Re: Alternatives to Shuttle Logistics missions

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 17:07:58 -0500, John Doe <jdoe@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>If CEV is to DOCK to the station, it will have the same size hatch as
>Shuttle to Station since it will use PMA2.

Unless the baseline docking adapter is sized for CBM and the manned
version uses a CBM->PMA converter of some sort (a PMA inside an
inactive CBM template.)

>And remember that CEV is just a glorified double decker apollo capsule.
>It doesn't have significant cargo space.

The current design would actually have more volume and mass capability
than Progress. Remember, the base diameter is much wider than
Progress. You should easily be able to get four racks around the
periphery at the bottom of the cabin.

>> The Soyuz/Progress docking targets aren't on the US side. May also be
>> clearance issues with ATV's big solar panels sticking out every which
>> way.
>
>Since HTV is meant to berth to a CBM port, why coudn't ATV ?

HTV uses solar panels flush with the structure, surrounding it. They
don't stick out in a huge X-pattern like ATV or a wing-pattern like
Soyuz/CEV.

>Since the europeans are now planning some form of canadarm for the
>russian segment, I wonder if an MPLM in an ATV could be picked up by the
>europena arm and handed over to the canadarm and then berted.

No, that arm is tiny compared to SSRMS.

>In hindsight, had the europeans designed ATV to carry an MPLM from the
>start, they could probably launch many of the modules destined for the
>ISS.

Except for most of the truss and Kibo, which weigh too much.

>The problem is that NASA doesn't say "we need to launch 15 tonnes and
>return 10 tonnes to earth safely". They say "we need a winged vehicle
>made by either lockeed or boeing whose construction will employ people
>from michoud, stennis, thiokol, which has the following shape,
>structural elements and materials.

Well, except for the winged vehicle part. Boeing's CEV was
Apollo-shaped and LockMart's was a lifting body until it was
redesigned.

>Even ATV, which was designed to use "off the shelf" commercial Arianne
>launchers ended having to have a customer version of Arianne launcher
>for it. (due to weight, centre of gravity etc).
>
>> Well, the "service" is human spaceflight.
>
>If you want to advance human spaceflight beyond sending humans up in a
>telephone booth, you need hardware to build bigger hardware in space.
>Apollo/CEV may be great to send people to space, but it does nothing to
>help build structures big enough to support very long trips.

Having a working Space Station greatly reduces the need for building
things from the limited-duration crew transport. Instead, you deliver
all the hardware to the Station and build it there, at your leisure.
For moon/Mars it might be better to build a new Station at 28.5, even
if that station is just a fuel dump consisting of a bunch of
propellant modules docked together a'la Mir. We won't need Shuttle to
do that any more than Russian needed Shuttle to build Salyut/Mir.

>The shuttle
>was designed not only as a great cargo and people carrier, but also as a
>space truck, capable of doing work in space.

And once ISS is completed, that work is done.

>CEV is nothing more than the american version of Soyuz with a more
>modern look.

More retro, actually! And a whole lot bigger, too.

>> retirement? Shuttle will be replaced by CEV and/or commercial
>> alternatives, and the gap between Shuttle and CEV probably will be no
>> worse than the one suffered between STS-107 and STS-114
>
>Assuming CEV isn't cancelled and actually does fly. The problem isn't
>CEV. The problem is that NASA is doing nothing to replace the cargo and
>space-work capabilities of the shuttle.

Except put out requests to private industry. And the unmanned CEV is
advertised to have 6,000 lbs. cargo capacity, which seems somewhat
conservative, given the launcher's payload capacity.

>Actually, they are.... they hace a mockup of Kipper already built, used
>as a great backdrop for photo shoots of politicians ;-) :-)

Yeah, and NASA built mockups of X-38, Transhab and Shuttle-C, too. The
X-38 mockup even got drop-tested a few times! Again, Russia is no
better than NASA in this regard. Wishes it were so notwithstanding.

>I think there is one major difference between Klipper and CEV:
>commercial operations.
>
>I can see russians going through with Klipper because, by increasing
>capacity of their "Soyuz taxi", they can also increase commercial
>revenus from rich people as well as other nations wishing to send
>crewmembers to the ISS.

There aren't that many willing to spend $20 million, though. Or they'd
have ramped up Soyuz production to allow more of them to go. Kliper's
not going to change that.

>Lunar stuff is going to be nothing more than some recreation of Apollo.

No, I doubt that. It looks to me as though the architecture is sized
for a base, not a scouting mission. The lander is huge compared to
Apollo. I expect 2-4 scouting missions to stakeout a base location,
and then base construction begins.

Note that NASA has been negotiating with Japan about converting the
Centrifuge deal to a deal for nuclear power. That's only needed if
you're planning a base, publicly or not.

>A few flights, people get tired and flights to the moon will be stopped.
>Don't expect Moon Base Alpha to be built. (like the one that existed
>back in 1999 :-)

No, but possibly expect something like Devon Island.

>In the end, the USA will be left with CEV which does nothing more than a
>soyuz spacecraft and ferry people to/from the ISS. The USA will have no
>cargo capacity to/from the ISS.

Well, 6,000 lbs. per flight is better than Progress.

>> particularly Japan. I wouldn't write-off the US as an international
>> partner just yet.
>
>With only a glorified Soyuz/Apollo capsule and with very murky
>commercial capabilities, NASA will not be such a big key player in
>space. Russia, with openness to commercials human space flights is
>likely to be more important player simply because it remains politically
>much easier to fly on a Soyuz than on any NASA spacecraft.

Except that, when you come right down to it, Russia is a government
bureaucracy just like NASA. Kliper is going to be expensive to design
and build, and that money will have to come from the Russian
government, which will control the whole she-bang, just like Soyuz. It
will be the commercial startups, not governments, that revolutionize
space, and the leading contenders are in the US.

>What percentage of Soyuz rockets are used to the ISS (soyuz+progress) in
>a given year ?

No idea, I'm concerned with Soyuz spacecraft production, not booster
production.

>Doubling production of soyuz rockets for ISS may not mean
>doubling production of Soyuz rockets. Doubling Soyuz orbital spacecraft
>means going from 2 to 4 a year. Progress may not need to be doubled to
>allow 3 crewmembers back to the station. Besides, if ATV ever flies,
>Progress won't need to be increased much to allow 3 crewmembers on station.

We're talking about six on ISS, though. Not 3. Progress alone can't
handle 3, only 2 (as demonstrated since STS-107). One ATV a year plus
the usual Progress flights might just barely allow 6. But it will be
close.

Brian
.

Relevant Pages
Loading