Orion (CEV / SM) - status

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-30 15:37:25

...who says each manned Lunar mission should cost about $775M of hardware...

WHY have so many peoples in last two years said so many outrageous words against the Shuttle launch prices!!!!!!!!!!
each Shuttle launch costs ONLY $40M+$40M for two SRB, $60M for an ET and a few $$$ for the propellent... total, less than $150M per flight!!!!!!!!! ...excluding all other fixed/shared costs from the NASA annual $3Bn Shuttle program budget, of course... ...following the same (crazy) "account rules" (also) for the ESAS plan, YES, each moon mission costs $775M ...

The marginal cost is $200M

or a (better) $0.oo (if we exclude also the hardware from the account... )

It isn't reasonable to simply add up both development, fixed, and marginal costs.

surely for me (since I'm italian) but NOT for the american taxpayers, since, ALL these "marginal" costs, are REAL money that come out from their pockets...

...never use the development/construction costs for Shuttle...

that costs was amortized decades ago... now the price of a Shuttle launch is: "annual Shuttle budget" / "annual Shuttle flights"

...construction and support costs...

the "support costs" I refer are the budget-slices NASA will devote to each (small or big) project like (e.g.) the Hubble team, the Mars rovers control center, etc.
5.4Bn are the LM costs (so, probably, the Orion-slice of the annual NASA budget must be added in my evaluation)

...Griffin says that the entire launch support for both Ares-I and Ares-V will total around $1B/year...

seems he have not read his own agency's documents...
the $800M (evaluated) annual costs figure (ONLY for the Ares-I) comes from a NASA document published months ago on NSF (please, don't ask me to search it!)

...If 15 boosters are spent annually...

"IF"... but, unfortunately, the SRB launched will be (only) TWO per year from 2015 to 2020 and EIGHT per year from 2020 to 2025

...the SM is a simple piece of equipment...

do you live on Mars? ...EVERY small piece of space-hardware costs million$$$ to NASA and ESA ...NASA paid $62M for a (very very very simple) ISS-to-Shuttle energy adaptor (a simple outlet, in easy words... ) however, assuming an SM will cost $10M, the final price per launch doesn't change so much

...the entire ESAS plan is $230B...

...do you are talking of the SAME money the american taxpayers will spend in the next 20 years to have a further dozen of Apollo missions?

You are no better than the liars who stole internal NASA documents, changed them, then leaked them to the press to smear NASA.

you're right... and (sorry) I can't write other posts to-day since I've a meeting with my KGB friends to develop a plan to invade the Luxemburg ...

.

cIclops · 2007-05-05 03:27:37

Heat Shield Material Contracts - 4 May 2007

WASHINGTON - NASA has selected The Boeing Company, Huntington Beach, Calif., and Textron Systems, Wilmington, Mass., to develop alternate heat shield materials for the Orion crew exploration spacecraft.
The two contracts for Alternate Block 2 Thermal Protection System (TPS) Materials and Heat Shield Systems Advanced Development will support development and testing of three alternative heat shield materials, designs and manufacturing processes. Under the contracts, the companies will work to ensure the technologies are mature enough to become viable backups if there are difficulties with the primary material.
NASA's Constellation Program is developing Orion as America's primary vehicle for future human space exploration. Orion will carry astronauts to the International Space Station by 2015, with a goal of landing astronauts on the moon no later than 2020. The Orion TPS Advanced Development Project, led by Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., was established to develop a heat shield to protect Orion during its return from low-Earth orbit or the moon.
In September 2006, Boeing was awarded a contract to develop the primary heat shield material, Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA), manufactured by its subcontractor, Fiber Materials, Inc., Biddeford, Maine. The alternate materials will be developed fully only if the primary material does not perform to Orion Project specifications. NASA will assess and evaluate all of the Alternate Block 2 TPS materials through initial testing and select the most promising of the materials for further development, if needed.
The Alternate Block 2 contract awarded to Boeing has an approximate value of $10 million, including all options, and calls for Boeing to perform early investigation of a proprietary material, the Boeing Phenolic Ablator (BPA).
The contract awarded to Textron has a value of approximately $24 million, including all options, and calls for Textron Systems to perform early investigation of two proprietary material options, Avcoat (used on Apollo) and Dual Layer.
Each contract has a 16-month performance period from May 4, 2007, until Aug. 31, 2008.

cIclops · 2007-05-05 11:18:31

Methane Blast - 4 May 2007

If you want to see a real LO2/CH4 rocket engine firing, checkout the video! (3MB wmv) - make sure the volume is high on your speakers

This is the 7,500 lb Alliant Techsystems/XCOR engine being built for NASA that could be used on the SM.

"Methane has so many advantages," continues Tramel. "The question is, why haven't we done this before?"
Consider the following: Liquid hydrogen fuel used by the space shuttle must be stored at a temperature of -252.9°C—only about 20 degrees above absolute zero! Liquid methane, on the other hand, can be stored at the much warmer and more convenient temperature of -161.6°C. That means methane fuel tanks wouldn't need as much insulation, making them lighter and thus cheaper to launch. The tanks could also be smaller, because liquid methane is denser than liquid hydrogen, again saving money and weight.
Methane also gets high marks for human safety. While some rocket fuels are potentially toxic, "methane is what we call a green propellant," Tramel says. "You don't have to put on a HAZMAT suit to handle it like fuels used on many space vehicles."
But the key attraction for methane is that it exists or can be made on many worlds that NASA might want to visit someday, including Mars.
Although Mars is not rich in methane, methane can be manufactured there via the Sabatier process: Mix some carbon dioxide (CO2) with hydrogen (H), then heat the mixture to produce CH4 and H20--methane and water. The Martian atmosphere is an abundant source of carbon dioxide, and the relatively small amount of hydrogen required for the process may be brought along from Earth or gathered in situ from Martian ice.

RedStreak · 2007-05-05 12:36:28

Now THAT is what I call an engine alright!

cIclops · 2007-05-18 05:19:10

Concept drawing - May 2007

Higher resolution image

cIclops · 2007-05-18 05:29:26

Current concept designated "606" - note the smaller SM and three part shroud - May 2007

This smaller service module probably won't have a cargo bay.

More drawings - check other index pages

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-18 19:01:43

Why would it need one? Just clamp stuff under the rim of the SM-CM adapter. Thats where the solar panels are mounted after all, isn't it?

cIclops · 2007-05-19 09:24:28

Current Service Module concept - May 2007

Why would it need one? Just clamp stuff under the rim of the SM-CM adapter. Thats where the solar panels are mounted after all, isn't it?

Yes, there seems to be various nooks and crannies in that area even with the solar panels and the dish antenna stowed. Thoughtful design ought to maximize the available volume and position interfaces nearby.

cIclops · 2007-05-21 12:18:10

1,000 pounds cut from Orion

By Frank Morring, Jr./Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
NASA's Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) will lose about 1,000 pounds of the mass it carries to orbit with a newly adopted redesign of the service module that flies just aft of the pressurized crew capsule.
Orion also may save some more weight from an ongoing redesign of the boost protective cover that shelters the capsule during its ascent through the lower atmosphere, according to Skip Hatfield, NASA's CEV project manager.
Mass to orbit continues to be a problem with the Orion design as it matures. In the latest configuration - designated 606 by prime contractor Lockheed Martin - three panels on the outside of the service module are jettisoned shortly after the upper-stage engine on the Ares I launch vehicle ignites, much like the fairing surrounding a satellite on an expendable rocket.
In earlier Orion configurations, designated 604 and 605, the solid sides of the service module carried structural loads from the spacecraft adaptor at the top of the Ares I to the pressurized crew capsule. In configuration 606 most of those loads are moved inside the encapsulated service module (ESM) onto an internal arrangement of struts called the Service Module/Crew Launch Vehicle Truss Adaptor that will support the capsule.
The truss adaptor is dropped after main engine cutoff, and Orion proceeds to orbit with a service module much smaller in diameter than in the earlier configurations. It is shrouded not by an aluminum skin as in the earlier versions, but by thermal-control radiators that may wind up being made of composite materials to save more weight.
The design evolution has led to what Hatfield calls a "cascade" of design changes to accommodate those systems. For example, engineers saved more weight by pulling the reaction control system (RCS) thrusters inside the encapsulating panels, eliminating the need for thermal protection against the atmospheric friction they would encounter early in flight. They were also able to cut the number of RCS thrusters in each thruster bank from four to three, again to save weight.
The new configuration retains the distinctive circular "Mickey Mouse ears" solar arrays of the Lockheed Martin Orion design, but it allows more flexibility in positioning them and the thrusters on the service module.
The changes are part of an "evolving" design for the combined Orion/Ares I launch vehicle that will probably produce another Orion configuration - designated 607 - this fall.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-24 16:58:09

.

I've said from nov/dic 2005 (on an, unfortunately famous, space forum) that the CEV was (and still is) "too big, too heavy and too expensive" (receiving TONS of insults from some fanatic forum's users)

but, now, the legendary astronaut (and space expert) John Young claims that Orion (really) IS "too big, too heavy and too expensive":

http://www.floridatoday.com/floridatoda … ument.html

I hope that no one will insult him (or CENSOR again his claims...)

however, from my early posts, I've written articles, open forums' threads and posted dozens comments on space blogs with my suggestions to built a smaller, lighter and (maybe) cheaper Orion

like...

the "eggCEV": http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/012eggCEV.html

the "BigelowOrion": http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/01 … Orion.html

how to design a lighter Orion: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/019orionlight.html

the (much lighter) "underside-LAS": http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html

etc.

of course, I'm aware that my ideas and proposals will NEVER be applied... but I'm HAPPY to know that John Young AGREE with me...

.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-25 16:56:44

Trouble is that most pre-Shuttle astronauts aren't engineers, they're pilots. Pilots who like airplanes or things with wings... he's a Shuttle pilot for crying out loud, and has little business whining about Orion being "overweight" or something.

As far as Orion being too big, the capsule should have room for six seats and not four. The minimum useful number of people for a Mars mission is six, and they will be riding Orion back down after the mission pretty much for sure. The six-seat Orion may also serve as the crew module for a DRM-style Mars Ascent Vehicle. Later-model Methane SMs might even serve as the MAV upper stage.

And Orion-as-ISS rescue vehicle should also have six seats, so the whole compliment of the station can come back down on Orion so NASA won't have to shell out cash for Soyuz capsules for the other two crewmen.

Also, since Orion's CM will be reusable, it is the minimum useful size that makes economic sense for a six-seat vehicle. Yes it will cost more in the short run, but it will pay off in the long run, less money spent annually on the ISS and one less item to develop for Mars missions later.

Don't forget that all the weight issues for Orion don't have to disappear before its maiden flight; for the first several years of its service Orion will be making trips to the ISS, which means it can shed a few tonnes of fuel used for Lunar return. Orion can in fact be overweight for its first few years of service without adversely impacting VSE.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-25 18:40:40

...pre-Shuttle astronauts aren't engineers, they're pilots...

first of all, John Young is not a pilot but a commander of Gemini, Apollo (that is a lunar capsule like Orion) and Shuttle
second... those that fly on these machines know so much of them that their opinions' value is thousands times the opinion of journalists, forum users, etc.
third... after working 30+ years for that agency, Young is 150% a NASA-guy, then, he knows and can talk with people inside NASA when he want taking info about the Orion (and its problems) we NEVER can have!

...he capsule should have room for six seats and not four...

that (exactly) is "THE" Orion problem, since 99% of the (orbital and lunar) missions will have three or four astronauts (not six) with a 33% of (very expensive) "dead weight" to launch

...minimum useful number of people for a Mars mission is six...

the most optimistic date I see for the first Mars mission is (at least) 35 years away from now and we can't know to-day if the number of astronauts for a good Mars mission will be six or eight or twenty (all Mars missions are in a very early stage of design to-day)
I think that (if NASA will have the funds for Mars missions) a properly-built Mars-specific Orion will be built
also, the Orion will be used only for re-entry, while, the full Mars mission will need bigger vehicles for the earth-mars-earth travel, then when NASA will decide the right number of astronauts for the mission, we can't know the better choice for Orion
e.g. ... if they decide that EIGHT is the minimum number for that missions, they can have three possible choiced
1. use two six-seats Orion (with four astronauts each)
2. use two four-seats Orion (to have a lighter Orion for all orbital and moon missions)
3. build and use an eight-seats Mars-Orion

...rescue vehicle should also have six seats...

(as already said many times here) a six-seats ISS rescue capsule is absolutely unnecessary and (I'm sure) will be soon scrapped from the ESAS plan (like the pressurized and unpressurized cargo-Orion) because:
1. the first Orion flight will happen in 2015 (but we must add, at least, one-two years of delay) and NASA will withdraw from ISS in 2020 (the past withdraw date was 2016) after one-two crew-rotation flights per year (then, 4-10 in total)
2. if the ISS absolutely NEEDS a rescue-Orion to save the astronauts, then, we must close the station NOW (!!!) since, until 2015-2017 the Orion can't fly and after 2020 the Orion will never fly to the ISS
3. each Orion/Ares-I launch is very expensive and the Orion is designed to fly six-months-MAX in space, then, NASA must spend a giant amount of money to send two rescue-Orion per years in the next 20 years ...just to wait the day it "could" be necessary to escape the full crew (a day that may never happen) ...well... I doubt NASA will have that money
4. last, a rescue-Orion would be very useful TO-DAY (and until 2010) since, if the Shuttle will be too damaged to re-entry after a mission, the astronauts may come back with the Orion, but, after the Shuttle retirement, we wil NEVER have on the ISS more astronauts than capsule-seats... in other words, when the ISS will have three astronauts aboard, just ONE (three-seats) capsule (Oiron or Soyuz) will be docked to the ISS (and the 3 astronauts need ONE capsule to come back, not two, three or four!) ... when the ISS astronauts will be SIX they must have (at least) TWO capsules docked... HOW six astronauts can go to the ISS (after the Shuttle retirement) without TWO capsules? the same for nine astronauts, etc. ... there is NO NEED to have THREE capsules docked to the ISS (maybe, one Orion and two Soyuz, 12 seats in total) if tyhe astronauts to "rescue" are just SIX ... it's a clear nonsense

"Mars" and "ISS rescue" CLEARLY are two giant excuses to build an, unnecessary bigger, capsule, to build an, unnecessary bigger, Ares-I, to build an, unnecessary, 5-segments SRB, etc. etc. etc. (anyone knows that in the world)

...Orion's CM will be reusable...

not even NASA knows to-day (nor has decided) if the Orion can (and will be) reusable (they will decide after the first test flights) also, if they want a "reusable" Orion, they will be able to build a two-seats or four-seats or ten-seats reusable... there is NO REASON may prova that a capsule MUST BE with six seats to be reusable (while a two, three, four or five seats can't) it's an absurd claim!

.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-25 23:42:45

All of the early capsule vehicle "commanders" were pilots, and pilots are not engineers by trade. NASA's people are, they think Orion will fly, and so their opinion is far superior to Young's. Being alarmist and feeding hysteria does not make you right, and last I knew Young hasn't worked with the engineers in VSE.

Geeze, the stupid is just leaking out your ears tonight

Enough with the "oh we can't know!!!!111!111" crap, NASA is almost certainly going to use a variant of the DRM mission play, and it calls for six crew. Four is not worth going all the way to Mars for, and eight is probably too many for a reasonable tonnage of equipment. NASA has stuck with this figure for the better part of a decade for a good reason.

Developing a bigger version of Orion and a rocket it carry it later on for Mars makes no sense, having to make these things would severely delay a future Mars mission. Its the number of the spacecraft, and not so much their size, that makes the difference. A "jumbo Orion" might have similar mold lines, but the it would be an entirely different vehicle and the rocket to lift it would be a bad size, only a little more powerful than what we'd need for "mini Orion" but big enough that it would need to be a whole new rocket.

A really great way to make the space program go broke is to build small and then have to throw it all away later when you really need it bigger, despite the bigger one not costing much more. Explain that to Congress when you come begging for another $5-10Bn! And don't you go into a froth-and-spittle-flinging seizure when development costs go up? Oh I forgot, development money is only bad when NASA spends it, not like gaetano.

As far as using multiple capsules for Mars, forget that! Which weighs more, one big capsule or two little capsules? Eaaaasy answer. The mass lugged to Mars is absolutely critical, having to haul even a few more tonnes makes a huge difference in safety and/or capability. It could very well make the difference. Not to mention you go into an arm-waving fit over saving a little mass on other things, given the cost of getting stuff to Mars a few tonnes would save a considerable amount of money too.

And the ISS, NASA is still legally obligated to provide rescue for the station, and will still have to for quite a few years after Orion is introduced. Once NASA has a vehicle that can do the job Soyuz does now, then NASA will probably be required to use it! Duh!

The station will always be totally useless with its crew of only three, at least five or six will be needed to make it worth any thing at all. Thus, the rescue vehicle has to be able to take the whole crew. Right now Soyuz is good enough since there are only three, but later on there will be more, and it will be our job to bring them back in an emergency.

And for crew rotations, we can do the whole crew all at once in the bigger six-seat Orion, which might be handy too if Soyuz were out of commission. Then the station would have to be scaled back or abandoned. We'll need a six seat capsule for Mars and it is also the best option for the ISS, which is why Orion is that "big."

The "six month" thing is because of the corrosive hypergolic fuel used in the service module, but if replaced with Methane later on it ought to be able to sit for years on stand by if all it has to do is deorbit. Perhaps the hypergolic fuel tanks can be modified to last a year or so too like the Russians are considering.

Where in the hell did "three capsules, nine astronauts!11!1" come from, now you are just babbling incoherently.

As for capsules being reusable, it only makes sense to reuse a big capsule, if you are throwing away lots of pieces like Soyuz then what you have left over isn't worth much. Likewise, for an Apollo style capsule, smaller means less likely to save money via reuse.

Lastly, Ares-I won't be any cheaper unless Orion is far lighter, which it won't be even if it were reduced to four seats probably.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-26 07:12:49

...pilots are not engineers...

aircrafts and spacecrafts commanders and pilots have a DEEP knowledge of vehicles, so, the value of their (expert) opinions is thousands times higher than a blogger/forum user's opinion

...Mars...

"Mars" is out of discussions to-day and (at least) the next 40 years, so, that argument is used ONLY to justify the (business) choice to build an (expensive) six-seats Orion, that needs an (expensive) new rocket, etc. ...the right word for that is "BUSINESS" not "Mars"

the ESAS lunar missions will be with four astronauts and the ISS missions with three, then, an Orion-XXL is a complete nonsense and a giant waste of space, weight and money, but, the most absurd aspect of this (already absurd) choice is that the Orion extra-volume will NEVER be used in the next 40 years!

an ISS mission is a (less than) two-days trip (just the time to go from earth to ISS and back) so the three astronauts will have TWICE the space they need (since the Orion is a six-seats capsule) THREE TIMES the space of the (10-days trip) Apollo and FOUR TIMES the (three-seats) Soyuz for NOTHING ...just a GIANT waste of space, weight and MONEY ...OVER 50% of DEAD WEIGHT launched for NOTHING ...that doesn't seem rational ...it's like launch the Shuttle with HALF the crew and HALF the payload, so, each (already expensive) Shuttle flight, DOUBLES its price ...EVERY lbs launched in space costs very much money, so, WHY do launch (everytime in then next 40 years!) a capsule with TWO-THREE TIMES the space they ? need? ...WHY do launch 10+ mT of DEAD WEIGHT with EVERY orbital/ISS mission? ...the only rational answer is: "BUSINESS"

the same ALSO for the moon missions since... 1. all moon missions will have 4 astronauts, then, 33% of the Orion mass will be DEAD WEIGHT launched at a very high price, and... 2. the astronauts will use the 33/50% extra-space/dead-weight just for THREE DAYS (I repeat... THREE DAYS) since in the earth-moon travel they will have the very large LSAM to live in, and, in the lunar exploration week, the Orion will remain empty and alone in lunar orbit ...so, the (very expensive) lunar-Orion-XXL will be built an launched to be used just THREE DAYS a time in the moon-earth travel

please, don't insist to claim that all that is made "for Mars" ... let start claiming that this choice was made to SUPPORT the US aerospace industry, and I'll start to agree with you!

...NASA is still legally obligated to provide rescue for the station...

but they can't do (nor wil, do) that since... 1. the Shuttle is not a rescue-vehicle (but may need itself to be "rescued") and will be retired in 2010... 2. in 2010-2015 they must use the Soyuz since NASA will have no capsule to launch... 3. the first rescue-Orion could be ready to launch around 2017-2018... 4. it's clear that NASA will withdraw from ISS in 2020 when the moon missions will start... 5. if necessary, NASA can "provide rescue for the station" with the STANDARD Orion since the rscue-Orion is the SAME vehicle and have NOTHING of "better" or "more reliable" than a simple, common, standard Orion! ...WHY do build a rescue-Orion if the standard-Orion can do the SAME job???

...station will always be totally useless with its crew of only three, at least five or six will be needed to make it worth any thing at all...

that's true, and the ISS will (also) be able to host six astronauts from 2010 when it will be finished, but, after the Shuttle retirement, ONLY the Orion and the Soyuz will be used to carry the crew to/from the ISS: just ONE capsule to carry THREE astronauts OR two capsules to carry SIX astronauts... when the ISS will host three astronauts, AT LEAST one capsule must be docked to the station, while, with six astronauts on the station, AT LEAST two capsule must be docked, so, WHY dock a THIRD (six-seats) capsule if two (six-seats in total) capsules are ALREADY docked and can bring back the whole (six astronauts) ISS crew???

.

cIclops · 2007-05-26 07:25:29

Indeed. The hundreds of engineers actively working right now on Orion at Lockheed and NASA are the ones who know the status. After all this time and all the rumors there is still not one piece of evidence that Orion/Ares I won't work and an enormous amount showing that it will. Echoes of the Apollo hoax?

Yes, sizing Orion for six crew is important for ISS and missions beyond LEO including Mars. However, that doesn't stop Orion being used with four crew as in Lunar missions. There are so many trades in designing such a vehicle, six seems to be optimal. Furthermore it provides a single ISS lifeboat instead of two very aging technology ones that are only available from RSA. AFAIK Orion can also accommodate more than six during an emergency, ten was mentioned in some documents.

The synergy between Ares I and Ares V is critical for exploration beyond LEO. What do those who want their beloved Atlas V offer for the heavy lift? In a word, nothing. Even worse schemes combine cargo with crew and get an absurdly overweight crew launch vehicle and insufficient heavy lift.

Interesting point about using CH4 for the SM. Although methane doesn't have the toxicity and limited storage problems of hypergolics, it does require much more insulation and volume. Lifetime is critical for Mars missions. Orion's engines will have to restart after two plus years with total reliability, so even extending hypergolic storage to a year will be insufficient.

As regards cost, yes Orion and Ares are expensive but one thing that is always overlooked is the cost of accidents. Reducing risk translates into reducing lifetime cost. Shuttle was grounded twice, each time for more than two years. The costs were enormous, first fixing the problems, then replacing the vehicles and then the cost to other programs that were delayed and canceled. Above all were the operational costs of over $4 billion every year while nothing flew! Altogether those two disasters cost over $20 billion. It's worth spending a lot to reduce that level of exposure given the unreliability of Shuttle and old EELV technology. Ares technology promises to do that

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-26 07:37:08

...for crew rotations, we can do the whole crew all at once in the bigger six-seat Orion...

Russia and Europe have NO REASONS to fly on the Orion since the have the (20+ times cheaper!) Soyuz and (soon) the Digital-Soyuz and the (larger) ACTS (that seems will be a fat-Soyuz) ...the Orion will be used ONLY to carry the US crew to the ISS (just two-three astronauts a time)

...but if replaced with Methane later...

the methane engine and SM was scrapped one year ago from the plan and NASA has not enough money to develop a second (methane) SM and engine to build a (very few) rescue-Orion... also, the STANDARD-Orion will be SAFE and RELIABLE enough to be used as a rescue-vehicle

I think that the rescue-only-Orion will be SOON deleted from the ESAS plan since it's (simply) an useless DUPLICATION of vehicles (and a waste of money)

...three capsules, nine astronauts...

I'me sure that ISS will never have more than six astronauts (carried to/from the station with ONE Soyuz + ONE Orion) but, if, someday, the ISS will have nine astronauts aboard, they will need THREE capsules (a mix of Soyuz and Orion) to carry them to/from the station! ...the Orion is planned to have six astronauts ONLY for RESCUE, while, the standard ESAS orbital/ISS flight are planned to have THREE astronauts, then, 3 ISS astronauts = 1 capsule, six ISS astronauts = 2 capsules and nine ISS astronauts = 3 capsules

...for capsules being reusable, it only makes sense to reuse a big capsule...

no, it's the INVERSE ...it's cheaper to refurbish a six-seats capsule ONLY if it's always USED for six-astronauts, but it will be (everytime) used just for THREE/FOUR astronauts, then, refurbish a 3-4 seats capsule will cost LESS money!

...Ares-I won't be any cheaper unless Orion is far lighter...

Ares-I don't seem to (never) be any cheap at all ...

.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-26 08:36:11

...hundreds of engineers actively working right now...

when the engineers will cut the 3000 lbs of extra-mass, the Orion will STILL remains TOO HEAVY since it's 30-40% too heavy "by design" or "from scratch" ...it's a six-seats capsules used (99% of times) for 3-4 astronauts... it's like a 300-seats Jumbo used to fly 200 passengers in 99% of its travels... just a giant waste of money!

...it does require much more insulation and volume...

and LOX... that boils-off within two weeks on the EDS and within four weeks on the LSAM

...yes Orion and Ares are expensive...

Orion is too expensive since it's 30-40% bigger and heavier than necessary for 99% of flights in the next 40 years

.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-26 15:05:49

aircrafts and spacecrafts commanders and pilots have a DEEP knowledge of vehicles

Oh I'm sure that they do, but they do not understand how they are designed. You don't have a clue, particularly with your MS Paint sketches of mashup rockets, how hard it is to design a spacecraft.

And this business about "Mars is soooo far away, forget building Mars stuff for now!!11!" Nonsense, if we delay development of Mars mission parts, then that inevitably delays the Mars missions later on. If one vehicle can serve two purposes, both Moon and Mars, then it will save several years and a great deal of money to do that now instead of two separate efforts. Even not counting the development dollars, the delay will cost several billions of dollars, and you go into screaming fits about delays don't you?

It really does not take a great deal of effort or money to make the Orion somewhat larger to accommodate Mars crew duties than it does Lunar/ISS crew missions, but it would cost a lot more to later have to make a new "jumbo" Orion and suped-up Ares-I to carry it. ISS crew escape requires six seats, Mars missions need at least six, and Lunar missions might later be upgraded to six.

Making a "baby Orion" and a low-end version of Ares-I is what doesn't make any sense, it would be hard to make any reasonable variation of TheStick launch less than ~15-18MT, and considering we will need the bigger five-segment SRB and J-2 class engine for Ares-V, won't cost any more to develop. In fact, a "mini Ares-I + Ares-V" will probably cost more to develop and operate than the present NASA VSE Ares-I + Ares-V.

Let me reiterate that: making Orion smaller will save no money.

And you whine and moan and wave your arms about how the Orion will be "empty" of ISS missions - why? Cannot extra astronauts come up temporarily like with Soyuz? Or can't the Orion be loaded with extra pressurized boxes under the crew seats? Or even station parts under the rim of the SM? There is plenty of room there for small items. Of course, the best part might simply be that with all the extra mass, Orion doesn't have to be light enough for the Moon to do ISS duty.

So of course the BS "Apollo was faked!!!" response is that the Orion is just a bone to throw to the "big evil aerospace companies." I think this is just like Godwin's law for intents and purposes.

but they can't do (nor wil, do) that since

WTF? We're forking over like double or triple the cost to buy Soyuz from Russia right now! They're extorting us and laughing all the way to the bank because they know we have no other option. When we have Orion, we will have that option, and we can stop buying Soyuz. Furthermore, we are still obligated to be able to take the whole crew, and the crew of the complete ISS is six people, that was the terms of the deal we signed!

Russia and Europe have NO REASONS to fly on the Orion since the have the (20+ times cheaper!) Soyuz

Moron, we wouldn't charge them $40M a seat for their astronauts, and the Russians would love to fly more tourists instead of European/Japanese astronauts, which could go up on Orion in addition to Americans. Your assertion that Orion would always be going up with only three is ludicrous!

Who says NASA is going to build a rescue version of Orion at all? Orion can simply be rotated like Soyuz for a few years at least until either a "hardened" hypergolic version or perhaps a Methane engine.

And Jeeze can't you even count? Maybe if you used your fingers it would help: NASA is obligated to provide crew escape for the "complete" ISS crew, which is six. If the Russians want to bring up a tourist or two for a few days, then that their business and they can escape in their Soyuz, but that doesn't change the fact that NASA is obligated to have room for six. Furthermore, NASA could in theory bring up extra astronauts with the extra seats for short periods too. There won't ever be a need for "three capsules" or some eye-socket-damaging convulsion you spout.

no, it's the INVERSE ...it's cheaper to refurbish a six-seats capsule ONLY if it's always USED for six-astronauts, but it will be (everytime) used just for THREE/FOUR astronauts, then, refurbish a 3-4 seats capsule will cost LESS money!

You are a fri**ing idiot, it will cost the same to launch, recover, and refurbish a six seat capsule no matter how many people ride in it. The point is simple, with a smaller capsule you get less stuff if you reuse it, because its smaller! Duh!

and LOX... that boils-off within two weeks on the EDS and within four weeks on the LSAM

LIAR! Caught you red handed, you can't be that stupid, you can't, you are a liar! Its the liquid hydrogen that boils off so quickly, the LOX is good for months or even years if a little boiloff is tolerable.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-26 16:42:07

..."baby Orion"...

since each kg. launched in space was (and STILL is) very very very expensive, the (US and Soviet) pioneers of the space exploration started all project from a simple but very rational principle: "one seat - one astronaut"
then, they have launched the single-seat Mercury with one astronauts, Gemini with two, Soyuz and Apollo with three and the Shuttle with seven
now, there is a new generation of "smarter geniuses" that have had an incredible idea !!!! (something like the "newCoke"... ) "build a capsule for six astronauts but launch it with four to spend twice" !!! ...and that choice (that could appear ridiculous and absurd to a 10-years-old children) is SUPPORTED by ADULTS (that should be savvy at their age... )
in other word, someone have founded a "new church" (nothing strange on that, the world is full of fools!) but the most incredible thing is that this "new church" (we can call "the believers of the six-seats for three") has found lots of devotees !!!
I'm SURE that a manager of a private airline company that suggests to buy many 300-seats airplanes to carry 150/200 passenges in 99% of flights would be FIRED in TEN SECONDS...

.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-26 17:00:00

..."Orion will be "empty" of ISS missions"...

it's not an invention of mine but a NASA choice! ...after months of rumors about a possible USA/NASA withdraw from ISS in 2016 (the day after the first Orion launch...) NASA admitted that but assured (under political pressure, I believe) to shift its support to the ISS from 2016 to 2020 (when the moon missions will starts) ...well, since the ISS is an international station (for six astronauts) and Russia will always use its capsules, the number of Orion missions to the ISS (with just two-three american astronauts each, since the second half of the ISS crew are russians) could be one-two per year in 2015 (or 2016-2017 if other delays will happen) to 2020 with a total of 4-10 flights ...also, if the COTS companies (or other american privates) will succeed in the effort to develop and launch (cheaper) manned capsules (and they have ten years of time to succeed!) the total number of Orion misssions to the ISS will be ZERO since (both) NASA and the US Congress are not so crazy to spend time and money to carry the astronauts to the ISS ate 3, 5, 10 times the price of privates (that, mainly, since, if they waste too much money for the same service, their taxpayers could not appreciate so much that in the next election... )

.

neviden · 2007-05-27 10:40:18

Orion is not too big. It allows either NASA or the Russians to support the full 6 man crew of the ISS. If anything, the ISS is too small. Even the Orion with tanks full of propellant (otherwise needed for Moon mission) would not be “wasted” if the Orion would use it to raise ISS orbit. That would allow the progress/ATV to carry less propellant and more supplies. NASA could then “barter” Orion’s propellant for deliveries onboard of ATV (it could then fly with less propellant and with more dry cargo).

NASA can deliver 6 crewmembers from Earth and return them back. Soyuz can deliver only 3, but the Russians are working on extending on-orbit life of a TMA to one year. That way they could always keep two docked on the ISS with flights every 6 months to replace the oldest one. And there is no way the Russians will stop their flights, since it is the only destination in their manned space program at the moment. That way the number of crews on ISS could easily be expanded to 12 if some of the crews stayed more than 6 months. One Orion could come every 6 months and change 6 crews and one Soyuz could come every 6 months to change 3 crews. At times there would be more people on board, but there would always be guaranteed 12 seats for return to Earth. Extra “tourists” flights would add extra flexibly for crew transfers.

The problems with ISS stem from the limited number of crews there now. They are only able to keep ISS working and nothing else. The size of the crew is limited by the supplies (food, water, oxygen, clothes,..) right now, but this could be solved by more flights and preferably better recycling. They could (gasp!!) grow food in space. That would give everybody the confidence and practice that it would work outside of the LEO on a long term missions. They would simply first test it on ISS, work out the bugs. That would actually be something usefull for a change.

So, even if Orion/Ares I would cost more than the Soyuz TMA, it could carry more people and do more things. And since ISS will become “national laboratory” there is no way it will be deorbited in 2016 with nothing that would replace it. If some parts become too old, they can always replace them.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-27 13:07:24

It allows either NASA or the Russians to support the full 6 man crew of the ISS.

please, read my posts or (at least) the NASA claims! ...until the Orion will (really) flys (after 2015) NASA can't do NOTHING else than carry its astronauts with the Soyuz, then (mainly under political pressure) NASA assured two Orion flights per year until 2020 (when its efforts will go 100% on the moon missions) so, the "big plans" around the ISS will NEVER happen, since NASA (simply) has NO INTEREST (nor time to lose) in that "plans"... NASA will NEVER expand the ISS to 12 since it (already) seems NOT HAPPY to be forced to send 3 astronauts... Orion will be developed, built, launched and used MAINLY (or ONLY, if the low cost COTS vehicles will succeed soon) for MOON MISSIONS with FOUR astronauts, then, the six-seats Orion is (and will be) 33% (in "seats" and mass) and 50% (in volume) OVERSIZED ...of course, in 2040, a six-seats Orion could be useful for (just) A FEW (very very very expensive and very very very risky) Mars missions (if NASA will receive the giant funds that missions need, of course) but, until the Mars-day, up to 99% of the (orbital and lunar) Orion flights (between 2015 and 2040) will cost TWICE than necessary!!!!! (DOZENS billion$$$ LOST for NOTHING)

...there is no way it will be deorbited in 2016...

the ISS will be NOT "deorbited" in 2016 (nor in 2020 or in 2030) since it's NOT a 100% NASA/USA property

.

cIclops · 2007-05-28 05:00:27

[ ...until the Orion will (really) flys (after 2015) NASA can't do NOTHING else than carry its astronauts with the Soyuz, then (mainly under political pressure) NASA assured two Orion flights per year until 2020 (when its efforts will go 100% on the moon missions)

All of this is mere speculation. NASA and both congress space committees want Orion to fly before 2015. Given the funding it could be operational by 2013. As regards how many flights per year until 2020, all of that is changing as the Constellation system is developed and the Lunar achitecture is refined. COTS may also have an impact. Future budgets will have more of an impact than anything else.

gaetanomarano · 2007-05-28 07:14:42

All of this is mere speculation. NASA and both congress space committees want Orion to fly before 2015. Given the funding it could be operational by 2013.

no, read the latest news from NASA ...they have extended the Orion design timeline of (at least) two more years, then, it can't fly before 2015 not even if the VSE funds will be increased

As regards how many flights per year until 2020, all of that is changing as the Constellation system is developed and the Lunar achitecture is refined. COTS may also have an impact. Future budgets will have more of an impact than anything else.

two Orion ISS flights per year in 2015-2020 is an OPTIMISTIC evaluation since I'm sure that some (cheaper) COTS, privates, LM+Bigelow vehicles will be available BEFORE the first Orion flight, so, the Orion ISS missions will be ZERO

.

cIclops · 2007-05-28 07:56:23

no, read the latest news from NASA ...they have extended the Orion design timeline of (at least) two more years, then, it can't fly before 2015 not even if the VSE funds will be increased

With respect I suggest that you read the news gaetanomarano. Griffin has recently stated to the house that Orion can be operational by 2013. Meanwhile NASA have modified Lockheed's contract extending the design work until the end of 2013, that does not prevent Orion flying during 2013. I hope that clarifies the situation for you.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#176 2007-04-30 15:37:25

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#177 2007-05-05 03:27:37

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#178 2007-05-05 11:18:31

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#179 2007-05-05 12:36:28

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#180 2007-05-18 05:19:10

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#181 2007-05-18 05:29:26

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#182 2007-05-18 19:01:43

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#183 2007-05-19 09:24:28

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#184 2007-05-21 12:18:10

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#185 2007-05-24 16:58:09

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#186 2007-05-25 16:56:44

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#187 2007-05-25 18:40:40

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#188 2007-05-25 23:42:45

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#189 2007-05-26 07:12:49

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#190 2007-05-26 07:25:29

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#191 2007-05-26 07:37:08

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#192 2007-05-26 08:36:11

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#193 2007-05-26 15:05:49

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#194 2007-05-26 16:42:07

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#195 2007-05-26 17:00:00

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#196 2007-05-27 10:40:18

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#197 2007-05-27 13:07:24

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#198 2007-05-28 05:00:27

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#199 2007-05-28 07:14:42

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#200 2007-05-28 07:56:23

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

Board footer