How to get people interested in the CEV

• How to get people interested in the CEV by SimonShuttle on 31 Jan, 2006 16:26
• Kinda from another thread where people talked about the lack of people being interested in the actual CEV itself. What's the blame, what's to be done?
• #1 by Pastor/Engineer on 31 Jan, 2006 16:42
• I think people will need to get excited about the mission (i.e. Where are we going?) before getting motivated about a particular vehicle (i.e. How will we get there?).
• #2 by Jamie Young on 31 Jan, 2006 16:50
• Of course, but we're going to the ISS only from 2012 to 2018. That's less than the STS.
  
• #3 by Super George on 31 Jan, 2006 16:53
• They have to sell the Moon and Mars, but the media will say we've done the Moon before and Mars isn't till about 2030?
  
  I think NASA is going to lose a hell of a lot of interest when the Shuttles gone. The CEV and only to the ISS is and visually has nothing on the Shuttle missions.
  
  It might come back for the Moon missions, but nothing will get new and interesting until Mars.
• #4 by Terry Rocket on 31 Jan, 2006 17:29
• I think we've all got past the opinion that if it doesn't look like a plane, it's not a spaceship! But when the CEV comes into service we need to pump it as test flights to what will be trips to the Moon and Mars, for sure.
• #5 by Mark Max Q on 31 Jan, 2006 18:07
• Education and publicity. Both lacking from NASA so far.
• #6 by Dobbins on 31 Jan, 2006 18:16
• Think outside the box. We have to reach a larger audience. Everyone here and on any other space forum  already knows about the CEV and has their mind made up about it. We have to reach the people who aren't ever going to see this post. The Movie "Apollo 13" reached more people than everything NASA's PAO has done in the years since it was released.
  
  
• #7 by vt_hokie on 31 Jan, 2006 18:31
• I have been over the capsule vs. lifting body vs. true "space plane" argument before, so I will refrain from repeating myself, beyond just mentioning that as a space plane proponent, it is very difficult for me to become excited over a (possibly expendable) ballistic entry capsule derived from the 1960's Apollo CM design.
  
  But beyond that, one of my concerns is that the STS-derived launch vehicles will ensure that operational costs remain high and flight rates remain relatively low.  The CEV, with a capacity of 4 (or possibly 6?) astronauts, will fly maybe 3 or 4 times per year, correct?  So, it actually will result in fewer people flying into space than during the space shuttle era, while still requiring billions of dollars (perhaps most of NASA's budget) to keep the program going.  In terms of public perception, I think it will be a tough sell.  Spending billions to send a handful of elite astronauts on ISS expeditions or, in another 20 years, on brief excursions to the moon seems to me like a recipe for continued apathy on the part of the American public.  I believe that the general public will be more excited by the prospect of opening up access to space to an increasing number of people, and the way to do that is to build on the lessons of STS and focus on an entirely new generation of RLV's.
• #8 by Dogsbd on 31 Jan, 2006 19:17
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 31/1/2006  2:31 PM
  
  The CEV, with a capacity of 4 (or possibly 6?) astronauts, will fly maybe 3 or 4 times per year, correct?  So, it actually will result in fewer people flying into space than during the space shuttle era..

  
  CEV flights to ISS are to carry six crew; only one person less than the Shuttle. As for the number of trips per year, yes there will be fewer but that is because ISS construction will be “complete” (whatever that means now) at that time. If the Shuttle were to be used in this time period, IE post ISS completion, it would also be required to make fewer flights… most likely the same number that CEV will be used for in delivering and returning crews. Re-supply flights will be undertaken primarily by Progress, ATV as well as the Japanese supply vehicle (an whatever commercial services come available), that situation is the same regardless of the Shuttle or CEV being in the equation as crew transport. One big difference is that CEV will have the capability to stay on station at ISS for up to six months, whereas the Shuttle can only stay for around two weeks.
  
  Now on lunar flights it is true that the CEV will carry fewer people into space, yet it will carry them much further into space and sustain them there (along with the LSAM) for much longer. As a means of transporting people to and from space the CEV as envisioned has the Shuttle beaten in all aspects, IMHO.
  
  
  
• #9 by BogoMIPS on 31 Jan, 2006 19:26
• Quote

  vt_hokie - 31/1/2006  1:31 PM
  The CEV, with a capacity of 4 (or possibly 6?) astronauts, will fly maybe 3 or 4 times per year, correct?  So, it actually will result in fewer people flying into space than during the space shuttle era, while still requiring billions of dollars (perhaps most of NASA's budget) to keep the program going.

  
  Remember that two of the shuttle's 7 crew were pilots for the vehicle, so if the Shuttle was "shuttling" ISS crews, the biggest crew they could drop off would be 5.  The entire CEV crew could remain at ISS, making for an increase of one per flight for each launch.
  
  Also, CEV stays with the crew, instead of only being able to be offworld for ~2 weeks, allowing for greater man-hours in space, and a built-in lifeboat for all of them during their entire stay.
  
  I agree that we will probably only see 3-4 manned ISS flights per year, as that is as often as crew rotation would be needed.  In theory, ISS CEV flights should cost siginifigantly less than the equivalent STS ISS flight.  We'll have to see if that holds true.
• #10 by Dogsbd on 31 Jan, 2006 19:44
• Quote

  BogoMIPS - 31/1/2006  3:26 PM
  
   In theory, ISS CEV flights should cost siginifigantly less than the equivalent STS ISS flight.  We'll have to see if that holds true.

  
  If the launch of the "stick" and CEV costs as much as an STS launch I will JOIN those who call for the end of NASA's human spaceflight program.
  
  But I don't think that will happen.
  
  
• #11 by nacnud on 31 Jan, 2006 21:31
• The CEV flight rate will be over 6 per year to support the ISS from 2012 upto 2016.
• #12 by hornet on 01 Feb, 2006 01:27
• NASA need to reach out to the public period i did a power point in my computers class and not many people knew we had visited the outer planets with any kind of spacecraft. the ESAS report does a decent job outlining the moon missions and iss plans but not too much about mars which would be the best selling point to the public. we need to keep the shuttle because without it there is no point in sending the cev to a less than half finshed station. i know this sounds bad but i think NASA should cut funds in some older missions that are sending back the same data day in and day out and redirect some of that money to the cev and public out reach programs
• #13 by mr.columbus on 01 Feb, 2006 01:56
• Quote

  nacnud - 31/1/2006  5:31 PM
  
  The CEV flight rate will be over 6 per year to support the ISS from 2012 upto 2016.

  
  A flight rate of 6 CEVs per year to ISS is not realisitic. Consider that from the years 2012 to 2016 the ISS might then be serviced by
  1. Soyuz/Kliper for crews
  2. Progress/Kliper-cargoversion for cargo
  3. the ATV for cargo
  4. the H-II for cargo
  5. private cargo transports (if it turns out that private space companies are capable of doing so)
  
  Considering a permanent crew of 6 with a 6-month long-term duration (shorter periods don't really make much sense) of each crew member, only 12 astronauts have to be flown from and to the ISS per year. As the Russians will continue at least 2 Soyuz-flights or (if build) at least 2 Kliper flights to the ISS per year, it appears likely that only half of these 12 astronauts will fly to the ISS by the CEV. That makes 2 CEV flights per year with 3 astronauts for crew rotation and 1 short-term astronauts per flight the most likely scenario.
  
  To have a rate of 6 flights per year (did you derive this information from the timetable chart in the ESAS?) to ISS would thus mean 4 cargo CEV flights. But the cargo version of the CEV may not even be developed and considering other available cargo transporters will certainly not be the cheapest way cargo missions.
  
• #14 by Dogsbd on 01 Feb, 2006 03:55
• On the other hand how many missions CEV flies to ISS is near irrelevant, as it is designed for a much bigger and more ambitous mission.
  
  
• #15 by STS Tony on 06 Feb, 2006 13:35
• Interesting that "selling" is the obvious first choice. Where's the selling though?
• #16 by Seattle Dave on 06 Feb, 2006 16:46
• Thinking outside the box? And how do you make people do that? This is a typical problem NASA has, expecting Americans to think for themselves, when they are very unlikely to do so without a reason.
  
  I know this only too well, as a teacher.
• #17 by Super George on 06 Feb, 2006 17:24
• Publicity is a problem as it appears NASA to be totally unable to do that properly.
• #18 by Jonesy STS on 06 Feb, 2006 18:06
• What has caused NASA to be so bad at communicating with the public? The mainstream media always seems to be negative about then I've noticed.
• #19 by Chris Bergin on 06 Feb, 2006 18:32
• We're in danger of a misconception here. "NASA isn't some closed off, never speaks to the public" agency.
  
  They don't help the media that much, granted, but most of the time they start to give access and get stabbed in the back when they do it. (See AP during 114, See USA Today on Griffin interview, etc.)
  
  But as far as aiming at schools, education, etc. They are very good.