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

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I have been saying that for years. It really hit home when the shuttle docked with Mir. The external pics, and the computer simulations pointed out how HUGE the shuttle was compared to a single Mir module. We loft all that mass into orbit just to bring it back again. What a waste. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">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.' </font><br /><br />I have to agree with you about the Shuttle. The preliminary designs offered a fully reusable SSTO. Then they realized they couldn't afford that.<br />That's why I'd like to start in small steps: first a lifting body orbiter, atop an expendable rocket. Then the expendable rocket gets replaced by one or two stages which are reusable and flyback. As technology matures, a new orbiter can incorporate the second stage, simplyfing the design and reducing the costs further.<br />Finally, an SSTO can be developed based on tried and true hardware.<br />The Shuttle was, I hate to say it, ahead of times. They hould have proceeded with the X20 instead, followed by the X42, both atop Titan rockets, then something like the 3 stage reusable SLI, and finally the Venture Star. <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 mean by that a spacecraft that comes back to earth intact- piggyback on that?"</font><br /><br />A few points here:<br /><br />1. Your previous post indicated only a flyback first stage -- implying a non-flyback second stage. When I corrected your bad assumptions on this, you're trying to shift the issue to a different type of launcher -- hoping this will make it appear your initial mistake... wasn't one. Nope -- still there.<br /><br />2. When a boost system is designed to launch a spacecraft -- it is generally designed *around* the spacecraft it is intended to launch. The one you've picked was specifically designed to launch a lifting body. In essence, you are pointing to a semi-tractor trailer and asking: 'Now look at that and tell me how it's going to float across the Atlantic?'. <br /><br />2. Let's see if we make some use of either the first or second of the concepts picture in the link you showed, despite the fact that they are indeed poorly designed to launch a capsule. A capsule could be attached to the front of the second FB stage with non-explosive bolts and a launch shroud. With both designs, it's apparent that the craft will *be* in orbit by the time the SS has finished firing (because there's obviously limited propellant/OMS on lifting bodies that small). Once in orbit, the capsule and shroud are released and possibly given a mechanical impetus like the spring-release of Huygens to separate from the SS. Once they have sufficient separation, the SS returns to Earth and the capsule activates its OMS. Or we could simply design a system optimized for capsules -- but then that would be using actual engineering rather than uttering wishful thinking based around a biased opinion of re-entry vehicle methodologies. <i>/* Ad hominem deleted */</i>

 

[najab]

I edited mrmorris' post above since it contained a mild ad hominem - though to tell you the truth, I knew <i>someone</i> was getting attacked, but I couldn't figure out who?! I'm going to ask the other mods if I can put it back.

 

[scottb50]

I think it would be much better to keep the second stages in orbit and refurbish them for other uses. If you use a fly-back first stage you could attach whatever vehicle or cargo container you wanted to the second stage and would require TPS for just return vehicles not the second stage.<br /><br />Probably the quickest way to do it would be to re-organize the existing Shuttle components and retire the Orbiter. Move the SSME's to smaller tanks, use single piece composite SRM housings and a light weight aerodynamic shell. Various size second stages and payloads could be accomodated as needed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">" I'm going to ask the other mods if I can put it back. "</font><br /><br />No need. In retrospect, invoking the 'J' word probably <b>was</b> a little harsh. After all -- no metallic hydrogen or tachyons were involved.

 

[spacefire]

I was probably being the one attacked <br /><br />You could make a larger lifting body orbiter to provide some of the delta-V to LEO, in fact that would be desirable as it allows for more flexibility in choosing the right orbit.<br />stage sizing is by no means fixed to a certain set of numbers.<br />A capsule, however, is pretty much a shell for the astronauts to live in. If you want to give it power, it will require an adapter like the Soyuz's rear end or the Service module for the Apollo. That is because of the re-entry mode of the capsule, blunt end first. You can't make a capsule taller as it would generate instability-see planned DC-Y which was NOT design to re-enter blunt end first,also because it had the propulsion system with its nozzles at the bottom. Keep the same proportions, enlarging the capsule, will make it a lot draggier, especially since its diameter will be larger than the diameter of the rocket.<br />In essence, you are quite limited with what you can and cannot put in a capsule, and certainly you can't fit an engine and fuel tank there. Those will come in a separate adapter and be discarded. A simple solution, but in essence is like throwing away stuff you could reuse. <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">"... or the Service module for the Apollo"</font><br /><br />Or the Equipment/Adapter Modules of the Gemini, yes.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Those will come in a separate adapter and be discarded. A simple solution, but in essence is like throwing away stuff you could reuse. "</font><br /><br />Yessss. However, what the 'reusable-at-all-costs' crowd always fails to note when lamenting 'expended' hardware is that:<br /><br />- Once something is in orbit, you have to <b>pay</b> to bring it back. <br />- You also have to pay more to make engines/tanks/etc. that must be reused many times than you have to pay to make the same equipment that need only be used once. <br />- You then have to pay again to re-certify all of the equipment once it's back on the ground to verify that it's still functional. <br />- It will also tend to be heavier than its one-shot equivalent costing you in dv dollars.<br />- Re-usable equipment can't be re-used forever. It must eventually be replaced. The construction costs (plus the refurb to install new engines/tanks) must therefore be amortized over the flights that it makes. Since this construction cost can *easily* be 5-10 times the cost of an expendable -- it had better make a <b>lot</b> of flights before needing to be replaced.<br /><br />Eating off paper plates for every meal might seem to be wasteful when you can eat off a wedgwood china plate (plus the china is <b>ever</b> so elegant, dah-ling). However -- if you happen to break plates about once every fifty meals or so... you'll be spending a lot of bucks for that elegance.

 

[larper]

Ok, you keep talking about reusability, then you assume that everything about a capsule is expendable.<br /><br />So, let's look at the Service Module. This contains some things that are consumable (fuel, water). It also contains things that can be reused with virtually no refurbishment needed, like solar panels, RCS engines, fuel tanks. <br /><br />So, when the capsule detaches from the Service Module, there is no need to ditch the SM. Just store it on orbit. Then, you can launch another capsule with a payload other than the SM and rendezvous with the SM on orbit. Huge mass savings here, right?<br /><br />Certainly such a scheme cannot be any more expensive than your massive lifting body.<br /><br />The key to any enterprise is to throw away the stuff that is cheap, and keep the stuff that is expensive. The capsule is the expensive piece. Fuel tanks are cheap. Cargo shrouds are cheap. Heck, ablative TPS is cheap. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[najab]

The Chinese already have the US beat there. The service module of the Shenzhou can remain on orbit independently for several months after the crew module returns to Eath.

 

[larper]

Sure, but do they intend to re-dock with it on a subsequent flight? I would be surprised if they did. What would be the point, unless they launch with 2-3 flights worth of consumables. Now THAT would be a good system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Long term micro gee experiments on the cheep, sounds like a great reason to redock to an orbital module.

 

[larper]

Well, that is not what I meant. I mean, do they redock with it to use it as their service module? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

not yet, they havn't launched quickly enough, maybe shenuoh 7? (sorry can't spell shenuoh)

 

[larper]

I know that. But what is their intent? I assume that they are keeping the SM on orbit so that they can practice on orbit rendezvous. They are NOT intending to actually reuse the SM.<br /><br />That is my assumption. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"They are NOT intending to actually reuse the SM."</font><br /><br />They are certainly not "intending to" in the short term. <br /><br />What is unknown is whether they are "hoping to" in the long term.

 

[nacnud]

They haven't yet though, but it is a possiblity inherent in the design. They even use the APAS 89 docking system so perhaps one day it could be linked to the ISS.

 

[larper]

Ok. I didn't think that they had a reusable SM. It would be a neat idea, though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[najab]

Yes, I did. I had a brain freeze and couldn't remember what it is called. So I decided to play it safe and call it by it's function. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Yes they do. that is to be their mini stace station."</font><br /><br />As always -- Google is good. An interesting article on that topic. A second interesting article that mentions a planed 921/2 chinese space station. First I've heard of it -- but then I don't really follow the Chinese space program specifically.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Eating off paper plates for every meal might seem to be wasteful when you can eat off a wedgwood china plate (plus the china is ever so elegant, dah-ling). However -- if you happen to break plates about once every fifty meals or so... you'll be spending a lot of bucks for that elegance. </font><br /><br />Most engineers forget about the logistics involved in any project <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />Ferrying and entire adapter/module/vehicle costs lots more than shipping the parts that need to be replaced every flight of a reusable vehicle.<br /> every time you 'buy' another ship from the contractor, he will have to make a profit from it.<br />Providing a vehicle is designed to be as simple to maintain as possible, NASA or the operator can run their maintenance program themselves with as little subcontracting as possible.<br />Small things like these add up and you can waste a lot of money by going with something that at first looks cheaper and simpler. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[larper]

That post has to be the epitome of "Penny wise, pound foolish". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Most engineers forget about the logistics involved in any project"</font><br /><br />I'm not an engineer -- I just play one on TV. Oh wait -- I don't do that either. Computer programmer actually -- MIS degree. Good bit of accounting in a management degree of any stripe though. Enough to point out that your logistics capabilities are on par with your engineering ones, anyway.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Ferrying and entire adapter/module/vehicle..."</font><br /><br />Not really sure what you're getting at -- could you define 'ferrying' in this context? I assume that an actual ferry is not involved, but beyond that... nothing.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"...every time you 'buy' another ship..."</font><br /><br />No ship involved here. We need some tanks, possibly some SRMS, thrusters, struts, shroud, etc. Once the propulsion module is designed -- it gets cheaper to build the more of them that get used. For an expendable -- the production line stays open and a steady stream of replacements are built. By contrast -- if the engines/etc. are replaced seldom because they're 'reusable' -- you're paying to keep a production line in existence that *isn't* getting used, and then paying through the nose whenever a replacement is required. The contractor will profit in either case.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"...designed to be as simple to maintain as possible..."</font><br /><br />Ever heard of a NASA program called the 'Space Transportation System'? That would be the one that has these big orbiters that were designed to be reusable and simple to maintain...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"NASA or the operator can run their maintenance program themselves with as little subcontracting as possible. "</font><br /><br />Ever heard the saying 'Crime wouldn't pay if the government ran it?' Did you think that was a joke? Do you recall a few years back when USA was created and given control of the d

 

[spacefire]

Mr Morris or whatever your name is, I am sick of your insults, sir! You obviously love taking everything I say and adding a big no in front of it. That is the capacity of your debating skills.<br /><br />Tell me about production lines for Apollo capsules, rockets, spaceships. How many thousands were built?<br />geez I bet it became a routine to put them together, so cheap even private individuals can afford them nowadays. Hey, lemme go buy myself a capsule with a rocket to go. these things are so cheap I can afford a new rocket every day!<br /><br /><br /><br />On the subject of ferrying:<br /> obviously they wouldn't fly the modules to the launchpad, even an IT guy should know that can't be done <br />when I said ferrying I meant transporting something fairly large versus smaller items which are 'shipped'<br /><br />BTW NASA pays USA $100,000/year for each employee, and obviously not all of that goes to that said employee's salary. that doesn't seem very cheap. I'm prolly not supposed to know that, but who cares, I don't work for NASA or the USA and most likely never will.<br /><br />The space shuttle is so expensive because it is a poor design spawned from politics. <br />For instance:it didn't have to be so freaking big. Keep a basic 4-man cockpit up front. Do away with the lower deck. For orbital laboratory type of missions, just use a spacehab module in the cargo bay. For satellite or space station component delivery, put thosein the cargo bay. a crew of 4 should be able to perform these tasks.<br />Shuttle is an impressive vehicle, but way too complex for its own good. Too many things can go wrong and have gone wrong. And...the orbiter should have been a lifting body!<br />In fact, I think a lifting body replacement of the orbiter, still using the same ET, boosters and same SSMEs would prove safer and cheaper than the current configuration and allow the STS to continue well into the 21st century. <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">"...when I said ferrying I meant transporting something fairly large..."</font><br /><br />And the original statement:<br /><br /><font color="orange">"Ferrying and entire adapter/module/vehicle costs lots more than shipping the parts that need to be replaced every flight of a reusable vehicle."</font><br /><br />So... you're essentially talking ground transport. I think. You feel the difference in physically transporting an entire propulsion module from Point A to Point B instead of replacement parts is going to nibble away at the economy of a capsule. OK. I'm just going to let that one lay right where it is. You rock, Logisticsboy!