A fully fueled and loaded Apollo CSM like that on Apollo 17 weighed about 67,000 pounds - a bit more than 30 metric tons.
Orion with the service module has a dry weight of 26 tons, the Apollo CSM weighed 12 tons, according to Wikipedia.
Will SLS have capacity to squeeze in a Lunar lander with ascent vehicle and a habitat for, say, three astronauts during two weeks?
Isn't Orion too big to function as a CSM?
Orion capsule without crew is 9887 kg [...] Apollo 17 Command Module mass is 5840 kg.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 02/02/2017 07:56 amOrion capsule without crew is 9887 kg [...] Apollo 17 Command Module mass is 5840 kg.So with an Orion crew of 6 the capsule dry mass per crew member is 1648 kg and with a crew of 3 the Apollo CM dry mass per crew member is 1947 kg. Orion saves 299 kg per crew member, or (299 / 1947) = 15%.Is that correct and fair?
Um? What size crew do you think NASA is planning to send on Mars missions?
Quote from: sdsds on 02/03/2017 07:16 amUm? What size crew do you think NASA is planning to send on Mars missions?What does that have to do with the Orion? It can only land in Earth's oceans, and Steven Pietrobon here says that it is too small to be used as Apollo's CSM. So I don't understand what it has been designed for, it seems to be completely useless by design.
My question would be how large could a Lunar lander be if carried alongside Orion? I'd presume something would be possible via the Block IB or II versions.
IMHO Use separate launches to send a reusable lander, a lunar orbit space station with hanger for the lander and a SEP tug to deliver propellant plus other consumables. Then further landings just need to send the Orion with crew and a few supplies.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/03/2017 05:21 pmIMHO Use separate launches to send a reusable lander, a lunar orbit space station with hanger for the lander and a SEP tug to deliver propellant plus other consumables. Then further landings just need to send the Orion with crew and a few supplies.Yes. There is no need to think in terms of single-flight missions as with Apollo, and that is booster-agnostic.I would add a surface habitat delivered on one unmanned flight, so the reusable lander can be even smaller. Or two flights: one to put the hab in lunar orbit, and a second carrying a bare-bones lander to take it down to the surface.The thing is, none of this can work if SLS flies only once a year.
Saturn V ~110-115mt.SLS 1B only 105mt.
But a SLS 2 130mt may be big enough if the prop used on the lander is hydrolox not storable prop. SLS 2 would have only a capability of < 25mt for a co-manifested payload. The other additioanl problems is that the SM must be larger than current as well which then eats into this value too.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 02/03/2017 05:21 pmIMHO Use separate launches to send a reusable lander, a lunar orbit space station with hanger for the lander and a SEP tug to deliver propellant plus other consumables. Then further landings just need to send the Orion with crew and a few supplies.So, you're saying it would take four SLS flights... Worth noting that we don't have a reusable lander, or a Lunar orbit space station (with or without a hanger for the lander we don't have), or an SEP tug to deliver propellant, or the technology demonstrated for in-space refueling. Not a problem, since we don't have SLS either, or Orion.If we had some bacon, we could have bacon and eggs for breakfast... if we had some eggs.
*(Definition: Insanity... doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.)
We'll be stuck in LEO