Northrop Grumman's CEV looks like a Soyuz!

[nacnud]

According to thier website on the CEV here. Note NG has teamed up with Boeing and will be designing the spiral one CEV, Boeing will take over for later spirals.<br />

 

[nacnud]

And the three module design, and the head lamp return module. In fact it looks even more like a Shenzhou than anythink else, the US copying from China? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[nacnud]

And another of Shenzhou

 

[elguapoguano]

wow, that is amazing. It really does look just like a Soyuz!!!<br />I just wonder if this design will suffer from the "not designed here" look? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

IMO the Soyuz/Shenzhou/NG CEV style is a bit silly because the crew/orbital module is in front of command module. That requires the LES to be bigger than it could because it has to pull both OM and CM away (and at least in Shenzou it looks like the service module comes off too??). Put CM first followed by service module, and if the mission requires an OM behind that which is docked Apollo/LEM style once orbit is reached. LES would pop just the CM, rest shall burn.

 

[elguapoguano]

The biggest problem with putting the capsule on top and the service/hab mod below it means that you have to put a hatch through the heat shield... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

Yes very true S_G, but I was just refering to a classic capsule design.<br /><br />Which would you rather see fly S_G, a LM style lifting body design, or a tried and true but less inspiring Capsule design like Boeing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

and unless you do it Apollo/LEM style as I wrote. During launch there's no hatch to hatch connection between CM/SM and OM, just structural support and probably some cabling. When orbit is reached CM/SM separates, moves forward a bit, does 180 and docks with the OM. Yes, docking would be a requirement for a succesful mission, but it's not separate launch/rendezvous, just a little maneuver. Shouldn't be too much to ask.

 

[najab]

Does this design have two modules or three though? They have only labelled two modules, one would assume that if there was a "orbital module" and a "crew module" they would have labelled them as such.

 

[elguapoguano]

I thought that was a bit odd too najaB, It almost has to be a 3 mod design though, what they have labeled as the crew module doesn't look like it was intended return to Earth all in one piece. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Given the limited picture it’s all very speculative but I would find it very strange if the design wasn’t a three module one. <br /><br />Top to bottom: <br /><br />Orbital module – cylinder shaped like the Shenzhou<br />Crew return module – much more of a hemisphere than either the Shenhou or Soyuz, probably to accommodate the extra crew member(s) over those designs, and could have a higher L/D ratio as well.<br />Service module – looks very similar to the Apollo service module to my eyes.<br /><br />I think this could be a very good design taking the best elements from all previous capsule designs I just hope it doesn’t fall foul of the NIH syndrome.<br />

 

[rubicondsrv]

they could say it was based on this: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apollod2.htm instead of soyuz even though they are very simaliar. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"In my opinion, the capsule is the way to go."</font><br /><br />Curious, how about your co-workers, has there been any heated discussions on the subject? Obvious guess would be that since you guys work with the shuttle a winged or at least lifting body design would have general preference.

 

[nacnud]

Looking again I was wrong about the shape of the return vehicle, it’s just that the launch shroud is much smaller in the NG design than Soyuz or Shenzhou.<br /><br />I’m speculating far too much over this little picture <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">"We don't want to tip off our competitors until after we've got the addendum and everything is approved," said Boeing spokeswoman Tanya Deason-Sharp, explaining why the details of the Northrop Grumman-Boeing bid are not being released. </font><br /><br />Oh well it was fun while it lasted<br />

 

[flynn]

No point spending too long in Concept heaven (or Hell), once you know the strong points and weakness of each design a company has to offer. Delay only costs money for very little benefit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#800080">"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - <strong>Chuck Palahniuk</strong>.</font> </div>

 

[Aetius]

I am incredibly pleased that Northrup Grumman has chosen this design concept. I hope it gets chosen.<br /><br />It resembles the Soyuz and the Shenzou, but so what? Look at Soyuz's safety record. Besides, even sailboats have common design elements because of engineering requirements. I think it's awesome that NG has incorporated the best lessons learned from the past.

 

[henryhallam]

Grumman did an excellent job with the Apollo Lunar Module.

 

[drwayne]

They certainly did. It turned out to be a heck of a ship. But don't forget, the LEM went through a LOT of teething problems too, and its own major weight crunch.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </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 />

 

[drwayne]

True, there might be some reason why they call it the "Iron Works" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[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<br />

 

[yree]

bump

 

[spacefire]

if the Russians develop the Kliper spacecraft to replace the Soyuz, it will look like the US Space Program is lagging so far behind the Russian's that they have to copy their older designs. Kinda like the Chinese.<br />This is histerical.<br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

It will look that way only to the technically illiterate...