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

comstar03 · 2004-11-10 22:55:44

GCNRevenger,

Lockheed Martin designed to modules HL-20PLS unmanned and HL-42 the big brother, that was designed for crew. That might be better to look into at 50ft approx. about the size of delta flyer as I explained earlier.

I think these vehicles are in the cost range of large aircrafts. Thus you could see airline companies expand into ferry passengers into space to orbitng platforms. Also tourists into space and also into low orbital flights.

It depends on the money and customer interest in expanding humanity into space for toruism and industrial research sectors. Viable Offworld Economy = Economies of Scale of personnel and structures.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-10 23:20:47

Your comments are fair, but demonstrate you haven't read the web page linked. The HL-20 does not have the low speed handling problems that X-24A had. X-38 used the same body shape as X-24A, so same handling problems when landing; that's why X-38 had a parafoil. HL-20 may be a bit heavier for a given internal volume, but it can land on wheels so doesn't need a parafoil. Arguments based on handling problems for M2-F2, M2-F3, HL-10, X-24A, and X-24B don't apply to HL-20.

In 1983, the Vehicle Analysis Branch began the investigation of the BOR-4 small spaceplane being orbited several times by the Soviets starting in 1982 and recovered in the Indian Ocean and Black Sea. During recovery operations of the space plane in the Indian Ocean, an Australian P-3 Orion aircraft obtained photographs of the vehicle both floating in the water and being hauled aboard the recovery ship. This provided valuable insights into the shape, weight and centre of gravity of the vehicle. Based on this information, small wind tunnels models were produced and tested in the NASA Langley wind tunnels. The results demonstrated the vehicle had good aerodynamic characteristics throughout the speed range from orbital entry interface to low supersonic speeds. Wind tunnel tests showed configuration directional stability at all speeds from subsonic to Mach 20, trimmed to maximum L/D with 10 degree elevon deflections in subsonic range, with no control deflection at Mach 0.6 to 0.9, at 3 degree angle of attack in transonic range, and then again with no deflection from Mach 2.0 to Mach 20. The Soviet design had a 2,040 km cross-range capability and an outstandingly benign thermal profile at peak heating conditions.
Langley Research Center (LaRC) continued to investigate the aerodynamic characteristics of this shape and examined some shape changes to improve the low speed aerodynamics from transonic down to subsonic speeds. LaRC personnel who had worked in the 1960's on lifting bodies, especially the HL-10, were available to conduct these aerodynamic and shape modification tests.

In addition to computer modelling of vehicle controllability during entry, a flight simulator was set up at Langley to permit pilots to study the final landing phase of flight. Starting at an altitude of 4,600 m, the simulation presented the pilot with a realistic view of the approach to a runway landing. Using a side-stick controller, pilots, including one who had flown the X-15 rocketplane and the lifting bodies, demonstrated this configuration to be controllable and capable of pinpoint landings.

The 10,884kg mass of HL-20 includes landing gear and de-orbit engines and tanks, and it had 3 days life support. Actually, it carried 545kg cargo plus 1,270kg crew. It was built for use with partial-pressure suits. You only need an ACES suit, not an EMU. I don't know the mass of ACES, but the LES suit massed 11kg. For 10 crew that's 127kg each, minus 11kg for suit is 116kg body weight. I think I'm a bit heavy, I weigh 200 pounds @ 6'0" tall. In my 20s my weight fluctuated between 165 and 185 pounds, depending whether I was employed (eating well). If you take 185 pounds as a good weight for an average man that's 84kg. 116kg is 255.7 pounds!

I just did a spreadsheet calculation based on lift mass. Assume 4 crew with average body weight of 84kg plus 11kg suit, no cargo, and 734kg for the mini RD-701. Taking into account tank area vs volume, I get:
orbiter mass: 6,416.463kg
tank mass: 4,220.339kg
propellant: 66,340.05kg
total launch mass: 76,976.85kg
That can be lifted by an engine with 81,640kgf thrust, and can be lifted by an aircraft with air-launch capability of 109,000kg.

::Edit:: I recalculated for 5 crew, since America's Space Prize requires that minimum. Using a main engine with 25% thrust of RD-701.
engine thrust: 102,050kgf
engine mass: 917.5kg
orbiter mass: 8,020.58kg
tank mass: 4,897.27kg
propellant mass: 80,566.58kg
total launch mass: 93,484.42kg

SpaceNut · 2004-11-11 08:32:44

It appears that this is what Nasa has in its plans.

NASA expects to spend $25 billion to design, build, test and fly the spaceships. That includes buying four ships for about $730 million each.

Northrop, Boeing plan joint bid for spaceship

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-11 13:05:17

I still don't think that the vehicle weight will scale so nicely Robert, that the original HL-20 is pretty cramped as it is, and reducing the diameter of the pressure hull isn't much of an option. Its just not realistic to make a micro-mini-spaceplane. The crew must also be able to ingress & egress quickly on their own when suited in the event of water or emergency landing, which will not be easy if they all but stacked like timber. If they ride "sports car" style as you reccomend, then the hull will have to be longer in order to accomodate the astronauts' legs.

I don't think that its practical to make a vehicle much smaller then HL-20 and still be able to get in and out of and you will need a spot to put the main engine. Take the basic HL-20 design, and merely shorten the pressure hull to six seats, and place the main engine at the rear of the compartment's space. The main hatch would be moved to the top of the cabin, perhaps shielded during launch/landing with doors.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-11 13:39:57

A lifting body is the lifting surface that enables it to fly. You just can't shorten it while maintaining the width. The HL-20 is the only one I know of that has reasonable performance at all speeds, from hypersonic entry to the atmosphere to low speed at landing. Handling at landing is of primary importance, and X-24A just didn't cut it. That's why I'm trying to retain relative proportions. The HL-20 had a long hull to accommodate 5 rows of seats; so you have length to spare. I'm proposing 3 rows so that means reducing head room and shoulder room, but extra leg room. HL-20 had a small isle between seats; I propose eliminating it. It had tall seats like a minivan, I'm proposing low seats like a sports car. To accommodate an odd number of crew, the pilot would sit front and centre with the windshield wrapping around him/her; legs tucked under the dashboard. A dorsal hatch over the middle row would require folding down the middle seat backs to let rear passengers and the pilot get in. Middle row passengers would get in last. This is similar to a coupe: fold the front seats forward so passengers can get in the back. Yes, middle row passenger would have to get out first, just as the driver and front passenger of a coupe has to get out to let rear passengers leave. Shuttle has as much interior room as an RV; this would be the sports car of space.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-11 13:51:25

Ok I will bite, How much development money to complete the entire package and what are the project number of vehicles for LEO in spiral 1 or return from orbit reuseable, how much for each complete assembly, and what would be the projected cost of launch crew and refurbishment?

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-11 14:08:32

No no, I mean shorten only the pressurized cabin vessel, and put the main engine turbopumps & combustion chaimber in the space that the rear half of the cabin occupied, without altering the total length of the vehicle (sans rocket nozzle).

Sports car? No. Airplane, yes. Rocket Cessna. Making the crew sit with their tails on the floor and eliminating the middle isle between seats is a bad idea, getting out of the vehicle in a hurry would be too difficult if you have to mess with seat folding and even getting out off the floor of the vehicle after a wild multi-G abort may be hard for injured astronauts. There may also be circulation issues with multi-G forces of gravity with your legs sticking up in the air and your body having to force blood parallel rather then perpandicularly to the direction of travel through your legs. You would have extra room to put your suitcase (or parachute) under your seat too.

There is one alternative to having a center isle though, but you won't like it: four seperate emergency hatches over the rear seat rows.

I am also quite sure that six seats should be the minimum, not five, since this is the number the ISS will support when complete and is a better number for Moon/Mars missions. And you can sell on more ticket per flight... the cockpit will not have a great deal of equipment with modern computers and electronics, so the copilot/passenger seats should be retained, even if that adds slightly to the dimensions.

Again, don't fall into the trap of fitting the vehicle to the launcher, fit the launcher to the vehicle. If it weighs more, then it weighs more, the HL-20 is already on the smallest practical scale for a spaceplane.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-11 14:26:42

Development cost? That's hard to estimate. SpaceShipOne cost $20-30 million including White Knight. Estimated per-flight cost was $80,000. SS1 had an empty mass of 1,200kg so an 8,020kg vehicle might cost eight times that or $160 million. Not sounding good for a $50 million prize, but Robert Bigelow also promised a $200 million contract for 6 flights to his space hotel. However, HL-20 development cost was $2 billion; I don't think it was all spent since the project was cancelled after the full-size mock-up. The news story you linked says the development cost of Northrop Grumman's expendable capsule is $25 billion. That's even higher than the $11-13 billion asked for OSP, and compared to the $10.1 billion for Space Shuttle the capsule development cost is unreasonable. You can keep cost down with an aluminum alloy for the external tank (not aluminum-lithium), using NASA's existing 747s, and ask KBKhA to develop a reduced version of their own RD-701 engine.

I'm trying to say you can develop an affordable reusable spacecraft with today's technology. If you want to "go for the brass ring", then continue development of SCRAM jet engines and integrated hypersonic airframes, and/or nuclear engines.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-11 14:44:14

As I initially pointed out for the Nasa plan expenditures of which these are for expendable vehicles I believe rather than reusuable.

NASA expects to spend $25 billion to design, build, test and fly the spaceships. That includes buying four ships for about $730 million each.

So really Nasa why would you want to spend so much money on developing a throw away vehicle especially when the four units which are part of the plan still cost way to much per each unit.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-11 15:04:48

I think that the massive $25 billion price tag is not just for the capsule and the new service module, but for other things too. Notice how they said "ships." I would imagine that NASA would throw its hands up in the air and declare itself out of the spaceflight business if only the capsule/SM and EELV modifications would cost that much, some of that price tag must also be for TLI stages, CEV cargo varient(?), and Lunar landers.

The development price for a "Mini-MAKS HL-20ish" vehicle will surely not scale with mass. The vehicle's true cost should be related to the vehicle it is being based from, the HL-20, on a complexity and not a mass/size basis. Since rocket engines are expensive to develop, I imagine that such a vehicle with a brand new engine will cost around as much as the HL-20 would have, perhaps a little less.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-11 15:36:51

Expanding to 6 crew doesn't fit on a 747. I'm assuming we can scale the crew/payload weight directly, although for the tank I'm scaling by the square of the cube root of orbiter mass. I'm also assuming engine specific impulse remains the same, and engine mass scales directly from thrust. These are fairly simple assumptions, expanding to 6 crew exceeds the 747's capacity. In fact I'm not even sure the thrust:weight ratio is sufficient for 5; enlarging the engine to 60% RD-701 for a launch thrust:weight ratio part way between MAKS and Shuttle, and enlarging the aircraft to carry it results in 169,300kg launch mass. That's way over the 109,000kg that NASA's 747s can carry. Infact, 4 crew and an engine 50% of RD-701 is 143,164.5kg. Even a C-5 Galaxy can only lift 122,472kg internal; it isn't configured for air-launch like NASA's 747s. Only an Anotov aircraft is large enough to carry it. The AN-225 can lift 275 tonnes, and the AN-124 can lift 150 tonnes.

::Edit:: Shuttle has a take-off thrust:weight ratio of 1.409314, MAKS has 1.484364. Assuming the odd values are due to engine specification rounding, let's target for 1.40. A 5 person version would have an engine with 52.912% thrust of RD-701 and launch mass of 154,276.3kg. A 4 person version would have a 46.5778% engine and 135,807.5kg launch mass.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-11 15:39:16

I imagine that such a vehicle with a brand new engine will cost around as much as the HL-20 would have, perhaps a little less.

Ok. That's too expensive for the Space Prize, but $2 billion is a lot better than $25 billion.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-11 15:50:29

I am curious about how much the lifting capacity is due to mass limitations and how much is due to drag? Say you switched to conventional Hydrogen/Oxygen rocket engines to save on fuel weight and converted the aluminum tank to Lithium/Aluminum alloy. More drag yes, but substantially less weight.

Otherwise, the problem isn't with the vehicle, its that the 747 is too small.

RobertDyck · 2004-11-11 15:52:55

I am also quite sure that six seats should be the minimum, not five, since this is the number the ISS will support when complete and is a better number for Moon/Mars missions.

I still think we need all 7 crew members that ISS was designed for. But you don't have to evacuate all crew on an American spacecraft. It is the International Space Station so let 3 crew evacuate on a Soyuz. That only leaves 4 for the American craft. I also favour 4 crew to Mars; keep it small to keep it affordable.

BWhite · 2004-11-11 20:27:00

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/news/38056.html]If this article is accurate, maybe we'd be better off having NASA buy Kliper. ???

Moreover, their response to the challenge of building the CEV seems remarkably timid, considering their experience.
"The truth is that I don't think any single company or NASA can truly staff or execute something this large and this complex," Allen said. "It's going to take a whole lot more capability than I think resides in any one corporate or government entity."
Such timidity is particularly worrisome for NASA, considering how big government contractors such as these already had spent nearly $5 billion in government money trying -- and failing -- in the last two decades to build a variety of shuttle replacements.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-11 20:44:12

Just as bothering about that articles fees collected for failed projects by Boeing and Northrop were also hidden in the article Lockheeds and other failed contractor amounts as well.

Maybe they should all give back a portion if not all of what they had received since all failed to produce a working unit.

John Creighton · 2004-11-11 20:45:34

If this article is accurate, maybe we'd be better off having NASA buy Kliper.

Why?

SpaceNut · 2004-11-11 20:51:06

See my last post in the ISS woes thread on Russian visit to congress to ask congress to allow purchase or barter of there ships.

The math is easy to do 25 billion to develop a spiral 1 ship or just pay 20 million a piece for what you need....

John Creighton · 2004-11-11 20:59:10

See my last post in the ISS woes thread on Russian visit to congress to ask congress to allow purchase or barter of there ships.
The math is easy to do 25 billion to develope a spiral 1 ship or just pay 20 million a piece for what you need....

The CEV will be able to a lot more then the souez. As far as the kipper goes it is so far just a mettle frame. If the Russians had one built then NASA could consider buying some.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-11 21:11:52

A lot more science and exploration could be done on a Russian dollar versus, those that Nasa is considering to spend.

BWhite · 2004-11-11 21:53:04

If this article is accurate, maybe we'd be better off having NASA buy Kliper.
Why?

Why? By the time NASA deploys it, no one will ever want to buy it except NASA. Then NASA will be forced to buy it to save face and we play "Emperor's New Clothes" all over again.

Ad Astra · 2004-11-12 04:09:33

Keep in mind the advantages of having both the CEV and Kliper in production at one time. You could have them compete on a per-launch basis to get a better price, and there's more redundancy should one vehicle be grounded.

I'm not too worried about "no single corporate entity being able to pull it off." No single company is being asked to execute the full Vision for Space Exploration. Bear in mind that each of the Saturn V's three stages was built by a different prime contractor. The Apollo CM and LM were built by different contractors. When we finally get back to the moon, it will be a national effort.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-12 07:33:03

Well of course NASA will be the only buyer for CEV, NASA is the only one with a use for the thing. There is no inherint problem with this situation.

One problem there IS with the notion of competing CEV against Klipper, is the problem that Klipper will not be capable of returning from orbital transfer velocities. Klipper, being a lift body/sled, beyond reasonable doubt cannot survive reentry from those speeds.

I think that this twenty five billion dollar price tag for the basic model is absurd, it is so high to not be credible at all, it MUST be for other systems as well: don't forget that the "CEV" project is not just the capsule, but a small flotilla of brand new vehicles. The capsule proper, the TLI stage, TEI stage, and other componets.

"A lot more science and exploration could be done on a Russian dollar versus, those that Nasa is considering to spend."

Well of course, thats because the Russian engineers are so broke that they are willing to work for almost nothing. This is not a surprise... but this isn't going to happen, because NASA will never be allowed to outsource that much to the Russians. Billions of dollars of NASA money going to predominantly American contractors or fewer billions going to the RSA isn't even a question, Congress will only give NASA money for domestic development and construction.

I would also like to point out that even though Russian hardware is considerably cheaper for equivilent performance, Russia has conned NASA before... half-finishing ISS componets and then demanding NASA cough up hundreds of millions for hardware NASA can't live without, even though Russia agreed to pay every last cent itself.

Cheaper probobly, but not as cheap as you might think... what happens if Russia gets into the "Shuttle Gravy Train" mindset, where they know that NASA would be forced to use their cheaper labor to save costs, then the Russians would be in no hurry or pinch to get anything done efficently.

And finally, US hardware will be superior. Our spaceflight technology is generally superior and it will be easier technologically for us to get back to post-Apollo-level Lunar operations then the Russians.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-12 11:56:51

With recent mergers of effort from the field of available Rocket design and manufacturing it is indeed getting tougher for Nasa to choose a successor to the shuttle. Boeing and Northrup Grumman formed a single team, but Orbitial Sciences also has stated it will not bid on the CEV contract and instead will work as a subcontractor under Lockheed Martin's leadership.
With these up front activities it now is clear that alternative space companies are going to left out in the dark for the CEV.

NASA Facing Few Choices To Build CEV

This also forces NASA to make its choice from only two camps, neither of which is ideal: the oversized and experienced vs. the undersized and innovative.
To speed the CEV's development, NASA last September awarded $3 million in study contracts to eight different aerospace companies to do preliminary design work. Of these companies, NASA had hoped most if not all would follow through and put forth their own proposals for the CEV.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-12 12:48:33

This is not very surprising, because making space ships is not easy, very few corperations have the ability to fulfill NASA's requirements at all. The ranks of the AltSpace companies capable of this is for intents and purposes zero.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2004-11-10 22:55:44

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

#177 2004-11-10 23:20:47

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

#178 2004-11-11 08:32:44

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

#179 2004-11-11 13:05:17

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

#180 2004-11-11 13:39:57

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

#181 2004-11-11 13:51:25

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

#182 2004-11-11 14:08:32

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

#183 2004-11-11 14:26:42

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

#184 2004-11-11 14:44:14

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

#185 2004-11-11 15:04:48

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

#186 2004-11-11 15:36:51

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

#187 2004-11-11 15:39:16

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

#188 2004-11-11 15:50:29

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

#189 2004-11-11 15:52:55

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

#190 2004-11-11 20:27:00

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

#191 2004-11-11 20:44:12

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

#192 2004-11-11 20:45:34

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

#193 2004-11-11 20:51:06

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

#194 2004-11-11 20:59:10

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

#195 2004-11-11 21:11:52

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

#196 2004-11-11 21:53:04

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

#197 2004-11-12 04:09:33

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

#198 2004-11-12 07:33:03

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

#199 2004-11-12 11:56:51

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

#200 2004-11-12 12:48:33

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

Board footer