posted 09-26-2005 08:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by manilajim:
Has NASA announced a name for its new Moon/Mars iniative? Taking a cue from the past, names like the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo Programs have a much nicer sound than STS #. In my opinion, you need to give the program a great sounding name to help give it an identity. It will also help with getting financial support from Congress too.
Thanks, Jim Sigler

---

The subject of a name for the CEV to be used in the Moon/Mars program was recently covered at length in the "Commercial - Future Space" section of this message board in a thread begun by Carmelo on 23 Aug 05 called "A New Name for CEV." It can be reached at: http://collectspace.com/ubb/Forum35/HTML/000155.html

posted 09-26-2005 03:26 PM               

My guess:
1. Commander
2. Pilot
3. Mission Specialist/Geologist
4. Mission Specialist/Non-geologist scientist

Being a geologist myself, I think that all missions should have a geologist on board!

posted 10-10-2005 11:25 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by carmelo:
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/5860/cevmain0ob.jpg

---

So they plan to cram a crew of six (6!) into the Block 3 CM for Mars? That's interesting.

posted 10-10-2005 12:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glint:
So they plan to cram a crew of six (6!) into the Block 3 CM for Mars? That's interesting.

---

NASA TV was running some animation from time to time showing a possible means of getting to Mars. For that animation, a larger vehical was used as living quarters for the journey from the Earth to Mars, with the CEV being the craft used to get the crews to the larger vehical and serving as the re-entry vehical when they return to Earth.

I'm not sure how representative that animation is of what will actually take place, but I have to figure they won't cram six people into such a small space for the entire mission. Then again...

posted 10-10-2005 01:07 PM               

A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture

posted 10-10-2005 01:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
...a larger vehical was used as living quarters for the journey from the Earth to Mars, with the CEV being the craft used to get the crews to the larger vehical and serving as the re-entry vehical when they return to Earth.

---

I was hoping that was the case. Did the animation show what the seating arrangement was like for Mars? Were they all sitting in the same geometric plane (such as in two groups sitting feet-to-feet), or in rows (such as 2 in front and four behind) or some other configuration?

posted 10-10-2005 03:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glint:
I was hoping that was the case. Did the animation show what the seating arrangement was like for Mars? Were they all sitting in the same geometric plane (such as in two groups sitting feet-to-feet), or in rows (such as 2 in front and four behind) or some other configuration?

---

The animation didn't show any of the seating in the CEV. It did, however, show a three level crew habitat for the journey to Mars...in a vehical that rotated fast enough to create an artificial gravity for it's occupants. It was a silent animation, so no other details were given.

If I have time, I'll look to see if this animation can be found anywhere on the NASA web site.

posted 10-12-2005 08:55 AM               

Nothing new that anyone here did not already know. However, I did like something on the timeline chart he showed. In 2018 the projected lunar landing wasn't called "lunar landing" or "1st lunar landing."

posted 10-12-2005 08:22 PM               

quote:

---

In 2018 the projected lunar landing wasn't called "lunar landing" or "1st lunar landing."

It was labeled "7th lunar landing." [/B]

---

I really like that.

posted 11-20-2005 05:53 PM               

"NASA's mission plan for the return to the moon shows nothing has been learned. Both Soviet and NASA lunar base studies in the late sixties showed that lunar orbit rendezvous was a useless technique for support of a manned base. It may surprise NASA that its own staff, John Lo at JPL, has discovered innovative, low delta-V methods of moving spacecraft around the solar system and between the earth and moon. A major Boeing study found the best solution was to use the on-ramp of Lo's Interplanetary Super Highway at the L1 point to move crews from the earth to the lunar surface and back with minimum delta-V and no launch window constraints. Not only that, but the resulting CEV had a base mass of under 7 tonnes and could be launched by Delta IV or Atlas V launch vehicles. Too much a threat to NASA's bureaucracy - the study has obviously been buried. As more information comes out on NASA's CEV plans, one becomes so angry that it becomes impossible to see straight. NASA has pretty well instructed the contractors that the preferred solution is to make an aerodynamic copy of the Apollo capsule, scaled up 50%. Now the Apollo capsule was a conservative design in 1960 when it was selected over other lifting body, winged, and saucer concepts with much greater growth potential. At least Max Faget had the excuse at the time that it was a crash program to beat the Russians to the moon. But NASA has spent untold billions since 1960 in hypersonics research. It has involved since then in development and testing of at least twenty configurations allowing lifting re-entry and horizontal landing that have been taken to the advanced hardware or test flight stage (the X-20, X-24A/B/C, X-30, X-33, X-34, X-37, X-38, X-40; not to mention M2-F2, M2-F3, HL-10, HL-20, HL-43, the Space Shuttle). And all it has to show for fifty years of development is to copy a design first conceived in 1959? It's as if the US Air Force decided to give the next generation fighter the unsophisticated straight delta wing and coke bottle area ruling of the F-106. One is reminded strongly of the big question that came to mind after FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina. If they didn't have a coherent plan and resources to effectively evacuate a major US city (necessary in the event of a dirty bomb or chemical attack, or a natural disaster) - what had they been spending all those billions of dollars for? If NASA has not progressed any further in practical application of hypersonic aerodynamic research in fifty years, what the heck is it for? The CEV capsule itself will be 50% larger dimensionally, giving it three times the volume and twice the structural area of the Apollo command module. One of the contractors says that use of modern materials will allow its structural weight to remain at just a bit more than the Apollo capsule. Whoopty-doo. What will that translate to? More room for moon rocks to bring back to earth and lock away in inaccessible storage (as if anyone is asking to study them any more)? What it evidently does mean is that NASA is expecting to provide truly regal quarters for the crew during ascent and re-entry (although not any extra crew safety provisions, like ejection seats). The Apollo capsule could carry three men to the moon and back and five to six as a ferry to a space station. The new capsule, with three times the internal volume, will accommodate four to the moon and the same six in ferry mode. NASA did not learn the lesson of Apollo - leaving unnecessary space and mass in the re-entry capsule propagates down the entire chain, requiring unnecessary increases in rockets stages and launch vehicle size. NASA selected Apollo and built at great expense a manned spacecraft and the rockets to lift it that had a total service life of seven years. Russia built the Soyuz and the rocket to lift it, to the same requirement to take three men to lunar orbit and back, and ended up with a design that will have a service life of around sixty years. If NASA wants to send four men to lunar orbit and back, they can buy two (already lunar-return-qualified) Soyuz or Shenzhou capsules, and launch them using existing commercial launch vehicles. Since they do not intend to advance astronautical engineering in any way with the project, there should be no reason not to go this route. Total savings will be approximately the same as NASA's entire manned space budget for the few flights a year they are talking about. The Chinese are managing their one-launch-a-year manned space program on a sustaining budget that is no more than a couple of hundred million dollars a year, tops. For that matter, why not outsource the whole shebang to China? The entire manufacturing base of the United States already has essentially been outsourced there anyway. NASA involvement would increase the cost to maybe half a billion dollars a year. But NASA management could then get rid of all those tiresome engineers and scientists on its payroll, just leaving the really important supervisors. These can then hold endless meetings, with plenty of Powerpoint "vision" briefings, and manage the heck out of their $100 million annual subcontract with Chinese industry. This would undoubtedly ensure that the subcontractor doesn't ever launch anything at all, thereby giving the program, and the NASA supervisors, the indefinite employment they so desperately crave. Another tiresome refrain from NASA is they can't possibly launch their precious crews on an Atlas V or Delta IV because these are not man-rated. A hot news flash for NASA: all of the kajillions of dollars they have spent on developing man-rated launch criteria have had zero effect. The most reliable rockets flying - the Delta 2 and Tsyklon and Soyuz - have never been man-rated. The Soyuz booster was given some extra subsystem redundancy in consideration of use for manned flights when it was designed back in 1960, but this in no way equated to man-rating to NASA criteria. Therefore the entire expensive process of "man-rating" has no statistically discernable effect. In fact what NASA needs to concentrate on is an effective launch escape system. If you have an effective system for saving the crew during the period of boost in the atmosphere, it doesn't matter what booster you mate the spacecraft to. NASA should be designing such a system that will give it the flexibility to fly the capsule with virtually any booster with modern reliability standards. Such a system has saved a Soyuz crew once in 94 launches (there was another Soyuz abort, but that involved shutting down the booster and separating the spacecraft later in its ascent, after the launch escape tower had jettisoned). The lack of any such system has killed a shuttle crew once in 114 launches. The configuration of the Exploration Systems' launch vehicle seems inexplicable except to keep NASA engineers busy and as many engine systems in production as possible. The mixed engine choices resemble tea with the Mad Hatter. For the heavy lifter core, a new expendable version of the SSME is to be developed using the "…hot isostatic press process developed for the RS-68.." -- why the heck not just use the RS-68, which is new technology, and a fraction of the cost of any likely expendable SSME version (True, the specific impulse is lower, but is the extra performance worth it? By my quick calculation a shuttle-type heavy lifter with RS-68's in place of SSME's would reduce the payload by around 25%, but this could be reversed in the conceptual stage by simply making the vehicle so much larger, or adding an upper stage). Then "two J-2S engines will power the Earth-departure stage launched atop the shuttle-derived heavy lifter". Why not use a single SSME or RS-68 from the core? Where is the logic in resurrecting, reengineering (due to completely different current manufacturing standards), and putting back into production this 40-year-old design, only to cluster two of them just to get the same thrust as a single SSME or RS-68? On the other hand, the second stage of the 'Stick' SRB launcher for the CEV will use a single, air-starting, SSME! Not the less-performing J-2S selected for the TLI stage of the heavy lifter! This seems way too much engine (indeed, the J-2s was favored in the original ATK Thiokol design for this vehicle). Finally, "…to descend to the lunar surface the team baselined a throttleable RL10-class LOX/hydrogen engine like the RL10A-5 engine used on the DC-X and DC-XA testbeds in the 1990s.." But for the ascent stage and CEV service module a new "..dual-use methane engine in the 15,000-lb.-thrust class…" will be developed!"

posted 11-21-2005 03:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Apollo:
From "Pausanias" the weblog of Encylopedia Astronautica. His views seem an interesting contrast to the received enthusiasm. Your views?

---

He is wrong on many, many levels. If you'd like, pick one area and we can punch some holes in it (if they hadn't already on the blog).

posted 11-22-2005 08:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Apollo:
(the X-20, X-24A/B/C, X-30, X-33, X-34, X-37, X-38, X-40; not to mention M2-F2, M2-F3, HL-10, HL-20, HL-43,

---

The X-24C and HL-43 dont ring a bell...

------------------
Kind Regards

Douglas Henry

posted 11-22-2005 09:02 AM               

Not sure about HL-43

posted 11-22-2005 09:10 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavidH:
X-24C: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x24c.htm
Apparently cancelled during development.

---

That looks cool! ...and Mach 8 too...

------------------
Kind Regards

Douglas Henry

posted 11-28-2005 09:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Apollo:
Well apparently the guy does know his stuff then.

---

I agree that he knows the history of lifting bodies. He doesn't know much about what it takes to put together an interplanetary space system.