New details on CEV

mlorrey · Jan 1, 2006

Not saying it doesn't. What I'm saying is that the anti-LBers act like only the Lockheed proposal requires two launches for missions above LEO, which is patently false.

tap_sa · Jan 1, 2006

"What I'm saying is that the anti-LBers act like only the Lockheed proposal requires two launches for missions above LEO, which is patently false." Well sure you could launch the Lockheed LB+mission module+propulsion module stack using just one HLV and go to the moon that way but it would mean man-rating the HLV. And now we have only the CEV on orbit around the Moon, without second HLV launch packing some sort of LSAM the astronauts can't do much else than wave at it.

gunsandrockets · Jan 2, 2006

"Well sure you could launch the Lockheed LB+mission module+propulsion module stack using just one HLV and go to the moon that way but it would mean man-rating the HLV. And now we have only the CEV on orbit around the Moon, without second HLV launch packing some sort of LSAM the astronauts can't do much else than wave at it." The lunar configuration of the Lockheed CEV obviously was intended for the earlier LOR architecture that used 2 HLV launches. There is no reason the Lockheed CEV couldn't be modified to work with the new EOR/LOR 1.5 launch architecture. Instead of the MM + PM of the old architecture a much smaller and lighter SM could be used instead. Comparison of the NASA ESAS CEV Crew Module semi-ballistic capsule to the Lockheed-Martin CEV Crew Module lifting body. Gross mass -- ESAS CM 9.5 tonnes, Lockheed CM 14.5 tonnes Ratio of lift/drag -- ESAS CM 0.3, Lockheed CM 1.0 Lunar mission Earth-direct-return reentry g load -- ESAS CM 8 gs, Lockheed CM 4 gs Delta V -- ESAS CM 50 m/s, Lockheed CM 500 m/s Cargo -- ESAS CM 500 lbs, Lockheed CM 5,000 lbs Life support -- ESAS CM one day, Lockheed CM five days Power -- ESAS CM one day, Lockheed CM five days Crew -- ESAS CM 4 men, Lockheed CM 4 men Living space -- ESAS CM 19 cubic meters, Lockheed CM 21 cubic meters This comparison shows the Lockheed CM would need a much smaller Service Module than the ESAS CM does to perform the same lunar mission. The 13 tonne Service Module for the ESAS CEV provides power, life support for 14 days, and 1,700 m/s of delta V. So even though the Lockheed CM is heavier the overall mass of a Lockheed lunar-CEV would be very similar to the 23 tonne mass of the ESAS lunar-CEV. This is how I would modify the Lockheed-Martin CEV. Exchange the 5,000 lb cargo capacity to increase the delta V of the CM to 850 m/s. The small Servic

subzero788 · Jan 2, 2006

what about a comparison of the cost?

gunsandrockets · Jan 2, 2006

"what about a comparison of the cost?" The original development budget for the CEV has been reported as 5 billion dollars. Despite the ESAS selection of the 'low cost' 'low risk' Apollo 2.0 as the form the CEV will take, no reductions of CEV development budgeting have been announced. It's still going to cost 5 billion dollars. Isn't that funny.

mlorrey · Jan 2, 2006

That isn't true either. The ConeClone requires an HLV to launch a lunar transtage as well for lunar orbital missions. The Boeing CEV does not have enough DeltaV alone to get to lunar orbit.

j05h · Jan 2, 2006

I don't trust a vehicle that needs active control surfaces coming in at lunar speeds. The capsule can maybe survive a computer crash during reentry, no way the LM-LB could. The big tail-end body flaps have every chance of trouble after 6-12 months in space. If they want to develop it themselves, or jump into Kliper development, be my guest, but I don't trust Lockheed to develop any manned spacecraft on taxpayer dollars. Not after the great sucking sound that was LM's failures in the 90s onward. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

najab · Jan 2, 2006

What he was saying is that you could launch the CEV (either design) plus a lunar transtage on a single HLV, but that with either design you wouldn't be able to get a LSAM on there too.

spacefire · Jan 2, 2006

a capsule on the way back friom the Moon will DEFINITELY not survive a computer crash before re-entry. The right angle to get back to earth in one piece has do be attained with maximum precision. OTOH, with LEO rendezvous with a CRV/CTV, chances of a succesful return are dramatically improved. The CEV can aerobrake to attain a stable circular LEO. Aerobraking from lunar return velocity to LEO velocity is a much gentler process than the one-shot, seconds long reentry that requires utmost precision. Plus, developing aerobraking technology is paramount for future missions to Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

najab · Jan 2, 2006

>The CEV can aerobrake...With computer failure?! Hardly likely.

nacnud · Jan 2, 2006

Well here is an interesting factoid, showing the number of CEV/CLV launches to support the ISS, over thirty!

mlorrey · Jan 2, 2006

gawd, 13 years to plant a flag that took us 7 years 40 years ago. Is that progress???

nacnud · Jan 2, 2006

Yes it is progress, there isn't a race this time, there is no need to drop everything and rush off with a flag. IIRC if the crew makes a week stay then the first return to moon landing will have more manhours on the surface than the entire Apollo program.

mlorrey · Jan 2, 2006

So what? THEN what happens? Nothing, the politicos get their photo ops with the heroic astronuts, then &%$#@! about the budget and taxes and how we can't afford to 'spend money in space', and we'll be back where we started, AGAIN.

nacnud · Jan 2, 2006

Well maybe but that is up to the voters and politicans of 2018, the current plan is for extended surface operations and a Moon base. If you want to explore the Moon then fight for this.

mattblack · Jan 2, 2006

>>The lunar configuration of the Lockheed CEV obviously was intended for the earlier LOR architecture that used 2 HLV launches<< etc. Good post, well thought out and presented with some facts and hypothesis. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

radarredux · Jan 2, 2006

> gawd, 13 years to plant a flag that took us 7 years 40 years ago. Is that progress???/i> Depends on your perspective. From a negative point of view:This is a slower progress, and while it it initially didn't appear to be a race, it might still end up being one. From a negative point of view:The Apollo years did not have to finish paying off a space station first and then support it for many years. This is consuming most of the money and resources through FY 2010, and a continuing large chunk for several more years. From a negative point of view:Organizationally NASA started off with a clean sheet and was able to build itself up to fit the primary mission (Apollo). Today NASA inherits most of its land, equipment, and people, and must fit them to the best of their abilities to the new mission. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, We go to the Moon with the NASA that we've got, not the NASA we want. From a positive point of view:The new architecture is much more capable than the Apollo era, sending much more cargo, and more people for longer periods of time this time around. From a positive point of view:The new architecture is more flexible than Apollo, allowing for an easier transition to Mars missions. From a positive point of view:The ISS is helping to refine life support technology, procedures, and processes for long-term missions to either Lunar colonies or for Mars missions. From a positive point of view:Beyond any science and knowledge gains, ISS is helping to develop experience at large-scale, long-term international activities in space -- something that might be very valuable for developing L

mlorrey · Jan 2, 2006

ACTUALLY, the Apollo program started off with all the things they are talking about now: a moon base, a space station, space planes and military orbiting laboratories, as well as follow on missions to Mars. The War On Communism and the War On Poverty at up all the budget and they trimmed the program down to dump some guys on the lunar surface for a few days at a time, plant a flag, take some pics, pick up some rocks, eventually cruise around in a moon buggy on later missions, then everybody lost interest and they eviscerated the program for welfare and other pork barrel programs that actually got votes from people too unemployed to avoid the polls on election day.

gunsandrockets · Jan 3, 2006

"Good post, well thought out and presented with some facts and hypothesis." Thank you. I put considerable thought into that post. It was the first time I directly confronted the question of modifying the Lockheed-Martin CEV concept to fit the new lunar architecture. It's good to know the effort didn't go to waste.

john_316 · Jan 3, 2006

Hmmmmmm....... I suppose Boeing and its other partner will win out the initial contract but as we all can see the New Space Alliance will huddle together several years after its flying to keep it going. They have to because there wont be a Shuttle-2 for some time to come if ever... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

gunsandrockets · Jan 3, 2006

"I suppose Boeing and its other partner will win out the initial contract" With the recent history of Boeing mismanagement, from questionable tanker leasing deals, to stolen Atlas info to the flop V/STOL version of JSF, I wouldn't bet the farm that Boeing will win the CEV competition.

mattblack · Jan 3, 2006

Let private industry invent the new shuttles and spaceplanes. Demand will or wont bring about their existence, at the best market prices and not with fat & porky government contracts. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

tomnackid · Jan 3, 2006

For those worried that the CEV might be too small here are some interior mockups of Andrews Aerospace's 6 man and 10 man CEV variants. Since the lunar missions will only require 4 men it looks like the ride is going to be pretty spacious--almost shuttle flight deck spacious. The 10 man version puts me in mind of the old Big Gemini designs. I guess it makes sense since this is "Big Apollo". Andrew more than any other contractor seems to me to be pitching the CEV as a real "all purpose" spacecraft. Kinda like a 21st century Soyuz.

tomnackid · Jan 3, 2006

...here is the 6 man version.

moonmadness · Jan 3, 2006

10 person launch? By the way what is the current "record" for most crew in a launch? Did the shuttle ever live up to its large crew capacity promise? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I'm not a rocket scientist, but I do play one on the TV in my mind. </div>

New details on CEV

mlorrey

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

subzero788

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

j05h

Guest

najab

Guest

spacefire

Guest

najab

Guest

nacnud

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

nacnud

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

nacnud

Guest

mattblack

Guest

radarredux

Guest

mlorrey

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

john_316

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

mattblack

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

moonmadness

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page