-
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......
-
#20
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Feb, 2006 11:59
-
I know what you mean and I'm going to miss the Orbiters dearly, but we have to focus on the whys.
Use this argument when NASA went from Apollo to STS.
I'm sure if message boards exsisted, they'd be a guy in Poland saying:
"I sigh when I think we're not going back here for a long, long time....
-
#21
by
Firestarter
on 23 Feb, 2006 12:01
-
Well if it was back then, Poland was a communist country, so it'd been more like "Ha, those silly Americans are going backwards, hooray!"
-
#22
by
Jim
on 23 Feb, 2006 12:51
-
Different Pic, No RCS shown
-
#23
by
Chris Bergin
on 23 Feb, 2006 12:55
-
-
#24
by
Bruhn
on 23 Feb, 2006 14:50
-
"The final assembly and integration will be located in the O&C facility located on-site at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), a state-of-the-art facility that will be specifically configured to support CEV final assembly and acceptance testing."
Can someone from the Cape describe to me what the O&C facility is? Is it owned and operated by contractors or civil service and if contractors, which company?
-
#25
by
Jim
on 23 Feb, 2006 15:11
-
Bruhn - 23/2/2006 9:50 AM"The final assembly and integration will be located in the O&C facility located on-site at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), a state-of-the-art facility that will be specifically configured to support CEV final assembly and acceptance testing."Can someone from the Cape describe to me what the O&C facility is? Is it owned and operated by contractors or civil service and if contractors, which company?
My office is in the O&C. It is a NASA facility between the SSPF and KSC HQ. It was formerly the MSOB (Manned Spacecraft Operations Building) where the Apollo spacecraft were prepared for launch. It was changed to the Operations and Checkout building for the shuttle area and it was where Spacelab modules, pallets and ISS trusses were prepared. It has labs, offices and large cleanroom/high bay. Boeing operates the facility for NASA.
Side note: There are two places here, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and the Kennedy Space Center, split by the Banana River. We refer to the Air Force station as the Cape and the NASA Center as KSC. Joinly, they are called the Cape Canaveral Spaceport.
-
#26
by
Bruhn
on 23 Feb, 2006 15:42
-
Thank you Jim and noted about the Cape. So if LM wins the CEV contract and test & integrate in the O&C facility, will the Boeing contractors be rebadged.
-
#27
by
Jim
on 23 Feb, 2006 16:02
-
Bruhn - 23/2/2006 10:42 AMThank you Jim and noted about the Cape. So if LM wins the CEV contract and test & integrate in the O&C facility, will the Boeing contractors be rebadged.
Boeing just runs the facility and they could continue in that role, but before that happens I believe the contract (CAPPS) is up for renewal.
Also they could take the facility off of Boeing's hands, who would still have many others that they are responsible for (SSPF, MPPF, PSHF, VPF, MMSE, CRF, etc)
-
#28
by
hyper_snyper
on 23 Feb, 2006 16:56
-
So what is the LM design? Is it the one with the curved SM or the one above with the more cylindrical SM?
-
#29
by
Jim
on 23 Feb, 2006 17:15
-
Both.
-
#30
by
Dogsbd
on 23 Feb, 2006 18:49
-
The Florida Today image just above was released by LM a month or longer ago, the first LM CEV image in this thread is their latest rendition.
-
#31
by
James Lowe1
on 05 Mar, 2006 18:26
-
Thread moved.
-
#32
by
gladiator1332
on 11 Mar, 2006 16:17
-
I have to say I am happy with LM's latest rendition, much different from NG. Atleast were going to have some sort of competition here. Would have been boring if both NG and LM put out identical designs. LM keeps the Apollo Take II image, yet does it in a more modern looking way.
