-
NASA makes major design changes to CEV
by
Chris Bergin
on 22 Jul, 2006 21:36
-
-
#1
by
PurduesUSAFguy
on 22 Jul, 2006 21:58
-
I wonder how much of the problem could be solved if they reinstated the LCH4 requirement.
-
#2
by
vt_hokie
on 22 Jul, 2006 22:31
-
If this many problems, design changes, and cost overruns had been tolerated on X-33, we'd probably be flying VentureStar by now!
Okay, maybe not, but it just goes to show that pretty much any major aerospace program will run into problems, and it's a shame that we cut and run at the first sign of difficulty on X-33, X-34, and others.
-
#3
by
astrobrian
on 22 Jul, 2006 22:42
-
So let me see if this sounds right. In the article it is stated that the CM can be hooked up the the ISS for roughly 7 months, does that mean we will have a 7 man crew finally running the station. It would seem logical at least. 4 for the CM and 3 for the Soyuz. 7 months at a time or staggered shifts so to speak. Anyone in the ISS community know if this might be a plan being considered?
-
#4
by
hyper_snyper
on 22 Jul, 2006 22:49
-
When you say the CEV CM can support a crew of four for a little more than 2 weeks, what's the limiting factor on that? It seems a bit on the short side considering it doesn't need to rely solely on fuel cells because of the solar wings. Or am I reading it wrong?
-
#5
by
astrobrian
on 22 Jul, 2006 22:52
-
Solar is for electrical power mostly. The amount of O2 they can carry along for instance is a major time limiting factor. RCS fuels I would bet is another as well as other consumables
-
#6
by
mong'
on 22 Jul, 2006 22:55
-
vt_hokie - 23/7/2006 12:18 AM
If this many problems, design changes, and cost overruns had been tolerated on X-33, we'd probably be flying VentureStar by now! Okay, maybe not, but it just goes to show that pretty much any major aerospace program will run into problems, and it's a shame that we cut and run at the first sign of difficulty on X-33, X-34, and others.
I agree, and this clearly shows that things can be done if you have a clear direction. X 33 was an experimental research project, there wasn't really a will to build a vehicle, VSE is a national effort with a clear goal and a deadline. this is what made Apollo possible
-
#7
by
gladiator1332
on 23 Jul, 2006 02:29
-
Very interesting development and somewhat very fortunate for Lockheed. The design shown in this arictle is very similar to what they have been showing for the past few months.
I wonder what the "Further articles will follow, looking at the CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle) baselines." means. I wonder if there are similar weight saving changes to the CLV or is the entire plan being overhauled. This is pure speculation, but I noticed a new type of Inline derived CLV in the L2 ad above.
-
#8
by
nacnud
on 23 Jul, 2006 02:33
-
Yeah O2 supply and CO2 removal are probably the limiting factors. Well to start with. It will be interesting to watch how well the new ECLSS on the ISS performs for real.
Also incase I missed it, is there a toilet at all?
-
#9
by
Jim
on 23 Jul, 2006 02:49
-
vt_hokie - 22/7/2006 6:18 PM
If this many problems, design changes, and cost overruns had been tolerated on X-33, we'd probably be flying VentureStar by now! Okay, maybe not, but it just goes to show that pretty much any major aerospace program will run into problems, and it's a shame that we cut and run at the first sign of difficulty on X-33, X-34, and others.
All spacecraft and other programs go thru these design cycles. These occure before SRR and PDR. X-33 had them and they then froze the design and then started building it. MSL went thru the same thing. This nothing out of the ordinary for the beginning of a program. You have problems when changes happen after PDR.
-
#10
by
MKremer
on 23 Jul, 2006 02:50
-
nacnud - 22/7/2006 9:20 PM
Yeah O2 supply and CO2 removal are probably the limiting factors. Well to start with. It will be interesting to watch how well the new ECLSS on the ISS performs for real.
Also incase I missed it, is there a toilet at all?
There's only a predicted mass and size for something called "waste disposal". I guess it remains to be seen whether they specify an actual 'toilet', or leave it up to the contractor. (Whichever, there's certainly not going to be the type of privacy the shuttle has for bathroom breaks.)
-
#11
by
Jim
on 23 Jul, 2006 02:50
-
nacnud - 22/7/2006 10:20 PM
Yeah O2 supply and CO2 removal are probably the limiting factors. Well to start with. It will be interesting to watch how well the new ECLSS on the ISS performs for real.
Also incase I missed it, is there a toilet at all?
Don't forget water and food
WCS in the middle of the vehicle on the bottom
-
#12
by
Jim
on 23 Jul, 2006 02:51
-
gladiator1332 - 22/7/2006 10:16 PM
Very interesting development and somewhat very fortunate for Lockheed. The design shown in this arictle is very similar to what they have been showing for the past few months.
NG and Boeing are doing the same thing. There is no advantage to either team.
-
#13
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Jul, 2006 03:13
-
gladiator1332 - 23/7/2006 3:16 AM
I wonder what the "Further articles will follow, looking at the CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle) baselines." means. I wonder if there are similar weight saving changes to the CLV or is the entire plan being overhauled. This is pure speculation, but I noticed a new type of Inline derived CLV in the L2 ad above.
This all started off with information that the 5 seg stick first stage had hit a critical problem - and there's a list of them. We've been going back and fourth on this with sources and engineers on L2 (hell of a thread), but incidentially we bumped into the July 21 DAC-2 CEV presentation, so obviously that got the priority to be run first.
We're still going back and fourth on the CLV, with an article to come. So that's what I meant
-
#14
by
Jim
on 23 Jul, 2006 04:10
-
vt_hokie - 22/7/2006 6:18 PM
If this many problems, design changes, and cost overruns had been tolerated on X-33, we'd probably be flying VentureStar by now! Okay, maybe not, but it just goes to show that pretty much any major aerospace program will run into problems, and it's a shame that we cut and run at the first sign of difficulty on X-33, X-34, and others.
Read Dennis Jenkins' book on the STS. How many changes were there to the "final" configuration that they chose? They aren't problems.
The other programs were into production.
-
#15
by
Shuttle>CEV
on 23 Jul, 2006 05:39
-
I got a good design change...Put on some wings, wheels, a cockpit, and voila!!!
-
#16
by
simonbp
on 23 Jul, 2006 07:23
-
Shuttle>CEV - 22/7/2006 10:26 PM
I got a good design change...Put on some wings, wheels, a cockpit, and voila!!!
And voila! An obese, stuck-in-earth-orbit, useless piece of outdated technology!
Seriously, wings and wheels would add absolutely nothing of any practical value to the CEV...
Simon
-
#17
by
mr.columbus
on 23 Jul, 2006 07:24
-
Whatever the technical reasons for the changes are, a reduction in CEV mass is a good thing - saves money and gives more margin elsewhere. The mass shed off the CM is one step forward, I am however dissapointed that they did not push that a little bid more, reduce the capsule diameter to 4.5 metres and shed another .5-1mt off of it - that would push overall mass (with the according mass reduction on the SM) to well below 20tons. Launcher options would suddenly appear in a complete other light.
-
#18
by
Shuttle>CEV
on 23 Jul, 2006 07:45
-
simonbp - 23/7/2006 2:10 AM
Shuttle>CEV - 22/7/2006 10:26 PM
I got a good design change...Put on some wings, wheels, a cockpit, and voila!!!
And voila! An obese, stuck-in-earth-orbit, useless piece of outdated technology!
Seriously, wings and wheels would add absolutely nothing of any practical value to the CEV...
Simon
Seriously, it is going to suck when these stupid capsules are again in service. No distinction, not nearly as capable, and they WILL bite NASA in the ass. Let's enjoy these final years of the shuttle, we're gonna need it.
-
#19
by
punkboi
on 23 Jul, 2006 08:37
-
I love the Space Shuttle. I love it so much that I'm willing to let my social life go down the drain by constantly being on the Internet to read up on the latest news about STS-115 and the remaining shuttle flights (just joking... sort of).
But if going back to the traditional rocket design help ensures that we don't have another in-flight disaster a la Challenger and Columbia (especially considering we have had NO crew losses with traditional rockets outside of Apollo 1...in which the tragedy took place 'on the ground'), and have this new generation learn what it was like to live the days of the moon landings (Me being part of this new generation), then I'm all for the capsule CEV.
If it works, stick with it. Yes, the Space Shuttle works...but 14 lives lost means it's more sensible to go back to that "stupid capsule" design
Okay, maybe not, but it just goes to show that pretty much any major aerospace program will run into problems, and it's a shame that we cut and run at the first sign of difficulty on X-33, X-34, and others.
