the flack NASA took from Congress and critics after Challenger & Columbia for giving those same reasons/excuses why the shuttle didn't have any form of crew cabin "escape pod".  We know it would have been impractical, but it sounds bad during an accident investigation board.  Well, now's the time to be sure there is an contingency on the CEV propulsion in case of the main engine failure.  Rather carry less cargo than to have a crew stranded in Lunar (or Earth) orbit, and have to tell an accident investigation that there was no backup contingency.

-RedSky




Offline Shuttle Man

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • KSC
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #64 on: 10/12/2005 09:22 pm »
Any main engine failure is bad, so we just have to assure it won't happen.
Ex-Apollo, waiting for NASA to finish what we started.

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #65 on: 10/12/2005 09:50 pm »
Quote
Shuttle Man - 12/10/2005  4:22 PM

Any main engine failure is bad, so we just have to assure it won't happen.

Trouble is... there can be no assurances.  (ETs were never to have any debris shedding, o-rings were never meant to fail, etc.  Stuff happens)  Guess I didn't mean to say "failure" as in explosion, etc.  on the CEV SPS.   Rather, something that might render an engine's health in question... which might be just a sensor reading, stuck valve indication, small leak, etc.  Even the LockMart lifting body CEV, in its illustration with attached Propellant tank, had 2 main engine bells.  Seems like its not an unreasonable idea.

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #66 on: 10/12/2005 11:11 pm »
The question is, where do you draw the line on redundant backup systems, especially as large as engines?

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #67 on: 10/12/2005 11:26 pm »
Actually, 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:


Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #68 on: 10/12/2005 11:28 pm »
I believe it will be one main unit.

Offline Chris Bergin

Question is, does it need both engines or is one of those a back up system? I ask as if they need both engines, then one failing is still going to be bad news?
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Space101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 306
  • Leeds, England
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #70 on: 10/13/2005 12:41 am »
said it before and I'll say it again. If you lose all your engines in LEO, you'll still get back. Not with this!
Let's go and explore space.

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #71 on: 10/13/2005 12:44 am »
Quote
Space101 - 12/10/2005  7:41 PM

said it before and I'll say it again. If you lose all your engines in LEO, you'll still get back. Not with this!

I think you'll find if an Orbiter lost all engines (I'm assuming RCS and OMS Pods) then by the time you'd lost enough Orbit you'd have no Orbiter left. One needs to de-orbit burn and precisely otherwise it's going to be a bad day.

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #72 on: 10/13/2005 12:44 am »
I think the important note to make is that space flight is a dangerous business. There's no getting away from that.

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #73 on: 10/13/2005 02:08 am »
Quote
Flightstar - 12/10/2005  7:44 PM

I think the important note to make is that space flight is a dangerous business. There's no getting away from that.

Guess that's my point.   The planning & development stage is the time to adopt a CYA (cover your ass) philosophy.  By that I mean, if it is possible to have a safer design or configuration which allows a contingency, then it should seriously be considered.  Yes, there are countless potential failures possible that might occur.  Spaceflight will be dangerous at least for the foreseeable future.  We needn't make it more so by getting too confident.  Why else has Boeing's anouncement today made an effort to mention several times about double redundency? (CYA).  

If two engines were there, both would be used in tandem for the burns.  But if one had indications of a problem,  the other might be able to accomplish the required delta-v by extending the burn duration.  With just one engine, where's the contingency if you're in Lunar orbit?  Basically, it seems the only critical (life dependent) uses for the CEV propulsion system are for de-orbit from LEO, or for TEI out of Lunar orbit. (Since its been stated the LSAM will perform LOI and all lunar orbit changes).

Just remember, this CEV Methane engine is new, and must prove reliable for conditions which probably can't be fully tested...  that of space storage...  heating & cold soaks for up to six months on orbit.

I'm confident the U.S. manned space program would continue in the event of an incident which may cause a failed or aborted mission, (i.e., a scrubbed lunar landing or a power abort return midway to the moon due to some problem).  However, (no matter how unrealistic it may be),  I'm not so sure that would be the case in a Loss of Crew event with the CEV.  If there ever were to be an inoperative SPS engine that causes a crew to be marooned,  I can hear the investigation board's questions now:
Q: What was your contingency backup?  A: Our design of the SPS was to insure exceptional reliability.  Q: You're saying it was thought to be 100% reliable?  A: Well, nothing is 100%.  (GOTCHA!)  Q: Didn't I see some contractor proposed designs with two engines?  Why were they proposed if it wasn't a matter of utmost importance?  Didn't you learn from the Shuttle program? etc. etc.

I just don't want to have the future of U.S. manned spaceflight in jeopardy based on something which might have been foreseen and prevented... at least without some reasonable CYA plan.    








Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 16
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #74 on: 10/13/2005 03:43 am »
To reiterate NASA's stated plans (from the Connelly briefing):

"The propulsion system will utilize one 15,000 foot pound pressure-fed liquid oxygen/methane engine with an Isp of 362 seconds. The Service Module will have 24 100 lbf RCS engines - each with an Isp of 315 seconds. The fuel tanks will be AL-Li graphite wrapped, rated at 325 psia and will use gaseous Helium pressurization."

That's pretty clear.  But close examination of the drawing from NGC/BA appears to show one of the bells off-center.  That implies two bells, with the other not shown.  Me, I don't think the drawing can be trusted.  Like Franson said, it looks like press-release fluff.

Some thoughts on two vs. one bell.  Two bells are better than one -- just ask Lance Armstrong.  If you lose one you've got the other.  However, weight is an issue, as Flight stated earlier, and how far do you carry the redundancy?  Just the motors?  Motors and lines?  Motors, lines and tanks?  Motors, lines, tanks, control computers?  You get the picture.

Sometimes the reliability of a design can be compromised by the complexity of its error detection and recovery systems.  How to compensate for off-axis thrust?  Should the motors be gimballed?  Or do you compensate by oversizing the RCS system for the worst case scenario?  How does that affect your control software, your tankage, your plumbing?  Complexity is a serious consideration in all engineering endeavors, whether you're designing a bridge, a spaceship, or power-plant control software.

Dual motors has redundancy.  A single motor has simplicity.  Both are desirable qualities.  I'm not decided either way, so it's a good thing that Mike Griffin isn't biting his nails waiting for me to send him a report.  :)


Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #75 on: 10/13/2005 04:38 am »
OK, here's an idea.  Block 1 CEV only needs one engine, since its only used in LEO.  I think even for Apollo, there was an emergency contingency for using a series of long RCS burns for LEO deorbit in case the SPS were inoperable.  So for the CEV, that could be the case, too.

That would give time for development down the road for the Block 2 CEV with duel engines for Lunar orbit operations.  This would not be unprecedented, since, for example, the Centaur upper stage comes in two varities... with one or two engines, depending on the need.  If weight is an issue with the dual engines on a Lunar CEV, then use a 5 segment SRB for Block 2 launches.

Regarding doing a burn with one engine "off axis" in case that were necessary, I don't think its much of an issue for "in space" delta-v's. (for launches, yes, off axis can be a problem).  I recall  shuttle orbital changes being done using only one OMS engine... and that's pretty off-axis.








Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #76 on: 10/13/2005 04:40 am »
Quote
RedSky - 12/10/2005  6:26 PM

Actually, 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:


That's also likely one engine with two combustion chambers (like the Atlas IV's RD-180), which still is not a 'redundant' design.

I think insisting on a completely redundant main propulsion system violates the KISS cost and complexity principals of the CEV proposal. There does come a point where designing in too much redundancy for absolutely everything becomes overkill - you might end up with a totally safe vehicle, but there's no more room for a decent crew or cargo capacity because of the available mass limits.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #77 on: 10/13/2005 11:17 pm »

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.


Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #78 on: 10/14/2005 12:22 am »
With respect, private space flight is light years behind.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #79 on: 10/14/2005 12:28 am »

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.


Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #80 on: 10/14/2005 12:34 am »
Of course. However T/Space's plans are flawed for such 2+2 missions. You have to double contigency on both elements for it to be workable, thus making twice as much extra redundancy. Imagine you have two cups, both filled with water. One spills, there's no help from the other cup. So they are sending two half full cups. That is the best analogy I can think of for their plans. It would be cheaper and more efficient to send a full cup with a good lid!

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #81 on: 10/14/2005 12:43 am »

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.


Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #82 on: 10/14/2005 12:54 am »
Nicely 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.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #83 on: 10/14/2005 03:06 am »
On the redundancy issue... three options I can see..

1) Take the risk   --- Not going to sit well with the public
2) Full redundancy including propulsion -- mass/complexity issue
3) Redundancy of all life support PLUS a Rescue mission on standby

Rescue mission all depends on two factors, where the CEV is going and how long you can keep a Rescue CEV stacked and ready to roll - cannot be that bad if its based on SRB's in terms of rollout and pad processing.

Full redundancy is fine as long as any failure does not impact the backup system (thinking back to Apollo13 - O2 was redundant as still the CM was left with close to zero ) -
Thus may also require a standby rescue mission.

Offline Chris Bergin

Now unsticky (as I believe everyone who wanted to be invovled has seen it now).

Will move to the CEV section later today.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #85 on: 10/27/2005 04:20 pm »
Quote
Flightstar - 13/10/2005  8:54 PM

Nicely 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.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kcowing

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 149
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #86 on: 10/31/2005 03:53 am »
Quote
kraisee - 27/10/2005  11:20 AM

Quote
Flightstar - 13/10/2005  8:54 PM

Nicely 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.

Uh no - not exactly. If that was the case then they'd only land at one location - and many locations are under consideration for landings.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0