Off of Shuttle Topic

[john_316]

Okay does anyone believe the new CEV will be a very improved Apollo style capsule or what? Any ideas of the interior designs or actual exterior designs?<br /><br />I'm thinking its going to be a crew of 4 to 6 max and it will be roughy a lil larger then the Apollo CM and SM and be able to be reused. The CEV CM should be reused at least 5 to 10 times before riding off to museams.<br /><br />I think they should built at least initially 3 or 4 and 2 to 3 per year for 3-4 years and have 16 to 20 capsules by the next phase of CEV goes onward.<br /><br />SRB(not only) and any HLV capable/certifcation would be nice as well...<br /><br />I think they also need to be working on newer lighter and more mobile suits for the next vehicles or bring back the Gemini type of suit so the suits doesnt restrict mobility.<br /><br />Just posted this to get off the Discovery Topic for awhile...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

><br />Okay does anyone believe the new CEV will be a very improved Apollo style capsule or what?<<br /><br />No, I believe it will be the LockMart lifting body design.

 

[mattblack]

If they are going with a SDHLV, the Lockmart design might be difficult to integrate, particularly if a side-mounted design is chosen. Then again, the Shuttle orbiter itself has never been totally elegant hanging off the side of the E.T. nor entirely safe as we know.<br /><br />I really think the semi-blunt biconic design that has floated around in design art for a few years is best. I may be flogging a horse by endorsing it, but it is not a dead nor a bad horse. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Another view of course... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[john_316]

Ok I get the idea as I posted before that the design would be more like a smaller shuttle that could carry a crew of 4-6 in suit if must be. <br /><br />Even though the CEV would be primarily non-cargo unless the Cargo variant is built? I wonder if it will be able to carry the MPLM's? Anyone have any ideas on this?<br /><br />I just can't see the discontinued use of the the MPLM's once the STS retires because of the cost assossiated with the ISS and them. But I also believe the MPLM's could be launched on another vehicle too since they can carry upto 16 tons of cargo.<br /><br />If infact the design is going to be lifting body then we have a multitude of designs to look at from the H-20 and successers upto the X-38 or even the X-37. <br /><br />I cant see the design their artist rendered as flying? Because it is one ugly bird. I make the assumption that the CEV was orginally going to be a capsule but when Boeing introduced the Soyuz looking design thing I knew that it might be more in favor of a Bird rather than a candle stick. <br /><br />But with the SRB derived designs I just think sometimes this is going nowhere.<br /><br />Shuttle Derived to me means new shuttle like vehicle and that means an X-38/X-37 type vehicle in my opinion even though a capsule would have to be larger for a larger crew. <br /><br />So the assumption is that it would make sense to stay with the lifting body design for crew capacity rather than the capsule. I think T/Space can keep the capsule market open with other space access but NASA will approach with a semi-hybrid shuttle design.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

Even the Bi-conic capsule is a lifting body, just one on the lower end of the scale of lift to drag ratio (an l/d of around 0.6).<br /><br />I admit the 'pie-wedge' shape of the Lockheed-Martin CEV proposal looks good to me. The l/d of 1.0 is pretty high even though Lockheed-Martin claims they can launch it without using a payload shroud.

 

[gunsandrockets]

The latest leak from NASA about what the CEV requirements are:<br /><br />1) a three man version for going to the space station three times per year<br /><br />2) an unmanned cargo version for resupplying the space station three times per year<br /><br />3) a four man version for flights to lunar orbit twice per year<br /><br /><br />The four men would use a separate lunar lander vehicle which would carry all four astronauts down to the lunar surface. This plan very much follows the Apollo LRO (lunar orbit rendevous) architecture.<br /><br />

 

[ehs40]

that sound cool for the cev

 

[ehs40]

thats a great idea to use the mplm's because once the station is finished these will still be useful for a trip to the moon or mars

 

[mattblack]

The CEV should be designed for a minimum of 4 and a max of 6 crew. Why they's be messing with a figure of only three is beyond me: Just use the Soyuz!!<br /><br />And as for a blunt-biconic CEV having a lift-over-drag ratio, that would merely be a convenient design feature for a future Mars Aero Capture/Entry, giving it some cross-range ability. Though how useful that would be in the thin Mars air, I couldn't authoritively say. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The CEV should be designed for a minimum of 4 and a max of 6 crew. Why they's be messing with a figure of only three is beyond me: Just use the Soyuz!!"<br /><br />I can see why NASA wants a three man CEV for ISS support. Since the ISS only has a crew of 6 the CEV only needs a 3 man crew for normal rotation of the ISS crew. Any excess capacity of the CEV could be used to carry the other supplies the ISS needs. And yes NASA could use the Soyuz if NASA felt okay about that kind of dependence. So of course NASA wants it's own spacecraft to access the ISS.<br /><br /><br /> <br />"And as for a blunt-biconic CEV having a lift-over-drag ratio, that would merely be a convenient design feature for a future Mars Aero Capture/Entry, giving it some cross-range ability. Though how useful that would be in the thin Mars air, I couldn't authoritively say."<br /><br />Aerodynamic entry is commonly used by Mars landers. I think the high lift to drag shape of a biconic lifting body is more for reducing the g force loads when reentering the Earth's atmosphere than for crossrange.