Author Topic: Orion Discussion Thread 2  (Read 75289 times)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3219
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2049
  • Likes Given: 2441
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #40 on: 09/17/2015 02:31 AM »
Orion is a deep space vehicle, it is to fly with a hab module for missions past cis lunar space.

Depends on what your definition of "deep space" is...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 598
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #41 on: 09/17/2015 03:25 AM »
If Orion is to re-enter from a deep space mission, at higher speeds than from a Lunar mission, is the only required change from the current design a beefier heat shield?   Self contained life support is not an issue, since the Orion would be part of a much larger craft with its own life support.

Still, the Orion design makes no sense to me for deep space - it is way over-engineered for that task.
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4388
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 1343
  • Likes Given: 793
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #42 on: 09/17/2015 03:34 AM »
Article for KDP-C:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/orion-passes-kdp-c-cautious-2023-crew-debut/

Decided to cover some of the history way back to CEV (some from an old article as it covered the Ares I woes) and then into the KDP-C.
.

Another great read Chris (the bets in my opinion) and thanks for the history to put this into perspective.
Tony De La Rosa

Online TomH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1972
  • CA
  • Liked: 652
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #43 on: 09/17/2015 04:53 AM »
Orion is a deep space vehicle, it is to fly with a hab module for missions past cis lunar space.

Orion passes KDP-C with cautious 2023 crew debut
September 16, 2015 by Chris Bergin

Quote from: Chris Bergin
The actual plan for Orion has always been one that involves missions to Mars. However, Orion – per documentation (L2) – is unlikely to make that trip

William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, intimated – without directly citing – Orion will play an important role in the initial and final elements of such a mission, pointing to a role that will involve technological validation work in the “proving grounds” of deep space, before a role ferrying astronauts to Cislunar space, where they will board the transportation to the Red Planet.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2148
  • Canada
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 417
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #44 on: 09/17/2015 06:51 AM »
If Orion is to re-enter from a deep space mission, at higher speeds than from a Lunar mission, is the only required change from the current design a beefier heat shield?   Self contained life support is not an issue, since the Orion would be part of a much larger craft with its own life support.

Still, the Orion design makes no sense to me for deep space - it is way over-engineered for that task.
As well as a beef up heat shield, must be able to be functional for the duration of the mission.
 
As I see it. The Orion only have 2 main tasks for currently envisaged deep space missions. First get the crew to a larger interplanetary spacecraft or a cis-Lunar vehicle stack in LEO from the Earth. Second return the crew from a deep space mission to Earth with a splashdown in the Ocean. Both tasks with 4 crew members abroad.

IMO, the Orion is too big as crew taxi and reentry vehicle but too small to be use as habitat for any mission beyond cis-Lunar space.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7739
  • UK
  • Liked: 1235
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #45 on: 09/17/2015 07:11 AM »

Real aim for the first crewed flight remains August 2021.

But that's unfortunately not how I've seen it reported more widely, it's the 2023 date that has been picked up on.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7081
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2630
  • Likes Given: 780
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #46 on: 09/17/2015 07:43 AM »
Orion is a deep space vehicle, it is to fly with a hab module for missions past cis lunar space.
Not according to the recent document provided by NASA. It is assumed in that document that Orion will, at most, go as far as cis-lunar.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7081
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2630
  • Likes Given: 780
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #47 on: 09/17/2015 07:50 AM »
The possible delay of EM-2 to 2023 is now all over the news:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/16/orion-spacecraft-may-not-fly-with-astronauts-until-2023/
http://spacenews.com/first-crewed-orion-mission-may-slip-to-2023/

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31135
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9389
  • Likes Given: 296
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #48 on: 09/17/2015 10:59 AM »
At one time, the conop was for Orion to fly crew to the MTV and then serve as backup control center and safe refuge.  Upon return from Mars, Orion would detach from the MTV at lunar distances and perform a divert maneuver, targeting for entry (while the MTV flies by earth).  Orion would have to sustain the crew for a few days until landing.

Offline MP99

Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #49 on: 09/17/2015 11:05 AM »
Orion is a deep space vehicle, it is to fly with a hab module for missions past cis lunar space.
Not according to the recent document provided by NASA. It is assumed in that document that Orion will, at most, go as far as cis-lunar.
Previous DRM had it go to Mars, then do reentry on return (so that the hab / rest of stack didn't need to brake into Earth orbit).

Just the CM, no SM. (Or only a minimal SM.)

Cheers, Martin

Offline Todd Martin

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 141
  • Elgin, IL
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #50 on: 09/17/2015 02:44 PM »
$17B and "may slip" to 2023.

Can this capsule land on Mars?  No.  The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.
Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars?  No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed.  Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.
Is this capsule intended for lunar missions?  No.  President says so.  NASA says so.  Congress says so.
Is this capsule intended for ISS?  No.  There are far cheaper spacecraft.
Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous?  It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??

Offline MarcAlain

  • Member
  • Posts: 73
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #51 on: 09/17/2015 03:21 PM »
$17B and "may slip" to 2023.

Can this capsule land on Mars?  No.  The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.
Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars?  No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed.  Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.
Is this capsule intended for lunar missions?  No.  President says so.  NASA says so.  Congress says so.
Is this capsule intended for ISS?  No.  There are far cheaper spacecraft.
Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous?  It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??

Yet NASA continues to lie to the public about this. They claim on facebook all the time that it is "The spacecraft that will take us to Mars some day."

Also, I thought they did design the heatshield to withstand that kind of re-entry. Even SpaceX is claiming the Dragon can. Is there a source/article/forum thread that discusses what trajectories it can handle?

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2066
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 962
  • Likes Given: 738
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #52 on: 09/17/2015 03:54 PM »
$17B and "may slip" to 2023.

Can this capsule land on Mars?  No.  The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.
Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars?  No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed.  Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.
Is this capsule intended for lunar missions?  No.  President says so.  NASA says so.  Congress says so.
Is this capsule intended for ISS?  No.  There are far cheaper spacecraft.
Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous?  It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??

Orion was designed for cis-lunar operations. It would be great for going to a gateway station at EML-2 and with a small module as part of its SLS launch it could be used for lunar or asteroid missions. It can also be upgraded for Mars missions, assuming the MTV is discarded. If the MTV is reusable, Orion can meet it at EML-2 to transfer the crew. It's a good BEO vehicle.

Unfortunately, the current administration gave up on lunar exploration and Congress hasn't funded any missions. So "Why are we doing this?" is a good question.

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • Liked: 317
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #53 on: 09/17/2015 04:09 PM »
The possible delay of EM-2 to 2023 is now all over the news:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/16/orion-spacecraft-may-not-fly-with-astronauts-until-2023/
http://spacenews.com/first-crewed-orion-mission-may-slip-to-2023/

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Apollo cost 150 billion in today's dollars. So, meh, seems about ballpark with historical precedent. The CSM was one of 3 major components for Apollo: Saturn V, CSM and the LM. If a modern replacement each cost 17 billion to develop, all three components would cost about 50 billion or one third of Apollo's total cost. Could some capitalist probably do it cheaper working out of their proverbial garage than a government program: yeah, probably.

Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • New York
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #54 on: 09/17/2015 04:11 PM »
If the powers that be wanted to give Lockheed Martin another $17 Billion maybe they just should have ordered another hundred or so F-35's.  At least then there would be something to show for it, rather than a vehicle for a trip to nowhere.   This program brings to mind a family of 5 that wants to go camping who spend all of their money to buy a Ferrari to drive to the campground, only to discover that it only seats 2 and has no room for tents or supplies.   I know that sounds childish and bitter, but I had no sleep last night  and am disgusted that the space program is in its current state. I was hoping for a moon base by now, for petes sake.  Perhaps my usual optimism will return after a good night sleep.
« Last Edit: 09/17/2015 04:17 PM by grakenverb »

Offline montyrmanley

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #55 on: 09/17/2015 04:23 PM »
The possible delay of EM-2 to 2023 is now all over the news:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/16/orion-spacecraft-may-not-fly-with-astronauts-until-2023/
http://spacenews.com/first-crewed-orion-mission-may-slip-to-2023/

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Whenever NASA says that the Orion can be used for anything, what they're really saying is that it doesn't really have a purpose -- and that means that the design of the capsule was driven by no particular goal or purpose other than to keep money flowing. Most of that money should be considered a kind of "aerospace welfare" fund, which kept NASA employees and contactors busy during the post-Shuttle doldrums. (Just like ISS development funds were given to the Russians in part to keep their scientists and engineers from defecting to weapons development at home or abroad.)

I often think of this as the primary misson of SLS/Orion -- to keep workers on the payroll until something better comes along. We may see SLS and Orion achieve some of the fantastic goals hinted at by NASA, but honestly I doubt it. By the time these systems are operational in the mid-2020's, I suspect they'll be obsolete already. Much depends on what goes on with the likes of SpaceX, Orbital/ATK, Boeing, and ULA.(And maybe Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin.)

Consider SpaceX's Dragon, for example. I suspect the main hindrance to allowing the Dragon a longer tenure in space is not the capsule design, but the service module and life-support systems (much as it is with the Orion system). Given Elon's aspirations, SpaceX is no doubt hard at work at integrating life-support systems that will allow Dragon to support crews in orbit on the order of at least several weeks. That's enough time to allow a mission to, e.g., a Bigelow station at earth-moon L2 or something similar. Boeing's CST-100 (I guess I should call it the "Starliner" now) is likewise probably adaptable to cislunar operation, given a robust enough service module.

The question of "what's it for?" is going to dog Orion and SLS forever, because neither NASA nor the industrial contractors can admit that the actual purpose of these systems is to create (or maintain) aerospace jobs on the ground, not to enable the exploration of space. If this seems like an echo of the mid-1970's era of NASA and development of the Shuttle, you know what they say about the past repeating itself.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5062
  • Liked: 749
  • Likes Given: 511
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #56 on: 09/17/2015 04:30 PM »
Since ESA is now paying for the Orion's service module, is it correct that the figure of $17 billion excludes it?

Offline whitelancer64

Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #57 on: 09/17/2015 04:33 PM »
$17B and "may slip" to 2023.

Can this capsule land on Mars?  No.  The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.
Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars?  No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed.  Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.
Is this capsule intended for lunar missions?  No.  President says so.  NASA says so.  Congress says so.
Is this capsule intended for ISS?  No.  There are far cheaper spacecraft.
Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous?  It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??

Nice strawman arguments. Nobody ever claimed Orion would land on Mars. Most missions would require the use of a mission-specific module, which would also be true of any other spacecraft going somewhere in deep space.

The baseline mission plans I've seen assume a maximum reentry speed of 12.4 km/s, so I think it is safe to assert that the Orion can handle reentry speeds at least up to 12.4 km/s, and yes, there are Mars return trajectories with reentry speeds less than 12.4 km/s.

It is an internet myth that the Orion cannot handle Mars return speeds. I have never seen this claim be substantiated anywhere.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline montyrmanley

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 103
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #58 on: 09/17/2015 04:45 PM »
The possible delay of EM-2 to 2023 is now all over the news:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/16/orion-spacecraft-may-not-fly-with-astronauts-until-2023/
http://spacenews.com/first-crewed-orion-mission-may-slip-to-2023/

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Apollo cost 150 billion in today's dollars.

Well, sure, but we got something for our money. Apollo went from essentially zero to a functional moon rocket in ten years. New technologies for everything from engines to life-support and computers had to be invented from scratch. So it cost a lot, but given the Herculean task, it's amazing that it was done at all.

But what has Orion provided (or will it provide) to offset the massive cost? It's been in development for as long as the entire Apollo infrastructure, and it's still between five and ten years away from carrying humans into space.


Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 181
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #59 on: 09/17/2015 04:46 PM »
Yet NASA continues to lie to the public about this. They claim on facebook all the time that it is "The spacecraft that will take us to Mars some day."

mere semantics...this is the spacecraft that will take us to the spacecraft that will take us to Mars some day  ::)


while I understand the "delay" is not being presented as a delay, the mere fact that they have given themselves an out is enough to conclude that this wont launch humans until 2023 (or until the next delay).  Unless someone can point out another government run program that has been managed under constant delays which suddenly got its act together and came in "on time"?  I cant think of one
Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Tags: