Nice idea, only problem i see is that its reliable with two and as part of the main shuttle engines.

What about stability, it it reliable by itself?

there was a proposal thats been around awhile to help reduce the cost of having to got out to the atlantic, retrieve the spent boosters and refurbished them (to get rid of any seawater corosion) is to add wings to them and once spent they can glide down on auto pilot back to the cape.

Not sure how viable it is, but the wings could be used to help with stability on ascent.

Zany! did you read the article? at end of boost you will be pulling 20gs!!! This is probably some contractor induced propaganda used to extend the life of the shuttle parts program.
The big arguments against this thing in the first place is that it is not throtleable or controlable. Once you light it, it is going up, no arguments heard! The whole shuttle stack was man-rated, they probably didn't intend that to extend to single use SRBs for flying men (read: strawberry jam) into space. I would love to see what professional astronauts they got to say they would go into space on a glorified roman candle!!

Adding wings would be a no no IMO. First you would add so much weight that the SRB would very likely no longer be able to lift the CEV. Secondly, that is dead weight that has no useful purpose during the actual takeoff. They provide no lift during the launch phase. It's a non starter IMHO.

As to the idea of useing a single SRB for launching the CEV, I think it's a great idea worth investigating fully. The question though is whether the development of the 2nd stage and making a good control system for the SRB stage would be comparable to the costs of man rating the EELV rockets. Certainly the engine costs are addressed with the use of a J-2 but wouldn't NASA's newer engine designs work better? Would they be cheaper in the long run?

The SRB concept certainly offers an exciting opportunity to stick with a partially reusable launch vehicle. SRB recovery and refurbishment costs are high but I'm betting that the overall costs per launch may be significantly better than that of either EELV.

While it has been only a little while since the leak of the Russian Klipper reusable ship they have still been able to progress even with little to no funding.

Russia space agency considers options of shuttle launch:
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1254097&PageNum;=0

The Russian Federal Space Agency (FSA) considers three options of booster rockets for launching the new shuttle Kliper.

"While it has been only a little while since the leak of the Russian Klipper reusable ship they have still been able to progress even with little to no funding."

Little to no funding? According to that article it is receiving funding. Now it doesn't state how much funding so I don't know how one would be able to classify it as little or not just based on that one article.

What really catches my attention here Harold is how you are patting RSA on the back for the great progress made on Klipper, evidently based just on this article.

I would dare say that if the same article were written with the same wording save substituting “NASA” for “RSA” and “CEV” for “Klipper”, you’d be instead lamenting the fact that building it “will take at least five years.” That at least has been the contention of most of your comments concerning NASA and the CEV of late.

I just don’t understand how you could view the RSA project in such a better light compared to CEV given what little we know about Klipper.

I believe there rocket of choice is the same one that is currently in build. Much less delay than our own cev which is like you noted a long ways off not only for first flight but being manned is a period of 6 yrs beyound first flight. Theirs could be up and in use if given a little more funding I think before our first flight of the cev.

Found another article on the klipper this one with a photo of ship being built not just 3D drawings some where. First launch may take place in five years.
I just think we can do better.

Russia Prepares Launch of New Space Shuttle
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/16/kliper.shtml

One major problem with using an SRB for a booster, safety. I still have not seen any plausible abort options given that there is no way to shut down the booster. If there is one thing we've learned, always have an abort mode available.

I really like the idea of an SRB launch vehicle. From what I can see it is going to be much like the Mercury Redstone a tlaunch. The Redstone used vanes for control while still in the atmosphere. It appears that the SRB vehicle will do the same. It mot likely won't switch over to thrusters until the second stage, or once the vanes are no longer effective when the atmosphere thins out. The SRB's are the most launched vehicle in the history of spaceflight, remember, for every shuttle launch there are 2 SRB launches. This means that from the first return to flight launch to the final shuttle launch in 2013, NASA can be testing their brand new SRB launcher twice at every launch.
However, another heavy lifter will probably be needed to be built, because I don't think the SRB booster will provide enough power to get a spacecraft to the Moon. If we are doing Earth orbit rendevous, maybe, but if NASA wants the LOR plan that used for Apollo, then another heavy lifter will have to be built. The SRB vehicle will be perfect for the LEO test missions and whatever missions the CEV flys to the ISS.

They have the advantage of having a suitable launch vehicle that is already man rated, our Atlas/Delta's are not.

Also per Encyclopedia Astronautica RKK Energia started design work on the Kliper in 2022, thus making a first flight in five years from now (2012) 9 years after design start.

CEV is now at the stage that Kliper was in 2022, and is scheduled for a first flight in 2011.

Not bad if you ask me. Can we do better; sure we could if we had too. If there was a compelling reason to be on the moon within 5-10 years we could do it. But Congress is not going to fund such a fast paced project; it isn't realistic to expect it.

NASA isn't perfect but I'm giving them the benefit of a doubt for now because they are at least attempting to start returning to cis-lunar space. Talking about and seriously planning for that is leaps beyond anything NASA has done in the past 10-20 years.

I too do agree that Nasa is doing ok and that Funding is a major issue.

One compelling reason for speeding up developement is if Russia does not provide the US any more seats to the ISS once the agreements pass.

Hi..Isn't interesting to note that the Russians have once again has taken the lead in designing their " Cev "..the clipper..How many years ago did they launch " Vostok "..with Uri Gargarin aboard and the US had nothing !!!So here we go again..I guess what they say is true " What goes around,come around " sad.......... Playing catch up isn't all that fun..........Jake

Projected SRB rocket design of upper stage is sort of a minimal cost most of the rockets developement cost will be in the actual crew section or capsule. SRB's are aroun 40 million and if cost of the remaining pieces match that figure we save lots of cash per shot which there is a lot if we remain playing in LEO on the ISS between now and say 2023. Delta's and atlas are not cheap and to get them mann rate would only push up the rocket per launch costs.

I think that is posible to have a kind of union for the space tecnologies , it would be nice because they whould have a really big founding
insted of now they can unid technologies and new ideas.

I need all possible information from the cev and the project constellation, I am really disappointed because the cev are coming like the model of Apollo, there are so many years from that that is disappointing to return to the same.

I am from costa rica and I have really interes in the proyect