Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: "Jake McGuire" <jamcguir@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Oct 2005 12:59:09 -0700
Magnus Redin wrote:
> > The main difference in weight between the ISS CEV and the Lunar CEV
> > is going to be service module propellant. Filling up tanks with 8
> > tons of LOX and methane is not going to add $200 million to the cost
> > of flying a mission, no matter what statistical extrapolation from a
> > sample size of five tells you.
>
> I would guess that ISS missions will be flown with full propellant
> tanks to give ISS a good rebost into a higher orbit.
Huh.
That certainly DOES sound like a good idea.
The CEV main engine is a bit large for ISS reboost, and it's not clear
that there's propellant crossfeed between the main engine (LOX/CH4) and
the RCS thrusters, which are currently supposed to be LOX/Ethanol. TEI
of the CEV also requires a pretty heroic delta-V, so six months of
reboost might only take half of the propellant capability of the CEV
SM.
-jake
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: Alex Terrell
- Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- References:
- Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: Ed Kyle
- Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: Jake McGuire
- Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- From: Magnus Redin
- Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- Prev by Date: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Next by Date: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
