Nasa Builds Composite Space Capsule

[kyle_baron]

<p>http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esmd/csd/composite_capsule.html</p><p>A module built of composite material could weigh as much as 10 to 15 percent less than an aluminum counterpart through the use of complex shapes. In space travel, where every additional pound of weight drives costs higher, a weight savings of 10 percent could provide increased payload capacity and reduced mission expense. A composite capsule may also be less costly and quicker to fabricate than a metallic capsule</p><p>Meanwhile, the project may have an even more immediate payoff since developers of NASA&rsquo;s Orion crew module are considering a unique design feature of the composite crew module for their own use. In considering how best to design a composite crew module, the team made the floor, its structural underpinning and the walls of the pressure shell one single, combined structure that, as it turns out, offers a way to share the loads between the inner and outer shells in the case of a water landing. This concept is valid for both composite and metallic crew modules</p><p>The composite crew module project was initiated in January 2007. Testing of the final assembly is projected to begin in January 2009. The composite crew module primary structure is constructed of a stiffened honeycomb sandwich of carbon fiber and is composed of an upper and lower pressure shell spliced together. The splicing is accomplished without the use of an autoclave, a large, pressurized oven used to cure composite materials</p><p><strong>Hmmmmm....... 10-15% of 8.5 metric tonnes (18,739.3 lbs.) for an Orion Capsule, &nbsp;comes out to be 1,874-2,811 lbs. in mass savings.&nbsp; Not bad.&nbsp; Whada you guys think?</strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[vulture4]

Since Rutan's SpaceShip I has already flown twice into space, NASA's effort would be at best the second all-composite manned spacecraft. Although the pressure hull of the Shuttle is not composite, the main wing spar is carbon-epoxy and the wing trusses are boron-epoxy. The entire Boeing 787 is composite, as are pressurized civil aircraft as far back as the Beech Starship. (Anyone remember who designed that one?). Of course, NASA could have flown the largely composite X-33 and X-34 years ago. While it's good to see at least some work on new technologies at NASA, the agency is unfortunately no longer at the leading edge in aerospace structures.

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While it's good to see at least some work on new technologies at NASA, the agency is unfortunately no longer at the leading edge in aerospace structures. <br />Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>Nonsense.&nbsp; NASA is at the leading edge of aerospace structures and the materials that are used in them, and has been for decades.</p><p>Jon&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[job1207]

<p>I think that NASA has been down this path about 10 years ago or so. with the DCX. and even the next gen ships. As I recall that was the prob with the X? ship. The composite fuel tank reacted with the propellant, Hydrogen I think and that caused a leak. Then they lined it with Al and made it too heavy to fly. ( It was already too heavy anyway ) </p><p>This is from recollection. So going back to AL for Orion would be a return and not a move forward. But whatever works is OK with me.&nbsp; It seems to make sense to bring in the composite team to make Orion, but hey, who am I to say?&nbsp; </p>

 

[tampaDreamer]

<p>What about the lifter itself, all-composite?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think that NASA has been down this path about 10 years ago or so. with the DCX. and even the next gen ships. As I recall that was the prob with the X? ship. The composite fuel tank reacted with the propellant, Hydrogen I think and that caused a leak. Then they lined it with Al and made it too heavy to fly. ( It was already too heavy anyway ) This is from recollection. So going back to AL for Orion would be a return and not a move forward. But whatever works is OK with me.&nbsp; It seems to make sense to bring in the composite team to make Orion, but hey, who am I to say?&nbsp; <br />Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>The composite did not react with the hydrogen. IIRC There was a pin hole in the tank outer skin (due to the tank complex curves)&nbsp;that cryo pumped liquid air. When the LH2 was drained from the tank the liquid air flashed off and caused the tank wall to fail.</p><p>The fix was to go to an all AL tank which would have been too heavy.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[job1207]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The composite did not react with the hydrogen. IIRC There was a pin hole in the tank outer skin (due to the tank complex curves)&nbsp;that cryo pumped liquid air. When the LH2 was drained from the tank the liquid air flashed off and caused the tank wall to fail.The fix was to go to an all AL tank which would have been too heavy.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>http://jcm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/21/2545</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>yep, you are right. SG. It was small cracks in the composite. I take it that the rest was ok.... </p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nonsense.&nbsp; NASA is at the leading edge of aerospace structures and the materials that are used in them, and has been for decades.Jon&nbsp; <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>Nasa has actually been quite a bit behind the power curve with respect to composites for many years, and was generally not receptive to use of composites.&nbsp; That is one factor that killed the single-stage-to-orbit studies about 5 or 6 years ago.&nbsp; Industry has been far ahead of NASA in that regard.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

Maybe the weight savings will be sufficient to offset all the stabilizing mechanisms they'll have to put on Ares I to keep it from shaking itself apart! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What about the lifter itself, all-composite? <br />Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV></p><p>I was thinking the same thing.&nbsp; Maybe an all composite 2nd stage, that is disposable.&nbsp; An all composite SRB would not be recoverable.&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe the weight savings will be sufficient to offset all the stabilizing mechanisms they'll have to put on Ares I to keep it from shaking itself apart! <br />Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV></p><p>Yeah!&nbsp; <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nasa has actually been quite a bit behind the power curve with respect to composites for many years, and was generally not receptive to use of composites.&nbsp; That is one factor that killed the single-stage-to-orbit studies about 5 or 6 years ago.&nbsp; Industry has been far ahead of NASA in that regard.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Composites are not a magic bullet for evey application.&nbsp; My understanding is their tolerance to long duration exposure in space is still unknown.&nbsp; Which is why for some critical components- like pressure hulls - up to now&nbsp;it has been the policy&nbsp;that it&nbsp;is better to play it safe.</p><p>Except for the fact that NASA has researched composites extensively and used them in a great many systems. For example Shuttle&nbsp; orbiter payload bay carriers, aerogels, heatshield materials, structural components on Pheonix, MRO, and a score of other satellites.</p><p>And of course, this story&nbsp;NASA are again doing what has never been done before for an orbital spacecraft - building a composite pressure hull.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[job1207]

<p>http://www.scaled.com/projects/index.html</p><p>Essentially, Rutan built already built many, and frankly most of the composite ships. LMT made the rest of them. Here is an interesting article on the X33. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33</p><p>Of note, the article claims that the odd shapes made the weight of the Hydrogen tank HEAVIER than an similar Al/Li tank. Also, after the project closed they did come up with a working tank. </p><p>They allude to the fact that LMT has NOT dropped the project. As noted. It has now morphed into the recent NM launch/crash of a test vehicle. &nbsp; </p>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.scaled.com/projects/index.htmlEssentially, Rutan built already built many, and frankly most of the composite ships. LMT made the rest of them. Here is an interesting article on the X33. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33Of note, the article claims that the odd shapes made the weight of the Hydrogen tank HEAVIER than an similar Al/Li tank. Also, after the project closed they did come up with a working tank. They allude to the fact that LMT has NOT dropped the project. As noted. It has now morphed into the recent NM launch/crash of a test vehicle. &nbsp; <br />Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>Very interesting, thanks.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....... Also, after the project closed they did come up with a working tank.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>Note that the "working tank" was the LOX tank not the LH2 tank with the complex shapes.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[job1207]

yes, I did not comment on that, but as usual I noticed it. i suspect that there may be mistake there, but it is not worth wondering about, at this point.

 

[job1207]

http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/Lifting_Bodies/x-33/X33Comparison_2k.jpg

 

[kyle_baron]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The composite did not react with the hydrogen. IIRC There was a pin hole in the tank outer skin (due to the tank complex curves)&nbsp;that cryo pumped liquid air. When the LH2 was drained from the tank the liquid air flashed off and caused the tank wall to fail.The fix was to go to an all AL tank which would have been too heavy.&nbsp; <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p><strong>I was thinking the walls (or hull) of the 2nd stage Ares I could be made of a composite, and save considerable mass.&nbsp; Unless, the tank and walls are one in the same?&nbsp; I could use clarification here.</strong></p><p><strong>Also, I would think that the hydrogen tank in Ares I, &nbsp;wouldn't have the complex curves to deal with.&nbsp; Can the hydrogen tank and walls (hull) of the 2nd stage be composite?&nbsp; Or, one or the other?&nbsp; Which one would be easier to incorporate in the 2nd stage?</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was thinking the walls (or hull) of the 2nd stage Ares I could be made of a composit, and save considerable mass.&nbsp; Unless, the tank and walls are one in the same?&nbsp; I could use clarification here.Also, I would think that the hydrogen tank in Ares I, &nbsp;wouldn't have the complex curves to deal with.&nbsp; Can the hydrogen tank and walls (hull) of the 2nd stage be composite?&nbsp; Or, one or the other?&nbsp; Which one would be easier to incorporate in the 2nd stage? <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Yes, the tank wall is the "hull" of the second stage hydrogen tank. I trust the&nbsp;MSFC experts&nbsp;to find the best composite experts to&nbsp;assist them in performing&nbsp;the engineering trade studes on the use of composites in the vehicle.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.scaled.com/projects/index.htmlEssentially, Rutan built already built many, and frankly most of the composite ships. LMT made the rest of them. Here is an interesting article on the X33. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33Of note, the article claims that the odd shapes made the weight of the Hydrogen tank HEAVIER than an similar Al/Li tank. Also, after the project closed they did come up with a working tank. They allude to the fact that LMT has NOT dropped the project. As noted. It has now morphed into the recent NM launch/crash of a test vehicle. &nbsp; <br />Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>Despite what Wiki says most of the composites for the X-33 were built by ATK at the Clearfield winding and fiber placement facility -- under contract to the Skunkworks.&nbsp; That was a bit of a disaster, largely IMO because the Skunkworks specified materials that were not appropriate for the task,&nbsp;in particular for sealing against hydrogen leakage, and against advice by composites experts.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[job1207]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Despite what Wiki says most of the composites for the X-33 were built by ATK at the Clearfield winding and fiber placement facility -- under contract to the Skunkworks.&nbsp; That was a bit of a disaster, largely IMO because the Skunkworks specified materials that were not appropriate for the task,&nbsp;in particular for sealing against hydrogen leakage, and against advice by composites experts. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Well, Dr.Rocket, EDIT the WIKI article, with references. That would help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33</p>