NG or LM

• #20 by josh_simonson on 01 Sep, 2006 01:36
• I wonder if now the un-manned ISS CEV will just happen to fit on the Atlas V 552 when Cots take 2 comes about?
• #21 by Jim on 01 Sep, 2006 01:49
• Quote

  josh_simonson - 31/8/2006  9:23 PM
  
  I wonder if now the un-manned ISS CEV will just happen to fit on the Atlas V 552 when Cots take 2 comes about?

  
  Same weight as manned.
• #22 by yinzer on 01 Sep, 2006 03:16
• But without survivable abort requirements (and the associated SM propellant), the Atlas can lift it.
• #23 by josh_simonson on 01 Sep, 2006 04:35
• Indeed, they lose 4t just with the LAS, then there's 7t of propellant that can either be dropped or used as a third stage if Atlas is sturdy enough to lift it.   Supposedly a CEV could get down around 16t if it only needs to go to ISS.
• #24 by bad_astra on 01 Sep, 2006 06:43
• Well my company lost, but good luck to Lockheed.
• #25 by jabe on 01 Sep, 2006 13:04
• when will the contract be made for the "lunar module"..yeah know the part that goes to the moon?  not sure what to call it.  (can't use LM for obvious reasons.     )  Will NG get that contract or has it already been given out.  Have heard conflicting stories on if it will use CH4 or other fuels..any news on that regard that I have missed
• #26 by Jim on 01 Sep, 2006 13:19
• It is the LSAM.  That contract won't be for a few years.  The study phase hasn't even started
• #27 by spacedreams on 01 Sep, 2006 16:21
• Kayla, a question for you and just something in general to ponder: How much dialog can/will there be between between the Lockheed CEV team and the ULA folks? Geographically and culturally (at least the Atlas half) they will be somewhat similar. Considering you will arguably have a collection of the best rocket scientists in the country in very close proximity to people working on America's new capsule will there be any integral efforts. It has been said before by NASA that whoever builds Orion certainly has the option to build models for other uses. Could there possibly a commercial effort to combine the two which could be a convienent back-up option if the stick doesn't quite pan out or are there regulations against ULA participation in non-DOD efforts? Or even more interesting, could DOD procure an Orian capsule for their own uses to integrate with their EELV?
  
  Did Colorado just overtake California in terms of Aerospace market or were they already ahead of them?
• #28 by Jim on 01 Sep, 2006 16:33
• Quote

  spacedreams - 1/9/2006  12:08 PM
  
  Kayla, a question for you and just something in general to ponder: How much dialog can/will there be between between the Lockheed CEV team and the ULA folks? Geographically and culturally (at least the Atlas half) they will be somewhat similar. Considering you will arguably have a collection of the best rocket scientists in the country in very close proximity to people working on America's new capsule will there be any integral efforts. It has been said before by NASA that whoever builds Orion certainly has the option to build models for other uses. Could there possibly a commercial effort to combine the two which could be a convienent back-up option if the stick doesn't quite pan out or are there regulations against ULA participation in non-DOD efforts? Or even more interesting, could DOD procure an Orian capsule for their own uses to integrate with their EELV?
  
  Did Colorado just overtake California in terms of Aerospace market or were they already ahead of them?

  
  1.  Technically LM or Boeing spacecraft divisions have to put firewalls up between them and their respective LV divisions.  Same goes for ULA.  this is to prevent either of those spacecraft divisions getting an unfair advantage over NGST, Loral, OSC etc spacecraft.
  
  2.  Those 'other" uses are NASA's
  
  3.  ULA is not only DOD, it will produce LV's for NASA and commercial customers
  
  4.  LM can't build a whole CEV on its own, there are systems provided by NASA, such as the docking system, parachutes, airbags, etc
  
  5.  DOD has no use for a CEV
• #29 by Kayla on 01 Sep, 2006 18:09
• Quote

  spacedreams - 1/9/2006  11:08 AM
  
  Kayla, a question for you and just something in general to ponder: How much dialog can/will there be between between the Lockheed CEV team and the ULA folks? Geographically and culturally (at least the Atlas half) they will be somewhat similar. Considering you will arguably have a collection of the best rocket scientists in the country in very close proximity to people working on America's new capsule will there be any integral efforts. It has been said before by NASA that whoever builds Orion certainly has the option to build models for other uses.

  
  Karas has already indicated his desire to use portions of the CEV for commercial purposes if LM were to win the CEV.
  
  The CEV is the back bone to continued American human presence in space, be it LEO or beyond.  It is in NASA's, America's and now LM's interest to make sure that the CEV is very successful.  Obviously performing on the CEV development is absolutely key to this.  But having a launch vehicle is just as important.  We've all heard the numerous problems regarding the Aries I.  At this point NASA is still moving forward on the Aries I, but who knows what the future holds.  It is not in anyone’s interest (other than maybe ATK) to bet America's future crew launch capability on Aries I development, especially when the Atlas and Delta can provide ready alternatives for a small fraction of the price and schedule.  When NASA is ready, the EELV's will be more than willing to provide CEV launch and help America's future launch needs.
  
• #30 by spacedreams on 01 Sep, 2006 18:39
• But will integration capability and interfaces with EELV be considered in the design of CEV? Is this a priority or could this possibly be a special projects type thing on a separate charge code? Will Lockheed want to put any investment into this possibility?
  
  And IF this type of effort is pusued for commercial use would it be operated by Lockheed (with a contract to ULA to pruchace booster), USA,  or sold off to a commercial venture like Space Adventures?  
  
  Like I have said before, I don't care how we get there or where the money goes, I just want to see a viable commercial market emerge. These recent events are starting to make me believe we can get there.
• #31 by Jim on 01 Sep, 2006 19:07
• Quote

  spacedreams - 1/9/2006  2:26 PM
  
  1. But will integration capability and interfaces with EELV be considered in the design of CEV? Is this a priority or could this possibly be a special projects type thing on a separate charge code? Will Lockheed want to put any investment into this possibility?
  
  2. And IF this type of effort is pusued for commercial use would it be operated by Lockheed (with a contract to ULA to pruchace booster), USA,  or sold off to a commercial venture like Space Adventures?  
  .

  
  1. No, since it is NASA vehicle.  Any "commercial" version would have to be a separate design (different dash number for those who understand eng drws).
  
  2.  Anything goes
• #32 by Avron on 02 Sep, 2006 21:11
• Quote

  Kayla - 1/9/2006  1:56 PM
    When NASA is ready, the EELV's will be more than willing to provide CEV launch and help America's future launch needs.
  

  
  
  Thanks, that closes the loop for me...  yes, I think we will see ATK run a whole suite of tests and maybe a few launches.. then IN TIME  in the name of safety we will have some congressional comission who will tell NASA to move away from solids and Hello EELV.'s...
  
  Thats is where I am putting my money...  time to buy more shares...