LSAM Particulars

LSAM Particulars by darkenfast on 28 Mar, 2006 04:44
In many ways, the LSAM is the most fascinating component of the ESAS. Aside from its ability to land a fair amount of cargo on the Moon, the fact that four astronauts will be able to triple the amount of surface man-hours even during the early missions is quite a jump, and gives the lie to those detractors who insist on labelling this a "flags and footprints" program. As I've done with the CEV, I've enjoyed doodling some possible arrangements for the LSAM cabin on paper. It's tricky to get the acommodations in there for four for a week or more, but these people are going to be TIRED, and they will need a comfortable place to sleep and a table to eat and work on, in addition to the airlock and toilet. My current version has three pull-down bunks on one side, with the lowest one also serving as a bench seat. These are in front of a wall of lockers and equipment. The fourth bunk is on the other side above a rack of cabinets containing the galley, more lockers and equipment. During landing and ascent, two astronauts ride standing up (ala Apollo), while the other two are on the bench seat. A folding table will be used for meals and as a work surface. The toilet is in the airlock (much as in the orbital compartment on Soyuz), but will be a "gravity model". I think the LSAM cabin will be the prototype of accomodations on pressurized vehicles for both the Moon and Mars. In the Moon's case, the ascent stage equipment (tanks, motors, etc.), would be replaced by a vehicle with an LSAM cabin over a wheeled chassis. This would require a 2.5 vehicle launch scenario, but would result in a mobile base. A small open vehicle would allow for an emergency return to the regular LSAM. Just as the STS and the Mir and International space stations gave us a huge amount of experience in living in space, I think the ESAS architecture is going to help us acquire the same experience on a surface. Anyone wanna go?

Anyway, the current issue of Air and Space (Smithsonian magazine) has a nice cover article on the LSAM, complete with some new pics I hadn't seen before, although not much in the way of new facts. There is; however, some discussion of control during the landing phase, with comparisons to the Apollo LM.

And of course, I just thought we could use an LSAM particulars thread, to complete the set!
#1 by James Lowe1 on 28 Mar, 2006 04:54
Excellent idea to complete the set. There are some images and threads relating to the LSAM, so if anyone sees fit to link them into here, please do.
#2 by Jim on 28 Mar, 2006 12:12
Don't think the toilet in the airlock will work. Some EVA scenerios have two crew member resting while two are on an EVA
#3 by copernicus on 07 May, 2006 05:14
Has anyone heard any updates on the configuration of the LSAM? Will it need
to be modified from the ESAS design as a result of CaLV payload restrictions, or
does the recent re-work of the CaLV (10-m diameter first and second stages)
allow it to maintain its original weight and specifications?

Also, should NASA be working more urgently in the next year on the specifics
of the LSAM in order to start requesting some RFI's (Requests for Information)
from industry?
#4 by Bill White on 08 May, 2006 18:19
Quote
copernicus - 7/5/2006 12:14 AM

Also, should NASA be working more urgently in the next year on the specifics
of the LSAM in order to start requesting some RFI's (Requests for Information)
from industry?

This weekend's official announcement of funding for the X Prize lunar hopper challenge suggests to me that NASA may desire to learn whether truly re-useable rocket engine technology can be developed by some of these little guys (and then bought up by a big guy?) before LSAM design gets too far down the road.

A totally re-useable LSAM (lunar LOX together with well just about anything) will be critical to sustained lunar exploration.

Those XCOR rocket racers may seem like a toy until you realize those engines will start and stop very very frequently.
#5 by Jim on 08 May, 2006 18:30
Quote
Bill White - 8/5/2006 2:19 PM
Quote
copernicus - 7/5/2006 12:14 AMAlso, should NASA be working more urgently in the next year on the specifics of the LSAM in order to start requesting some RFI's (Requests for Information) from industry?
This weekend's official announcement of funding for the X Prize lunar hopper challenge suggests to me that NASA may desire to learn whether truly re-useable rocket engine technology can be developed by some of these little guys (and then bought up by a big guy?) before LSAM design gets too far down the road.A totally re-useable LSAM (lunar LOX together with well just about anything) will be critical to sustained lunar exploration.Those XCOR rocket racers may seem like a toy until you realize those engines will start and stop very very frequently.

The initial LSAM's will not change much from the ESAS. However, followons can take advantage of new technology. Reusablity doesn't come into play until you ready to have a robust translunar and/or transsurface infrastructure. Either way, it means that there is an existing transportation node in LEO or near the moon.
#6 by Jim on 08 May, 2006 18:34
Quote
copernicus - 7/5/2006 1:14 AMHas anyone heard any updates on the configuration of the LSAM? Will it need to be modified from the ESAS design as a result of CaLV payload restrictions, or does the recent re-work of the CaLV (10-m diameter first and second stages) allow it to maintain its original weight and specifications? Also, should NASA be working more urgently in the next year on the specifics of the LSAM in order to start requesting some RFI's (Requests for Information) from industry?

LSAM is on the back burner. Order of work prority:
1. CEV
2. CLV
3. CaLV
4. LSAM

Sure, some LSAM requirements work has to be done up front, but the CEV must get selected and have its requirements settle out.
#7 by Bill White on 08 May, 2006 18:39
An announcement concerning LOX/methane engine development. XCOR is involved.

Under terms of the contract, ATK will design, develop, fabricate, test, and evaluate a 7500-lbf constant-thrust, pressure-fed bipropellant rocket engine assembly using Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Methane. The first phase of the development is to design and test a heavy-weight, prototype rocket motor. Upon completion, the contract allows for options to design and fabricate a more flight-weight prototype engine. Production variants of this main engine will have multiple restart capabilities to support lunar exploration as well as additional exploration to Mars. This contract is designed to develop new technologies that raise the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and determine the feasibility of producing a main engine.

XCOR, a Mojave California-based rocket engine development firm, will provide engineering design and testing support to NASA and ATK throughout the development process.

Hypergolic fuels are a dead end both for ISRU and re-useability and ten years seems a fairly good lead time to develop LO2 extraction techniques from lunar regolith. As for a parking place, a re-useable LSAM could perhaps station keep at EML-1, no space station needed, although Boeing has issued some lovely L1 architectures based on building stations.
#8 by Jim on 08 May, 2006 19:08
Quote
Bill White - 8/5/2006 2:39 PMAn announcement concerning LOX/methane engine development. XCOR is involved.
Under terms of the contract, ATK will design, develop, fabricate, test, and evaluate a 7500-lbf constant-thrust, pressure-fed bipropellant rocket engine assembly using Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Methane. The first phase of the development is to design and test a heavy-weight, prototype rocket motor. Upon completion, the contract allows for options to design and fabricate a more flight-weight prototype engine. Production variants of this main engine will have multiple restart capabilities to support lunar exploration as well as additional exploration to Mars. This contract is designed to develop new technologies that raise the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and determine the feasibility of producing a main engine.XCOR, a Mojave California-based rocket engine development firm, will provide engineering design and testing support to NASA and ATK throughout the development process.
Hypergolic fuels are a dead end both for ISRU and re-useability and ten years seems a fairly good lead time to develop LO2 extraction techniques from lunar regolith. As for a parking place, a re-useable LSAM could perhaps station keep at EML-1, no space station needed, although Boeing has issued some lovely L1 architectures based on building stations.

Just a point, the architecture in ESAS will be used a while until 202X or so before any changes for exploitation are done
#9 by kraisee on 09 May, 2006 04:44
Quote
Jim - 8/5/2006 3:08 PM

Just a point, the architecture in ESAS will be used a while until 202X or so before any changes for exploitation are done

Yes, given the fact that there will still be an "evolution" to the systems as the program goes on. Specific elements will be improved and modernised throughout the lifetime of the program, but the overall shape of the architecture will remain pretty solid once they finalise the designs.

I'm still hoping NASA will eventually publish detailed information about the revised CLV and CaLV designs when they are set in stone.

Ross.
#10 by simonbp on 16 May, 2006 13:02
Some more speculation from http://www.usspacenews.com/index.html

Quote
Great (and early) ideas are coming forth about the LM for CEV. The development of the CEV
LM would start about 2009-2010. One concept (that will be published next year) is for a LCCL
(Lunar Crew/Cargo Lander). The LCCL is about 2.5 times the length of an Apollo LM and ruffly
the same hight. It has an external airlock/crewlock not part of but soft mounted to the aft of the
Assent stage. Access to the Lunar surface is via the crewlock at the aft end of the Assent
stage. The crewlock will stay on the surface fixed to the decent stage when the crew departs.
Along with crew equipment, surface operations support hardware, Lunar EVA spacesuits and
other high value items could be left behind in the crewlock for reuse or to serve as a source of
spares parts for future expeditions (several US spacesuits on ISS failed when a build of
biomass clogged fans and pumps).

The cargo version would have a crew habitat in place of the assent stage and the same
crewlock. Tanks for holding fuel what instead hold water. Solar power and battery systems
would initially provide power to the LCCL habitat. Future power could be provided by a Lunar
Surface Reactor (based on research done at MSFC). The cargo variant could have 6 legs.

The lander has a 3 engines with a single engine out capability. Heavy cargo would be flown in
place of the habitat. Cargo variants LCCL would not need a CEV for leaving Earth orbit or
landing on the moon. The real thing may never look like this, but it's fun read about new
designs.

Simon
#11 by dmc6960 on 16 May, 2006 19:30
Not only are the reports from that site getting more and more far fetched, but the grammar is getting worse too. I was having trouble reading that.
#12 by Kayla on 21 May, 2006 23:35
Quote
Jim - 8/5/2006 1:21 PM

Quote
copernicus - 7/5/2006 1:14 AMHas anyone heard any updates on the configuration of the LSAM? Will it need to be modified from the ESAS design as a result of CaLV payload restrictions, or does the recent re-work of the CaLV (10-m diameter first and second stages) allow it to maintain its original weight and specifications? Also, should NASA be working more urgently in the next year on the specifics of the LSAM in order to start requesting some RFI's (Requests for Information) from industry?

LSAM is on the back burner. Order of work prority:
1. CEV
2. CLV
3. CaLV
4. LSAM

Sure, some LSAM requirements work has to be done up front, but the CEV must get selected and have its requirements settle out.

I understand that this is NASA's priority, but does it make sense. CEV must be the number 1 priority, or we don’t have an American human space program. But from a risk perspective, the LSAM is right at the top. This is the machine that if it doesn’t work, astronauts die! At least with launch vehicles (other than shuttle) the CEV can abort with a strong likelihood of the astronauts surviving. Also, no one has developed a lunar lander since the 1960’s. This presents us with a huge experience gap.
#13 by lmike on 21 May, 2006 23:46
"CEV must be the number 1 priority, or we don’t have an American human space program." I think there is a weakness even in this proposition. The way it is right now, the CEV/CLV is a dependent pair. Both must have equal priority, or we'll have nothing to launch that CEV on. Or, alternately, we'll have nothing to launch on the CLV. As it is the CEV is tied onto the specific CLV. Architecturally(sp?). A smaller CEV with a 'universal' interstage adapter would fit better into this sequence.
#14 by simonbp on 26 May, 2006 03:59
"NASA JSC Solicitation: Lunar Lander Concept Studies"

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20739

Simon
#15 by yinzer on 26 May, 2006 04:39
Quote
Kayla - 21/5/2006 4:22 PM
I understand that this is NASA's priority, but does it make sense. CEV must be the number 1 priority, or we don’t have an American human space program. But from a risk perspective, the LSAM is right at the top. This is the machine that if it doesn’t work, astronauts die! At least with launch vehicles (other than shuttle) the CEV can abort with a strong likelihood of the astronauts surviving. Also, no one has developed a lunar lander since the 1960’s. This presents us with a huge experience gap.

True, to some extent. But mitigated by several factors.

One - the lunar landings are extremely likely to slip, and pretty likely to be cancelled.

Two - there has been rocket-propelled lander development - Viking, MPL (whups!), DC-X, which is at least somewhat relevant in terms of guidance algorithms for terminal descent. Flying the initial descent trajectory is now much more easily planned and executed - in space maneuvering capability is much more highly developed.

Three - IF there is actually a long sequence of lunar missions, the LSAM used for the first few is not of critical importance. Something that'll get the astronauts down to the surface, keep them alive for a few days while they test spacesuits and rovers and scoop up some regolith, that's all that it'll take to do the job. Better can wait.

During Apollo, there was a hard deadline the knowledge that the program was going to make it there. This time we have neither, so it makes some degree of sense to concentrate on existing problems.
#16 by wannamoonbase on 28 May, 2006 15:29
Moon or Mars I think that a single site for landings should be selected (with a capable long range rover provided) that way you can build up some capacity instead of starting at nothing each time you land.

That said I also think the landers (and whatever portion stays behind) either human landing or cargo need to be consumable. The tanks can be reused for water, fuel, Oxygen etc. Metals can be used for base supplies and especially for the moon some form of Carbon fiber that can be burned or reduced to carbon so it can be used by planets in a greenhouse is important.

Nearly 100% of the mass of a lander (given the cost of launching and landing) should be able to be used over and over again.

As for the Moon landings, if we get to 2010, or 2016 and some president or the public decides that we are going to Mars first and skip the moon I am fine with that. Lets just go somewhere, anywhere, not just a deadend place like ISS.
#17 by hyper_snyper on 29 May, 2006 23:27
I have a question on the LSAM.

Everytime there's talk of a Mars landing there's also talk of a Martian moon landing to precede it because people claim it's a lot easier. My question is can a standard LSAM (one for landing on Earth's moon) have the capability to land on the Martian moons? Dock an LSAM to the transfer vehicle and go. Phobos and Deimos are obviously much smaller than the Moon so deltaV wouldn't be a problem would it? You'd just need the transfer vehicle to get in close enough. Anyway, it was just something I was thinking of since I'm bored.
#18 by Jim on 29 May, 2006 23:32
Probably the hardest thing is to keep from bouncing off.

US Holiday makes for slow space news day
#19 by nacnud on 29 May, 2006 23:33
The big step you are missing is, what transfer vehicle?
#20 by hyper_snyper on 29 May, 2006 23:38
Quote
nacnud - 29/5/2006 7:20 PM The big step you are missing is, what transfer vehicle?
I know, it was just a hypothetical question.
#21 by mong' on 30 May, 2006 01:03
to be honest I don't really see the point of stopping by the martian moons.
one advantage of Mars is that it has an atmosphere, so you can aerobrake to surface/orbit. no need to carry any fuel for orbit insertion or descent
by landing on phobos or deimos you sort of zapp that advantage, and you can forget ISRU for propellant production.

not to mention that it adds unnecessary complications, even if you use aerobraking to put yourself directly in an orbit that intercetpts either moon

but to answer your question, yes I think you could use the LSAM, since it's meant to be operated outside of an atmosphere and should carry enough propellant for the landing, but you would need some kind of attachment to the surface, because of the low gravity.
but as I said it would complicate things

In my humble opinion it would be more efficient to explore those moons with spacecrafts based on mars using local resources as propellant
#22 by wannamoonbase on 30 May, 2006 02:04
Qualifying and doing the work for the LSAM to last long enough for the 6 month cruise would be a significant step.

I agree the moons offer little interest. (If they contained ice inside then maybe, but it would very inaccessible)

The Martian surface has an atmosphere, near 24 hour day, ice deposits, other chemical feedstocks.

Really Mars is a great location to go to, I like the moon because it is close and the communication time would be so easy. But the long term needs to be Mars and it needs to be done with enough Mass of hardware and people that we go and stay and not wait 50 years inbetween visits.

On the Moon side, I think a nuclear powered rover that can be sent into the polar craters and work through the night as well as be driven in near real time would be one heck of a great adventure. The size of a mini van or motor home, lets think big.
#23 by simonbp on 30 May, 2006 14:33
NASA (MSFC, GRC, and LRC) actually did a study on a Mars moon mission to see if it was of any value as a precursor to a landing; the result of the three different mode studies (NEP, NTP, Chemical) was that it would take just as much a landing, if not more if you two landers for each of the moons. (As a side note, due to it's size, the NEP option ending up need more launches than chemical...)

Simon
#24 by rfoshaug on 30 May, 2006 15:05
Wouldn't landing on the Martian moons be more like a docking than a landing? There's not a lot of gravity there.

A Martian moon "docking" would make some sense if you want to go to Mars, but don't want to risk a landing on top of that (a bit like Apollo . A rendezvous with one of the Moons would give NASA some EVA training and useful geological and scientific work while avoiding the risks of landing for a first mission.

On the other hand, after travelling for X months and going all the way to Mars, not landing would significantly reduce the awe-to-risk ratio of the mission.

It'll be very interesting to see what the LSAM will look like. Now that CaLV will use 5 RS68 engines and 10-metre core stage, won't that increase its payload capability (ie. lunar lander max weight)?
#25 by HarryM on 30 May, 2006 17:36
If there is water-ice on Phobos/Deimos it would be a nice resource for a water-cracking plant/refuelling station for your main vehicle. You wouldn't want to haul all of that H2O out of Mars gravity well if you didn't have to. It might also be a good refueling point for missions to the asteroids or outer solar system. Since the gravity is so light, you could probably just settle your main vehicle on the surface w/o any bad weight loads (just have to avoid getting it covered with nasty regolith, maybe some sort of cradle).

EVA's would be dicey, too easy to hop a little too high...
#26 by josh_simonson on 30 May, 2006 20:03
Phobos has a synchronus day/orbit much like the earth's moon, so the mars facing part always faces mars. If one were to build a small outpost there it would be protected from cosmic rays from below by phobos and from above by Mars.

Oxygen can probably be extracted from the regolith of martian moons just as easilly as from our own for ISRU purposes.
#27 by HarryM on 30 May, 2006 20:09
Good point (cosmic ray shielding, no small benefit...). And if you can get H2O (which is likely a component of Phobos due to body density) then so much the better. Easier to crack water than to break down regolith.
#28 by Kayla on 16 Jun, 2006 03:25
Quote
lmike - 21/5/2006 6:33 PM

"CEV must be the number 1 priority, or we don’t have an American human space program." I think there is a weakness even in this proposition. The way it is right now, the CEV/CLV is a dependent pair. Both must have equal priority, or we'll have nothing to launch that CEV on. Or, alternately, we'll have nothing to launch on the CLV. As it is the CEV is tied onto the specific CLV. Architecturally(sp?). A smaller CEV with a 'universal' interstage adapter would fit better into this sequence.

I've got no faith the CLV ever flying! Nor should it.

But, trying to be the ever optimist, CEV still could have a home flying on one or both of the EELV's. I'm a huge fan of a stripped down, affordable crew capsule matched with a MLV rocket making space access affordable. But I'll take the CEV as it is likely to evolve and say close enough.

NASA just needs to learn not to put all of its eggs in one basket. It's time for NASA to learn the concept of assured access to orbit and competition.
#29 by lmike on 16 Jun, 2006 11:58
I understand. My point was that the CEV as planned "needs" the CLV (as planned) in terms of mass, interfaces, diameter and abort profiles. It's a pair made for each other (from the same exploration office). If one doesn't "like" the CLV (as planned), then one doesn't like the CEV (as planned) for important parameters like mass and interfaces. (Sure, the EELVs with enough $$$ could be made to mimic the CLV as substitutes, but why settle for a half solution?! we need to make the whole approach better.) The Big Gemini was a lot lighter than the CEV did the same thing, and could fit on a variety of rockets with thrust (throttle) control.
#30 by Jim on 16 Jun, 2006 12:28
Big Gemini is not lighter. Most of the weight in the CEV is fuel for the TEI. Just as the BG could fly on many LV's so can the CEV, both would have to be optimized for the specific mission. There is nothing special or magically about the BG that gives it any advantage over the CEV. Anyways the BG was a paper study and systems that only exist on paper can do "anything". It just takes a pencil and eraser.
#31 by Jim on 16 Jun, 2006 12:30
Quote
lmike - 16/6/2006 7:45 AM

I understand. My point was that the CEV as planned "needs" the CLV (as planned) in terms of mass, interfaces, diameter and abort profiles. It's a pair made for each other (from the same exploration office). If one doesn't "like" the CLV (as planned), then one doesn't like the CEV (as planned) for important parameters like mass and interfaces. (Sure, the EELVs with enough $$$ could be made to mimic the CLV as substitutes, but why settle for a half solution?! we need to make the whole approach better.) The Big Gemini was a lot lighter than the CEV did the same thing, and could fit on a variety of rockets with thrust (throttle) control.

Big Gemini is not lighter. Most of the weight in the CEV is fuel for the TEI. Just as the BG could fly on many LV's so can the CEV, both would have to be optimized for the specific mission. There is nothing special or magically about the BG that gives it any advantage over the CEV. Anyways the BG was a paper study and systems that only exist on paper can do "anything". It just takes a pencil and eraser.
#32 by lmike on 16 Jun, 2006 12:47
Quote
Jim - 16/6/2006 5:15 AM

Big Gemini is not lighter. Most of the weight in the CEV is fuel for the TEI. Just as the BG could fly on many LV's so can the CEV, both would have to be optimized for the specific mission. There is nothing special or magically about the BG that gives it any advantage over the CEV. Anyways the BG was a paper study and systems that only exist on paper can do "anything". It just takes a pencil and eraser.

The CEV as it stands in its PowerPoint slides and cardboard mock-ups, cannot fly on "many LVs" (without modification, but isn't that the point?) Just the CLV. It's way to heavy (to fit the CLV's launch profile). Btw, it’s also in the pencil and eraser stage. At least the BG had an operational predecessor.
#33 by lmike on 16 Jun, 2006 12:56
I believe you misunderstood. The BG (as planned) was to be a lighter *Earth descent vehicle* Irregardless of the Moon missions. The CEV (as planned) has a heavier *Earth descent vehicle* for little (explained) reason.

I don't have a problem with the CEV's configuraion, just the mass of the CM.
#34 by nacnud on 16 Jun, 2006 13:00
"It's way to heavy."

Only once you fill up the SM with propellant. It might be possible to fly it on LEO/ISS missions with only a partial propellant load which could bring its mass down to what is launchable on the EELVs. A reduced sized SM for LEO/ISS missions might also be possible. However, given the cost and that NASA wants out of the ISS in 2016 I don't think this is a likely outcome.
#35 by Jim on 16 Jun, 2006 13:02
Quote
lmike - 16/6/2006 8:43 AM

I believe you misunderstood. The BG (as planned) was to be a lighter *Earth descent vehicle* Irregardless of the Moon missions. The CEV (as planned) has a heavier *Earth descent vehicle* for little (explained) reason.

I don't have a problem with the CEV's configuraion, just the mass of the CM.

It's because it is designed for lunar return and as a habitation volume since the crew has to live in it. BG was only a ferry.
#36 by Jim on 16 Jun, 2006 13:04
Quote
lmike - 16/6/2006 8:34 AM

Quote
Jim - 16/6/2006 5:15 AM

Big Gemini is not lighter. Most of the weight in the CEV is fuel for the TEI. Just as the BG could fly on many LV's so can the CEV, both would have to be optimized for the specific mission. There is nothing special or magically about the BG that gives it any advantage over the CEV. Anyways the BG was a paper study and systems that only exist on paper can do "anything". It just takes a pencil and eraser.

The CEV as it stands in its PowerPoint slides and cardboard mock-ups, cannot fly on "many LVs" (without modification, but isn't that the point?) Just the CLV. It's way to heavy (to fit the CLV's launch profile). Btw, it’s also in the pencil and eraser stage. At least the BG had an operational predecessor.

So does CEV, it was called the Apollo CSM

GB never got past the proposal stage. CEV went to the development stage and is at least going into design
#37 by Kayla on 16 Jun, 2006 13:28
As I've said, I'm very much in favor of a very scaled down version of the CEV. This should be down through weight savings in the CEV and a dedicated ISS/LEO SM. This could weigh in the 10-12 mT range. Working well with existing EELV MLV's.

But even at the full blown 23 to 25 mT and EELV HLV could actually put the CEV into LEO, saving the CEV's propellant for the mission on the way home from the moon. A 5m diameter (or even 5.5m) will interface well with the 5.4m diameter base module of the Atlas V PLF. This is the portion of the PLF that surrounds the Centaur and would carry the load of a heavy CEV.
#38 by lmike on 16 Jun, 2006 14:19
Ok, fine. I just think that the CEV was tailor made for the pre-selected CLV. That was A Bad Thing. We should have made a CEV that fits on a variety of the existing (with no modifications) CLV's. That would be Good. 'Kay?
#39 by Kayla on 17 Jun, 2006 21:13
Quote
lmike - 16/6/2006 9:06 AM

Ok, fine. I just think that the CEV was tailor made for the pre-selected CLV. That was A Bad Thing. We should have made a CEV that fits on a variety of the existing (with no modifications) CLV's. That would be Good. 'Kay?

A CEV that is intended to fly on numerous LV's is definitely the way to go. NASA currently plans to strictly launch the CEV on the CLV. NASA should intend to launch it on multiple rockets, hence guaranteeing that a LV failure does not ground America's space access again. Haven't we learned anything from the Shuttle's recent history?

My only point is that I am hopeful that a lagging CLV development doesn't and shouldn't doom the CEV.
#40 by kraisee on 18 Jun, 2006 05:06
The fact that the CaLV is being made man-rated too, would seem to indicate that the CEV will be able to fly on any LV which is capable of a) lofting the mass to an appropriate insertion point, and b) doing so while conforming to the safety requirements.

NASA is only going to pay for one single Crew launcher though. If congress decides it needs a backup CLV, they can direct NASA to develop a second one. They haven't, and I suspect they won't.

So that leaves another organisation (private or federal) to fund one. There's no reason why another can't be developed courtesy of a different funding source. And there's still no particular reason why a foreign agency couldn't approach the US for CEV's assuming they have an LV capable of lofting it. There's a lot of red-tape involved of course, but it would be possible - assuming the right money.

Ross.