-
Methane dropped from CEV plans
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jan, 2006 20:47
-
-
#1
by
Jamie Young
on 10 Jan, 2006 21:08
-
Is that good or bad?
-
#2
by
hyper_snyper
on 10 Jan, 2006 21:12
-
Wow...this is sudden.
Didn't they want methane-fueled engines in the first place for lunar ISRU or am I mistaken?
-
#3
by
Tap-Sa
on 10 Jan, 2006 21:15
-
Hypergols have less Isp, meaning either empty LSAM/CEV shave off some mass or more mass is added to the mission.
-
#4
by
Tap-Sa
on 10 Jan, 2006 21:18
-
hyper_snyper - 11/1/2006 12:12 AM
Wow...this is sudden.
Didn't they want methane-fueled engines in the first place for lunar ISRU or am I mistaken?
That and Mars ISRU could have produced both fuel and oxidizer.
-
#5
by
Tap-Sa
on 10 Jan, 2006 21:20
-
Chris Bergin - 10/1/2006 11:47 PM
Article to come.
We think they are going to Hypergols
Do you have information which hypergols, the classic NTO/MMH or something new?
-
#6
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jan, 2006 21:24
-
Not sure yet - I thought LH2/LOX, but was informed hypergols due to the inability to store LH2 for that length of time involved.
What we do know is that Methane is wiped from the ESAS and gone from the plans.
-
#7
by
hyper_snyper
on 10 Jan, 2006 21:30
-
What's the ETA on that article Chris? I'm really curious as to why they made this decision.
-
#8
by
James Lowe1
on 10 Jan, 2006 21:38
-
hyper_snyper - 10/1/2006 4:30 PM
What's the ETA on that article Chris? I'm really curious as to why they made this decision.
He's about 20 mins away (buzzed him on instant messenger. He's wanting to quote the ESAS Final Report to highlight the change.
-
#9
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jan, 2006 22:02
-
Won't be long...getting quotes in on the reason. No confirmation of the change to hypos. It could still be LH2, but again the info is based on the cancellation of methane related operations.
I'll have this up when I've ensured the source going on quote is happy with his own comments (set practise).
-
#10
by
AndyMc
on 10 Jan, 2006 22:06
-
With manned flights to Mars being so far off, I guess the development of the Methane engine can wait. If it proves that the Lunar south pole has large deposits of water ice, then the call will be for an LH2/O2 fuelled upperstage for the LSAM (or fully re-useable lander) which would be the obvious choice for lunar operations. Also this decision (if true) will probably mean that we see the CEV sooner rather than later.
-
#11
by
Dobbins
on 10 Jan, 2006 22:15
-
A Methane engine is something that NASA should have started working on 10 years ago, but most of the budget has been eaten up by the ISS and STS programs. What little was left for this kind of work vanished in a series of over ambitious space planes that never flew.
Trying to develop a new technology while developing a new vehicle is a big gamble, it can lead to costly delays and budget overruns. If we had a Methane engine already developed then including it in the CEV wouldn't be nearly as big a hurdle as trying to develop one for inclusion.
Methane would have been nice to have, and not just for ISRU. It doesn't require the super low temps that LH2 needs and that is a big advantage for storage for long duration missions like a 6 month stay in Lunar orbit or attached to the ISS as a lifeboat. It doesn't have the toxicity problems of hyperbolics either, something that is a major hassle servicing the thrusters on the Shuttle and which is also a danger to the crew. The ASTP crew came close to getting poisoned by hyperbolic fumes leaking into the capsule at the end of that mission.
-
#12
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jan, 2006 22:29
-
-
#13
by
Tony T. Harris
on 10 Jan, 2006 22:49
-
I like this. Moon is the first stop, so anything else is too long-term.
-
#14
by
Flightstar
on 10 Jan, 2006 22:59
-
You say in the process of being told, Chris? Sources at HQ now?
-
#15
by
nacnud
on 10 Jan, 2006 23:07
-
seems like Mars is getting further and further away.
Then again the rovers have shown that there is water on Mars so LH2 LOX is possible ISRU.
Does anyone know a big problem with methane engines beyond the technology readness level. On the face of it methane seems so much easier to work with than toxic hypos, what am I missing?
-
#16
by
Chris Bergin
on 10 Jan, 2006 23:08
-
I never ever discuss sources, but I can say it was multiple sources on this story. It's dangerous and rare to use one source - you need cross reference information with as many relevant sources as possible to have confidence in publishing.
-
#17
by
Flightstar
on 10 Jan, 2006 23:11
-
nacnud - 10/1/2006 6:07 PM
seems like Mars is getting further and further away.
Then again the rovers have shown that there is water on Mars so LH2 LOX is possible ISRU.
Does anyone know a big problem with methane engines beyond the technology readness level. On the face of it methane seems so much easier to work with than toxic hypos, what am I missing?
Experience. Tried and tested options only it sounds like. Mars is pretty much being pushed down in focus it continues to appear.
-
#18
by
nacnud
on 10 Jan, 2006 23:16
-
A & E Engineering boasts that they went from sketch to hardware in four weeks for a 10 lbf sea level, 25 lbf vacuum methane GOX thruster, it seems a shame thats all.Sill I can understand the thinking, the CEV is needed ASAP.
-
#19
by
Andy L
on 10 Jan, 2006 23:17
-
Money. Get to the Moon without messing about Mars when Mars might not even happen. If you can prove the Moon is a good idea and has worked the ideas ESAS hold, then Mars becomes easier to sell for the next step.
seems like Mars is getting further and further away.