CEV uses after 2016

#20 by Space Lizard on 31 Aug, 2006 10:12
You don't need man-rating to launch unmanned modules, so the Ares I capacity here is irrelevant.

If there's no Lunar Program when NASA withdraws from ISS in 2016, then it might reconsider its withdrawal.

The ISS won't go down by 2016, unless all the other partners give up too. It seems Russia has projects for the 2016-2025 decade, although it is still a bit fuzzy.
#21 by CuddlyRocket on 31 Aug, 2006 12:26
Even if the ISS is closed down in 2016 (about which I have my doubts), this doesn't mean that there will be no stations in LEO to which NASA might want to launch astronauts. They don't have to be US stations.

Otherwise, you really need to think of missions that utilise the CEV's extended life-time and higher-speed re-entry capabilities. One possibility that allows for an extended test of the CEV is a mission to the Earth-Moon Trojan points. There may be some asteroidal material there that would be of great scientific interest. Of course, you need some kind of booster for that, and before the CaLV arrives! That brings up - international co-operation. (I noticed Griffin suggested recently that ESA might contribute to lunar missions by sending automatic cargo craft to the Moon carrying supplies and equipment etc - launched by the Ariane. If the Ariane can do that, I would have thought it could launch a booster module to get to the Trojan points?)
#22 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 12:37
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 31/8/2006 8:13 AM

Even if the ISS is closed down in 2016 (about which I have my doubts), this doesn't mean that there will be no stations in LEO to which NASA might want to launch astronauts. They don't have to be US stations.

Otherwise, you really need to think of missions that utilise the CEV's extended life-time and higher-speed re-entry capabilities. One possibility that allows for an extended test of the CEV is a mission to the Earth-Moon Trojan points. There may be some asteroidal material there that would be of great scientific interest. Of course, you need some kind of booster for that, and before the CaLV arrives! That brings up - international co-operation. (I noticed Griffin suggested recently that ESA might contribute to lunar missions by sending automatic cargo craft to the Moon carrying supplies and equipment etc - launched by the Ariane. If the Ariane can do that, I would have thought it could launch a booster module to get to the Trojan points?)

There aren't going to be any other stations for awhile, even after the ISS is gone. Any other nation won't being starting up a new one any time soon. Bigelo doesn't count and . For the same reason the ISS is going away, NASA won't "need" to go to a station

There isn't going to be any other missions for the CEV other than ISS or the moon. It won't divert resources form the lunar missions and NASA doesn't have extra
#23 by RedSky on 31 Aug, 2006 15:47
Gee, it seems the future sure isn't what it used to be. I recall the PR in the 1960's and 70's that one project was to be a stepping stone to the next, more grand project: shuttle to build and support a "permanent" space station (i.e., older obsolete modules replaced with new), the space station would support experiments and testing for long duration missions, the station then as a staging area for building and testing Mars mission ships, and on and on.

What's sad is that it seems that each of the previous projects has to be scrapped in order for us to start the next. Will we then abandon the moon base when its time to try for Mars? Will we have no LEO long term port or purpose after 2016? That wasn't the way it was supposed to be.
#24 by bad_astra on 31 Aug, 2006 16:51
Metal fatigue was already an issue for Mir when it was deorbited. It will be at least as much an issue on ISS as it reaches the same age. If it had been mostly completed and operating by 2000, as it was initially meant to be, no one would lament it by 2016. They'd be ready for something new. Hopefully it can be used for some kind of Mars mission research in its last years, making it have at least some utility to allow NASA to keep using it for awhile after 2016, but it's not going to last forever.
#25 by bad_astra on 31 Aug, 2006 16:54
Quote
There aren't going to be any other stations for awhile, even after the ISS is gone. Any other nation won't being starting up a new one any time soon. Bigelo doesn't count and . For the same reason the ISS is going away, NASA won't "need" to go to a station

There isn't going to be any other missions for the CEV other than ISS or the moon. It won't divert resources form the lunar missions and NASA doesn't have extra

China's plans could change on a whim (the flip side of a large bearocratic father-knows-best-state) and it would be relatively easy for them to construct a small Salyut style station whever they chose to do so. Whether they'd allow partner's, I don't know, but I don't think it would have any beating on the US space program as one assumes we would not be invited unless it was a Orion-Shenzhou type visit.
#26 by CuddlyRocket on 31 Aug, 2006 17:03
Quote
Jim - 31/8/2006 1:24 PM

There aren't going to be any other stations for awhile, even after the ISS is gone. Any other nation won't being starting up a new one any time soon.
So what are the Russians, Europeans and everyone else going to be doing whilst NASA is off to the Moon? Cheering from the sidelines and begging for crumbs? I don't think so! The Russians could easily put up a small station.

Quote
Bigelo doesn't count...
It doesn't?

Quote
For the same reason the ISS is going away, NASA won't "need" to go to a station.
NASA has a need to test equipment in LEO. And there is some space science it does on the ISS. Access to someone else's station in return for the occasional flight of a CEV seems reasonable. And anyway, if you want international co-operation, you have to co-operate on other's missions, not just your own.

Quote
There isn't going to be any other missions for the CEV other than ISS or the moon. It won't divert resources form the lunar missions and NASA doesn't have extra.
Not all NASA's budget - even for manned spaceflight - is earmarked for the lunar missions. By the time the ISS is decommissioned, the Shuttle will have long gone, CEV/CLV will have been completed and most of the CaLV development will have been done.
#27 by Jim on 31 Aug, 2006 17:18
The thread is about the time with station being gone around 2016 and before the lunar flights start going (2020). There won't be any new stations during this timeframe
#28 by bad_astra on 31 Aug, 2006 17:39
If they needed orbital research to be done, an Industrial Space Facility would be cheaper in the future to build and launch then maintaining ISS anyway.
#29 by kraisee on 31 Aug, 2006 19:48
Apart from anything else, the budget allocation isn't there to fly any other CEV's than ones bound for ISS thru 2016, and then only exploration missions after that. NASA doesn't want to spend the money 'just to fly', because it can be used elsewhere - like doing the final production and testing of the Ares-V, EDS, LSAM and preparing for the first Lunar Landing of the new program. I think they're going to have their hands pretty full as it is.

Ross.
#30 by Space Lizard on 01 Sep, 2006 06:50
NASA and anyone else won't go to Mars or elsewhere beyond the Moon without first testing long duration human flights in Earth orbit.

If it is not onboard a multipurpose space station, then it could be onboard a Mars vehicle staying in Earth orbit... and looking a lot like a space station with very few visitors.

Does anyone remember how tough it was to experiment anything in space when we had no Salyut, no Skylab, no Shuttle, no Spacelab, no Mir, no ISS?
#31 by kraisee on 01 Sep, 2006 07:17
I actually wonder if it wouldn't be worthwhile making a Mars spacecraft significantly larger than 'minimum' for just this reason.

The crew are going to consist of 6 or so highly trained individuals, locked up in a tin-can for 9 months out, and 9 months back from Mars. I'd say that these people are gonna get pretty bored in an absolutely minimal spacecraft.

But if the spacecraft were designed to be an extra 200+mT or so, you could utilise that mass to put a considerable amount of general scientific equipment on board, and they could keep busy conducting experiments during their year and a half in-transit.

That would also result in 1.5 year x 6 person man-hours of science done in a micro-gravity environment, and the results of that *might* help NASA to pay for some the mission costs.

I know it requires a lot more fuel, and bigger engines, but it might still prove worthwhile.

Ross.
#32 by mong' on 01 Sep, 2006 11:16
I don't know, Ross, I'm not sure it would be worth it.
if you want to make an experiment in zero-g, just send a mission module in LEO with the Ares I, that would be much cheaper and simpler than complicating an already extremely difficult and overweight mars mission.
and don't forget that on a mission to mars the crew won't have the opportunity to get bored.
in the inbound and outbound legs of the trip, they will be pretty busy checking and rechecking all the assential systems of the spacecraft and troubleshooting all the little problems.
and the flights will "only" last 6 months, not 9
#33 by CuddlyRocket on 01 Sep, 2006 12:16
Quote
kraisee - 31/8/2006 8:35 PM

Apart from anything else, the budget allocation isn't there to fly any other CEV's than ones bound for ISS thru 2016, and then only exploration missions after that.

Assuming there's no offsets from 'international co-operation'. What will be the marginal cost of a CEV flight anyway? If the first lunar missions do commence in 2020, are NASA really going to have the entire CEV/CLV workforce standing around doing nothing for four years?

And I'll ask again: What do you think the Russians and the Europeans and everyone else will be doing if the ISS is dismantled and whilst NASA is off to the Moon?

NASA will get no international cooperation on its manned missions if it is not prepared to countenance co-operation with other's manned programmes. It just won't be politically acceptable.

There may be no plans to build and launch other stations at present, but 2016 is ten years away and it does not take that long to launch a simple station, especially if you are following an existing design. (The first Salyut was launched within a couple of years after being proposed.) How long would it take them to build and launch another Zvezda and other Russian or even ESA modules?
#34 by Jim on 01 Sep, 2006 12:58
Quote
CuddlyRocket - 1/9/2006 8:03 AM

How long would it take them to build and launch another Zvezda and other Russian modules?

Forever. The SM was delayed due to money. The SPP was cancelled. MLM is delayed and any RM's are up in the air. The Russian's don't have the money
#35 by CuddlyRocket on 01 Sep, 2006 14:35
Quote
Jim - 1/9/2006 1:45 PM

The Russian's don't have the money
The Russian space agency may not, but the Russian Government certainly does, and can easily afford it if the oil price stays anywhere near its current level (which it probably will - Chinese and Indian demand is likely to be increasing rapidly over the next ten years). The Europeans can definitely afford it.

It's all a matter of political will. At the moment, the Russians are equal partners with the US in the ISS, and have no reason to spend more money. Are they really going to revert to no manned space program at all? Can't see it! (Likely scenario, if the US has no interest, is a Russian led program with ESA and possibly Chinese input.)
#36 by mr.columbus on 01 Sep, 2006 17:37
Quote
(Likely scenario, if the US has no interest, is a Russian led program with ESA and possibly Chinese input.)

Don't think that ESA would agree to a Russian led program. Only possibility is a cooperation that is based on an equal partnership. That said, I also think that Russia, ESA or Japan won't just abandon their manned space programs. Rather they will find a project that costs as much as it costs them right now to maintain human spaceflight. The obvious choice would be a new space station or - what is less likely - their own moon-capable transport system.

Regarding those options:

1. a Salyut type space station won't do it for either ESA or Roskosmos. It would mean that only one of the partners would provide the overall infrastructure of the project (=the Salyut-type module).

2. Most likely option is a Mir-type space station consisting of a core module and several other modules developed by the partners of the project. No large truss or separate solar panels - rather each module has to be a stand-alone working module. You could work with a station that consists of 2 Russian, 2 European and 1 Japanese module. If wanted they could even let China participate with another research module.

3. Moon-capable transport system: Studies like ACTS are working on this. My personal guess is, that is not very likely to happen because of cost. Only way I see it, would be the commitment to an international moon base rather early in the next decade with a construction start date in 2020. With a moonbase costs for a moon-landing scenario can be cut, because the lander may be stripped down to be only capable of ferrying the crew to and from the moon base back to LLO - not also providing a hab for short sortie missions like the LSAM - you could build a Lander for ferrying down 4 people in the range of 8 tons if that lander would just be an engine, propelant tanks, seats and a control and life support system - no pressurized module, scientific equipment, hatch etc..
#37 by Avron on 02 Sep, 2006 21:34
CEV will be used during this phase to do LEO checkouts of LSAM... since there is no LSAM design yet.. nothing says that the CLV could not orbit the LSAM maybe even with a small upper stage
#38 by Jim on 02 Sep, 2006 21:42
Quote
Avron - 2/9/2006 5:21 PM

CEV will be used during this phase to do LEO checkouts of LSAM... since there is no LSAM design yet.. nothing says that the CLV could not orbit the LSAM maybe even with a small upper stage

LSAM would be too big in diameter and the CLV is not going to add an upperstage. Both the LSAM and upperstage would require umbilicals and other resources. The CLV MLP/Pad is not going to had them
#39 by Avron on 02 Sep, 2006 23:23
Quote
Jim - 2/9/2006 5:29 PM

Quote
Avron - 2/9/2006 5:21 PM

CEV will be used during this phase to do LEO checkouts of LSAM... since there is no LSAM design yet.. nothing says that the CLV could not orbit the LSAM maybe even with a small upper stage

LSAM would be too big in diameter and the CLV is not going to add an upperstage. Both the LSAM and upperstage would require umbilicals and other resources. The CLV MLP/Pad is not going to had them

What is the diameter of the LSAM?
OK... Use EELV is needed.. would that work?