While a decision regarding who will build the Crew Exploration Vehicle is still many months in the future (although Northrop and Boeing unveiled its updated CEV design yesterday, one that closely resembles NASA’s own baseline design), the competition regarding where to build it is heating up. Florida Today reports that Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) is trying to garner support for a CEV assembly facility near KSC, claiming that a plant near the spaceport “could save cash-strapped NASA at least $400 million annually and protect as many as 500 local space jobs”. Nelson plans private meetings today with state and KSC officials, and perhaps representatives of the Lockheed and Northrop-Boeing CEV teams, along with a press conference this afternoon.
Florida is not alone, though, in promoting its state as a CEV assembly site. The California Space Authority released earlier this week a letter to NASA administrator Mike Griffin signed by 32 members of the state’s Congressional delegation. The letter notes the state’s heritage in spacecraft assembly and adds that “California continues to offer world-class space manufacturing and testing facilities as well as an experienced workforce capable of designing, developing, and manufacturing the CEV.” The letter adds that state officials have entered discussions with both industry teams regarding state and local economic incentives for building the CEV in California.
Maybe they can build the cev in New Orleans?, giving jobs to some people who lost them from Katrina?
Maybe they can build the cev in New Orleans?, giving jobs to some people who lost them from Katrina?
They already build shuttle external tanks there.
Boeing and Northrop Grumman both build satellites in California (at plants a few miles apart) and the shuttle was built (and has been re-built) in California as well – and both companies have significant manufacturing space available there.
And JPL. LAAFB, Aerospace, Edwards, Dryden, even Ames could be utilized as “wells” for personnel and facilities for component development and testing, etc.
And if Edwards is the designated landing ground, the federal facilities in the Mojave (Edwards, Dryden, Ft. Irwin, 29th Palms) would provide plenty of space close by for drop tests, recovery exercises, etc. San Diego and Port Hueneme could be likely spots for naval/MSC assets to be based, if sea recovery is needed.
On the other hand, L-M’s Denver (Littleton) plant will probably be available (albeit with the need of a pretty significant rework from what they buld there today) if all the EELV work goes to Boeing’s plant in Decatur – and Colorado would be reasonably close to White Sands, Houston, etc.
Marshall/Stennis/Michoud are possibilities as well, I expect, although the manufacturing facilities there are on an entirely different scale.
But given that both Downey and Bethpage are gone, southern California (the El Segundo-Redondo area, in particular) would be an intelligent choice for manufacturing and vehicle (module?) integration of the CEV.
the word “oink” comes to mind
Hello, this is exactly the reason NASA needs to buy services from private industry instead of biulding them themselves. Get the politics out of the equation.
Your heart is in the right place, but you really think private industry gets the politics out?
Yes, having an experienced workforce and being able to use existing (and amortized) facilities is such a negative trade for a limited-budget program in a period of significant pressure on the federal budget…
Particularly when the goal is series production.
Yes, having an experienced workforce
Experienced at what? Building those no-count External Tanks?
and being able to use existing (and amortized) facilities is such a negative trade
The the cost of designing, building, and testing the two proposed new launch missiles and the Apollo on Steroids (TM) capsule is not yet amortized.
for a limited-budget program in a period of significant pressure on the federal budget…
That’s a good argument for using a different, lower cost architecture for manned lunar missions. Maybe a design requiring one Shuttle launch and one EELV launch to lift one reverse-engineered Apollo set. Launch the Command capsule in a Shuttle’s cargo bay. Save all kinds of $ that way, sidestepping the need to develop a new “man-rated” launch system.
The Shuttle system is fully amortized, innit, with an experienced supporting cast of thousands?
Heck, this alternative architecture would also keep the existing STS team working together longer.
Particularly when the goal is series production.
My lower cost alternative design would allow continued, “series” production of those groovalicious SRB’s, ET’s and SSME’s.
All of the above is in reference to the two module (Crew and Service) CEV design – launch vehicles are a different issue.
Just a minor question on your “Shuttle+Apollo CSM+Apollo LM” architecture – where does the S-IVB stage analogue fit?
S-IVB stage? I dunno.
I have been advised that the proposed new architecture requires Earth orbit rendezvous of one Saturn V functional equivalent plus one Saturn IB equivalent — that’s what I call the corndog missile, the one that uses a skinny-looking single solid rocket booster under the larger diameter second and top stages.
The new proposal requires what the Apollo designers wanted to avoid — Earth orbit rendezvous of two launches per each lunar mission.
OK, I think I see what you mean.
The S-IVB third stage, also used as a second stage on the Saturn IB, was manufactured by Douglas Aircraft. It measured 58 feet, 8 inches tall by 21 feet, 8 inches wide. The S-IVB employed one Rocketdyne J-2 engine which could produce a thrust of 200,000 pounds.
A NASA-designed and built Instrument Unit (IU) attached to the top of the S-IVB by special adapter measured 3 feet tall by 21 feet, 8 inches wide. The IU housed equipment which controlled all electronic commands for Saturn V control and guidance during ascent.
In my low cost proposal, a Shuttle would launch the capsule, a.k.a. Command Module, and the Lunar Excursion Module.
The heavy version of a Delta IV would launch our third stage/space tug, which might incorporate the functions of both the Saturn IVB third stage and the Apollo Command Module. This third stage/space tug could accelerate the Apollo capsule and LEM to lunar orbit, then drop its tanks for the return home in the process of departing lunar orbit.
This lunar mission third stage/space tug would be a derivative of a space tug developed to help complete the space station.
Note that NASA’s new space architecture requires Earth orbit rendezvous of two launches per each lunar mission, and that this proposal requires docking the Capsule on Steroids with an L2/O2 “Departure Stage” in order to fly to the Moon.
/////////////////
A NASA-designed and built Instrument Unit (IU) attached to the top of the S-IVB by special adapter measured 3 feet tall by 21 feet, 8 inches wide. The IU housed equipment which controlled all electronic commands for Saturn V control and guidance during ascent.
Nowadays, aside from the Inertial Measurement Unit, one could replace most of that with a cheap PC.
The new proposal requires what the Apollo designers wanted to avoid — Earth orbit rendezvous of two launches per each lunar mission.
Nope. Actually, Wernher von Braun thought Earth Orbit Rendezvous would result in lower operational cost compared to Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. Apollo selected LOR not because the designers wished to avoid EOR, but because it was quicker – John Houbolt managed to convince them that LOR was the only way to meet Kennedy’s deadline. That was one example of how the crash-program mentality led to design decisions that would have been made differently if money were more important than time.
Apollo selected LOR not because the designers wished to avoid EOR, but because it was quicker – John Houbolt managed to convince them that LOR was the only way to meet Kennedy’s deadline.
Yes, timeliness mattered back then.