Lockheed Martin's CEV is winged!!

radarredux · May 5, 2005

> He does go on to say that we should not ignore lifting body research programs./i> Thought: Go with the capsule for now and stick the lifting body effort under a DARPA-style R&D effort that, assuming it proves itself, can be integrated into the operation at a later date. The capsule design is a known quantity with a low development cost, a low risk of development failure, and quicker to turn into an operational system. The lifting body design holds more potential, but the lack of experience using lifting bodies to return things from orbit, past development failures such as the X-38 effort, and general unknowns in development time and costs should raise some red flags, especially for putting something like this so early in the critical path. A screw up at this early stage (and a lot of NASA programs have been cancelled over the years because of increased cost or technical difficulties) could put the whole vision at risk. Alternatively, just go with a capsule, then let NASA promise $X dollars to launch people into space, and see if a commercial venture can come up with a more attractive offer. For example, if someone can claim Bigelow's America's Space Prize, they could also provide the service to NASA. If the Klipper ship becomes a reality, perhaps an American company can buy a few or license the design from Russia and offer NASA the service. Finally, of L-M honestly feels their design could provide greater capability at a lower operational cost than the capsule, let them invest IR&D funds to develop initial prototypes and, if successful, NASA could commit to buying a certain number of launches (like SpaceX's recent $100 million DOD contract), or NASA could step up and finish funding the development of L-M's design.

radarredux · May 5, 2005

> It's hard to argue with history, though. The one unsuccessful landing in lifting body history was due to the pilot being distracted./i> Outside the shuttle (which many might not claim is a true lifting body), how many times have a lifting body craft landed successfully after returning from orbit?

padrat · May 5, 2005

>>HL-10 DID achieve supersonic flight, to the limits of its 1946 vintage engines and limited propellant.<< In fact, all four designs reached supersonic speeds using the ubiquitous XLR-11. -Pad Rat-

padrat · May 5, 2005

>>Outside the shuttle (which many might not claim is a true lifting body), how many times have a lifting body craft landed successfully after returning from orbit?<< No one has attempted to return a lifting body to a runway from orbit yet. The early lifting entry experiments relied on parachute recovery over water. X-38 would've been the first attempt to put one on a runway. Do you believe it's not possible? -Pad Rat-

padrat · May 5, 2005

>>The lifting body design holds more potential, but the lack of experience using lifting bodies to return things from orbit, past development failures such as the X-38 effort, and general unknowns in development time and costs should raise some red flags, especially for putting something like this so early in the critical path.<< X-38 was most definitely NOT a development failure. The program was well on track to deliver the first spaceflight article when Bush decided to cancel it due to ISS cost overruns. NASA is now painfully aware of this error in judgement as it contemplates how to buy Soyuz vehicles from Russia without violating the INA law. -Pad Rat-

jurgens · May 5, 2005

The x-38 wasn't a failure, it was just cancelled.

henryhallam · May 5, 2005

As an aside regarding the X-38: The x-38 was intended to lead on to development of an emergency crew return vehicle, necessary to use the ISS to its full potential of 7 crewmembers. The CEV, with its long on-orbit lifetime, should provide this capability as well: Although it can only carry a crew of 4 (discounting any stretch versions), the Soyuz provides room for an additional 3, so with one of each parked at the station, there will be a way back for all the crew. Crew rotation would have to be carried out alternately with CEV and Soyuz launches. Any estimates for how many years Station can be kept in good maintenance?

jurgens · May 5, 2005

The Lockheed CEV can carry upto 6 people, and I assume it still has quite a bit of space in the rear that's not used for the crew (empty space), so in theory I think the Lockheed CEV could probablly ferry back down to earth more then 6 crew members from the ISS.

spacefire · May 5, 2005

back when the OSP was being proposed, a team of engineers suggested a design based on an improved Apollo capsule. their recomendationss can be read here : http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=9031 the capsule is compared to a winged vehicle, however, no comparison is attempted with a lifting body design. here's a few highlights from the article: "There was not agreement on the cost benefit of the use of extant Apollo documentation in the design of, what was agreed would be, a new vehicle with all new subsystems. However, it was judged that the development and manufacturing costs of an Apollo-derived CRV has the potential of lower cost than a winged vehicle die to its lower complexity level." agreed. it will be less complex than a winged vehicle. probably less complex than a lifting body as well. but is it worth such a retrograde step, when even its proponents agree that they will have to start from scratch with the design??? Does a capsule design have a future? Can the technology be expanded upon to provide reliable ,cheap transport to orbit? Can it be scaled up by a factor of 2-3? Can the design be adapted into a SSTO RLV? "The development of a terminal rocket landing system is suggested to enable a land recovery approach. The Soyuz system can serve as a reference model for the system. A weight penalty of approximately 500 lb was estimated based on recollections of earlier NASA studies. Land recovery issues are: side impact loads with obstructions, redundant rocket array, and rocket initiation sensors. There are available techniques and hardware to address this design without extraordinary risk. Alternatives to the rocket system include a parafoil parachute system (change from Apollo parachutes!), airbags, or load absorbing seats. <</safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

SpaceKiwi · May 5, 2005

news, you flew Phantoms? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

Aetius · May 5, 2005

I've always thought that the F4 Phantom was the coolest-looking fighter jet ever. It was my first model as a kid. It was also a pretty capable combat aircraft as well, with a very long service lifetime.

SpaceKiwi · May 5, 2005

aetius --- couldn't agree with you more, with that swept down nose they looked mean and meant business. I was also partial to the A4 Skyhawk, mainly because of the delta wing and the fact it's about the only fighter I've ever seen up close. Which is a sad indictment on our airforce, but that's for another time. news --- nice! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

spacefire · May 5, 2005

Several posters have commented on the problem of trying to flare a parachuting (parafoiling?) vehicle just prior to touchdown. That has nothing to do with the vehicle's shape. Almost any parachute can be flared. The 'flare' is from the parachute/parafoil, not the vehicle. The craft is essentially a dead weight however, a capsule under a parafoil is different from a lifting body under a parafoil. The shape of the capsule, with a large cross section, will kill the forward momentum of the combination, essentially bringing it down almost vertically and negating the advantage a parafoil will have versus a circular chute. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

najab · May 5, 2005

>...essentially bringing it down almost vertically...But this is a very good thing!!!

mrmorris · May 5, 2005

Can't... Stand... Bad... Data... OK. I'll make one more attempt to talk to you. I find it very amusing that the Apollo CM as CRV proposal which you're using as an argument against the feasibility of the Apollo CM is one I used in the G-X3 thread as an argument for it. The difference in slant, however can be explained largely by your choices of text sections to cut & paste. You seemed to have missed pasting the following pieces from the report into your post: "The Apollo CSM proved to be a highly successful, rugged, and robust system. The Apollo system was intrinsically simple. The Command Module (CM), with its ablator heat shield and internal systems afforded a low risk entry and recovery system. The Apollo systems were thoroughly analyzed, validated, developed, tested, qualified, and used operationally in earth orbit, in expeditions to the moon, and in entry at speeds 50% greater than that from low earth orbit. The extant drawings/microfiche for all Apollo systems and subsystems plus the library of reports from all specifications, test, qualification, and operational results would be of use as guidance in the design of a derivative system. There are still many experts in Apollo systems, some still in the aerospace community, and some in retirement. They could offer (part-time) advice and technical support at some level and in so doing, transfer some knowledge and experience to a new generation of designers. The virtually full-envelope abort and recovery system provided a very high level of safety for the crew. The Launch Escape System LES) itself was a very simple but robust system to provide for crew escape starting from the pad through the most critical ascent phase. " I might make note that the quote of: "and in entry at speeds 50% greater than that from low earth orb

starfhury · May 5, 2005

Padrat, Although I mentioned it in one of my post, thanks again for bringing up a pretty important point people over look. Like I said I was down at the Cape and I sat inside the mock up of the Apollo and Mercury capsules. These things just plain lack for space period. In comparison to the presences of the Shuttle, I was completely underwhelmed by them. Sure we can build capsules cheaper based purely on size, but they don't capture the imagination and are just plain uninspiring. Going to capsule designs only means we are afraid of taking on challenges. If that's our attitude, then we don't belong in space. They used capsules in the sixties because of the technology readiness level and the expediousness of using the capsule. Creating capsules from old technology is not going to push the envelope, it's just not bold enough. We are trying to become a interplanetary society here. Timidity in the face of the challenges we face will lead to slow or no progress at all. Not to mention, I doubt that the capsule is going to grow our space enterprises by leaps and bounds. Had the shuttle not been so expensive and was able to fly the intend 25+ missions per year opening space would have been so much easier and further along. Concerning the fragility issue that was brought up. A commerical airline is incrediblely fragile. Operating one anywhere outside it's flight envelope is almost a sure fire recipe for disaster. Maintain and operate it properly and it's one of the safest means of mass transport invented yet. We need to arrive at this point with our shuttle replacement. Any way you cut it, going to a capsule will be a reduction in more ways than one in capabilities since the shuttle era. Why would we need an HLV when flying a few capsules? Why would we need to invented better performing heat shields? Why bother building even better, more powerful rocket motors when existing inventories will suffice? Why advance at all? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

rybanis · May 6, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Although I mentioned it in one of my post, thanks again for bringing up a pretty important point people over look. Like I said I was down at the Cape and I sat inside the mock up of the Apollo and Mercury capsules. These things just plain lack for space period. In comparison to the presences of the Shuttle, I was completely underwhelmed by them. Sure we can build capsules cheaper based purely on size, but they don't capture the imagination and are just plain uninspiring. Going to capsule designs only means we are afraid of taking on challenges. If that's our attitude, then we don't belong in space. They used capsules in the sixties because of the technology readiness level and the expediousness of using the capsule. Creating capsules from old technology is not going to push the envelope, it's just not bold enough. We are trying to become a interplanetary society here. Timidity in the face of the challenges we face will lead to slow or no progress at all. Not to mention, I doubt that the capsule is going to grow our space enterprises by leaps and bounds. Had the shuttle not been so expensive and was able to fly the intend 25+ missions per year opening space would have been so much easier and further along<hr /></blockquote> First of all, the Apollo and Mercury capsules had a lot of their internal space taken up by computers that were wonders for their time. THEIR time. I have more processing power in my graphing calculator. A capsule built today would have much more space on the inside, because they can do so much MORE with so little. And as for the second part, I would sure like to see the data sheet that proves that capsules are less inspiring than lifting bodies. Lifting body =/= X-Wing <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mrmorris · May 6, 2005

OK -- I told you I'd work up an estimate of the mass and volume of an upsized Apollo CM. Let's start with some stats from the original: Length: 3.47 m. Maximum Diameter: 3.90 m. Habitable Volume: 6.17 m3. Mass: 5,806 kg. Structure Mass: 1,567 kg. Essentially the 'habitable area' that we're interested in falls into a truncated cone that is 3.90 m in diameter across the base, ~1 meter in diameter across the 'truncated' top (i.e. where the docking tunnel starts), and ~3 m in height from the base to the start of the docking tunnel. Working out the gross volume for these dimensions we get (I'm lazy -- so using this calculator -- feel free to doublecheck by hand if you so desire) a volume of 15.79 m3. That's gross volume of course. The outer structure is not of zero thickness, so only about 95% of that is actual space *inside* the shell of the cone. 95% of 15.75 works out to 15.005 -- so we'll just use 15 as a starting figure. 6.17m3 was the space available for the crew, so ~9.8 m3 was used up by equipment, the pressure vessel, etc. I've read that Boeing has suggested widening the base of the upsized CM to 5m. This makes sense, as that's the fairing size for the Delta IV heavy. The capsule will also be taller, so we'll assume a height-to-docking-tunnel of 4m rather than the 3m of the original Apollo. We'll stick with the 1m docking tunnel. Plugging these figures into the calculator, we get: 32.46 m3. So -- adding a meter of diameter at the base, and a meter of height *doubles* the gross internal volume (this is the magic of volumetrically efficient shapes). 95% of that number is 30.837. I'll round down to 38.5 as the space for equipment and people inside the outer shell. The volume required for equipment in the modern CM should go down from the original Apollo. The gyroscopes, computer, star-tracking telesc

padrat · May 6, 2005

>>Creating capsules from old technology is not going to push the envelope, it's just not bold enough.<< The objective of the CEV procurement is not to inspire, it's to develop an affordable crew transport that can evolve. In fact, NASA is actually hoping that the task can be done without the need for bleeding edge technology development - it's called risk reduction, and it keeps programs from getting canceled by cost/schedule overruns. If capsules meet the customer's requirements, then so be it. If a lifting shape is found to be a better match to NASA's requirement, then so be it. This is not about developing systems that look cool; it's about developing systems that get the job done and can be fielded for a somewhat reasonable price. If you want inspiration from vehicle shapes, stick to science fiction movies.

mrmorris · May 6, 2005

"These things just plain lack for space period. " You're dismissing capsules, which will provide the maximum volume for a given weight, because there's not enough volume. Work on this thought for a few seconds. "In comparison to the presences of the Shuttle, I was completely underwhelmed by them. Sure we can build capsules cheaper based purely on size, but they don't capture the imagination and are just plain uninspiring." If you're not inspired by Apollo, then there's no hope for you. What's inspiring about that achievement was primarily where they *went* -- not the vehicle that carried them there. If you look at Kittyhawk next to an SR-71 -- it sorta looks... uninspiring. The SHAPE used to create the CEV is nothing more than a wrapper. What is important is the contents, not how pretty the design created by the marketing department. A modern capsule for the CEV is going to start out with a much larger volume than the Apollo, and modern tech on the inside is going to make much better use of that volume. The result would not be the sardine cans of the 1960s.

erauskydiver · May 6, 2005

I really dont think the inspiration factor should be ignored when selecting a configuration. Inspiration is important. It is the general public that pays for this, that needs to support this, that needs to produce the engineers to design and operate this. This is all subjective and opinionative (sp?) of course. It would be interesting to poll the public and ask them which configurations have a higher inspiration factor. I used to be a camp counselor at Space Camp, FL (R.I.P.). Let me tell ya... as much as we taught those kids about the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo spacecraft and missions, it was always the Space Shuttle that seemed to get them the most excited. And if it is a winged vehicle that inspires a child to go into engineering instead of professional sports or some other useless career, then I say go with a winged vehicle. Engineers are what keep this country going... that is most important. I'm not saying choose the vehicle on inspiration factor alone, but I am saying that both configurations have their merits and drawbacks. I dont think inspiration factor should be ignored. Public opinion is very important.

mrmorris · May 6, 2005

"Let me tell ya... as much as we taught those kids about the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo spacecraft and missions, it was always the Space Shuttle that seemed to get them the most excited. " Um... yes? Children rarely find history exciting. Even space history. Especially when there's space present which is larger and right in front of them. They can't easily imagine themselves as an Apollo astronaut because Apollo is no more. In a hypothetical ten years, when the shuttle is five-years retired and there's a capsule-based CEV launching from the Cape -- I wonder which program the kiddies would find exciting. "Public opinion is very important." Indeed. And what the public wants is for NASA to get results from the money being invested in it. A capsule-based CEV will be able to get better results, faster and cheaper than a lifting body. It's also much less likely to kill astronauts -- something I would hope you agree affects public opinion rather negatively.

smradoch · May 6, 2005

Thankx mrmorris for the post. I wouldn't write it better. But one problem is with the crew. I would expect that 3 astronauts are enough for the Lunar mission and instead of the rest of crew you can take more equipment. I think that seats build in to the floor would spare some room. Also positions of astronauts through reentry is highly superior to the winged approach. Which eliminates higher g through reentry (I guess).

padrat · May 6, 2005

>>A capsule-based CEV will be able to get better results, faster and cheaper than a lifting body. It's also much less likely to kill astronauts -- something I would hope you agree affects public opinion rather negatively. << I'd have to change that "will" to "may". There are a lot of things unrelated to a basic shape which affect results (I guess you mean mission performance), cost and schedule. I also don't see how you can say they're less likely to kill crews. Capsules aren't the only shape that can be made passively stable during reentry, or successfully perform a launch abort. -Pad Rat-

tap_sa · May 6, 2005

"I really dont think the inspiration factor should be ignored when selecting a configuration." Wrap an inspiring winged sabot around the capsule for launch media hoopla, discard the sabbot when the rocket is beyond eyesight <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

Lockheed Martin's CEV is winged!!

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

padrat

Guest

padrat

Guest

padrat

Guest

jurgens

Guest

henryhallam

Guest

jurgens

Guest

spacefire

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

Aetius

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

spacefire

Guest

najab

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

starfhury

Guest

rybanis

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

padrat

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

erauskydiver

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

smradoch

Guest

padrat

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page