What is the Crew Exploration Vehicle supposed to be?

While reading articles about the Moon-to-Mars plan, I've seen frequent
mention of the Crew Exploration Vehicle. Unfortunately, even after
looking through some online resources, I'm still confused about what
exactly the CEV is supposed to actually be.

Is it supposed to be just a capsule (hopefully compatible with
different types of rockets already developed or in-development), or is
it a capsule + rocket combination?

Is the same vehicle intended to be used to travel to LEO (and dock with
ISS) -and- land on the moon -and- land on Mars? If so, that sounds like
a recipe for disaster, almost as bad as using the same vehicle for both
passenger transport and heavy cargo.

-- Neil Halelamien

Neil Halelamien wrote:

While reading articles about the Moon-to-Mars plan, I've seen frequent
mention of the Crew Exploration Vehicle. Unfortunately, even after
looking through some online resources, I'm still confused about what
exactly the CEV is supposed to actually be.

Is it supposed to be just a capsule (hopefully compatible with
different types of rockets already developed or in-development), or is
it a capsule + rocket combination?

Is the same vehicle intended to be used to travel to LEO (and dock with
ISS) -and- land on the moon -and- land on Mars? If so, that sounds like
a recipe for disaster, almost as bad as using the same vehicle for both
passenger transport and heavy cargo.

It's still TBD, but the conventional thinking on it is that it's a suite
of modules--a capsule for entry and crew life support, and kittable
modules analogous to an Apollo service module. It may be part of a
system that eventually goes to Mars, but it's unlikely that it would be
the whole of it. And it's not a launch vehicle--it's a payload.

In article ,
Neil Halelamien wrote:
...I'm still confused about what exactly the CEV is supposed to actually be.

That's partly because the CEV is not yet very well defined.

Is it supposed to be just a capsule (hopefully compatible with
different types of rockets already developed or in-development), or is
it a capsule + rocket combination?

The way the wind is blowing is that it will be a capsule launched on an
EELV derivative, i.e. roughly an existing rocket. But there is no final
commitment to that yet. It is definitely envisioned as a *spacecraft*,
not a *launch vehicle*. NASA is out of the launch-vehicle business for
the moment, except for that nagging possibility that the KSC-MSFC-JSC axis
will get its wish for continuing full employment in the form of a shuttle-
derived heavy-lift launcher.

Is the same vehicle intended to be used to travel to LEO (and dock with
ISS) -and- land on the moon -and- land on Mars?

Again, most of these questions don't have firm answers yet. The approach
people seem to be centering on is that the CEV would be the mother ship
for a lunar mission, with a separate vehicle flying the landing, as in
Apollo. Whether that is the best approach is a very different question.

As with Apollo, once you decide that the mother ship never goes lower than
lunar orbit, the differences between it and an Earth-orbit spacecraft are
small: bigger propulsion system, a tougher heatshield, various minor
differences in subsystems.

Mars is not even really a consideration in current hardware design; Mars
landings are far off in the misty future even in Bush's concept.

If so, that sounds like
a recipe for disaster, almost as bad as using the same vehicle for both
passenger transport and heavy cargo.

There's nothing wrong with using the same vehicle for both passenger
transport and heavy cargo. Most air cargo flies in the cargo holds of
widebody passenger airliners. A launch vehicle which is reliable enough
to be trusted (in a sane world) with billion-dollar space-station modules
is plenty reliable enough to carry people. (Would you entrust *your*
extremely expensive cargo to an aircraft which wasn't considered reliable
enough to safely carry passengers?)
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer wrote:

There's nothing wrong with using the same vehicle for both passenger
transport and heavy cargo. Most air cargo flies in the cargo holds of
widebody passenger airliners. A launch vehicle which is reliable enough
to be trusted (in a sane world) with billion-dollar space-station modules
is plenty reliable enough to carry people. (Would you entrust *your*
extremely expensive cargo to an aircraft which wasn't considered reliable
enough to safely carry passengers?)

Yes, there's no such thing as a "man-rated" air transport. This is
another bit of current conventional wisdom that must be eradicated.

"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message
...
While reading articles about the Moon-to-Mars plan, I've seen frequent
mention of the Crew Exploration Vehicle. Unfortunately, even after
looking through some online resources, I'm still confused about what
exactly the CEV is supposed to actually be.

Is it supposed to be just a capsule (hopefully compatible with
different types of rockets already developed or in-development), or is
it a capsule + rocket combination?

Is the same vehicle intended to be used to travel to LEO (and dock with
ISS) -and- land on the moon -and- land on Mars? If so, that sounds like
a recipe for disaster, almost as bad as using the same vehicle for both
passenger transport and heavy cargo.

-- Neil Halelamien


It is far from firm yet but the capsule is at the heart of Project
Constellation.

While in reality nothing more then a few drawings Boeings web page might be
helpful to understand what people are considering.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...ingblocks.html

Note how it uses the same blocks to build many vehicles, landers and bases.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

Henry Spencer wrote:

There's nothing wrong with using the same vehicle for both passenger
transport and heavy cargo. Most air cargo flies in the cargo holds of
widebody passenger airliners. A launch vehicle which is reliable enough
to be trusted (in a sane world) with billion-dollar space-station
modules
is plenty reliable enough to carry people. (Would you entrust *your*
extremely expensive cargo to an aircraft which wasn't considered
reliable
enough to safely carry passengers?)

Yes, there's no such thing as a "man-rated" air transport. This is
another bit of current conventional wisdom that must be eradicated.

On a related note regarding crew and cargo launching, the Vision for Space
Exploration spells out an action to be taken:

"Separate to the maximum practical extent crew from cargo transportation to
the International Space Station and for launching exploration missions
beyond low Earth orbit;"

This of course refers to launching crew and cargo separately, not which
vehicle would be used to launch each.

Jon

"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message

While reading articles about the Moon-to-Mars plan, I've seen frequent
mention of the Crew Exploration Vehicle. Unfortunately, even after
looking through some online resources, I'm still confused about what
exactly the CEV is supposed to actually be.

Is it supposed to be just a capsule (hopefully compatible with
different types of rockets already developed or in-development), or is
it a capsule + rocket combination?

Is the same vehicle intended to be used to travel to LEO (and dock with
ISS) -and- land on the moon -and- land on Mars? If so, that sounds like
a recipe for disaster, almost as bad as using the same vehicle for both
passenger transport and heavy cargo.

-- Neil Halelamien

Try he

http://www.projectconstellation.us/a...ncept-gallery/

It's got Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and NASA concepts.

Jon

On 2004-08-02, Neil Halelamien wrote:
While reading articles about the Moon-to-Mars plan, I've seen frequent
mention of the Crew Exploration Vehicle. Unfortunately, even after
looking through some online resources, I'm still confused about what
exactly the CEV is supposed to actually be.

You can say it's anything you want, with Alice the CR- OSP!
You can dream of anything you want, it's Alice the OS- CEV!
Going off to Luna, or just a Station shuttle
(But not a lifting body, they're too much trouble)
You can plan anything you want, using Alice, the CEV...

(sorry)

Is it supposed to be just a capsule (hopefully compatible with
different types of rockets already developed or in-development), or is
it a capsule + rocket combination?

It's the spacecraft, and possilby additional hardware - think
Apollo or Soyuz, not Apollo-Saturn. The specifications are intended to
allow for either Atlas or Delta launches, and presumably anything else
built to those mating specs (unlikely as that is).

Is the same vehicle intended to be used to travel to LEO (and dock with
ISS) -and- land on the moon -and- land on Mars? If so, that sounds like
a recipe for disaster, almost as bad as using the same vehicle for both
passenger transport and heavy cargo.

I suspect the same craft is vanishingly unlikely to end up being a lunar
lander and a Mars lander, for apparent technical reasons. If only
because landing on three different terrestrial bodies is a very tough
engineering trick...

--
-Andrew Gray

There's nothing wrong with using the same vehicle for both passenger
transport and heavy cargo. Most air cargo flies in the cargo holds of
widebody passenger airliners. A launch vehicle which is reliable enough
to be trusted (in a sane world) with billion-dollar space-station
modules is plenty reliable enough to carry people. (Would you entrust
*your* extremely expensive cargo to an aircraft which wasn't considered
reliable enough to safely carry passengers?)

Ok, I see what you mean.

Thanks for the link! It conveys quite nicely what sorts of ideas are
being thought about. The modular approach really seems the proper way
to do things.