Document sheds light on Boeing/Grumman plans

[gladiator1332]

I was looking around the forum over at NASA Spacelfight.com and found a link to the following document:<br /><br />http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/Schafer.pdf <br /><br />It dates back to May 2005...so it is somwhat recent, however, this is around the time when Lockheed's design was in Popular Mechanics and Boeing said they were rethinking things. So who knows if this is still their plan. <br />Obviously, a lot of the refueling will not be required, as their plan used the EELVs, rather than the SDHLV for an "exploration stage". And since NASA has been showing a liking to the old Apollo way of doing things, I assume the CEV will no longer go all the way to the lunar surface, but instead will remain in orbit while a lander goes down. <br /><br />I really like this design. It uses what we have leared from the old days with the ballistic capsules, and DC-X for the landing. And the vehicle shape and re-entry isn't too far from the T-Space CXV as well.

 

[tomnackid]

Hmmm, their new capsule design looks a lot like T/Space's "Corona-derived" capsule. I'm surprised that that style of capsule was chosen for a direct return from the moon. They must have the center of gravity really offset to give some lift and keep the g-forces and heating down to a tolerable level. Those strap-on fuel tanks still look a little too schematic. I'm not sure if this is a real proposal or if Boeing/Grumman is just phoning it in to stay in the running.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"It dates back to May 2005"</font><br /><br />No -- that document dates back to last year. These are the same presentations that were made public in March. The dates on all of the files and directories have changed, but the documents themselves have not. The Shafer/Boeing proposal was created in December 2004. The Boeing proposal was made on March second (don't know why there is a Shafer/Boeing proposal and one that is just Boeing, plus the one that is Northrup/Boeing).

 

[gladiator1332]

I was unsure about that. The cover sheet said May 05, but on the bottom of the pages it said Dec 04. <br /><br />A lot of this plan will change I assume. NASA is not going with the EELV's, so Boeing has to give that up. <br /><br />I still think they may go to the biconic design that we have seen.

 

[frodo1008]

Something that I really would like to know. Exactly what would be the cost per flight of an SRB, if there were a reasonable number of lights per year?<br /><br />Then, how does that actually compare to the EELV Heavy of the Delta IV (or even the Atlas V, with American Engines)" The reason for my curiosity is that both the EELV's were specifically designed for far lower costs than the older versions of the same rockets. THIS was the goal of the whole Air Force EELV program!<br /><br />The cost of the Titan lauches was nearly the same as that of the STS shuttle system. Some $10,000+ per pound to LEO, The EELV's were to take that amount down to $2,000 to $3,000 per pound depending upon the number of flights (always a factor regardless of which type of launcher that is used). <br /><br />The biggest advantage that I can see (if pure cost per flight is not considered) of the SRB's is that they are already man-rated. This would have to be done for either of the EELV vehicles. I think that ALL the ramifications of these choices should be given a VERY extensive going over by NASA before presenting any particular plan to congress. You can well imagine that Boeing and LM are not just going to sit still and lose a chunk of business. I know that some people on these boards are going to get very angry at this, but they need to remember that both Boeing and LM are in themselves both pure private companies (if you can buy stock in a company THEN it is indeed a private company), and very large employeers of a highly technical group of American aerospace workers. They ARE NOT some kind of enemy here!!<br /><br />I also wonder what the evidently possible merger of LM and Boeings' entire space related business into one entity is going to have to do with all these decisions?

 

[spacefire]

I reviewed part of the doc last night. The way the CEV reenters, there's no excuse NOT to make it into a simple lifting body. I didn't get that far into the read, but I think Boeing's CEV is gonna look a lot like the Kliper but with vertical landing!<br />It's gonna take an engine to take it to L1 and at L1 it is going to rendezvous with a LAV which will take it to the lunar surface. All in all a fascinating concept.<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 way the CEV reenters, there's no excuse NOT to make it into a simple lifting body. I didn't get that far into the read, but I think Boeing's CEV is gonna look a lot like the Kliper but with vertical landing! "</font><br /><br />The lifting body Kliper has a parachute. This would mean... wait for it... that it lands vertically. So where exactly is your point?

 

[spacefire]

I'd like to see a lifting re-entry! <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">"I'd like to see a lifting re-entry! "</font><br /><br />OK -- then the answer is simple. Here's what you need to do. Get younger. I don't know your current age, but it'd be best if you were somewhere between 6 and 10, so drop however many years are required to get into this range. Once you're there, contract a terminal disease -- cancer by preference. Once you're young and dying -- have your mother contact the Make-A-Wish foundation and tell them that your greatest wish before kicking the bucket is to see a lifting body re-entry. They can then contact NASA and try to get that added as a design priority for any near-term spacecraft. Once that's been done -- try not to die before they complete the craft.<br /><br />Mind you I can't see this chain of events ever happening. Oh I can see you getting younger and developing a terminal disease... but using your wish on a lifting-body? Nope. You'd request a personal visit by some well-endowed supermodel/actress/etc. so that you could look down her dress as she bent over your hospital bed.

 

[spacefire]

my my, if you were working for me you sure wouldn't have time to write all these elaborate posts! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

You fail to understand just how efficient I am at my work. And in any event -- if I worked for you, there'd be no need for anything elaborate. I'd just have to decide on a short and sweet note giving two-week's notice or one in which I said 'Farewell Cruel World'.

 

[spacefire]

guess you wouldn't make a good minion! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[john_316]

I'd like to see orange moons, purple stars, red comets, and green auroras too....<br /><br />Oooops thinking of a new Lucky Charms Cereal... Sorry wont let it happen again... Not rubbn it in here now...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[danwoodard]

Having toured both the VAB and the Delta IV integration building, I would have to say integration of the Delta IV (even the heavy) takes only a fraction of the work involved in stacking an SRB and ET. The main reason the EELV's are still expensive is the flight rate, which is lower than anticipated, consequently LM and Boeing are having to merge their EELV ops to form ULA, United Launch Alliance. <br /><br />The NASA plan to go with two new shuttle derived vehicles will leave us with four large launch vehicles, none with a high enough flight rate to be economical, and although they will use many systems from the current SRBs the NASA vehicles will both be new designs. The performance of the proposed new SRB-derived launch vehicle for the CEV is about the same as that of an EELV. It is hard to see how it can acheve a launch cost below $200M for a crew of four, about the same as the Shuttle per seat.<br /><br />Moreover, we have to realize that manned flight is just to expensive to be practical with either the CEV or the Shuttle. However the high cost of the shuttle is not because it is reusable per se, but because this particular design requires a great deal of maintenance and assembly between flights. We never even had a prototype; it went from paper to orbit; there are so many things that would be done differently if we had another chance. The technology demonstrators (X-33, X-34, DCX, X-37) were a far better approach to a new design, allowing us to get real flight experience with critical systems, and work out the problems before developing a final design. A fully reusable launch vehicle remains the only way for human spaceflight to ever become practical.<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

Apparently Boeing's CEV is going to fly from Earth, Land on the Moon, Hop on the moon, then come back to Earth. Must be some sort of a super duper spacecraft! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Must be some sort of a super duper spacecraft!"</font><br /><br />Sort of, it's called a <i>capsule</i> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[spacefire]

which will never get built. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

AFAIK the jury is still out on that. What seems to be certain is that the CEV, capsule or not, won't be flying on EELVs but on SRB-Stick instead.

 

[spacefire]

which means you won't know for sure until the first flight! <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">"Apparently Boeing's CEV ..."</font><br /><br />Which of the 'Boeing' CEV proposals do you mean? Draper-Boeing (which opened the thread), Boeing, or Northrup-Boeing?

 

[spacefire]

the one mentioned in the pdf file at the beginning of this thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Glad to see you figured that out Sherlock. </font><br />Elementary, my dear shuttle-deluded Watson <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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">"Apparently Boeing's CEV is going to fly from Earth, Land on the Moon, Hop on the moon, then come back to Earth."</font><br /><br />OK then -- that's not what's happening. The proposal calls for an EDS propellant tank in LEO, and up to five propellant tanks pre-positioned at L1. The progression for their single mission architechture is:<br /><br />Earth - /> LEO (get 32ton LEO tank)<br />LEO - /> L1 (get 49ton L1 tank)<br />L1 - /> Lunar surface <br />Lunar Surface - /> Earth<br /><br />No super-spacecraft required. It's rather elegant in that you don't have the mass penalty of having a dedicated lunar lander. However, I actually prefer their multi-mission architecture. In that one -- the L1 propellant depot has five tanks (size not given -- presumably four that are considerably smaller than the 49 ton one), and a second CEV is placed there for L1 abort and crew comfort. That mission architecture is:<br /><br />Earth - /> LEO (get 32ton LEO tank)<br />LEO - /> L1 (get ? ton L1 tank)<br />L1 - /> Lunar surface <br />Lunar Surface - /> L1 (get ? ton L1 tank)<br />L1 - /> Lunar surface <br />Lunar Surface - /> L1 (get ? ton L1 tank)<br />L1 - /> Lunar surface <br />Lunar Surface - /> L1 (get ? ton L1 tank)<br />L1 - /> Lunar surface <br />Lunar Surface - /> L1 (get 49 ton L1 tank)<br />L1 - /> Lunar surface <br />Lunar Surface - /> Earth<br /><br />In this plan -- the crew is able to make five separate landings. Still no super-spacecraft, just a propellant station in a convenient location. Seems fairly elegant to me.

 

[spacefire]

compare this to the Apollo program which had the LEM as a separate spacecraft altogether.<br /> IMO Boeing-Schafer's configuration it places a lot of faith in the design of a single component-the CEV. If they pull it off, great, I like versatility, only that increases weight as well! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">" I like versatility, only that increases weight as well!"</font><br /><br />But they need more mass because this time the plan is to stay on the moon for a week or more, for that you need a proper habitat instead of telephone box made of paperthin aluminium. Only 'useless' part in a capsule CEV landing on the moon is the re-entry equipment, heatshield+chutes. I'd guesstimate those weigh a tonne or so, needing another extra tonne of propellants for return trip (plus about six to propel that extra propellant tonne to moon). Tanking seven tonnes more of propellant instead of designing and building another 10+ tonne moon lander, pretty good deal IMO for the first missions.