Re: Shuttle replacement on the boards?
From: Brian Thorn (bthorn64_at_cox.net)
Date: 10/30/04
- Next message: Jon S. Berndt: "Re: Problems with sci.space.* ?"
- Previous message: bob haller: "Re: Problems with sci.space.* ?"
- In reply to: John Doe: "Re: Shuttle replacement on the boards?"
- Next in thread: rk: "Re: Shuttle replacement on the boards?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:43:26 -0500
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 06:22:42 -0400, John Doe <jdoe@doe.org> wrote:
>Ok, so the replacement will be a "CEV".
>
>That still does not answer the question of what it will really be.
NASA is still working on what they want CEV to be.
>Will NASA get proposals for various concepts (capsule, flying body with
>parasail landing, shuttle style vehicle launched on top of rocket ?) and then
>decide on the final design ? Or will NASA decide on the concept first and then
>ask for bids ?
They seem to be leaning toward a capsule arrangement rather than a
lifting body or winged concept. Beyond that is anyone's guess.
>Will NASA get a budget from congress before or after asking for bids ?
Yes, although it may not be very much until Shuttle is retired.
>What is different ahout the CEV from the varous projects in the last decade
>which have all ended up being started and then as cost overruns piled up, just
>cancelled by congress ? Won't that be the same with the CEV ?
Very possible. So do you think NASA should instead not try anything at
all?
>What are the odds that NASA will simply end up ordering a couple more Shuttle
>vehicles at about 1 billion a piece when it is realised that this would still
>be much cheaper than some Mythical CEV thing ?
Near zero.
>Also, is there work going on to produce some NASA SUV ? (Space utility
>vehicle) to bring cargo launched atop a rocket to vicinity of an object and
>then use robotics to install it ?
Yes.
>Will NASA get funding for more TDRS satellites so that those robotic missions
>aren't interrrupted every 10 minutes ?
The latest TDRS satellites are already more or less off-the-shelf
Hughes/Boeing commercial satellites, so this doesn't seem to be a
significant issue anymore. Long-gone are the days when TDRS were the
largest and most powerful comsats in orbit.
>When could construction of the mythical CEV realistically begin ?
Probably 2008-09.
>Considering the CEV is expected to have a wider mission than the shuttle
>(shuttle doesn't go to the moon), how much in terms of living space will there
>be on the mythical CEV ?
That's somethng else NASA is still working out. Almost certainly, the
main CEV will be a relatively small launch/entry capsule. Little more
is needed for missions to ISS or the initial test flights. Work or
supply modules for longer missions could be carried in an adapter
between the CEV and the launcher, the same way the LM and Apollo-Soyuz
Docking Module were carried, or accessed by a through-the-heat-shield
hatch a'la Gemini/MOL (which would be easier for later lunar landing
missions.). There could also be multiple modules on a single mission
to increase laboratory or storage space, combined by docking in Earth
orbit.
>Has that been decided yet ?
No.
>Or is it still just talk and dreams and discussions ?
It is more than that, but NASA can't go to the President or Congress
and say 'here's what we need money for' until they've ironed out what
they want to do.
>How different from the russian Klipper will CEV be in terms of function, size
>? (whether capsule or flying body or whatever).
CEV and Klipper are both little more than vague planning with no
finding at this time, so the answer is 'nobody knows'.
>How long will it take to build a pad at KSC to launch those mythical CEVs ?
CEV will launch on either Atlas 5 or Delta IV, both of which already
have operational launch pads and few customers, so this is not a
significant issue. Both Complex 41 (Atlas 5) and Complex 37 (Delta IV)
have considerable room for expansion (Atlas 5 by taking over
neighboring Pad 40 after Titan IV retires, Delta IV by building a pad
on the vacant Pad 37B real estate) should NASA decide it wants a
dedicated CEV pad.
In any case, Boeing built Complex 37 (a long-deserted Saturn IB pad)
mostly from scratch in only a few years. LockMart leveled Pad 41 and
basically started over with nothing but the concrete apron and the
lightning rod towers in a similar amount of time. NASA could probably
modify Complex 39 for EELV/CEV in a similar amount of time, should it
decide to (mods to the VAB, and a new Mobile Launch Platform.)
>has NASA taken any steps already that make operating shuttles past 2010
>impossible,
No. The 2010 date comes from the Columbia Accident Investigation
Board's recommendation that Shuttle be completely recertified for
flight if NASA wants to operate it beyond 2010. Where the CAIB got the
2010 date from is anyone's guess, since the three surviving Orbiters
are all of different ages (20, 19, and 13 years old.) They seem to
have pulled that date out of thin air, which leaves NASA lots of room
to argue that 2011 or 2012 is just as safe a retirement date.
Brian
- Next message: Jon S. Berndt: "Re: Problems with sci.space.* ?"
- Previous message: bob haller: "Re: Problems with sci.space.* ?"
- In reply to: John Doe: "Re: Shuttle replacement on the boards?"
- Next in thread: rk: "Re: Shuttle replacement on the boards?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
