Lockheed Martin's CEV is winged!!

[shuttle_rtf]

Looks fantastic.<br /><br />http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/050503_cev_nasa.html

 

[adzel_3000]

<br /><br />And it bears a striking resemblance to the ESA's Hermes design...<br /><br />Here is a link to the ESA Hermes overview... <br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hermes.htm <br /><br />--A3K

 

[spacefire]

there seems to be a habitation module in the mars configuration, in between the <b>lifting body</b> reentry vehicle and the engines, looks like it ahs a hatch on it, possibly to dock with a Mars lander.<br />Seems like atotal waste of money to send the lifting body along for the ride, instead of just having a more spacious crew habitation module. The mars craft can rendezvous withthe lifting body back in Earh orbit and the crew can transfer.<br />This is just speculation, the CEV is not going to be built anywy <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

The CEV will get built, cause the US president said so......<br /><br />.........ah, I see where you made that comment then! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />CEV is getting built - cause it has to be.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">does this mean the CEV would actually be used in a manned mission to Mars</font>/i><br /><br />Probably too early to tell right now (lots of architectual decisions yet to be made). I would certainly think that a manned mission to Mars would include a larger habitat portion.<br /><br />If you do not take an Earth re-entry vehicle with you to Mars, then you will need to bring enough propellent for Earth orbit insertion and then rendevous with the Earth re-entry vehicle before returning to Earth's surface. The extra fuel costs and risks due to additional mission complexity may favor a simple shoot for the atmosphere approach.</i>

 

[grooble]

I like it. It looks good, but will it work

 

[holmec]

Oh look! Its Hermes with a makeover. lol<br /><br />It seems to me counter productive to have a winged lander as the main means of transport to interplanetary destinations. But if that's the way they want to go, then by all means GO FOR IT.<br /> <br />But if you ask me this is putting serveral eggs in one basket. I guess someone reasoned that you save money by that. But reality may be you spend more money to opeate the thing. <br /><br />The more logical way to get from Florida to visit Opportunity or Spirit would require 3 different ships. One specific to taking a team to LEO then a different one to take them to LMO (low Marso orbit) and a lander to take them to a rover. Why? Because all three of these phases require different parameters out of a transport, and I believe that techknowlogically speaking we are still at an infant stage of building manned space craft. Breaking up the problem would help in our success and education.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[najab]

Which means <b>wings</b> are going to be taken all the way to Mars and back.

 

[elguapoguano]

From what I can tell of the drawings, it looks like they are going to use the "wing space" well. Besides, it's not like it's got huge wings, it's a lifting body, and for that design you have to have some wings or else you just roll like crazy in the atmosphere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[holmec]

Not just wings. Wings designed to fly in Earth's atmoshere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

Earth's atmoshere!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

What if we make the CEV into an RV of sorts. I mean make it a module to take crew and equipement. Put in something like the Shuttle or X-33 to get into leo, then attach it to modules with thrusters to Mars, then hook up with a manned martian lander. At least then your suitcases won't have to leave the CEV. I mean the name Crew Exchange Vehicle doesn't seem to require wings or a heat shield but maybe politicians need it to be a plane for public acceptance. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[yg1968]

It seems like it will use parachutes. I wonder if it's going to be a reusable craft?

 

[wvbraun]

I'm virtually certain that the Lockmart CEV as shown here will never be used on a manned Mars mission. This vehicle was designed with LEO and lunar missions in mind. <br /><br />I think the resemblance to Hermes is superficial at best. Hermes was a winged vehicle, this is a lifting body. The 'wings' are very 'voluminous' as elguapoguano already pointed out.

 

[yg1968]

What's a lifting body, anyways? <br /><br />I found the answer myself on this website:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body<br />

 

[adzel_3000]

If this proposal could not be used on a Mars mission then how does this support the "modular" philosophy of the new space exploration initiative? Indeed, this looks like a re-vamp on shuttle.<br /><br />Without wings the old Apollo CM had a lift-to-drag ratio of approximately 0.5. With modifications to account for the low atmosphere and enlargement to support a unique surface mission, couldn't a CEV built along those lines be utilized as a Mars lander? <br /><br />The CEV could be the Mars "descent" portion and some as-yet-to-be-designed system could serve as the ascent vehicle for 1 to 2 people. <br /><br />This looks like a great deal of money is going to be spent for an Earth only system. This does not seem like an advance except for government contractors.

 

[grooble]

Guys if it is useless crap you need to protest it, it's your tax money. Protest outside the lockheed headquarters or something.

 

[scottb50]

It still follows the Shuttle prime directive, something that can do everything. What purpose is there to taking a CEV to the Moon or Mars? Why can't we have a vehicle that only goes to LEO and returns to the surface? Why can't we then develop other vehicles that leave LEO and enter lunar, Martian or asteroid orbits and another vehicle that lands and takesoff from these locations back to the orbiting vehicle?<br /><br />Optimize each vehicle for what it is tasked to do. A CEV would dock to an orbiting vehicle to transfer payloads, but what good does it do adding it to the mass being taken? A transit vehicle could be extremely simple, it doesn't need any aerodynamic control and could be simple, mass produced Modules. The same Modules could carry creew and passengers as well as cargo and propellants with minor internal modifications and Modules could be interchanged as needed, lets say you want an all cargo vehicle, all passenger vehicle or a combi version, simply connect the desired combination of Modules.<br /><br />The hardest part is getting from the surface to LEO, why make it any harder than it has to be? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yg1968]

Protest? I like it!

 

[grooble]

It's a ruse though, it just "looks" good.

 

[yg1968]

I have disagreed with other members on this subject. But I think a capsule is a step back in time. The lift-body seems a compromise betwen a winged space plane and a capsule. I like it. A lift body can be steered unlike a capsule. This seems like the perfect compromise between those that favor a capsule and those like me that would prefer a winged space plane. The fact that it is a lift-body probably makes it safer and more economical than a space plane. I am assuming that it would be reusable, although the article does not mention anything on the subject.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">" A lift body can be steered unlike a capsule."</font><br /><br />A statement which demonstrates that you don't know much about capsules. Capsules use an offset center of mass to steer. The Apollo capsules, using navigation technology that's 40+ years out of date, was able use the offset c.g. to steer to within ~1 mile of their target point. One of the Gemini flights initiated the de-orbit burn too early due to a ground-control error. The induced landing error because of that was ~500 miles, but they were able to make up ~450 miles of that through 'steering' via the c.g.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"...the perfect compromise...</font><br /><br />As with most compromises -- lifting-bodies share the bad along with the good. It's a heckuva lot heavier than a capsule capable of lifting the same amount of people/payload and has nowhere near the crossrange of a winged craft.<br /><br />...You didn't know what a lifting body was until this thread.<br />....You didn't know a capsule could steer until this post.<br />...But you think that NASA should cater to your preferences? Nope.

 

[summoner]

I think this design would be fine for Earth to LEO or Leo to the Moon. I don't see how it would work for a Mars trip. Shielding alone is going to be a huge factor on any Mars trip. But this is supposed to be a modular design so any long term flights will most likely have as mentioned earlier cargo, supply and crew modules. It's still very early in the design stage, I'd guess they'd throw this out for aestetics alone, public perception is always important. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[yg1968]

mrmorris,<br /><br />I am not an engineer. So I admit that I don't know all the concepts. However, I based my statements on the link that I provided above. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body<br /><br />Relevant portions of that article on lifting body:<br /><br />The traditional capsule-like spacecraft had very little control over where they landed once they re-entered the Earth's atmosphere.<br /><br />Anyways, the engineers at Lockheed seem to agree with me. So there is certainly an argument to be made for lifting bodies.<br /><br />

 

[crix]

Guys, we haven't nearly seen what the Mars bound configuaration would look like. There would be a ton more room and modules. The lifting body is just to get people from ground to orbit, maintain them a while until they can hook up with other modules, and then stay attached to the ship until they finally want to reenter Earth's atmosphere. <br /><br />I think it's pretty damn nice! Step up Boeing!