Author Topic: NASA creates working group to get Orion ESM back on schedule  (Read 2407 times)


Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1568
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 282
  • Likes Given: 52
If Orion (including ESM) can't be ready, is there a chance NASA might line up an alternate payload?  I doubt it's possible for 2018 with it being so close but how applicable is it for the launches in the 2020s?  If the SLS is going to be a better workhorse than STS I'd hope changing the payload at the top of the rocket would be vastly easier than the payload bay of the old shuttles.

I know, probably a long shot.


...where's Darth Vader to put thing back on schedule when you need him?  :P
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Ian_W

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • Sydney, Australia
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Am I following this right ?

ESM is apparently late, with a requirement of tolerating 30 days on the pad and 100 days on the SLS.

They've just been informed of a new requirement, of tolerating 120 days on the pad and 310 days attached to SLS.

Is that correct ?

Offline Justin Space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1199
  • England
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 76
Am I following this right ?

ESM is apparently late, with a requirement of tolerating 30 days on the pad and 100 days on the SLS.

They've just been informed of a new requirement, of tolerating 120 days on the pad and 310 days attached to SLS.

Is that correct ?

Yes, but two seperate things. Chris is doing a round up.

ESM is late, not apparently - it is late.

Also,

Yes, they have a new requirement about stacked Orion timescale.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5471
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 573
  • Likes Given: 668
"capable of tolerating [...] 120 days of pad exposure time and 310 days of being attached"

Does any other spacecraft (past, current or realistically envisioned) come close to meeting these?
-- sdsds --

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2903
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 572
  • Likes Given: 19
"capable of tolerating [...] 120 days of pad exposure time and 310 days of being attached"

Does any other spacecraft (past, current or realistically envisioned) come close to meeting these?

For Shuttle, launch pad stay time was up to 180 days.  The limit was governed by the SRBs though which could be kept vertically stacked for up to one year, but of which only 180 days maximum was allowed in the mated configuration.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3590
  • Liked: 2118
  • Likes Given: 2967
"capable of tolerating [...] 120 days of pad exposure time and 310 days of being attached"

Does any other spacecraft (past, current or realistically envisioned) come close to meeting these?

What are the limiting pieces of spacecraft hardware or systems that are expected to be limiting?
What dictates such extended durations? Does the ESM design accommodate these stay times?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 217
  • Likes Given: 463
"capable of tolerating [...] 120 days of pad exposure time and 310 days of being attached"

Does any other spacecraft (past, current or realistically envisioned) come close to meeting these?

For Shuttle, launch pad stay time was up to 180 days.  The limit was governed by the SRBs though which could be kept vertically stacked for up to one year, but of which only 180 days maximum was allowed in the mated configuration.
180 days on an ET sure would darken her up, but would hardly compare to ET-94 which developed quite the tan from all her UV exposure.
Paul

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2903
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 572
  • Likes Given: 19
"capable of tolerating [...] 120 days of pad exposure time and 310 days of being attached"

Does any other spacecraft (past, current or realistically envisioned) come close to meeting these?

What are the limiting pieces of spacecraft hardware or systems that are expected to be limiting?
What dictates such extended durations? Does the ESM design accommodate these stay times?

For Orion pad stay durations the concern is with exposure to winds and the fatigue effect this may have on the frangible bolts between the command module (CM) and the service module (SM).

Orion also needs to tolerate up to 9 vehicle moves according to Chris's article - I'm guessing that moves would also place additional load cycles on these frangible bolts.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2016 08:59 PM by AnalogMan »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5471
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 573
  • Likes Given: 668
More on this potential failure mode from the NAC HEO Cmte slides. What is meant by, "alternate fatigue spectrum?"
-- sdsds --

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10129
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2064
  • Likes Given: 283
More on this potential failure mode from the NAC HEO Cmte slides. What is meant by, "alternate fatigue spectrum?"

It believe it means how often stress events are applied to the spacecraft.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Tags: