mike robel - 27/8/2006 9:36 PM
For that matter, what will the COTS be used for after the ISS is out of service? Now that I think about I am losing my enthusiam for the COTS program too. Another potential waste of moeny when we could, after the shuttle is retired, just contract with the Russians and Europeans for the Soyuz, Progress, and ATV to provide crew and supplies. Save all the money for the VSE.
After 2016, theoretically, there is no ISS, right? So what are we going to do with the CEV for the 4 years in between 2016 and 2020?
Revising my program scenairo from the first message, it could look like this:
CLV/CEV Launches
[SNIP]
Jul 2016: 13th Rotation
Jan 2017: CEV used to return last ISS crew to Earth, ISS deorbited
Jan 2018: 1st Ares V test launch, no payload?
July 2018: 2nd Ares V test launch, no payload?
Jan 2019: Unmanned Ares V with an LSAM on it, like Apollo 5 (LM only launch)
July 2019: Dual launch to LEO with CEV on Ares 1 and LSAM on Ares 5.
Jan 2020: Dual launch to Lunar orbit for landing rehearsal.
July 2020: Dual Launch to the moon for first landing attempt.
Maybe the sequence doesn't look all that bad...
RedSky - 27/8/2006 11:00 PM
To go even further down the road of the title of this thread... what does the CEV do after ISS (2016) if a future administration cancels the CaLV and moon program. The Stick CLV can't even launch some type of "orbital module" for experiments. The CEV is probably too small to have any such equipment.
That's why I've always thought a more capable (or over-capable) LV like the "Direct" is prudent. It insures we still could have some form of meaningful "space program" in the future , and not just a "manned access to space capability". In light of possible uncoming changes in the administration, budget deficits just waiting to hit the fan, inflation due to high gas prices, etc... wouldn't it be better to get as capable a vehicle as you can... as soon as you can? I'm just afraid well have access to space in 2016, but with with no ISS and no moon program, what do you do with the CLV/CEV?
kraisee - 28/8/2006 1:45 AM
Actually Mike, NASA has been trying, since the VSE was announced, to have the first manned landing in 2018. I'm unaware that anything has changed that aim yet. Further, there has been a lot of recent talk throughout NASA's management about trying to accelerate that schedule to 2017, or maybe even sooner. That would bring all the Ares-V missions in your table forward two, or perhaps even three years - and that erases any gap completely.
Of course, if CaLV is cancelled by an anti-NASA goverment, we're all totally screwed.
Ahem. Hint, hint: "Direct" [cough, splutter]. Sorry, couldn't resist... ;)
Ross.
mike robel - 28/8/2006 7:10 AM
Ross,
All true, but as I am sure you know, even with model launch complexes, everything takes longer and is more expensive than you think it will be.
kraisee - 28/8/2006 11:58 AM There are the doubters and naysayers, but I think Griffin will be the last one laughing when he puts people back on the moon in 2017 for less total money than was originally expected. But there again, I'm an optimist ;) Ross.
Griffin was the last one laughing when Discovery returned from a "clean" 121 mission. Oh wait, Griffin's an engineer. He doesn't laugh. :)
kraisee - 28/8/2006 2:54 PM
Yankee, you're right. CLV dev. does a lot towards getting CaLV ready.
Also in four or five years time, when CaLV development kicks into high-gear, the RS-68 should have another 20+ flights under it's belt on Delta-IV. With a touch of luck, it will have a great track-record and they can have some serious confidence in it.
And then during the 7-8 years of development on the CaLV, I'd also wonder if ULA could not be persuaded to fly the NASA-modified engine controllers one of the NASA-funded Delta-IV mission launching a useful NASA probe at the same time. That would provide an interesting test platform for some of the 'man-rated' engine systems, ahead of CaLV flying.
DoD might also be interested in even safer engine controllers for D-IV missions.
Ross.
punkboi - 28/8/2006 3:02 PMQuotekraisee - 28/8/2006 11:58 AM There are the doubters and naysayers, but I think Griffin will be the last one laughing when he puts people back on the moon in 2017 for less total money than was originally expected. But there again, I'm an optimist ;) Ross.Griffin was the last one laughing when Discovery returned from a "clean" 121 mission. Oh wait, Griffin's an engineer. He doesn't laugh. :)
kraisee - 28/8/2006 2:58 PM
IMHO, I think Griffin's NASA will beat the schedule, and save money.
Ross.
Jim - 28/8/2006 8:45 PMJim, could you say that again so that it's more understandable?Quotekraisee - 28/8/2006 2:58 PM
IMHO, I think Griffin's NASA will beat the schedule, and save money.
Ross.
This isn't happening. Everything is pointing the other ways wrt to money. I had provide launch base manning comparsions. SDLV has no chance
CuddlyRocket - 31/8/2006 8:13 AM
Even if the ISS is closed down in 2016 (about which I have my doubts), this doesn't mean that there will be no stations in LEO to which NASA might want to launch astronauts. They don't have to be US stations.
Otherwise, you really need to think of missions that utilise the CEV's extended life-time and higher-speed re-entry capabilities. One possibility that allows for an extended test of the CEV is a mission to the Earth-Moon Trojan points. There may be some asteroidal material there that would be of great scientific interest. Of course, you need some kind of booster for that, and before the CaLV arrives! That brings up - international co-operation. (I noticed Griffin suggested recently that ESA might contribute to lunar missions by sending automatic cargo craft to the Moon carrying supplies and equipment etc - launched by the Ariane. If the Ariane can do that, I would have thought it could launch a booster module to get to the Trojan points?)
There aren't going to be any other stations for awhile, even after the ISS is gone. Any other nation won't being starting up a new one any time soon. Bigelo doesn't count and . For the same reason the ISS is going away, NASA won't "need" to go to a station
There isn't going to be any other missions for the CEV other than ISS or the moon. It won't divert resources form the lunar missions and NASA doesn't have extra
Jim - 31/8/2006 1:24 PMSo what are the Russians, Europeans and everyone else going to be doing whilst NASA is off to the Moon? Cheering from the sidelines and begging for crumbs? I don't think so! The Russians could easily put up a small station.
There aren't going to be any other stations for awhile, even after the ISS is gone. Any other nation won't being starting up a new one any time soon.
Bigelo doesn't count...It doesn't?
For the same reason the ISS is going away, NASA won't "need" to go to a station.NASA has a need to test equipment in LEO. And there is some space science it does on the ISS. Access to someone else's station in return for the occasional flight of a CEV seems reasonable. And anyway, if you want international co-operation, you have to co-operate on other's missions, not just your own.
There isn't going to be any other missions for the CEV other than ISS or the moon. It won't divert resources form the lunar missions and NASA doesn't have extra.Not all NASA's budget - even for manned spaceflight - is earmarked for the lunar missions. By the time the ISS is decommissioned, the Shuttle will have long gone, CEV/CLV will have been completed and most of the CaLV development will have been done.
kraisee - 31/8/2006 8:35 PM
Apart from anything else, the budget allocation isn't there to fly any other CEV's than ones bound for ISS thru 2016, and then only exploration missions after that.
CuddlyRocket - 1/9/2006 8:03 AM
How long would it take them to build and launch another Zvezda and other Russian modules?
Jim - 1/9/2006 1:45 PMThe Russian space agency may not, but the Russian Government certainly does, and can easily afford it if the oil price stays anywhere near its current level (which it probably will - Chinese and Indian demand is likely to be increasing rapidly over the next ten years). The Europeans can definitely afford it.
The Russian's don't have the money
(Likely scenario, if the US has no interest, is a Russian led program with ESA and possibly Chinese input.)
Avron - 2/9/2006 5:21 PM
CEV will be used during this phase to do LEO checkouts of LSAM... since there is no LSAM design yet.. nothing says that the CLV could not orbit the LSAM maybe even with a small upper stage
Jim - 2/9/2006 5:29 PMQuoteAvron - 2/9/2006 5:21 PM
CEV will be used during this phase to do LEO checkouts of LSAM... since there is no LSAM design yet.. nothing says that the CLV could not orbit the LSAM maybe even with a small upper stage
LSAM would be too big in diameter and the CLV is not going to add an upperstage. Both the LSAM and upperstage would require umbilicals and other resources. The CLV MLP/Pad is not going to had them
Space Lizard - 1/9/2006 1:37 AMJust take an empty Ares-V EDS and build a station along the lines of Skylab. Just bigger. :)
NASA and anyone else won't go to Mars or elsewhere beyond the Moon without first testing long duration human flights in Earth orbit.
If it is not onboard a multipurpose space station, then it could be onboard a Mars vehicle staying in Earth orbit... and looking a lot like a space station with very few visitors.
Does anyone remember how tough it was to experiment anything in space when we had no Salyut, no Skylab, no Shuttle, no Spacelab, no Mir, no ISS?
Space Lizard - 1/9/2006 2:37 AM
NASA and anyone else won't go to Mars or elsewhere beyond the Moon without first testing long duration human flights in Earth orbit.
If it is not onboard a multipurpose space station, then it could be onboard a Mars vehicle staying in Earth orbit... and looking a lot like a space station with very few visitors.
Does anyone remember how tough it was to experiment anything in space when we had no Salyut, no Skylab, no Shuttle, no Spacelab, no Mir, no ISS?
mike robel - 4/9/2006 3:08 AMA Mars mission will take years, not six months. We have not demonstrated keeping a spacecraft functioning for that length of time without external supply - particularly of spare parts. I think people are going to want to see that accomplished before we launch humans to Mars.
We have already demonstrated long duration space flight of sufficient length to simulate a Mars mission on the ISS with the six months stays of crew. It can be done.
The Russians demonstrated stays in excess of one year. We know what to do to counteract the weightless effects.We know what to do to slow down the deterioration caused by weightlessness. But astronauts now have only up to six-month stays on the ISS for a reason - and that's on the basis they return to 1g after the six months. Although lunar missions, again, should give us some pointers on the effects of lower, but non-zero gravity.
mike robel - 4/9/2006 4:08 AMGoing to Mars and back is a two-year trip. This hasn't been demonstrated yet. Moreover, we need to demonstrate this hardware flight capability without visiting crews and resupply ships.
We have already demonstrated long duration space flight of sufficient length to simulate a Mars mission on the ISS with the six months stays of crew. It can be done. The Russians demonstrated stays in excess of one year. We know what to do to counteract the weightless effects.
What must be done is build the spacecraft and test it for that period. Better yet, find a way to safely and consistantly produce G forces by rotationg the spacecraft.
mike robel - 5/9/2006 11:31 PM
By the way, in all the hoola, has anyone seen plans/concepts for the Cargo CEV's? Is there a published schedule for its development?
mike robel - 6/9/2006 4:19 AMThat's not an adequate simulation, as the time spent in the Mars analogue station is on Earth at 1g.
Put the ISS crew up for 6 months. After that, bring them down and have them spend 1 year in one of the Mars Society Stations or in Antarctica. Follow the completion of a year, send them back to the ISS for six months.
CuddlyRocket - 6/9/2006 8:21 AMQuotemike robel - 6/9/2006 4:19 AMThat's not an adequate simulation, as the time spent in the Mars analogue station is on Earth at 1g.
Put the ISS crew up for 6 months. After that, bring them down and have them spend 1 year in one of the Mars Society Stations or in Antarctica. Follow the completion of a year, send them back to the ISS for six months.
For a Mars mission, the year will be at 1/3g. We don't know what the effect of spending time in a lower gravitational field is, but intuitively it should slow down any degeneration, and may even cause it to stop at some point. But at what point? The degeneration can't be allowed to go below a certain amount, as the astronauts may have to face a further six months at 0g, which would certainly lead to further degeneration, perhaps to dangerous levels.
A better simulation would be to send them to the Moon for a year. If they survice the process at 1/6g, they should be able to handle Mars. If not, we'd have to think of something else. (Realistically, we'd build up to these levels!)