The Committee found no compelling evidence that the current design will not be acceptable for its wide variety of tasks in the exploration program. However, the Committee is concerned about Orion’s recurring costs. The capsule is considerably larger and more massive than previous capsules (e.g., the Apollo capsule), and there is some indication that a smaller and lighter four-person Orion could reduce operational costs. However, a redesign of this magnitude would likely result in over a year of additional development time and a significant increase in cost, so sucha redesign should be considered carefully before being implemented.
QuoteThe Committee found no compelling evidence that the current design will not be acceptable for its wide variety of tasks in the exploration program. However, the Committee is concerned about Orion’s recurring costs. The capsule is considerably larger and more massive than previous capsules (e.g., the Apollo capsule), and there is some indication that a smaller and lighter four-person Orion could reduce operational costs. However, a redesign of this magnitude would likely result in over a year of additional development time and a significant increase in cost, so sucha redesign should be considered carefully before being implemented.I also think a smaller, land-landing Orion would potentially reduce recurring costs.If the goal of the exploration programme remains a Moon base, I definitely think Orion should be made smaller and lighter and the architecture should be changed from LOR to Direct Ascent, which is more efficient if you want to support long-duration stays on the Lunar surface. For the "flexible path", the current version of Orion is fine IMO.
If the goal of the exploration programme remains a Moon base, I definitely think Orion should be made smaller and lighter and the architecture should be changed from LOR to Direct Ascent, which is more efficient if you want to support long-duration stays on the Lunar surface. For the "flexible path", the current version of Orion is fine IMO.
I thought that on 160 day trips to NEAs, Orion (two crew) wouldn't carry a separate habitat. That's why the increased volume and the toilet would have been beneficial for those type of missions. It's not necessary for Lunar or Mars missions though.
Ok then that's a moot point. It would make urgend sense to resize the capsule:I envision a modular spacecraft capable of reaching a range of destinations:LEO Version:Crew Module + Service Module (~300m/s)Lunar Version: Crew Module + Service Module + Ascent Stage (~2740 m/s) + Descent Stage (~2740 m/s)For Deep Space, you basically mix and match components depending on performance and endurance requirements.
I don't think Orion to lunar surface and back makes any sense. If NASA goes for Flexible Path and lunar sorties are determined to be part of the program, a lunar lander has to be designed.
I think this would be a workable solution for a combined, long duration mission, coupled with a more powerful Service module engine or an EDS.Edit: The ATV would need modifications for crew quarters. Forgive the bad art.
Quote from: simon-th on 09/09/2009 01:27 pmI don't think Orion to lunar surface and back makes any sense. If NASA goes for Flexible Path and lunar sorties are determined to be part of the program, a lunar lander has to be designed. Why not?Direct Return is superior in supporting long-duration Lunar stays. There's anytime return and there is no need for a part of the spacecraft to loiter untended in orbit for months at a time. Neither is it necessary to develop a separate Lander. For long-duration surface operations, you're going to land a bigger Surface Habitat anyway. I think you could build a modular spacecraft capable of accomplishing a wide range of missions, including going to the Lunar surface.
Direct Return doesn't work with an Orion-sized (9mt+) crew module. The total mass would make the launch architecture not feasible mass-wise.
I think we have not gone far enough in scaling down Orion. Nasa needs to be bolder in its scaling down its ambitions and push the envelope in reducing weight.This could be done by reducing Orion down to a single person manned vessel. It would be lauched into space by a new liquid fueled rocket, perhaps commercial or better still based on the Mercury design.This would give NASA a LEO capability at minimal cost. If 20 people need to be sent to the station then there are 20 launches. This facilitates economies of scale thus reducing costs. To test the above hardware I suggest NASA initally send some chimps into space. As for the moon or Mars I think NASA just have to admit that its impossible with the budget they have and possibly beyond the technical capability of the US space industry. If they can't build a new craft to LEO how they can expect to go to the moon?
I was being a little facetious but there is truth in what I posted.
Quote from: pberrett on 09/11/2009 11:02 pmI think we have not gone far enough in scaling down Orion. Nasa needs to be bolder in its scaling down its ambitions and push the envelope in reducing weight.(snip)If they can't build a new craft to LEO how they can expect to go to the moon?just plain ludicrous and non viable.Explain Apollo 11
I think we have not gone far enough in scaling down Orion. Nasa needs to be bolder in its scaling down its ambitions and push the envelope in reducing weight.(snip)If they can't build a new craft to LEO how they can expect to go to the moon?