Heavy Lift?

[rubicondsrv]

actualy lockheed martin won the JSF contract <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Gemini had no pressurised docking capability, so anything based on that fact alone would be useless."</font><br /><br />I wasn't trying to bring the Gemini into the CEV mix. I mention it because I've found the weight reductions made possible in spacecraft design from technology advances since the 70's to be much higher than what I would have expected.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Scaling it up and changing the forward nose to a hatch/docking probe assembly would so alter it, it would be a totally different ship."</font><br /><br />Anything built today based on the concepts of the Gemini *or* the Apollo designs with be 'totally different ships' -- by definition. Other than general shapes, and basic design concepts, very little will be used on a modern version.<br /><br />The major difference in the design of the Apollo vs the Gemini spacecraft lies in where the crew spend the flight. In Gemini -- the crewspace consisted of a seat -- and astronauts stayed there for the duration of the flight (minus EVAs). In Apollo -- the crew were seated for launch and re-entry, but when in flight, could leave their seats and move about the command module. In terms of cabin space, Apollo and Gemini had pressurized volumes per crewmember of 122 ft3 and 40 ft3, respectively. Its the added crewspace that will make the Apollo-style craft considerably heavier than a Gemini-style craft for the same number of crew.<br /><br />For the exploration activities envisioned of the CEV -- an Apollo-style spacecraft is obviously the preferred design. A crew is not going to be able to function effectively in the types of activity planned if confined to their seats throughout the flight.<br /><br />However -- for LEO ferry operations -- there is no reason in the world to lift the weight of a command module into orbit every time there's a need to get a crew to a space station (or larger spacecraft... like a CEV) in LEO. The Gemini-X3 that I'm designing in the

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>actualy lockheed martin won the JSF contract<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Which is probably a good thing. Boeing's JSF proposal actually looked cute. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> (I swear, the engine intake made it look like it was smiling!) <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]

It also didn't help that they had to strip the aircraft right down to get it to hover properly.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Gemini had no pressurised docking capability,</font><br /><br />The Air Force looked into using the Gemini in it's MOL (manned Orbiting Lab), a hatch was cut into the bottom, through the heat shield, allowing access to the MOL, like a small version of Skylab. The heat of re-entry melted the seams of the hatch heat shield into the seams of the bottom of the Gemini, and made a good seal. It was tested a few times, with complete success, if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure that was a pressurized connection. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mattblack]

GOOD GRIEF!! That's a rare typo from me, sorry. I know Lockheed Martin won. I just stuffed up the draft edit in Word. I sometimes write in Word first before posting. I've just fixed the previous post, sorry about that, guys!!<br /><br />I'm glad Lockheed-Martin won. If nothing else, I thought the Boeing plane was the damned silliest-looking thing I've ever seen. <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>

 

[john_316]

So guys exactly how complex is it to build a LEO CM CEV?<br /><br />One without the CSM?<br /><br /><br />I take it, its not as complex as they would have you believe.<br /><br />I imagine they could take and build a decent 4-5 man CEV capsule in less than 2 years correct? Or is that cutting it too close?<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[mikejz]

2 years? I bet it could be done in 20 minutes...Just order it from Russia!...hehe

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Air Force looked into using the Gemini in it's MOL (manned Orbiting Lab), a hatch was cut into the bottom, through the heat shield, allowing access to the MOL, like a small version of Skylab. The heat of re-entry melted the seams of the hatch heat shield into the seams of the bottom of the Gemini, and made a good seal. It was tested a few times, with complete success, if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure that was a pressurized connection.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You are correct that the MOL concept had a Gemini at the front of the MOL during launch, with a hatch in the heat-shield to let the crew get into the lab and then transfer back to the Gemini for reentry. The idea was ridiculed because it was thought to weaken the heat shield unacceptably, and I don't think it was tested.<br /><br />However, the Soviets came up with something similar, though also ultimately unused. An Almaz military station would have a VA (a cone-shaped two-seat capsule quite different from any other Soviet capsule design; it was somewhat similar to the American designs, but really it was its own beast) attached to the front. I've attached a picture of it. There was to have been a hatch in the heat-shield to allow crew to access the Almaz military space station. In many ways it's eerily similar to the USAF MOL, and was almost certainly created as a response to MOL. (This is probably why the program was cancelled after a couple of less ambitious stations designated as Salyuts flew; without the need to compete with the MOL, they really had no use for a manned military station.)<br /><br />I do recall reading about the VA flying unmanned, however. It may have flown attached to one of the unmanned Almaz spacecraft. (The hardware already built was modifed to turn it into a series of radar reconnaissance spacecraft, the last of which was launched in 1992, I believe.) I understand the hatch did indeed seal shut as planned. <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>The idea was ridiculed because it was thought to weaken the heat shield unacceptably, and I don't think it was tested.</i><p>It was tested and it did work. It was the only re-flight of a Gemini capsule - the capsule had previously flown as Gemini-Titan 2.</p>

 

[CalliArcale]

Cool! I did not know that. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[john_316]

So is asking 3 years and 4 months 18 days too much?<br /><br />Just a curious question?<br /><br /><br />Or do we have to charge 20 billion for something I can build in my garage today for under 10 million ok nowa days?<br /><br />