Author Topic: A smaller Orion?  (Read 20564 times)

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
A smaller Orion?
« on: 09/09/2009 12:29 pm »
Quote
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 such
a 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.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #1 on: 09/09/2009 12:41 pm »
Quote
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 such
a 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.
I'd note, if they did ultimately decide on the DIRECT architecture vs Constellation, they could fit back in the Orion safety features they had to remove due to the Ares I's shortcomings, as the CLV version of the Jupiter can lift substantially more than Ares I can.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #2 on: 09/09/2009 12:54 pm »

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.

No, especially for Flexible Path, a smaller 4-crew Orion makes sense.

You gain the following by reducing the size of the Orion module:
 - If you really want to launch it on something else than Ares I (which seems to be the consensus now), a reduction in size helps a lot. E.g. if you are able to shed 1 ton from the CM, you also require less fuel and get a lighter SM for the same delta-v. This means, you save money by launching Orion on a vehicle with a lower payload capacity to LEO or you end up using less cargo capacity on your HLV, if you choose to launch Orion on that.
 - Once you have reduced the size and thus the weight of Orion, you just boosted Flexible Path mass in LEO budget margins. The plan is to take Orion with you on all missions beyond-LEO, be it to NEOs or a Martian flyby or a Mars orbital mission - and you take it with you until the very end of the mission, meaning you need a lot of propellant for the whole round trip just for taking Orion with you. For every mt that Orion (CM+SM) is lighter, you might save e.g. 10mt+ in cryogenic propellant in LEO for a Phobos mission.


Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #3 on: 09/09/2009 01:03 pm »
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.

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #4 on: 09/09/2009 01:09 pm »
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.

Actually, for every mission which lasts more than 14 days (with astronauts staying in Orion this time) you require a hab module. That has been clearly said in the Committee meetings and presentations when they spoke about Flexible Path. Basically, only a circumlunar mission and a mission to EML-1/2 may be "Orion only."

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #5 on: 09/09/2009 01:18 pm »
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.


Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #6 on: 09/09/2009 01:22 pm »
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 personally would rather a Big Gemini or Apollo D-2 style design, where the descent stage is a tiny module, and the rest of the craft can be more customized to the mission itself.  But, the time and cost to develop a new platform right now makes this unrealistic.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #7 on: 09/09/2009 01:27 pm »
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.

A 4-crew basic Orion for many missions with a modular service module and a modular hab (sized to the mission) is the best way to go.

Until we do extended Mars surface missions (maybe in the late 2030s or 2040s?) we won't need a spacecraft for more than 4-crew.

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #8 on: 09/09/2009 01:37 pm »
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.

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.

« Last Edit: 09/09/2009 01:47 pm by DLR »

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #9 on: 09/09/2009 03:35 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2009 03:36 pm by mike robel »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #10 on: 09/09/2009 03:53 pm »
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.

It would also need its own on-board life-support system. 

With regard to an EDS, you could just add either a Wide-Body Centaur or a modified Ariane-5-ECB upper stage.

I wonder how much larger the module on the front could be.  Maybe it could be longer and include unpressurised sensor racks and an EVA airlock.  That would make it pretty much ideal for an NEO encounter mission for very small bodies.  In a less-modified form you could bolt Spacelab modules onto the bus to create a short-life LEO experiment/extended habitat module.

Overall, this is a good idea and the LEO lab form is probably the only likely mission to be available to US and European HSFbetween ISS retirement and ~2025.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2009 03:54 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline simon-th

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 952
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #11 on: 09/09/2009 04:04 pm »
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.

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.

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #12 on: 09/09/2009 04:51 pm »
Direct Return doesn't work with an Orion-sized (9mt+) crew module. The total mass would make the launch architecture not feasible mass-wise.

Well, it's not prohibitive if you use high energy propulsion in all stages. It would most likely be heavier than Altair/Orion though. But if you go for a two-launch HLV architecture anyway, this shouldn't be an issue.

But I'm actually arguing for a smaller Orion to enable Direct Ascent missions.

I envision a space transportation system looking somewhat like that:



Note that these images are by no means accurate.  ;D

For LEO missions, such a craft would likely be light enough to be launched fully fuelled on a human rated Atlas.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2009 04:53 pm by DLR »

Offline pberrett

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #13 on: 09/11/2009 11:02 pm »
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?

Regards Peter



« Last Edit: 09/11/2009 11:06 pm by pberrett »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #14 on: 09/12/2009 12:06 am »
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?


just plain ludicrous and non viable.

Explain Apollo 11

Offline pberrett

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #15 on: 09/12/2009 04:04 am »
I was being a little facetious but there is truth in what I posted.

To have economies of scale you need volume. Sending up more spacecraft but with only a single occupant each time achieves much greater volume that at present becuase you need that many more launches.

As for Apollo 11 that was two generations ago. The people that built Apollo 11 have retired. 

What the US did in late sixties was fantastic but that was then and this is now. Are the current crop of engineers, managers and political masters capable of bringing about a new space transportation system capable of doing at least what Apollo 11 did? I have my doubts.

Regards Peter











« Last Edit: 09/12/2009 04:09 am by pberrett »

Offline tamarack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #16 on: 09/12/2009 04:45 am »
^^OT^^
Engineers? Yes. Every problem and challenge can be solved by multiple methods by engineers.
Managers? No. Followers make poor leaders and leaders poor followers, which has lead to inept management in every industry, not just space, while competent leaders are pushed into obscurity.
Political? No. As the managers of the US, our political representatives are products of the same failed system of promoting incompetence as our industries.

If anything is to be accomplished in space, and every other industry, drastic changes must be made. Whether by entrepreneurs, upstart companies or sociological revolution, a new direction is essential to accomplish anything worthwhile. Until then, we'll be wasting away in LEO.

$0.02

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #17 on: 09/12/2009 06:13 am »
It's probably best to not mess with the moldline at this point besides all the mass issues stem from the CLV underperforming fix the CLV you fix Orion.

If you're going the change to moldline then you might as well restart clean sheet and go with a Soyuz like design with a habitation module and a minimum reentry vehicle.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #18 on: 09/12/2009 06:31 am »
I was being a little facetious but there is truth in what I posted.


there is none.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: A smaller Orion?
« Reply #19 on: 09/12/2009 02:53 pm »
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?


just plain ludicrous and non viable.

Explain Apollo 11

Jim, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but he was being sarcastic.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1