Lockheed Martin unveils Space Shuttle replacement 549
Vegan Bob writes "Lockheed Martin released its proposal for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) in a recent Popular Mechanics article. NASA will choose this vehicle scematic or opt for the yet-released Northrop Grumman design in 2008. The CEV will replace the Space Shuttle program, and will eventually go to the moon (between 2015 and 2020)."
Couple LocMart Links (Score:5, Interesting)
Main CEV Page [lockheedmartin.com] Has the graphics shown in the other articles, etc.
Couple Page PDF Early on stuff about CEV [lockheedmartin.com]
Interesting.... [lockheedmartin.com] This page doesn't say much but what it does say is this, "The Space Exploration Vision Center is now open in Washington D.C. This facility showcases the latest developments in space exploration, concepts and technologies for NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle program, including a full-scale cockpit simulator. Government tours and meetings are available five days a week." I want on one of those tours.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:2, Interesting)
Lipservice and political grandstanding? I don't think there will be political will to carry out even a "footprint and flagpoles" Mars mission in the near future.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:4, Interesting)
The CEV is not designed to glide upon re-entry like the shuttle; rather, it will be equipped with parachutes and airbags to set down on land or water. Interchangeable computer systems will increase adaptability between modules.
I'm thinking it *is* a Big Gemini. In which case...
Way to go Lockheed! Reusing proven technology rocks! (Maybe they actually listened to my comments on reusing the design?
Bring back the Saturn rockets! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, this is not the final design, this is the one that Lockheed submitted for consideration in the competition. Final one to be chosen in 2008 with manned flights by 2014.
I think that it's 'taking us so long to go go the moon' because the moon is most assuredly dead. It seems that the focus of everything is looking for life, which is great. Either that, or long-term bases on Luna, which is also great. If it's the latter, well, damn skippy it should take more than 15 years!!!! We've never tried to exist on another solar body, let alone one without supportive water or atmosphere.
So, in answer to your question, this design is a stop gap measure to longer-term and better technically advanced systems to further our goal of living, flourishing and colonizing space and other bodies.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Interesting)
We didn't go to the moon for science and exploration, we went there to give the Reds a big fat middle finger.
Further, NASA was a part of the United States Air Force at the time, not a separate entity with its own (very limited ) budget.
Third, the Apollo project cost over $25 billion. In modern dollars, that's aover $100 billion. And believe or not, government spending was more efficient back then. Environmental impact studies weren't necessary, the cost of doing business was lower, the bidding process was simpler and cheaper. NASA's entire budget for this year is under $17 billion.
You can't just reproduce the Saturn V and fly it. The Saturn V was too big for the launch facilities and it had to be assembled with its own tower and hauled out to the launch site.
The Apollo program was also cut short. We'd made our point: America can reach the moon, and the Soviets can't. Neener neener neener. The last three moon missions were cancelled due to budget cuts.
So why will it takes 15 years to get back there? Because none of our current technology is appropriate for the task, the old technology is not only unavailable (there's no more Saturn V's left that could fly) but updating it to modern standards and safety requirements (not to mention refocusing the moon landing to a science mission more than thumbing our nose at the Eastern Bloc) would probably cost as much or more than just starting from scratch.
What's going on: I have no idea, but I honestly don't think they'll even hit the moon in 15 years unless some thing major changes about how NASA or the government does business.
Size Matters (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the big point of it will be to either:
a) Dock with new engines for the trip from LEO to the moon
b) Dock with a specialized moon courier to transfer the passengers.
Isn't it intersting, one of the primary goals of the Gemini program was to develop space docking technology? Then they design a much larger version just before the end of the program. Now we're getting a craft 50 years later that looks like the Big Gemini design but with a new body. Coincidence?
The CEV is a step back (Score:4, Interesting)
Still has to survive re-entry so losing the ability to land like a plane is a great loss. While it makes it possible to land anywhere I dont believe our money is best put to use in this fashion.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Titanium?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Secondly, who the fuck cares? Wouldn't it be cheaper to use carbon fiber composites and stronger steal alloys where needed. Sure it'll be heavier, but it's definitely a lot more cost effective. Unless NASA has the power to make the government turn over a few decommissioned SR's to them.
Re:Not again! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because someone found something that works better. Its called progress. Better, faster, cheaper.
I've no problem with sticking with what works, but do we just to stop looking when we think we've found it?
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Interesting)
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe there was NOTHING WRONG with the capsule design in the first place, and that the only reason the Shuttle has wings is so that the Air Force could have warm fuzzies about it?
Mabye people like shuttles because they don't leave a trail of trash from here to the moon. Or mabye because less material resources are expended in recycling something that you know already works. Or perhaps because they don't smash into the ground like a meteor if the parachutes fail.
The various shuttles have flown a LOT more than the Saturn V ever has, so I would venture to say there is nothing wrong with a shuttle design. Perhaps one should try focusing on the real problem with NASA, which is the bureaucracy.
The real history of the Delta Clipper (Score:3, Interesting)
My experience with Truax was to get him to cross the street (literally) and meet with Ron Packard -- the congressman who sponsored the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990. The LSPA was signed into law. I testified before Congress [geocities.com] on follow-up legislation for commercial incentives. While in Washington DC, I met with Dana Rohrabacher and told him of Truax's desire to do a trans-Pacific rocket-delivery system for over-night "FedEx" type services based on a scaled down version of the Sea Dragon -- and indicated the commercial incentives legislation could clear the way for private funding by removing the threat of government competition. Rohrabacher then initiated the DC-X program within his district, which was government funded. I happened to be present at a meeting between a group of investors and a private launch service company (intending on commercializing the MX-missile's production lines for launch services) the day the DC-X funding was announced. The investors decided not to bother competing with the government's deep pockets and terminated the meeting upon hearing the announcement. The potential of DC-X to create new "FedEx-like" services across the Pacific was mentioned in the press.
Re:The CEV is a step back (Score:4, Interesting)
The Big Gemini (upon which this design appears to be based) used a parawing. This gave it the best of both parachute and landing gear systems. i.e. Slow rate of descent and horizontal flight path.
Parawing Video [nasa.gov]
Big Gemini [wikipedia.org]
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Y-Prize: For the first manned commercial moon landing.
That should be followed up by the Z-prize, which either colonizes the moon continuously for a minimum period of time, or the first manned commercial Mars landing.
Then we move into the Greek letters...
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:3, Interesting)
How hard is it to make a replaceable ablative heat shield anyway?
Oh God, not another conspiracy theorist (Score:1, Interesting)
Secondly, NASA is working with Bigelow. Last time I checked all his materials were directly transfered from NASA. He's taking that work and commercializing it since some senators didn't think NASA should spend their money on it.
Thirdly, you cite one example of NASA using the shuttle to launch a satellite and there are more, I am sure. However, that completely ignores the tens of other satellites launched using ordinary commerical launchers! Turn off your selective memory please.
Re:Bring back the Saturn rockets! (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, as I recall, someone on a previous thread said that all of the Saturn V blueprints were destroyed as part of the deal that lead to the creation of the original Space Shuttle (doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?) But, as the guy above me suggests, an updated Saturn V-scale rocket is the form-factor for their notion of nuclear-powered lift vehicle and boy, is it a doozy.
Two obstacles stand in the way of this glorious technology:
One, the aerospace oligopoly, who stand to lose money from the retirement of costly, inefficient, and dangerous chemical rockets.
Two, an uninformed public who instinctively fears anything nuclear. Environmental groups will go ballistic when a nuclear launch vehicle is announced. Watch for an ugly, ugly fight when this happens. And it will happen. Nuclear space launch is indispensible.
Better than the Shuttle (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:5, Interesting)
Jerry Pournelle [jerrypournelle.com] is way ahead of you.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:2, Interesting)
From TFA: Another announced team is t/Space, a consortium including such groups as Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites, Elon Musk's SpaceX, and Red Whittaker[1] (http://www.redteamracing.org/ [redteamracing.org]) of the Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute. Some news reports in mid-March 2005, stemming from an interview with New Scientist have reported that t/Space intends to withdraw from the competition, citing a high paperwork burden; however, no announcement of a withdrawal has yet been made by t/Space.
However, as of May 3, it seems that only Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman did submit a bid.
Looks like the startups tried but said, screw it your bureaucracy sucks. We will just do it ourselves again.
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:4, Interesting)
We don't need fusion any time soon to solve our energy problem.
The problem with fusion is that plasma dynamics are not as easy as we thought they were going to be in the seventies. We have yet to break even. And even the types of fusion that are supposed to be low-temperature and not produce neutrons still produce a lot of neutron radiation. It'll just get worse if we scale it up to power-generation levels.
We can solve our power problem right now, with fission power. The problem isn't that we don't know how to do a proper fuel cycle with reprocessing, stimulated rapid decay with a neutron bombarder, breeder reactors, etc. The problem is, people have been spending money that could be spent on progressivel better and more efficent reactors and an economy based on this... on generally stupid stuff that hasn't shown to be any better of an idea than old fision power.
Modern Safety Requirements? (Score:4, Interesting)
One glaring safety issue that I can see is that the Shuttle lacks the crew-saving 'abort modes' that Saturn V and even Gemini / Mecury had ie: The Launch Escape Tower.
If anything had gone wrong ie: vehicle exploded on pad / during initial climb, the Launch Escape System would drag the capsule clear of the rocket and then land using the normal parachute system.
The Shuttle has very limited launch abort modes and very optimistic ideas about how the crew could leave the vehicle. Ultimately, if the Shuttle's main tank burnt fast / exploded on the pad, that would be curtains for the crew. As Challenger demonstrated, the Shuttle is vulnerable during ascent too where a catastrophic failure of the SRBs would destroy the entire vehicle and crew.
If you search around, you can find the NASA descriptions of both Shuttle and Saturn V abort modes and just in the way they read, you can see that the Saturn V escape system was a *serious* concept whereas the Shuttle abort modes are no more than lip-service to any significant malfunction.
Although the NASA launch escape systems were never tested on an exploding rocket, the Russian space program did demonstrate on a couple of occasions that the escape towers (I think on N1 boosters) worked. This is the same launch escape system used on manned Soyuz flights to this day.
If someone told me I had to ride in a rocket to LEO tommorow, I would choose a Soyuz flight over a Shuttle flight purely for the ammount of 'options' provided throughout the flight.
Re:Bring back the Saturn rockets! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I am no rocket scientist, physicist, engineer or whatnot. I am just a very curious person with a penchant for sites like astronautix.com (BTW, I recommend a visit there to all and sundry). But that is beside the point...
First, the Soyuz line is still in production. But I can dream, too, so let's assume the Saturn concept is an option...
Could we launch a Saturn? Well...
Second, American space launch infrastructure has been down-graded from the Saturn days. What wasn't downgraded (or cross-graded, or otherwise euphemistically condensed and compacted) was left to rot-in-place. It was more cost effective to let it rot and rust--after all, we had the shuttle, and everything rebuilt to its associated scales.
Therefore, any sort of similar shift to "ramp-up" to Saturn V levels would carry multiplier costs, what with the need to chop out the walls again at the Vehicle Assembly Building, upgrade or newly-design and construct Saturn-rated launch platforms and support structures, yada yada yada. This paints a very unfortunate situation. Bleak, I must confess, as I am a Saturn baby, born in 1968. Ah, the days of the TRUE boosters--I get sentimental for Skylab, sometimes...
Finally, current capability trumps the theoretical capability of as-yet unrealized systems, ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, if you are a bean-counter (and there are a few out there, I understand.... Bean-counters, I mean). Soyuz beats US Brand 'X' launcher with what I feel is an INHERENT advantage to them: they are (in my opinion) overbuilt in order to compensate for launching, historically, from facilities further from the equator. It isn't a big shocker, then, to read that Russian rockets will soon actually be launching from South American bases, where this translates into larger load capabilities, or higher orbits, being closer to the equator.
So, it would seem easier and more cost-effective, in my fantasy/opinion, to recycle current American facilities for Soyuz launch business: in the end, Soyuz is a well-proven product with a good number more launches on its resume, and an arguable launch advantage, to anything in current production inside or outside of Shuttle-Land, USA.
So, sorry. As much as I'd like to see more Saturns launch, I think it is more likely I'll get a chance to see a Soyuz launch without ever leaving the USA.
Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror (Score:1, Interesting)
With the terrorists, M.A.D. is no deterrent. They actually want to die in the act of killing us. I believe their psychotic frame of mind actually makes them more dangerous than the USSR ever was. If they get ahold of just one old nuke (and face it, the security for old missiles in parts of the former Soviet Union is downright scary), they wouldn't hesitate to use it.
As far as wiping out the species, all they need is one good biological weapon that spreads faster than a cure can be found. New advances in biotech are pretty awesome, but sometimes you gotta wonder if we're just opening the door to destruction. All it could take is one idiot madman to take us all with him.
(Brought to you by the "Make George Bush Dictator For Life Because He's The Only Guy Who Will Protect You" campaign)
Some similar designs... (Score:1, Interesting)
Of course, there are obvious comparisons to Lookheed's LS-200 "Starclipper" proposal of the 1960's: LS-200 [www.abo.fi]
But the best analog is probably Dyna-Soar, the USAF spaceplane of the 1960's: picture [astronautix.com], site [astronautix.com]...
The Death of Dyna-Soar
Ah, distinctly I remember, it was early last December;
It was felt that very shortly, we would be employed no more;
Every day we feared the morrow; vainly we had sought to borrow;
Funds to budget us tomorrow, for our work on Dyna-Soar...
On the sleek and winged spacecraft we called Dyna-Soar...
Cancelled now, forever more.
From off the duct I pulled the shutter, when, whith many flirt and flutter,
Out there flew a stately raven, of the saintly days of yore;
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But with mien of Lord or Lady, perched beside my office door...
Upon a bust of Eugen Sänger, on the bookcase by the door...
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.
"Prophet !" said I, "Thing of evil !, tell me, agent of the devil,
Whether McNamara axed the program, or just cut us back some more ?
Will he make a presentation, to Congress for appropriation ?
Does he plan continuation, after Fiscal 64 ?
Is the funding in the budget ? Tell me, tell me, I implore..."
Quoth the Raven, "Never more".
Oh, the sleek and winged spacecraft we called Dyna-Soar,
Cancelled now, forever more.
(hopefully not a future statement of the CEV!)
Simon ;)
better late than never (Score:3, Interesting)
Whereupon they'll be given a warm welcome by Mike Melville and the crew of Tycho Station, who'll present them with their very own "Welcome to the Moon, Inc." wings.
Max
Re:One or two questions related to these articles: (Score:1, Interesting)
You mean we could have afforded two or three Apollo programs if we had forgone Bush's Oil Crusade?