Orion (CEV / SM) - status

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-03-05 15:50:48

Griffin has said that flat budgetting of 2007 has had an impact of 4 to 6 months on Ares I orion developement.
Budget crunch to delay NASA's new moon ship
The craft, called the Orion, won't fly until early 2015, four to six months later than planned, NASA administrator Michael Griffin told lawmakers.
"We simply do not have the money available" to fly in 2014 as originally planned, he said.

Delaying Orion will make it cost more, because NASA will be paying some people's salaries and telling them just to sit there and do nothing until money is obtained to finish the project.

I get nothing from the space station. Its not interesting watching an astronaut in a spacesuit turning a screwdriver, and it will only operate for 4 years after completion. Duh! Why the priority on the Space Station, I just don't see it?

cIclops · 2007-03-07 10:40:17

NASA Completes Key Review of Orion Spacecraft - 7 Mar 2007

WASHINGTON - NASA has established a requirements baseline for the Orion crew exploration vehicle, bringing America's next human spacecraft a step closer to construction.
The Orion Project completed its system requirements review in cooperation with its prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, March 1. The review marked the first major milestone in the Orion engineering process and provided the foundation for design, development, construction and safe operation of the spacecraft that will carry explorers to Earth orbit, to the moon, and eventually to Mars. The detailed requirements established in this review will serve as the basis for ongoing design analysis work and systems testing.
"This is a significant step in the development of a space transportation system that will expand our horizons to include other worlds," said Skip Hatfield, Orion Project manager at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston.
The Orion review followed an overall review of requirements for the Constellation Program that was completed in November. Similar reviews are planned later this spring for ground and mission operations systems that will support Constellation launch systems and space flight operations ground infrastructure.
"We have now completed program-wide launch vehicle and human spacecraft system requirements reviews," said Constellation Program Manager Jeff Hanley. "These are important pieces of a management and engineering puzzle that will allow us to accomplish the goal of putting humans back on the moon."
The Orion requirements data set was reviewed by agency and contractor scientists and engineers from across the country. More than 1,700 topics covering all aspects of vehicle performance, design and qualification were discussed during the course of the formal review.
Once all project-level reviews are complete, the Constellation Program will hold another full review to update baseline requirements. A lunar architecture systems review of equipment associated with surface exploration and science activities on the moon is expected in the spring of 2009.

SpaceNut · 2007-03-17 19:32:36

Plum Brook gets contract to test new moon ship

The plans call for testing Orion at Plum Brook in 2011 or 2012 at the vacuum chamber at the Space Power Facility, when Orion is fully assembled.

All to the tune of a $63 million contract.

The problem I have is that Lockheed is building the Orion but not delivering it to Nasa ready to use, that additional testing is still needed to prove that it is or has been built correctly and is space worthy. Normally the manufacturer would be responsible for this.

Other items to note:
The Glenn Research Center in Cleveland is also overseeing work to develop the Orion crew exploration vehicle's service module, which is attached to Orion and provides propulsion and electrical power for the spacecraft.

It is a project worth at least $2 billion and could possibly provide hundreds of jobs over the next decade.

Items for why Plum Brook was selected for the test site. It is a 6,400-acre installation with four world-class test facilities.

These are the:
Space Power Facility, the world's largest thermal vacuum chamber for ground testing large equipment in a simulated space environment - surrounded by a vacuum and at very hot and cold temperatures - before taking the equipment into space.
Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility, the world's only facility that simulates the actual flight conditions of space on full-size rocket vehicles.
Hypersonic Tunnel Facility, the United States' largest clean-air wind tunnel capable of performing tests up to seven times the speed of sound.
Cryogenic Propellent Test Facility, which tests cutting-edge technology for high-energy space propulsion systems of the future.

cIclops · 2007-03-18 04:21:45

The problem I have is that Lockheed is building the Orion but not delivering it to Nasa ready to use, that additional testing is still needed to prove that it is or has been built correctly and is space worthy. Normally the manufacturer would be responsible for this.

It's quite standard practice for the customer to perform an acceptance test of a new product, especially a complex very expensive custom designed one. NASA will have their own set of tests that Orion will have to pass before LM will be paid and more importantly before Orion flies. This type of testing is done with each ISS module before it is launched.

cIclops · 2007-03-19 12:12:49

Here is the NASA press release about the testing contract

CLEVELAND - NASA's Glenn Research Center will conduct integrated environmental testing of the Orion crew exploration vehicle in the Space Power Facility at the center's Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio.
The environmental tests are designed to demonstrate the ability of Orion hardware to meet specified performance requirements in simulated environmental conditions such as those experienced during launch, in-orbit operations and re-entry. Thermal, acoustic and mechanical vibration and electromagnetic compatibility testing will be conducted on Orion's full assembly. The launch abort system, crew module, service module and spacecraft adapter will be tested.
The work is valued at approximately $63 million during a five-year period from 2007 to 2011. During this period, the Space Power Facility will be augmented with a number of capabilities, including a new acoustic chamber and a mechanical vibration test stand. Specialized equipment that will enable electromagnetic test capabilities also will be added to the thermal vacuum chamber.
"We are pleased to play this essential role in the agency's quest to develop the next generation of space vehicles," said Glenn Director Dr. Woodrow Whitlow, Jr. "The Space Power Facility is the world's largest thermal vacuum chamber. The modifications will enhance this world-class facility and allow us to make significant contributions to the development of future space systems."
The Space Power Facility measures 100 feet in diameter by 122 feet in height. The facility currently can simulate in-space conditions such as low vacuum environments and temperature extremes. The facility's wide-ranging capabilities have been used extensively to test rocket payload fairings; orbital hardware, including International Space Station systems; and planetary landing and surface systems such as the Mars Exploration Rover landing systems.

cIclops · 2007-03-20 11:07:23

Lockheed Martin animation of flight deck layout (4MB)

RedStreak · 2007-03-20 17:00:43

Looks like a promising workspace. Its definetely more spacious than Soyuz or Apollo - dunno how it compares with the shuttle but not bad.

I think for a Martian expedition a larger module would be wise - my thoughts are toward something like a Mars Direct Hab Lander, but for an orbital or lunar mission the CEV (and LSAM) should be more than sufficent.

cIclops · 2007-03-20 17:06:05

Looks like a promising workspace. Its definetely more spacious than Soyuz or Apollo - dunno how it compares with the shuttle but not bad.
I think for a Martian expedition a larger module would be wise - my thoughts are toward something like a Mars Direct Hab Lander, but for an orbital or lunar mission the CEV (and LSAM) should be more than sufficent.

For a Mars mission the crew would probably only occupy the capsule for lift off and reentry, they would use a special vehicle for the six month transits. Orion would wait in Mars orbit just like it will in Lunar orbit while the crew are on the surface.

RedStreak · 2007-03-21 11:56:09

I think for a Martian expedition a larger module would be wise - my thoughts are toward something like a Mars Direct Hab Lander, but for an orbital or lunar mission the CEV (and LSAM) should be more than sufficent.
For a Mars mission the crew would probably only occupy the capsule for lift off and reentry, they would use a special vehicle for the six month transits. Orion would wait in Mars orbit just like it will in Lunar orbit while the crew are on the surface.

I figured as much - I'm talking about using the Mars Lander for that purpose rather than a disposable one.

However, this hypothetical space habitat could be reuseable - once in orbit it's essentially a mini-ISS and easily refurnishable from flights. Just find a way to put it into Earth orbit after the return trip.

RedStreak · 2007-03-21 12:00:11

Looks like it's on the ball: NASA Performs Drop Tests

NASA has repeatedly sent scale-sized versions of its planned Orion spaceship plummeting back to Earth in a series tests to pinpoint the best way to return future astronauts safely back to terra firma.
The drop tests, performed at NASA’s Virginia-based Langley Research Center [image], are just one of several technical milestones the Orion spacecraft and Ares rocket programs hit in recent weeks as the agency pushes ahead with plans for its space shuttle successor.

No BS-spacewatch-rumor this time!

cIclops · 2007-03-24 14:00:02

Orion and modified service module with cargo bay - ripped from Using NASA’s Exploration Architecture (PDF 5MB) - Nov 2006

RedStreak · 2007-03-24 17:03:49

Intruiging idea. The LSAM ascent module might not be a bad idea for an orbital module, and it'd be a way use the lander-tech without distracting from the Lunar program.

I like the point they make about HST as an example of how a machine-human team beats the pants off wholly autonomous (and more specifically unserviceable/unrepairable) satellites. Hubble's been up there...what...15 years? How long was the IRAS' records, or COBE? The only bigger contrast in lifespan would be a sequoia to a gnat. That's proof positive humans aren't bad to have around.

...how well the James Web Telescope performs without human aid will no doubt impact this too.

gaetanomarano · 2007-03-24 20:00:26

Orion and modified service module with cargo bay

the LSAM crew module is TOO big, TOO heavy and TOO expensive for this purpose

also, the LSAM crew module needs a second (big and expensive) rocket to launch it, climbing very much the mission's costs

I think that my "BigelowOrion" (with an intermediate hatch) is the BEST solutions since it adds (both) extra space and EVA option at a FRACTION of the price of an LSAM crew module + second rocket

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

.

cIclops · 2007-03-25 05:44:06

Intruiging idea. The LSAM ascent module might not be a bad idea for an orbital module, and it'd be a way use the lander-tech without distracting from the Lunar program.

Yes if it is possible to design the LSAM so that elements can be used for this type of mission. It extends the capability of Orion to perform a wide range of missions besides ISS, Moon and Mars. The Near Earth Object (NEO) missions topic has discussed these. JWST will have a servicing grapple fixture even though it's not designed for servicing like HST.

As shown in the graphic, NASA are looking at designing the service module to have a small cargo bay that could hold a robotic arm and replacement parts. NEO missions would last several weeks and require a lot of delta-v so a heavy propulsion module would be needed, this would have to be launched separately.

Martian Republic · 2007-03-25 18:18:26

Orion and modified service module with cargo bay
the LSAM crew module is TOO big, TOO heavy and TOO expensive for this purpose
also, the LSAM crew module needs a second (big and expensive) rocket to launch it, climbing very much the mission's costs
I think that my "BigelowOrion" (with an intermediate hatch) is the BEST solutions since it adds (both) extra space and EVA option at a FRACTION of the price of an LSAM crew module + second rocket
BigelowOrion page: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/01 … Orion.html
.

One of the thing that makes the LSAM heavier is that fact that it carrying more fuel so that the Orion space craft will have more capability than the Apollo program. Even with the BigelowOrion that on the web site that you put out there would not be able to do a pole landing on the moon. Because is doesn't have enough fuel to push the space craft into that orbit so you could land on either the North Pole or South Pole on the Moon. Then it has to have enough fuel to push the space craft back into an orbit around them moon so they can come back to the Earth. It take a lot of fuel to be able to do these two maneuvers to do a pole landing and be able to return to Earth. You can't do that with a one ship configuration like Apollo Space Ship. That why the Apollo mission never got more than about 20% to 30% off what would been the equator of the moon, because they didn't have the capability to go closer to either pole of the moon or even fly over the poles of the moon. Your BigelowOrion would be just an expanded living quarters for an Apollo type space ship, but it would have the same limitation of a the Apollo mission minus the second space ship of the Orion space ship that has the extra fuel to make a pole landing. That why NASA settled on a two ship capability in the first place. So they can land any place on the moon that they choose to land and come back.

Larry,

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-06 07:50:08

.

the latest (BAD) news says that the current design's gross lift-off weight (GLOW) of the Orion+SM+LAS still is an overweighted 30,664 kg. while the target GLOW (to allow its launch with the expected Ares-I payload specs) is 28,934 kg.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 … eight.html

but the GOOD news is that NASA plans to adopt a SHRINKED Service Module with an external diameter much lower than the Orion's capsule ... and that choice simplifies very much the use of a (smaller, cheaper an lighter) underside-LAS, as explained in the most recent update of my "newLAS" article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html

my evaluation is that this newLAS design may allow a GLOW reduction of about 3.5 mT (from the estimated 6.5 mT of the current tower-LAS design) for a standard (cone-shaped) Orion (TWICE+ the NASA target with a fingers' snap!) and over 4.5 mT saved if used with a TBS-Orion:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/019orionlight.html

(that needs a smaller SM and less propellent to be launched with a smaller rocket)

.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-06 08:09:15

Even with the BigelowOrion that on the web site that you put out there would not be able to do a pole landing on the moon.

the polar missions' option was DELETED months ago from the ESAS plan (maybe, due to Orion's weight problems) and, to restore it, they must build a bigger SM with more fuel (since the Orion must operate WITHOUT the LSAM's engines at the end of each lunar surface mission) something like my SwissKnife-Orion:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/014swissCEV.html

launched with a bigger Ares-I or a Single Launch Vehicle:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/006_superSLV.html

then, my BigelowOrion doesn't solve the "polar mission" problems but may give more habitable space with a smaller Orion (as explained in my article) and solve all to-day's Orion's mass problems and, also, needs a simpler, smaller and cheaper Ares-I

.

cIclops · 2007-04-06 09:36:20

the polar missions' option was DELETED months ago from the ESAS plan (maybe, due to Orion's weight problems) and, to restore it, they must build a bigger SM with more fuel (since the Orion must operate WITHOUT the LSAM's engines at the end of each lunar surface mission) something like my SwissKnife-Orion

The Lunar Outpost will probably be located at the South pole, the North pole is another possibility. LSAM will be able to land at both poles and everywhere else on the Moon. It's too early to say exactly how much propulsion will be provided by LSAM and how much by Orion's SM. LSAM will be launched by Ares V and neither of them has yet been specified or designed. LSAM SRR is planned for 2009 and Ares V for 2010.

cIclops · 2007-04-06 10:11:12

the latest (BAD) news says that the current design's gross lift-off weight (GLOW) of the Orion+SM+LAS still is an overweighted 30,664 kg. while the target GLOW (to allow its launch with the expected Ares-I payload specs) is 28,934 kg.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 … eight.html

Your reference also says:

NASA denies any weight problems with Orion and says it expects to finalise the design and meet its GLOW target.

So who is right: NASA, who have just begun designing Orion together with Lockheed Martin, or Rob Coppinger, a journalist from Flight International?

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-06 10:29:32

The Lunar Outpost will probably be located at the South pole, the North pole is another possibility.

so far, the "lunar orbit change option" is still deleted ... however, they CAN go to the poles with the current hardware, but not move from a polar orbit to an equatorial one (or another orbit) and the inverse
.

cIclops · 2007-04-06 10:33:37

so far, the "lunar orbit change option" is still deleted ... however, they CAN go to the poles with the current hardware, but not move from a polar orbit to an equatorial one (or another orbit) and the inverse
.

Why should LSAM need to make such large plane changes in LLO?

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-06 10:35:53

NASA, who have just begun designing Orion together with Lockheed Martin...

I'm sure they will solve the problem... someday... but my solutions solve it IMMEDIATELY and offers a further 2 mT margin (with the standard Orion) they can use for redundancy and/or extend the life support and/or add new features and/or launch the Orion with a smaller and cheaper rocket, etc.
.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-06 10:40:05

Why should LSAM need to make such large plane changes in LLO?

great part of the LSAM propellent (that's over 2/3 of its total mass) will be used for LOI and for the descent/ascent burn ... however, they can add more propellent (and launch it with a bigger rocket) to go everywhere
.

RedStreak · 2007-04-06 11:42:20

They are using the LSAM because of the higher efficency of its LO2/H2 decent stage. Its just a matter of chosing the best SPI for the job, and even if they were using the LO2/Methane option it has a lower SPI than hydrogen despite any fueling advantages from Mars.

Considering how each mission is likely to be dominated by one specific landing site I don't see why this is a problem, and given the advantages Shakelton crater is offering NASA won't idly delete the polar orbit capability. If anyone squawks for a 'hopper' mission well that's more likely to be a modified lander that'd be sent and operated w/o a CEV - purely a side-option that'd be available only after at least LO2 production is established.

The CEV is basically an orbital vehicle brought along for the ride - it'll be versatile but its only true importance is the Earth return. I'm not going to waste my breath (or text) flailing around about it. Wake me when they're starting the specifications for LSAM...THEN we have issues to debate.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-04-11 16:03:20

Lockheed-Martin Corp. CEO Robert Stevens warned Tuesday (March 10) that "space is broken, badly broken" and the U.S. space effort needs an infusion of both federal funds and a revitalized engineering infrastructure to rescue both civilian and military efforts.

In a keynote speech at the National Space Symposium, Stevens said the current national level of 78,000 engineering graduates a year is woefully inadequate. "One in four engineers at Lockheed-Martin is now over 50," he said. "Today's engineer has choices of where to apply talent, and we need to rekindle the excitement for space."

Stevens said the U.S. is in danger of "ceding our spaceflight leadership to Russia, China and even India,"

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2007-03-05 15:50:48

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#127 2007-03-07 10:40:17

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#128 2007-03-17 19:32:36

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#129 2007-03-18 04:21:45

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#130 2007-03-19 12:12:49

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#131 2007-03-20 11:07:23

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#132 2007-03-20 17:00:43

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#133 2007-03-20 17:06:05

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#134 2007-03-21 11:56:09

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#135 2007-03-21 12:00:11

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#136 2007-03-24 14:00:02

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#137 2007-03-24 17:03:49

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#138 2007-03-24 20:00:26

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#139 2007-03-25 05:44:06

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#140 2007-03-25 18:18:26

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#141 2007-04-06 07:50:08

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#142 2007-04-06 08:09:15

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#143 2007-04-06 09:36:20

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#144 2007-04-06 10:11:12

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#145 2007-04-06 10:29:32

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#146 2007-04-06 10:33:37

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#147 2007-04-06 10:35:53

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#148 2007-04-06 10:40:05

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#149 2007-04-06 11:42:20

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#150 2007-04-11 16:03:20

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

Board footer