A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

CEV Announcement



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 16th 05, 07:26 PM
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article . com,
"kert" wrote:

So why exactly is launching six astronauts in one vehicle better than
launching three astronauts in two vehicles at the same time ? Since
when has putting all eggs in one basket, or launcher in this case,
become a wise practice ?


I think the assumption is that one basket is dramatically cheaper than
two.

Whether that assumption is true, I don't know, though I can well imagine
it might be. One way, you get economies of scale in the launcher
itself, though the other way, you get some economies of scale in the
launch rate. I can't guess which would dominate.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

  #12  
Old June 16th 05, 07:27 PM
Henry Vanderbilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom Cuddihy wrote:

kert wrote:
So why exactly is launching six astronauts in one vehicle better than
launching three astronauts in two vehicles at the same time ? Since
when has putting all eggs in one basket, or launcher in this case,
become a wise practice ?

-kert


Congress has made it pretty clear during the past two shuttle
explosions that loss of astronaut life is NOT acceptable. If one of the
two four person launches failed, ALL missions would be on hold.

Just think about it. If you launch two three person crews to orbit,
where they have to transfer to a 6-person lunar CEV, you need to have
launched 3 vehicles to LEO just to get the crew in a CEV. IF each of
the four person CXVs is 15 tons, and the lunar CEV is still 30 tons,
you still have to launch 60 tons to LEO to get the passengers into a 30
ton CEV. If, on the other hand, you launch one 30 ton CEV, it can be
launched from earth with all the passegers on board. Doesn't that make
a lot more sense?


Another possibility: For longer missions, launch two four-man CEV's
with three aboard each, dock them to each other in orbit, then operate
them as a dual-redundant unit with a bit of extra elbow room.

Which eliminates the need to fly a six-man CEV with attendant new
larger-than-EELV-heavy booster every time you rotate Station crew.
(Might as well still be flying Shuttle; it'll end up costing about
as much per flight.)

Henry

  #13  
Old June 18th 05, 12:32 PM
Douglas Holmes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mike Chan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Douglas Holmes wrote:
"Jim Kingdon" wrote in message
news
There's one expected this afternoon.

I assume this is the one:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005...ontractor.html

In a nutshell, they picked two contractors to compete for a
down-selection in 2006 (which is sooner than had been previously
planned). Moving up the down-selection has been widely reported for
some months now.

Is that what was expected or is there more?

The most interesting line for me was:

NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for the CEV to carry up to six
astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit soon after the Space Shuttle is retired
in
2010, and then on to the moon as early as 2015.

When did the CEV become a SIX man vehicle?

Helps explain the size increase from 20 to 30 tons.


Seems like it had gone to crew size of 4 back when it would be good if
an EELV smaller than D-IVH can serve as the launcher. Now it seems it
has gone to 6 so that even a D-IVH can't serve as the launcher.

Not exactly.
About a third of the weight is fuel.
With only enough fuel for an ISS missions it would drop down to
just over 20 tons. Which both can carry.
With dual or quad rl-10s, depending on weight, both can also launch
the larger version.

  #14  
Old June 18th 05, 04:03 PM
kert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Joe Strout wrote:
In article . com,
"kert" wrote:

So why exactly is launching six astronauts in one vehicle better than
launching three astronauts in two vehicles at the same time ? Since
when has putting all eggs in one basket, or launcher in this case,
become a wise practice ?


I think the assumption is that one basket is dramatically cheaper than
two.

Whether that assumption is true, I don't know, though I can well imagine
it might be. One way, you get economies of scale in the launcher
itself, though the other way, you get some economies of scale in the
launch rate. I can't guess which would dominate.


No, not only launch rate. With smaller vehicle you can (potentially)
get flexibility, economic savings and redundancy in picking the
launcher itself as well.
IOW larger vehicle makes sense if you look at given vehicle/launcher
combination in isolation, ignoring the existing launch market.

-kert

  #15  
Old June 18th 05, 08:22 PM
Allen Thomson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Douglas Holmes wrote:

The most interesting line for me was:


then on to the moon as early as 2015.


What's the latest on how the CEV crew is supposed to land on the
moon, be sustained for however long they're going to stay doing
whatever they're going to be doing, and get back to earth?

  #16  
Old June 19th 05, 09:09 PM
Ed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

kert wrote:
Joe Strout wrote:
In article . com,
"kert" wrote:

So why exactly is launching six astronauts in one vehicle better than
launching three astronauts in two vehicles at the same time ? Since
when has putting all eggs in one basket, or launcher in this case,
become a wise practice ?


I think the assumption is that one basket is dramatically cheaper than
two.

Whether that assumption is true, I don't know, though I can well imagine
it might be. One way, you get economies of scale in the launcher
itself, though the other way, you get some economies of scale in the
launch rate. I can't guess which would dominate.


No, not only launch rate. With smaller vehicle you can (potentially)
get flexibility, economic savings and redundancy in picking the
launcher itself as well.
IOW larger vehicle makes sense if you look at given vehicle/launcher
combination in isolation, ignoring the existing launch market.

-kert


being able to put everthing up in one throw has been the the norm for
the last several decades, during the end of the the gemini program the
plan was to use several launches to get to the moon.

if you used the gemini big transport 2 crew + 7 passengers, (16,000 kg
+ 4,000 kg launch escape tower) you would need the Delta iv (cost 140
mill '99) you would still have 4,000 kg of unused cargo to iss.
if you where using the origianl gemini a crew of 2, (2,000 kg) using
the same atlas v 401 (cost 77 mill '98) you would get 2 to iss and
10,000 kg of unused cargo to iss.

while one would assume that with the gemini big the unused cargo mass
could be stowed aboard, while with the original gemini, anouther modual
would be required, possibly something simular to the shuttles extenetd
duration or fuel pallets could make use of the extra avaliable launch
mass. but that doesn't address the problems of where to park or
transfer systems.
if you where going to the moon then you need to fuel and resupply
launches for the cev as well.


a kg/dollar comaprison

4 - atlas v 401 - 48,000 kg - 308 million, just for boosters
2 - delta iv - 46,000 kg - 280 million, just for boosters

  #17  
Old June 19th 05, 11:35 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
Tom Cuddihy wrote:
Personally, I do think that makes a lot of sense. With 4 people, it's
tough to come up with a sustainable work/rest schedule.


Why? Work 8 hours, relax/eat/etc. 8 hours, sleep 8 hours.

Apollo had a crew of 3 because it was supposed to run three shifts. Very
early, they figured out that this doesn't work in a modest-sized spacecraft.
You want everybody sleeping at the same time.

There's no particular reason *not* to put everybody on the same schedule.
Unless you're doing something tricky like driving a pressurized rover
nonstop over long distances, there's no particular need to have somebody
awake at all times. Given modern technology, there's no need to have
somebody sitting there watching gauges -- computers do that better than
humans -- and if there *is* some reason for continuous equipment
monitoring, at least on the Moon, it can be done from Earth.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

  #18  
Old June 20th 05, 10:15 AM
kert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Atlas 401 has a nice substitute called Proton, available via ILS. So
when there's a problem with one launcher, you can use another, from the
same supplier.
Dunno whether Proton would be any cheaper. Assuming it isnt, i'd say
even paying that 10% extra is still reasonable price for such
redundancy.

-kert

  #19  
Old June 20th 05, 03:12 PM
ruzicka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ed" wrote in message
oups.com...
kert wrote:
Joe Strout wrote:
In article . com,
"kert" wrote:

So why exactly is launching six astronauts in one vehicle better than
launching three astronauts in two vehicles at the same time ? Since
when has putting all eggs in one basket, or launcher in this case,
become a wise practice ?

I think the assumption is that one basket is dramatically cheaper than
two.

Whether that assumption is true, I don't know, though I can well
imagine
it might be. One way, you get economies of scale in the launcher
itself, though the other way, you get some economies of scale in the
launch rate. I can't guess which would dominate.


No, not only launch rate. With smaller vehicle you can (potentially)
get flexibility, economic savings and redundancy in picking the
launcher itself as well.
IOW larger vehicle makes sense if you look at given vehicle/launcher
combination in isolation, ignoring the existing launch market.

-kert


being able to put everthing up in one throw has been the the norm for
the last several decades, during the end of the the gemini program the
plan was to use several launches to get to the moon.

if you used the gemini big transport 2 crew + 7 passengers, (16,000 kg
+ 4,000 kg launch escape tower) you would need the Delta iv (cost 140
mill '99) you would still have 4,000 kg of unused cargo to iss.
if you where using the origianl gemini a crew of 2, (2,000 kg) using
the same atlas v 401 (cost 77 mill '98) you would get 2 to iss and
10,000 kg of unused cargo to iss.

while one would assume that with the gemini big the unused cargo mass
could be stowed aboard, while with the original gemini, anouther modual
would be required, possibly something simular to the shuttles extenetd
duration or fuel pallets could make use of the extra avaliable launch
mass. but that doesn't address the problems of where to park or
transfer systems.
if you where going to the moon then you need to fuel and resupply
launches for the cev as well.


a kg/dollar comaprison

4 - atlas v 401 - 48,000 kg - 308 million, just for boosters
2 - delta iv - 46,000 kg - 280 million, just for boosters


It'll be interesting to see if those cost numbers stay the same or change,
once (if) the United Launch Alliance merges the two launch vehicle lines
into one company.

  #20  
Old June 21st 05, 05:33 PM
Ed
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

the price of the delta was if you where buying a dozen, the stated
price is 170 million for just one, so for occasional use you can move
more mass for less with the single price quoted for the atlas. What is
interesting is that the cev is supposed to have a 700 day life cycle,
given that iss is suposed to last 20 years from launch. iss will be a
destination for meny years to come, if the soyez is 60 mill plus the
booster cost, it is less than the cost of the delta iv for transfering
a couple of specialists. the 3 seat soyez at 7,000 kg would have 5,000
kg unused cargo on the atlas, i doubt that anyone could build a 2 seat
gemini b (4,000 kg) for less than a soyez, and keep it up to the
current crew volume demands of nasa.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hubble Webcast Announcement Lucy Albert Amateur Astronomy 0 March 18th 05 07:44 PM
ANNOUNCEMENT: New Glass for optics CLT UK Astronomy 4 April 2nd 04 09:00 PM
NASA Announcement of Opportunity for the New Frontiers Program 2003and Missions of Opportunity Alex R. Blackwell Space Science Misc 0 October 10th 03 08:43 PM
NASA Announcement of Opportunity for the New Frontiers Program 2003and Missions of Opportunity Alex R. Blackwell Science 0 October 10th 03 07:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.