AW&ST article on CEV [Lockheed goes for the extra point]

[gunsandrockets]

Very interesting article in Aviation Week & Space Technology on the Project Constellation CEV, "First Cut: contractors deliver shuttle replacement proposals prepared before Griffin's call."<br /><br />The AW&ST article is about the CEV bids sent in response to the initial NASA RFP for the CEV. Since Griffin was appointed that initial RFP is in grave doubt. But the response of the contractors is enlightening anyway.<br /><br />Sadly Northrop-Grumman, one of the bidding contenders, didn't have much to say publicly, "There are indications that the new NASA administration may be considering changes to the CEV competition," said a Northrop Grumman spokesman. "As a team, Northrop Grumman and Boeing stand ready to support whatever new requirements NASA believes will best allow the nation to meet it's space exploration goals. We would prefer, however, to not publicly discuss our CEV concept until the requirements for the this competition become more clear." So most of the AW&ST article only has details on the Lockheed Martin bid. <br /><br />The baseline NASA requirements for the CEV are pretty simple and limited.<br /><br />The short version <br /><br />a) 20 metric tons GLOW <br /><br />b) 4 crew <br /><br />c) 14 cubic meters living space <br /><br />d) 16 days life support <br /><br />e) TEI burn from LLO (which is about a delta vee of 1 km/s)<br /><br />f) Fitting into the NASA moon flight architecture.<br /><br />But NASA also left a big loophole for those contractors willing to give it a go. Sort of a bonus section.<br /><br />"These IPP's are not meant to curtail innovation or alternate architectural concepts during Phase 1 activities. To that end, a set of focused cost and performance trades will be conducted prior to SRR against these IPP's to include:"<br /><br /><br />"1. Launch weight mass trades (both increases and decreases), including taking advantage of performance gains by mass reduction during ascent"<br /><br /> <br />"2. Ability to abort anytime during all missio

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Do you have a link to this article - to the orginal place the author of the article published it?<br /><br />If it was print media only, thanks for typing it out.

 

[gunsandrockets]

You're welcome!<br /><br />I have no link, my post was based on a xerox I made of the article at the local library. Only the parts I posted in quotation marks are from the article itself. The rest is some paraphrasing and my own original commentary (obviously). Much of the article covered statements made by Griffin, but I saw no point in covering that since it is pretty well known by now from other sources than AW&ST.<br /><br />Ah, one other section in quotation marks is not from the article, but from NASA documentation. All the information relating to CEV NASA RFP requirements are from non-AW&ST sources.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Much appreciated!

 

[gunsandrockets]

----Popular Mechanics described the CM+MM+TEIM combination as 40 tonnes (the PM article called the TEIM the "Propulsion Stage"). That makes sense, figure the CM + MM is pushing 20 tonnes and the TEIM is pushing 20 tonnes. Here is where the AW&ST article is puzzling. It says "Lockheed Martin's entry would weigh in at about 60 metric tons, sized for assembly after three launches on the heavy version of an Atlas V or Delta IV evolved expendible launch vehicle (EELV), in keeping with NASA's original request for proposal." It's hard to believe the CM by itself or the MM by itself pushes 20 tonnes. But then the AW&ST description does not explicitly link to the three module combination. I'm guessing the 60 tonne number in AW&ST describes a 4 module stack, with a second propulsion module indentical to the TEIM that would be used to send the stack from LEO to the moon fullfilling the role that NASA describes as the Earth Departure Stage "EDS".---<br /><br />Here is a tidbit from another Lockheed document that may support the multiple LH2/LOX propulsion module theory...<br /><br />Lockheed Martin's <br />System-of-Systems <br />Lunar Architecture <br />Point-of-Departure Concept<br /><br /> CE&R BAA Open Forum <br />CA-1 (Basic Period) <br />Final Briefing<br /><br /> 01 March 2005<br /><br /> On page 30 of the document "Key features differing from EMSD's POD" under the heading "Key LMC architecture feature" it lists "unified approach to upper stage and two transfer stages (no TEI on CEV)" . And under the heading "Resulting benefits if adapted by NASA" it states "Uses existing RL-10 engine, single production line, up to $1B program savings".<br /><br /> <br />And finally just to add one contrary note...<br /><br /><br />The AW&ST article describes the TEIM as the "Primary system Delta V for return from LLO." Does that mean there could be a secondary system Delta V for return from LLO? Does the CEV still have TEI abililty, perhaps for aborts from LLO by first jettisoning the

 

[gunsandrockets]

----Northrop Grumman one of the bidding contenders, sadly, didn't have much to say publicly, "There are indications that the new NASA administration may be considering changes to the CEV competition," said a Northrop Grumman spokesman. "As a team, Northrop Grumman and Boeing stand ready to support whatever new requirements NASA believes will best allow the nation to meet it's space exploration goals. We would prefer, however, to not publicly discuss our CEV concept until the requirements for the this competition become more clear." So most of the AW&ST article only has details on the Lockheed Martin bid.----<br /><br />We can't know for sure just what is the exact size and configuration of the Northrop Grumman CEV presented to NASA in May 2005. But an earlier Northrop Grumman document provides tantalizing clues.<br /><br />Before NASA presented it's official CEV Request For Proposals on 1 March 2005, NASA had sent out a request for ideas for the CEV and the best way to get to the Moon and Mars. Northrop Grumman replied with study that was very detailed.<br /><br />"CE&R Initial Concept Overview<br /><br /> 13 September 2004<br /> CE&R Intial Forum<br /> Washington, D.C."<br /><br />On page 7 of the report it shows a CEV that looks very much like a Soyuz spacecraft, complete with solar sail wings, that is launched to LEO by a "Human-Rated CLV" (Crew Launch Vehicle) booster.<br /><br />On page 8 of the report it shows the CEV docking with a lunar lander at the Earth-Moon L-1 point. The CEV transfers it's hab module to the lunar lander, presumably to function as the living/control space for the lunar lander. The lunar lander has two stages, it leaves a descent module behind on the moon and an ascent module together with the hab module rendevous back at EML-1 to transfer the hab module back to the CEV. The CEV then returns to earth, where the CEV re-entry module lands by parachute.<br /><br />On page 10 of the report it describes the CLV booster as an Atlas V derived

 

[gunsandrockets]

update<br /><br /><br /><br />From this story...<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1034<br /><br />...comes this interesting statement by Nasa administrator Griffin regarding his new CEV requirements...<br /><br />"In the post-shuttle world (after 2010) we will have available the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) that will be the follow-on to the shuttle for getting people in space. The CEV will have the requirement to carry astronauts to the Moon, and later, to Mars, but it will also have the requirement to carry astronauts to and from the space station. In our architecture planning we are making certain that unmanned versions can also carry cargo to the station."<br /><br />This is a plan for the CEV similar to the Russian 'Progress' unmanned supply ship. The Progress is merely a modified version of the Russian Soyuz manned spacecraft.<br /><br />This requirement should give Lockheed another leg up over the competition since even the manned version of the Lockheed CEV is designed to carry 5,000 lbs of cargo to or from the Space Station in addition to crew. An unmanned version of the CEV should do even better. <br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

update<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />6-20-2005 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology has a new story about the CEV. The article on page 46 is titled "Fast Pace."<br /><br />It speaks of revisions to the schedule for the CEV program. On June 13th two teams, the Lockheed-Martin team and the Boeing-Northrop/Grumman team, were choosen to compete. In mid-September NASA will issue a "call for improvements" to the teams. The teams will have two months after that to submit adjusted bids for the CEV. NASA will select the winning team in late February or early March 2006.<br /><br />It is assumed that ISS access as soon as possible after the retirement of the Shuttle in 2010 will be part of the "call for improvements" of the CEV project. Originally the CEV was required to fly manned by 2014 and not required to support the ISS.<br /><br /> Price of the LM team says they are staying with the lifting body design for the adjusted CEV contract. He says it is readily adaptable to docking with the ISS and that LM had anticipated NASA might choose a faster development cycle.<br /><br />Young of the Northrop-Grumman team, as before, will not disclose any details of the NG concept for the CEV. Even refusing to be pinned down to describing it as a capsule of some sort.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">In mid-September NASA will issue a "call for improvements" to the teams. The teams will have two months after that to submit adjusted bids for the CEV. NASA will select the winning team in late February or early March 2006. </font><br />always amazed by the Government lingo.<br />what's the point of this call for improvements...are they trying to get something extra for free from the CEV and that will influence choosing a winner?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I think it means they have changed the goal posts so the companies need a second shot.

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow"><br />"...CEV is designed to carry 5,000 lbs of cargo to or from the Space Station in addition to crew. An unmanned version of the CEV should do even better...." <br /><br />It is that "from" part of the mission that intrigues me, not for trash burning but for returning items. <br /><br />Lifting bodies have narrow load ranges.. How do you execute a proper 'weight and balance' before dropping off the station? It CAN be done, but will sure complicate things.<br /></font><br /><br />Do you mean that you expect a lifting body design to <b>require</b> a certain mass of payload that is to be returned to Earth for it to survive re-entry?<br /><br />That would seem to be a pretty big downside to me if that is the case! But is this necessarily true, or is it just required that the center of mass be in the right place? (could be acheived by clever placing of equipment and APU hydrazine tanks etc) Or have I got the wrong end of the stick altogether from your message? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[wvbraun]

"always amazed by the Government lingo. what's the point of this call for improvements"<br /><br />What's so hard to undestand about it? Griffin has changed the requirements for the CEV, thus there will be modifications to the original proposals.<br /><br /><br />I think LM's chances to win the contract are very small if they have decided to stick with the lifting body design. I have a strong feeling Griffin wants a simple capsule.

 

[vt_hokie]

I hope that Lockheed's design is selected. I definitely favor the lifting body design over a pure capsule.

 

[vt_hokie]

#1) Because returning to Gemini or Apollo-style ballistic entry capsules just intuitively seems like a huge step backwards.<br /><br />#2) For the same reasons Lockheed Martin cites: Greater crossrange and lower g-loads. Also, I would think a lifting body would experience lower thermal loads and be easier to design for reusability.

 

[wvbraun]

The lifting body design will be much more expensive to develop, take more time and will therefore (most likely) be cancelled before it reaches the launch pad. It will also be heavier and lead to all kinds of complications with the LV. <br /><br />Making your decisions based on intuition in nothing but the triumph of irrationality over reason.

 

[vt_hokie]

Usually better vehicles are more expensive to develop. I guess we should cancel the F-22 and re-equip our Air Force with P-51's because they're simpler and cheaper!

 

[vt_hokie]

"If we stuck with the saturn rockets and really pursued spaceflight, the world would be a different place."<br /><br />I agree, we should never have abandoned the Saturn V and the Apollo infrastructure. I think we should have kept Skylab up a little longer, and perhaps built a "Skylab II" while at the same time developing a "Dyna-Soar" type of space plane for crew transport. The Lockheed proposal reminds me a bit of that 1950's concept.

 

[wvbraun]

How do you define better? If NASA spent untold billions and decades on the development of the CEV I'm sure they could come up with a great vehicle. <br />We have to be realistic and that means chosing the simplest, safest and cheapest desgin - a capsule.

 

[vt_hokie]

It's pretty sad that the next generation could see people traveling to space aboard 1960's style capsules, imo.

 

[wvbraun]

What's "sad" about it? It works. I don't care what system they use as long as NASA is going somewhere again. The destination is what's important.

 

[vt_hokie]

"The concept is the same, but all of the details have changed reflecting technology not around for the originals."<br /><br />Perhaps, but there's something very crude about parachuting down in a tin can vs gliding back like an aircraft.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The lifting body design will be much more expensive to develop, take more time and will therefore (most likely) be cancelled before it reaches the launch pad. It will also be heavier and lead to all kinds of complications with the LV."<br /><br />??<br /><br />Aren't you a fan of using a modified Shuttle SRB for the CEV launch vehicle? In which case I don't understand your opposition to large and heavy since that's all an SRB would be good for, a large and heavy CEV.<br /><br />Using the SRB would be massive overkill for a small and light capsule design, such as the Northrop-Grumman clone of the Soyuz. The Northrop-Grumman CEV capsule design is probably less than 10 metric tons gross lift-off weight, as I noted here...<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=230054&page=&view=&sb=&o=<br /><br /><br />

 

[spacester]

I find it amazing that this discussion seems to totally ignore the prospect of private enterprise delivering humans to space instead of NASA. No, we can't count on it happening, and yes, NASA needs to develop the capability independently from business plans that could fail, but ultimately that's where we're headed IMO.<br /><br />All Griffin needs to do is bridge the gap between STS and Orbital Space Tourism. With private capability, NASA can get out of the human launch business and hire the rides. In fact, if the need should develop, they would always be able to commandeer a private craft and get where they need to go.<br /><br />If the private capability fails to materialize, then NASA can work on the next generation of human launchers. But there's every reason to expect the Space Planes many of us want will become a reality, especially if NASA enables it, which is exactly what Griffin appears to be doing in my observation.<br /><br />IOW a basic capsule capability is a great interim solution and allows NASA to look beyond LEO.<br /><br />Just because<br /><br />NASA = Space<br /><br />does not mean that <br /><br />Space = NASA <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

Nobody here knows what the Northrop Grumman/Boeing design would weigh. And I'm sure you have noticed that the greater weight of the Lockmart design was not my only objection to it.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Nobody here knows what the Northrop Grumman/Boeing design would weigh."<br /><br />As far as any documentation I've seen, Northrop-Grumman was planning to launch their CEV with a small two stage Atlas V rocket. That puts a pretty easy to determine upper limit on the mass of their CEV. <br /><br />Now it's entirely possible that Northrop-Grumman did a complete about face since they published that document. They have been very hush-hush recently so who knows, maybe they now have a huge winged CEV proposal instead! But until better evidence surfaces it is reasonable to assume Northrop-Grumman are still going with something just like they originally wrote about, which is a small Soyuz type 4 man spacecraft.<br /><br />"And I'm sure you have noticed that the greater weight of the Lockmart design was not my only objection to it. "<br /><br />That's true, so let's take a closer look at your other objection.<br /><br />"The lifting body design will be much more expensive to develop, take more time and will therefore (most likely) be cancelled before it reaches the launch pad."<br /><br />Why do you assume the Lockheed-Martin lifting body design will be so difficult? Just because it's a lifting body? The fact is that as lifting bodies go the Lockheed-Martin design is very modest.<br /><br />Unlike the design goal of most other lifting-bodies, which was the ability to go all the way from re-entry to an airplane style runway landing, the Lockheed-Martin design lands under drogue and main parachutes just like any other capsule design. The only point when the Lockheed-Martin design 'flys' is during hypersonic re-entry, which is no different than than any other semi-ballistic capsule design except the Lockheed-Martin CEV has a higher lift to drag ratio.<br /><br />It's not as if the hypersonic reentry regime is some great unknown and the lifting body is some kind of cutting edge experimental technology. The United States has much more flight experience with high l/d manned spacecraft tha