Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)?

[Siterath]

I was kinda curious if anyone has worked on a fantasy CEV system, one of the proposals, or if this has been left untouched.

If there isn't one out there, it may be something interesting to try

[selden]

Both Boeing and Lockheed-Martin are making CEV proposals. It might be possible to persuade them to make their 3D models available.

[edit]t/Space might be persuadable, too. They seem to be somewhat more approachable than the larger companies. When I asked them about it, though, they indicated that they were reluctant because the designs were in too much flux.[/edit]

[ElChristou]

...It might be possible to persuade them to make their 3D models available...

THAT'S a very good idea... ... and what about Nasa with their own models?
(I'm sure there is a nice shuttle somewhere...)

[Siterath]

Well I just got my hands on a copy of Nendo and I wanted to give some models a try (which btw if anyone knows a good tutorial or program for 3d models and/or editing them, please let me know ) and the CEV has caught my interest, even if they haven't decided on one yet.

[ElChristou]

...btw if anyone knows a good tutorial or program for 3d models and/or editing them, please let me know...

Maya and 3dsMax are pro softs... On Windows most people over here are using Anim8tor; personally I always recommend Amapi Pro 7 for modeling, avaliable on both Windows and osX.

Bye

[buggs_moran]

I just started using anim8tor 2 days ago. It is quite easy to learn and use (easier, but less powerful than blender) and I hope to make a contribution to the motherlode soon.

As far as the CEV goes, the OrbiterSim (try it if you haven't http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~martins/orbit/orbit.html) has an addon already. Maybe you can convince the author to use his models for Celestia.

http://francisdrake.cybton.com/odysseycev.html

[Spaceman Spiff]

After I made a comment about withdrawing the Shuttle from the US Space Programme due to problems with the boosters and external fuel tank ( So, the shuttle is back in space. ( http://celestiaproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7704 ) ), I thought I read someone's better comment somewhere that it would therefore be better to keep the orbiter but change the launch elements around it. I can't find that comment in the forum now.

Meanwhile, I found this link on (many) proposed CEV concepts: NASA's New CEV Launcher to Maximize Use of Space Shuttle Components ( http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055 ). There's plenty (too much?) choice for CEV models there, but do you notice something a little disconcerting???

Spiff.

[buggs_moran]

Spiff,

You would never imply that this picture showing the delivery system might be as outdated as the shuttle itself, would you?

[selden]

Buggs,

I'm not Spaceman Spiff but...

Yes, that delivery system is outdated.

My understanding from reading transcripts of several recent NASA briefings is that all future "shuttle-derived" launch systems will have the cargo and crew modules above the fuel tanks and not next to them, ensuring that insulation cannot fall on them. This will require major structural changes.

[Spaceman Spiff]

What I was implying, or rather drawing attention to, is that it seemed the orbiter was the best bit to keep, but the CEV concepts shown show the opposite. After all that hard modelling work on the orbiter...

Two questions:
- why is the external fuel tank covered in 'naked' foam? Why not an extra metal skin to keep the foam on?
- Would Buran on Energia have had any issue like this?

Spiff.

[selden]

What I was implying, or rather drawing attention to, is that it seemed the orbiter was the best bit to keep, but the CEV concepts shown show the opposite. After all that hard modelling work on the orbiter...

The current orbiter is extremely expensive to refurbish between flights. For example, each of the ~30,000 insulating tiles has to be inspected individually. And, anyhow, the CEV is not a replacement for the orbiter. NASA has said this repeatedly. The CEV is for going to the Moon and Mars. A different vehicle will be used to go to the space station.

Two questions:
- why is the external fuel tank covered in 'naked' foam? Why not an extra metal skin to keep the foam on?

To save weight. They even eliminated the paint that was used on the tanks for the first three flights. That saved 600 lbs. Later tank improvements saved another 13,000 lbs. Every useless gram they can eliminate can go into cargo or a higher orbit.

- Would Buran on Energia have had any issue like this?

Probably not, but it would be sure to have other issues.

[Siterath]

Well last I heard the CEV was supposed to serve all those purposes, Standard Earth Orbit, Space Station Docking, Moon Missions, and potentially Mars missions (though by this time, the CEV could have been replaced)

BTW thanks for the tip, I've started messing around with anim8tor, but I still need to figure out how it works and how to get it to do what I want it to I'll get it eventually lol.

[selden]

The RFP for the CEV does *not* require docking with the space station. While launch to LEO and return to Earth is a requirement of "Spiral 1", docking with the ISS is not. Spiral 2 requires the additional ability to get to Lunar orbit and return. Spiral 3 adds the requirement of long duration missions.

See http://exploration.nasa.gov/acquisition ... ement.html
The RFP is at
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/s ... qid=113638
specifically:
Attachment J-1 -- Statement of Objectives (a .DOC file; a direct link to it doesn't seem to work).


Remember that the full name of this particular vehicle is Crew Exploration Vehicle. Visiting the ISS is not exploration.

I'm sure that some of the Constellation components will be usable in support of the ISS, it's just that the CEV itself won't -- why use an expensive Lunar/Mars exploration module for something like that?

[edit]
After reading Attachment 1 to the very end, I found that the fine print says that the proposal may *optionally* include the ability to transfer crew to and from the ISS, along with other violations of the initial requirements, in order "not ... to curtail innovation ... during Phase I activities".[/edit]

[Spaceman Spiff]

What I was implying, or rather drawing attention to, is that it seemed the orbiter was the best bit to keep, but the CEV concepts shown show the opposite. After all that hard modelling work on the orbiter...

The current orbiter is extremely expensive to refurbish between flights. For example, each of the ~30,000 insulating tiles has to be inspected individually. And, anyhow, the CEV is not a replacement for the orbiter. NASA has said this repeatedly. The CEV is for going to the Moon and Mars. A different vehicle will be used to go to the space station.

Hmm, yes. I had read that despite the orbiter being hailed for its total reusability, the cost of refitting went against the original 'and so we save money' claim.

Two questions:
- why is the external fuel tank covered in 'naked' foam? Why not an extra metal skin to keep the foam on?

To save weight. They even eliminated the paint that was used on the tanks for the first three flights. That saved 600 lbs. Later tank improvements saved another 13,000 lbs. Every useless gram they can eliminate can go into cargo or a higher orbit.

The weight saving I'd expected. I would have been surprised at another answer. At the same time, a risk assessment of leaving off the skin versus weight saving must clearly have concluded for leaving the skin off. The odd thing I see now is that with our hindsight, if 13,000lbs has since been saved, why not reinstate the skin for safety? The orbiter should still at least make the ISS.

- Would Buran on Energia have had any issue like this?

Probably not, but it would be sure to have other issues.

Yep! Politics and blame culture... Oops!

Spiff.