Say, this looks familiar...

Boeing designs for the Crew Exploration Vehicle:

http://boeingmedia.com/images/search...roduct_id=1525


Delete the words "Crew Control Module" "Resource Module" and "Crew
Escape Sysytem" and insert the words "Command Module" "Service Module"
and "Launch Escape System" respectively.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore Maryland

(Gene DiGennaro) writes:

Boeing designs for the Crew Exploration Vehicle:

http://boeingmedia.com/images/search...roduct_id=1525

Also note the TLI stage description:

An artist's rendering of a lunar propulsion system derived from two
Delta IV Upper Stages assembled in Low Earth Orbit.

Also look at the picture of the CES - Interplanetary Crew Exploration
Vehicle. It sure looks like it was assembled in LEO out of many
different pieces.

It sure looks like these "designs" are based on the assumption that
there will *not* be a new HLV to launch the pieces into LEO. In fact,
several of the pictures are of the Delta IV Heavy, one with the
following description:

An artist's rendering of the Delta IV Heavy Launch vehicle capable
of transporting Boeing?s envisioned Crew Exploration System elements
to low Earth orbit.

New HLV? We don't need no stinking new HLV! ;-)

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

jeff findley wrote:

(Gene DiGennaro) writes:

Boeing designs for the Crew Exploration Vehicle:


snip


An artist's rendering of the Delta IV Heavy Launch vehicle capable
of transporting Boeing?s envisioned Crew Exploration System elements
to low Earth orbit.

New HLV? We don't need no stinking new HLV! ;-)



What we need is standardized mountpoints on the launchers
to allow cargo to be switched between the launchers as needed.

Thing is.. this program might actually have the clout to get
that pushed onto the industry.

(Gene DiGennaro) wrote in message . com...
Boeing designs for the Crew Exploration Vehicle:

http://boeingmedia.com/images/search...roduct_id=1525


Delete the words "Crew Control Module" "Resource Module" and "Crew
Escape Sysytem" and insert the words "Command Module" "Service Module"
and "Launch Escape System" respectively.

Don't forget the inflatable LM -- er, Crew Habitat-Lunar Surface
Version of the CES.

http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cfm?image_id=8863

Boeing's going to have to fork over development cash for using
Grumman's plans, no?

And is it just me, or does that "Crew Control Module" look *really*
Block One 1963 era?

jeff findley wrote in
:

Also look at the picture of the CES - Interplanetary Crew Exploration
Vehicle. It sure looks like it was assembled in LEO out of many
different pieces.

Looks suspiciously nuclear thermal propulsion, too. That's good.
Chemical propulsion just won't hack it without a huge heavy lift
vehicle just to launch the propellants.

Er, how ARE they going to get all that hydrogen into orbit? Are those
tanks super-insulated? Active refrigeration? Hydrogen slush?

It sure looks like these "designs" are based on the assumption that
there will *not* be a new HLV to launch the pieces into LEO. In fact,
several of the pictures are of the Delta IV Heavy, one with the
following description:

An artist's rendering of the Delta IV Heavy Launch vehicle capable
of transporting Boeing?s envisioned Crew Exploration System elements
to low Earth orbit.

New HLV? We don't need no stinking new HLV! ;-)

They'll need more launch pads and the Alabama plant will be working
around the clock to build all the needed launch hardware. That's good
too.

--Damon Details! I want details!

From Gene DiGennaro:
Boeing designs for the Crew Exploration Vehicle:

http://boeingmedia.com/images/search...roduct_id=1525


Freakin excellent! These are designs that get my pulse pumping.

Yeah, maybe they're not radical. But unlike the X-30, X-33, X-34,
X-37, X-38, X-40, (...) before them, I can see these designs actually
going on to accomplish their mission!


From those webpages:

"Boeing has been NASA's leading contractor on virtually every human
space flight system."

This leads to a good question. What US human spacecraft have been
used that *weren't* built by a company that is now "Boeing"?
Obviously there's the LM. Most everything else is Boeing (NA/R,
MACDAC, etc).

Heck, even the LRV was built by Boeing.


Now let's see if Congress will come up with the $s.


~ CT

(Gene DiGennaro) wrote


The more things change, the more they stay the same...



[Checks calendar.] Yep, the date is 1964 again. (A good thing,
IMO.)

Allen Thomson wrote:

(Gene DiGennaro) wrote


The more things change, the more they stay the same...


[Checks calendar.] Yep, the date is 1964 again. (A good thing,
IMO.)

Not in Oz it ain't. It's more like 1955.

Which begs the question: when our fearless leader PM Johnny Howard moves
on, can we have another 1960s? Please?

:-P


David
--
per aspera ad astra

(Allen Thomson) wrote:

(Gene DiGennaro) wrote

The more things change, the more they stay the same...


[Checks calendar.] Yep, the date is 1964 again. (A good thing,
IMO.)

Yep, charging ahead on a feel good program, but this time *without* a
hard date, and *with* multiple extremely soft goals.

Good indeed.

Not.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Gene DiGennaro wrote:

Boeing designs for the Crew Exploration Vehicle:

http://boeingmedia.com/images/search...roduct_id=1525

If this is Boeing's proposal for SEI, Jr., I find it hard
to take seriously. First, if there are any sort of numbers on
that page, I can't find them. Where are the proposals on
vehicle masses, mission durations, crew sizes and costs?

The Large Delta IV is supposed to be the launch vehicle for
all these parts. Evidently they'll need two launches to
assemble the lunar transfer stage in orbit, and a third launch
for the CSM. These Delta IV upper stages are based on the
Centaur; how long can they stay in orbit before enough liquid
hydrogen boils off to make a lunar mission impossible? How
many new launch facilities will have to be constructed to handle
one mission? Astronautix.com says that the Large Delta IV can
launch 25,800 kg into LEO; can they make a CSM/LES system that
light (or simultaneously uprate the Delta IV while man-rating it?)
According to an old TRW Space Log, the Apollo 17 CSM/LES massed
approximately 34,500 kg when fully fuelled and equipped. The
Boeing images appear to make the new CSM the same diameter as
the Delta IV core, which will give the new vehicle a greater
diameter than the original Apollo vehicle. That suggests
more mass to me, not less.

A lunar landing mission will require three more launches to
send LEM-II to the moon; that's six launches (at $170 M per
launch, again according to astronautix.com; that's $1.02 B for
one mission's launchers. Allowing for inflation, the mission costs
seem comparable to Apollo prices, and probably a bit less). How
reliable will the (still unbuilt and untested) Large Delta IV be?
If the reliability rating is .98 per launch, then six launches have
about a .885 chance of all succeeding. One failure (about one
chance in nine of that) would mean the failure of the entire
mission, unless a backup is available.

--Bill Thompson