Lockheed Martin's CEV is winged!!

[elguapoguano]

The inspirational factor is a consideration. Even for the educated, Shuttle gives you more of a wow factor than the Apollo CSM. I have been to Udvar-Hazey and stood between Shuttle Enterprise and an Apollo return Capsule. Even though Apollo flew way more cool missions, The hardware looks pretty unimpressive next to Enterprise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[starfhury]

So let me get this, it's not the shape that's important, but the content inside? Is that correct? Yet, the argument for the capsule is based on it's shape. Remember what Kennedy said in his speech. "We do this not because it's easy, but because it's hard." The capsule is the easy way out. We will not be extending our technology much by using the capsule design. In sequence, the Gemini was a major advance or Mercury. Apollo even more so over Gemini, and the shuttle an even bigger advance over Apollo. How does this new CEV show any significant advance over the shuttle? The capsule is a conservative approach that's not going to extent our knowlege very far compared to building a lifting body design. The focus here is too much on minimization. Who want's to minimize their profits, or minimize their portfolio? <br /><br />The shuttle, like Saturn is impressive based on its size and capabilites. The full on Saturn rocket is very impressive and imposing, but when you compare it to the Apollo CM sections it's less so. Ofcourse this is because it has to go all the way to the moon, but standing there underneath it, you can't really comprehend how far it goes or why the Apollo is so small and cramped. On the ground, you can appreciate the scale of these vehicles, in which case the Apollo comes out lacking because the distance each goes is not really a factor just observing them on the ground. I think capsule CEV will suffer from this, because people will ask what are the getting for the billions spent? <br /><br />What we really need to do is look more long term. Some people who like the capsule CEV like it because nothing new really has to be developed for it thus making it cheaper and quicker to produce. I think when all is said and done, that's the basic argument for the capsule design. It's not even about volumetric efficiency or even the shape of the capsule it. This would be the equivelent of saying at the turn of the last century that another horse and buggy can <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="orange">"A capsule-based CEV will be able to get better results, faster and cheaper than a lifting body. "</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I'd have to change that "will" to "may". "</font><br /><br />Tell you what -- I'll change it to 'should'. It definitely 'should' be able to be developed faster and cheaper than an equivalent lifting body -- I don't think you'll disagree with that. The question really is how efficient it will be <b>operationally</b> than a capsule. Unless I'm missing something (please let me know if I am), there are really only two tangibles and one potential intangible benifits of using a lifting body over a capsule:<br /><br />Tangibles: -- Greater crossrange. Lower G-forces during atmospheric re-entry.<br />Intangibles: Public perception/sexiness of lifting body over capsule.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"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. "</font><br /><br />They're the only spacecraft of that have been developed that have demonstrated both of those capabilities so far. I'm pretty sure that you know enough engineering to understand my comment in an earlier post about the avionics going kaput on re-entry in which event a lifting body dies, but a capsule lands off-target. Do you disagree with this? <br /><br />Do you know just how robust the LES systems were for Apollo or how much failsafing was involved in the parachute system? If so, would you agree that meeting that level of failsafing is going to be a difficult task?<br /><br />If the LockMart lifting body one which offers a passively stable re-entry?

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"In sequence, the Gemini was a major advance or Mercury. Apollo even more so over Gemini, and the shuttle an even bigger advance over Apollo."</font><br /><br />This may sound more shuttle-bashing that I would like to intent but still; the Shuttle's major advancement over Apollo is similar to Spruce Goose's major advancement over DC-3 <br /><br />(and the Spruce has bigger museum wow-factor than DC-3, just like Enterprise versus Apollo CM <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />)

 

[najab]

><i>In sequence, the Gemini was a major advance or Mercury. Apollo even more so over Gemini, and the shuttle an even bigger advance over Apollo.</i><p>I have two problems with that evaluation. First off, Gemini was just as sophisticated as the Apollo CM, maybe not as complex, but the design was really slick and had a lot of capability that was never exercised during the 10 manned missions. (This isn't suprising considering that they were developed in parallel.)<p>Second, comparing Apollo and Shuttle is like comparing airliners to motorbikes - they are designed for completely different tasks. The Shuttle system and the Apollo-Saturn system each represent the best of their breed, but they are different vastly different animals.</p></p>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Apollo even more so over Gemini"</font><br /><br />Apollo and Gemini were largely contemporary designs. In some ways, the Gemini was more advanced -- it simply had less of a mass budget to work with. But good try.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"How does this new CEV show any significant advance over the shuttle?"</font><br /><br />You're confusing the vehicle with the mission. The mission is to get out of LEO -- specifically to the Moon and eventually Mars. Both of these goals are quite hard. There's no need to start off a 20 mile marathon by shooting yourself in the foot to make it 'more challenging'. Granted -- I can see the public appeal of that -- the headlines would be great 'Man with Bullet in foot wins Boston Marathon!'. The smaller article right below that with the headline 'Boston Marathon winner dies of blood loss minutes after victory' is completely immaterial, of course.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"I think capsule CEV will suffer from this, because people will ask what are the getting for the billions spent? "</font><br /><br />Kind of like the questions being asked now about the shuttle -- because it doesn't do the job it was supposed to? The *goal* is not to design a spacecraft. The goal is to get to the Moon and Mars. Part of what will determine our success in that goal depends on the amount of mass we can shift to those targets. Carrying along the extra mass of a lifting body reduces the amount of <b>useful</b> mass that could have been taken. This would be unforgivably stupid and might well endanger the actual goals of the MtM concept.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Some people who like the capsule CEV like it because nothing new really has to be developed for it thus making it cheaper and quicker to produce. I think when all is said and done, that's the basic argument for the capsule design. It's not even about volumetric efficiency or even the shape of the capsule it. "</font>

 

[starfhury]

"Second, comparing Apollo and Shuttle is like comparing airliners to motorbikes - they are designed for completely different tasks. The Shuttle system and the Apollo-Saturn system each represent the best of their breed, but they are different vastly different animals."<br /><br />I suppose it's more semantics than not, but motorbikes and airliners are designed for the same task if you define it as transporting someone from point A to poing B. It's the scale and implementations that are different. Perhaps I was not as precise as I could have been in comparing Mecury/Gemini/Apollo/Shuttle, but I don't think it negates my arguments reagrading which version of the CEV is finally selected. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[starfhury]

mrmorris: "The goal is to get to the Moon and Mars."<br /><br />I have to disagree with this, but not completely. It's a matter of scope. The goal is space exploration, MtM is only a part of it. Important as the other technology which needs to be developed are, the CEV will be the lynch pin of the system. If we skimp here, we will have incentive and tacit approval to skimp every where else. If you plan for MtM like we planned for Apollo, then after the goal is accomplished what then? On a deeper level, I think what we have here is a philosophical argument. Doing the absolute minimum necessary to accomplish a very tightly focus goal or taking a more expansive view and creating a range of options. <br /><br />mrmorris "The task at hand is hard enough -- arguing for the lifting body over the capsule because its harder is simply ridiculous."<br /><br />No. The argument here is that you learn more by doing more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"If we skimp here..."</font><br /><br />If the issue were about depriving the mission of some useful funtion, that argument <b>might</b> make sense. However, it is not. A lifting body has moderate utility over a capsule at exactly *one* point in the mission -- re-entry. As was mentioned earlier in the thread -- if the mission were simply Ground->Leo->Ground, repeat -- then this would be providing some utility during a significant percentage of the mission (although not 50% as was indicated, since the mission mainly takes place while *in* orbit). The <b>mission</b> is to get to the moon and Mars. The extra mass of the lifting body then is a drag on the efficiency of the mission through launch, transit to the Moon/Mars, trasit back <b>from</b> the Moon/Mars -- only to provide a modest benefit on re-entry.<br /><br />The question is not whether we should 'skimp' on the CEV by using a capsule, but whether we whould spend more development time and money to 'saddle' ourselves with a lifting-body CEV that is not suited for the job it's intended for.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"The argument here is that you learn more by doing more. "</font><br /><br />Indeed, much like you'd learn more by using a screwdriver to drive nails. It's not nearly as efficient as using a hammer -- but you learn more about... about... about how stupid you were not to buy a hammer in the first place.

 

[padrat]

>>I'll change it to 'should'.<<<br /><br />Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable choice. After all, it's a much simpler shape; makes trajectory modeling simpler, and offers simpler construction. The proof is in the execution,though, and that depends on the prime contractor.<br /><br /> />>Intangibles: Public perception/sexiness of lifting body over capsule.<<<br /><br />I know we can forget about this one having any impact on design. The contractors don't care what it looks like if it meets customer requirements. Regardless of what others here have said about appearance, "coolness" is not one of the design requirements, nor is public opinion. This ain't no fashion show.<br /><br /> />>I'm pretty sure that you know enough engineering to understand my comment in an earlier post about the avionics going kaput on re-entry in which event a lifting body dies, but a capsule lands off-target. Do you disagree with this?<<<br /><br />I agree that a design which requires avionics for stable entry(hence an "active" design, not a passive one) would definitely experience a bad day if the boxes went tango uniform. However, there are lifting entry designs that can provide passive entry. <br /><br />From what little I've seen of the LM design, it may be one. The data gleaned from ASSET & PRIME was quite useful in ascertaining the lifting entry environment, and I do know that LM has studied that data. ASSET itself, a very simple design, was quite close to being passively stable.<br /><br /> />>Do you know just how robust the LES systems were for Apollo or how much failsafing was involved in the parachute system? If so, would you agree that meeting that level of failsafing is going to be a difficult task?<<<br /><br />Actually, yeah, I do. I'm almost certain that LM has not included the LES in their CEV artwork. The liquid prop system that shows up in the cutaways wouldn't be good enough for abort. The design looks like it could accommodate either a tower o

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Do you believe it's [lifting body] not possible?</font>/i><br /><br />No. I am perfectly willing to believe that a lifting body could be a superior design.<br /><br />The problem in my opinion is program risk.<br /><br />The Planetary Society study/report (which Michael Griffin co-led) emphasized heavy reuse of existing capabilities such as the shuttle SRM for an initial CEV booster and a shuttle-derived HLV.<br /><br />Likewise, Griffin has said on several occasions (example), and now there is a formal effort starting to reduce or eliminate the gap between shuttle retirement and CEV operations.<br /><br />My reading of such efforts is they want a quick, inexpensive solution with low risk of delays or failures. IMHO, that would favor a capsule design.<br /><br />If I had a magic wand I would put the capsule on the Development path while starting an R&D effort to gain additional expertise with lifting bodies. IMHO the overall vision's architecture should <b><i>not</i></b> be bound to the initial shape of the Earth re-entry vehicle, so in the future a Klipper, Rutan design, SpaceX effort, or a L-M lifting body solution could be used as well.</i>

 

[starfhury]

The argument whether to use a capsule or lifting body design is based heavily on operations in earth's atmosphere. In space, the exterior design is irrelevent. You can make a box, square, cone or what ever else you like. There's no atmosphere to consider. Even in this case, while a sphere might contain the most interior space for a given volume, it's utility might be less than using some other designs.<br /><br />Again the mission is not purely to get to the moon and Mars. If we build to those specs we will run into the same problem Apollo did. Mission accomplished, been there done that, no need to waste money or time doing that again. The mission is to establish permanent operations into the rest of the solar system. We are going to stay and we must build to stay. To do that we must build not only good designs but the lasting support infrastructure. If not for the TPS issues and the current high cost, the space shuttle would be the ideal vehicle to get the job done. Here's why. <br /><br />Let's say we did shuttle II. The most critical aspect of it would be developing a tough robust TPS system that needs no refurbishing between flights. This would seriously cut down on some of the most expensive flaws of the shuttle and thus reduce it's cost and turn around times. Yes, it will have wings and landing gears. Yes those two items will reduce it's payload capacity and it's per vehicle and per launch capabilties. However, this is offset by the convenience of landing it precisely where you want it. Moving quickly to off/on load the next mission and then attach it to another booster and launching it again. This is why I have a steep love/hate relationship with the shuttle. It is exactly what we need, yet it perform it's mission so badly it's taking people away from the soundness of the underlying concept. The reason it does so poorly is because it's so fragile. Remove that fragility and we can use it to launch everything else we need. Ultimately, I find my self <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yree]

Crew Exploration Vehicle<br />As part of NASA's Exploration Initiative, Andrews Space is undertaking a study examining design concepts for a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV).<br /><br />Andrews Space has proposed a CEV architecture that exploits existing hardware, facilities, and launch vehicles. The Point of Departure (POD) CEV is a reusable 4-person reentry vehicle and an expendable service module. For missions beyond LEO, a common Orbital Transfer Vehicle is used.<br />CEV<br />http://www.andrews-space.com/en/corporate/CEV(200411).htm<br />

 

[jurgens]

Look it's another lifting body! <br /><br />Their gryphon concept looks really interesting, what do you guys think?<br /><br />It also looks like it has a future, upgrade it with Scramjets in the future and it would probablly be capable of launching even more

 

[henryhallam]

<font color="yellow">Remove that fragility and we can use it to launch everything else we need. </font><br />No - remove that fragility and you will not get off the ground at all, let alone launch significant payloads. Any space vehicle necessarily operates on very slim strength<br />and weight margins. And increases in one part of the structure mass for robustness cause the rest to grow as well.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Ferry parts, supply or whatever else for the moon missions to LEO and assemble it around the way station at our leisure. </font><br /><br />Inefficient. The fewer launches, the better - both for reliability, mass requirements (fewer docking ports) and time reasons. Do you want to fly only one Moon mission a year? We need heavy lift. Not to mention problems like volatile fuel storage on-orbit etc. The station itself would need as much support as ISS does now, also periodic reboosts if it is in a low orbit. Can't be a mid-range orbit or the radiation fries you, and a high orbit is vastly inefficient for translunar injection (you need to use much more fuel in total to go from the ground to a high circular orbit and then on to lunar orbit.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />This way we have no need of a CEV which has to make a trip through the atmosphere.<br /></font><br />If you do not take a re-entry vehicle with you, then you need to slow down again and brake into Earth orbit for transfer to another re-entry vehicle. If this manoever fails, you are screwed. Even discounting this, you need to reduce your velocity by the same amount you increased it for translunar injection. Remember how big the S-IVB was, do you want to carry one of those to the moon and back, just for braking into Earth orbit? (okay not quite so bad because you don't bring the LM back with you, but still a BIG rocket) Direct entry is really the only feasible solution for manned returns from the moon and Mars, so you MUST carry a re-entry veh

 

[tap_sa]

Shapeshifter body, foldable wings and fins!?

 

[trailrider]

HOLD EVERYTHING, TROOPS! According to the May 2, 2005 issue of Aviation Leak...er Week, Griffin is moving in the dates on both the first test flights of CEV hardware and the 2014 date of Initial Operational Capability (IOC)! He has apparently decided that NASA will act as the prime contractor/systems integrator, with industry acting as subs! Dispite this, NASA requested submittal of the proposals in time for the May 2nd deadline!<br /><br />Now, if that weren't enough to digest (or choke on!), on p 33 (the page prior to the revision of the CEV program), the USAF has $280M to fly a rocket plane demonstrator by 2010! The artist's conception and the article are like Shuttle-in-reverse, or Shuttle-inverse! The Affordable Responsive Spacelift (ARES), is intended to lift 10,000-15,000 lbs to LEO, using...are you ready for this?...a vertical takeoff and wheeled landing booster, with RP-1/LOX main engines, non-toxic propellant thrusters, and a pair of jet engines to aid in recovery at an airfield. The payload will be carried piggyback, and may consist of 1st and 3rd stage Peacekeeper rockets, or some other liquid or solid propellant rockets. The booster carries the payload to around 12,100 fps and 200,000 ft, with upper stage separation at Mach 7. This eliminates the need for the booster to have a lot of thermal protection, such as got the Shuttle in trouble. The second stage of the two upper stages, and the 3rd stage would NOT be recoverable! Oh, yeah, and by the way, the beast is intended to be launched on a 24-48 hr notice, with a 2-day turnaround for the next launch!!!<br /><br />The jets are NOT used for liftoff. The concept calls for a gross liftoff weight of 700-800K lbs, with the 15K lb. payload, for a payload fraction of 2 percent. A 1/4 scale test vehicle, called ARES-SD, which would only be suborbital, would test separation of the booster from the upper stages.<br /><br />Now, either NASA or LockMart, or somebody has been peeking at this, or something!!! The

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow"> Structure Mass: 2,620 kg.<br />Heat Shield Mass: 848 kg.<br />Navigation, Telemetry, Communications Equipment: 100 kg.<br />Electrical Equipment: 231 kg.<br />Crew Seats and Provisions: 1100 kg.<br />Crew mass: 532 kg.<br />Environmental Control System: 300 kg.<br />Reaction Control System: 530 kg.<br />Recovery Equipment: 325 kg.<br />Miscellaneous Contingency: 300 kg.<br /><br />Total 6886 kg.<br /><br />So -- a good bit under the 8000kg I estimated last night. Certainly my estimates aren't *perfect* -- but they have a sound basis. I've attempted to overstate the mass in almost every case. My figures may be off -- but they're not going to be hugely off on the low side.<br /></font><br /><br />let us not forget that the Apollo capsule was conencted to a service module which held the propulsion systems and much of the consumables.<br /><br />the total mass of the Apollo CSM was 30,354 kg.-that's for 3 people only<br />the HL42(4 people) design has: "The spacecraft had a dry mass of 13,365 kg, an on-orbit mass of 21,093 kg, and a launch mass (with booster adapters and launch escape system) of 28,725 kg."-note that that includes the abort engines and adapter, which have a mass of about 7000kg.<br />The HL42 was designed for orbtal operations, while the Apollo would go all the way to the moon, so a comparison of the two designs is moot.<br />However, a much greater portion of the HL42 is reusable.<br />For instance the Apollo capsule has no OMS capabilities itself, they are hosted in the Service module. The HL42 's OMS is included in the reusable portion of the spacecraft, the lifting body. The Service module is discarded in Orbit before re-entry.<br /><br />I ask you all, which one would you rather have?<br />the Apollo Service module is discarded <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

That ARES sounds similar to the EADS Hopper sub-orbital RLV.

 

[yree]

Andrews Space & Technology<br />http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/Andrews.pdf<br />http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/Andrews.pdf<br /><br />Solar-Electric Exploration Tug animation)<br />http://www.andrews-space.com/en/news/LLT_ops.wmv

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> If I had a magic wand I would put the capsule on the Development path while starting an R&D effort to gain additional expertise with lifting bodies. IMHO the overall vision's architecture should not be bound to the initial shape of the Earth re-entry vehicle, so in the future a Klipper, Rutan design, SpaceX effort, or a L-M lifting body solution could be used as well. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sorry for a bit off-topic, this touches on an IMHO important issue. I've read a few suggestions on implementation of sort of international standard on "spacecraft interfaces" (sort of like USB specs for the computer types) I.e. a rescue Soyuz/Klipper could dock to a CEV, or a CEV refueling module could fuel a Shendzhou, or an ESA ATV could recharge the fuel-cells on a SpaceShip4 (yeah, I'm spreading the goodness here <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ) Is this a consideration in the design of the CEV at all? I personally think it's significant, thinking long term scenarios.

 

[gofer]

I don't know about the rest, but for my money, the CEV Earth descend module should be RUGGED, ROBUST AND CHEAP (so that we can make lots of them for emergencies). Sounds like a tin can, don't it? You know, I'd, personally, rather come back down alive in a "tin can" than be fried in an "X-Wing" super-pooper mobil because a wing fell off, or an aileron lost authority. Yeah, I know a 'chute might not open on a capsule or an SRM fail, but the least amount of complex parts necessary for acomplishing the descend -- as one of the most intense operations -- should be the overriding principle. I don't think it precludes reusability, though. Capsules can be reusable. (or stretched Capsule like lifting-bodies like the 'Press Iron' shapes like so: <__| , I believe they still can do stable [Edit: hi-G survivable, rather; 'stable ballistic' is a misnomer, no?] ballistic re-entries given proper balancing of their CGs) <br /><br />Whatever floats up in space though, should have the extraneous features maxed out and not skimp on luxuries.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<font color="yellow">I've read a few suggestions on implementation of sort of international standard on "spacecraft interfaces"...</font><br /><br /><br /><br />Yes, I remember we had a discussion about this a while back. I agree with you entirely. With safety being the primary concern while human spaceflight is still in its infancy, it would be of immeasurable value to have the space vehicles of the different countries be able to interface in as many ways as possible. Unfortunately, I think this may be some time away from practicality. <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>

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> The Planetary Society study/report (which Michael Griffin co-led) emphasized heavy reuse of existing capabilities such as the shuttle SRM for an initial CEV booster and a shuttle-derived HLV. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You know there is reuse and there is reuse. If this kind of reuse results in NASA operating its own set of launchers (via the old united space alliance or the new BoeLockMart, doesn't make any difference) and keeping the old expensive infrustracture up (I hear there are 200 (!) employees at Michoud just to spray the foam onto the ET) and in the process killing any hope for competition in the launch business does Griffin credit as a shrewd politician, but that's about it. I'll do my share of cheerleading for the NASA admin when I see some long term infrustructure for *competitive* companies to operate going up, not before. He could also be just plain wrong.<br />

 

[nacnud]

Its not that hard, the APAS is used by NASA, Russian and China. Only ESA so far hasn't built one.