CEV configuration/contractor choice 2006, place your bets!

[larper]

If Lockheed wins, I will make the following prediction.<br /><br />You will never see that CEV fly. After 5 or so years of development, with costs spiraling out of control, NASA will decide that it can continually improve the Shuttle and keep it flying for 10 more years after the currently schedules retirement. The CEV will be scrapped, and we will be having these discussions again in 7 years wondering what the Shuttle replacement will look like. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[yurkin]

If I recall Lockheed had both a stubby winged lifting body and a big–capsule design. So even if a capsule design is chosen Lockheed is still in the running. But I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in a company’s ABV (Air Brushed Vehicle) designs. They are a lot easier to make then the real thing.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">If Lockheed wins, I will make the following prediction. <br /><br />You will never see that CEV fly. After 5 or so years of development, with costs spiraling out of control, NASA will decide that it can continually improve the Shuttle and keep it flying for 10 more years after the currently schedules retirement. The CEV will be scrapped, and we will be having these discussions again in 7 years wondering what the Shuttle replacement will look like. </font><br /><br />I think your prediction is correct, regardless of who wins.<br />However, chances are better for the CEV if the Lockheed design is built, the motivation for building it being that it would be the final test of the lifting body shape, and also something fresh which some congressmen might like to tie their name to and thus show their commitment to scientific and technical advancement in a very low-risk fashion.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...the motivation for building it..."</font><br /><br />Yep. Because the motivation of getting rid of the STS albatross and setting NASA on a path to exploration beyond LEO is <b>clearly</b> insufficient. Everyone at NASA, in Congress, etc. is just panting with excitement to see the final test of a lifting body shape.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"...some congressmen might like to tie their name to..."</font><br /><br />Yep again. It's certain that no congressman would want to in any way, shape, or fashion tie their name to a capsule. Why that would link them to the Apollo program!! I'm sure that politicians shudder at the very thought of being linked to the United States' most memorable triumph in space.

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I think your prediction is correct, regardless of who wins. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Certainly possible. But the chances of this happening are HIGHER, not LOWER, if a lifting body is chosen. Public and congressional opinion will be that the lifting body CEV is a shuttle that cannot do what the shuttle does. At least with a capsule design the selling point is that it is cheaper and safer than shuttle. Since it doesn't look like the shuttle, it won't be viewed as having to do the same thing as shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

it'll also be 40 years since Apollo. The public (who still votes )will view the return to the capsule as fear of commiting to new technology, and acceptance that the US is not the foremost space power anymore. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[larper]

Both concepts will take selling. But, both cases will also have to be doing. The capsule design has the best chance of the sold and being done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[john_316]

Well I guess here this week coming we will have a better idea of what to expect in the coming months for our next ride into space....<br /><br />If Lockheed Martin wins with the lifting body I hope they use the ideas from the X-38 and the HL-20/42 programs.<br /><br />If Boeing wins the Capsule design will be better than Apollo I believe and we will see a change in some systems. (Hopefully)<br /><br />But all in all I still think Boeing is gonna win it and LM will build follow on vehicles after the initial contract. I bet a Boyers Mallow Cup and a Gardners Peanut Butter Meltaway and raise you a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />No I am promoting local products...<br />

 

[centsworth_II]

spacefire,<br /><br />You are not seeing the forest for the trees. The objective is manned bases on the Moon and exploration of Mars. The CEV should take as little of the budget as possible, leaving the large part to the bases and exploration. As far as the public goes, let them be impressed by NASA's accomplishments on the Moon and Mars, not by the shape of the craft used to get there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

has the Apollo program led to bases on the Moon? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

What are you talking about? A capsule-shaped CEV will not be a duplicate of the Apollo capsule. The moon base program will not be a duplicate of the Apollo program. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[hurricane4911]

Put me in the Boeing Camp.<br /><br />Only because I was in Seattle earlier this year and toured the MOAH (mother of all Hangers).<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[gunsandrockets]

General comment to all and followup<br /><br />Well, the ratio of placing bets to off topic bickering seems to be falling off rapidly so now seems a good time to examine the results so far. We have four bets for Lockheed-Martin to win, four bets for Northrop-Grumman to win, five votes for Boeing to win, zero votes for the NASA reference design, and zero votes for something else. I admit some surprise for these results.<br /><br />Clearly the appeal of the original Apollo style conical semi-ballistic capsule is very strong to us. I wonder if some of the people who placed their votes on Boeing know that Boeing isn't even trying to win the CEV contract anymore. Early in the process Boeing withdrew and partnered with Northrop-Grumman, Boeing focusing on purely moon related hardware (such as a lunar lander) while Northrop-Grumman would focus on the CEV. The funny thing is even the Boeing CEV conical capsule had some Soyuz-like elements. It was going to use a tiny 'mission module' in addition to the re-entry vehicle crew module in order to satisfy the NASA minimum living space requirements.<br /><br />I suppose I'm most surprised that no-one bet on the NASA reference design to be the final victor for the CEV configuration. I guess it was tainted by it's lifting body elements. Even though I picked Lockheed-Martin to win, I think the NASA reference design is the safest bet. The Lockheed-Martin design is optimized for Mars mission re-entry demands while the NASA design is optimized for moon-mission reentry demands. NASA clearly thinks that a semi-ballistic capsule is cutting corners too much for moon missions. Even the orginal Apollo studies favored a lifting-body (a Martin design) over a semi-ballistic design, but NASA was in a race to the moon so they froze on the semi-ballistic choice early on.<br /><br />I think the biggest argument against the 'least expensive' choice of a simple semi-ballistic capsule is that NASA so far does not seem to be making cheap choices. T

 

[gunsandrockets]

"From documents I've seen just today (one which came in a batch that we're ripping off the amazing images of SDLV vehicles and processing as we speak). LockMart's favourite for the CEV to the ISS element. "<br /><br />Would you mind telling us in more detail what you have seen? The way real information drips out lately any news is golden.<br />

 

[chriscdc]

The Nasa reference design was a choice? Do you mean the capsule thingy on top of the SRB. I thought that was just for display purposes eg put the CEV here (pointing to the top of the rocket). I thought they had to sub-contract out the design and accept the one that most fit what they wanted.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The Nasa reference design was a choice? Do you mean the capsule thingy on top of the SRB. "<br /><br />There is a LOT more detail available about the NASA reference design than the simple image you are refering too. Here are some links...<br /><br />http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/biconic.cev.l.jpg<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055<br /><br />Shortened link

 

[lunatio_gordin]

Everyone keeps saying it's a Favorite for ISS operations. True, it would work there. But does this mean they would pick a different one for the <b>Exploration</b> part of the CEV?

 

[yurkin]

No I believe Chris is right. Nasa doesn’t build spacecraft. Nor have they ever built spacecraft. The reference models are just that, reference models. They are put forward by Nasa to give an idea about what they’re looking for. It is part of the request not the proposal. <br />The only two companies bidding are Lockheed and Northrop, excluding the many partners they each have.<br /><br />Also the LV that the CEV will use isn’t part of the CEV contract. But from everything I’ve seen it looks like ATK Thiokol, who builds the STS SRBs, is going to win a nice no-bid contract for that service.<br /><br />Also what company will win the CEV contract and what form the CEV are not exactly linked. Lockheed I know has to very different models and I’m sure Northrop has had more then one.<br /><br />Hers a good CEV link.<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Everyone keeps saying it's a Favorite for ISS operations. True, it would work there. But does this mean they would pick a different one for the Exploration part of the CEV?"<br /><br />No.<br /><br />The original request for proposals from NASA for the CEV back in March did not even require the CEV to be able to access the International Space Station. The focus was on a CEV which could travel to and from the Earth's moon, with a potential for Mars missions.<br /><br />Since the new NASA administrator Griffin was appointed, he has made himself pretty clear that he wants the CEV to do it all and do it sooner. Griffin wants the CEV to carry crew and personal to the ISS just like the cancelled Orbital Space Plane project AND he wants the CEV to conduct deep space exploration missions. The official RFP will be amended so the bidding contractors can adjust their proposals leading to selection of a single contractor in early 2006.<br /><br />However NASA has also said things lately indicating NASA will buy any competitively priced non-NASA commercial flight services of crew and cargo to the ISS. In other words NASA will buy services, but NASA is not counting on them to be able to deliver anything and will have a CEV able to do all the jobs it needs done.<br /><br />The aerospace news magazine Aviation Week & Space Technology in May came out with the most detailed story yet about the Lockheed-Martin bid for the CEV contract. I review that article here...<br /><br /> http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=224877&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1<br /><br />It's clear from the nature of the it's CEV proposal that Lockheed-Martin eerily predicted the recent change in NASA requirements for the CEV. The Lockheed-Martin CEV tries to do it all, it has a high lift to drag ratio to miti

 

[lunatio_gordin]

Hm. I was thinking, for some reason, a lifting body would not be good for deep space operations.

 

[najab]

LM's design isn't a lifting body. It's a lifting capsule - there's a mass penalty compared to a pure ballistic capsule, but it's not as severe as a lifting body or winged vehicle.

 

[lunatio_gordin]

Ok, maybe i haven't seen this thing in a while...

 

[gunsandrockets]

yurkin<br /><br />Who are you disagreeing with? If it's me you have built a strawman to knock down because I never claimed many of the things you seem to assume I claimed.<br /><br />"No I believe Chris is right. Nasa doesn’t build spacecraft. Nor have they ever built spacecraft. The reference models are just that, reference models. They are put forward by Nasa to give an idea about what they’re looking for. It is part of the request not the proposal. <br />The only two companies bidding are Lockheed and Northrop, excluding the many partners they each have."<br /><br />That's why I called the NASA reference design a reference design! My reply to chriscdc was to inform him that there was much more to the the NASA reference design than a mere illustration aid of the CEV launch vehicles.<br /><br />"Also what company will win the CEV contract and what form the CEV are not exactly linked."<br /><br />I don't think anyone posting on this thread is confused on that point. Obviously the bidding contractors may change the form of their CEV by the final bid, even more so considering the recent changes from NASA about the CEV requirements. They may even change the form to closely resemble the NASA reference design.<br /><br />" Lockheed I know has to [two] very different models and I’m sure Northrop has had more then one."<br /><br />Really? Well then that's news to everyone. The most recent news available has Lockheed putting forward only one CEV form, the lifting body. Northrop-Grumman has been extremely closed mouthed, not admitting anything about any form let alone multiple forms. If you know something the rest of us haven't heard about now is the time to spill the news. Until then this May AW&ST article has the most recent and most detailed information about the CEV bids...<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?C

 

[gunsandrockets]

"...a lifting body would not be good for deep space operations. "<br /><br />It depends on the lifting body.<br /><br />A lifting body covers a huge range of vehicle designs. Most of the ones famaliar such as the X-24 or the Soviet Spiral were intended to land horizontally using skids or even conventional landing gear on a runway. Those lifting body designs tended to have pretty high lift to drag ratios of 3 or more. These vehicles because of the weight of landing gear and subsonic flight aerodynamic control surfaces such as stub fins aren't suited for deep space missions because of that extra weight.<br /><br />But there is another less familiar set of lifting bodies which have much lower lift to drag ratios, 1.0 to 0.5. These are intended to lower the g force load from a very high speed Earth reentry such as a return flight from the moon. A little bit of extra lift to drag can go a long way to reducing peak g loads and reentry heating.

 

[lunatio_gordin]

hm. I'm wondering, will they make the CEV big enough to raise the height limits for being an astronaut? I just looked and i'm already at the upper limit <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />