Lockmart CEV design released

It looks like an early Dyna-Soar concept with the Hermes orbital module
attached to the back, riding on a Centaur stage:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1534782.html
Internally, it seems to resemble Kliper to some extent.
I wasn't expecting something with wings.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in news:117fdvd2v55ata8
@corp.supernews.com:

It looks like an early Dyna-Soar concept with the Hermes orbital module
attached to the back, riding on a Centaur stage:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1534782.html
Internally, it seems to resemble Kliper to some extent.
I wasn't expecting something with wings.

More details and images he

http://www.space.com/businesstechnol..._cev_nasa.html

Nitrous oxide monopropellant?

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:

Nitrous oxide monopropellant?


"Come join us at Lockheed-Martin Space Systems Test Division, and we'll
guarantee you'll leave work laughing every day!"

--
Reed Snellenberger
GPG KeyID: 5A978843
rsnellenberger-at-houston.rr.com

Pat Flannery wrote:

It looks like an early Dyna-Soar concept with the Hermes orbital
module attached to the back, riding on a Centaur stage:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1534782.html

Actually it looks like this gizmo when seen from the top:
http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/systems/60-933.jpg
There's a drawing of this design on page 391 of Miller's "The Dream
Machines" it even has the two small circular windows on its upper
surface that the Lockmart design shares.
It also looks like the Chinese 921-3 minishuttle design to some extent:
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/p/p9213orb.jpg
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/c/chishut1.jpg
According to the PM article it uses a whole-crew escape module, and the
complete CEV spacecraft is assembled via two launches in LEO. Which
sounds like a fairly complex and expensive way of doing things, probably
forced by the weight of the winged (or whatever you call it- it's a
lifting body with a bulge on the top) aerodynamic reentry vehicle. Since
the reentry vehicle parachutes to a land or sea landing with airbags
under it, what exact advantages the lifting body shape gives you over a
ballistic capsule design is a bit beyond me. The upper aerodynamic
component has extensible solar panels, so it also is apparently meant to
operate independently when required (crew taxi?)

Pat

On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:30:46 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

what exact advantages the lifting body shape gives you over a
ballistic capsule design is a bit beyond me.

....More wing area to stick on the corporate logos, natch.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Pat Flannery wrote:

It looks like an early Dyna-Soar concept with the Hermes orbital
module attached to the back, riding on a Centaur stage:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1534782.html

Actually it looks like this gizmo when seen from the top:
http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/systems/60-933.jpg

That certainly looks like an early Dynasoar wind tunnel model. Scott
Lowther would no doubt be able to tell you more than I.

According to the PM article it uses a whole-crew escape module, and the
complete CEV spacecraft is assembled via two launches in LEO. Which
sounds like a fairly complex and expensive way of doing things, probably
forced by the weight of the winged (or whatever you call it- it's a
lifting body with a bulge on the top) aerodynamic reentry vehicle.

No doubt the crew vehicle will be rather heavy. It looks like they
incorporated quite a bit into that module (fuel cells and the like). Kind
of like the current shuttle without the payload bay or main engines.
Payloads (mission modules and propulsion) go up on another launch, or
launches.

Since
the reentry vehicle parachutes to a land or sea landing with airbags
under it, what exact advantages the lifting body shape gives you over a
ballistic capsule design is a bit beyond me.

It is a bit of a stretch, is it not? My guess is that they can get better
hypersonic lift with that design than they think they could get out of a
capsule with similar internal volume.

The upper aerodynamic
component has extensible solar panels, so it also is apparently meant to
operate independently when required (crew taxi?)

This certainly looks to be the case. As I said earlier, it looks like it
has similar systems to what you'd find on a space shuttle (for independent
flight), but without the payload bay and SSME's. It certainly looks like
its designed for independent, long duration, manned flight.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Damon Hill wrote:

More details and images he

http://www.space.com/businesstechnol..._cev_nasa.html

Nitrous oxide monopropellant?



Hey, with Hydrazine, a leak means you die horribly...with Nitrous Oxide,
a leak means you die laughing. :-D
Seriously, it will be far simpler to load than the old hypergolics,
though it would be fun to know the catalyst they are using to decompose
it. (I assume they decompose it).

Pat

Jeff Findley wrote:

Actually it looks like this gizmo when seen from the top:
http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/systems/60-933.jpg



That certainly looks like an early Dynasoar wind tunnel model. Scott
Lowther would no doubt be able to tell you more than I.



I should have included the whole page:
http://www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/systems/60-933.htm
The drawing of the same design in Miller's book is from 1957.
Speaking of water landings, here a model of Dyna-Soar gets ready for a
ditching test at Langley in 1961:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/p96a.jpg
....at least I assume they are doing a ditching test, unless this is
somehow related to testing its aerodynamics in a dense medium.

Pat

On Tue, 03 May 2005 15:30:43 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Speaking of water landings, here a model of Dyna-Soar gets ready for a
ditching test at Langley in 1961:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/p96a.jpg

....And the caption reads:

"...Hey, I know this will work. I worked on Sea Dart, and it skipped
the waters just fine!"

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

OM wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 15:30:43 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Speaking of water landings, here a model of Dyna-Soar gets ready for
a
ditching test at Langley in 1961:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/p96a.jpg

...And the caption reads:

"...Hey, I know this will work. I worked on Sea Dart, and it skipped
the waters just fine!"

OM



He's adding a tow line so the GI Joe Astronaut can waterski behind it.

;-)


Rusty