Lockheed Martin's CEV is winged! (Part 2)

shuttle_rtf · May 10, 2005

Has it been mentioned on here that Griffin is set to meet with the appropriations committee on Thursday to talk about cash/reduced implementation time for the CEV (amoung other things).

gofer · May 10, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Besides the MOL Gemini testbed, how many capsules have been reflown? <hr /></blockquote> AFAIK, some Apollo sub-systems were designed (the TPS shielding and all of electronics/avionics for instance) for re-usability (also the Soviet TKS project I believe) It was just easier to build it from scratch to ensure that the structure is not fatigued, I guess. However! I didn't and don't claim that reusability of capsules has historical basis. I claim that there is nothing in its basic design that prevents reusability if the need arises and it makes economical and safety-wise sense. What's more I claim it's easier to achieve it(if needed!) than for a winged vehicle because it has fewer complex partsf that need to be replaced/tested.

najab · May 10, 2005

>...why in 44 years hasn't somebody saved a ton of Dollars (or Rubles,) by reflying capsules?Because building a new one is even cheaper - reusable vehicles (capsule or lifting body) cost more to design and build than expendable ones.

najab · May 10, 2005

Oh, that's easy. Because engineering systems for multiple uses costs a LOT of money.Much cheaper to mass produce them.

drwayne · May 10, 2005

Only tangetially related. I was reading some of the CM development information the other day. They spent a LOT more time (and testing) than I thought on working the structures for the CM water landing. It was more truble than I thought. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

john_316 · May 10, 2005

I think the idea back then the idea wasnt in capsule reusability because then we wanted to just build it and use it and who cared if it was reusable... But personally I like a expanded capsule idea myself... Like an expanded Apollo CM for 4-5 with all new lightweight avionics, computers, life support, and an expanded SM so that LEO and LO missions can be completed...

najab · May 10, 2005

I had pointed out in the previous part of this thread that at about 20mph or higher, water is as hard as concrete.

drwayne · May 10, 2005

I usually remember stuff that they spent time on, because my father would tell me about it. I guess I am just getting old... Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

drwayne · May 10, 2005

"Some of that was at Eglin." You have a lot of cool Eglin memories! Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

scottb50 · May 10, 2005

I maintain that lifting bodies have all the advantages of capsules plus those of winged vehicles. I just don't understand why people can't see that!?!!??! Because they descend like a brick, they are very unforgiving and even a windshear at lower altitudes could totally ruin a seemingly normal approach. Not that the Shuttle is a whole lot better, but the wings do allow some leeway, not much, but some. The whole idea of an unpowered landing is the main area that needs to be addresses before we can consider commercial operation anyway. Do you want to be able to go around and try again or have crash as the only option when you have paying passengers on board? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

scottb50 · May 10, 2005

DC-X? I like it too. Too bad it's in limbo now.... I would think wings and turbofan engines would weigh a lot less than the propellant needed for a vertical landing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

gofer · May 10, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />*I I'm going to find that Japanese UFO like capsule proposal I've mentioned, that baby looked like a real spaceship (unlike the aircraft shaped space wannabes) <hr /></blockquote> Hahaha! Found it! http://www.jaxa.jp/jda/library/nasda-news/2002/nr119.pdf Unfortunately it's a pdf, cant link the images, but if you bother to scroll down to pages 4 and 5 you'll see what I mean. Ain't it the ultimate spacecraft shape? (although I do wonder how they'd fit it under the H-II shroud)

scottb50 · May 11, 2005

I have over 20,000 hours as a pilot and I would hope even Shuttle Guy would agree that there is a lot of difference between a sailplane and a commercial transport. The difference between a sailplane and the Shuttle is much futher than a sailplane and a 767. I've flown sailplanes, a very few times, and it seems it is more a problem to get down than stay up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

gunsandrockets · May 11, 2005

1207 -- "...You will also note that the LM CEV is the third stage of a vehicle..." Could you clarify that statement for me please.

thermionic · May 11, 2005

This whole paranoia about 'dead-stick' landings is mediocre, I think. I've done hundreds of landings, never once with an engine running. I hit the spot. Or I eat dirt. NASA can too, as proven by the Apollo, shuttle, etc., landings. There is absolutely nothing wrong with gliding home.

scottb50 · May 11, 2005

Ok!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nacnud · May 11, 2005

Cool I've been looking for that for a while to <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> here is a screen grab of the Jaxa capsule design.

mrmorris · May 11, 2005

"newsartist: Besides the MOL Gemini testbed, how many capsules have been reflown?" "najaB: Besides the...er...hmm. How many lifting body vehicles have flown even once?" "newsartist: You can do better than that. Lifting bodies were never funded to find out. " Me: Um -- how many capsules intended to be reusable were ever funded? You can't use an argument that works against concept A *and* concept B to show how much better one concept is than another. "...why in 44 years hasn't somebody saved a ton of Dollars (or Rubles,) by reflying capsules?" The only capsule that could be considered for this is the Soyuz. Reusability was considered in several Apollo studies, but the program never lasted long enough to justify exploring the option. As for the Soyuz -- the inherent design of the craft is such that what hits the ground is largely just a shell. A significant portion of the subsystems are in the orbital module that burns up on re-entry. If what hit the ground contained all of the systems present in both the re-entry module and the orbital module -- they'd probably have worked to refurbish it.

spacefire · May 11, 2005

it all depends on the size and complexity of the vehicle. An Apollo tin can is easier to produce than to refurbish. The Space Shuttle-no. A lifting body orbiter or SSTO launcher with the payload capabilities of the Shuttle will be definitely cheaper to reuse than to discard. At the same time, it will not need the extensive TPS refurbishment the Shuttle requires-even moreso after the Columbia incident. Even if it used the same ceramic tile, the area they cover will be smaller and also the peak heating will be confined to a smaller area. Will it be cheaper to haul 4 people in a small reusable lifting body to orbit than in a capsule, providing both are launched by an expendable rocket? I don't know. I do know that the same lifting body will provide invaluable data for desiging larger lifting body orbiters, culminating with a fully reusable vehicle that would cut the cost of access to space dramatically. Also, a capsule can fit on top of a rocket. A lifting body can fit atop a rocket-OR-piggyback atop a reusable flyback first stage. That means that even if the first generation lifting body orbiters are launched by expendable rockets, in the future they could be launched by other means-cheaper. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

najab · May 11, 2005

>A lifting body orbiter or SSTO launcher with the payload capabilities of the Shuttle will be definitely cheaper to reuse than to discard.Good grief man, where have you been the last 20 years?! If there's one thing NASA won't do anytime in the forseeable future, it's building a manned vehicle with that kind of payload capacity. It simply isn't needed now, and to tell you the truth, I don't see it ever beeing needed.Mike Griffin put it best - when it comes to lift capability, the Shuttle Orbiter is nothing more than an 100 ton launch shroud around a 30 ton cargo.

spacefire · May 11, 2005

I was just making an example. besided, what NASA says today might change 180 degrees tomorrow <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

rybanis · May 11, 2005

Can't say that I agree. The new administrator seems to have an agenda rolling now. Plans flipping a 180 seems like a pretty distant probability now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mrmorris · May 11, 2005

"A lifting body orbiter or SSTO launcher with the payload capabilities of the Shuttle will be definitely cheaper to reuse than to discard. " Um -- yes. See the reason for that is because what you've described will be extremely flipping expensive to build in the first place. Saying it's cheaper to reuse, however, doesn't in any way, shape, or form mean that it will be cheap to reuse. Do you have any other incredibly obvious 'relevations' about lifting body SSTOs to point out? "...culminating with a fully reusable vehicle that would cut the cost of access to space dramatically. " No -- you do not know that. You think that. You have that opinion. It is possible that. Even if your small lifting body leads to a large one -- which is by no means assured -- 'fully reusable' does not necessarily equate to 'extremely economical'. Let's pretend the external tank from the shuttle were to magically descend from orbit after each flight for reuse. Bingo -- the shuttle is now fully reusable. Does this make it economical? Nope -- not by a long shot. Tell you what -- I'll even spot you the TPS. Abra Cadabra -- the Shuttle TPS is now perfect -- it needs zero refurb after each flight. The shuttle *still* isn't economical -- certainly not in the sense of 'cutting the cost of access to space dramatically.' "A lifting body can fit atop a rocket-OR-piggyback atop a reusable flyback first stage. That means that even if the first generation lifting body orbiters are launched by expendable rockets, in the future they could be launched by other means-cheaper." OK -- what you're essentially saying is not the 'lifting body' atop a first stage, but a 'lifting-body-plus-second-stage' atop a reusable first stage. And you're further saying that it's impossible for a 'capsule-plus-second-stage' to

spacefire · May 11, 2005

check second picture http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0205/01sli/ 3 stages, -u were right about that,indeed,but 2 are flyback and the 3rd a lifting body riding nicely piggyback. how would you put a capsule-I mean by that a spacecraft that comes back to earth intact- piggyback on that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

larper · May 11, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />DC-X? I like it too. Too bad it's in limbo now.... I would think wings and turbofan engines would weigh a lot less than the propellant needed for a vertical landing. <hr /></blockquote> Most people do think that, but they are wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

Lockheed Martin's CEV is winged! (Part 2)

shuttle_rtf

Guest

gofer

Guest

najab

Guest

najab

Guest

drwayne

Guest

john_316

Guest

najab

Guest

drwayne

Guest

drwayne

Guest

scottb50

Guest

scottb50

Guest

gofer

Guest

scottb50

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

thermionic

Guest

scottb50

Guest

nacnud

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

spacefire

Guest

najab

Guest

spacefire

Guest

rybanis

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

spacefire

Guest

larper

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page