Lockheed Martin's CEV is winged!!

[scottb50]

Actually if you take away the solar panels there are three renderings of the same configuration. I seriously doubt you could supply even one person for a roundtrip Mars mission looking at the comparative size of the added module, or that you could carry enough propellant in the pictured propulsion Module to even leave LEO let alone get to lunar or Mars orbit and back. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[crix]

I'm with you. None of those renderings were intended to be labeled anything Mars but I would think that the 3 module configuration could at least pull off a lunar orbit. What other constraint could the propulsion stage have been based on?

 

[mattblack]

LockMart has to be kidding: When I saw their design I sighed, because a lifting body CEV is a complex, expensive mistake. These people HAVE to let go of spaceplanes!! Let the Rutans etc. of the world build spaceplanes and get Nasa out of the spaceplane business.<br /><br />What's needed is a "Apollo CSM or Soyuz on steroids".<br /> <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>

 

[lycan359]

// Rant On<br /><br />I can't see how people seems to think that when you give something wings it turns "sexy".<br /><br />I guess it doesn't have wings in the normal sense but the design is still a waste because you have the remember that not only are the "wings" useless for anything like a lunar or mars mission, but the vehicle weighs more since you need control surfaces, hydraulics and electronics to work them, including backups and testing.<br /><br />Another thing I don't seem to understand is the following statement on the space.com website.<br /><br />"...the lifting body approach helps to minimize the g-forces on crew members, McKenzie noted."<br /><br />I'm sorry? Minimize the g-forces? So one of the main lines of reasoning for this was to make the astronauts nice and comfy while punching through the atmosphere at thousands of km/h surrounded by a burning plasma? Have astronauts got so soft and wimpy recently that we have to make them comfortable while doing something so hazardous? I doubt it.<br /><br />Build spaceships, not airplanes or sportscars.<br /><br />// Rant off

 

[shuttle_rtf]

My take on this is given NASA is nothing without public taxpayer's money, the inspiration and identification with space planes seems very apparent.<br /><br />If NASA only launched Delta's, public interest would drop dead.<br /><br />I know this forum is on the whole sadly dead against - even anti - Shuttle, but image - wrongly or rightly - is pretty much on the menu when it comes to Tax Dollars.<br /><br />Sure, some of you would prefer us to be sending people up in glorified tin cans, and sure it's cheaper, more efficient, whatever. <br /><br />It's just my opinion, I know, and Apollo/Saturn 5 was great...but that was the 60s/70s...let's move on and forward, not backwards.

 

[lycan359]

<br />Move forward? I don't consider interplanetary spacecraft with wings "moving forward" thank you very much.<br /><br />There was a reason the Apollo spacecraft was shaped like it was. The engineers choose the capsule design because it was the smart thing to do.<br /><br />Don't get me started on the Shuttle. It was built on exaggeration and outright lies.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">If NASA only launched Delta's, public interest would drop dead. </font><br /><br />Just like there was no interest in the Mercury, Gemmini or Apollo programs you mean?

 

[jurgens]

No they chose the capsule because that was all they knew how to work with, and not enough data on lifting bodies existed at that time. Not to mention they didn't have the same materials technology we do today.<br /><br />Plus the Shuttle COULD have accomplished it's mission, just because the shuttle program didn't fly 40 flights a year, doesn't all of a sudden mean that the whole premise of a space plane is wrong and flawed. All it means is that the shuttle was executed incorrectly.

 

[jurgens]

nacnud, that was a different era... public perception changes.

 

[lycan359]

<br />JurgenS, please explain to me the mission benefits of a lifting body design for Apollo.<br /><br />Oh you have to be kidding me... The 40 flights a year number was made in order to bamboozle Congress into thinking that it could actually work and be economical. In other words it was a lie (the number is so off the mark and unreasonable it can't possibly be considered an exageration, they knew what they were doing).

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Just like there was no interest in the Mercury, Gemmini or Apollo programs you mean?< <br /><br />Re-read the post, I already explained that was then, this is now.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

><br />There was a reason the Apollo spacecraft was shaped like it was. The engineers choose the capsule design because it was the smart thing to do. <<br /><br />Lockheed Martin disagree with you.

 

[tap_sa]

I'm a staunch opponent of wings in space, couldn't think of anything more useless. Well maybe, a propeller in space? That said, I like the LM CEV! Others have already pointed out those aren't wings, it's a lifting body. Blatant Kliper rip-off I might add but at least the choice of original is good. Not sure but this may be the <i>first</i> US lifting body that doesn't even have any fins, just flaps in the rear body like Kliper.<br /><br />One interesting feature is the lack of conventional landing gear. Parachutes atop and airbags below denotes soft landing to pretty much any flat surface, much better than the Shuttle's 'hit the airstrip or go tango uniform'. There are float bags too so sealanding might be an option.<br /><br />A capsule would be cheaper, more efficient and whatever but if the LM CEV is spaceplaneish enough to satisfy the public image you described then go for it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I'll take that happy compromise <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[lycan359]

<br />I can only hope NASA disagrees with Lockheed Martin as well.<br /><br />Lockheed Martin seems to be content staying in LEO while Boeing and Northrop Grumman are looking forward.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

><br />Lockheed Martin seems to be content staying in LEO while Boeing and Northrop Grumman are looking forward.<<br /><br />How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[jurgens]

now don't be silly here. You're letting your anti-spaceplane views get in the way of thinking logically. Boeing and Lockheed both have two very interesting proposals, and which one will work, I dunno. <br /><br />Check them out yourself though<br /><br />http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/Lockheed_Martin.pdf<br /><br />http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/Boeing.pdf

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

I like it already. A vehicle that can be piloted down to a precise landing point is certainly harder to design, but it's worth a lot more, too. Can you imagine an airline trying to sell tickets to "somewhere in Florida, but we're aiming for Orlando" I'd rather land on the "thousand footers" on the active runway. That's why the Shuttle lands like an airplane, because it was supposed to be operated almost like an airliner. It's too bad that we never used it to it's full potential. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[lycan359]

<br />1) Lifting body for Moon/Mars is useless.<br /><br />2) The Lockheed CEV looks so small.<br /><br />3) The Boeing design seems to be launched in 2-3 pieces with Delta IV Heavy rockets (I would guess) and assembled in orbit.<br /><br />4) The Boeing CEV is pretty large with plenty of room.<br /><br />I'll think of more later.

 

[lycan359]

<br />JurgenS, I haven't read those.<br /><br />I'll do so now.

 

[lycan359]

rocketwatcher2001, leave the spaceplanes to Burt Rutan.<br /><br />NASA isn't trying to build spaceliners for public convinience.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Problem is, Burt Rutan is only capable of building ships that are capable of lifting a couple of fat tourists...that's it. That's all he can do at the moment.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>1) Lifting body for Moon/Mars is useless. < <br /><br />No one said it had anything to do with Mars/Moon - that's already been address on here, it's about returning to Earth.<br /><br /> />2) The Lockheed CEV looks so small. <<br /><br />Again, just looking at the return to Earth re-entry...there's a big chunk in the middle to go into that image.<br /><br /> />3) The Boeing design seems to be launched in 2-3 pieces with Delta IV Heavy rockets (I would guess) and assembled in orbit. <<br /><br />Ok. So?<br /><br /> />4) The Boeing CEV is pretty large with plenty of room. <<br /><br />See 2.

 

[jurgens]

Good, if you do read it, especially the lockheed one, you will see that they actually want/need to build at least a 70mT booster and will fly most likely 2 of them per moon trip. Also, the lockheed CEV is pretty large imo, http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/CEV-MM-CM-xsectleft2-lg.jpg<br /><br />mainly because the crew part of it is the length of the vehicle, and it also connects to a larger habitation module. Which in turn is connected to other modules.<br /><br />Also, for your 1) Yes, for the most part, I could see them using an airbag style/powered landing system used for the moon, but either way, the point is that it is better for return. First of all, they can return anywhere they want to, they can steer the lifting body much more then they can a capsule. Secondly, when your in space for a loooong time, you want the softest landing you can get because you body hasn't been suffering 1g accelerations for a while. Not to mention, since the entire Lifting body makes it back down, im making an assumption here that the Lockheed CEV will be capable of hauling back a lot more mass/volume back to the earth compared to say just a shuttle.<br /><br />3) Like I said before, the lockheed will require 2 launches of a new launch vehicle based off either the DeltaIV/Atlas V or the Space Shuttle. And for all intents and purposes, I believe Griffin preffers a shuttle derived booster mainly because they have the facilities built already and don't want to fire people, also because it would be faster to build and the SRBs are pretty safe. I believe a shuttle derived booster has a fair amount of room to grow upto around 120mT, which is what the Saturn V was pushing!<br /><br />4) I don't think there is a big difference in the sizes of the vehicles, but the Lockheed Vehicle when it rendevous with it's other modules is about 70ft long. Pretty darn big.

 

[starfhury]

Let's consider one very important fact. They idea of going to space is really to get people back in one piece. Let's imagine the shuttle returning from space and a capsule also returing from space. I agree wings serve no purpose in space, but space is not what we are worried about. It's landing on earth after we return. Barring another burn though of the wings, a shuttle with problems returning to earth can manuever in atmosphere and do a belly flop somewhere. The vehicle might be rendered unusable afterwards but the crew might still survive. Let's take the capsule approach. You make it all the way through the fire of reentry only to find your shoot does open, or maybe your retro rockets fail to fire. What do you do? Remember Genesis? After a very sucessful mission, it's parachute failed to deploy and it crash into the desert. Any humans abort such a craft would be a bloody paste. I think this is part of the reason LockMart chose the lifting body design as opposed to a capsule. The capsule is solely dependent on the parachute or retro rockets firing. These must work at the last minute or your dead. Atleast with a lifting body or wing design, you have some aerodynamic surface to aid in reduction of landing speeds. Because they are mainly passive, its also less likely to fail. If your hydraulics bows out at 50,000 ft, you can still glide in some where. If your parachute fails, kiss your ass goodbye.<br /><br />CEV is supposed to be a modular design. None of these concepts could possiblely make it to Mars. Remember, this is a spiral development curve they are trying to follow. Mars won't happen until like 2030 or later. That leaves some 25 years to come up with the rest of the systems for Mars. Looked on purely as an Earth to LEO to Moon type sytem, the CEV can be quite functional. You'd have the CEV as a crew habitat for the few days trip to the moon. And with a moon lander as the only additonal specialized craft needed. Basically as conceived, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>