Author Topic: What Will LM do?  (Read 9994 times)

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
What Will LM do?
« on: 10/12/2005 07:56 PM »
Well we've seen Boeing and NG's design for the first time today. They pretty much gave NASA exactly what they asked for. But it seems we always look to LM for a different and much more radical approach to things. So what will Lockheed do. I've been forming some possibilites in my head for a little while now and here's what I've come up with.

1) Apollo clone- CM will look like NG/Boeing's, diferences in appearance in SM. Different ideas for interior of spacecraft.

2) Old CEV design- Lockheed can always go back to their old CEV capsule concept: http://www.skyrocket.de/space/img_sat/cev_lm_1.jpg

This is the closest they have come so far to the ESAS design. I like it much more than the ESAS/Boeing design, as it resembles the Apollo design without actually being a clone of it in resemblance.

3) Soyuz or Zond like capsule- Lockheed did look into a more Soyuz shaped design as well:
http://www.miomanager.com/Mio_Files/library/1016/cev-lm-capsule-wing-iss-mkr-bg.jpg

Rather interesting as it does have some similarities to the Zond spacecraft that the Russians intended to use for Lunar flights.

4) Biconic- Also in the image above is their old biconic deisgn, either they oculd go with that, or something closer to the biconic we saw on NASA Watch last month.

5) Lifitng Body- Maybe they will be stubborn and stick with their lifting body. In a google search I found this article:
http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/06/16/Navigation/244/199655/NASA+narrows+Shuttle+replacement+competition+to+two.html

Looks like they had a lot done on that design, besides the images we saw. I also wonder if LM even wants the CEV contract anymore. Maybe they've decided they'd rather build the SDLV and SRB Launcher, and develop their lifting body for ISS transport.

6) T-Space anyone?- Either Lockheed and T/Space join up, or Lockheed uses the T/Space "Corona capsule" shape for the CM. Kinda of a crazy idea, hence why it's at the bottom of the list.

I think I've hit just about every realistic possibility...tohugh you can add some possibilities if you really feel it should be on here.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #1 on: 10/12/2005 08:45 PM »
Here is another great link about the old LM CEV capsule and a great Orbiter add on as well:

http://francisdrake.cybton.com/odysseycev.html


Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 493
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #2 on: 10/12/2005 09:17 PM »
I voted for the Apollo design, since it looks like that's what NASA will be requiring (according to what Dr. Griffin has outlined). Of course, we'll find out for sure with the upcoming specifications, but I don't think NASA will now allow any deviations from the Apollo-form capsule shell angles and dimensions.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #3 on: 10/13/2005 05:03 AM »
I can't argue with you there...NASA put out those images and has stated they want an Apollo CSM on steroids. So in theory Boeing and Lockheed are going to propose pretty much the same design. Doesn't that kind of defeat the entire purpose of having two teams competing for a contract?

Offline ProximaGemini

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #4 on: 10/13/2005 04:59 PM »
I guess I can add this here.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution has a article about the NASA/VSE announcement - and in it, It's said that Griffin plans to choose one of the designs by April ('06).

Here's the article:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/1005/13natnasa.html

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 13
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #5 on: 10/13/2005 05:35 PM »
What Griffin wants, Griffin gets.  Apollo clone.


Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #6 on: 10/13/2005 11:14 PM »
Since it is highly likely, say LM goes with the Apollo clone, what do you think they will do to seperate their design from the NG/Boeing design? I can see Lockheed going for the win and giving NASA what they want, but I think it is quite unlikely they will put out the same exact design Boeing gave us. Mayeb different design for the SM, or will the interior be drastically different?

Offline AndyMc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 240
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #7 on: 10/16/2005 11:45 PM »
Hi,

I originally preferred the lifting body design/s, but they didn't look right when used for deep space flight. After looking at the various reference mission proposals that  NASA has published in the recent past for manned Mars missions, I see that  bi-conic re-entry vehicles are what is favoured now, instead of the original proposal which was for bi-conic aero-shell covers, that would be disgarded upon entry into the Martian atmosphere. The Apollo type capsule fits nicely into this design, forming as it does the top portion of the re-entry vehicle. These papers by NASA  describe how NASA's plans have developed and changed over the last 15 years or so:

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/_docs/MarsRef/addendum/index.htm#Title

http://www.inspacepropulsion.com/tech/pubs/AIAA2004_3834AComparisonofTransportationSystemsforHumanMissionstoMars.pdf

Also the most helpful video in understanding the mission concept can be downloaded here:
http://cmex.ihmc.us/CMEX/index.html

If you want to save it as a seperate file right-click this link: http://cmex.ihmc.us/CMEX/data/videos/TowardsMars.MOV and save-as etc. The site some-how prevents you doing this. It's a big file - about 81MB. Quicktime.

The movie is a bit dated now as it uses a Shuttle 'C' type carrier, Magnum booster plus a lifting body type CEV to rendezvous with the Mars Lander, which has been boosted into a highly eliptical orbit using SEP, and is ready to depart for Mars. The video also shows the Earth-return capsule-CEV being boosted into Martian orbit and docking with the Earth Return Vehicle that has been parked in Martian orbit for the duration of the mission. With a little imagination its not hard to see how the new mission architecture will fit into this proposal.






Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #8 on: 10/19/2005 08:09 PM »
Here is what I'd like to see form Lockheed Martin:

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/_docs/MarsRef/addendum/Image25.gif

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/_docs/MarsRef/addendum/Image40.gif

Pretend that's your SRB Launcher upperstage and your CEV SM and finally your Apollo capsule thrown on top.


Or what about something like the old ESA ACRV, except with an ablative heatshield on the bottom.
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/a/acrv93.jpg

Or you could take that same design, scale it up, the larger of the two cones would become the SM and the smaller cone on top would be the Apollo capsule.

I'm just trying to think of ways that the Apollo stlye capsule could be used in a way that doesn't scream "Apollo II!". Not that Apollo II is bad, I just feel it will get warmer reception from the public if there some major differences between the two. I mean, even part of the space community feels the NG/Boeing concept is too much like Apollo all over again.



Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #9 on: 10/19/2005 09:02 PM »
I don't think we can assume the CEV Block 3 will be a scaled-up version of 1 and 2, since it's already being designed to hold Mars crew as is. Again, since cost will determine everything that's done from now until forever, I think the overall CEV shape and dimensions (though not the avionics) that come out of LM or NG/Boeing in next six months is what will be flying when the first manned Mars mission launches. Biconics are definitely intriguing, but whatever shape might be selected will have to take into account that standardized CEV.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 493
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #10 on: 10/19/2005 10:50 PM »
Costs will be *the* major factor for the designs and the final products (probably for the rest of our lifetimes) for both the lunar and Mars missions (if it goes that far). You could have all sorts of neat spacecraft if the budget weren't an issue, but there will be no such thing as an unlimited NASA manned budget - NASA will be fighting for a decent overall budget for some years to come, I'm afraid.


Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #11 on: 10/20/2005 02:35 AM »
With the questions of cost, regardless of the potential benefits, do you think NASA will get to build the Inline SDLV? I've heard that Boeing and LM would prefer the Shuttle-C style launcher, and this would be cheaper to develop. Though I am a supporter of the inline, I am not convinced it will be built yet. There were some images released before the ESAS was released showing a manned Shuttle-C config. launcher. I wonder if NASA will be forced to go back to this idea because of the budget. I can see congress saying NASA can't develop the inline, and cannot afford to develop two new launchers. Therefore, the Shuttle-C would have to have a manned can cargo configuration.
Though this situation isn't what I'd call the best case, it appears that NASA may have to head down this road. Right now, they can't even affors 19 more Shuttle missions, now they are going to build a brand new super launcher and small manned launcher? I just can't see them pulling it off, whether you like it or not.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #12 on: 10/20/2005 04:49 AM »
Quote
gladiator1332 - 19/10/2005  10:35 PM

 I just can't see them pulling it off, whether you like it or not.

Not in this time, maybe back in the 80's.. but there are some other game been played here... no make that other games. Inline would work for possible manned missions, but I think we will either have to deal with a CEV and an outsourced launcher or a CEV and Shuttle_C or CEV and an EELV... My guess, is the CEV for manned missions and EELV for cargo, as that is what I think congress may approve.  I think that SDLV, is a pipe dream, it really all depends on who gets the CEV to build, if its LockMart, then the SDLV is not going to happen, as BA and team will make far too much noise in the senate/house. Now if BA get the CEV, then the SDLV may happen... its all about money..


Offline Chris Bergin

RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #13 on: 10/20/2005 09:01 PM »
Quote
gladiator1332 - 20/10/2005  3:35 AM

With the questions of cost, regardless of the potential benefits, do you think NASA will get to build the Inline SDLV? I've heard that Boeing and LM would prefer the Shuttle-C style launcher, and this would be cheaper to develop. Though I am a supporter of the inline, I am not convinced it will be built yet. There were some images released before the ESAS was released showing a manned Shuttle-C config. launcher. I wonder if NASA will be forced to go back to this idea because of the budget. I can see congress saying NASA can't develop the inline, and cannot afford to develop two new launchers. Therefore, the Shuttle-C would have to have a manned can cargo configuration.
Though this situation isn't what I'd call the best case, it appears that NASA may have to head down this road. Right now, they can't even affors 19 more Shuttle missions, now they are going to build a brand new super launcher and small manned launcher? I just can't see them pulling it off, whether you like it or not.

I asked around and apparently the plan still is to go with the in-line version.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #14 on: 10/21/2005 04:19 AM »
Quote
Chris Bergin - 20/10/2005  5:01 PM

I asked around and apparently the plan still is to go with the in-line version.

Scheduled for when? when there is money?

Offline Dogsbd

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #15 on: 10/21/2005 12:01 PM »
Quote
Avron - 21/10/2005  12:19 AM

Scheduled for when? when there is money?

That has been the stated plan, IE when shuttle retirment frees up more money.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 493
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #16 on: 10/21/2005 03:03 PM »
Quote
Avron - 20/10/2005  11:19 PM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 20/10/2005  5:01 PM

I asked around and apparently the plan still is to go with the in-line version.

Scheduled for when? when there is money?

The last info I read was design proposals won't be asked for until 2010-2011, meaning after the Shuttle is retired. That leaves 5-6 years for development and testing until the first test flights, and operational flights starting in 2018.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #17 on: 10/21/2005 06:18 PM »
Quote
MKremer - 21/10/2005  11:03 AM

Quote
Avron - 20/10/2005  11:19 PM

Quote
Chris Bergin - 20/10/2005  5:01 PM

I asked around and apparently the plan still is to go with the in-line version.

Scheduled for when? when there is money?

The last info I read was design proposals won't be asked for until 2010-2011, meaning after the Shuttle is retired. That leaves 5-6 years for development and testing until the first test flights, and operational flights starting in 2018.


I just wonder by then, if there will be new technology, or a simple Man certified commercial version in the 100 tonn range by then, so this all may be a dreamplan and that is all. The big question, is what will all the folks at MAF do...for eight years..

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3909
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 493
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #18 on: 10/22/2005 12:34 AM »
I don't think MAF will be 'down' for that long, but it really depends on several things - who wins the CEV 2nd stage contract (MAF would be a good site for that production, I think), and the design and construction of the new SDLV first stage tanks (assuming LM wins that contract, which they probably will).

Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #19 on: 10/22/2005 04:43 PM »
Though I voted for the "Old CEV Capsule", I honestly believe Lockheed is going to stick with the lifting-body design. For one thing, they haven't pulled any images of it off their site, and the amount fanfare that they announced their design with, it makes you think they are serious about it. With previous concepts from LM (like the CEV Capsule) you didn't see them go to Popular Mechanics and show the world their design.

Here is an article from Flight International that dates back to June 16, 2005:

http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/06/16/Navigation/244/199655/NASA+narrows+Shuttle+replacement+competition+to+two.html

By this point, I do believe, NASA was well into the 60 Day study, and I am pretty sure Lockheed and boeing were being fed some information about what NASA wanted with the CEV. They had to know that things were going in the direction of a capsule...yet Lockheed stuck with the lifting body.

It will be interesting to see if Lockheed goes this way. First, it is a bit risky, as NASA has specified that the CEV will be an Apollo-like capsule. This is the only thing right now that is working against LM going with the lifting-body...what NASA wants.
I really would like to see a competition between the Boeing capsule and the LM lifthing-body. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, it trulu would be a close competition. It would appear Boeing would hav ethe clear advanage, as they stayed close to the ESAS requirements, however, I'm sure Lockheed would make a good case.

Well, I guess all we can do from here is speculate, until Lockheed provides us with the answer.

Offline realtime

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 13
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #20 on: 10/22/2005 06:43 PM »
It may depend on whether NASA is willing to support two LEO vehicles.  From a redundancy standpoint, this makes sense.  If one has problems, you can still launch crews with the other.  No troubleshooting HSF downtime of years, like we've seen with STS.

They could want one vehicle for LEO and one for lunar missions.  If so, there would be a downselect to two vehicles, not one.  From a financial standpoint this is a very tough sell.

I can't see NASA selecting a winged vehicle for both lunar and LEO ops, but who knows?


Offline gladiator1332

  • Mike Majeski
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2430
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 5
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #21 on: 10/23/2005 07:52 PM »
Well NASA could build the CEV as they want it now, capsule for ISS and Moon. After they get the CEV development rolling, they could then help fund a project like the X-37. I agree that we need a capsule for the Moon missions, it doesn't make sense to bring wings to the Moon. However, a winged spacecraft does have some great advantages for the ISS.
The good thing about something like the X-37 is that NASA wouldn't have to cover the entire bill. Right now the X-37 is just a technology demonstrator with DARPA, however, why can't things be upscaled and the shape used for a transfer craft to the ISS? This is what Boeing intended to do in the first place for the OSP.
With this way, we are getting a capsule that will be great for exploration, and a great transport craft for the ISS. The idea of a spacecraft returning to Earth and landing like an airplane is great. I mean, the Shuttle has proven this. Now if NASA can get a winged craft like the X-37, which would offer a quicker turnaround time between missions. Maybe we can get a spacecraft that is wha the Shuttle fell short of being. The Shuttle is not a "mistake" its just way too big to do the job that NASA needs. You don't need wings to go to the Moon, and why use a large craft for crew transport. Right now, NASA really needs two spacecraft, a smaller simpler, winged Shuttle-like spacecraft, and a capsule for exploration. They won't be able to fund both themselves, however, they can look elsewhere and give aid to projects like the X-37, or Lockheeds lifting body concept. However, since metal has been already cut on the X-37, and is currently being funded by DARPA, this would most likely be the best place to look.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10483
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 19
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #22 on: 10/27/2005 02:49 AM »
I think that the Northrop Grumman/Boeing team is likely to get all the contracts for the new spacecraft - CEV CM & SM and the LSAM.   Boeing owns North American, the people who built the CSM for Apollo, and NG is the company which built the Apollo LM.   So that team already has all the possible experience with this type of hardware.

If the spacecraft get snatched by them, Lockheed Martin has a lot of experience with building Shuttle ET's and Atlas LV's, so I think they will actually end up getting the contract for all the liquid-fuelled rocket stages on CLV and SDLV, with ATK obviously providing the solids.

B/NG = All spacecraft
LM = All stages
ATK = All Solids

If I were LM, I'd give very serious consideration to purchasing Pratt & Whitney (new owners of Rocketdyne too), and planning a liquid fuelled flyback booster alternative to the SRB's - because we all know it's only a matter of time before the EPA has a serious go at cleaning up the pollution they produce every time they fly.   LM would be wise to have a liquid booster replacement under development when Congress starts asking about alternatives which don't pollute...
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4925
  • Liked: 150
  • Likes Given: 153
RE: What Will LM do?
« Reply #23 on: 10/27/2005 04:55 AM »
Quote
kraisee - 26/10/2005  10:49 PM

I think that the Northrop Grumman/Boeing team is likely to get all the contracts for the new spacecraft - CEV CM & SM and the LSAM.   Boeing owns North American, the people who built the CSM for Apollo, and NG is the company which built the Apollo LM.   So that team already has all the possible experience with this type of hardware.

...

B/NG = All spacecraft
LM = All stages
ATK = All Solids
...

Thats the way I read it... but with the delays in downselecting, who knows...

Tags: