Lockheed Martin's CEV is winged!!

nacnud · May 4, 2005

Conclusion: a big capsule(4 or more astronauts) that lands on solid ground is an unworthy endeavour. Rubbish, total rubbish. The Russians can sell a seat on the Soyuz for $20M and throw in all the training and still make a PROFIT. I'd love to see NASA or any big American company try that. The reason why they can do this it the very clever design of the Soyuz. It would be entirely possible to scale up this design to accommodate more people. As for the landing system a combination of parachutes, air bags, shock absorbing seats and braking rockets similar to those used on the MERs, could easily soften the landing much more than the current design.

spacefire · May 4, 2005

yeah if you don't plan on reusing them, setting a base on Mars, colonizing the solar system, all those things that are so 'meaningless' to just getting to Mars and winning some votes from the high-tech crowd

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

spacefire · May 4, 2005

to NACNUD: umm yeah, have you kept in touch with current events nacnud? go to Encyclopedia Astronautica and do a search for Kliper, then tell me if it is a capsule or a lifting body. It would be nice if the US would concentrate on getting to Mars and use the Kliper as an Earth Return Vehicle...but then it would mean giving up its manned launch capabilities altogether. Which the US doesn't have at this moment anyway! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

nacnud · May 4, 2005

Yeah the Kliper is a GREAT design, very clever ideas involved in that design that really help to keep the weight down. My favourite is the use of the escape motors to add delta-v near the end of the burn. It is a lifting body and that is ok the flat iron shape is a good design. There is even sketches of a Kliper design with wings capable of runway landings. However I think a capsule could be even lighter than the Kliper and use a smaller launch vehicle or have a greater payload. There is a whole range of lifting body designs from the Kliper and biconics at one end through designs like the X-38 and the BOR-4 right through to mini shuttles like the Hermes and Hope space planes. I think that the costs involved increase as the more plane like the design becomes, not just because they mass more but because they cost more to develop. I would rather spend that money on missions rather than on designs.

spacefire · May 4, 2005

but what about the added recovery costs for capsules? I just read about Bor-4 testbed which indeed splashed down in the ocean but had it gone to full scale it would have probably had a landing gear-see HL-42 design investigated by NASA /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

nacnud · May 4, 2005

How much dose it cost to hire a sea king for a couple of hours? Better yet use a Chinook, they can lift 12,000kg roughly the dry mass of a large capsule or kliper. A capsule can be design to soft land on land to an acuracy of around a mile, or less.

spacefire · May 4, 2005

If you read about the apollo program, you will see that the capsules were indeed helicoptered-but to an aircraft carrier! They never risked landing close to the shore. Renting an aircraft carrier for a week costs a lot! Like I said before, a large capsule that lands on solid ground will prove to be more expensive to build than a lifting body, because of the added braking systems, larger parachutes, crew protection , and so on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

nacnud · May 4, 2005

What about the weight of the wings, areodynamic control surfaces, landing gear, and extra TPS of a lifting body.? To be honest neither of use can realisticaly cost the difference without a lot of research but I still feel a simple capsule would be of more utility and cost less.

mrmorris · May 4, 2005

"They never risked landing close to the shore." They never had to, for one. The Apollos *had* to land in water -- ergo an ocean landing was a given. When the services of the Navy are available and a landing in the middle of the Pacific isn't unreasonable -- why *not* do so. You increase the fudge factor of safety. Apollo never had a goal of being economical. However -- the Apollos had a targeting accuracy of about a mile from their indended impact point, so landing closer to shore was certainly a possibility -- just not one that made sense at the time. "...a large capsule that lands on solid ground will prove to be more expensive to build than a lifting body, because of the added braking systems, larger parachutes, crew protection" You're wrong. An Apollo-style capsule capable of holding 5-6 poeple would be little if any larger than the original due to the decreased weight/size of modern electronics. I've demonstrated that with specific COTS equipment (generally complete with URL links) in my Gemini-X3 thread. There have already been studies on adding a SRM braking system to an Apollo capsule, along with a shock-absorbing heat shield specifically for a land landing. It's certainly possible, and development costs won't come anywhere *near* those required to develop a completely new system from scratch.

tap_sa · May 4, 2005

"the capsules were indeed helicoptered-but to an aircraft carrier! They never risked landing close to the shore. Renting an aircraft carrier for a week costs a lot!" Is there a rule that a capsule must be recovered by a carrier battle group, lifted by helicopter etc? What if the recovery fleet would consist of one relatively small ship, something that can carry a small helicopter and has a crane (like captain Cousteau's Calypso, a used minesweeper turned into marine research vessel). While capsule is still in the air but landing position is clear the ship would be going there full ahead and the chopper would take off. When capsule lands chopper is already there, drops couple divers and maybe some supplies to secure the capsule (just like Gemini/Apollo so far). Then the chopper won't even try to lift the capsule. If astronauts woud need urgent medical attention they would be lifted and helicoptered to the ship (or land if it's nearer), otherwise chopper returns to the ship whose arrivala astronauts/divers would leisurely wait. Ship would lift the craft using crane, hose it with fresh water, pop a champagne for succesful recovery and head home.

mrmorris · May 4, 2005

"...pop a champagne for succesful recovery and head home. " I dont know. spacefire is really concerned about recovery costs. You'd have to pick a cheap champagne. Couldn't you toast with some Milwaukee's Best instead?

spacefire · May 4, 2005

I believe that with all the research put into lifting bodies, you would hardly start from scratch. You talk about scaling up an Apollo capsule, which will be lighter because of advances in electronics. You are willing to forego all the advantages of modern materials, refined aerodynamics just to get it built quickly. I don't think that view is shared by Boeing, and I believe a Capsule component of the CEV will be as much of a new design as the lifting body option. Even so- A capsule, if it is chosen to land on solid ground, will probably do so in a pretty barren region, to minimize the risk to those on the ground. The Russians do not land theirs next to the launch pad where they took off from

While the recovery costs will not be anywhere as much as for a water splashdown, they will still involve a large number of people who will have to get to a remote location in a very short time. Unless you double-team, that will play havoc with the turnaround time too, meaning you can't use the system for complex missions involving multiple crews. I don't think a year-long mission to Mars will be sent off with less than 6 people aboard- and even that number is insufficient for scientific research. So either you have a really big capsule-less efficient weightwise than a lifting body spacecraft, also hard to launch because of its large diameter, or you use two capsules for returning the crew to Earth. As I said before, you will need a lot of people even for a land recovery. What I'm trying to say, the capsule is not a good option for the CEV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

tap_sa · May 4, 2005

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> It looks like the Milwaukee's Best would lead to increased fresh water consumtion, toasters hosing their mouths... But seriously, what do you think, is there anything seriously flawed in the recovery method I outlined? The risk of loosing the spacecraft might be a little greater, it might get swallowed by a seamonster while the recovery ship is on it's way. Astronauts would be attended just as fast as in Gemini/Apollo era. If there would be imminent danger of sinking the capsule then the divers would assist astronauts out to a rescue raft. I bet renting a carrier battle group for a week costs more than a new capsule. You might need more than one ship, deployed around the globe to have back-up landing areas, but I'd say the cost of retrofitting one ship is something like $10M-20M. Russia might have some real dollars-for-pennies gems rusting in their fleet.

mrmorris · May 4, 2005

"is there anything seriously flawed in the recovery method I outlined" Nope -- seems reasonable enough. I'd still prefer avoiding dunking the ship in seawater if at all possible. However -- this might well be a good option -- at least at the beginning while you obtain real-world data on the accuracy of the impact site targeting for the capsule and determining where any debris from trailing de-orbit stages will end up.

mrmorris · May 4, 2005

"You are willing to forego ..." I'm not willing to forego anything. If anything -- you understate how different a new capsule would be from Apollo. All of the tooling is gone. The blueprints would have to be converted to CAD files. Any of the mechanical parts that were COTS won't be available anymore. The complete change in the layout due to additional people and equipment changes will move the cg from where it was in the original. New materials and Thermal Protection systems will introduce changes in thicknesses and tolerances. The list goes on. However, the concept is known to work. There is no uncertainty whatsoever that a capsule-based system can be made and can provide safe & targeted returns from space. There is zero technology that needs to be developed to make a workable spacecraft in this fashion. There are huge amounts of documentation on the Apollo project -- what they tried, what worked, what didn't. There's inordinate amounts of empirical data on how the Apollo shape behaves as it re-enters atmosphere from lunar trajectories as well as data on how it re-enters from LEO trajectories. The parachute systems designed for the Apollo underwent *HUGE* amounts of testing and redesign to make them as foolproof as possible. As with the previous paragraph... the list goes on. Starting with the legacy of the Apollo program -- building a new CEV using a similar system will give a contractor a *huge* leg up in the development cycle. What I'm trying to say is: the capsule is a great option for the CEV.

jurgens · May 4, 2005

Not to mention, MANY people here are forgetting the fact that the CEV used for Mars will be different then the CEV used for LEO/Lunar. Lockheed is designing their CEV so that is upgradeable when better materials technology and electronics come down the line. Also ive said it before, and I will say it again, I believe that the Lockheed Martin CEV will be capable of bringing down more mass then a capsule based design, which would be good when they want to bring back stuff from mars or the moon. ALSO, it provides the garbage role for the ISS better.

rybanis · May 4, 2005

I'm going to have to say, I like the Boeing version better. Seems much more modular in nature, along with having a nice capsule (cheap) to round it off. Then again, I've always been a function />form guy myself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jurgens · May 4, 2005

Care to back up how it is more modular?

radarredux · May 4, 2005

> Starting with the legacy of the Apollo program -- building a new CEV using a similar system will give a contractor a *huge* leg up in the development cycle./i> This was the first of several questions I had: <ul type="square"><li>What is the development cost and risks of a simple capsule versus a lifting body? It seems that if you want to get back to space quickly and with a fair amount of certainty, going with the a well known design makes sense. </li></ul><ul type="square"><li>Are the companies expected to put up their own dollars to develop the craft? I seem to recall the X-33 contract originally had LM spending a lot of their own money, but only in the later stages of the contract (e.g., after all the risks had been taken out). Ultimately the X-33 was canceled before LM needed to spend a lot of their money. </li></ul><ul type="square"><li>Is the LM design a "Venture Star Lite" without the troublesome Linear Areospike engine and composite fuel tank or a X-38 Next Generation? In other words, is LM leveraging the X-33 and X-38 experience but leaving out the uncertainties of new technologies like the aerospike engine. </li></ul><ul type="square"><li>Would a non-symmetric shape of a lifting body affect the launch platforms (and launch platform availability)? I have heard several times (and I believe Griffin's Planetary Society report mentioned it), that being able to use multiple boosters (e.g., an EELV, a Russian vehicle, and/or an Ariane) would be financially advantageous and reduce risk of long-term grounding. </li></ul><ul type="square"><li>Is NASA still going to select two or more vehicles and fund them to an initial fly-off? It seems this would answer a number of questions. </li></ul>

jurgens · May 4, 2005

I don't believe the Aerospike engine was the problem with the X-33, the problem was with the composite fuel tanks.

spacefire · May 4, 2005

However, the concept is known to work. Lifting body spacecraft have flown in orbit and back-look up Bor at www.astronautix.com. The aerodynamics of lifting bodies have been investigated since the 60s. Please don't tell me that fear of a higher development cost is the reason to be stuck with a capsule design. As I said before, a capsule to carry more than 3 people for extended periods of time is highly impractical as an analogy, think of the attempts to build big biplane passenger planes in the 20s and 30s. Sure, they flew, and they followed the conventional, proven biplane design, but how practical were they? The drag was immense, curtailing their payloads and ranges and airspeeds.They squickly faded away in face of competition from monoplanes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

spacefire · May 4, 2005

the analogy is not faulty: better technology emerged in the 30s, like high lift devices which lowered the take-off/landing speeds and distances and allowed great airliners like the DC3 here's the Condor http://www.prop-liners.com/condortech.htm and here's the DC3 http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/DC-3/Aero29.htm note they are almost contemporary designs, yet only 45 Condors were built. While the DC3 still serves. Same way, like it was pointed out before in this thread, a lifting body vehicle will allow for expansion of our manned launch capabilities. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

mrmorris · May 4, 2005

"Please don't tell me that fear of a higher development cost is the reason to be stuck with a capsule design. " Well -- first of all -- as I think my posts here indicate -- I don't think that having a capsule-based CEV is a bad thing. Therefore -- it's not a matter of being 'stuck' with a capsule-based design so much as it is one of being 'graced' with one. Second -- lower development costs is only one of the many reasons that I think a capsule design is the right choice. Some others are: - Lower risk of developmental failure. - Faster time to production. - Provides better dry mass minimization. - Inherently safer re-entry scenario. - Simpler design results in fewer parts and fewer points of failure. - Avionics are much simpler and *much* less prone to a critical failure. - Consequences of a TPS failure/burn-through are much less catastrophic. - TPS is protected during the entire boost phase. - LES that provides abort options at all points of the boost phase is a known quantity. The only thing I'm aware of that you're getting out of the lifting body is more cross range and sex appeal. If you have more than that to offer, please do.

spacefire · May 4, 2005

"- Lower risk of developmental failure." like I said before, we have more than 40 years of lifting body research behind us, probably more aerodynamic research than was done on capsules.80s and 90s did not see much research into capsules, not that I am aware of, whereas many lifting body configurations were investigates: Bor, HL42, X33, X38... " - Faster time to production. "Not necesasarily. It was admitted earlier in the thread that all the tooling for the Apollo program was detroyed. Essentially productioon would start from scratch, the same as with a totally new design." - Provides better dry mass minimization. "I maintain that parachutes and braking systems, possible airbags, will make a large capsule heavier than a lifting body of same payload capacity." - Inherently safer re-entry scenario. "lifting bodies were designed to 'improve' on the blunt re-entry shape used with missile warheads and capsules. Therefore they are inherently better and safer." - Simpler design results in fewer parts and fewer points of failure. "the design will not be simpler, see my response to the third point you made" - Avionics are much simpler and *much* less prone to a critical failure. "avionics do not need to be simpler, they need to be redundant. Avionics technology is quite mature by now" - Consequences of a TPS failure/burn-through are much less catastrophic. "I admit that the lifting body design has control surfaces which are a bit harder to protect, but they are small and do not need to have doors house the landing gear or any subsystems, therefore a Columbia type acident is out of the question. Plus, they do not bear the brunt of the re-entry, most of the heat is dissipated by the area under the nose." - TPS is protected during the entire boost phase. "Ok, I give you that one." - LES that provides abort options at all points of the boost phase is a known quantity. "whatever LES means, I believe the abort <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

rubicondsrv · May 4, 2005

I belive he is talking about bohr 4. more here: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bor4.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Lockheed Martin's CEV is winged!!

nacnud

Guest

spacefire

Guest

spacefire

Guest

nacnud

Guest

spacefire

Guest

nacnud

Guest

spacefire

Guest

nacnud

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

spacefire

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

jurgens

Guest

rybanis

Guest

jurgens

Guest

radarredux

Guest

jurgens

Guest

spacefire

Guest

spacefire

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

spacefire

Guest

rubicondsrv

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page