Northrop Grumman's CEV looks like a Soyuz!

[jurgens]

spacefire, I have come to the conclusion that you are a NASA troll.<br /><br />Please, stop trolling.

 

[cookie_thief]

If the "technically illiterate" public get's wind of this, their support of the space program will drop like a rock and congress will want to know why NASA is wasting tax dollars on copycat technology. The "technically illiterate" media will ridicule it for years.<br />The capsule approach may make more sense but don't underestimate the power of the tax paying public.

 

[wvbraun]

NASA should choose whatever option makes the most sense technically. The public will accept a capsule if it is presented the right way. Congress will go along as well, they already had accepted a capsule design for the OSP.<br />Looks should not factor into the equation.

 

[spacefire]

have they accepted a Chinese looking Capsule??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[spacefire]

I'm not trolling!<br /><br />Tell Senator Joe Blow that the latest US spacecraft looks like what the Russians have been putting up for more than 30 years and he will shout hoarse demanding that the thing be cancelled, regardless of the vehicle's capabilities.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

We'll see.

 

[wvbraun]

What might have been

 

[spacefire]

mmmhhhmmm cute but I didn't think Skylab could be expanded further. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Actually the "Skylab" he is describing is different than the one that we actually had. We actually had the dry-lab, third stage version. There were proposals to use the second stage as a wet-lab, with orbital refurb into a station after being used as a stage.<br /><br />"Our" Skylab had a chance to do some experiments in that area. It brought its spent second stage into orbit with it, but it was detached and allowed to burn up. However, given the problems that the main station had on launch, that probably might have fallen off the plate until they rescued Skylab.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Nope, it was detached, and its orbit decayed failrly quickly. Which is too bad in a way, it was of course, much larger than the converted SIVB that was Skylab.<br /><br />Wayne<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

that does seem like a waste. <br />the 2nd stage it should have been fairly easy to pressurize if it remained attached to the 3rd stage.<br />Much cheaper than launching SS modules as payloads like the Russians were doing with their Salyut Stations.<br />I remember proposals to refurbish the Space Shuttle tank also and use it in orbit. That thing would have provided plenty of living space.It would have beaten the ISS after a couple of launches. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

The thing is to do science you need lots of heavy expensive and delicate equipment. I think the modular design of the ISS and its International Standard Payload Racks works well for the equipment. However, for living space and just having fun in Zero gee you can't beat a large empty volume. Perhaps a combination of both ideas would work best?<br /><br />See this skylab video to see what mean. Wow it was big in there.<br />

 

[gladiator1332]

"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."<br />---------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I have to agree with you on that. This design works, it has been flown since the early days. <br />It doesn't surprise me that NG/Boeing are going with a Soyuz derived vehicle. Even in the days of the OSP, Boeing was playing with the idea:<br />http://www.space.com/images/h_b_osp_capsule_02.jpg<br /><br />I will not be surprised if NG and Boeing go back to that idea if they to begin to fear the public will not accept a Soyuz remake. Because you can be assured this will be the first thing CNN will point out. Even though the Soyuz plan looks nice, atleast the the old OSP design has some Apollo heritage in it. That up there is a true combination of Apollo and Soyuz. <br /><br />Whichever Soyuz configuration they go with, atleast we will know the vehicle has been relatively proven. I can't believe people are actually saying the only reason they prefer lifting-bodies is because "they look nicer" or (I love this one) "capsules are a step backward" or the analogy "if we're going back to capsules we might as well go back to typewriters" All of these are just plain stupid, and make no sense what-so-ever.

 

[drwayne]

Thanks! I have been wondering about that! I even posted a question here, I think pre-crash.<br /><br />I am also curious about the ascent stage that was left in heliocentric orbit too...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Name one Grumman airplane that wasn't "hefty" . The F-11F1 Tiger was slim, but they forgot the fuel tanks."<br /><br />Nah, there was nothing wrong with the Tiger that an engine change couldn't fix. The crappy Wright J-65 Sapphire wasn't any good when inside the early A-4 Skyhawk either. The A-4 got it's chance when it was re-engined with the J-52. The poor Tiger almost got it's chance when re-engined with the J-79, until some backdoor palm greasing by Lockheed killed it in favor the F-104. Japan was that close to picking the F-11F-1F Super Tiger to replace it's Sabre jets.<br /><br />Beautiful airplane the Tiger. I remember seeing the Blue Angels do amazing things with the Tiger at an airshow at North Island NAS when I was a kid. <br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"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 /><br /><br />Nice catch!<br /><br />Your find confirms what I've suspected for some time after I saw a Grumman document. On page six of the Grumman CE&R Initial Concept Overview from 13 September 2004, there is some tiny artwork showing a Soyuz like CEV.<br /><br />What the large image you found doesn't show, but the tiny image I saw did, are the very Soyuz like solar panel wings protruding from the service module. So the Grumman CEV is right down to the power supply nothing more than an updated 4-man Soyuz.<br /><br />Another thing that the Grumman document shows is the unusual method of transferring crew from a CEV to a lunar lander. After docking the lunar lander flies away with the CEV's own crew module transplanted to the lunar lander and used as the lunar lander's crew space. That's clever engineering. Though I wonder if Boeing will follow through with that idea since Boeing is the lead contractor of the Boeing/Grumman partnership for Spirals two and three.<br /><br />I'm guestimating the Grumman CEV has a mass of 15 tons, 5 tons of which is fuel (for the TEI burn NASA requires for the CEV). The crew module (the analog of the Soyuz orbital module) is suprisingly small in comparison to the headlight shaped re-entry module. The Soyuz living space has a split of 5 cubic meters in the orbital module and 4 cubic meters in the re-entry module. I'm guessing the Grumman CEV crew module is 6 cubic meters while the re-entry module is 8 cubic meters (NASA requires 14 cubic meters total for four men).<br /><br />This is odd because the real advantage of a Soyuz style design is acheived by making the re-entry module as small as practical. The jumbo re-entry module of the Grumman CEV doesn't fit that. Perhaps the sizing of Grumman's crew module is almost an afterthought just to meet the minimum NASA requirem

 

[gunsandrockets]

Good thing Grumman is the prime contractor for Spiral one instead of Boeing. According to the Boeing document, "CE&R CA-1, Final Review, SoS Concept Design, (Base Period), March 2, 2005" the Boeing CEV is even more re-entry module heavy than the Grumman CEV appears to be.<br /><br />On page 17 of the report are some details of the dimensions of the re-entry module and mission module of the Boeing CEV. It describes the CEV as having 2.74 cubic meters of space per person with just a re-entry module, and then adding the mission module increases the CEV to 3.5 cubic meters per person. And this is for a crew of four. That meets the NASA CEV minimum requirements of a four man crew and 14 cubic meters living space.<br /><br />Those dimensions equate to a re-entry module of 11 cubic meters, and a mission module of 3 cubic meters. That almost completly blows the mass advantage that a Soyuz style design gets by using a separate re-entry module and orbital module. I have to wonder what Boeing was thinking. Why not eliminate the mission module altogether and make the re-entry module the full 14 cubic meters?

 

[nacnud]

I suppose it depends on the volume of the orbital module without equipment. Perhaps it’s a bit like the ISS, if there are no racks installed then the free volume it considerable; add the racks and the volume decreases a lot. I suppose it depends on whether the bench mark is the total pressurised volume, i.e. equipment not included or the actual habitable volume once the equipment is installed.

 

[drwayne]

A pilot friend year ago told me that the Star Fighter was proof that you can make anything fly, given a big enough engine.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

And of course, a sizeable hunk of the F-104 prototype parts showed up in the U2 prototype.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I actually have "Skunk Works" here in the shop. To quote from it:<br /><br />"The reason why Kelly could move so quickly building the U2 was that he could use the same tools from the prototype of the XF104 flighter. The U-2, from the nose to the cockpit, was basically the first half of the F-104, but with an extended body from cockpit to tail"<br /><br />Now, I may have been been using the term "parts" somewhat out of turn, but you get the idea I was trying to convey, that parts of the U2 borrowed heavily from the Starflighter.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

" I suppose it depends on whether the bench mark is the total pressurised volume, i.e. equipment not included or the actual habitable volume once the equipment is installed."<br /><br />The sources I have refered to represented the information in the context of habitable volume, not pressurized volume.