Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-19 07:34:08

The cargo container use as habitat area sounds familar, since I put forth that same concept under another thread ( Earth Re-entry, Moon or Mars Lander and return vehicle. One do all, part of CEV?) cev for the universal ship or at least its shape.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-19 14:55:19

I haven't fully reviewed all the presentatons yet, but the one from Orbital Sciences makes the most sense: don't mess around at L1, go straight to the moon, and build a huge Magnum rocket to do it.

I will get back to this thread after looking them over.

The challenge will be moving from pretty pictures to gi-normous rockets.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-29 12:43:41

Any one here subscribe to the space news?
link is on the http://www.spacetoday.net/

CEV Shakeup: Boeing Joins Northrop Grumman Bid
Space News (subscribers only) — 12:30 pm ET (1630 GMT)

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-29 13:26:18

So, its starting to sound like a Boeing/Orbital/Northrop Super-Apollo (maybe with Soyuz style OM) versus the Lockheed "bullet" capsule/glider. Probobly the Boeing capsule on Delta-IV and the Lockheed one on Atlas-V.

I have mixed feelings about Shuttle Derived... can the NASA managers keep their hands out of the cookie jar to maximize retention of the Shuttle Army like they have for so long? SDV would probobly be cheaper to develop, but in the end will it be cheap to fly? Nor can it be upgraded beyond 120MT without radical alteration (>2 SRBs + 10m ET?). An appealing alternative might be to use an uprated EELV to deliver each payload to LEO followed by a cryogenic TLI stage... The long term solution though is probobly a clean-sheet HLLV with a maximum payload in the 200MT region and modularity down to 80-100MT.

Ad Astra · 2004-10-29 18:41:40

I'm really surprised that Boeing would "suck it up" and relegate themselves to subcontractor status. As long as "Apollo on steroids" survives, I'm OK with the new development.

I think that the closer the new capsule resembles Apollo, the better it will be. The shame of it all is that Apollo had most of the bugs worked out by the time it was retired. The new spacecraft will probably be enlarged to 5m diameter with a larger diameter, shuttle-style docking adaptor. Spacecraft power in the service module will be from solar arrays rather than fuel cells, because NASA is leery of another Apollo 13.

GCNRevenger, I share your concerns about an SDV, but generally think it's a good idea. Uprated EELV's might be good, but it all depends on 1) how light they can make the VSE hardware, and 2) what kind of flight rates the EELV's are capable of. A lot of people promote the EELV's because of "economies of scale," but very few ask the critical question of whether EELV's can achieve the large scales needed for this program.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-29 19:51:47

I think Boeing wants to be on the winning side more then it wants to be the sole winner... their rocket will probobly be used anyway to launch the thing.

An Apollo style capsules sounds pretty good, but a design with a little more volume would be nice. The ability to haul up to six people minimum so it could still serve as ISS CRV and for larger-scale Lunar/Mars operations later. Somthing with a less squat cone shape, more along the mold lines of Gemini, able to hold two rows of people comfortably for several days (fold up front row seating?). I think that NASA must also be looking to solar power for reasons besides a safety issue, fuel cells are perhaps even safer then solar because they don't rely on flimsy pannels being aligned with the sun. Maybe its a mass issue?

My fears of the "Shuttle Curse" dragging down NASA if it goes the SDV route are deep enough that I am a little more then half way against the idea, along with the inherited upper-limit payload which is pretty small for a direct flight to anywhere. A launcher with a 200MT upper limit could be built with exsisting engines too... it depends on how much orbital assembly is NASA willing to risk. The Mars SemiDirect/DRM-III calls for three vehicles just over 200MT fully fueled, which would seem to call for six flights of a 100MT class launcher.

As far as EELV and economies of scale, even if there are no substantial improvements in cost per unit, anything has to be better then Shuttle's horrible price. At $200M a copy for a "Delta-IV HLV+" maxed out around 40MT without changing the base design/infrastructure is a pretty good deal. With Boeing's factory able to build 20 cores a year, this should satisfy a limited Lunar program of three Lunar vehicles and two single-core manned launches, which ought to be enough to perminantly man a small Lunar outpost for around $1.5Bn/year worth of rocket.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-30 19:29:30

On a note for the Web site's Name sake.
NASA & U.S. Navy Join to Celebrate Spirit of Exploration
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin....&EDATE=

Article gives the history of the constellation name.

Quote:
Today, we help continue that tradition by accepting the spirit of the original Constellation and proudly transferring it to the class of space vehicles that will carry humankind back to the moon, Mars and beyond."

comstar03 · 2004-10-31 01:35:40

C - Crew
E - Exploration ? Entry ? Escape ?
V - Vehicle

Are we talking about coming back to earth or exploring away from earth to other planetary bodies ? It depends on what you are looking to do with the CEV.

But, NASA and other space vehicle design and development firms should work towards long term space vehicle useage for extended missions / voyages and larger vehicles for more sensor equipment and crews.

Example - using trusses and other shapes we could build massive structures in space : (below)

Above - Using large scale trusses assembled in orbit from telerobotic droids we could assemble large one-way cargo vehicle for the moon and then once there could be disassembled and used on the moon for building the base and other operations.

Above - Possible Shell design for a space station>

by using beans to form - triangles, tetrahedra, octahedra and isosahedra shapes to create trusses and other strcutures could be used for space cargo vessels, methods for building shelters on the moon and mars.

At the end of the day we need to develop, one-way or use vehicles through to long term , multi-voyage crew vehicles that are more than the little CEV everyone is talking about.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-31 09:18:49

Large reuseable ships are of limited usefulness, since the majority of the weight of a mission to the Moon or Mars will be rocket fuel and unrecoverable payload. So long as we are using expendable launch vehicles and expendable landers, I think its a valid quiestion if we ought to bother with reuseability until we have real Earth/Moon/Mars RLVs.

Reuseable cargo transports just don't make a whole lot of sense unless they are ion drive powerd, and reusing manned transit vehicles you have to perform orbital capture at Earth, launch fresh fuel, fresh supplies, and perhaps a crew to refurbish/test the thing between missions. Oh and you may have to send up a fresh lander too... I think its a valid question if it would cost less just to build a new one.

infocat13 · 2004-10-31 17:38:36

Decades ago we used large navy ships with huge crews (aircraft carriers) to recover human crewed space craft at sea. In wartime and duo to costs it would be hard to see this as a cost effective way to recover a ballistic reentry CEV.
However the navy does have a large fleet of civil service and contract crewed public vessels. They are manned by crews of 50 to 150 persons as compared to 3000 on a carrier. We could have a MSC special mission ship recover the CEV or save more money by diverting a MSC ship from its existing mission. The MSC fleet has Navy helicopters used to transport cargo and mail to ships at sea; these could double as a capsule and crew recovery bird. Money saved could be plowed into more frequent flight rates for the CEV.

A special missions ship could do CEV recovery work,
http://www.msc.navy.mil/PM2/]http://www … y.mil/PM2/
But look at these MSC ships that transport fuel and groceries and food to the navy ships at sea.
http://www.msc.navy.mil/PM5/]http://www … y.mil/PM5/
these ships have a helicopter deck that could handle a CEV capsule and land a returning crew! All with a ship of only 40 to 50 crew. The lucky ship and crew that hosted our astronauts would make a run for the nearest port and discharge the astronauts and then continue with its navy mission,crew return would cost the taxpayers next to nothing extra
http://www.msc.navy.mil/PM5/]military sealift command

Ad Astra · 2004-10-31 20:37:53

I envision a couple of scenarios for CEV recovery.

1) Snag the capsule by the parachute while in mid-air with a helicopter. I view this as the least reliable method, and most complicated, as it has never been done with a large, manned capsule before.

2) Landing with parafoil and skids. This was the plan for X-38 and it could be used on a capsule, too.

3) Landing on ground in the desert, Soyuz-style. This is the most likely in terms of reliability and moderate weight savings.

4) Recovery at sea. Used on all American manned spacecraft thru 1975, this is the lightest method for recovery and is fairly reliable, with only one capsule lost. Instead of using aircraft carriers to do the job, NASA could probably convert the SRB recovery ships to do the job.

Commodore · 2004-10-31 20:41:09

Wasn't there a video a while back featuring a capsule that parachuted down, and then deployed airbags for a soft landing.

It was on a test stand that tested the air bags.

infocat13 · 2004-10-31 20:46:19

What is the range of the SRB recovery vessels?
would this mean landing the CEV within the range of the SRB ships?
and ballistic reentry from the moon was done in equatorial regions of the ocean I believe?
MSC ships are world wide in range and are positioned(forward deployed at all times)
an emergency CEV ballistic reentry could be anywhere from ISS.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-31 21:41:57

The best option is probobly a land return, so there is no risk of the capsule sinking/inverting/drifting. Recovery is cheap too. NASA will hopefully not be totally retarded and fit the launch vehicle to the CEV and not the other way around this time. If it will weigh a little more for extra OMS fuel and landing rockets or airbags, then it will weigh more.

Not sure I like the idea of parafoil + conic capsule, solid landing rockets and Mars lander style air bags might be a little safer. If CEV turns out to be a sled style lift body vehicle, then it might be allright since there would be better aerodynamics.

Rxke · 2004-11-01 03:40:53

Apollo-style sea landing is not 21st century anymore, IMO...

It's horribly expensive, compared to land retrieval... Of course, it's simpler, no need for pin-point landing...

SpaceNut · 2004-11-01 08:11:19

Comstar03: I love the lego presentation of truss construction techinques. Something that needs to be done within a large hanger in orbit, preferably around an ISS like station but not necessarily the current one.
commodore: There was a demostrator a few months ago I think be lockheed. I will add the link once I find it.

edit
well I promised and now will deliver.
LOCKHEED MARTIN SCORES SUCCESS WITH LANDING TECHNOLOGY TESTS FOR A FUTURE ASTRONAUT CREW EXPLORATION VEHICLE
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms....&sc=400

Ad Astra · 2004-11-01 19:40:53

I strongly feel that a Soyuz-style landing in the deserts of the western U.S. is the way to go for CEV. The braking rockets shouldn't weigh too much, and they more than make up for the problems involved in ocean recovery, such as sinking the capsule.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-01 20:19:08

Yeah, though you might have to pack extra OMS fuel to change orbital inclination in order to ensure a dry landing if you needed to come down in a hurry (ISS CRV).

The "pretend capsule" looks a little light to me, under 6MT, do you think that a six-seater could be accomodated in that weight range?

Rxke · 2004-11-02 03:23:32

Yeah, though you might have to pack extra OMS fuel to change orbital inclination in order to ensure a dry landing if you needed to come down in a hurry (ISS CRV).

Yup. And the Soyuzes have it comparably 'easy,' doing pinpoint landings, coming from LEO...

But if you look at the track record of Apollo, when they used their absolutely minimal computers or even 'half manual' landings, like A13, where they had to line up visually, it should be possible... Their landings got more precise in time (some wild deviations nothwithstanding)

GCNR, why don't you like parafoils? Wouldn't it give you a slightly better crossrange/precision capability? The last tests they did with X-33(34? or CRV, fuzzy memory...) were quite impressive, IMO...

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-02 06:05:26

It isn't the accuracy thats the issue, the trouble is that any CRV needs to get from the ISS to medical care in no more then 24 hours, and if you have to wait for several orbits for you to overfly a good landing spot, that might not be achieveable. The extra OMS fuel could be used to actually change orbital inclination, so that you could maneuver on orbit instead of being at the mercy of whereever you happen to be orbiting over. One of the advantages of a lift body vehicle is that you've got ~1000-2000mi of cross range, but a capsule has no such luxury... One reason why Lockheed is still considering a quasi-lift body "sled" design.

Parafoils might be okay for lift body vehicles, ones with at least some aerodynamic qualities and control, but I don't think it would be worth the trouble to fool with a parafoil on a conical capsule, the drag from its shape would make the crossrange enhancement minimal for the extra trouble & risk.

Rxke · 2004-11-02 06:29:50

Oops!

Sloppy reading from my side... Hadn't occurred to me you were talking about conical/parafoil, thought it was parafoil in general...

Ad Astra · 2004-11-02 11:44:19

As far as I know, LockMart has completely dropped the "lifting capsule" concept for the CEV. The most recent sketches I've seen all show a capsule that I like to call "circumcised Gemini."

SpaceNut · 2004-11-02 13:02:58

what you may have seen was from the CEV Fact Sheet but also on the same page for that link you will find the The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) thou the cover sheet labels is for OSP. Many other items can also be found on this page as well http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms....&sc=400

Commodore · 2004-11-02 14:21:47

Is or is not the point of the CEV to be reusable?

It seems completely possible to me that we can build a capsule sturdy enough to be reusable. The only sticking point is the heat shield.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-02 15:32:34

You probobly could make it reuseable except for the reentry and landing mechanisms, but if it will be worth it to refurbish rather then build a new one is a question worth asking first.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2004-10-19 07:34:08

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#127 2004-10-19 14:55:19

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#128 2004-10-29 12:43:41

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#129 2004-10-29 13:26:18

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#130 2004-10-29 18:41:40

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#131 2004-10-29 19:51:47

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#132 2004-10-30 19:29:30

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#133 2004-10-31 01:35:40

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#134 2004-10-31 09:18:49

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#135 2004-10-31 17:38:36

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#136 2004-10-31 20:37:53

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#137 2004-10-31 20:41:09

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#138 2004-10-31 20:46:19

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#139 2004-10-31 21:41:57

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#140 2004-11-01 03:40:53

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#141 2004-11-01 08:11:19

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#142 2004-11-01 19:40:53

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#143 2004-11-01 20:19:08

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#144 2004-11-02 03:23:32

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#145 2004-11-02 06:05:26

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#146 2004-11-02 06:29:50

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#147 2004-11-02 11:44:19

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#148 2004-11-02 13:02:58

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#149 2004-11-02 14:21:47

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

#150 2004-11-02 15:32:34

Re: Post central for information on CEV 2 - ...continue here.

Board footer