NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle

[Justin Davenport]

Well...yesterday Lockheed Martin released its detailed design of the Crew Exploration Vehicle, the proposed replacement for the Space Shuttle that is supposed to enter service by 2014. L-M and Northrop Grumman/Boeing submitted their detailed designs to NASA this week and one of them is supposed to be picked the winner in 2008. (Stay tuned though!)

Anyway, here's a link to a Popular Mechanics article:

Lockheed Martin CEV Drawings

I'm already thinking of ways to kitbash this one. The propulsion module could be scavenged from one of the satellite payloads ("the biomedical satellite") on the Monogram 1/72nd shuttle kit, and the mission module could be a spare Unity module from the 1/125 Heller ISS kit. (I knew that one would have a use!). As for the crew module lifting body I don't know how I'll do it yet. The front kinda reminds me of a badminton nose.

If I build it in 1/72nd scale (all 3 modules) the whole thing would be nearly a foot long, as the real thing is supposed to be 72 feet. As for when or if I get to it, I've got to finish the Airfix shuttle first! Unless I really need a break from it.

Justin

[DErickson]

I'm sure the "mission module" would mission-specific, and would vary in appearance....It is a relief to see designs of this kind. It's as if the world of 2001: A space Odyssey is only a decade or so late in coming!

[Justin Davenport]

I'm pretty excited to see what the new design will actually end up becoming. And apparently the new NASA administrator wants to speed things up....now the winner is to be picked early next year with first flight in 2010 or so. They want to reduce the gap between the shuttle retirement and the new replacement.

As far as the mission module goes, that's a good point. One of its initial missions would be to act as a crew transport for ISS, it looks like the mission module used for that job would have the docking port. Hmm...an ISS model with the CEV docked to it? I could do it......

Justin

[ckalina]

Unfortunately I have to agree with Zubrin's criticism of NASA's approach to the CEV. Instead of having one vehicle and a single heavy booster, you've got two on medium boosters. This gives you three potential points of failure (two launches and a docking maneuver) instead of one; it also drives up per-kilogram cost since the per-kg payload cost of smaller boosters is always more than larger ones.

Furthermore: Because it doesn't enter service until 2014, we're going to have a four-year gap in manned spaceflight capability (the shuttle is to be retired in 2010 which is presumably why they want to speed up CEV deployment). Despite advances in technology, building and fielding the CEV will take twice as long as the same process for the Apollo capsule, without much greater capability and probably at far greater cost.

Meanwhile we're going to junk the all space shuttle infrastructure, even though it has a lot of proven and available technology and could easily evolve into a much-needed heavy-lift booster family after the shuttle itself is retired.

Frankly I don't even think the CEV looks all that cool.

Grumble, grumble...

[Raymond]

the energia is tis a fine booster.................

i like zubrins ideas too!! ;)

i was gutted when the x-33 was canceled! :)

[Hans]

It looks odd, but as long as Lockheed promises that It will do all of its capabilities with no hassle (like its F-35), I think it will be fine...

Still, the question is... what kind of vehicle will NASA be proposing to replace the heavy cargo capabilities of the Shuttle? Those MPLMs for the ISS could be left to the junkyard if they can't be tossed into orbit (well based on NASA's Launch manifest though... They didn't mention putting those MPLMs in the ISS permanently you know, and they also have a potential to be permanent Station modules... ;) )

[Justin Davenport]

Good question....I suspect they might be relying on the European ATV (?) launched by an Ariane for some of that. But I would hope we would develop something like a Shuttle-C or other vehicle for own home-grown capability.

Speaking of shuttle infrastructure, the new NASA administrator has talked about the CEV being launched by one of the shuttle's SRB's, because it is already man-rated. So I don't think the shuttle will necessarily be completely dead after it's retired. At least, I hope not, we've got a heavy lift infrastructure in place, as Charles pointed out. But I do like the idea of launching it on other boosters as well if something happens to ground the single heavy booster.

Anyway....when the CEV final design comes out I'll be thinking about building it in 1/72nd scale and adding it to a constant-scale collection I hope to have started by then.

Justin

[ckalina]

the new NASA administrator has talked about the CEV being launched by one of the shuttle's SRB's, because it is already man-rated.

Yeah, the SRB is man-rated. It's also the only piece of shuttle hardware that has ever caused a catastrophic launch failure with the total loss of spacecraft and crew. (OK, now I'm just being difficult for the sake of it...)

We should never have gotten rid of the Saturns, in my opinion.

Speaking of which, I've been kicking around the following as a kitbash idea:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/satuttle.htm

Problem is that I'd have to scratchbuild the Saturn IC stage, because nobody makes Saturn-V and Shuttle kits in the same scale. The body would probably be easy but I'm not sure I could make convincing-looking F-1 engine nozzles. Maybe if it was in a really small scale, like 1/288, nobody would notice.

[Hans]

I've heard some rumors that Russia plans to ressurect Buran... Anyone heard of it yet?

[Justin Davenport]

Charles, I've seen that concept, and it would be nice to see yours on ARC. Airfix makes the shuttle and the Saturn V in 1/144th scale and you may be able to get the Revell 1/144th shuttle and Monogram Saturn V on ebay or somewhere else. As for 1/72nd scale (!) the Monogram shuttle kit and a 1/72nd flying Saturn V kit I've heard about (or a paper model) may be your best bet.

As far as resurrecting the Buran, the building the Buran was stored in - the Russian equivalent of the VAB - suffered a massive roof collapse and the Buran stack and orbiter was reportedly destroyed. I really don't see that program rising like the phoenix from the ashes.

Justin

[Hans]

Charles, I've seen that concept, and it would be nice to see yours on ARC. Airfix makes the shuttle and the Saturn V in 1/144th scale and you may be able to get the Revell 1/144th shuttle and Monogram Saturn V on ebay or somewhere else. As for 1/72nd scale (!) the Monogram shuttle kit and a 1/72nd flying Saturn V kit I've heard about (or a paper model) may be your best bet.

As far as resurrecting the Buran, the building the Buran was stored in - the Russian equivalent of the VAB - suffered a massive roof collapse and the Buran stack and orbiter was reportedly destroyed. I really don't see that program rising like the phoenix from the ashes.

Justin

Oh dear...

I've been thinking about the ISS's maintainability once the shuttle goes to the museums...

What if something hit it? (like a fairly sized meteor or space junk) Like in the Intergrated Truss Assembly, or worse yet, the modules? How can they bring spares or in the worse case, bring back the damaged part back here for repair or replacement?

There's no way that the CEV, ATV, Soyuz propulsion module, or any launch vehicle available can do these things other than the Shuttle... :)

I started thinking if NASA considered this one when they decided to end the Shuttle after the station is finished... :D

[Raymond]

...what was wrong with the x-33?

as for the ISS *cough* expensive-white-elephant-that-probaby-will-be-more-pain-in-the-***-than-its-worth *cough*

[Hans]

...what was wrong with the x-33?

as for the ISS *cough* expensive-white-elephant-that-probaby-will-be-more-pain-in-the-***-than-its-worth *cough*

The X-33 would have been the best replacement for the shuttle's cargo capabilities...

And along with the Proposed CEV, they should have been the perfect predecessor of the shuttle...

I just hope that NASA pull the program from the cabinet and start working on it again... (Since they've already made successful test of the aerospike rocket engine...)