Lockheed Martin unveils Space Shuttle replacement

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)."

Comments

One or two questions related to these articles:

[Skyshadow]

Wait, what?

Why add an orbital rendezvous requirement to all missions? Why use a shape like this which, I presume, requires the use of failure-prone ceramic tiles for reentry protection instead of a tried-and-proven heat sheild when you're planning to use parachutes to land the thing anyhow? What's the advantage to using this thing over just a regular capsule if it's not necessarily reusable?

How does it possibly make sense to use the same vehicle for LEO missions as for moon and Mars missions? What happened to the important ideas behind Mars Direct or Semi-Direct (aka, having a seperate hab module that you can leave for future missions and making your fuel on Mars instead of hauling it with)? Does this signal that NASA is planning for Mars as just a set of "footprints and flagpoles" missions? Why are they planning a fly-by of Mars at all when the most dangerous part of a well-planned mission would be the part in transit rather than the part on the planet?

And perhaps most of all, why is it going to take us fifteen years to get back to the moon when we got there from scratch in less than ten the first time around? Heck, what's our goal in going back to the moon in the first place instead of concentrating on the much-more-promising Mars? Did we miss something the last time around?

In short: Just what, exactly, is going on here?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Joe the Lesser]

No, you see, this time we're going to the moon for real!

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[macpeep]

The benefit of a lifting body (or winged vehicle) is that you have more cross-track navigation control. Also, the g-loads on people inside the craft are much lower that way, which is good when they are coming back from a two year trip to Mars in zero gravity (or very low gravity while on Mars). Even for a long trip to the moon, it will be very helpful.

Orbital rendezvous is good for a number of things. It allows you to have modularity so you can assembler larger crafts, add special modules later on that you haven't even thought of now (as more advanced technology becomes available 10 years down the road), use it to dock with the International Space Station, use it to dock with possible rescue crafts, etc.

This is a vehicle for carrying people. It's not the full set of technologies needed to get to and land on Mars.

And it's taking 15 years because there's no Soviet Union that's making everyone piss in their pants in fear.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[JhohannaVH]

RTFA man.... and all you other commenters. Not only does it use a thermal shield instead of tiles, there IS a backup Carbon-Carbon shield.

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:

[stlhawkeye]

And perhaps most of all, why is it going to take us fifteen years to get back to the moon when we got there from scratch in less than ten the first time around? Heck, what's our goal in going back to the moon in the first place instead of concentrating on the much-more-promising Mars? Did we miss something the last time around?

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.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[StarKruzr]

Right, because Apollo didn't work at all.

We didn't use it to get to the moon, and certainly didn't use it to rendezvous with Skylab or the Russians. It didn't prove itself to be a fabulously versatile spacecraft at all; nope, not one iota.

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?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

No. Carbon-carbon is not ceramic. And backed-up doesn't mean that it's a double layer.

Carbon-carbon is the material that forms the leading edge of the wings, which failed from impact damage on Columbia. By backed-up I presume they mean that the material will be structurally supported underneath, probably by a continuous backing layer. The leading edge of the space shuttle wings were not structurally supported underneath. The interior of the carbon-carbon pieces on the shuttle wings is hollow.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[AKAImBatman]

Orbital rendezvous is good for a number of things. It allows you to have modularity so you can assembler larger crafts, add special modules later on that you haven't even thought of now (as more advanced technology becomes available 10 years down the road), use it to dock with the International Space Station, use it to dock with possible rescue crafts, etc.

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?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[big-giant-head]

I think this is more a return to sanity, than a great evolution in space craft. After all the basic tech hasn't changed all that much.

The shuttle was too big and expensive and had to be basically rebuilt after every mission.

What nasa needs is a reliable, relativly cheap modular space craft(s) that can be bolted to gether for different missions. Orbit, Moon Mars .... really all the CEV is a way for folks to get to and from orbit. the lunar and Mars space craft will undoubtly be assembled in orbit from modules, and carry along a CEV docked on the side to the astronauts can return to earth after it's over.

So it probably will be nothing impressive, the big thing will be reliablility and operational costs ( or less of them).

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Ironically, in the nations of the former Soviet Union, they also use the excuse that development is slower now because there's no Soviet Union that's making everyone piss their pants in fear.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[dslbrian]

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.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Darth Yoshi]

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.

Jerry Pournelle is way ahead of you.

"I can solve the space access problem with a few sentences.

"Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:

"The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:

"1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.

"2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.

"3. The sum of $12 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 31 Americans have continuously resided for a period of not less than four years and one day.

"4. The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 800 megaWatts of electric power to a receiving station or stations in the United States for a period of at least two years and one day.

"5. The payments made shall be exempt from all US taxes.

"That would do it. Not one cent to be paid until the goals are accomplished. Not a bit of risk, and if it can't be done for those sums, well, no harm done to the treasury.

"Henry Vanderbilt points out that having a prize, say $1 billion, for the second firm to achieve point (1) above will get more into the competition, and produce better results. I agree.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[georgewilliamherbert]

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.

I do not know of any aerospace engineer who believes that the Shuttle is not a greatly flawed design.

I also don't know of any engineer who thinks that the Apollo CSM was greatly flawed, though we had a couple of accidents with it (Apollo 1 pad fire, Apollo 13 flight).

There's nothing inherent about reusable vehicles that makes them all bad designs. Shuttle, however, is not a good reusable design. In retrospect, it was not good enough.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Rei]

If you read TFA, you have a wild imagination to see some of the things in there that you claimed were in there. But to answer your questions specifically:

Why add an orbital rendezvous requirement to all missions?

We don't use the Shuttle for all missions, and the Russians don't use Soyuz for all missions. If we don't need humans or a rendezvou, we use Delta and Atlas rockets. You build to the mission, and this is built to the mission.

Why use a shape like this which, I presume, requires the use of failure-prone ceramic tiles for reentry protection

It says no such thing. In fact, from a reentry standpoint, this craft looks like what the shuttle was *supposed* to be, but wasn't because of budget constraints. It uses a titanium frame - this allows it to run hot on reentry, which means that heat dissipation issues aren't as serious, and damage isn't as threatening. A side advantage is you'll get a far better payload ratio.

With a titanium frame, you generally only need to protect your leading edges, and they're using RCC, which is the best material out there in the present-day for such extremes (and isn't tiles). It's expensive, but it's a one-time production run, barring damage.

Titanium frames also fatigue a *lot* less. In short, you get a safer, much lower maintainence, and longer lifespan craft. The only downside is higher initial cost.

instead of a tried-and-proven heat sheild

RCC is a tried and true heat shield. If you mean "ablatives", don't delude yourself into thinking that they're cheap, either - this will be far cheaper than ablatives when amortized over a few flights. Ablatives are costly and tricky to apply properly (just like other spray-on things, such as foam insulation) - and are very difficult to use around moving parts.

when you're planning to use parachutes to land the thing anyhow?

Parachutes don't slow you from orbital velocity. You might have noticed, if you had read, that it has wings. Do you know why? It's not to meet Buck Rogers Stylistic Guidelines(tm) - wings let you skim the atmosphere longer on reentry, burning off your heat slower. Then, on this craft, a drogue chute will fire, followed by the main chute. It's the best of both worlds - the wings can be smaller and optimized for hypersonic flight only, while they still give you a gentler reentry profile.

it's not necessarily reusable?

What cave are you living in that you didn't learn that the CEV was to be a reusable vehicle? The *launch vehicle* isn't expendible - it will probably be a modified Atlas or Delta, which are very good launch systems. Sure, I'd love to see a fully reusable booster that doesn't cost a fortune (which, by all means, should be possible), but one thing at a time.

Overall, this is a great looking craft, and it will benefit greatly from all of the research that went on from the Shuttle program (and there was a *lot* - cost-reduction and safety-enhancing research was a good portion of the Shuttle's budget). My only real question is that its hypersonic drag profile looks a bit odd. Namely, there's no visible pinch as the wings widen (drag at hypersonic velocities is largely proportional to the maximum cross sectional area, so you typically pinch the fuselage as the wings eat up more cross section). I guess I'd also like to know why they chose ethanol biprop propulsion over, say, kerosene or LOX/propane. Still, great basic design principles on this craft.

Couple LocMart Links

[stoolpigeon]

A few links right to locmart:

Main CEV Page Has the graphics shown in the other articles, etc.

Couple Page PDF Early on stuff about CEV

Interesting.... 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:But...

[PenguinBoyDave]

No. The new shuttle replacement will go back to an older, more stable system: Commodore 64

Before everyone goes crazy

[TheKidWho]

This is a lifting body, it does NOT have wings like the shuttle's. Where the "wings" are on the LM CEV,LOX/Fuel Cells/and other avionics equipment is stored there.

Also, this is NOT the CEV that is going to be going to Mars. The Mars mission isn't until past 2020 and when that happens, the CEV will have been updated quite a bit.

So now, lets have a Capsule vs Lifting body debate!

I can see it all now...

[StuffJustHappens]

I haven't RTFA (hey, this is Slashdot!), but based on my observations of the shuttle landings - ie: like a 'regular' passenger plane, I can see how this all pans out:

1. Moonbase 1 is built with a modern, high-tech arrivals terminal for the new craft.

2. First craft arrives and personnel enter the arrivals lounge.

3. Crew awaits baggage only to discover it's been sent to Mars.

Bring back the Saturn rockets!

[__aaclcg7560]

Why don't we just re-use an updated version of the Saturn rocket and capsule design if we're going back to the moon? It won't have the sex appeal of a new sports space shuttle but it would work.

Re:Bring back the Saturn rockets!

[pjt48108]

I think we are more likely to see a Soyuz launch from Kennedy than we are a 'new' Saturn V. I have many reasons for saying this, but basic economics pretty much underscores them all.

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. ...Of course, I still argue that Micro$oft will soon dump everything and pull a Steve Jobs (again), by gutting Windows in favor of some *nix. And I also voted for Kerry. So take it all with a grain of salt, I guess. ;)

Re:curious...

[stinkyfingers]

// begin conspiracy

Maybe we have to get to the moon to put footprints and flag up before some other country finds out the truth. We can always *make* more money.

// end conspiracy

Too many technical details!

[Locke2005]

The most anticipated--if least glamorous--advancements will include a means to generate power for long-duration stays in space and a diagnostic safety system to troubleshoot problems.
Wow, that's way to complicated... could you please explain that in layman's terms?

Holy crap -- that's MY LEGO set!

[IronChefMorimoto]

I swear to God that photo on the Popular Mechanics website and Wikipedia article looks like a damned LEGO set.

At least NASA won't have to put much engineering into future spacesuits, what with the limited arm/leg mobility of LEGO peeps.

IronChefMorimoto

X-33!?!? VentureStar!?!?

[jzarling]

What about the X-33 and the VentureStar? Couldn't we just restart that program? The design is already worked out and the protoype of the X-33 was well on it way to completion.

Re:Uh, cargo space?

[AKAImBatman]

That's because shipping cargo on the Space Shuttle was a dumb idea. Humans have very special needs (e.g. safety, atmosphere, low G tolerance, etc.) that cargo doesn't usually have. As a result, it's usually more cost effective to split manned missions and cargo missions into two seperate craft.

With that in mind, we've already got the cargo craft in the form of the Delta, Atlas, and Titan rockets. Now all we need is a human capable craft that doesn't haul 80 metric tons of (mostly) useless material into orbit.

For the Nth time

[Ars-Fartsica]

How many times have we seen "shuttle replacements"??? And Popular Mechanics/Science has just turned into military industrial porn. Do even 1% of their "artist renderings" of nuclear fighter aircraft or nanotube-hulled destroyers or hypersonic submarines (yes, all improbable/impossible, that is my point) ever make it even into the clay mockup phase?

Re:Uh, cargo space?

[Richard_at_work]

Thats the whole point, the cargo is sent up seperately, maybe in a mission pod designed to be a cargo launcher. This way, if anything goes wrong, you jetison the CEV and leave the cargo to be destroyed. On missions that dont have heavy payloads like satillites, you arent carrying all that weight of a largely empty cargo bay up. The shuttle couldnt really be reconfigured to save weight, the CEV will be.

Don't go to the moon, blow it up

[Is0m0rph]

Like Arnold Schwarzenegger was saying on Howard Stern a couple weeks ago. The moon is not good for anything. The tides are a nuisance, most crime is committed during a full moon, female cycles follow the moon, no need for moonlight when we have fire and electricity. He said if he can't get government backing to blow up the moon he would go up there using his own money and blow it up himself.

Re:X-33!?!? VentureStar!?!?

[CompressedAir]

The relevant phrase here is: "Don't throw good money after bad."

The X-33 is an example of how NOT to design a good spacecraft. If your design relies on not one, but several totally unproven systems (the main two being a composite fuel tank and Aerospike engines) it should not surprise you when it doesn't pan out.

My personal jury is still out on this Lockheed design, but remember: just because it has a lifting body does not mean it has anythin design-wise in common with the Shuttle.

NASA has always been a separate civilian agency:

[McSpew]

Further, NASA was a part of the United States Air Force at the time, not a separate entity with its own (very limited ) budget.

Erm, what?!?

NASA has always been a separate, civilian agency. It grew out of the old National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), itself a civilian organization.

The Air Force did have its own space program during the late 1950s and early 1960s (around the same time as the creation of NASA), which centered around the X-20 Dyna-Soar and the Manned Orbiting Laboratory. The USAF even built an astronaut school at Edwards Air Force Base, and Chuck Yeager was the commandant. However, that whole program lost steam in the mid 1960s and was abandoned by 1969. This led the USAF to send its best remaining astronaut pilots to NASA, and convert the school into a test pilot school.

Even so, many of the most famous astronauts from the Apollo days were not USAF pilots. Neil Armstrong was a civilian (he worked for NACA in the X-15 program), and Buzz Aldrin, Jim Lovell and Alan Shepard were US Navy pilots.

The difference between then and now, in terms of budgets is this: First, the entire nation was deathly afraid of the Red Menace and national pride was on the line (nobody wanted go to sleep by the light of a Commie moon); Second, a very charismatic US President had staked his legacy on the US getting to the moon before the end of the 1960s (this at a time when the US had only put one man in space, and briefly, at that) before being assassinated and leaving the entire nation in shock.

Congress voted big dollars to the space program because it helped fight the blasted Commies, and because Lyndon Johnson, among others, helped spread the pork to important states (California, Texas, Missouri, New York, Florida, etc.). It also helped the nation pay its final respects to JFK. By the early 1970s, however, Americans began to question the investment in the space program, regularly saying things such as, "I don't think it makes sense to spend so much money to send people to the moon when we have so many problems here on Earth that we need to deal with first, such as hunger, pollution, disease, poverty, etc."

You made some valid points in the rest of your piece, but your glaring fallacy about NASA's status kind of undermines your credibility, don'tcha think?

Re:Titanium?!

[TopSpin]

Thats some really expensive material.

The element itself is rather common; over .5% of the mass of the Earth is titanium. The high cost is due to the chemically intensive refining process. Due to incremental improvements titanium prices are relatively low and stable. Titanium has only been available in commercial quantity for about 60 years. Our ability to produce it has improved rapidly.

As such, it is no longer thought of as an exotic SR-71 class material by engineers. The A380 is 9% titanium by weight; that's just under 30 short tons of titanium per aircraft.

New processes are being developed that should help drive the cost of processing ores down substantially. There also happens to be large titanium content in moon rocks.