CEV Contractor Announcement Slip?

• CEV Contractor Announcement Slip? by Smatcha on 06 Jul, 2006 22:21
• http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/07/cev_contractor.html
  
  My question is the one year slide due to a lack of firm requirements/capabilities/definition in the;
  
  A) CLV
  B) Lunar Architecture
  C) CEV
  D) All the Above
• #1 by Jim on 06 Jul, 2006 22:55
• 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.
• #2 by Smatcha on 06 Jul, 2006 23:32
• Quote

  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.

  
  It is one year this is the third slip.
  
  Change what requirements on what element?
• #3 by Jim on 06 Jul, 2006 23:45
• 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.
• #4 by wannamoonbase on 07 Jul, 2006 16:14
• I am not concerned with a slip if it means that the design and methodology is evolving for the better.  Taking an extra year to get things right up front is important (if this is what is happening.)  
  
  We don't know alot of what is changing or happening with the CEV but the CLV has discussions on design evolutions and changes and appears dynamic still.  How much doe this effect a CEV selection?
• #5 by Smatcha on 07 Jul, 2006 16:17
• Quote

  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.

  
  Given all the uncertainty I think they are better off setting out CEV (CM/SM) requirements for just the up down mission.  Since ISS, lunar and Mars mission all need to transport 2-6 people through the Earth’s atmosphere at some point that should be all we focus on at this point.  Any other requirement is speculation.  We can build what we need for more aggressive mission later into a Block 2 SM thereby reducing launch weight, cost, and development time all at the same time.
• #6 by Jim on 07 Jul, 2006 17:02
• 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.
• #7 by Smatcha on 08 Jul, 2006 00:28
• Quote

  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.

  
  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 ISS-SM should just be a step up in power and thrust over the CM and only needed for the ISS-SM mission.  ISS-SM(Block1) spec. will also spec. out how much an increase of power, RCS, and main thrust we will need protect for in the Lunar-SM(Block2). Giving us over four years to figure out specifically what we need and getting going on the ISS(CM/SM) Block 1 now.
  
  Configurators are smart people, they will figure it out.
  
  Again big weight/cost savings over empty poorly defined Lunar-SM being routinely burned up in the atmosphere.  
  
  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.
  
  Of course having a CLV that's all over the place doesn’t help and one that can only deliver a relatively fixed payload (whatever it ends up being, I mean what’s a 8MT difference between friends after all) because the SRB is difficult to throttle without fundamental changes to the fuel.
  
  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
  
• #8 by mike robel on 08 Jul, 2006 02:30
• Quote

  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
  

  
  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.
• #9 by nacnud on 08 Jul, 2006 02:45
• I think it's a useable description of one big cargo launch and one small crewed launch when descussing mission architectures. If you have to sum up large numbers of trades how would you distinguish between two equal sized launches and a one big, one small launch approach?
  
  It's similar to the way the shuttle is 1.5 stages to orbit.
• #10 by zinfab on 08 Jul, 2006 03:51
• I don't like the 1.5 terminology. It cheapens the crew launch. Everything has to go right there, too.
  
  It's NOT just about mass.
• #11 by mike robel on 08 Jul, 2006 11:11
• 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.
  
  
• #12 by wannamoonbase on 08 Jul, 2006 12:27
• Quote

  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.
  
  

  
  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.
• #13 by hyper_snyper on 08 Jul, 2006 13:57

• Quote

  wannamoonbase - 8/7/2006  8:14 AM  

  Quote

  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.  

   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!   

• #14 by Jim on 08 Jul, 2006 14:31
• Quote

  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.

  
  It is just an architecture description, that's all
• #15 by Jim on 08 Jul, 2006 14:42
• Quote

  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.
  
  

  
  The SOW hasn't changed.  See for yourself.
  
  No manned Apollo flights used block I.  Having two configurations was part of the Apollo 1 accident.
  
  It is the source board delaying the selection, not the requirements
  
  
• #16 by Smatcha on 10 Jul, 2006 18:39
• Quote

  mike robel - 7/7/2006  7:17 PM
  
  

  Quote

  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
  

  
  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.

  
  I agree all the risk/schedule complications of EOR 2 with less than 1/5 the additional payload.  Actually it should be called "1.2" not "1.5" that's giving the SRB/CEV too much credit.  Why not find a way to get the other 0.2 out of the HLV or go to a more robust 2.0 mission.
  
  It makes no sense because the SRB/CLV makes no sense.  Two errors doesn't make a right.
  
  
• #17 by Framis on 11 Jul, 2006 14:11
• Sources tell me that NASA has denied that there will be a slip of the announcement.