Orion (CEV / SM) - status

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-09-30 05:56:38

Let people take risks with their own money, the Space Age is 58 years old, people have been launching rockets, expensively, for a very long time. What NASA needs to do is establish a market, and let entrepreneurs invest in space travel technologies with their own money! They know that if they can get costs down below the established reward, they can earn a profit, and they are not going to waste money with useless tinkering as they would if NASA paid them to! You see with my model the compny has to launch something to earn a profit. otherwise they can put off that Mars mission to 2035!

Void · 2015-09-30 10:52:45

Tom,

Our culture has always had a need for "Commons". Not all property is owned individually. Nor should it be. I am very fond of individuality, but it has limits. Even corporations have common areas for the employees. For instance not every person has their own private bathroom, but they often have their own individual work spaces, even if temporarily.

Last edited by Void (2015-09-30 10:54:52)

RobertDyck · 2015-09-30 14:46:48

In The SLS: too expensive for exploration?, I compared the time it's taking to develop SLS vs Saturn V. SLS is taking longe and costing more money, despite the fact SLS is based on Shuttle and Saturn V heritage while Saturn V started from scratch. This discussion is about Orion, so compare Apollo CSM to Orion.

First unmanned test of Apollo CSM was AS-201, on Feb. 26, 1966. It launched Apollo CSM block 1 on a suborbital trajectory into the Atlantic, with a Saturn 1B. The second unmanned test was AS-202, Aug. 25, 1966. Also suborbital, this time into the Pacific. The first unmanned test into orbit was Apollo 4, Nov. 9, 1967. It launched Apollo CSM block 1 into high Earth orbit on a Saturn V. Apollo 6 was April 4, 1968; it was supposed to be an unmanned test into a trans-Lunar trajectory. Also Apollo CSM block 1, and also launched on a Saturn V. The third stage failed to restart, so TLI failed. The mission ended up as a copy of Apollo 4. Apollo 8 was Dec. 21–27, 1968; it was going to be an unmanned test of Apollo around the Moon and back, but due to competition with the Soviets, it flew with crew. It succeeded. Apollo 10 was supposed to be the first manned flight to the Moon, May 18–26, 1969.

Orion flew in Earth orbit on Exploration Flight Test 1, December 5, 2014. It was launched on a Delta IV Heavy. It orbited the Earth twice, and splashed down in the Pacific. Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) is scheduled for November 2018. It will launch on SLS block 1. EFT-1 did not include seats or life support systems; if it did it would have been too heavy. EM-1 will include seats, life support, and everything for a crew mission but the crew themselves. EM-1 will not enter lunar orbit, it will fly enter Earth orbit, they proceed to the Moon using the Moon's gravity to return back to Earth. EM-2 is scheduled for April 2023; it launch on SLS block 1B, and carry crew to Lunar orbit.

So Apollo took 2 years, 1 month and 6 days from first test in space to first attempted unmanned test around the Moon. That is from AS-201 to Apollo 6. Orion will take 3 years and 11 months, and an unknown number of days to do the same. Apollo took 2 years and 10 months from AS-201 to Apollo 8, the first crew to the Moon. That may be unfair because Apollo 8 was supposed to be unmanned. So let's compare to Apollo 10: 3 years and 3 months from AS-201 to Apollo 10. Orion will take 8 years and 4 months from EFT-1 to EM-2.

That's ridiculous.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-01 08:02:13

RobertDyck wrote:

In The SLS: too expensive for exploration?, I compared the time it's taking to develop SLS vs Saturn V. SLS is taking longe and costing more money, despite the fact SLS is based on Shuttle and Saturn V heritage while Saturn V started from scratch. This discussion is about Orion, so compare Apollo CSM to Orion.
First unmanned test of Apollo CSM was AS-201, on Feb. 26, 1966. It launched Apollo CSM block 1 on a suborbital trajectory into the Atlantic, with a Saturn 1B. The second unmanned test was AS-202, Aug. 25, 1966. Also suborbital, this time into the Pacific. The first unmanned test into orbit was Apollo 4, Nov. 9, 1967. It launched Apollo CSM block 1 into high Earth orbit on a Saturn V. Apollo 6 was April 4, 1968; it was supposed to be an unmanned test into a trans-Lunar trajectory. Also Apollo CSM block 1, and also launched on a Saturn V. The third stage failed to restart, so TLI failed. The mission ended up as a copy of Apollo 4. Apollo 8 was Dec. 21–27, 1968; it was going to be an unmanned test of Apollo around the Moon and back, but due to competition with the Soviets, it flew with crew. It succeeded. Apollo 10 was supposed to be the first manned flight to the Moon, May 18–26, 1969.
Orion flew in Earth orbit on Exploration Flight Test 1, December 5, 2014. It was launched on a Delta IV Heavy. It orbited the Earth twice, and splashed down in the Pacific. Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) is scheduled for November 2018. It will launch on SLS block 1. EFT-1 did not include seats or life support systems; if it did it would have been too heavy. EM-1 will include seats, life support, and everything for a crew mission but the crew themselves. EM-1 will not enter lunar orbit, it will fly enter Earth orbit, they proceed to the Moon using the Moon's gravity to return back to Earth. EM-2 is scheduled for April 2023; it launch on SLS block 1B, and carry crew to Lunar orbit.
So Apollo took 2 years, 1 month and 6 days from first test in space to first attempted unmanned test around the Moon. That is from AS-201 to Apollo 6. Orion will take 3 years and 11 months, and an unknown number of days to do the same. Apollo took 2 years and 10 months from AS-201 to Apollo 8, the first crew to the Moon. That may be unfair because Apollo 8 was supposed to be unmanned. So let's compare to Apollo 10: 3 years and 3 months from AS-201 to Apollo 10. Orion will take 8 years and 4 months from EFT-1 to EM-2.
That's ridiculous.

Will it? That is how long they say its going to take, but that assumes the same management over the next 8 years, a future Administration is not bound by what this NASA Administrator says.

RobertDyck · 2015-10-01 08:51:51

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Will it? That is how long they say its going to take, but that assumes the same management over the next 8 years, a future Administration is not bound by what this NASA Administrator says.

Boeing/Lockheed-Martin will not reduce the cost to build Orion. Their past performance since the beginning of the Space Shuttle proves that. It was confirmed with the X-33 affair. The alternative is to cancel Orion all together. And considering their plan extends well into the second term of the next president, chance of cancellation is very high.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-10-01 10:41:06

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Will it? That is how long they say its going to take, but that assumes the same management over the next 8 years, a future Administration is not bound by what this NASA Administrator says.
Boeing/Lockheed-Martin will not reduce the cost to build Orion. Their past performance since the beginning of the Space Shuttle proves that. It was confirmed with the X-33 affair. The alternative is to cancel Orion all together. And considering their plan extends well into the second term of the next president, chance of cancellation is very high.

Does Boeing want profits? Lets say NASA cancels Orion, yet Space-X remains in the competition, and Boeing has a partially developed Orion Spacecraft. Perhaps Boeing will decide to complete the Orion with its own funds and compete with Space-X and generate some extra revenue from the spacecraft that was partially funded by NASA and then abandoned, Boeing picks up the project and completes it, because NASA is not doing another cost plus project with them, so the only way they can generate more revenue is to complete the Orion themselves and use it for launch services, after all it would cost them less that it would Space-X to develop a completely new vehicle. Boeing has a head start, they inherit NASA's vehicle, so are they just going to drop out of competition and let Space-X win all the contracts with their Dragon?

RobertDyck · 2015-10-01 10:58:01

Excelsior wrote:

Please, Elon, if your listening, stick an unmanned Dragon 2 on top of your Falcon Heavy test launch next year and do the EM-2 mission.

Intended flight path of Orion for EM-1:

This means SpaceX could do the EM-1 mission with Dragon on Falcon Heavy.

I said before, Boeing and NASA would be better off adding a larger service module to CST-100 to do the job of Orion, and cancel Orion. The result would be lower mass, so able to accomplish more. CST-100 is derived from Orion, and both are built by Boeing with help from Lockheed-Martin, so they would still get work. If they don't do something, SpaceX will replace them. Boeing is already working on a new launch vehicle specifically to compete with SpaceX.

If they continue with this plan to use Orion, and not launch astronauts beyond Earth orbit until the second term of the next president, then expect Orion will be cancelled. Dragon will replace them. They might be able to salvage Orion if they do it quickly, but as I said they would be better off configuring CST-100 to do the job. SLS block 2B is not large enough to launch both Orion and an Apollo LM to the Moon. It would take 2 launches minimum. But they may salvage something if the get off the pot.

SpaceNut · 2015-10-09 20:44:59

Aerojet Rocketdyne Subsystems for the Orion Spacecraft Complete Major Review
The Jettison Motor and Crew Module Reaction Control System for NASA's Orion Spacecraft Are on Track for a 2018 Launch After Completing Critical Design Reviews. These two major subsystems that Aerojet Rocketdyne is building for Lockheed Martin and NASA are critical for ensuring astronaut safety and mission success.

SpaceNut · 2016-07-30 19:28:01

Tile Bonding Begins for Orion's First Mission Atop Space Launch System Rocket

Technicians recently began the process of bonding thermal protection system (TPS) tiles to panels that will be installed on Orion. Orion's back shell panels and forward bay cover, which helps protect the spacecraft during re-entry, will be protected by silica tiles similar to those used for more than 30 years on the space shuttle. Orion requires about 1,300 tiles. Many of the Orion tiles are standard, except for those which fit around windows, thrusters or antennae. On average, the tiles are 8-inches by 8-inches and many are standard in size allowing them to have the same dimensions with the same part number.

SpaceNut · 2016-12-26 00:11:44

The Orion test demonstrator articles for design verification have been going down the road ever so slowly...
NASA Readies for Major Orion Milestones in 2017

neil-armstrong-operations-checkout-building-orion-crew-module-structural-test-article-sta-lg.jpg

Oldfart1939 · 2016-12-26 11:00:36

Realistically speaking, SpaceX has an enormous advantage in this competition, due to the reusability of the booster stages. The Orion space vehicle suffers from the problem of excessive weight. That in turn, requires the SLS booster, which is very expensive and is a throwaway launch vehicle. In the end...money talks. The new PE has already begun negotiations with both Lockheed-Martin and Boeing about the horrendous cost of the Air Force One replacement, as well as the $325 Million a copy F-35. In both these cases, we're dealing with cost-plus accounting contracts. The asteroid retrieval project seems to be one of the first projects in jeopardy under the new administration, and I will be cheering that decision. The semi-official unwillingness to face up and make establishment of a permanent base on Mars the ONLY priority of the space program MUST be confronted head on. Once SpaceX began recovering the expensive first stages of the Falcon 9 rockets, handwriting was on the wall for the "established" contractors mired in their own inertia.

SpaceNut · 2017-04-30 19:54:01

GAO: NASA Human Space Exploration: Delay Likely for First Exploration Mission

Ya the count down for the first flight is still slipping?

The programs all face challenges that may impact their remaining schedule reserve. For instance
• the Orion program's European Service Module is late and is currently driving the program schedule;
• the SLS program had to stop welding on the core stage—which functions as the SLS's fuel tank and structural backbone—for months after identifying low weld strengths. Program officials stated that welding resumed in April 2017 following the establishment of a corrective action plan;
• the EGS program is considering performing concurrent hardware installation and testing, which officials acknowledge would increase complexity; and
• each program must integrate its own hardware and software individually, after which EGS is responsible for integrating all three programs' components into one effort at Kennedy Space Center.

kbd512 · 2017-05-01 08:30:24

If the first flight is slipping to 2019, then that means the first exploration mission won't happen until the mid-2020's. Before the first humans fly aboard Orion on SLS, the Orion and SLS programs will have been in a developmental status longer (2011-2022) than the Saturn V program existed (1964-1973). It's long past time to kill these wasteful and, thus far, fruitless programs. Even within NASA, there are better uses for the billions of dollars wasted on Orion and SLS. Let's stop the bleeding, admit it to ourselves that it was just a stupid mistake, and move on.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-01 08:38:33

kbd512 wrote:

If the first flight is slipping to 2019, then that means the first exploration mission won't happen until the mid-2020's. Before the first humans fly aboard Orion on SLS, the Orion and SLS programs will have been in a developmental status longer (2011-2022) than the Saturn V program existed (1964-1973). It's long past time to kill these wasteful and, thus far, fruitless programs. Even within NASA, there are better uses for the billions of dollars wasted on Orion and SLS. Let's stop the bleeding, admit it to ourselves that it was just a stupid mistake, and move on.

I'm in full agreement with this assessment...

And today, SpaceX launched NROL-76 successfully and recovered the first stage. Time to shift some priorities. Maybe project Constellation/Orion wasn't well conceived initially, but trying to make something out of the leftovers was an expensive mistake. Due to the Obama administration's cancellation of Constellation, we've also lost 8 years of development time better spent on getting to Mars.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-01 15:51:49

Fixing Nasa should be a number 1 as they seem to have lost there way via the job fare programs of cost plus and of unobtainium.....I think streamlining the production build process would be the first step as it looks like no one is in charge of the groups doing the work. To get them off the gravy train offer a contract for a new SLS sized ship for competition to drive them to perform.....

kbd512 · 2017-05-01 15:52:48

The STS program wasn't "well conceived initially", never mind this peculiar Orion / SLS insanity that NASA has been saddled with. There is literally no chance of us ever going to Mars as long as we continue the same policies that gave us the Space Shuttle. Nobody in the Congress or the Senate has any business telling NASA how to design a rocket or what parts to use unless they have a PhD in rocket science and have actually designed and built a rocket or spacecraft.

To go to Mars, we need affordable heavy lift launch vehicles combined with efficient in-space propulsion that swiftly transports humans to Mars, reliable closed-loop life support systems, space suits that don't unnecessarily impede astronaut mobility, and acceptable radiation protection. Nothing else is necessary. Super heavy lift rockets would be nice to have, but still not required. Even if the mega capsules and rockets were affordable and available right now, it still wouldn't help us go anywhere but Earth orbit or possibly back to the moon.

If anyone requires proof that what I have stated happens to be correct, then ask yourself where NASA has sent people in the past four decades since the Apollo program ended and what that must mean about whether or not what we have done in the recent past or what we're now doing is ever likely to create a set of events or circumstances whereby humans are once again able to venture out of low Earth orbit.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-01 16:18:59

The initial Constellation program was meant to be a competition with flyoff as it started pitting the cost plus contractors against each other to design and build what Nasa wanted until it went oh so wrong.....
In fact is before the constellation name back when the Vision for space exploration (VSE) and the Crew Exploratory vehicle (CEV) where not set in stone for the mission of going back to the moon.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-01 17:00:48

The money wasted on this whole project could have been used to get more fundamental work done about habitats, water production, energy production all on Mars. A friend of mine recently retired from NASA, revealed to me that the original Constellation Ares I carrying the Orion capsule could not achieve orbit from his calculations. That was the death knell to Constellation.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-01 17:26:51

That was due to how heavy it needed to be in order to reduce the harmonic oscillation effects to crew from the solid boost being made longer since it had an even greater resonant harmonic that was not there in the 4 segment as it was designed.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-01 21:00:02

SpaceNut-

It was designed with a great deal of wishful thinking added. Mainly, though, the Orion capsule became bloated and overweight (as well as over budget).

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-05-02 03:32:38

The ITS could probably haul it into space.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-02 18:11:17

I think all the vendors of parts for the SLS aught to be called on to do a design with there parts to cause the SLS to drop in cost by upping the production levels via each contributor making there own full sized vehicle to contend with space x 9 super heavy vehicle all on there own or they would be required to sell nasa the parts for 50% off pricing........

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-05-02 18:55:23

I think we should do a Saturn mission with the SLS, it will be made obsolete anyway with the ITS. Might get off a few probes to the outer solar system if we hurry.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-02 19:20:50

The main problem with any SLS launch is the lack of production level parts to build them out of, Software that is still buggy not only for the rocket, the control consoles and yes the launch system as well.....and yet get rid of Orion and use it for the brute force large item launcher it does have merit....

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-17 16:40:38

The Orion capsule system has a bad case of "Overs:" Overweight, over budget, and overdue. According to an engineer who was involved in the design evaluation as the Constellation capsule, it was bloated at the outset.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#401 2015-09-30 05:56:38

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#402 2015-09-30 10:52:45

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#403 2015-09-30 14:46:48

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#404 2015-10-01 08:02:13

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#405 2015-10-01 08:51:51

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#406 2015-10-01 10:41:06

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#407 2015-10-01 10:58:01

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#408 2015-10-09 20:44:59

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#409 2016-07-30 19:28:01

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#410 2016-12-26 00:11:44

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#411 2016-12-26 11:00:36

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#412 2017-04-30 19:54:01

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#413 2017-05-01 08:30:24

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#414 2017-05-01 08:38:33

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#415 2017-05-01 15:51:49

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#416 2017-05-01 15:52:48

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#417 2017-05-01 16:18:59

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#418 2017-05-01 17:00:48

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#419 2017-05-01 17:26:51

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#420 2017-05-01 21:00:02

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#421 2017-05-02 03:32:38

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#422 2017-05-02 18:11:17

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#423 2017-05-02 18:55:23

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#424 2017-05-02 19:20:50

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#425 2017-05-17 16:40:38

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

Board footer