CEV configuration/contractor choice 2006, place your bets!

[soccerguy789]

People need to stop thinking that if its not Apollo, its the shuttle. everyone keeps saying that a LockMart's design is dumb because it hauls wings into orbit where they are useless. This is horribly flawed thinking because virtually all space inside the hull is usable, just like a capsule. LockMart's design isn't even that big on the whole "Flying" thing, it's a compromise, and a damn good one. everything that would get disposed of in the Beoing crew module, and some of what would be disposed of in the mission and service modules all make it back. <br /><br />the Lockmart design can make it to the ISS with no service module or anything, just a booster. Beoing can't do that. LockMart is the obvious choice for the operation if we intend to use the ISS a lot. <br /><br />My major concern is the fact that if we go with the capsule, It doesn't matter if it launches for free, people will look at it as a step back, and then when its time to retire the CEV, people will be afraid to think outside the Capsule, bevcause the last time we did such a thing, was that disasterous shuttle (which wasn't all that disasterous) so NASA has to account for the public factor. this effectivly counts out Northrop's Soyuz look alike for just that reason. The russians are about to take an empty bank account and turn it into The Klipper (which bears a stiking resemblance to the LockMart design) and we are going to just replicate what they don't want any more? The Ego factor just won't let us. Beoing's Apollo look alike looks like a step backward, so people will loose faith in the space program, and we don't need any more of that. Lockmart should win, it's design is not that complex. This is not the X-33, that was complex and cutting edge, the whole idea behind the CEV is easy and fast. They are being designed to use current tech. I personally see both LockMart and Beoing being able to pull it off, but just look at the two proposals. Beoing requires almost twice as much weight to

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...Apollo look alike looks like a step backward, so people will loose faith in the space program..." -- Soccerguy789</font><br /><br />You should take a step back and look at what the space program is all about: getting to the Moon and Mars. If a "cheap" capsule gets us there, and leaves enough money in the budget to build a better base, that's great. NASA should be in the business of getting people to the Moon and Mars safely and cheaply. Not in the business of designing and building sexy new rockets for the rocket geeks. <br /><br />I want my tax dollars going toward research on the Moon and Mars, not Buck Rogers contraptions that are even older in design than Apollo. <br /><br />Do you think "the people" are stupid? It doesn't matter what the craft looks like, it it gets a mission to the Moon or Mars and the mission is successful, the people will be justafiably happy and proud. The more money saved on the craft and spent on the mission, the more impressive the mission will be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"My major concern is the fact that if we go with the capsule, It doesn't matter if it launches for free, people will look at it as a step back, ... so NASA has to account for the public factor."<br /><br />I think the only public factor NASA is truly considering is the pork factor in Congress, not how flashy or retro the CEV will look to the general public.<br /><br />I'm not concerned that NASA will (or even should) pick the CEV based on public relations. NASA administrator Griffin is an expert with a professionals appreciation for what works. I'm confident that even if the best decision isn't made, it won't be a bad decision such as the badly compromised Space Shuttle.<br /><br />My greatest concern is that the SRB-derived CEV launcher will skew the selection of the best CEV for the job. Even though the patrons of the 'pogostick' design assure that the SRB would be stable, even they voice concern in documentation. Lockheed-Martin says their CEV lifting body doesn't need a launch shroud, but if the SRB-derived launcher has marginal stability that could shift selection of the winning CEV to a more symmetric design.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">" 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."</font><br /><br />That's about at the level of people complaining on another thread that you left out LOX when you talked about upper stages running *only* on LH. In people's minds, the Boeing proposal = the Boeing-Northrup one.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"...NASA so far does not seem to be making cheap choices. They are budgeting 15 billion dollars for developing CEV, the CEV launcher and a heavy lift launcher."</font><br /><br />On hopes (at least <b>this</b> one hopes) that this is akin to building a booster larger than what you need to lift a spacecraft of the 'designed' weight, knowing the mass always grows in development. NASA is well aware that the budget shrinks during development -- either by the actual dollar figure going down or by development costs going up. When it shrinks and there is no fallback position, then the spacecraft becomes a kludge. Several of the plans I've seen be described look like maneuvering that will leave room for a viable fallback position.

 

[soccerguy789]

You make a good point about the fact that NASA knows what they are doing, and I also agree that money should be going towards getting to the moon and mars, and both can pull it off, but going back to a non-reusable capsule may cause people (even those within the program) to look back and loose faith in the idea that there is a better way when it's time to think of a new design. I may be wrong, this is just how I see it. I personally like LockMart better, but both sides have advantages (Beoing's reusable LSAM) if they pick Beoing, I will still be just as thrilled that we're going to the moon. <br /><br />"Quit complaining and start a revolution"

 

[kane007]

My favourate is Lockmart - but pragmaticism may win out in the end.

 

[soccerguy789]

I have had a complete chage of mind. I took my afternoon to completely review the two complete proposals (adding up to about 130 pages of PDF) and have mad som realizations<br /><br />1. Lockheed will launch way less to LEO for each mission, but...<br /><br />2. both deliver similar amounts of equipment to LEO to get 20 MT and 4 crew to the lunar surface, the approaches are just different. <br />lockheed: seperate cargo and crew missions<br />Boeing: significant cargo carried with crew<br /><br />3. Lockheed sports a reusable CEV but a disposable LSAM<br /><br />4. Beoing sports a disposable CEV but a reusable LSAM<br /><br />5.LockHeed uses 2 EDS (propulsion stages) to get to and from the Lunar surface they are only a tank and an engine<br /><br />6. Beoing uses 3 EDS to do the job, but also lauches significant amounts cargo on each mission, and the beoing EDS is designed to carry fuel for transfer to other vehicles, and should be able to be modified for work at ISS similar to progress modules, and the shuttle's orbit boosting.<br /><br />7. Beoing reference mission launch mass: 200 metric tons<br /><br />8. Lockheed reference mission launch mass: 109 metric tons<br /><br />From this, you can draw your own conclusions. I used to support Lockheed completely, but now i know the Boeing is simpler, and while heavier, really gives you the same cargo and crew for your money. as for developing lifting body tech, Klipper is gonna take care of that for us, so we don't neccessarily need to do that ourselves. now I am pretty neutral. but hey, we're going to the MOON!<br /><br />"Quit complaining and start a revolution"

 

[centsworth_II]

NASA should blow us away with science, leaving it to private industry to blow us away with style.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

This post is way overdue<br /><br />Congratulations to all who predicted NASA would select an Apollo capsule clone for the CEV, you were right.<br /><br />Who could have predicted NASA would pull the rug out from under the contractors and reversed the way Project Constellation had been managed under administrator O'Keefe? Under new administrator Griffin, the Explorations Systems Architecture Study decided to impose very detailed design choices rather than allow the contractors to submit and then compete for the best design.<br /><br />In a weird way this process reflects the past. The same thing happened during project Apollo. NASA let out contracts to compete for the Apollo design, all the while intending to use the in house Faget conical capsule design instead.

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"In a weird way this process reflects the past. The same thing happened during project Apollo. NASA let out contracts to compete for the Apollo design, all the while intending to use the in house Faget conical capsule design instead."<br /><br />It's certainly ironic that for the next couple of years, NASA is going to be reliant on the best of the Apollo designs for access to space. Soyuz.

 

[mattblack]

Boeing/Northrop Grumman is my pick. Though if Boeing/Northrop-Grumman wins the CEV contract, does that mean they'll get the LSAM, too when the time comes? Interesting thing to ponder. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Dude, the contest is over. You are one of the winners.

 

[mattblack]

Sorry!! I just realised this was an old post and that I'd already contributed months ago. I thought momentarily that gunsandrockets still wanted to debate the 'wings versus capsule' thing. I've changed my post two places above to retract this mistake.<br /><br />Sorry guys. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's certainly ironic that for the next couple of years, NASA is going to be reliant on the best of the Apollo designs for access to space. Soyuz.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Soyuz is not an Apollo design. It has a number of dramatic differences. It is actually more like one of the designs submitted by contractors which ultimately was rejected in favor of the conical CM. Take a look at a Soyuz sometime and you'll see what I mean. It's really a very different beast. Take a particular look at the design of the descent module. Yes, it's a capsule, but it uses quite different aerodynamic principles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Soyuz is not an Apollo design.</i><p>It's certainly nothing like the final design, but many say it is based on the GE proposal: link</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

The evidence strongly suggests (in my opinon) that the GE and Soyuz designs were independent; sometimes ideas do come up in more than one mind at a time. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />It's a good design, in my opinion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[carp]

"What kind of CEV"_______________ BOEING,BOEING!

 

[kdavis007]

Good post...