1. ability to carry various mission modules, 2. airlock for EVA, etc.
Similarly, upon return from Mars the hab would decelerate and park for reuse while the crew transferred to a taxi prior to Earth return.
As for lunar missions, a Dragon would suffice just fine for the three day transit there and the same back. I know, the thing looks and seems cool, but the success of actually flying lies in low mass.
Quote from: TomH on 12/17/2013 07:34 pm Similarly, upon return from Mars the hab would decelerate and park for reuse while the crew transferred to a taxi prior to Earth return.That was and is not the plan. Takes too much DV.
Quote from: TomH on 12/17/2013 07:34 pm As for lunar missions, a Dragon would suffice just fine for the three day transit there and the same back. I know, the thing looks and seems cool, but the success of actually flying lies in low mass.We are going off topic, but what are the Astronauts going to breath, eat/drink and go to the bathroom in for over a week in a Dragon? How about power?It's a LEO taxi in it's current design, people need to get over that. Orion and Dragon are not interchangeable.
This was an interesting concept floated by someone a few years ago, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered for Orion. (A capsule more spacious than the Shuttle, with an EVA airlock and a massive cargo/science space)
Quote from: Lars_J on 12/18/2013 05:13 amThis was an interesting concept floated by someone a few years ago, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered for Orion. (A capsule more spacious than the Shuttle, with an EVA airlock and a massive cargo/science space)I think it was LM OSP, but its been a while... Still a nice one!
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/18/2013 06:16 amQuote from: Lars_J on 12/18/2013 05:13 amThis was an interesting concept floated by someone a few years ago, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered for Orion. (A capsule more spacious than the Shuttle, with an EVA airlock and a massive cargo/science space)I think it was LM OSP, but its been a while... Still a nice one! No, I think *this* was the LM OSP (or CEV)... I've always liked this one. A smaller and more realistic take on the concept above.
I know it is not the plan. Not having to take Orion all the way to Mars and back could allow propellant to be taken which could be used for EOI, maybe in cis-Lunar space. Alternately, a deceleration stage could rendezvous with the craft as it approaches Earth on the return. This way, the hab and associated equipment could be used again rather than rebuilding everything all over again. It seems less expensive in the long run.
Quote from: newpylong on 12/17/2013 08:34 pmQuote from: TomH on 12/17/2013 07:34 pm As for lunar missions, a Dragon would suffice just fine for the three day transit there and the same back. I know, the thing looks and seems cool, but the success of actually flying lies in low mass.We are going off topic, but what are the Astronauts going to breath, eat/drink and go to the bathroom in for over a week in a Dragon? How about power?It's a LEO taxi in it's current design, people need to get over that. Orion and Dragon are not interchangeable.You are right about its current design, but part of that plan is that it evolve. And yes, the vehicles are very different-part of that difference is Orion is overbuilt and overmassed. As far as where to stow power and fluids, O2, H2O, etc. can go in the boot and be transferred through the interface. The power can be solar or LH2/LO2 fuel cells in the boot like Apollo. Musk claims Dragon's eventual variant will be Mars capable. We're only talking a pair of three day transits to and from Luna.
Jim, do you remember who came up with this design with the air bags, was it a JSC in-house study?RegardsRob
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/18/2013 02:16 pmJim, do you remember who came up with this design with the air bags, was it a JSC in-house study?RegardsRobThat's from these guys. Second image on this page.
Quote from: TomH on 12/18/2013 01:30 amI know it is not the plan. Not having to take Orion all the way to Mars and back could allow propellant to be taken which could be used for EOI, maybe in cis-Lunar space. Alternately, a deceleration stage could rendezvous with the craft as it approaches Earth on the return. This way, the hab and associated equipment could be used again rather than rebuilding everything all over again. It seems less expensive in the long run.not really, propellant to take Orion to Mars and back is minor compared to those options.
How do you know Orion is overbuilt? They haven't even performed EFT-1 yet to verify the engineering, so how do you know? Same goes for "overmass"... at PDR it was overmass for the design
Quote from: newpylong on 12/18/2013 01:59 pmHow do you know Orion is overbuilt? They haven't even performed EFT-1 yet to verify the engineering, so how do you know? Same goes for "overmass"... at PDR it was overmass for the designI wouldn't use the term "overbuilt". MPCV did have a minor structural test failure, after all. She's not built extra thick.But I'd argue that the mass issue does bear on the discussion, both because of its severity and because of design philosophy.The CM alone is 20-25% overweight for its parachutes. Because the limit is imposed by the parachutes, thousands of pounds have to come out of the CM -- that mass can't be made up from the SM. (Incidentally, ESA is also delaying the PDR for the SM by six months because it's overweight.) Without some miraculous data from EFT-1 that the heat shield can be safely made extremely thin, it's not clear where this mass is going to come from. NASA managers themselves said as much in an AvWeek article a few months back. Although it's politically impossible, it would be good for the agency to look at alternatives to and off-ramps for MPCV. Getting the design and requirements to close may become a very expensive and Pyrrhic proposition. Whether the alternative should be some Dragon-derivative, CST-100 derivative, or other something else, I'll leave to others.It's also clear, at least to me, that the design approach underlying MPCV -- that of bringing lots of in-space capability back through the atmosphere in a capsule on every mission -- has reached, and may have exceeded, its limits. MPCV's parachutes are as big as they can be with existing technology and they may not be enough. It's also an issue that drives the size, complexity and reliability of launch abort systems. I'd argue that the better approach is focusing the capsule on what the capsule most needs to do -- getting astronauts up and down through the atmosphere as safely as possible -- and shifting other functions to an in-space module. Again, whether that in-space module is called a boot, a trunk, or a hab, and whether it's ISS-, Cygnus-, Bigelow-, or other-derived, I'll leave to others.My 2 cents... YMMV.
What makes Orion so heavy, anyway? AIUI, the Orion CM is intended to tip the scales at 22 klb (I presume--see the attached doc--that's after the weight is reduced to get it down to what its 'chutes can support). The Apollo CM, in comparison, was a waif at 13 klb. You'd expect Orion might be heavier because it has a crew of four rather than Apollo's three, but on the other hand technology, particularly electronics, has moved on quite a bit since the 1960s. Orion might also support its crew for a bit longer than Apollo, but that's probably mostly a matter of weight in the SM, not the CM. I don't get it.
Quote from: Proponent on 12/18/2013 11:05 pmWhat makes Orion so heavy, anyway? AIUI, the Orion CM is intended to tip the scales at 22 klb (I presume--see the attached doc--that's after the weight is reduced to get it down to what its 'chutes can support). The Apollo CM, in comparison, was a waif at 13 klb. You'd expect Orion might be heavier because it has a crew of four rather than Apollo's three, but on the other hand technology, particularly electronics, has moved on quite a bit since the 1960s. Orion might also support its crew for a bit longer than Apollo, but that's probably mostly a matter of weight in the SM, not the CM. I don't get it.Some of it is basic physics... Orion is a scaled up Apollo. From 3.9m diameter to 5m diameter. A 28% increase in diameter. But that is a ~120% increase in volume. So in overly simple terms, if Orion was made from Apollo materials it should weigh ~27 klb. So Orion isn't doing *that* bad. But still, one would expect it do do even *better*.Part of the problem may be that the Apollo shape simply doesn't scale up very well.
For that matter, come to think of it, is there a firm justification for increasing the crew to four from Apollo's three?
Obviously there are advantages to a larger crew -- when you get to the moon or Mars you get more person-hours per mission on the surface
-- but did anybody ever rigorously trade those advantages against the costs?
1.2.3 Technical GR&AsThe Technical GR&As are listed below.• The CEV will be designed for up to a crew of six for ISS missions.• The CEV will be designed for up to a crew of four for lunar missions.• The CEV will be designed for up to a crew of six for Mars missions.
I couldn't see why Orion would require so much more volume. But if the requirement is to carry six on longer voyages (though surely not all the way to Mars without a hab module!), the much greater volume makes more sense.
... I believe that a Soyuz type system would have provided a lower total mass with substantially increased internal volume. This is especially useful for Lunar missions. For Mars or asteroid missions, the orbital module is replaced with a larger habitat, again saving mass....
Why not add a fourth chute?
Quote from: M_Puckett on 07/27/2014 04:29 amWhy not add a fourth chute?I wondered the same thing. I don't know for certain, but it may have to do with the likelihood that the chutes would tangle with each other or the angular number of degrees the chutes divert from the vertical axis. Hopefully someone with more knowledge will chip in.
Quote from: TomH on 07/27/2014 04:45 amQuote from: M_Puckett on 07/27/2014 04:29 amWhy not add a fourth chute?I wondered the same thing. I don't know for certain, but it may have to do with the likelihood that the chutes would tangle with each other or the angular number of degrees the chutes divert from the vertical axis. Hopefully someone with more knowledge will chip in.Not only that, but where would you put a fourth chute? It's already a tight fit for three chutes.
What is the actual issue with scaling up chutes to higher loading? What is the failure mode associated with the present chutes being too small, or with doubling the size of the existing chutes?
Indeed... It might require them to build something a bit more different than Apollo. If only we didn't have to build new capsules just like Apollo.
Perhaps they could revisit the original parafoil proposal vs the chutes...
Are there any pictures of what the Original Orion capsule would have looked liked?
Thank you, I know about the diameter of the Orion being built now compared to Apollo but do you or anyone else know what the height of the Orion will be? Will the Orion be taller, same height or smaller than the Apollo capsule?
Quote from: Raj2014 on 07/31/2014 10:31 pmThank you, I know about the diameter of the Orion being built now compared to Apollo but do you or anyone else know what the height of the Orion will be? Will the Orion be taller, same height or smaller than the Apollo capsule?It has the same ratio as Apollo. That is why the shape was chosen. It didn't need any wind tunnel testing because it uses the Apollo shape.
The person being interviewed indicated they had run aerodynamic tests (and I thought that included wind tunnel testing-but perhaps it was only computer modeling) for the Orion shape and determined it to be the safest. The interviewee concluded by saying they were all amazed that the Apollo designers had come to the exact same conclusion and had chosen the same shape all those decades before.
Edit: In this picture from Marshall, the capsule does not seem to have the same proportions. It even seems triconical:
I'd like to know why it is the "safest". The Soyuz shape was safe enough to go around the Moon and back, and has much better volumetric efficiency due to the higher side walls. The Chinese will also be using the same Soyuz shape for their Lunar missions, if that program ever gets the go ahead.
Yes, the capsule shape in these parachute tests was "squashed" so that it would fit inside the C-17 carrier aircraft.
But there must be some advantage to the Apollo/Orion shape. Lower g-forces, increased landing accuracy?
Quote from: Oli on 08/01/2014 12:25 pmBut there must be some advantage to the Apollo/Orion shape. Lower g-forces, increased landing accuracy?Because little research was needed to use it, they leveraged Apollo data
I have a hard time believing that making the side walls steeper/higher would have had a big impact on development costs. I mean, its not exactly the most complex reentry shape out there...
Quote from: Oli on 08/01/2014 12:59 pmI have a hard time believing that making the side walls steeper/higher would have had a big impact on development costs. I mean, its not exactly the most complex reentry shape out there...There is no entry test data other shapes at lunar or Mars return velocities.
5.3.1.3.3 Initial Axisymmetric Capsule Shape DownselectIn order to balance the effects of the changing parameters, a baseline vehicle was selected witha shallower cone angle of 20 deg (since this had the least effect on other parameters), with thesame base and corner radius as Apollo. This new vehicle trended toward the family of vehiclesrepresented by the Soyuz capsule, which has an even shallower sidewall angle. This vehicleis shown in Figure 5-30 below. It was estimated that an achievable X-axis center of gravity(Xcg ) position would lie at or around the 45 percent volume level. In that case, the Zcg offsetrequired for 0.4 L/D would be roughly 0.053 times the diameter. For this shape, the monostableCG position could be as high as the 48.6 percent volume level, which would therefore leavesome margin for assured monostability.
5.3.1.3.5 Initial Capsule Shape Trade ConclusionsFor the initial capsule shape trade study, detailed and extensive analysis of parametric effectsand trends of various capsule shapes and features indicated that achieving the desired characteristicswas indeed a formidable task. A compromise was made to achieve all of the desiredcharacteristics as closely as possible while minimizing the detrimental effects. The resultantaxisymmetric shape (shown in Figures 5-30 and 5-32) was a 5.5-m diameter capsule withApollo heat shield and 20-deg aft-body sidewall angle. The capsule offered large volume(i.e., large enough for surface-direct missions), easily developed axisymmetric shape, the bestchance for monostability, L/D = 0.4 with attainable CG, adequate static stability, and low L/Dsensitivity to CG dispersions. Nonaxisymmetric shape optimization had shown that this techniquecould indeed reduce CG offset requirements if needed in the future. Further detailedanalysis was then required to further define the performance characteristics of the axisymmetricshape.
5.3.1.3.11 Alternate Proposed CM ShapesNear the end of the ESAS, it was decided that the direct-to-surface lunar mission architecturewould not be prudent. This eliminated the need for a high-volume CEV CM such as thebaseline axisymmetric CM shape. In addition, a 1.5-launch solution was selected in which theCEV CM would always be launched on a Shuttle-derived CLV configuration for both LEOand lunar missions. This LV was limited in performance, particularly for the lunar missionand lunar CEV, which created a need to decrease the baseline CEV mass. Because significantmass was created by the extremely large aft-body due to TPS, radiation shielding, andstructure, it was desirable to increase the aft-body sidewall angle. In addition, the aft-bodyflow impingement of the baseline axisymmetric CM shape was not desirable. Finally, thesystems packaging at this point had still not achieved the desired CG location for the baselineshape. Although the CG location was low enough to provide monostability, it was notoffset far enough to produce the desired 0.4 L/D ratio. All of these factors weighed in againstthe remaining benefit of the shallow-walled, large aft-body baseline design—the potentialmonostability. Eventually, the desire for aerodynamic monostability was outweighed by otherfactors; however, other propulsive or mechanical methods are available to ensure stable ballisticentry, such as employing a flap or RCS jets.The baseline axisymmetric shape was modified to have a 30-deg back-shell sidewall angleand reduced diameter to 5.2 m. This provided a 2- to 3-deg buffer from the flow direction at a26–27 trim degree angle-of-attack. The alternative AFE-type vehicle with its 28-deg sidewallangle was already suitable, except for the fact that it was scaled down to a 5.2-m diameter. Inaddition, its length was decreased to allow for the docking ring diameter and a tighter cornerradius was employed to help decrease the Zcg offset requirement. Both changes to the AFEtypeshape significantly decreased monostability. These vehicles are shown in Figure 5-42.The Cm curves for these vehicles are shown in Figure 5-43 at the representative CG locations andmonostable limits. The Cm curves are similar, although there is a slight reduction in static stabilityat the desired trim angle-of-attack of the AFE-type shape compared to Apollo. Figure 5-44provides the 0.4 L/D CG trim lines for these configurations. (Note: the significantly reduced Zcgoffset requirements of the AFE-type shape.) Both trim lines have roughly equal distance froma representative CG to the monostable CG limit. Table 5-18 presents some performance specificationsfor the two vehicles. The overwhelming benefit of the AFE-type configuration is thereduced Zcg offset required for 0.4 L/D, though there is a slight TPS mass cost.
5.3.1.3.12 Final ESAS CM ShapeBased primarily on packaging and mass issues, the final proposed baseline CEV CM shapewas a 5.5-m diameter Apollo (with the original Apollo 32.5-deg sidewall). Thus, the aerodynamicsand aerothermodynamics are well known. TPS estimates were made based on theresults presented previously using the heat shield data for the axisymmetric baseline shape andthe back-shell data for the AFE-type shape. The trimline for this shape was found to be nearlyidentical to that shown previously for the 30-deg sidewall Apollo. Also, the ballistic entryanalyses provided above is still applicable for the most part.Concern is warranted, however, over the ability to achieve the Zcg offset that will be requiredto achieve a 0.4 L/D using this shape. However, the alternative AFE-type shape as shownpreviously would alleviate this concern. The shape working group is continuing to evolve anAFE-type shape that is directly comparable to the proposed 5.5-m diameter Apollo with a32.5-deg back-shell, with the only difference being in the heat shield shape. Further risk andperformance analyses in the areas of landing (land versus water) may ultimately determinewhich CEV CM shape is selected.
Will they change the design of the Orion, adding newer technologies and increase the volume? Has Lockheed Martin already designed other versions of the Orion spacecraft?
Quote from: Raj2014 on 11/10/2014 12:21 pmWill they change the design of the Orion, adding newer technologies and increase the volume? Has Lockheed Martin already designed other versions of the Orion spacecraft?No, it will retain the same basic design. And what new technologies are there?
Newer technologies being developed, added into and on the Orion, e.g. improved computers, improved radiation shielding, electric propulsion, improved solor technology and batteries.
Quote from: Raj2014 on 11/10/2014 05:17 pmNewer technologies being developed, added into and on the Orion, e.g. improved computers, improved radiation shielding, electric propulsion, improved solor technology and batteries. Electric propulsion is not useful on a manned vehicle. How has radiation shielding improved in the last few years? The vehicle was already using lithium batteries and the SM is being designed by ESA as we type. Computers will not really make a difference at this time and the avionics suite has been already designed and in integration.So, no there are "new" technologies available to be incorporated.
Quote from: Jim on 11/10/2014 07:08 pmQuote from: Raj2014 on 11/10/2014 05:17 pmNewer technologies being developed, added into and on the Orion, e.g. improved computers, improved radiation shielding, electric propulsion, improved solor technology and batteries. Electric propulsion is not useful on a manned vehicle. How has radiation shielding improved in the last few years? The vehicle was already using lithium batteries and the SM is being designed by ESA as we type. Computers will not really make a difference at this time and the avionics suite has been already designed and in integration.So, no there are "new" technologies available to be incorporated.1. but thrusters such plasma, which offers high thrust and high specific impulse for example VASIMR, that has a option to change for more thrust or fuel efficiency would be a good addition also it can provide protection from some if not all know radiations. 2. Also I have read of new materials being made which could increase and protect the Orion capsule and crew.3. Solar technology is improving at a fast rate, efficiently has increased and made from lighter materials. 4.Also Lockheed Martin has announced that they are working on a Compact Fusion Reactor, which hopefully it will work and be out as soon as possible, 5. add this to Orion plus an expendable habitat. I hope they also build the Nautilus-X, with international assistance.
Quote from: Raj2014 on 11/10/2014 07:51 pmQuote from: Jim on 11/10/2014 07:08 pmQuote from: Raj2014 on 11/10/2014 05:17 pmNewer technologies being developed, added into and on the Orion, e.g. improved computers, improved radiation shielding, electric propulsion, improved solor technology and batteries. Electric propulsion is not useful on a manned vehicle. How has radiation shielding improved in the last few years? The vehicle was already using lithium batteries and the SM is being designed by ESA as we type. Computers will not really make a difference at this time and the avionics suite has been already designed and in integration.So, no there are "new" technologies available to be incorporated.1. but thrusters such plasma, which offers high thrust and high specific impulse for example VASIMR, that has a option to change for more thrust or fuel efficiency would be a good addition also it can provide protection from some if not all know radiations. 2. Also I have read of new materials being made which could increase and protect the Orion capsule and crew.3. Solar technology is improving at a fast rate, efficiently has increased and made from lighter materials. 4.Also Lockheed Martin has announced that they are working on a Compact Fusion Reactor, which hopefully it will work and be out as soon as possible, 5. add this to Orion plus an expendable habitat. I hope they also build the Nautilus-X, with international assistance. 1. Unproven that this time.2. Again unproven3. The latest is not always proven for flight4. That likely will not be available at anytime during the Orion program. Working on does not mean it "works" 5. Lockheed nor NASA is working any habitat for Orion at this time.
1. Vasimr will be tested on ISS next year2. Currently still being tested3. That does not make any sense, if they develop the latest solar panels for space flight after testing, it will most likely work.4. They are planning to have a test done every year, a working prototype in 5 years, complete version 10 years. Orion program is expected to last for more than 10 years, if they stay with the Orion spacecraft.5. NASA has worked on expendable habitats, decades ago. They sold the technology to Bigelow Aerospace, which they have been continually developing the technology, have launched 2 versions and will launch another habitat next year called BEAM to the ISS.
Quote from: Jim on 11/10/2014 07:08 pmQuote from: Raj2014 on 11/10/2014 05:17 pmNewer technologies being developed, added into and on the Orion, e.g. improved computers, improved radiation shielding, electric propulsion, improved solor technology and batteries. Electric propulsion is not useful on a manned vehicle. How has radiation shielding improved in the last few years? The vehicle was already using lithium batteries and the SM is being designed by ESA as we type. Computers will not really make a difference at this time and the avionics suite has been already designed and in integration.So, no there are "new" technologies available to be incorporated.Electric propulsions such as the Ion drive with high specific impulse and low thrust will not be useful for manned missions but thrusters such plasma, which offers high thrust and high specific impulse for example VASIMR, that has a option to change for more thrust or fuel efficiency would be a good addition also it can provide protection from some if not all know radiations. Also I have read of new materials being made which could increase and protect the Orion capsule and crew. Solar technology is improving at a fast rate, efficiently has increased and made from lighter materials. Also Lockheed Martin has announced that they are working on a Compact Fusion Reactor, which hopefully it will work and be out as soon as possible, add this to Orion plus an expendable habitat. I hope they also build the Nautilus-X, with international assistance.
Jim, On technology improvements post initial design...Just look at modern aviation history, many improvements have and continue to be made on passenger aircraft(all man rated), in real time, and during production. A great example is the 737. it's still in production, and only the basic airplane shape is a common part of the design. Everything else has evolved through technology improvements over the years.STS has two great examples, Heat shield improvements and the radical change from analogue to glass crew deck.If one is to throw bricks at glass houses, ones own house should not be made of glass. Personally I like the idea of having improved solar arrays, 47% efficiency at the time of design(2010) is still a poor rate, and yes we are making leaps and bounds in the lab right now. I think better than 70% is possible before Orion flies it's test missions.
b. Orion is not going to have a service life like the shuttle. It be lucky to be in use past ten years and even more doubtful past 2030.
Pure conjecture.You're on another plant (no pun intended) if you think they will not make incremental improvements throughout Orion's life like STS.
Quote from: newpylong on 07/14/2015 06:16 pmPure conjecture.You're on another plant (no pun intended) if you think they will not make incremental improvements throughout Orion's life like STS.Quite the opposite, there is a lucidity available only to those that have boots on the ground that is not available to those whose view is only through internet.Orion performing incremental improvements also pure conjecture and actually less likely to happen. It is hard to do improvements, when there are only 2-3 missions scheduled. Hint, every other program had 10 or more missions planned and scheduled very early in development. NASA doesn't even know what to do with Orion after the test missions. First crewed mission is more than 5 years away. NASA funding isn't going to improve and likely will decrease.
Quote from: Jim on 07/14/2015 02:06 amb. Orion is not going to have a service life like the shuttle. It be lucky to be in use past ten years and even more doubtful past 2030.Conjecture. You're on another plant (no pun intended) if you think they will not make incremental improvements throughout Orion's life like STS.
I worked on Orion, did you? Last I checked the Nightgator's didn't...
Having experience in one section of an industry does not give one intrinsic knowledge of the entire field.
Quote from: newpylong on 07/14/2015 06:50 pmI worked on Orion, did you? Last I checked the Nightgator's didn't...Whether or not you worked on some portion of Orion, that's irrelevant to Orion's chances of enjoying a long service life and 30 years of incremental improvements.
Quote from: newpylong on 07/14/2015 06:50 pmI worked on Orion, did you? Last I checked the Nightgator's didn't...Yes, I did. I even got an award from the LM program manager. Quote from: newpylong on 07/14/2015 06:50 pmHaving experience in one section of an industry does not give one intrinsic knowledge of the entire field. Define the "section"? Having a job that touches all aspects of the agency and industry provides unique insight.
It provides insight, not ESP.
Can (legally) LM build their own Orion capsules and fly them commercially? Would most likely need to develop their own service module.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 07/14/2015 07:44 pmCan (legally) LM build their own Orion capsules and fly them commercially? Would most likely need to develop their own service module. To be viable the Orion has to either be price compatible with the SpaceX Dragon or able to do something the Dragon cannot do.The cargo Dragon V1 is operational.The manned Dragon V2's manned test flight is due within 3 years.The Orion's manned test flight is 6 or so years away.
Orion performing incremental improvements also pure conjecture and actually less likely to happen.
Sorry to put it this way but... While the Orion seems like a good idea, with it's reusability and all, without a reusable launch vehicle, or one that costs only a few thousand dollars to build and set up, (not especially likely) the Orion will never really be a truely economicly viable spacecraft. Jim, I think you can back me up on this one.
According to project manager who was on Spaceshow a while back, the Orion is designed to be reusable up to 5 times. There is no reason Orion can't be launched on a RLV or lower cost ELV, it is not dependent on SLS.
According to project manager who was on Spaceshow a while back, the Orion is designed to be reusable up to 5 times.
Good to have a more current quote on reusability, however we have to remember that what would be reused is not the whole Orion, just the Command Module. The Service Module is thrown away every time.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/15/2015 12:21 amQuote from: TrevorMonty on 07/14/2015 07:44 pmCan (legally) LM build their own Orion capsules and fly them commercially? Would most likely need to develop their own service module. To be viable the Orion has to either be price compatible with the SpaceX Dragon or able to do something the Dragon cannot do.The cargo Dragon V1 is operational.The manned Dragon V2's manned test flight is due within 3 years.The Orion's manned test flight is 6 or so years away.I was thinking of BLEO missions to a DSH and hopefully onto moon in a lander.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/16/2015 02:19 amGood to have a more current quote on reusability, however we have to remember that what would be reused is not the whole Orion, just the Command Module. The Service Module is thrown away every time.Same issue as with the CST-100 but how much hardware is inside the service module?Is it nearly a spacecraft in it's own right or is it more akin to a glorified upper stage?As for question could LM decide to market a commercial version of Orion they probably could so long as doing so did not impact NASA production.
Quote from: Patchouli on 07/16/2015 05:53 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 07/16/2015 02:19 amGood to have a more current quote on reusability, however we have to remember that what would be reused is not the whole Orion, just the Command Module. The Service Module is thrown away every time.Same issue as with the CST-100 but how much hardware is inside the service module?Is it nearly a spacecraft in it's own right or is it more akin to a glorified upper stage?As for question could LM decide to market a commercial version of Orion they probably could so long as doing so did not impact NASA production.I think it is a question of how valuable is the hardware inside. The service module may have a good deal of mass but the command module may have more expensive hardware. The avionics are one thing that comes to mind. They are pretty expensive yet not as heavy as other pieces of hardware on the craft. The Russians were pretty keen on returning and reusing the Kurs boxes from the Soyuz and Progress via the shuttle.
Why bother to build a new one when you have two years to refurbish that one.
Quote from: notsorandom on 07/16/2015 01:10 pmQuote from: Patchouli on 07/16/2015 05:53 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 07/16/2015 02:19 amGood to have a more current quote on reusability, however we have to remember that what would be reused is not the whole Orion, just the Command Module. The Service Module is thrown away every time.Same issue as with the CST-100 but how much hardware is inside the service module?Is it nearly a spacecraft in it's own right or is it more akin to a glorified upper stage?As for question could LM decide to market a commercial version of Orion they probably could so long as doing so did not impact NASA production.I think it is a question of how valuable is the hardware inside. The service module may have a good deal of mass but the command module may have more expensive hardware. The avionics are one thing that comes to mind. They are pretty expensive yet not as heavy as other pieces of hardware on the craft. The Russians were pretty keen on returning and reusing the Kurs boxes from the Soyuz and Progress via the shuttle.No way for us to know what the cost split is, since ESA is trading the SM work for ISS support payments.From this Airbus page describing their work:http://www.space-airbusds.com/en/programmes/mpcv-esm-v15.html"A cylinder of around four metres in height and diameter, and featuring the ATV’s distinctive four-wing solar array (19 metres across unfurled), the European service module MPCV-ESM, is attached below the crew capsule. In addition to the propulsion capability for the Orion spacecraft, it will perform orbit manoeuvring and attitude control functions, and also supply water and oxygen to the crew and provide power and thermal control while it is docked to the crew module. The unpressurised service module can also be used to carry additional cargo."Since the "European" Service Module (ESM) is built on the ATV platform, and the ATV is an autonomous spacecraft in it's own right, the ESM is pretty substantial.For the Boeing CST-100, since it is an LEO-only vehicle the Service Module has less mass, equipment and capability to it.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/16/2015 08:20 pmNo way for us to know what the cost split is, since ESA is trading the SM work for ISS support payments.From this Airbus page describing their work:http://www.space-airbusds.com/en/programmes/mpcv-esm-v15.html"A cylinder of around four metres in height and diameter, and featuring the ATV’s distinctive four-wing solar array (19 metres across unfurled), the European service module MPCV-ESM, is attached below the crew capsule. In addition to the propulsion capability for the Orion spacecraft, it will perform orbit manoeuvring and attitude control functions, and also supply water and oxygen to the crew and provide power and thermal control while it is docked to the crew module. The unpressurised service module can also be used to carry additional cargo."Since the "European" Service Module (ESM) is built on the ATV platform, and the ATV is an autonomous spacecraft in it's own right, the ESM is pretty substantial.For the Boeing CST-100, since it is an LEO-only vehicle the Service Module has less mass, equipment and capability to it.The service module will be quite stupid compared to the ATV. Its just a collection of hardware that receives commands from the CM. Hardware that happens to be derived from some of the systems on the ATV.
No way for us to know what the cost split is, since ESA is trading the SM work for ISS support payments.From this Airbus page describing their work:http://www.space-airbusds.com/en/programmes/mpcv-esm-v15.html"A cylinder of around four metres in height and diameter, and featuring the ATV’s distinctive four-wing solar array (19 metres across unfurled), the European service module MPCV-ESM, is attached below the crew capsule. In addition to the propulsion capability for the Orion spacecraft, it will perform orbit manoeuvring and attitude control functions, and also supply water and oxygen to the crew and provide power and thermal control while it is docked to the crew module. The unpressurised service module can also be used to carry additional cargo."Since the "European" Service Module (ESM) is built on the ATV platform, and the ATV is an autonomous spacecraft in it's own right, the ESM is pretty substantial.For the Boeing CST-100, since it is an LEO-only vehicle the Service Module has less mass, equipment and capability to it.
Since the "European" Service Module (ESM) is built on the ATV platform, and the ATV is an autonomous spacecraft in it's own right, the ESM is pretty substantial.For the Boeing CST-100, since it is an LEO-only vehicle the Service Module has less mass, equipment and capability to it.
Quote from: notsorandom on 07/16/2015 08:57 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 07/16/2015 08:20 pmNo way for us to know what the cost split is, since ESA is trading the SM work for ISS support payments.From this Airbus page describing their work:http://www.space-airbusds.com/en/programmes/mpcv-esm-v15.html"A cylinder of around four metres in height and diameter, and featuring the ATV’s distinctive four-wing solar array (19 metres across unfurled), the European service module MPCV-ESM, is attached below the crew capsule. In addition to the propulsion capability for the Orion spacecraft, it will perform orbit manoeuvring and attitude control functions, and also supply water and oxygen to the crew and provide power and thermal control while it is docked to the crew module. The unpressurised service module can also be used to carry additional cargo."Since the "European" Service Module (ESM) is built on the ATV platform, and the ATV is an autonomous spacecraft in it's own right, the ESM is pretty substantial.For the Boeing CST-100, since it is an LEO-only vehicle the Service Module has less mass, equipment and capability to it.The service module will be quite stupid compared to the ATV. Its just a collection of hardware that receives commands from the CM. Hardware that happens to be derived from some of the systems on the ATV.The term "stupid" more relates to the control systems, which if so don't make up much of the complexity of the Orion either. Maybe you mean simple?Regardless, the Command Module doesn't go anywhere far, doesn't get any power, and doesn't have enough water and oxygen for the crew to survive without the Service Module. Plus the Command Module can't carry external cargo. You don't think that's much. Fine. The facts speak for themselves.