Jim - 6/7/2006 3:42 PM
august to jan is not one year.
none of the above. They have to do an official announcement: http://exploration.nasa.gov/acquisition/cev_procurement.html, if they change any requirements.
Jim - 6/7/2006 4:32 PM
CEV requirements. But no announcement is forthcoming. Selection boards for procurement take some time. To select an LV ($200m) for a spacecraft like MRO or LRO take six months. The procurement is in the $1G range. The CEV proposals have been turned in long ago. It's the evaluation process that is taking more time. There is a question and response phase of the proposals and this may be taking more time (multiple iterations, possibly). The time for the contractor's BAFO maybe extended.
Jim - 7/7/2006 9:49 AM
they aren't doing it that way. You can get the SOW and see for yourself. Lunar requirements drive the CEV design. ISS is an after thought., more like "oh, by the way, can you add two more seats for short ISS missions" The lunar mission drives more than propellant, i.e. power, stowage, O2, etc. It is easier to downgrade a CEV for ISS, than upgrade one for the moon.
SMetch - 7/7/2006 8:15 PM
If that’s not enough we can’t do four people all site access with the current 1.5. Dropping the SSME for RS-68 and natural spacecraft weight increases means a move to a 2 HLV launch lunar architecture at which point why bother with the SRB/CLV. All it does is add a third flight for lunar missions. That means the SRB/CLV flys maybe 10 missions. Let see 3Billion divided by 10 launches = 300M + Gas and Materials = 500M
mike robel - 8/7/2006 5:58 AM
How about Crew Launch and Cargo Launch? Simple, easy to understand, common sense.
Is a launch to the ISS a .5 or a 1?
1/2 launch sounds like an abort.
In Gemini, it was the Atlas-Agena launch and the Gemini-Titan Launch.
Such esoteric terms make understanding difficult, especially for the general public.
wannamoonbase - 8/7/2006 8:14 AMQuotemike robel - 8/7/2006 5:58 AM How about Crew Launch and Cargo Launch? Simple, easy to understand, common sense. Is a launch to the ISS a .5 or a 1? 1/2 launch sounds like an abort. In Gemini, it was the Atlas-Agena launch and the Gemini-Titan Launch. Such esoteric terms make understanding difficult, especially for the general public.I think the 1.5 is for the public or people that don't pay too much attention (i.e. some guys on capitol hill that vote on budgets.) I think there are political and selling features to the 1.5 description. It may not be a literal integer count, but mass and manpower wise it may be. Call it a 3.14159 stage launch system, just build it and get humans out of LEO and I will happy.
A pi launch system? Yummy! :)
mike robel - 7/7/2006 10:17 PM
I think this ongoing discussion of 1.5 launches is silly. Lets just count, CLV = 1 Launch, CALV = 1 Launch. Last time I looked, 1 + 1 = 2. With this logic, Skylab wasn't 4 launches, it was 2.5. If we were to launch 2 CLV + 1 CaLV, would that = 2? :)
I hope the software programmers and flight planners don't use such silly fractions.
SMetch - 7/7/2006 8:15 PM
SOWs have been known to change. I seem to remember the spec of EOR - Direct Ascent was the "NASA experts SOW" for Apollo what ever became of that? And one of those experts was Wernher von Braun. Telling a smart guy like that their might be a better way is not for the timid.
First of all it’s easier to upgrade than down grade “if” you put the upgrade into the SM. It worked on Apollo with Block1 and Block2 variants. It was a good idea then it’s a good idea now.
At the end of the day all the CM needs to do is go up and down. Add a better heat shield and radiation protection would be the only major changes between Lunar and ISS CM and only if the lifecycle cost justified it. I for one would like more margin or lower cost on the EELV launch than carrying around an over designed lunar heat shield but that’s just me.
The lunar variant of the SM is where all the, gee what should we spec is coming from and what is causing the delay. If they are not careful the may delay the CEV so far that we won’t have to wait around three years for SRB/CLV to be flying. Maybe that’s the plan to give the SRB/CLV a chance to catch-up.
mike robel - 7/7/2006 7:17 PMQuoteSMetch - 7/7/2006 8:15 PM
If that’s not enough we can’t do four people all site access with the current 1.5. Dropping the SSME for RS-68 and natural spacecraft weight increases means a move to a 2 HLV launch lunar architecture at which point why bother with the SRB/CLV. All it does is add a third flight for lunar missions. That means the SRB/CLV flys maybe 10 missions. Let see 3Billion divided by 10 launches = 300M + Gas and Materials = 500M
I think this ongoing discussion of 1.5 launches is silly. Lets just count, CLV = 1 Launch, CALV = 1 Launch. Last time I looked, 1 + 1 = 2. With this logic, Skylab wasn't 4 launches, it was 2.5. If we were to launch 2 CLV + 1 CaLV, would that = 2? :)
I hope the software programmers and flight planners don't use such silly fractions.