-
Lockheed arrange Florida CEV deal
by
James Lowe1
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:01
-
-
#1
by
James Lowe1
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:02
-
-
#2
by
Jamie Young
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:12
-
Looks smaller than the other CEV. Not particularly inspiring.
-
#3
by
hyper_snyper
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:16
-
I think it looks sleeker than the original concept. It looks like they've shrunken the SM.
-
#4
by
Flightstar
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:18
-
It is sleeker, but I think Lockheed may tried to be a bit too different that NG. I'm interested to see diagrams and schematics of the launch system intergration.
-
#5
by
CEV Now
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:22
-
Same here. Need to see more than just an image.
Redundancy with the two engines?
-
#6
by
simonbp
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:27
-
The actual internal volume doesn't look that much lower because of that spherical extension out the back (less deadweight shell) and the large lump covering the cables going from the CM to SM is a nice touch...
Simon
-
#7
by
Jim
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:32
-
Flightstar - 22/2/2006 7:18 PMIt is sleeker, but I think Lockheed may tried to be a bit too different that NG. I'm interested to see diagrams and schematics of the launch system intergration.
Wouldn't be just an interstage?
-
#8
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:34
-
-
#9
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:35
-
Canfield Joint gimballing on the solar panels?
-
#10
by
HailColumbia
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:54
-
What up with the attachment of the engines to the SM. looks pretty fragile.
-
#11
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:57
-
That looks like a gimbal device too!
-
#12
by
hyper_snyper
on 23 Feb, 2006 00:58
-
HailColumbia - 22/2/2006 8:54 PMWhat up with the attachment of the engines to the SM. looks pretty fragile.
Someone said in another thread that the engines might be gimbaled.
Edit: Chris beat me to it.
-
#13
by
Jim
on 23 Feb, 2006 01:07
-
hyper_snyper - 22/2/2006 7:58 PMHailColumbia - 22/2/2006 8:54 PMWhat up with the attachment of the engines to the SM. looks pretty fragile.
Someone said in another thread that the engines might be gimbaled.
Edit: Chris beat me to it.
With offset redundant engines, they would have to be gimbaled to burn thru the CG of the spacecraft. Cassini had the same thing. The Apollo SM SPS was gimbaled
-
#14
by
simonbp
on 23 Feb, 2006 03:21
-
Ok, I did some quick'n dirty dimensional analysis; using the dimensions below (based off measuring the LM image), the LM SM has a volume of about 55 m^3, as opposed to the ESAS SM (scaled to 5 metre diameter) of 68 m^3, or a volume loss of just 20% for probably signifigant structural mass losses...
Simon
-
#15
by
MKremer
on 23 Feb, 2006 06:11
-
Speaking of SM illustrations...
One thing I've noticed in quite a few of these SM concept illustrations - they show the RCS 'pods' in-line with the solar panels. Not only could that subject the panel support and gimbal structures (as well as the panels themselves) to stress every time the back thrusters fire at them (there's no atmosphere to slow the gas velocity before it impacts even though the exhaust spreads out much more in vacuum), but there's the risk of contamination buildup on a good portion of the panel's solar cells with each firing. Also, if the panels swivel to track the sun, any thruster exhaust contamination would end up affecting both sides of each panel.
LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4 exhaust would mainly be composed of water ice crystals which would sublimate eventually after every firing. However, if they're still seriously considering hypergolics for the RCS, that exhaust residue could play hell with the panel efficiencies over time.
To me it would make sense to reposition the panels at the rear between the thruster pods, away from any direct exhaust. A portion of the exhaust would still affect them, but much less than directly behind.
-
#16
by
Hotol
on 23 Feb, 2006 11:04
-
The cable tray protector must open or split in half to allow seperation?
-
#17
by
Jim
on 23 Feb, 2006 11:28
-
Hotol - 23/2/2006 6:04 AMThe cable tray protector must open or split in half to allow seperation?
just like Apollo's, it would swing outward with the cables
-
#18
by
Jim
on 23 Feb, 2006 11:31
-
MKremer - 23/2/2006 1:11 AMSpeaking of SM illustrations...One thing I've noticed in quite a few of these SM concept illustrations - they show the RCS 'pods' in-line with the solar panels. Not only could that subject the panel support and gimbal structures (as well as the panels themselves) to stress every time the back thrusters fire at them (there's no atmosphere to slow the gas velocity before it impacts even though the exhaust spreads out much more in vacuum), but there's the risk of contamination buildup on a good portion of the panel's solar cells with each firing. Also, if the panels swivel to track the sun, any thruster exhaust contamination would end up affecting both sides of each panel.LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4 exhaust would mainly be composed of water ice crystals which would sublimate eventually after every firing. However, if they're still seriously considering hypergolics for the RCS, that exhaust residue could play hell with the panel efficiencies over time.To me it would make sense to reposition the panels at the rear between the thruster pods, away from any direct exhaust. A portion of the exhaust would still affect them, but much less than directly behind.
High gain Ant placement has the same issues
-
#19
by
Polecat
on 23 Feb, 2006 11:54
-
I sigh when I know this is going to replace the majesty of......
