Lockheed Martin's CEV is winged!!

[rubicondsrv]

" It will evidently do belly landings"<br />the diagrams show airbags around the belly of the spacecraft wich I am guessing are used to cushion the landings.<br />But the position of the airbags dose mean there will need to be doors in the heatsheild. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[summoner]

The article mentioned that even with a heatshield breech that the crew would be safe. Although I image that there's limits to that as well. <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>

 

[redgryphon]

It can be done sucessfully. Think of how long the Huygens parachute was packed before it was used.

 

[rubicondsrv]

not to mention that soyuz stays in orbit for six months at the ISS and there hasen't been a parachute failure on an ISS soyuz has there? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[adzel_3000]

I think this best summarizes my concern between a CEV that is evolved from an Apollo CM and a CEV that is a bi-conic or a lifting body...<br /><br />Blunt Cone Capsule (Apollo CM)<br />L/D = 0.2 - 0.4 <br />Slightly maneuverable <br />Good volumetric efficiency<br />High Earth g’s <br />High peak heating rate <br />Low total heat loads <br />Modest development <br /><br />Bi-Conic Lifting Body<br />L/D = 1.0 -1.4<br />Highly maneuverable <br />Moderate volumetric efficiency <br />Low Earth g’s <br />Low peak heat rate<br />High total heat loads <br />Complex development <br /><br />Biconic L/D = 0.5 – 0.7 <br />Moderately maneuverable <br />Excellent volumetric efficiency <br />Low Earth g’s <br />Moderate peak heating rate <br />Moderate total heat loads <br />Modest development <br /><br />If you consider only development and want your system to fly after STS termination in 2010 then it might be best to shy away from "complex development."<br /><br />The capsule or biconic might be the best routes here, although to go from a CAD-file to a fully man-rated system by 2014 will be a significant challenge.<br /><br />--A3K

 

[arobie]

In the diagrams, the heat shielding is labeled as TPS/SLA 516. That sounds familiar. Is that the same stuff as the Shuttle's heat shield?<br /><br />Personally, I'm not too impressed. It just seems like too much ability is trying to be put into this one little craft. We are trying to make one ship be able to play too many different roles.<br /><br />Wings don't seem like the best thing for an interplanetary craft. They have no use 99% of the time and they are not even needed for reentry. We can accomplish reentry without them...and in a proven method. What does a <b>space</b>ship need wings for?<br /><br />I agree with Scott that we need different ships built for their own roles, not one ship as a compromise between all of them.<br /><br />We need a ship built for travel to the Moon that once launched into space, it stays in space. We need another ship specialized for a Mars trip that once launched also stays in space. Then we finally need one other ship whose sole purpose is to get the crew up into LEO to their Moon or Mars ship. That is the most economic way of doing it. If you make a single ship try to be able to play all of these roles, then it becomes too complicated, a money-eating monster.<br /><br />The CEV looks too small to be a Mars...or even a Moon ship. It seems the plan is to attach it to a habitat module for the trip there... to either of the the destinations. It also seems that once it gets to it's destination, that it won't be the lander. Than, may I ask, what is the purpose of bringing it? If it serves no purpose, then why waste extra fuel to get it there?<br /><br />It's very early in the game, and I know there will be changes. I'll give them a chance to mature this and see if they could possibly make it economical, although my gut instinct in trying to build a "go everywhere, do everything" isn't good.

 

[soyuztma]

I wonder if one propulsion stage would be enough to get the crew and mission module to the moon. In the Boeing proposals there are always two propulsion stages. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"I thought "Mars Semi-Direct" was adopted by NASA for a Mars mission....was that all scrapped when Bush announced his space initiative? Zubrin's plan still makes the most sense to me."<br /><br /><br />NASA didn't have any plans or programs associated with manned Mars mission at the time of Bush's announcement. Thanks to Clinton's space policy it was forbidden to even officially mention manned Mars missions, let alone select a specific mission architecture. <br /><br />However, now, with a mandate from the president and Griffin (whom Zubrin greatly admires) as NASA administrator there is a fair chance that a humans to Mars program will get off the ground.

 

[jurgens]

Arobie, on the lifting body design that Lockheed proposes, you can actually store stuff inside the wings, Unlike the shuttle whose wings are deadweight once in space.

 

[wvbraun]

Well, Griffin is a supporter of Mars Direct so maybe that's just what NASA will do. Since Griffin took office a few weeks ago there have already been some major shake-ups: The planned/on-going roadmapping activites were cancelled (too slow and unfocussed to produce meaningful results) and replaced with small teams of Griffin's choosing, the SEI RFP was cancelled and a major exploration-related BAA was cancelled as well. All that indicates that Griffin was serious when he said that NASA would "rethink the entire [exploration] program".

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Good point about the 'wings' - really like this ship.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

The thing that stood out to me is this redundant level of shielding. Perhaps this is a response to the Columbia tragedy, but surely it comes at an inevitable weight cost? And if pounds to orbit and beyond are the name of the game, I wonder how favourably that will be viewed by NASA? Nice safety feature to be sure, but perhaps getting the primary shielding right, reliable and robust would be the better solution. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[arobie]

Jurgen, point taken. I'm gonna give it a chance, see how it matures. I'm going to follow it and learn more as more is released.<br /><br />Although I have to admit that I'm still wary about the whole concept of one complex, multi-purpose ship does all. <br /><br />Anyone who would know:<br /><br />Is TPS/SLA 516 the same shielding that is used by the Shuttle? It sounds familiar to me.

 

[jurgens]

It doesn't do it all though!! The CEV has a docking mechanism on the rear sort of like the Kliper, and that docking mechanism will connect it to the other modules such as the propulsion, or long term crew habitation, or the Lunar/Mars Lander. I think it's an awesome design personally.

 

[arobie]

So the CEV is attached to propulsion, a habitat, and a lander. Then why even bring the CEV along? What it is attached to is everything needed for the mission. It seems like the plan is to launch the CEV up to, basically, a modular ship in it's own right. Then we drag our Earth-surface to LEO vessel all the way to the Moon or Mars. <br /><br />It doesn't make sense to me. I feel we are missing something here.

 

[najab]

The main argument for taking your space-to-surface vehicle with you is that you don't have to brake into LEO.

 

[arobie]

Direct Earth's surface to Mars (or the Moon) trajectory launch? I had figured the CEV would have launched into orbit, docked with the modules, then do the to-Mars (or the Moon) engine burn.<br /><br />Going that method I had thought, it would make more sense to transfer the crew and undock the CEV so that you don't drag it along with you if it has no purpose. Atleast right now, with what I know, the CEV seems to have no purpose on a long-duration trip.<br /><br />What is the mission plan?

 

[najab]

No, I mean when they come back from the Moon/Mars.

 

[arobie]

najab,<br /><br />Your coming in broken and garbled. You lost me.

 

[najab]

Sorry about that. What I was saying is that if you take your earth return vehicle with you, then you can reenter directly without having to brake into Earth orbit and dock with anything.

 

[steve82]

Interesting design philosophy. The crew are encapsulated in the return module, which also contains all the controls that are probably tailorable to whatever mission: LEO, Moon, ISS, etc. the vehicle is to be configured for with software changes. Nitrous Oxide Thrusters-is Rutan involved? Fuel Cell, but it doesn't say what cycle they are using.

 

[crix]

The CEV it seems is not a single module but most likely the name of the combination of modules which allows trips to the Moon (I was going to say "Lunar Insertion" but I'm not sure if that's right). The crewed vehicle is just a crew transporter. It is not the CEV until the the crew module, mission module and propulsion module have been added on. The CEV is your baseline "exploration vehicle" as the acronymn suggests. The lego-block Mars version of the CEV would be a much bigger version than the one use for Lunar operations... obviously. The old Boeing CEV concepts show a similar approach. The capsule is not the CEV. The (old) Boeing CEV was the capsule and the other supporting modules.

 

[scottb50]

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/050503_cev_nasa.html<br /><br />Note the side bar showing the Martian vehicle. I would think it would be a little cramped for the duration of the trip. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[crix]

That's clearly an error. Those are two different renderings of the same configuration.

 

[trailrider]

While Mars is a longer-term objective and the CEV CONCEPT has Mars in mind, I rather suspect that the configuration shown is a baseline model, subject to modification and upscaling when we get to that point.<br /><br />Right now, the objective is (a) replace the Shuttle for ISS support; and (b) to begin to get us back to the Moon and return crews safely to Earth. Mars will (have to) wait, though we will be doing a lot of testing of equipment for that mission.<br /><br />The lifting body may, indeed, be superfluous in trans-Lunar flight and for landing on the Moon. But there are a number of valid reasons for going to that configuration, the prime one being crew safety, as well as mission flexibility.<br /><br />Once we have gone back to the Moon...hopefully, this time to stay, the Mars concept will be refined. What we absolutely MUST avoid is a repeat of the "quick & dirty" of Apollo, followed by a loooong hiatus.<br /><br />The concept I have seen shows provision for an abort-mode tractor rocket on the nose of the lifting body. Secondly, the lifting body will be stacked on TOP of the Service Module, the propulsion module and whatever booster is used. This means a higher probability of an on-pad abort capability, and virtually a zero risk from falling ice, etc., as any ice that forms on the tankage will fall harmlessly away from the lifting body. There will be no "Navaho stack" that permits the potential for leaky rocket boosters (DON'T YOU DARE USE SOLIDS!!!!), etc., to damage an ET or the lifiting body itself with falling ice. There may be a similarity with Hermes and Dyna-soar, etc., but form follows function, which is one reason the Buran orbiter looks like the Shuttle, and the Su-29 looks like an F-14 Tomcat. There are differences!<br /><br />Be interesting to see what Boeing's concept looks like, and who wins. <br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!<br /><br />Trailrider