Orion (CEV / SM) - status

RobS · 2007-04-11 21:40:05

A GLOW for the Orion of 30,600 kg is 1,700 kg or 6% over the goal GLOW (28,900 kg) you quoted. When they start to design spacecraft they always assume a margin for mass creep (Mars Direct adds 15% to its mass margins to get to the total GLOW). Since Orion has not been actually constructed in mock-up form, I doubt a 6% overage is a serious problem. The Lunar Module had a worse problem than that, and they shaved it down to fit the Saturn V's lift capacity.

-- RobS

SpaceNut · 2007-04-12 06:14:42

Orbital to provide Orion crew exploration vehicle launch abort test booster for NASA

Orbital Sciences is to design and build the NASA Orion Abort Test Booster (ATB) that will demonstrate and qualify the Orion crew exploration vehicle’s (CEV) Launch Abort System (LAS) under a $35 million contract with NASA and the US Air Force Space Development and Test Wing (SDTW).
The $35 million contract was awarded under SDTW’s sounding rockets programme, which allows the use of surplus government boosters to reduce launch vehicle cost for US government-sponsored missions.
Over three years Orbital will manage, design, build and test the ATB, that will use Orbital's rocket technology, and carry out two planned flights in 2009 and 2010. Contract options could add up to two additional flights and two spare vehicles through 2011 adding a further $45 million to the award.

cIclops · 2007-04-17 01:00:29

NASA Buys Abort Test Boosters for Orion Flight Tests - press release 16 Apr 2007

WASHINGTON - NASA has entered into an agreement with the U.S. Air Force to support abort flight test requirements for the Orion Project. The Air Force has contracted with Orbital Sciences Corp. of Chandler, Ariz., to provide launch services for the flight tests.
The agreement with the Air Force's Space Development and Test Wing at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., provides for abort test boosters that will serve as launch vehicles for Orion ascent abort flight tests that are set to occur from 2009 through 2011 at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The first abort test is scheduled for 2008, but will not require a functional booster.
The tests will support certification of the Orion crew exploration vehicle's launch abort system. The system includes a small escape rocket designed to ensure the safety of the crew in the event of a launch vehicle malfunction while on the launch pad or during ascent to orbit. A total of six tests are planned, pending environmental assessments. Two will simulate an abort from the launch pad and will not require a booster. The rest will use abort test boosters and simulate aborts at three stressing conditions along the Ares launch vehicle trajectory.
The Orion Project Office, based at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, designated Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., as the lead NASA center for abort flight test integration and operations, including procurement of the boosters. The project is developing the Orion spacecraft as part of an effort by NASA's Constellation Program to return humans to the moon and prepare for future voyages to Mars and other destinations in our solar system.
Through a competitive procurement, the Air Force has awarded a task order for two abort test boosters with options for two others under the existing Sounding Rockets Program 2. This indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract task order is valued between $35 million and $57 million. The four Sounding Rockets Program 2 contractors, including the winner, Orbital Sciences of Dulles, Va., were allowed to compete for the job of providing booster integration and launch support services. The Air Force has conducted 16 launches in the past 11 years under the Sounding Rockets Program.
The agreement for abort flight test support benefits both NASA and the Air Force. By making use of the experienced Air Force and contractor team, NASA reduces development risk associated with design and development of a new and unique launch vehicle for these tests. NASA also achieves financial savings while meeting an aggressive Orion test schedule. The Air Force benefits through reduced risk associated with future Air Force small launches, increased opportunity for service personnel to gain expertise, and a greater chance to share technologies.
The 3rd Space Test Squadron, a unit of the Air Force's Space Development and Test Wing, will manage abort test booster launch support services and integration of decommissioned Peacekeeper-class intercontinental ballistic missile assets. On a cost reimbursable basis, the squadron will provide integration support, project management support and related services.
The squadron regularly uses decommissioned Minuteman II and Peacekeeper rocket motors for government research and development of space launch and missile defense test target vehicles.

cIclops · 2007-04-21 02:25:15

NASA Modifies Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle Contract - 20 Apr 2007

WASHINGTON - NASA has modified its contract with Lockheed Martin Corp. of Littleton, Colo., to design, test and build the Orion crew exploration vehicle.
The updated contract contains three significant changes. Two years have been added to the design phase. Two test flights of Orion's launch abort system have been added. And production of a pressurized cargo carrier for the International Space Station has been deleted from the initial design phase.
NASA continues work to ensure a smooth transition from the Space Shuttle Program to the Constellation Program. This is demonstrated in a fourth element of the contract modification that provides for use of surplus raw materials, such as aluminum-lithium ingots now used in the construction of space shuttle fuel tanks, for Orion.
"NASA and Lockheed have been working together as a team during the past six months to iron out many critical design and schedule details," said Skip Hatfield, manager the Orion Project at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. "This contract update will synchronize our spending plan with the rest of the Constellation Program."
NASA awarded the Orion prime contract to Lockheed Martin Corp. on Aug. 31, 2006. At that time, the development portion of the contract was valued at $3.9 billion with a period of performance through December 2011. This contract modification, in the amount of $385 million, brings the total value to approximately $4.3 billion and adjusts the development period of performance through December 2013.
This update is the result of a NASA request for engineering change proposal issued on Dec. 15, 2006. Lockheed Martin's proposal was received March 7, 2007. The contract modification was signed April 20.
The modification reflects continuing progress on Orion's development, including program formulation and systems assessments addressing the rocket, ground infrastructure and all other elements necessary for a successful first launch. The period of performance now matches the evolving NASA budget landscape.
"The Orion team has made some critical decisions that will maximize the performance and flexibility of this spacecraft," said Jeff Hanley, manager of the Constellation Program at Johnson. "This spacecraft will be a cornerstone of America's human exploration of the solar system by a new generation of explorers, and these changes and additional tests will ensure that it is robust enough to accomplish its missions."
Meanwhile, work progresses as planned on the contract. NASA and Lockheed Martin have completed Orion's systems requirements review and are moving toward a systems design review scheduled in August.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-21 06:47:57

NASA Modifies Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle Contract - 20 Apr 2007

one of my early articles was: Why to-day's NASA is so slow?

the article refers to the new space-hardware development, building and launch

but now we can extend the comment also to the (slow) speed of its DECISIONS

with so many ISS (ready or soon available) cargo and space-tug vehicles (COTS, 9 mT-cargo ATV, 2.4 mT-cargo Progress, Parom, HTV, privates, etc.) it was obvious (to me) that a ($800M per launch) VERY EXPENSIVE (3 mT) cargo-Orion was NOT necessary NOR price-competitive

I've posted this opinion on some space forums over 1.5 years ago (around Nov. 2005, when the early ESAS details was released) and received TONS+LOTS+OCEANS of critics (and insults...)

but, in Jan. 2006 NASA deleted the (very expensive and useless) unpressurizzed cargo-Orion and now the (too expensive and useless) pressurized cargo-Orion

both are a two VERY GOOD news for the (operational) NASA budget (and, also, for LOGIC and COMMON SENSE) but, again, the question is: Why NASA is so slow?

and, about the Orion design delay... may NASA use this extra time to develop somethings like the SwissKinfe-Orion or the underside-LAS ?

.

cIclops · 2007-04-21 07:50:38

with so many ISS (ready or soon available) cargo and space-tug vehicles (COTS, 9 mT-cargo ATV, 2.4 mT-cargo Progress, Parom, HTV, privates, etc.) it was obvious (to me) that a ($800M per launch) VERY EXPENSIVE (3 mT) cargo-Orion was NOT necessary NOR price-competitive

What is the basis for your claim that an Ares I/Orion cargo mission would cost $800m? The best available number based on Griffin's article is less than $225m

ATV can only deliver 5.5 mT of pressurized cargo, the rest is propellant. Orion was specified as 3.5 mT pressurized or 6 mT unpressurized cargo. Also note that HTV, Progress and ATV can not return pressurized (or any) cargo, whereas Orion can. Orion was not designed as a cargo carrier, it's for crew, that's why it's so expensive. The cargo option was added as a backup, NASA have now decided to delete it.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-21 10:05:35

What is the basis for your claim that an Ares I/Orion cargo mission would cost $800m? The best available number based on Griffin's article is less than $225m

Mr. Griffin is an engineer, not an economist, so, his costs' calculations are a little "optimistic"

a good example is the Hubble SM4 costs... Griffin evaluated it only $200M but a few weeks after the GAO evaluation of the same mission was between $1.7 and $2.4 billion

the costs' evaluation of each cargo/crew Orion/Ares-I launch is complex, and, of course, we can know the REAL (inflation adjusted + costs growt) price ONLY the day it will fly

in the last 1.5 years I've posted many times (on many space forums and blogs) my evaluations of the Orion and Ares-I costs but now we have some new/real figures to refine that evaluation

to do a realistic evaluation we must include ALL (fixed, variable and shared) costs in the next 20 years, then, divide the total price for the planned number of Orion flights

from NASA claims, we know that they will launch the orbital Orion in 2015 assuring the ISS support with two flights per year until 2020 ...then, the total ISS flights will be (about) 12

the lunar flights will start in 2020 with two missions per year ...then, 12 lunar missions in 2020-2025

adding two-three unmanned test flights, the total Orion launches between 2015 and 2025 will be around 26-27 (maybe, 30 flights max)

the Orion R&D costs will be $4.3 billion (including four test capsules) while six (reusable?) capsules will costs another $5.4 billion until 2020

the NASA Ares-I R&D costs' evaluation was $5 billion in the early ESAS plan + $2 billion due to the 5-seg.SRB R&D extra costs

also, we must add the Ares-I earth (assembly, support, employes, engineers, etc.) fixed costs evaluated over $800M per year (I don't know if this figure is correct since I've read it on a NASA document posted months ago on NSF and it doesn't include the, much higher, Ares-V annual earth-support fixed costs)

if the SRB will be reusable we must add another $500M per year for the extension of the NASA/Navy contract (that fixed price-per-year includes the Ares-V SRBs' retrieval)

assuming that NASA will reuse the Orion, we must add a new Service Module at every launch (since it's burned in the atmosphere) at and (optimistic) $100M price

then, now, we can try to evaluate the Orion/Ares-I price-per-launch for an (average) 27 orbital/lunar launches in 2015-2020:

$7Bn / 27 = $260M per launch of shared Ares-I R&D costs

an (optimistic) $60M per 5-seg.SRB + $40M for each 2nd stage engine + tanks + interstages + LAS + attitude controls, etc.

$8.4Bn / 27 = $360M per launch of shared Orion R&D costs + reusable Orion capsules shared hardware costs

$500M x 11 years (2015-2025) = $5500M / 27 = $200M per launch for the reusable SRBs retrieval

$800M x 11 years = $8800M / 27 = $325M per launch of shared earth-support fixed annual costs

so, the (cargo OR crew) Orion/Ares-I price-per-launch will be:

$100M + $260M + $60M + $40M + $360M + $200M + $325M = $1345M per launch + the 2007-2025 inflation and costs growt

then, my $800M (cargo OR crew) Orion/Ares-I price per launch is a VERY OPTIMISTIC figure that doesn't include the earth support costs

...ATV...

the usable payload figures are for the entire ATV cargo, of course, and, yes, the Orion can bring back to earth a cargo... however, some COTS vehicle could be able to do that (in future) at cheaer prices

.

cIclops · 2007-04-21 10:49:41

Griffin may not be an economist but his costs are based on estimates by professionals who work for him, not on posts in a public forum.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-21 11:13:39

Griffin may not be an economist but his costs are based on estimates by professionals who work for him, not on posts in a public forum.

my evaluations start from OFFICIAL figures of costs and launches ...however, the GAO professionals have extimated the ESAS plan costs at $230 billion in the next 20 years... that is an (average) $8.5 billion per Orion test/orbital/lunar launch... also, why do Griffin still ask the US Congress for more funds (and delays one year the full plan after a modest $500M cut) if the new hardware is so cheap???
.

RedStreak · 2007-04-21 11:27:45

A hard decision for him to make, but yeah in the end the Orion is a crew vehicle through and through.

Another option remains and may be better than converting the Orion: the Ares V and LSAM.

Since the Ares V and LSAM are already specificed for cargo capability, and the LSAM has the capacity to be a heavy-duty cargo-fearing machine it might be easier to modify it as a disposable orbital vehicle...since it is already designed to be just that...with legs.

Question would be whether or not its worthwhile to use it for faring stuff to the space station; obviously it'll be expensive...on the other hand a single launch could likely keep the ISS supplied for a full year which saves cost on multiple disposable mini-trips ala Progress.

Can anyone crunch some numbers on this?

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-21 12:38:59

...hard decision for him to make...

not a so hard (I believe) nor a bad (but right and savvy) decision, since the cargo-Orion is only a bloody expensive duplication of (much cheaper) vehicles that stll fly (or will fly soon) ...however, IF a cargo-Orion will be ABSOLUTELY necessary in an (e.g.) military or rescue mission, a crew Orion can be modified to carry a cargo (of course, the cargo-payload will be lower and the price-per-ton much higher)

Another option remains and may be better than converting the Orion: the Ares V and LSAM.

true, it's possible, but too expensive (and available only after 2020)
.

RedStreak · 2007-04-21 16:26:05

Another option remains and may be better than converting the Orion: the Ares V and LSAM.
true, it's possible, but too expensive (and available only after 2020)
.

So is begging the Russians for a Progress and could be even better than an Orion cargo craft.

cIclops · 2007-04-21 21:42:41

Total cost of project likely to remain at $8 billion

BY TODD HALVORSON
FLORIDA TODAY
CAPE CANAVERAL -- - NASA is pushing back the delivery date for the spacecraft that will return U.S. astronauts to the moon, a move that will increase by $385 million the first phase of a multibillion-dollar contract with Lockheed Martin Corp.
But the total cost involved with the design, test and production of Apollo-style Orion spacecraft is expected to remain about $8 billion.
"We expect the total contract value to be about the same," said Skip Hatfield, NASA's Orion project manager at Johnson Space Center in Houston.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-22 02:46:25

So is begging the Russians for a Progress and could be even better than an Orion cargo craft.

in to-day's globalized and competitive market only the (low) PRICE counts... that's why we buy nearly ALL (much more "industry strategic") computers from China...
.

RedStreak · 2007-04-22 09:11:13

So is begging the Russians for a Progress and could be even better than an Orion cargo craft.
in to-day's globalized and competitive market only the (low) PRICE counts... that's why we buy nearly ALL (much more "industry strategic") computers from China...
.

Nah we only buy stuff from China since they have extremely low wages companies like Wal-mart use to avoid unions in the USA as evil as they are. :twisted:

Getting back to Orion I hope if not this year then next Congress approves funding to accelerate its progress.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-22 11:26:35

...we only buy stuff from China...

until they'll sell "Wal-mart" capsules and rockets...

Getting back to Orion I hope if not this year then next Congress approves funding to accelerate its progress.

after the latest NASA claims (about the +2 years delay) the problem is now technical not a lack of funds, so, more funds can't accelerate so much "the plan" and the first Orion launch is set for 2014
.

cIclops · 2007-04-23 11:15:03

Orion Development Extended By Two Years

Inside this news article was this piece of information:

Before Lockheed Martin won the Orion prime contract last year, "we asked the contractors to come in with the most aggressive date they could deliver an Orion vehicle," said Scott Horowitz, associate administrator for exploration systems. Lockheed's target was August 2011, but later budget actions dictated that other Constellation hardware - including the Ares I rocket that boosts the Orion to orbit - would not be ready at the same time. NASA had always planned on "resyncing" the contract, Horowitz said during a teleconference April 20. Lockheed Martin's new delivery date for the CEV is 2013.

So this would set a NET date of Aug 2011 for Orion if NASA are able to accelerate the program.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-25 18:53:12

Now to apply the usual treatment to this thread...

the latest (BAD) news says that the current design's gross lift-off weight (GLOW) of the Orion+SM+LAS still is an overweighted... 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

Overweight says FlightGlobal, which has a vested financial interest to stir up controversy about VSE (to sell magazines). NASA/LM says Orion is still okay mass wise, and they're the ones building the thing, not FlightGlobal.

Now about this "NASA is going to make the SM much smaller!!!" isn't true, and doesn't appear anywhere in any article except your drawings. So, you are either feverishly forgetting that you are not in charge of Orion, or else you are lying.

And this business about the "underside LAS!!!11!1!" is more nonsense, since the SM isn't going to be far smaller, there is no place to put the escape motors called for. Even provided there is, the risks are far greater than with the traditional tower based system: all the rockets have to have exactly the same thrust, or else the capsule will be thrown into a spin and crash. A tower has only one rocket, so this isn't a problem. Its just safer to pull the capsule than to push it.

the underside LAS (without the Boost Protective Cover, Adapter Cone, Jettison Motor, Interstages, etc.), may weigh around 3.5 mT (vs 6.1MT)... (and) may fall to less than 3 mT (or HALF the weight of the standard Orion's tower-LAS)

Bull****. The abort motor is a dense solid rocket in a heavy casing, the rest of the LAS is light weight. Just reducing the light weight part will by no means reduce the mass that much. Its only logical, and besides, you just made up that 3MT savings number.

the polar missions' option was DELETED months ago from the ESAS plan... 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)

So THATS why NASA is designing the Moon base on the South pole. No wait, that doesn't make sense... and for that matter neither do you.

Orion doesn't need a drop more fuel to leave a polar Lunar orbit nor the LSAM need much more to enter Lunar orbit. You don't know anything about orbital mechanics. You don't need to start in equatorial orbit to get to polar orbit either, you can enter polar orbit directly from Earth with only a small fuel penalty. Right now, the LSAM should be powerful enough to go directly to the Lunar poles, no problem.

but my solutions solve it IMMEDIATELY and offers a further 2 mT margin (with the standard Orion)

No they don't, and again you are just making up numbers.

RedStreak · 2007-04-26 01:42:37

Orion doesn't need a drop more fuel to leave a polar Lunar orbit nor the LSAM need much more to enter Lunar orbit. You don't know anything about orbital mechanics. You don't need to start in equatorial orbit to get to polar orbit either, you can enter polar orbit directly from Earth with only a small fuel penalty. Right now, the LSAM should be powerful enough to go directly to the Lunar poles, no problem.

That sounds good. Given the LSAM's capability do you think it could be a counterpart to the Progress since the Orion cargo-block has been eliminated?

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-26 06:22:36

I think that if COTS can't step up to the plate, taking the "people mover" Orion capsule, taking out the seats/toilet/etc, and packing it with stuff shouldn't be difficult. The possible SM cargo bay might even accommodate items only Shuttle could carry.

Remember, mass is only of secondary importance and perhaps even only of tertiary importance; the volume of the capsule is what largely controls how much stuff it can move, and that will be several times greater than the dinky Progress capsule, though not quite as large as the ATV perhaps.

If getting the cargo back down is not a concern, it might be practical to launch the LSAM ascent stage minus life support and plus solar panels on top of Ares-I and use it as a cargo mover instead. It should be more than light enough and be able to haul ATV-sized payloads, plus its ascent engine should serve just fine for orbital maneuvering.

This same LSAM-AS, with the addition of a 10MT class Centaur booster, could also enable manned travel to HEO or to nearby asteroids in conjunction with Orion (only two Ares-I launches). One launch for LSAM+booster, and a second launch for Orion. Perhaps even from Earth to Lunar orbit, though that would be cutting the fuel pretty close... perhaps with Orion + booster only.

GCNRevenger · 2007-04-26 07:39:54

Now about how much Ares-I/Orion "costs"

Frankly, the eight hundred million dollar figure is insane, it cannot possibly be four times the stated figure, it is beyond the pale. You cannot possibly defend the "reasonableness" of this number, its insane. One booster, one small upper stage (no larger than a cheap Centaur), and a flight of the partially reusable Orion is going to cost almost a billion dollars? Outrageous!

Ciclops quotes the head of NASA, M Griffin, who says each manned Lunar mission should cost about $775M of hardware in 2000 dollars, with a cargo mission costing $525M. That makes each Ares-I/Orion flight cost about $250M. With a modest adjustment for inflation, this is in the range of $300M which is the commonly quoted figure today in 2007. Griffin is a manager first and an engineer second, and has been for a very long time, with a host of skilled planners who work for him. You are right and he is wrong? You are not the head of NASA gaetano, nor are you an NASA employee nor are you an accountant.

Griffin evaluated it only $200M but a few weeks after the GAO evaluation of the same mission was between $1.7 and $2.4 billion

Lies. The marginal cost is $200M; which means that it costs $200M dollars more than if we do not carry out SM4. You can't be so stupid as to not understand what marginal costs are, so you have to be lying to us. Most of the money for SM4 is already spent on the Shuttle program, Hubble parts already built, and training.

but now we have some new/real figures to refine that evaluation

Lies. All we have are your insane distortions and extrapolations of numbers.

-It isn't reasonable to simply add up both development, fixed, and marginal costs. Its comparing different kinds of things, apples to oranges. The first two costs are the price of having the capability, while the third is the cost of using it. Its buying two separate things.
-We never use the development/construction costs for Shuttle, but if we did, they would cost several billion dollars per flight probably. The sum changes with the number of flights, which is why its not used.
-YOU never include such costs in your crazy plans per-flight, but you damn NASA for not doing it?
-Much of the Ares-I development costs are discounted from Ares-V, but you don't account for this!

while six (reusable?) capsules will costs another $5.4 billion until 2020... also, we must add the Ares-I earth... fixed costs evaluated over $800M per year

Now wait a minute, if the capsules' construction and support costs are $5.4B, is that not a part of the $800M annual support budget? You are counting this cost twice!

Also, M. Griffin says that the entire launch support for both Ares-I and Ares-V will total around $1B/year. Ares-V will then only cost $200M more marginally.

if the SRB will be reusable we must add another $500M per year for the extension of the NASA/Navy contract (that fixed price-per-year includes the Ares-V SRBs' retrieval)

AH HA! Caught you red-handed in a plain lie! You are pathetic, trying to add Ares-V costs to the Ares-I is a duplication of costs. You should have worked for Enron! If 15 boosters are spent annually, but only five are spent on Ares-I, then the cost is only $170M

assuming that NASA will reuse the Orion, we must add a new Service Module at every launch (since it's burned in the atmosphere) at and (optimistic) $100M price

This is an absurd figure, the SM is a simple piece of equipment, its just a box to hold cheap fuel tanks and simple rockets with some solar panels on the back. Complex high-performance Hydrogen upper stage engines cost ~$10M or less, and the simple Hypergolic engine would be the most complicated part of the SM. Besides, you just made up this number, you have no basis for it.

the GAO professionals have extimated the ESAS plan costs at $230 billion in the next 20 years... that is an (average) $8.5 billion per Orion test/orbital/lunar launch

Now you take a total departure from even pretending to be rational, the entire ESAS plan is $230B, you are counting the ENTIRE ESAS plan as the cost of Ares-I/Orion? You are mad.

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

cIclops · 2007-04-27 07:40:59

Cooling off Orion's fiery return (20MB PDF) - April 2007

However, the agency currently is planning to create one heat shield to install on each Orion capsule regardless of whether it will fly to orbit or to the Moon. According to Reuther [Ames’ Orion heat shield manager], one option under study is an interim Orion heat shield using “more mature TPS technologies than those under consideration for lunar missions, to get an early version of Orion operational as soon as possible.” While the entire TPS system will wrap around the entire cone, currently NASA is planning to jettison only the heat shield at the base of the 16.5-ft cabin. The remainder of the heat shield covering the walls, sides, and top of the capsule would be replaced after recovery and maintenance. These would attach to the capsule shell in eight gore sections.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-30 10:41:50

...FlightGlobal...

maybe, the Orion will have the right weight, but its overweight news runs from months (not just now and not just from F.I.)

...SM much smaller!!!" isn't true, and doesn't appear anywhere in any article except your drawings...

it's not an "invention" of mine, there are threads on some space forums about this choice (that's logic and useful)

...since the SM isn't going to be far smaller...

the undesride-LAS can be used also with a standard sized SM

...the risks are far greater than with the traditional tower based system...

no, the amount of propellent in the tower-LAS motor is 6-10 times the propellent of one small motors, then, if one of them will explode, the risk for the astronauts is 1/10 or less than with a tower-LAS, also, the small motors are in the strongest part of the Orion (under the THICK thermal shield) while the tower-LAS may explode (literally) to the FACE of the astronauts!!!

...or else the capsule will be thrown into a spin and crash....

no, since, in both (underside and tower) LAS the (brief) flight directions is controlled with their Attitude Control Motors

...tower has only one rocket...

true, the tower-LAS has just ONE rocket, so, if this SINGLE motor fails (or explode) the astronauts are DEAD, while, with 6-10 (smaller) motors, they may SAVE their lives ALSO if one-two of them will fail or explode!

...abort motor is a dense solid rocket in a heavy casing, the rest of the LAS is light weight...

that's completely FALSE
you can see from the NASA document below (released in january) the mass involved:

Dry Mass: 3,696 kg.
Propellant: 2,480 kg.
GLOW: 6,176 kg. (over 6.5 mT in the lastest design specs)

from existing (small and big) solid motors data (on astronautix, etc.) you can know that their case+nozzle dry mass are (about) 10% of the propellent mass, so, the total weight of MY underside-LAS for a STANDARD (not resized!) Orion could be LESS THAN 2.9 mT with OVER 3.3 mT of mass SAVED !!!!

in other words, adopting the underside-LAS the Orion (1.5 mT) overweight problem is solved IMMEDIATELY and NASA will have a further 1.5 mT margin to design a BETTER Orion !!!!!!!!!!!

So THATS why NASA is designing the Moon base on the South pole. You don't need to start in equatorial orbit to get to polar orbit either, you can enter polar orbit directly from Earth with only a small fuel penalty. Right now, the LSAM should be powerful enough to go directly to the Lunar poles, no problem.

probably you use your time mainly to write very long posts so you have no time to read my posts nor know the ESAS plan

surely, the Orion can go everywhere from earth orbit, but, with the resized SM and propellent, it can't change it's orbit from equatorial to polar (or the inverse or another, different, lunar orbit) while runs around the moon, that was the (now deleted) flight option planned in the early ESAS plan

.

cIclops · 2007-04-30 12:36:24

surely, the Orion can go everywhere from earth orbit, but, with the resized SM and propellent, it can't change it's orbit from equatorial to polar (or the inverse or another, different, lunar orbit) while runs around the moon, that was the (now deleted) flight option planned in the early ESAS plan

First, ESAS was an Architecture Study not a plan, as you know several of the proposed elements have changed already, such as: CEV diameter, SRB segments, engines etc etc. It would be extraordinary if such a study, performed in Summer 2005, was able to correctly specify every detail of a system as complex as Constellation, a system that is to be developed over a period of 15 years or more. Part of the development process itself is to refine and produce detailed specifications and plans.

Second, Orion/SM was never intended to go anywhere from Earth orbit by itself, it was always intended to be boosted from LEO by the EDS. So I assume you are referring to the Orion/SM/LSAM stack that will be boosted from LEO by the Ares V EDS. As GCNReveneger said earlier, it will be able to enter into any inclination lunar orbit. Perhaps you are referring to the anytime return from the lunar surface capability? BTW anytime was defined as "within 5 days". This does not appear in the current documents, do you have a reference to NASA saying that it had been deleted? Maybe someone can comment.

gaetanomarano · 2007-04-30 14:38:30

...an Architecture Study not a plan...

in the early days, ESAS was "sold" as a (nearly) perfect PLAN (since they have worked YEARS do define it and MONTHS to write) while just NOW (after many changes and mistakes) they call it (only) a "study" ...

So I assume you are referring to the Orion/SM/LSAM stack that will be boosted from LEO by the Ares V EDS.

after thousands articles, threads, posts and comments on space forums and blogs you can't ask me that kind of questions

...to enter into any inclination lunar orbit...

probably you remember that Orion was claimed to have enough fuel to move from orbit to orbit while (already) running around the moon, then, cut after cut, the current (8.5 mT SM propellent) version will be not able to do that
that option (possible only with the past CEV design or with my SwissKnifeOrion) could be useful for future mission architectures and (most important) for rescue missions

.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2007-04-11 21:40:05

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#152 2007-04-12 06:14:42

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#153 2007-04-17 01:00:29

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#154 2007-04-21 02:25:15

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#155 2007-04-21 06:47:57

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#156 2007-04-21 07:50:38

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#157 2007-04-21 10:05:35

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#158 2007-04-21 10:49:41

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#159 2007-04-21 11:13:39

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#160 2007-04-21 11:27:45

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#161 2007-04-21 12:38:59

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#162 2007-04-21 16:26:05

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#163 2007-04-21 21:42:41

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#164 2007-04-22 02:46:25

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#165 2007-04-22 09:11:13

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#166 2007-04-22 11:26:35

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#167 2007-04-23 11:15:03

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#168 2007-04-25 18:53:12

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#169 2007-04-26 01:42:37

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#170 2007-04-26 06:22:36

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#171 2007-04-26 07:39:54

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#172 2007-04-27 07:40:59

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#173 2007-04-30 10:41:50

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#174 2007-04-30 12:36:24

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

#175 2007-04-30 14:38:30

Re: Orion (CEV / SM) - status

Board footer