NASA Receives Crew Exploration Vehicle Proposals

Originally posted by Flinx
They've been talking about this for years. They've been making designs for years...why don't they do it? In the time they've been trying to get that old, expensive deathtrap spaceshuttle ready to fly again, they could have built a new CEV.

Your to impatient. They could not build the CEV for the 2 1/2 years the Shuttle will have being grounded.

Aircraft and Spacecraft cannot be judged on the same scale as a new computer or new car, its all relative, The higher something costs the longer you have to use it.

They could build one in a year (see article link above) if they changed the #%&@! ing procurement policies they use.

Remember the UFO also known as the flying "triangle" well look at the design of that ship and tell me what you think it would look like with lights on the bottom of it a night.

[edit on 10-5-2005 by iksmodnad]

Originally posted by iksmodnad
Remember he UFO also known as the flying "triangle" well look at the design of that ship and tell me what you think it would look like with lights on the bottom of it a night.

What does that have to do with this? That "UFO" you're talking about is supposed to be bigger then a football field and runs silently. This is neither.

I never said it was the UFO, I just said the shape of it may fit its description. Just trying to think out side the box.. sorry.

I read the other day at AviationNow.com that Griffen (Nasa's top dog) has changed some CEV stuff, like: Originally they planned onhaving Lockheeds CEV go against Boeing's CEV in a 2008 fly-off, But Nasa doesn't like the 4 year gap between the shuttle ans the CEV, and Griffen said they will choose which one they like better in 2006, in hopes to get it operational years ahead of previous plans.

[edit on 10-5-2005 by Murcielago]

Originally posted by iksmodnad
I never said it was the UFO, I just said the shape of it may fit its description. Just trying to think out side the box.. sorry.

No need to apologize. I appreciate out of box thinking Maybe you should have made yourself clearer :shrug: NO offence was intended(and hopefully none was taken) I just thought it was a wee bit off topic.

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by Flinx
They've been talking about this for years. They've been making designs for years...why don't they do it? In the time they've been trying to get that old, expensive deathtrap spaceshuttle ready to fly again, they could have built a new CEV.

Your to impatient. They could not build the CEV for the 2 1/2 years the Shuttle will have being grounded.

Aircraft and Spacecraft cannot be judged on the same scale as a new computer or new car, its all relative, The higher something costs the longer you have to use it.

Yeah, I know I'm impatient and have unrealistic expectations... I just had, I don't know....higher hopes for the space program.

I think that if they had to ground the space shuttle for 2+ years, they might as well have grounded it for good. I'd be happy to live through 3 or so years with no space vehicle if at the end of that period they had a brand spanking new CEV. Oh well....

I don't remember how long it took Max Faget to design the Mercury capsule with a slide rule and 1950's materials, but I'm sure the "spiral" CEV development plan of NASA will generate what the last two proposed replacements of the shuttle have brought, millions in administrative costs and no flight articles.

Here's my proposal: Make Burt Rutan the National Earth-to-low-earth-orbit czar and let him spend the funds NASA would waste.

Flinx
I'd be happy to live through 3 or so years with no space vehicle if at the end of that period they had a brand spanking new CEV.

I wouldn't be...Would you of prefered they just got rid of them when the Challenger blew up?
Were still gonna get the CEV, hopfully as early as 2010. Until then we need to focus on building the ISS, its our obligation to the international community.

Originally posted by Murcielago

Flinx
I'd be happy to live through 3 or so years with no space vehicle if at the end of that period they had a brand spanking new CEV.

I wouldn't be...Would you of prefered they just got rid of them when the Challenger blew up?
Were still gonna get the CEV, hopfully as early as 2010. Until then we need to focus on building the ISS, its our obligation to the international community.

I was going to make a qualification about the Challenger, but decided not to. Guess I should have....
The Challenger incident happened relatively early in the shuttle program. It was logical for them to fix the problem and continue flying the shuttle. Almost 20 years later....it's different. The thing as outlived it's usefulness.

I have mixed feelings about the ISS. One one hand we need some kind of permanent space habitat. On the other, the ISS isn't what it was promised to be. I know it's not complete yet, but I wonder.... What if we had gone with the ring-shaped station idea? There was even one idea to use spent shuttle fuel tanks to create a station.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Murcielago - The latest news about the CEV is indeed that Griffin is closing the gap for the CEV to be built by the original two contractors.

NASA initially planned to select two teams from among the proposals submitted last week and award contracts of an unspecified amount for both to begin design work in August or September. Then in 2008, the agency would choose one contractor to actually build the vehicle, with the first flight with people aboard scheduled for 2014.

NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, found this scenario unacceptable and put the agency on notice he intended to shorten or eliminate the four-year transition time between shuttle and CEV.

Late last week, NASA notified Congress it intends to choose a single contractor to build the CEV early next year. The intention is to have the vehicle ready for service as early as 2010, when the shuttle stops flying.

The role to get the astronauts to and from low earth orbit will be designed by a different contractor and could be ready by 2008!

While aerospace prime contractors Lockheed Martin and a partnership of Northrop Grumman and Boeing are eyeing the lion's share of CEV work, a consortium of entrepreneurs, which includes Rutan's Scaled Composites, is offering to build and operate a complementary system.

The team, headed by Reston, Va.-based Transformational Space Corp., or t/Space, claims its Earth-to-orbit transit system can be ready to fly by 2008.

The company, which already has received $6 million for study contracts from NASA, wants $400 million more to build what it calls the Crew Transfer Vehicle, which would travel only to and from low-Earth orbit.

It is also reported that rutans company scaled composites will be taking on the role of building the capsule, to ferry astronauts to low earth orbit in much the same fashon as spaceshipone did. Upon return the capsule will be designed to splash down in the water.

Rutan's company would build the four-person capsule, which would be mounted on top of a booster rocket and air-launched after being dropped from a jet carrier. Upon release, the capsule's rocket motor would fire, propelling the craft to space.

The capsule's booster would be a beefed up version of a vehicle being developed by Nevada-based AirLaunch for the military's Falcon program, which is intended to demonstrate quick and inexpensive small launch system

In my opinion this approach seems to be showing that NASA is indeed changing and to my delight is embracing the private industry and new apprroaches to fast paced development of space craft. It looks like the seperate roles of the different crafts will make everything so much more safer and cost effect. Im definatly impressed with NASA's new administrator. He's doing a bang up job.

www.spacedaily.com...

Wow! Ask for something and get it the next morning. This is good news.

yeah, definatly is good news, could be back on the moon by 2012 who knows? Plus the fast paced development will bring all deadlines closer. Embracing the private industry is already starting to show its impact!

well what is a cold war with a space war?


which ever one works better I go for that but modify the loser to handle trips to mars or the moon while the winner does the short stuff?

which design is better for short trips and which one is good for long ones?

I think since all of Bush's other programs are becomming miserable failures that Republicans will latch on to Bush space initiatives for Bush legacy. This is good news for space buffs, but bad news for Social Security and the Global War on Terror.

None of Bush proposals have taken hold except this one and that is partly because the program is not tightly controled by congress as other programs are.

The Dems have to give Bush something and this will probably be it =).

X

Xeven
since all of Bush's other programs are becomming miserable failures

? - List please.

NASA Awards Contracts to Competing CEV Teams

NASA has now officially awarded contracts to a team of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grummen, and Boeing to compete on designs for the CEV - to be fielded around 2010. This will effectivly close the "no fly" gap between the shuttle and CEV, so no time is needlessly wasted.

The original "fly off concept" in 2008 to decide the final contractor has now been disreguarded, and brought forward to 2006.

NASA went ahead and accepted the proposals from Lockheed Martin and the Northrop-Boeing team in early May but warned that NASA acquisition strategy for the CEV was bound to change.

www.space.com...