Lockheed Martin's CEV is winged!!

[lycan359]

<br />Ok, I'm scanning through the Lockheed CEV document and from what I gather they are using a capsule design. All the little pictures indicate a capsule and I can't find any mention of lifting body.<br /><br />They also only seem to talk about their Lunar mission plan. Is the idea to make seperate crew modules for LEO and Lunar missions or something?

 

[jurgens]

Nono, I assume they haven't fully decided yet, but I believe they want the lifting body. Also, those reports are a good 2 months old, so not everything they say is final, it is just an outline of their plans.<br /><br />as for your second question, something like that. The Lifting Body basically docks with a Lunar Crew Module in orbit and then proceeds to the moon, but I really can't say for sure, all I know about Lockheed's most recent CEV proposal is what everyone else knows, ie what's on space.com.

 

[lycan359]

I should mention that I'm not completly against the Lockheed plan(e) but maybe it's a side effect of absolutly abhorring the Shuttle.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"If your parachute fails, kiss your ass goodbye. "</font><br /><br />Ayup, yet each year people do <i>millions</i> skydivings, trusting their lives on parachutes. And all that for fun. Fatal accidents are extremely rare so one could argue that the art of deploying a parachute is very established. Genesis is poor excuse against parachute because the chute didn't malfunction, deploying mortar wasn't a dud nor did chute lines get entangled. Genesis failed because somebody screwed up elsewhere so that the parachute never got a signal to deploy. In a manned capsule there's probably a manual emergency override switch that wired directly to the deployment fireworks.<br /><br />AFAIK STS crashlanding to anywhere but proper airstrip is not considered survivable, the crew should bail out while in the air. That means that you still trust parachutes with astronauts' lives, now they are just personal chutes. The L-M CEV probably won't stand a chance if landing is attempted without parachute. Forward speed would have to be insanely high in order to have survivable rate of descent, and the craft lacks landing gear to even try landing at such speeds. With manageable forward speed the craft would drop like a rock without the chute. <br />

 

[najab]

><i>The LM CEV probably won't stand a chance if landing is attempted without parachute.</i><p>At first I read this as "the Lunar Module CEV..." and I thought - parachutes don't work on the Moon, do they....? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></p>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"parachutes don't work on the Moon, do they....?"</font><br /><br />Let's not go there... SDC history teaches us that discussing lunar aerodynamics can get very degenerative <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The LM CEV has a reserve parachute. "</font><br /><br />Yes -- well the argument in question was about a capsule *requiring* parachutes to make a survivable landing vs. them being *optional* for LM's lifting body concept. That's BS as I believe you'll agree.<br /><br />In any event -- the original Apollo had three parachutes, and could make a survivable landing with two. I know there was talk of modifying this to four smaller parachutes, which generated a weight savings, lower impact speed, *and* allowed for survivability if two chutes failed. I would imagine a modern capsule would go with that. This would make 'parachute failure' as an argument against capsules fairly ridiculous.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Atleast with a lifting body or wing design, you have some aerodynamic surface to aid in reduction of landing speeds."</font><br /><br />BS. Lifting bodies do *not* help in reducing landing speeds. They provide limited maneuverability. A lifting body cannot 'fly' except at relatively high speeds. The shuttle is not called 'the flying brick' for nothing, and it's *winged*. A lifting body has less realtive 'lift' than the shuttle. Once a lifting body falls below 'X' speed (and X is pretty high) -- it's no longer flying but (blatant rip-off from a children's movie) 'falling... with style'.

 

[yg1968]

A number of people have mentionned the resemblance of the Lockheed CEV to the projected Russian Kliper lifting body. Here is a link to the Kliper project:<br /><br />http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html<br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Lifting bodies do *not* help in reducing landing speeds."</font><br /><br />Must....resist....nitpicking....failed! Chuteless capsule would hit the ground at something like 400mph, chuteless lifting body maybe half that speed. For the hapless astronaut inside it's all the same. So l-b does help in reducing landing speeds ... just not enough <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[teije]

1 thing I have not yet seen anywhere:<br />What is the proposed launch vehicle for this proposal? Atlas V? Anyone who knows?<br />I'm not getting in the lifting body vs capsule discussion... yet... <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[spacefire]

lifting bodies provide much better cross-range capabilities than a capsule. A lifting body could be landed like an airplane, without a parachute-like the X24,M2F2 were flown. However, a lifting body that flies in space will most likely pack a lot more weight in a frame as small as possible, which means its 'wing' loading will be much higher. That's where a parachute landing comes in. A steerable parafoil-see X37- can be used to bring it down nicely. Mind you, it is still an airctraft, it can maneuver, but without a parachute it would land at close to supersonic speeds <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I don't think that a vehicle like this should be taken to Mars. The third picture on space.com has a caption which states that it is the version that is supposed to go to Mars. It includes the lifting body re-entry vehicle.<br />I would like to see that replaced witha bigelow inflatable module. A bigger one can be used(more space inside), and it will still have a much lower mass than the reentry vehicle.<br />There remains the issue of docking with the earh return vehicle in LEO, which means that the returning craft will have to maneuver for that. That means that some propellant-or an airbraking module will have to be used, which increases the weight. Rather, the CEV in its current configuration will just plunge into the atmosphere, well, slowing down a bit before that, same way as the Apollo capsules landed when returning from the moon, in a descending spiral.<br />The current presidential policy envisions Apollo type missions where most of the stuff is discarded anyway, cheapest way for 'one shot' type of missions, which, as we have seen in the case of the Apollo program, did not support extended exploration and a possible permanent base on the moon.<br />Were the CEV based on a configuration where the habitation and engine modules would be parked in LEO at the completion of each mission, possibly dock with the ISS, they could be reused for future Missions.Tha <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"What is the proposed launch vehicle for this proposal?"</font><br /><br />After the latest merger news, ULA Dellas? I think ULA Atta would never fly in post 911 USA...

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...sadly dead against - even anti - Shuttle"</font><br /><br />You'd probably place me in that 'anti-Shuttle' camp, although I prefer to think I'm reasonably neutral. I'm not one of the vehement shuttle bashers that claim the whole program was a hoax from the very beginning. I think the shuttle is a wonder of engineering. However, I don't think *anyone* can logically argue that the shuttle has fulfilled the mission for which it was intended. It was supposed to fly often, reduce launch costs, carry civilian satellites to orbit, provide orbital repair services, the list goes on. Most of the jobs for which it was intended have been dropped as the true costs and dangers of the project have become apparent. By contrast -- Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo all <b>accomplished</b> the missions for which they were designed. I have a great deal of difficulty then in understanding the people who adamantly insist that:<br /><br />The shuttle is a step forward - /> <br /> The shuttle has wings - /><br /> Anything without wings is a step backward.<br /><br />Even if you grant the first statement (I don't) -- the remainder of the logic is fatuous. A winged or lifting body shape is no more <b>advanced</b> than a capsule shape. They are all simply different methods of doing the same thing. With no other data -- would you claim that a van is more advanced than a four-door sedan -- which in turn is more advenced than a two-door coupe? If so -- please explain the logic of that. Where do people get this notion that the <b>shape</b> of the spacecraft in question indicates how advanced it is. Winged spacecraft are *harder* to build than a capsule shaped one. This doesn't mean they're more advanced -- merely that the technology required to build them must be higher. This, in and of itself, <b>does not make them better</b>. What makes a spacecraft *advanced* is the technology that you stick inside of the base shape plus the engineering/materials th

 

[spacefire]

I'm not for the shuttle myself. I believe the future RLV will be a lifing body large enough that it can land like an aircraft. Something like the proposed Venture Star, or a fully resuable two stage design. I'd take a lifting body that lands with aparachute and skis too, as long as it doesn't drop in the water and then it costs hundreds of millions just to have it retrieved.<br />As I said before, the CEV should not include an earth lander, especially for missions to Mars. going to the moon, yeah, sure, it's only a few days in space.<br />but by the time we head to Mars, we should have enough infrastructure in orbit to allow the CEV to dock with the Earth Return Vehicle in LEO. The CEV should be fully reusable with a long life spent exclusively in space.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

I'd just like to add one point to mrmorris' excellent post: a winged, wheeled vehicle <b>has to</b> land on a runway, a capsule <i>can</i> land on a runway. LM's design calls for the ability to land anywhere on parachutes, but I'm willing to bet that as the design evolves we will see a gradual shift to runway landing.

 

[spacefire]

the russians have capsules who land on solid ground. I believe they have a retro-firing package to slow them down. for a bigger capsule, a bigger retro-package. Look at the soyuz ships, they leave 2/3 of the capsule in orbit, and still can carry only 3 people.<br />A lifting body has some forward movement under their parafoil, thus generates more lift and can land a lot more gently.<br />Conclusion: a big capsule(4 or more astronauts) that lands on solid ground is an unworthy endeavor. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[erauskydiver]

In my opinion, based on my 100,000 foot POV, I think the whole idea of a lifting body fits into the whole culture/ philosophy behind CEV. CEV is suppose to be able to be versitale enough to perform many different missions. It is true that for some missions, a winged vehicle is better than a capsule, and for some missions, a capsule is better than a winged vehicle. So, from a real high level prespective, I like the idea of taking both, and mashing them together to create a lifting body. <br /><br />Of course, I'll admit I have a biased opinion.

 

[spacefire]

anvel, a capsule creates a lot more drag than a lifting body, which, thugh blunt, still is shaped for forward movement. Vertically hanging a capsule of the Apollo type under a parafoil will not accomplish the goal of a soft landing.<br /><br />check this page for photos on the Rogallo equipped Gemini<br />http://www.getnet.com/~mjmackowski/ref/gem/gem1.html<br /><br /><br />I bet u were thinking about the Gemini suspended under a Rogallow wing which was supposed to land on solid ground. the Gemini capsule was small and its shape lent particularly well to tilting it on the side and hanging it, with skis to allow for forward movement during landing.<br />However, that could not be done on Apollo capsules, for obvious reasons-they were wider and a lot blunter than the Gemini. For the same reason, this approcah cannot be used on big cylindrical capsules like the one envisioned by Boeing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

ERAU, the lifting body indeed combines the best attributes of capsules and winged spaceplanes.<br />However, Lockheedls drawings show the lifting body reentry craft being sent to boht Moon and Mars, along with the rest of the CEV. I think that's very unrealistic, especially for long duration missions where a lot can happen to the spacecraft before it gets back to Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Vertically hanging a capsule of the Apollo type under a parafoil will not accomplish the goal of a soft landing.</i><p>It could if the parafoil 'flared' to kill its forward velocity just before touchdown.</p>

 

[spacefire]

or instead a Habitation module can be sent to Mars, come back, park itself in LEO and rendezvous with a reentry vehicle which can take the astronauts back to Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

in order to flare, you need forward movement. the draggy apollo type capsule will kill any forward movement long before it reaches ground, thus it will not be able to flare. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

For some reason a word just popped into my mind: DIMES

 

[najab]

I know. But the wings of the original Shuttle Orbiter design were small as well.<p>It's a bet I would be happy to lose, by the way.</p>