CEV and Stick

Has the final CEV design been chosen and what will it look like, the
Lockheed design with small winglets or will it be a complete modular design
like the Apollo spacecraft? As far as I know the launcher for the CEV will
be a 2 stage launcher rocket composed of one solid rocket boster and one
J2S/SSME upper stage. I believe this configuration can send the CEV to the
moon using the upper stage? Would it be possible to just use the SRB to put
the CEV in orbit only?
I heard something about make two types of CEVs? I think they should just
make one CEV design.
I have read many posts in the past from people who dont like using the
shuttle parts, SRBs, SSME, in the new spacecraft but rather use
EELVs.(delta, titan, atlas) I dissagree, I believe the SRBs are safe. The
initial explosion of Challenger came from gas entering into the SSMEs, but
the SRBs did not cause the explosion. The SRBs did not explode first,
right? ATK Thoikol said that SRBs donot explode. They burn at a "perscribed
rate". Thats what it says somewhere on this website, which I like.

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/default.htm

"Ray" wrote in message
news:u0eWe.11191$c27.7895@trndny01...
I have read many posts in the past from people who dont like using the
shuttle parts, SRBs, SSME, in the new spacecraft but rather use
EELVs.(delta, titan, atlas) I dissagree, I believe the SRBs are safe.
The
initial explosion of Challenger came from gas entering into the SSMEs, but
the SRBs did not cause the explosion. The SRBs did not explode first,
right? ATK Thoikol said that SRBs donot explode. They burn at a
"perscribed
rate". Thats what it says somewhere on this website, which I like.

The SSME's had absolutely nothing to do with the Challenger disaster. The
disaster's root cause was a leaking SRB field joint. If you'd like to learn
more, you can start he

Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger
Accident
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...-contents.html

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Ray wrote:
Has the final CEV design been chosen and what will it look like ...

No, but Griffin's big blueprint plan, which lays
out the launch vehicles and an outline of the
spacecraft, is being released during the next day
or three, first to the White House, then to NASA
Centers, then to the public next week. Keep your
eyes on "www.nasawatch.com", "space.com", etc.,
for the latest.

Early hints are that the plan is to develop an
SRB-based CEV launcher quickly to replace shuttle.
A Saturn V class shuttle derived launcher might
follow in a decade or so.

- Ed Kyle

On 15 Sep 2005 07:10:32 -0700, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Keep your eyes on "www.nasawatch.com", "space.com", etc.,
for the latest.

Thanks for the heads up.

Early hints are that the plan is to develop an
SRB-based CEV launcher quickly to replace shuttle.
A Saturn V class shuttle derived launcher might
follow in a decade or so.

But only both, plus a return capacity, could really
replace the shuttle...

Dale

Dale wrote:
On 15 Sep 2005 07:10:32 -0700, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Keep your eyes on "www.nasawatch.com", "space.com", etc.,
for the latest.

Thanks for the heads up.

Early hints are that the plan is to develop an
SRB-based CEV launcher quickly to replace shuttle.
A Saturn V class shuttle derived launcher might
follow in a decade or so.

But only both, plus a return capacity, could really
replace the shuttle...

An unmanned SRB/SSME launcher would be able to boost
about the same, if not more, payload mass into orbit
as a space shuttle payload bay. A Progress-like
unmanned CEV with a heat shield could be used to
deliver and return mass. What has shuttle been
returning to earth that couldn't return in a CEV?

- Ed Kyle

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:40:42 -0500, ed kyle wrote
(in article . com):

What has shuttle been
returning to earth that couldn't return in a CEV?

You ought to qualify that question with the word "lately" or "recently"
else some smart ass (like me) will respond: "LDEF, Palapa-B2 and Westar
VI . . ." :-p

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
www.angryherb.net

Ray wrote:

The initial explosion of Challenger came from gas entering into the SSMEs,
but the SRBs did not cause the explosion. The SRBs did not explode first,
right?

You're partly correct, Ray. The SRBs did not explode prior to RSD, nor
did they cartwheel. However, it's incorrect to exclude the SRBs as a
cause of the explosion.

The SSMEs effectively destroyed themselves, from operating with an
oxygen-rich propellant mixture; but that was more a case of
insufficient hydrogen (the fuel) "entering into the SSMEs."

Challenger's Ghost

On 15 Sep 2005 08:47:00 -0700, "
wrote:

Ray wrote:

The initial explosion of Challenger came from gas entering into the SSMEs,
but the SRBs did not cause the explosion. The SRBs did not explode first,
right?

You're partly correct, Ray. The SRBs did not explode prior to RSD, nor
did they cartwheel. However, it's incorrect to exclude the SRBs as a
cause of the explosion.

The SSMEs effectively destroyed themselves, from operating with an
oxygen-rich propellant mixture; but that was more a case of
insufficient hydrogen (the fuel) "entering into the SSMEs."

Challenger's Ghost

Now I'm confused. I thought the SRB leak burned through the external
tank and the ET was what blew up.

-- David (not an aerospace engineer)

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:49:20 -0500, David Ball
wrote:

Now I'm confused. I thought the SRB leak burned through the external
tank and the ET was what blew up.

....No, *he* is confused. David, you're dealing with John Thomas
Maxson, a former Lockmart janitor who's pretending to be an engineer
who was fired for supposedly blowing whistles about SRB problems to
his superiors. Most of us here have the senile old ****wit - as well
as his inbred excuses for offspring - killfiled. Every claim he makes
is 100% bogus, and reading his posts, much less responding to them, is
a waste of your time and our bandwidth.

Please, just toss him in a killfile where he belongs and put him out
of *all* our misery.

OM

--

"Try Andre Dead Duck Canadian Champagne! | http://www.io.com/~o_m
Rated the lamest of the cheapest deported | Sergeant-At-Arms
brands by the Condemned in Killfile Hell!" | Human O-Ring Society

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Ray" wrote in message
news:u0eWe.11191$c27.7895@trndny01...
I have read many posts in the past from people who dont like using the
shuttle parts, SRBs, SSME, in the new spacecraft but rather use
EELVs.(delta, titan, atlas) I dissagree, I believe the SRBs are safe.
The
initial explosion of Challenger came from gas entering into the SSMEs,
but
the SRBs did not cause the explosion. The SRBs did not explode first,
right? ATK Thoikol said that SRBs donot explode. They burn at a
"perscribed
rate". Thats what it says somewhere on this website, which I like.

The SSME's had absolutely nothing to do with the Challenger disaster. The
disaster's root cause was a leaking SRB field joint.


Oddly enough, an SRB leak won't have much effect on the proposed CEV...no
tank to blow up!