MORV

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-16 20:51:53

.

in 2002 the X-38/HL-20 ISS-rescue-vehicle project was deleted, but (I think) a simple, small and reliable vehicle for rescue (from ISS, Shuttle and everything manned will fly in space) is absolutely necessary

then, I suggest to use the Soyuz Reentry Module to build a new (long-life) rescue-vehicle called MORV (Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle): www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/017morv.html

.

SpaceNut · 2007-01-16 21:51:28

I wanted to point out that the x38/ HL20 were being worked on in the form of Dream chaser. Notice the little things called wings... it is not ans escape pod as you have described by your article.

Dream Chaser spaceship

051116_spacedev_hlarge_1p.hlarge.jpg

Next For SpaceDev -- Crew Shuttle To Space Station

Taking the private space industry to the next phase beyond suborbital tourist flights, SpaceDev announced yesterday that it has a plan for a six-passenger vehicle that could provide routine, safe crew access to the International Space Station -- replacing the Space Shuttle -- for a fraction of the cost of traditional programs. SpaceDev said if funding is forthcoming, multiple manned suborbital test flights could launch by 2008, and manned test flights to orbit by 2010. SpaceDev, of Poway, Calif., built the hybrid rocket motor that powered SpaceShipOne. CEO Jim Benson said yesterday the ship could also be used for tourist flights.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-17 03:11:57

I wanted to point out that the x38/ HL20 were being worked on in the form of Dream chaser. Notice the little things called wings... it is not ans escape pod as you have described by your article.

the X-38/HL-20 was designed to be only a rescue vehicle: www.astronautix.com/craft/x38.htm

from Astronautix: "Lifting body reentry vehicle designed as emergency return spacecraft for International Space Station crew. Configuration based on earlier USAF X-24A but nose shows influence of Soviet Spiral design. The X-38 was designed for indefinite in-orbit storage, using cold nitrogen gas for attitude control."

the Dream Chaser project use the X-38's shape but will be only a suborbital vehicle

.

SpaceNut · 2007-01-17 07:48:33

Yes the x-38 was intended for use as a crew rescue vehicle but its program was cancelled due to cost overruns. Little or no chance in it being resurrected by Nasa in the near future.

As for Dreamchaser its first cycle or stage is suborbital with full intent for it to be leveraged into an orbital vehicle later (see second link). It again is a funding and engineering knowledge need to get from sub orbital to orbital.

Oh and by the way the Russian Klipper is of the same configuration with an absence of funding....

Now if the attent is to use a soyuz as your pictures indicate, your idea falls short in that it is allready the means to get back down. But if your attent is to provide just a portion of it as stripped down escape pod from its basic design? You still will need to find a means to get it to orbit and a shuttle will not be it because of fuel restriction in the cargo bay. Also there are no places to dock these units in waiting on the station as is.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-17 10:52:10

Yes the x-38 was intended for use as a crew rescue vehicle but its program was cancelled due to cost overruns.

it was planned to be an automated reentry-vehicle (no pilot) and was cancelled (also) after, a not so safe, landing test

...no chance in it being resurrected...

true, the project X-38 is dead... in the next 10 years the rescue-capsule will be the ISS docked Soyuz and, after 2015, the Orion... however, both have the problem of a limited life in space (six months) and their price ($60M the Soyuz, much more the Orion)

Dreamchaser its first cycle or stage is suborbital with full intent for it to be leveraged into an orbital vehicle later (see second link). It again is a funding and engineering knowledge need to get from sub orbital to orbital.

a suborbital vehicle may happen soon since it's technology is in the range of small private companies ..."orbital" is complex, so, we must wait

...the Russian Klipper...

it's another dead project

...use a soyuz as your pictures indicate...

the most important part of MORV is the "software", not the "hardware" ...it must be a long-life vehicle and must be so easy also an ISS space-tourist can reentry with it

...shuttle will not be it because of fuel restriction in the cargo bay...

the risk to fly in an ISS-away orbit is much more risky for the astronauts than have a (very small) amount of propellent in their rescue vehicle

...dock these units in waiting on the station as is.

MORV must have the same docking system and hatch of a Soyuz

.

SpaceNut · 2007-01-17 20:47:31

You misunderstand as always that I am indicating that there are no extra locations for them to be docked to, while being in a waiting to use state.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-18 02:15:02

...indicating that there are no extra locations for them to be docked...

since the ISS has only three astronauts aboard, one MORV (docked to a Soyuz port) is sufficient, while, in all (future) new space modules for astronauts and space tourists (unable to pilot a Soyuz...) more Soyuz-compatible ports can be added by design

.

SpaceNut · 2007-01-18 07:37:42

Break out your wallet since niether Nasa or its partners are and will not be paying for anything more than they have to...

Also there is no more need for this product since one already exists in the Soyuz...

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-19 06:32:30

If the ISS is ever to even pretend to live up to its billing, a larger crew (4-6) is necessary.

And we already have a rescue vehicle, a "free" one in fact: its called the Orion space capsule, formally known as the CEV. How handy is that?

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-19 10:51:23

Break out your wallet since niether Nasa or its partners are and will not be paying for anything more than they have to...

using the existing Soyuz capsule MORV will be so cheap also small space companies can build it

Also there is no more need for this product since one already exists in the Soyuz...

that costs more, has only six months of "in-space" life and needs a (very expert) russian pilot

.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-19 11:17:32

...a larger crew (4-6) is necessary...

it's necessary... but may not likely happen (we will have more than 3 astronauts on the ISS only a few days, when two capsules are docked for crew rotation)

And we already have a rescue vehicle, a "free" one in fact: its called the Orion space capsule, formally known as the CEV. How handy is that?

true, both Soyuz and Orion are excellent rescue-vehicles, then (both) MORV and the special "six-seats" rescueOrion are completely unnecessary for ISS, since, the number of astronauts aboard the ISS, will ALWAYS be the SAME or LESS than the number of seats of the docked capsule(s)
however, this scenario was planned (and may be safe) ONLY assuming that ALL the astronauts (including the expert Soyuz and Orion PILOTS) will be ALIVE in a rescue contingency ...but we can't be sure of that, especially having tourists aboard the ISS ...also, when privates will build in space many new space station with MANY tourists (or "non-astronauts") aboard, a rescue-vehicle that EVERYONE can learn in a few days and use without risks, will be ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, then, a (very simple, easy to learn and easy to use) rescue-vehicle like MORV (with its simple and automated reentry-system/procedures) will be perfect for that job

.

dicktice · 2007-01-19 12:48:44

Now that suggests a reverse-thinking solution to what private enterprise wannabe space companies might provide: rescue capsules capable of reentry from the ISS, docked and/or in parking orbits, for use as "lifeboats" with a collective capacity to save everyone, just like on a ship at sea. The private companies could thus skip the daunting orbital launch challenge at first, and gain needed in-space experience doing what they do best: manufacture needed space hardware competitively, for a profit.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-19 21:00:27

Ah yes, Mr "normal text is too boring" is back again

A simple fool you are... professional astronauts can operate Orion just fine I'm sure, I have every confidance that NASA can make the FCS software simple enough. X-38 would have be entirely automatic: it had one and only one button, marked "go."

For space tourists, they won't be staying all that long, so they will come back down in an emergency the same way that ISS crews would now: in the vehicle they came up in.

This nonsense about "oh but what if the professional astronauts are dead" is silly, if -they- are dead, then so is everybody else, in which case there is no worry about rescue vehicles now is there? But I digress, the above points cover this situation too.

Its not exactly rocket science

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-20 23:52:05

X-38 would have be entirely automatic: it had one and only one button, marked "go."

that is exactly the way a MORV must work

...space tourists, they won't be staying all that long...

that's is true now and only for the 3xISS, but, soon, we will have MANY stations and MANY tourists in space

...if -they- are dead, then so is everybody else...

it's an absurd claim since it's NOT true, not even in the "small" ISS, since some astronauts may die in a module while other may survive in another module

.

dicktice · 2007-01-21 12:20:25

RCNR: re."Ah yes, Mr 'normal text is too boring' is back again. A simple fool you are... "
I can't make up my own mind to be insulted, or relieved not to be the one addressed. How about being more explicit when you cast stones in your particular glass house, eh?

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-21 15:49:52

Okay, to demonstrate...

gaetano says that his itty bitty capsule is great for later-stage space tourism, when the vehicle that launched the tourists is not sufficient to double as an escape vehicle.

But in this later-day age of space tourism, a tiny three-seat capsule is obviously not worth much. So why does he want to bother?

Its also nonsense that if a small space station were compromised, where such a capsule isn't useless, that the entire crew would not be killed if the failure were bad enough to kill some of them.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-21 23:10:01

Okay, to demonstrate...

...that you're wrong

...the vehicle that launched the tourists is not sufficient to double as an escape vehicle...

no, this is the less probable reason... here a list of four (of many possible) scenarios:
1. one or more "travel-capsules" don't work or are damaged (so, also the pilots need a MORV o come back)
2. future tourist space travels may use a single 10+ seats Shuttle and it may be damaged or (simply) tourists can't reach it
3. in a multi-modules/multi-exits space station, one or more (non-pilot) tourists may have problem to reach its travel-capsule, while he may be close to an emergency-exit/MORV
4. all capsules may work fine but one or more pilots can't drive it (since, injured, with an infarct or, simply, dead...)
after all, ships have lifeboats with rudders (that everyone can use) NOT helicopters (that are faster and safer, but need an expert PILOT to fly!) and, in space, all problems are ways complex and risky for a (common) "space-tourist" or another kind of space passenger, like (e.g.) a scientist that needs to go in space for a research

...later-day age of space tourism...

between "to-day" and the "space tourists age" many non-pilot astronauts may need to fly in space for commercial, industrial and scientific reasons

...if a small space station were compromised, where such a capsule isn't useless, that the entire crew would not be killed...

this is only the WORST scenario, because (first) the station may be not "small" but large and built with many modules, and (second) because accidents don't need to be (everytime) so catastrophic to kill "the entire crew"

.

SpaceNut · 2007-01-27 12:09:41

This one has reference to the Ares 1, 5 and of Orion testing as well as what could be deemed Ares IV and more....NASA Studies Early Moon Shot for New Space Capsule

a crewed skip-entry flight would be preceded by unmanned tests involving subscale spacecraft in the 2011 timeframe. He said a Delta 2-class rocket, for example, could kick a subscale Orion out far enough from Earth to achieve lunar return velocities without having to go as far as the Moon

Now depending on how sub scale it might be possible to turn this work into an addition means to leave the ISS as well as to use an existing launcher for manned flight to orbit...

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-27 12:18:20

...unmanned tests involving subscale spacecraft in the 2011 timeframe...use an existing launcher for manned flight to orbit...

it's not clear (to-day) if this "subscale spacecraft" will be a true (resized) capsule (to fly with a crew, someday) or (only) a test-vehicle (like the X-51)
.

cjchandler · 2007-01-28 14:32:07

If the only reason for this escape vehicle is to keep the tourist's safe then let the private space comepanies come up with something. It's not NASA's job. Plus, if you want an automated escape craft, why a space plane? That's complicated cutting edge technology. Just use a t-space capsule of the Falcon launched dragon capsule. http://www.transformspace.com/index.cfm … 270F2B83AA
look at point three in survivability.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-28 15:05:05

If the only reason for this escape vehicle is to keep the tourist's safe...

no, a MORV may be useful with all kind of mission and astronauts (military, scientific, business, tourists, etc.) and all kind of spacecraft/station ...it (simply) "save lifes"

...let the private space comepanies come up with something...

someday... (5+ years away) privates will build and launch manned spacecrafts... to-day, only three countries are able to do that

cjchandler · 2007-01-28 17:11:33

If NASA or the military needs an escape pod, they can use the orion capsule. All of their crew members will be trained enough to fly it. If the private companies need an escape vessel they can use what ever they used to get up there in the first place, by the way the space x capsule is pretty much developed if not tested, an almost space ready mock up has been built.
So NASA nor private companies need a special, emergency use only escape craft.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-28 20:51:44

More nonsense,

If the point of MORV is to mitigate risk, then its an awful deal just from a numbers standpoint. The riskiest part of any flight is probably launch, and so if the "travel vehicle" makes it to the station then chances are very good that it will work just fine. Its a small risk, nobody will buy MORV to mitigate it for a small crew.

If reentry is so easy as it is for your capsule, then even a damaged "travel vehicle" should still be able to reenter. And don't even think about trying to compare with Shuttle with its flimsy glass foam/pencil lead tiles and complicated hydraulic systems.

Plus I'm sure this space station hotel thing will have plenty of supplies to wait for another "travel vehicle."

Again, if all the crew members able to fly the travel vehicle are incapacitated, then chances are the entire crew tourists and all are too. Do we worry about both pilots of airliners on passenger jets? No! One pilot maybe, but not both, its just not going to happen.

And always with the grandiose nonsense...:

Its really very very simple, if you have a lot of tourists or other astronauts, then you need a larger escape vehicle. A two-and-half seat Soyuz reentry capsule doesn't make any sense versus a larger 6+ seater.

Otherwise, you have lots of little space capsules, increasing the chance that reentry will fail and part of the people will die. Soyuz isn't known for its reentry accuracy either, even today. Lots of things to go wrong. It also imposes penalties on the stations' design, with many more docking hatches and needing clear lines of flight to escape.

No, if a tourist venture needs an escape vehicle, they will go with something bigger.

MORV also doesn't exist any more than the T-Space/SpaceX capsules, since MORV can't be a standard Soyuz. Even the avionics inside the capsule will be totally different on top of the service module being brand new, so the only legacy trait will be the aerodynamics. The T-Space/SpaceX capsules also have proven aerodynamics, so if they don't exist, MORV sure doesn't either.

And stop it with (this stuff) all over (the place)!

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-29 09:40:42

If NASA or the military needs an escape pod, they can use the orion capsule.

true but... it can be used by non-pilots... it's very expensive... it will be available only after 2014... the "in space" life of (both) Soyuz and Orion is/will be less than six months, while, a rescue-vehicle (like my MORV or the X-38 must be ready to fly (and work well) many years without any maintenance

...they can use what ever they used to get up there in the first place..

true, but (in some emergency scenarios) it may be damaged or (simply) they can't reach it

...NASA nor private companies need a special, emergency use only escape craft.

then, why NASA and ESA have spent $3-5 billion to develop the (now deleted) "rescue-only" X-38 ???
.

gaetanomarano · 2007-01-29 10:55:09

...nonsense...

if my ($0.oo priced) MORV concept is a "nonsense, then, the NASA/ESA ($5B R&D costs) "rescue-only" X-38 is 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 times a nonsense... (then, send your critics to NASA and ESA)

...MORV is to mitigate risk...

I try to explain you the point... ISS, Bigelow modules, new stations, etc. are like HOTELS... Shuttle, Soyuz, Orion, etc. are SHIPS... and MORVs are the lifeboats of these SHIPS and HOTELS ...if something goes wrong, of course
the ocean is dangerous, then EVERY SHIP and SEA-HOTELS (like the big cruise ships are) on earth have LIFEBOATS ...they "sleep" years to be ready the day that "something goes wrong"
and, if the ocean is "dangerous", the space is "n"-times more dangerous ...then, fly in space needs many, different, lifeboats (to match every possible emergency)

...riskiest part of any flight is probably launch...

it actually IS the riskiest part of a spaceflight, infact, all capsules have high safety specs, redundancy, "abort modes" and their lifeboats (the LAS)

...small crew...

MORV and MORV-like vehicles are ALSO for small crew but MAINLY for the (many-peoples/vehicles/hotels-in-space upcoming) future

...even a damaged "travel vehicle" should still be able to reenter...

but this is not the only possible contingency in space (and not the worst)

...plenty of supplies to wait...

but... just imagine... a dozen of hotels in space... one hundred tourists/scientists inside them... half vehicles in space and half on earth with a one week to launch timeline... and a sun flare...

...pilots of airliners...

to-day's airlines' planes are much more like a MORV than a Shuttle or a Soyuz

...two-and-half seat Soyuz reentry capsule...

MORV uses a Soyuz capsule (since it's cheap, reliable and EXISTS now) but it is NOT a (very complex) Soyuz... it's a simple push-button rescue/reenry vehicle for three (mixed) pilot and non-pilots... also, their number in space mst be REDUNDANT
if a space-hotel may host 30 tourists, it must have 12-15 (not 10) MORVs docked to five-ten different emergency exits
however, many (redundant) bigger (6+ seats) capsules may be better (but only if built like a MORV, with years of in-space life)

... Lots of things to go wrong...

not a good argument since that may happen also with sea ships (Titanic & C.)

...if a tourist venture needs an escape vehicle, they will go with something bigger...

tourists can't buy and launch the rescue-vehicle they like... then, they will use the (small or big) vehicles available in space

...MORV also doesn't exist...

true, but, have a reliable capsule means half-work done! ..also, NASA, ESA and RSA have DECADES of REAL experience with (manned and unmanned) spacecrafts and spaceflights

...T-Space/SpaceX capsules also have proven aerodynamics...

I've never seen one of them flying.. and (so far) both company have ZERO experience with REAL (manned and unmanned) spacecrafts and spaceflights
.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-01-16 20:51:53

Re: MORV

#2 2007-01-16 21:51:28

Re: MORV

#3 2007-01-17 03:11:57

Re: MORV

#4 2007-01-17 07:48:33

Re: MORV

#5 2007-01-17 10:52:10

Re: MORV

#6 2007-01-17 20:47:31

Re: MORV

#7 2007-01-18 02:15:02

Re: MORV

#8 2007-01-18 07:37:42

Re: MORV

#9 2007-01-19 06:32:30

Re: MORV

#10 2007-01-19 10:51:23

Re: MORV

#11 2007-01-19 11:17:32

Re: MORV

#12 2007-01-19 12:48:44

Re: MORV

#13 2007-01-19 21:00:27

Re: MORV

#14 2007-01-20 23:52:05

Re: MORV

#15 2007-01-21 12:20:25

Re: MORV

#16 2007-01-21 15:49:52

Re: MORV

#17 2007-01-21 23:10:01

Re: MORV

#18 2007-01-27 12:09:41

Re: MORV

#19 2007-01-27 12:18:20

Re: MORV

#20 2007-01-28 14:32:07

Re: MORV

#21 2007-01-28 15:05:05

Re: MORV

#22 2007-01-28 17:11:33

Re: MORV

#23 2007-01-28 20:51:44

Re: MORV

#24 2007-01-29 09:40:42

Re: MORV

#25 2007-01-29 10:55:09

Re: MORV

Board footer