Moonshot, CEV Modifications

DarkNemesis618 writes "In the latest round of budget cuts, NASA introduced plans to modify the CEV for the planned Moon landing in 2018. The original plan called for an engine used on the space shuttle to be modified for the CEV. The new plan is to use an updated J-2 engine. The J-2 engine was first used on the Saturn V rocket which took the Apollo astronauts to the moon in the late 60's early 70's. It is not expected to save any money in the near-term, but in the far term, it should be a cost saver since the technology already exists and is proven. In the 10 Apollo launches aboard the Saturn V rocket, there were no problems with the launch vehicle."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

There's an opinion piece as to how NASA

[multiplexo]

is turning the CEV into the same sort of flying clusterfuck as the Space Shuttle at:

http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_tumlinson_060 130.html [space.com]

At this point I would rather save money by ending NASA's manned space program instead of continuing to piss money down ratholes such as the Shuttle, ISS and now the Crude Exploration Vehicle all of which are just ways for NASA to hand money to large aerospace companies so that they can pad their bottom lines and continue to bribe congressmen.

Re:No problems?

[Ellis D. Tripp]

The lightning-induced problems on Apollo 12 were isolated to the CSM, not the booster. In fact, the booster's guidance system is all that got the crew into orbit, because the CSM guidance system crashed along with most of the electrical system after the second lightning strike.

Re:Not really a surprise

[AKAImBatman]

What are you talking about? The shuttle flew 12 times a year at it's peak? The CEV will fly maybe that many?

And the Atlas V has flown only 7 times in the past 3.5 years it's been in operation. Plus it's not even NASA's rocket. They've flown it twice, with the other flights being entirely commercial. The future planned flights will be mostly military and will attempt to move the launch to Vandenberg.

I also do not believe that the F1+Fuel is much heavier then an SRB.

Saturn 1C Empty: 135,218 kg
SRBx2 Empty: 174,000 kg
Saturn 1C Fueled: 2,286,217 kg
SRBx2 Fueled: 1,180,000 kg

What a difference of a kiloton in mass between rockets, eh? :-P

In short, the SRBs weight half as much to get nearly the same performance as the 5 F-1s that the Saturn V did.

The difference in the specific impulse means close to 10% less fuel mass for the F1 than the SRB.

Wrong. You've got to be careful with those Isp figures. They're very misleading.

Re:some numbers

[DerekLyons]

Apollo cost about $135 billion in 2005 dollars, and the CEV is expected to cost $15 billion.

Note that you are comparing apples (the cost of the entire Apollo program) to oranges (the cost of one spacecraft program).

The whole VSE pork barrel includes the CEV, two new shuttle 'derived' launchers, the lunar modules, launch pad modifications, VAB modifications, new buildings and trainers, etc..., etc... *That* is what you should be comparing to the cost of the Apollo program.

(For reference, the Apollo CSM project *alone* cost 17 billion 2005 dollars.)

Re:2018?

[AKAImBatman]

The Energia is just as dead as the Saturn V.

Funny, I coulda sworn I saw some Zenits and Atlas Vs flying.

The Energia is far from "as dead as the Saturn V". Most of the technology is still in place, and much of it is still in use. As far as rockets go, it was one of the best pieces of engineering that Russia ever produced.

Which is precisely what NASA isn't doing. The current scheme, just like Apollo, will end up providing expensive white elephants. Too expensive to keep us on the moon.

You keep telling yourself that. I, on the other hand, will be gleefully awaiting the launch of the Earth Departure Vehicle and the Lunar Surface Access Module. Reusable components that will take us to the moon the same way we should have gone the first time. Not the mention the wonderous joy of having a superbooster back on the payroll that isn't attached to a 109 metric tonne pair of wings. Can you say, "Space Station Freedom in 2 flights?" (Yep, 250 tonnes in two goes. So much better than dozens of Shuttle flights.)

Expensive new launchers with virtually zero use beyond the moon mission isn't the right way - but it is how NASA is doing it.

Pardon me, sir, but you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There is absolutely nothing mission specific about the "Porklauncher V" (like the name, BTW). The "Porklauncher Ib" as you call it, is mission specific, but that's not a big deal. It's the HLV that's interesting. Just as the Saturn V boosted Skylab in a single launch, and was going to boost the mini-Orion in a single launch, so will the Shuttle Derived HLV be able to launch extensive, and useful payloads.

Would you rather NASA followed the original "Orbital Space Plane" plan? (Now THAT was stupid.)