Author Topic: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture  (Read 29562 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Quote
Jason Sole - 10/10/2005  2:21 PM

Unimpressed, uninspired, basically don't even think this is more than a pipe dream anyway.

Better than LEO.

Quote
Cheaper to hire out Apollo 13 from Blockbusters.

They're giving away copies of Armageddon, what's your point ;) I'm still reading through it all, so enjoy it and stop whining :)

Offline Jason Sole

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Chicago
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #21 on: 10/10/2005 01:34 PM »
Heh :) just don't think it'll happen and we'll end up with no space program.

Offline Bruce H

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 175
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #22 on: 10/10/2005 01:37 PM »
Some people have noted complexities involved here, where as on the contray the systems (especially the launch systems) are part simplicity and part proven technology. Hense you see SSMEs (very good record) and SRBs (Very good record post STS-51L) along with Apollo type infrastructure mixed in with what will be new avionics and fkyby-wires.

It's hard to argue against as it's also cheaper that way.

Online Chris Bergin

Forget about money for a second and consider this: Is what you see in Keith's article the best approach to the first elements and foundations of the VSE?

Offline Shuttle Man

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 477
  • KSC
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #24 on: 10/10/2005 04:27 PM »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 10/10/2005  11:14 AM

Forget about money for a second and consider this: Is what you see in Keith's article the best approach to the first elements and foundations of the VSE?

No.

But does that matter too much? I'll try and think of an analogy for you, think of Orbiter's flight computers. Should we have ripped them out and replaced them with Windows XP? No. Sure, the flight computers are no outdated in that regard, but still the best for the job and ones that don't crash, that's been reliable. We still have included new elements, so if the crew want to e-mail home, or require the power of your average good spec PC, they have it on board.

Should we line the RCC with titanium? So any debris bounces off, never a problem again? Expensive, yes. Too heavy, you bet. So no.

So yes, it looks old and it looks cheap and yes, it's inispiring as a ship on appearance, but it's done the job before and it'll do it again.
Ex-Apollo, waiting for NASA to finish what we started.

Online Chris Bergin

Well I said to forget the money but you answered the question anyway :)

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1870
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #26 on: 10/10/2005 04:31 PM »
Don't forget everyone, this is still a competition on the final design. It will be aroundabout what you see, but it's still not finalized.

Offline SRBseparama

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #27 on: 10/10/2005 04:36 PM »
I think this discussion should be noted alongside this, it carries on from the article here on page 6.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=493&start=1

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #28 on: 10/10/2005 06:00 PM »
I suppose a broader analogy to the question of what’s best for accomplishing the proscribed mission would be what participants were facing back in 1959. Then, we were trying to find the best means of achieving earth orbit (forget the U.S.-Soviet rivalry aspect of the whole thing): X-15/DynaSoar-type vehicles or capsules. Each had their champions and detractors. As for the test pilot faction, as Tom Wolfe points out they could spend their careers at Muroc/Edwards flying hot jets to their hearts’ content, but the money and glory were all being focused elsewhere. So they sucked it up and made the jump. The compromises they endured turned out to be a plus for the broader manned space program. Humans were put in the control loop, systems were designed more robustly, and it all came together when JFK called for the moonshots.

The point being is that this Bush “vision thing” is now being translated into a workable solution for an early 21st-century mission-set (I didn’t say THE workable solution). Some good ideas WILL be squandered or missed in the run-up to ISS-Moon-Mars, but the ones that remain seem to best factor in cost and availability, if not the PR angle. It doesn’t mean we should stop pushing for something “better” or different. Maybe the private sector will take up some of the slack. I hope they do. Maybe there’s enough support in Congress. I hope there is.

I for one will miss piloted Shuttle landings. I also miss the von Braun’s/”Colliers” vision and “assume standard orbit, Mr. Sulu. Transporter room, four to beam down.” But the most assured road to space today runs right through the offices of Dr. Griffin/Spock, and I hope he’s got it figured right.


Offline Jason Sole

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Chicago
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #29 on: 10/10/2005 09:34 PM »
Slightly off topic but I think some of the negative press is a bit unwarrented, regardless of the pros and cons. This is down to the fact that Bush is visual on the VSE and he's not exactly popular!

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 493
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #30 on: 10/10/2005 11:22 PM »
As unpopular as the Bush administration is becoming, I don't think it's so much a political issue as a cost issue. Most 'average' citizens just don't trust that all that money is really needed to develop the new space technologies and hardware - they tend to think most of that money is going straight into the bank accounts of the big corporate contractors' executives and directors.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #31 on: 10/11/2005 12:40 AM »
Quote
MKremer - 10/10/2005  7:22 PM

they tend to think most of that money is going straight into the bank accounts of the big corporate contractors' executives and directors.

I don't think that they think it is, but "know" it is, as its the American way. I don't like the price one bit or the timeline as it looks long when compared to the Apollo days... but it’s not my dollars, hell if anything my shares will do better. It’s the time line that is of some concern to me... I just don’t believe that they will make it, based one the way things operate. I would add 40% to the times given so as not to be too upset when there are delays, and there will be (delays means more money to the contractors).

But based on what I have seen/read, it looks great, at least we are moving forward on some vision, based on proven technology with an upgrade... SRB, are the most basic form of propulsion, capsule, may not look cool, but then you don’t need wings were you are going, and I don’t think getting fussed over reused is a big thing. Looks like the options moving forward are large, and yes it may be back to basics to a large degree.

Overall I am very happy that we are moving forward (with a little reset) and who knows the CEV will change, it may end up looking more in line with the lifting body design over time.

Lets get flying again, we really have had far too much down time over the last few years... good for you Dr Griffin, time for some action, you have good folks working for you, let them move the vision forward.

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1870
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #32 on: 10/11/2005 01:10 AM »
And it'll come faster than you think. We'll be testing the new ship (a constructed ship) in just over three years time.

Offline SpaceMad

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #33 on: 10/11/2005 01:16 AM »
Any idea on when actual construction of a CEV will begin? I think that milestone would be a real physical sign of the start of the VSE!

Offline Shuttle Man

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 477
  • KSC
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #34 on: 10/11/2005 01:18 AM »
Well as Flight mentioned, there's still the small issue of who will build what. Obviously the SRB element with be ATK, this is one of the beauties of this. Take the CEV and SDLV and you can already say this is being constructed as there's proven flight hardware already in the pipeline.
Ex-Apollo, waiting for NASA to finish what we started.

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 13
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #35 on: 10/11/2005 02:12 AM »
CEV downselect to a single prime is "early 2006" last I heard.

And here's the top 25 NASA contractors (FY 2003) to further enrage Avron:  ;)

http://www.govexec.com/features/0804-15/0804-15s10s1.htm


Offline SRBseparama

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 274
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #36 on: 10/11/2005 03:55 AM »
I think Lockmart are in a weak position for going with their lifting body from the onset.

Offline NASA_LaRC_SP

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #37 on: 10/11/2005 05:04 AM »
Excellent to see some firm documentation and images and the naysayers will soon be proved wrong. A note on Lockheed Martin's lifting body. I'm not too sure we can claim it lost out soley on design, but I understand it cost a hell of a lot more than the design that has been decided on as a template. So to answer the money question holds relevance to this issue.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #38 on: 10/11/2005 07:33 AM »
I bet that LM will get the contract for the Upper Stage of the CLV & all the various fairings.   Probably to be built in parallel at Michoud while STS's ET's continue.

Then when the last ET rolls off the production line for STS, LM are the obvious candidates for the ET and thus also the Upper Stage of the SDLV too.

That means LM and ATK would wrap up all the LV production requirements.

For Spacecraft, the new Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) is all-but assured to go to the guys who built the last one...   Northrop Grumman.   Along with Boeing this time, I suspect that they'll also get the CEV CM & SM too to balance against the LM allocation.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1777
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 54
RE: A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture
« Reply #39 on: 10/11/2005 02:45 PM »
Steady on with the abrievations :) How much do we reckon the actual CEV will cost? A billion? two?

Tags: