CEV uses after 2016

• CEV uses after 2016 by mike robel on 28 Aug, 2006 00:39
• It just occured to me with all the post 2016 postings going on, that the CEV is only going to be used to do crew exchange for the ISS from 2014 to 2016, so that is, at best, 4 flights, preseuming they keep the 6 month crew rotations.  (Personally, I think crew rotations should extend to a year to better simulate Mars missions and see the effects on astronauts.)
  
  How many flights will then occur between 2016 and 2020 when we (maybe) return to the moon?
  
  If we follow the sequence of Apollo missions, there could be I suppose three precursor missions:
  
  1.  Ares I and Ares V launch to Earth Orbit to shake out the boosters, rendevous techniques, and LSAM, like Apollo 9.
  
  2.  Ares I and Ares V launch to Moon Orbit for a reherasal for the lunar landing, Like Apollo 10.
  
  3. Ares I and Ares V launch for 1st return to the moon lunar landing attempt.
  
  I don't see any need for an Apollo 8 like mission, nor do I think the system will be capable of it without the LSAM.
  
  So, what does the CEV do in between the last crew return in 2016 or so, and the first lunar program launches in say, 2019?
  
  On the other hand, according to the NASA web site, development flights for the COTS boosters and CXV are to start in 2008-2010.  In case no one noticed, that is only 2 years away.  Does anyone really think they can develop the booster and spacecraft in 2 years, while NASA is taking 8 to develop the CEV?
  
  What is the point of using the CEV to resupply/man the station in 2016, if the COTS effort succeeds?
  
  Would it not be "better" then to develop a single vehicle and a three launch architecture to go to the moon:
  
  Launch 1:  CEV
  Launch 2:  LSAM
  Launch 3:  Tanker flight to refuel LSAM 2nd stage for LOI  (as much as I am againt the whole idea of tankers and orbital refueling, since it is probably safer and cheaper to use a larger launch vehicle instead of multiple launches for refueling and assembly.)
  
  This would allow for a heavier CEV that might be used for extended manned lunar orbital operations while part of the crew is on the lunar surface?
  
  
  
• #1 by kraisee on 28 Aug, 2006 01:09
• Mike, the difference between what COTS is trying to do vs. what CEV must do, is incomparable.   One is the post office delivering a letter, the other is like trying to deliver a guided bunker buster bomb!
  
  Even COTS Phase 2 will only offer limited cargo delivery to ISS.
  
  If COTS Phase 3 ever happens, it won't be until after CEV has already flown.   It might offer manned capability to LEO, but it still won't include 6/9 month automated loiter times around a different planetary body than Earth.   It won't offer propellant and MPS reliability sufficient to perform an absolutely essential TEI burn.   It won't offer ten man-days of life support for 4 crew either.   And it won't be designed to re-enter at more than 25,000mph either.
  
  Those are all critical factors which CEV is being designed to do.
  
  If private industry can produce something which can do CEV's job better, or for less, then NASA will probably buy it.   But they have yet to put a single satellite into orbit.   NASA's not waiting to see if they ever are, ore are not, successful.
  
  Ross.
• #2 by astrobrian on 28 Aug, 2006 01:30
• Bigelow has a "satellite" in orbit so that is not entirely true
• #3 by mike robel on 28 Aug, 2006 01:49
• Ross, I grant all your points, but you miss my point.
  
  After 2016, theoretically, there is no ISS, right?  So what are we going to do with the CEV for the 4 years in between 2016 and 2020?
  
  For that matter, what will the COTS be used for after the ISS is out of service?   Now that I think about I am losing my enthusiam for the COTS program too.  Another potential waste of moeny when we could, after the shuttle is retired, just contract with the Russians and Europeans for the Soyuz, Progress, and ATV to provide crew and supplies.  Save all the money for the VSE.
  
  Revising my program scenairo from the first message, it could look like this:
  
  CLV/CEV Launches
  2008 - 4 segment/dummy upperstage/dummy CEV launch
  2009 (?)  2 x full up unmanned Ares I launches?
  Jan 2010:  1st Manned CEV launch, development flight, does not dock with ISS
  Mar 2010:  2nd Manned CEV Launch, development flight, docks with ISS
  Jun 2010:  3rd Manned CEV Launch, docks with ISS and is used for crew exchange.  Station complete, Shuttle retired
  Jan 2011:  2nd CEV crew rotation
  July 2011:  3rd rotation
  Jan 2012:  4th Rotation
  July 2012:  5th Rotation
  Jan 2013:  6th Rotation
  July 2013:  7th Rotation
  Jan 2014:  8th Rotation
  July 2014:  9th Rotation
  Jan 2015:  10th Rotation
  July 2015:  11th Rotation
  Jan 2016:  12th Rotation
  Jul 2016:  13th Rotation
  Jan 2017:  CEV used to return last ISS crew to Earth, ISS deorbited
  Jan 2018:  1st Ares V test launch, no payload?
  July 2018:  2nd Ares V test launch, no payload?
  Jan 2019:  Unmanned Ares V with an LSAM on it, like Apollo 5 (LM only launch)
  July 2019: Dual launch to LEO with CEV on Ares 1 and LSAM on Ares 5.
  Jan 2020:  Dual launch to Lunar orbit for landing rehearsal.
  July 2020:  Dual Launch to the moon for first landing attempt.
  
  Maybe the sequence doesn't look all that bad...
  
  
• #4 by Jim on 28 Aug, 2006 02:35
• Nowhere does it say that COTS phase 1 winners are COTS phase 2.  COTS phase 2 is an open competition and Atlas or Delta paired with the HTV or ATV could win.  Or a COTS phase 1 loser.
  
  There still are unmanned CEV cargo flights.  COTS doesn't cover it all
• #5 by RedSky on 28 Aug, 2006 03:13
• To go even further down the road of the title of this thread... what does the CEV do after ISS (2016) if a future administration cancels the CaLV and moon program.  The Stick CLV can't even launch some type of "orbital module" for experiments.  The CEV is probably too small to have any such equipment.
  That's why I've always thought a more capable (or over-capable) LV like the "Direct"  is prudent.  It insures we still could have some form of meaningful "space program" in the future , and not just a "manned access to space capability".  In light of possible uncoming changes in the administration, budget deficits just waiting to hit the fan, inflation due to high gas prices, etc...  wouldn't it be better to get as capable a vehicle as you can... as soon as you can?  I'm just afraid well have access to space in 2016, but with with no ISS and no moon program, what do you do with the CLV/CEV?  
  
• #6 by kraisee on 28 Aug, 2006 05:58
• Quote

  mike robel - 27/8/2006  9:36 PM
  
  For that matter, what will the COTS be used for after the ISS is out of service?   Now that I think about I am losing my enthusiam for the COTS program too.  Another potential waste of moeny when we could, after the shuttle is retired, just contract with the Russians and Europeans for the Soyuz, Progress, and ATV to provide crew and supplies.  Save all the money for the VSE.

  
  That is a very valid point, but the government wants to fund some new industry development, and the vehicle they chose to do this was NASA.   They gave extra money to NASA to cover the cost of that program though, so it's okay.   If it inspires some future industry competition, its not a bad thing though.
  
  
  

  Quote

  After 2016, theoretically, there is no ISS, right?  So what are we going to do with the CEV for the 4 years in between 2016 and 2020?
  
  Revising my program scenairo from the first message, it could look like this:
  
  CLV/CEV Launches
  [SNIP]
  Jul 2016:  13th Rotation
  Jan 2017:  CEV used to return last ISS crew to Earth, ISS deorbited
  Jan 2018:  1st Ares V test launch, no payload?
  July 2018:  2nd Ares V test launch, no payload?
  Jan 2019:  Unmanned Ares V with an LSAM on it, like Apollo 5 (LM only launch)
  July 2019: Dual launch to LEO with CEV on Ares 1 and LSAM on Ares 5.
  Jan 2020:  Dual launch to Lunar orbit for landing rehearsal.
  July 2020:  Dual Launch to the moon for first landing attempt.
  
  Maybe the sequence doesn't look all that bad...

  
  Actually Mike, NASA has been trying, since the VSE was announced, to have the first manned landing in 2018.   I'm unaware that anything has changed that aim yet.   Further, there has been a lot of recent talk throughout NASA's management about trying to accelerate that schedule to 2017, or maybe even sooner.   That would bring all the Ares-V missions in your table forward two, or perhaps even three years - and that erases any gap completely.
  
  Of course, if CaLV is cancelled by an anti-NASA goverment, we're all totally screwed.
  
  Ahem.   Hint, hint: "Direct" [cough, splutter].   Sorry, couldn't resist...
  
  Ross.
• #7 by kraisee on 28 Aug, 2006 06:06
• Quote

  RedSky - 27/8/2006  11:00 PM
  
  To go even further down the road of the title of this thread... what does the CEV do after ISS (2016) if a future administration cancels the CaLV and moon program.  The Stick CLV can't even launch some type of "orbital module" for experiments.  The CEV is probably too small to have any such equipment.
  That's why I've always thought a more capable (or over-capable) LV like the "Direct"  is prudent.  It insures we still could have some form of meaningful "space program" in the future , and not just a "manned access to space capability".  In light of possible uncoming changes in the administration, budget deficits just waiting to hit the fan, inflation due to high gas prices, etc...  wouldn't it be better to get as capable a vehicle as you can... as soon as you can?  I'm just afraid well have access to space in 2016, but with with no ISS and no moon program, what do you do with the CLV/CEV?  
  

  
  RedSky,
  Yes, it would be nice if the CLV had the capability to bring up extra payload with it, wouldn't it?
  
  A solution which offered more payload capacity than just 25mT would allow any useful payload modules to go up with the CEV to be worked on up there.   I could forsee SpaceHab modules, deliveries for ISS, repair equipment for another Hubble servicing mission could all be brought up in a payload shroud similar to the Saturn SLA, if only the CLV were larger and could lift a lot more mass.
  
  Ahem. Hint, hint: "Direct" [cough, splutter]. Sorry, couldn't resist... Again...
  
  Ross.
• #8 by mike robel on 28 Aug, 2006 09:09
• Quote

  kraisee - 28/8/2006  1:45 AM
  
  Actually Mike, NASA has been trying, since the VSE was announced, to have the first manned landing in 2018.   I'm unaware that anything has changed that aim yet.   Further, there has been a lot of recent talk throughout NASA's management about trying to accelerate that schedule to 2017, or maybe even sooner.   That would bring all the Ares-V missions in your table forward two, or perhaps even three years - and that erases any gap completely.
  
  Of course, if CaLV is cancelled by an anti-NASA goverment, we're all totally screwed.
  
  Ahem.   Hint, hint: "Direct" [cough, splutter].   Sorry, couldn't resist...
  
  Ross.

  
  While you may be getting the 2018 date from your sources, the NASA release naming Orion specifies the 2020 date...
• #9 by kraisee on 28 Aug, 2006 09:45
• Mike,
  The official line has always been "no later than 2020", and that's exactly what it says on NASA's own Orion Announcement page.   But the plan has always been 2018.   They think they can do it on time, but this still allows them plenty of "slippage" and yet not dissapoint anyone.
  
  And Griffin recently said something in an interview I caught on TV where he said (paraphrasing) that they were attempting to bring the schedule forward from the current 2018 date.
  
  It will be about 8 years after STS is retired, at the end of 2010, before CaLV, LSAM & EDS are all ready to fly operationally.   Which places the nominal date around 2018.
  
  But one obvious way they could accelerate that plan is if they can retire STS in 2009 by sticking to the expedited current schedule of STS flights which ends in 2009.   If that happens, NASA can sink the money in a year earlier and the whole 8-year development program could be brought forward to 2017.
  
  With SRB development and J-2X development now both brought forward to be ready for the earlier CLV program, there's considerably less work required later for developing the CaLV.   That may even allow the scheduled landing to be brough forward by a year or two, and that could be what Griffin was indicating in that interview.
  
  Ross.
• #10 by mike robel on 28 Aug, 2006 11:23
• Ross,
  
  All true, but as I am sure you know, even with model launch complexes, everything takes longer and is more expensive than you think it will be.
  
  
• #11 by yankee on 28 Aug, 2006 12:01
• Yeah, I think NASA is being very conservative with the 2020 bit, I think they have learnt a lot from their past mistakes in that respect and are being very careful not to be too optimistic about things, it is far better for them to say 2020 and then aim for as early as possible and get the kudos for doing it early than the other way round.
  One of the reasons that I'm in favour of the Stick as the CLV as against EELV despite it's teething problems is that it means a good deal of the developement work is done for the Ares V early making the Ares V far less likely to suffer from cost overruns and delays which could potentialy lead to it's cancellation by a future administration.   My hope is that The moon sorties will start some time between 2015 and 2018, the main potential problem I see is delays in the LSAM developement.
• #12 by kraisee on 28 Aug, 2006 19:07
• Yankee, you're right.   CLV dev. does a lot towards getting CaLV ready.
  
  Also in four or five years time, when CaLV development kicks into high-gear, the RS-68 should have another 20+ flights under it's belt on Delta-IV.   With a touch of luck, it will have a great track-record and they can have some serious confidence in it.
  
  And then during the 7-8 years of development on the CaLV, I'd also wonder if ULA could not be persuaded to fly the NASA-modified engine controllers one of the NASA-funded Delta-IV mission launching a useful NASA probe at the same time.   That would provide an interesting test platform for some of the 'man-rated' engine systems, ahead of CaLV flying.
  
  DoD might also be interested in even safer engine controllers for D-IV missions.
  
  Ross.
• #13 by kraisee on 28 Aug, 2006 19:11
• Quote

  mike robel - 28/8/2006  7:10 AM
  
  Ross,
  
  All true, but as I am sure you know, even with model launch complexes, everything takes longer and is more expensive than you think it will be.

  
  Yeah, but unlike my start-up, NASA's been around for a while, and so has Griffin.   I suspect that the numbers we're hearing have been created from a different perspective than previous NASA Administrators.   I think what we have seen so far is a very conservative estimate for both costs and schedule.   I think there's more margin there than any previous NASA program, and that the initial estimates were based on real-world experiences with growth.
  
  IMHO, I think Griffin's NASA will beat the schedule, and save money.
  
  There are the doubters and naysayers, but I think Griffin will be the last one laughing when he puts people back on the moon in 2017 for less total money than was originally expected.   But there again, I'm an optimist
  
  Ross.
• #14 by punkboi on 28 Aug, 2006 19:15

• Quote

  kraisee - 28/8/2006 11:58 AM There are the doubters and naysayers, but I think Griffin will be the last one laughing when he puts people back on the moon in 2017 for less total money than was originally expected. But there again, I'm an optimist Ross.

  Griffin was the last one laughing when Discovery returned from a "clean" 121 mission.  Oh wait, Griffin's an engineer.  He doesn't  laugh.

• #15 by Jim on 28 Aug, 2006 19:53
• Quote

  kraisee - 28/8/2006  2:54 PM
  
  Yankee, you're right.   CLV dev. does a lot towards getting CaLV ready.
  
  Also in four or five years time, when CaLV development kicks into high-gear, the RS-68 should have another 20+ flights under it's belt on Delta-IV.   With a touch of luck, it will have a great track-record and they can have some serious confidence in it.
  
  And then during the 7-8 years of development on the CaLV, I'd also wonder if ULA could not be persuaded to fly the NASA-modified engine controllers one of the NASA-funded Delta-IV mission launching a useful NASA probe at the same time.   That would provide an interesting test platform for some of the 'man-rated' engine systems, ahead of CaLV flying.
  
  DoD might also be interested in even safer engine controllers for D-IV missions.
  
  Ross.

  
  The ECU is a simple system and not a big deal
• #16 by wannamoonbase on 29 Aug, 2006 01:29
• Quote

  punkboi - 28/8/2006  3:02 PM
  
  

  Quote

  kraisee - 28/8/2006 11:58 AM There are the doubters and naysayers, but I think Griffin will be the last one laughing when he puts people back on the moon in 2017 for less total money than was originally expected. But there again, I'm an optimist Ross.

  Griffin was the last one laughing when Discovery returned from a "clean" 121 mission.  Oh wait, Griffin's an engineer.  He doesn't  laugh.

  
  No we laugh, but non engineers don't understand what we are laughing about.  Thinks like thermodynamics, turbomachinery etc.  Not exactly crowd pleasing humor but we like it.
• #17 by Jim on 29 Aug, 2006 01:58
• Quote

  kraisee - 28/8/2006  2:58 PM
  IMHO, I think Griffin's NASA will beat the schedule, and save money.
  Ross.

  
  This isn't happening.   Everything is pointing the other ways wrt to money.   I had provide launch base manning comparsions.   SDLV has no chance
• #18 by JRThro on 30 Aug, 2006 15:46
• Quote

  Jim - 28/8/2006  8:45 PM
  
  

  Quote

  kraisee - 28/8/2006  2:58 PM
  IMHO, I think Griffin's NASA will beat the schedule, and save money.
  Ross.

  
  This isn't happening.   Everything is pointing the other ways wrt to money.   I had provide launch base manning comparsions.   SDLV has no chance

  Jim, could you say that again so that it's more understandable?
• #19 by meiza on 30 Aug, 2006 20:59
• He meant lots of people in SDLV operations => expensive.