The last values published for the DIVH with upgrades is 28,370kg to LEO. It could take a fully fueled Orion to orbit and then let its SM do the orbital maneuvering to dock with ISS. The configuration used on EFT-1 no longer exists.As far as F9 the current "Block 3" has the 22,500kg to orbit as max expendable capability. But we do not know just how much more than that the Block 5 is capable of. My estimate is 25,000+kg to LEO.
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/30/2017 03:00 pmThe last values published for the DIVH with upgrades is 28,370kg to LEO. It could take a fully fueled Orion to orbit and then let its SM do the orbital maneuvering to dock with ISS. The configuration used on EFT-1 no longer exists.As far as F9 the current "Block 3" has the 22,500kg to orbit as max expendable capability. But we do not know just how much more than that the Block 5 is capable of. My estimate is 25,000+kg to LEO.The 22800 kg number in SpaceX web page is for the version of F9 they are SELLING launches for. (block 5)Not the one they are currently FLYING. (block 3).
Quote from: hkultala on 05/30/2017 03:08 pmQuote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/30/2017 03:00 pmThe last values published for the DIVH with upgrades is 28,370kg to LEO. It could take a fully fueled Orion to orbit and then let its SM do the orbital maneuvering to dock with ISS. The configuration used on EFT-1 no longer exists.As far as F9 the current "Block 3" has the 22,500kg to orbit as max expendable capability. But we do not know just how much more than that the Block 5 is capable of. My estimate is 25,000+kg to LEO.The 22800 kg number in SpaceX web page is for the version of F9 they are SELLING launches for. (block 5)Not the one they are currently FLYING. (block 3).Even though the thrust levels have been updated on the F9 page to show Block 5 capabilities the payload amounts have not changed from the earlier page that showed just the Block 3 thrust levels.Block 5 is the M1DFT+++ thrust levelsBlock 3 is the M1DFT++ thrust levelsThe page was updated to 22,800kg to LEO almost 2 years ago. The FH page max LEO payload was updated when the thrust levels were updated ~6 months ago from 58mt to 64mt. The F9 page payload values were not updated when the thrust levels were updated. So we do not know if the payload values are still the max or not, Indications from the update of the max LEO for FH suggests that there is more capability than what is posted.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 05/31/2017 01:29 amWill the Orion riding up hill with either a F9 or a FH become the OrionX? Or the Ex-Orion?
Will the Orion riding up hill with either a F9 or a FH become the OrionX?
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/31/2017 05:14 amQuote from: Zed_Noir on 05/31/2017 01:29 amWill the Orion riding up hill with either a F9 or a FH become the OrionX? Or the Ex-Orion? Ba-dum-TISH But, the only way an Orion is going to fly on *anything* other than a certain senate-specified, shuttle-derived launcher is if someone can convince Mr Shelby and the guys at Marshall that doing so is good for said SLS. Orion is most of the most of the justification for SLS - SLS can launch Orion into 'Deep Spaaaaaaace' Even showing that something else could throw Orion into LEO weakens that argument, so I don't see Shelby et al buying it.
On the other hand, being very overbuilt for the Moon is not such a bad thing...more shielding, backups and redundancy are always nice to have.
Quote from: Dante80 on 05/31/2017 07:56 pmOn the other hand, being very overbuilt for the Moon is not such a bad thing...more shielding, backups and redundancy are always nice to have. The level of backups and redundancy is the same for both Lunar and Mars missions. So is the shielding.Orion is NOT a Mars Transport Vehicle. En route to Mars the crew will live in a habitation vehicle, which is not the same as Orion. The crew will use Orion as their primary transport vehicle only during launch to LEO and subsequent Trans-Mars Injection and during Trans-Earth injection and re-entry on Earth. Everywhere in-between Orion is just along for the ride.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/01/2017 06:37 amThe level of backups and redundancy is the same for both Lunar and Mars missions. So is the shielding.Orion is NOT a Mars Transport Vehicle. En route to Mars the crew will live in a habitation vehicle, which is not the same as Orion. The crew will use Orion as their primary transport vehicle only during launch to LEO and subsequent Trans-Mars Injection and during Trans-Earth injection and re-entry on Earth. Everywhere in-between Orion is just along for the ride.I don't think that anyone said that Orion was intended as a Mars Transport Vehicle. Neither was it ever intended to be.
The level of backups and redundancy is the same for both Lunar and Mars missions. So is the shielding.Orion is NOT a Mars Transport Vehicle. En route to Mars the crew will live in a habitation vehicle, which is not the same as Orion. The crew will use Orion as their primary transport vehicle only during launch to LEO and subsequent Trans-Mars Injection and during Trans-Earth injection and re-entry on Earth. Everywhere in-between Orion is just along for the ride.
Some of the problem is this: Requirements revisions.Orion was first to be a cis-Lunar operations vehicle.But then it was upgrade to be a Mars transport vehicle.But now in use it is back to being a cis-Lunar vehicle but still built to Mars transport specs.This has made it too heavy: added radiation shielding for months and years of operation to and from Mars, much more redundancy and backups than needed for a 2 week trip, and other items that also add to its weight needed for a Mars trip but not for a cis-Lunar trip.
Some of the problem is this: Requirements revisions.Orion was first to be a cis-Lunar operations vehicle.But then it was upgrade to be a Mars transport vehicle.But now in use it is back to being a cis-Lunar vehicle but still built to Mars transport specs.
This has made it too heavy: added radiation shielding for months and years of operation to and from Mars,
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/31/2017 07:06 pmSome of the problem is this: Requirements revisions.Orion was first to be a cis-Lunar operations vehicle.But then it was upgrade to be a Mars transport vehicle.But now in use it is back to being a cis-Lunar vehicle but still built to Mars transport specs.I'd add the time Orion was scaled back to ISS crew return/rescue vehicle at the start of Bolden's tenure.QuoteThis has made it too heavy: added radiation shielding for months and years of operation to and from Mars,I don't think there's much, if any, dedicated radiation shielding for the crew on Orion. According to slide 3 in this presentation, Orion had 216kg of crew shielding in 2006, but that amount went to and is still zero as of last year. They appear to be relying entirely on reconfiguring stowed items to create an SPE shelter (slides 4-6) and on personal vests to protect against SPEs (slide 8 ). I can't find references to polyethylene or other Orion shielding for GCRs.http://wrmiss.org/workshops/twentyfirst/Gaza.pdfSimilarly, the electronics are hardened against radiation, but there does not appear to be much shielding. See slide 9.These measures -- reconfiguring stowed cargo, personal vests, and rad-hardened electronics -- could be applied to any capsule. Not sure what the Orion capsule itself brings to the table regarding radiation shielding/protection.
Orion is the dinghy of a Mars transfer vehicle. Framing Orion as part of a "Journey to Mars" is like spending 20 years designing the row boat to use to get to the Pinta, Niņa, and Santa Maria.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/01/2017 06:37 amQuote from: Dante80 on 05/31/2017 07:56 pmOn the other hand, being very overbuilt for the Moon is not such a bad thing...more shielding, backups and redundancy are always nice to have. The level of backups and redundancy is the same for both Lunar and Mars missions. So is the shielding.Orion is NOT a Mars Transport Vehicle. En route to Mars the crew will live in a habitation vehicle, which is not the same as Orion. The crew will use Orion as their primary transport vehicle only during launch to LEO and subsequent Trans-Mars Injection and during Trans-Earth injection and re-entry on Earth. Everywhere in-between Orion is just along for the ride.Well, Orion has 84 man-days of life support. With a 6 km/s TMI burn, you can get to Mars in 80 days in 2035 as Musk pointed out at IAC. Burning almost all of the service module propellant and a SLS Block II would be right about there. Only question mark is if you can boost the life support system enough for a 2 person crew without adding much weight and what do you do when you get there? I presume you would carry a small lander with you or aerobrake into orbit to be picked up by robotic infrastructure pre-staged in orbit. So, with the right launch vehicle and infrastructure on Mars, it is possible.
What does Orion to the ISS give us that Dragon 2 and CST 100 don't?
Section 2:(9) While commercial transportation systems have the promise to contribute valuable services, it is in the United States national interest to maintain a government operated space transportation system for crew and cargo delivery to space.
Sec 302(c) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS(1) IN GENERALThe Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following: (A) The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. (B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more. (C) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle. (D) The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.