Author Topic: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?  (Read 15380 times)

Offline Apollo-phill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 450
  • UK
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 6
Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« on: 07/16/2011 08:47 PM »
One of the 'ideas' being touted is for NASA to send a manned Orion on a BEO mission to a 'nearby' close-approach asteroid .

Well, today is day 1 of the unmanned DAWN spacecraft in orbit about the asteroid Vesta.

Was it featured on your Tv station ? Or mentioned on your radio ? In the daily newspaper ? Unlikely , and if it did I doubt if it was a "top item" or front or even early inside pages ?

Yes - it has been on NASA news sites and the odd space news sites for folk like 'us' - the serious supporters.

But, Mr and Mrs Joe Public probably have not the slightest idea.

If they did , how interested would they be ? Mildly interested at a guess - since the early images suggest yet another heavily cratered asteroid.

So, what 'impact' would sending several astronauts in Orion to a BEO close-approach asteroid have on Mr and Mrs Joe Public ? I think it would - at best - be a very mild ripple of applause when they did the first EVA on its surface before they switched channels  or turned the page  !

"We" know its technically feasible and achievable but the science to be returned from such a mission can be more readily achieved with an unmanned vehicle including sample return (Hayabusa and Stardust have demonstrated this already).

In my view, NASA BEO goal has to be a return the Moon ,to demo and perfect the 'mars technologies' there before moving onto Mars itself .
As well extending our knowledge of the Moon and to find a possible economic 'reason' for developing the Moon as industrial site?

Even put a Orion 'mars craft' into an orbit either around Earth or Moon and leave there - functioning alone with a crew - for the length of a Mars outward and Mars return trip . Any "failures" could be more readily ironed out , fixed and, in utter emergency , return crew to Earth or lunar base. In other words a "flight mission" of ESA/RSA Mars 500 mission.

I will not be around to see men on Mars but ,when they do set foot , lets make it as safe as it can be and possibly to help them set up a long term (years) base there before they return. Orion will NOT be the vehicle for that mission but its role in providing the pioneering techniques and technologies should be its mission.

Wherever we 'go' in the future with our BEO manned spacecraft vehicles we will need to  have a very good 'reason' for going . I   believe that "...just because it is there..." will  not be good enough for one nation alone to fund such missions. BEO missions have, in my book ,  to be made by combined spacefaring nations under the banner "terrestial humankind "  .

ISS has kinda demonstrated this but there are still huge divisions, bickering, nationalistic prides amongst the nations , agencies and political groups even on this Earth orbiting outpost.

We have been and still are  nationalistic, squabbling  races here on Earth and its gonna take a lot of effort - a monumental effort - to get space faring nations to co-operate on BEO missions , projects and colonisations. But, start on this we must if mankind is ever to be a truly interplanetary and interstellar race.

So, please America and NASA, I would suggest you do NOT waste time, effort and huge funds on building an asteroid manned mission as I believe it would be wasted and may even stir the politicians and public funders rally against exotic missions that have little return.

Instead, develop  vehicles that can more easily and more cheaply achieve Earth  orbit, then the vehicles to achive lunar orbit/landing more cheaply/easily and then the "colonisation technologies and methods" to attempt longer duration missions/projects to Mars and even outer planet rocky moons. And, start to get the other space faring nations more involved. We the tax payers will have to have our say in this and that is not going to be easy !

We 'space enthusiasts" will have to recognise that deep space exploration and settlements is going to be a long,long term ride . It will probably NOT happen in your lifetime. But, we must make sure that the space faring path we take is the 'best' we can make it , the most sustainable and ,eventually, the one that will have to become self sufficient at distances beyond our Moon.

We space enthusiasts will NOT like it. I certainly don't since I was a 60s-70s space enthusiast and I thought back then we would have been on the  Moon in bases and starting first EVAs on Mars ! But, I was 'young' then and human affairs change by the hour. Dreams have to become that - sometimes - but some dreams can become reality .

But , I'll stick with the 'motto' I have used for many decades now :-

"sic itur ad astra "

A-P









 





 






Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5476
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 575
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #1 on: 07/16/2011 09:56 PM »
So, please America and NASA, I would suggest you do NOT waste time, effort and huge funds on building an asteroid manned mission

I think it's entirely reasonable for us to at least ask, "How did the idea for this mission become the plan?"  Was there an independent cost estimate?  Was it developed through some open public discussion or blue-ribbon commission?  Is it simply something that is politically expedient to talk about right now, regardless of its practicality or intrinsic value?

I believe the first time President Obama mentioned it was the April 15, 2010 speech at KSC.  (This was the speech where he tacitly admitted that his FY11 budget proposal from February 2010 was a non-starter.)  Am I inventing that history?  Was there an earlier mention of this from Obama?  (Obviously others -- certainly including Garver -- would have talked about it as a theoretical option.  But when did it become the President's plan?)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-space-exploration-21st-century

(EDIT: fix dates; add link.)
« Last Edit: 07/16/2011 09:58 PM by sdsds »
-- sdsds --

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9557
  • Liked: 343
  • Likes Given: 450
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #2 on: 07/16/2011 10:00 PM »
One of the 'ideas' being touted is for NASA to send a manned Orion on a BEO mission to a 'nearby' close-approach asteroid .

Well, today is day 1 of the unmanned DAWN spacecraft in orbit about the asteroid Vesta.

Was it featured on your Tv station ? Or mentioned on your radio ? In the daily newspaper ? Unlikely , and if it did I doubt if it was a "top item" or front or even early inside pages ?

Same with LRO or most Mars missions these days. Unless there is a human on board, there isn't much attention by the media. Of course, this all assumes that the end goal of exploration is inches of newsprint.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #3 on: 07/17/2011 03:00 AM »
To the original poster - two points:

1. A giant flaw in your argument is that a robotic landing on the moon would likely draw almost no interest from the general audience.

So my point is this - you CANNOT use a robotic mission to extrapolate or equate public interest for a potential manned mission.

Personally (as a space enthusiast) I would be equally interested in a manned asteroid or lunar mission. Both have the potential to captivate the publics attention.

2. The public is fickle. Apollo showed that. Do NOT bet an exploration program on the continued interest of the public and Congress, because it will be "been there, done that" after the first mission.

This us exactly why an exploration program needs to be affordable to survive the slump in attention.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #4 on: 07/17/2011 08:39 AM »
So, please America and NASA, I would suggest you do NOT waste time, effort and huge funds on building an asteroid manned mission

I think it's entirely reasonable for us to at least ask, "How did the idea for this mission become the plan?"  Was there an independent cost estimate?  Was it developed through some open public discussion or blue-ribbon commission?  Is it simply something that is politically expedient to talk about right now, regardless of its practicality or intrinsic value?

I believe the first time President Obama mentioned it was the April 15, 2010 speech at KSC.  (This was the speech where he tacitly admitted that his FY11 budget proposal from February 2010 was a non-starter.)  Am I inventing that history?  Was there an earlier mention of this from Obama?  (Obviously others -- certainly including Garver -- would have talked about it as a theoretical option.  But when did it become the President's plan?)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-space-exploration-21st-century

(EDIT: fix dates; add link.)

The Augustine Commission promoted it as their preferred BEO option, 'Flexible Path', even if they were neutral as to what architecture achieved it. The deal about Flexible Path is that you can change your mind about where you go with changing times and political control but hopefully now that extensive investment is now being spent on governmental BEO capability the politicians will have the good sense not to throw all that capability and infrastructure away just because they might change that destination in the future. Let's not repeat the mistake of ending Saturn/Apollo just because its primary mission had been achieved and in effect delaying BEO progress by 50 years in doing so.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5476
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 575
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #5 on: 07/17/2011 06:21 PM »
Was it developed through some open public discussion or blue-ribbon commission? [...]  I believe the first time President Obama mentioned it was the April 15, 2010 speech at KSC.

The Augustine Commission promoted it as their preferred BEO option, 'Flexible Path'

We agree Augustine et al. promoted 'Flexible Path.'  Can you show evidence that Flexible Path means missions to near-Earth objects?  More particularly, missions to NEOs before missions to Lagrange points?  Sort of by definition, missions to NEOs are "throw-away" mission that don't build any in-space infrastructure that can be leveraged to reach more distant destinations.  I think that's why so many see them as a waste of effort.

Lagrange point detractors call missions to the L-points, "Missions to nowhere."  I would call NEO missions, "Stepping stones to nowhere!"
« Last Edit: 07/17/2011 06:23 PM by sdsds »
-- sdsds --

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9557
  • Liked: 343
  • Likes Given: 450
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #6 on: 07/18/2011 06:01 AM »
Once Europeans developed the capability to construct ocean crossing ships, arguments about what part of the New World to explore became pointless. Prior to that, I am sure that Europeans sat around and argued over destinations.


Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5476
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 575
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #7 on: 07/18/2011 06:35 AM »
Once Europeans developed the capability to construct ocean crossing ships, arguments about what part of the New World to explore became pointless.

Eh?  Spain became the richest country in Europe by exploiting the precious metals in Mexico.  What did the English and French get from their colonies to the north?  Maybe some tobacco and cotton?  Whoopee.  Choosing the right destination -- and the right infrastructure to get there -- is hardly pointless!

EML-1 vs. EML-2?  Not really worth argument, since the same capabilities are needed for either.  And those capabilities enable deployment of further missions, i.e. the flexible path.  A tiny rock in heliocentric orbit, though?  Other than public relations, and science better done with robotics, what would a mission there gain us?  NASA can't afford to develop too many useless capabilities!
-- sdsds --

Offline neutrino78x

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #8 on: 07/18/2011 05:32 PM »
I most definitely agree that science is best done with robotics.

However, if we had to move an asteroid, given that we had the ability to send humans, would we use a robotic craft or a crewed one?

I am unsure of the answer.

I do know, however, that unlike a mission to Mars, crewed missions to asteroids have benefits to national security.

I just don't have much faith in NASA's ability to do manned stuff in reasonable time periods.

If I were President, I would say NASA has 10 years to get it done. Use existing rockets. All contracts must be fixed cost with time limits. Lockheed Martin's document on the Plymouth Rock asteroid mission says the earliest opportunity for a manned mission to an asteroid is 2016. It also says there is an opportunity to go to another asteroid in 2020 which has a 0.02% probability of hitting the Earth in the next 100 years. So 2020 is about 10 years, that's the Apollo timeline.

I would put another restriction on NASA, that any spacecraft developed for the mission must be modular, able to be used for other purposes (going to moon or mars) by adding or removing modules.

Lockheed describes doing it with two Orion capsules, that works for me. Buy 2 Orions from Lockheed (fixed cost), buy launches commercially, dock them together in space. Send humans and fueled Earth Departure Stage up on separate commercial launches.

This should not cost 1000 trillion dollars!!!! Come on, NASA!!! This is something they should be able to do with their existing budget.

Of course, Congress is as much to blame as them, wanting to do a government owned heavy lift vehicle when it is not needed, just to generate jobs in the states of powerful Senators. I am all for job creation, but not if it results in taking 20 years just to build a rocket.

--Brian

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #9 on: 07/18/2011 06:43 PM »
Lockheed describes doing it with two Orion capsules, that works for me. Buy 2 Orions from Lockheed (fixed cost), buy launches commercially, dock them together in space. Send humans and fueled Earth Departure Stage up on separate commercial launches.

You couldn't send up a fueled EDS that could launch two loaded Orions to a NEO on a separate commercial launch. You would need something like 3-4 Falcon/EELV Heavies and then docking between all 5-6 elements and then cryo propellant transfer. This would not be a simple quick cheap mission without a HLV. Forget anything meaningful to Mars or its moons using this method.
« Last Edit: 07/18/2011 06:46 PM by marsavian »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #10 on: 07/18/2011 07:25 PM »
Lockheed describes doing it with two Orion capsules, that works for me. Buy 2 Orions from Lockheed (fixed cost), buy launches commercially, dock them together in space. Send humans and fueled Earth Departure Stage up on separate commercial launches.

You couldn't send up a fueled EDS that could launch two loaded Orions to a NEO on a separate commercial launch. You would need something like 3-4 Falcon/EELV Heavies and then docking between all 5-6 elements and then cryo propellant transfer. This would not be a simple quick cheap mission without a HLV. Forget anything meaningful to Mars or its moons using this method.
Pardon me, what?  Orion would only need a DCSS to serve as EDS, the rest of the thrust would be provided by the two Service Module. 
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 sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5476
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 575
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #11 on: 07/18/2011 07:33 PM »
However, if we had to move an asteroid, given that we had the ability to send humans, would we use a robotic craft or a crewed one?

I am unsure of the answer.

Thanks for mentioning that.  The "oh my goodness look what happened to the dinosaurs!" rationale for NEO missions is certainly being floated.  I'm pretty sure the answer to your question is fairly simple, though:  we won't need to move an asteroid.  Not in the next 20 years, with really really high confidence.  Not in the next 2,000 years with pretty darn high confidence.

Quote
I do know, however, that unlike a mission to Mars, crewed missions to asteroids have benefits to national security.

Could you expand on that thought a bit?
-- sdsds --

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #12 on: 07/18/2011 08:16 PM »
Lockheed describes doing it with two Orion capsules, that works for me. Buy 2 Orions from Lockheed (fixed cost), buy launches commercially, dock them together in space. Send humans and fueled Earth Departure Stage up on separate commercial launches.

You couldn't send up a fueled EDS that could launch two loaded Orions to a NEO on a separate commercial launch. You would need something like 3-4 Falcon/EELV Heavies and then docking between all 5-6 elements and then cryo propellant transfer. This would not be a simple quick cheap mission without a HLV. Forget anything meaningful to Mars or its moons using this method.
Pardon me, what?  Orion would only need a DCSS to serve as EDS, the rest of the thrust would be provided by the two Service Module. 

No either both Orions have an EDS or a single EDS would have to be refueled. This is a 110-120 ton mission at least. Maybe you could just get away with using two crossfed Falcon Heavies if they really did do 53mT LEO (no margin ?).

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25975.msg776844#msg776844
« Last Edit: 07/18/2011 08:18 PM by marsavian »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #13 on: 07/18/2011 08:23 PM »
Lockheed describes doing it with two Orion capsules, that works for me. Buy 2 Orions from Lockheed (fixed cost), buy launches commercially, dock them together in space. Send humans and fueled Earth Departure Stage up on separate commercial launches.

You couldn't send up a fueled EDS that could launch two loaded Orions to a NEO on a separate commercial launch. You would need something like 3-4 Falcon/EELV Heavies and then docking between all 5-6 elements and then cryo propellant transfer. This would not be a simple quick cheap mission without a HLV. Forget anything meaningful to Mars or its moons using this method.
Pardon me, what?  Orion would only need a DCSS to serve as EDS, the rest of the thrust would be provided by the two Service Module. 

No either both Orions have an EDS or a single EDS would have to be refueled. This is a 110-120 ton mission at least. Maybe you could just get away with using two crossfed Falcon Heavies if they really did do 53mT LEO (no margin ?).

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25975.msg776844#msg776844
120 ton mission?!?!?  using two 21 metric ton Orions?!?  Where is the other 80 tons coming from?  Remember, they only need 2800 m/s^2 of Delta V to get to the NEO, 1100 m/s^2 to stop at the asteroid, and 1400 m/s^2 to get back.  The Orions themselves can produce over 1500 m/s^2 by themselves.  To push the 42 metric tons to the Asteroid you would only need a DCSS to get it to 2500 m/s^2, and the Orion itself can supply the remainder 300 m/s^2, while still holding the remaining delta-v for arrival.
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 marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #14 on: 07/18/2011 08:45 PM »
They put the combined weight of the Orions at 43-47mT and give an EDS DeltaV of 3.32-3.35 Km/s.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #15 on: 07/18/2011 08:49 PM »
They put the combined weight of the Orions at 43-47mT and give an EDS DeltaV of 3.32-3.35 Km/s.
Which still does not add up to your claim that an Ares V class EDS is required. 
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 pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #16 on: 07/18/2011 08:57 PM »
Marsivian, the LM mission is a minimalistic mission. It would only mass 42MT(2 Orion--total) and 2 crew. The Heft one would have an mass of 76MT (dry) and crew of 3. The HEFT one would also have a longer travel time(360 days) and carry along the SEV while the LM might only carry along something MMU like and only last(180 days). LM would only stay 5 days at the NEO while HEFT attempts to stay 30 days at the NEO.

Anyway there are a lot of variables with any mission.  Crew size?  Propusion?  Cargo? Methods?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1433
  • Likes Given: 4468
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #17 on: 07/18/2011 09:16 PM »
At what orbit could the Falcon Heavy push the Orion? If it can do 19tn to a 185 km x 35,786 km x 28.5deg GTO, then it should be able to put the Orions on some high energy orbit. The question is if Orion (and it's crew) can do the multiple Van Allen passes.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #18 on: 07/18/2011 09:21 PM »
At what orbit could the Falcon Heavy push the Orion? If it can do 19tn to a 185 km x 35,786 km x 28.5deg GTO, then it should be able to put the Orions on some high energy orbit. The question is if Orion (and it's crew) can do the multiple Van Allen passes.

No expert but multiple passes through the Van Allen belts is something best advoided.  A FH could lift two Orions to LEO(or Orion plus hab).  It then could lift an EDS to push them on their way. That would be the simpliest way to use FH. Too bad we don't have an ACESS like upper stage.

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #19 on: 07/20/2011 01:08 AM »
120 ton mission?!?!?  using two 21 metric ton Orions?!?  Where is the other 80 tons coming from?  Remember, they only need 2800 m/s^2 of Delta V to get to the NEO, 1100 m/s^2 to stop at the asteroid, and 1400 m/s^2 to get back.  The Orions themselves can produce over 1500 m/s^2 by themselves.  To push the 42 metric tons to the Asteroid you would only need a DCSS to get it to 2500 m/s^2, and the Orion itself can supply the remainder 300 m/s^2, while still holding the remaining delta-v for arrival.
I have been trying to run the numbers my self and I can't get it to work with out a large EDS. I could be that I am missing something. I just read an overview of the Plymouth Rock proposal again and it says that the mission requires 46mt through C3 +1 to +4 km/s or the equivalent of 50-65 mt through TLI. That would be more then 2.5km/s and outside of what a DCSS could do. Seems like an EDS would be needed either launched on an HLV or filled up by a depot. Am I missing something here?

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #20 on: 07/20/2011 03:09 AM »
120 ton mission?!?!?  using two 21 metric ton Orions?!?  Where is the other 80 tons coming from?  Remember, they only need 2800 m/s^2 of Delta V to get to the NEO, 1100 m/s^2 to stop at the asteroid, and 1400 m/s^2 to get back.  The Orions themselves can produce over 1500 m/s^2 by themselves.  To push the 42 metric tons to the Asteroid you would only need a DCSS to get it to 2500 m/s^2, and the Orion itself can supply the remainder 300 m/s^2, while still holding the remaining delta-v for arrival.
I have been trying to run the numbers my self and I can't get it to work with out a large EDS. I could be that I am missing something. I just read an overview of the Plymouth Rock proposal again and it says that the mission requires 46mt through C3 +1 to +4 km/s or the equivalent of 50-65 mt through TLI. That would be more then 2.5km/s and outside of what a DCSS could do. Seems like an EDS would be needed either launched on an HLV or filled up by a depot. Am I missing something here?
Did you take into account the DCSS on the Orions as well? The unmanned one would launch without a LAS, so it would have more fuel left over in it's DCSS.
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 luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #21 on: 07/20/2011 03:39 AM »
Once Europeans developed the capability to construct ocean crossing ships, arguments about what part of the New World to explore became pointless.

Eh?  Spain became the richest country in Europe by exploiting the precious metals in Mexico.  What did the English and French get from their colonies to the north?  Maybe some tobacco and cotton?  Whoopee.  Choosing the right destination -- and the right infrastructure to get there -- is hardly pointless!

EML-1 vs. EML-2?  Not really worth argument, since the same capabilities are needed for either.  And those capabilities enable deployment of further missions, i.e. the flexible path.  A tiny rock in heliocentric orbit, though?  Other than public relations, and science better done with robotics, what would a mission there gain us?  NASA can't afford to develop too many useless capabilities!

Agree with you on the fact that the science on NEO's is better done with sample returning robots.  The only thing I can see that a manned NEO mission gets you is DEEP space experience beyond cislunar space, and probably of necessity a deep space hab module (which could be a very handy thing to have if it were designed to be adaptable to different missions and not a one-trick pony). 

Later! OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #22 on: 07/20/2011 05:01 AM »
Did you take into account the DCSS on the Orions as well? The unmanned one would launch without a LAS, so it would have more fuel left over in it's DCSS.
I must admit I am not understanding your proposed architecture very well. I think that your figure of 2800 m/s DV to get to an NEO may be incorrect. C3 is 3220 m/s from LEO and an NEO would require additional impulse.

I did a crude calculation and it looks like a fully fueled DCSS would only give 2080m/s DV to two Orions, another DCSS would give that stack an additional 1366m/s. But the total mass of two DCSS's would be 61.1 mt which is a large EDS. I don't think that a Delta IV H can get a fully fueled DCSS into LEO. So that would mean depots and or HLV.

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #23 on: 07/20/2011 02:39 PM »
Did you take into account the DCSS on the Orions as well? The unmanned one would launch without a LAS, so it would have more fuel left over in it's DCSS.
I must admit I am not understanding your proposed architecture very well. I think that your figure of 2800 m/s DV to get to an NEO may be incorrect. C3 is 3220 m/s from LEO and an NEO would require additional impulse.

I did a crude calculation and it looks like a fully fueled DCSS would only give 2080m/s DV to two Orions, another DCSS would give that stack an additional 1366m/s. But the total mass of two DCSS's would be 61.1 mt which is a large EDS. I don't think that a Delta IV H can get a fully fueled DCSS into LEO. So that would mean depots and or HLV.

Plymouth Rock assumed an Ares V US for pushing the payload towards the NEO.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4147
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 192
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #24 on: 07/21/2011 03:31 AM »
I think a Bigelow module probably would be a better option then a second Orion.

As for propulsion go with a Delta-K on the Bigelow module and use a J-2X upper stage for departure.


Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5476
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 575
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #25 on: 07/21/2011 06:03 AM »
The only thing I can see that a manned NEO mission gets you is DEEP space experience beyond cislunar space, and probably of necessity a deep space hab module (which could be a very handy thing to have if it were designed to be adaptable to different missions and not a one-trick pony). 

Totally agree on the hab module -- something that Orion can dock with and supports the crew for extended duration missions outside the Van Allen belts.  I wonder where a good place for a first mission would be?  Best if it were someplace with easy anytime return.  Oh I know, <grin> what about a Lagrange point?
-- sdsds --

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1641
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #26 on: 07/21/2011 08:15 AM »
Leaving the hab module there would also conveniently start the core of a new space station.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #27 on: 07/21/2011 10:20 AM »
Did you take into account the DCSS on the Orions as well? The unmanned one would launch without a LAS, so it would have more fuel left over in it's DCSS.
I must admit I am not understanding your proposed architecture very well. I think that your figure of 2800 m/s DV to get to an NEO may be incorrect. C3 is 3220 m/s from LEO and an NEO would require additional impulse.

I did a crude calculation and it looks like a fully fueled DCSS would only give 2080m/s DV to two Orions, another DCSS would give that stack an additional 1366m/s. But the total mass of two DCSS's would be 61.1 mt which is a large EDS. I don't think that a Delta IV H can get a fully fueled DCSS into LEO. So that would mean depots and or HLV.

Plymouth Rock assumed an Ares V US for pushing the payload towards the NEO.
It did, however it was written when there was considerable debate about what a future HLV might be so it discussed different configurations. It looked at two launches of a smaller HLV like SLS or Direct.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4147
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 192
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #28 on: 07/22/2011 01:17 AM »
Leaving the hab module there would also conveniently start the core of a new space station.

I'd still want to take the hab module back in case something goes wrong with the Orion.

Plus most NEOs are in orbits that don't allow regular access.

It also fixes issues with return time.

Orion by itself you need to get back in 14 to 21 days but if you have lets say a BA-330 to live in you can take three months.
Actually a fully stocked BA-330 probably could support a crew of three or four for a year but I'd want to keep the total mission time to that of an ISS stay at first.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5476
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 575
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #29 on: 07/22/2011 01:41 AM »
Leaving the hab module there would also conveniently start the core of a new space station.

I'd still want to take the hab module back in case something goes wrong with the Orion.

Plus most NEOs are in orbits that don't allow regular access.

I think this was intended to suggest leaving the hab module behind after a mission to a Lagrange point.  The return times from those are relatively short (3 to 5 days, depending on trajectory, etc.) so the crew could crowd into the Orion and likely not suffer too much.
-- sdsds --

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #30 on: 07/22/2011 02:16 AM »
Did you take into account the DCSS on the Orions as well? The unmanned one would launch without a LAS, so it would have more fuel left over in it's DCSS.
I must admit I am not understanding your proposed architecture very well. I think that your figure of 2800 m/s DV to get to an NEO may be incorrect. C3 is 3220 m/s from LEO and an NEO would require additional impulse.

I did a crude calculation and it looks like a fully fueled DCSS would only give 2080m/s DV to two Orions, another DCSS would give that stack an additional 1366m/s. But the total mass of two DCSS's would be 61.1 mt which is a large EDS. I don't think that a Delta IV H can get a fully fueled DCSS into LEO. So that would mean depots and or HLV.

Plymouth Rock assumed an Ares V US for pushing the payload towards the NEO.
It did, however it was written when there was considerable debate about what a future HLV might be so it discussed different configurations. It looked at two launches of a smaller HLV like SLS or Direct.

Yes. And all of the options assumed a fairly substantial initial mass in LEO. Ares 1 + Ares V is somewhere north  of 150 tonnes in LEO.  2 times J-130 is about that.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4147
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 192
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #31 on: 07/22/2011 03:05 AM »
Leaving the hab module there would also conveniently start the core of a new space station.

I'd still want to take the hab module back in case something goes wrong with the Orion.

Plus most NEOs are in orbits that don't allow regular access.

I think this was intended to suggest leaving the hab module behind after a mission to a Lagrange point.  The return times from those are relatively short (3 to 5 days, depending on trajectory, etc.) so the crew could crowd into the Orion and likely not suffer too much.

Now that would make a lot of sense and then the hab could be reused maybe as a lunar stop over etc.
If a BA-330 or Russian DOS station is used the module should still have lots of life after an asteroid mission.
Maybe make restocking and refueling it a project for commercial entities.

The only extras Orion should need then would be some Shuttle/later Apollo type meals and a Soyuz style toilet.
Would not be hard at all to fit in esp if the EVA suits get left on the hab.

Probably could omit the oven the Shuttle has and go with just hot and cold water dispensers like Apollo.

« Last Edit: 07/22/2011 03:07 AM by Patchouli »

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1678
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #32 on: 07/22/2011 04:46 AM »
Did you take into account the DCSS on the Orions as well? The unmanned one would launch without a LAS, so it would have more fuel left over in it's DCSS.
I must admit I am not understanding your proposed architecture very well. I think that your figure of 2800 m/s DV to get to an NEO may be incorrect. C3 is 3220 m/s from LEO and an NEO would require additional impulse.

I did a crude calculation and it looks like a fully fueled DCSS would only give 2080m/s DV to two Orions, another DCSS would give that stack an additional 1366m/s. But the total mass of two DCSS's would be 61.1 mt which is a large EDS. I don't think that a Delta IV H can get a fully fueled DCSS into LEO. So that would mean depots and or HLV.

Plymouth Rock assumed an Ares V US for pushing the payload towards the NEO.
It did, however it was written when there was considerable debate about what a future HLV might be so it discussed different configurations. It looked at two launches of a smaller HLV like SLS or Direct.

Yes. And all of the options assumed a fairly substantial initial mass in LEO. Ares 1 + Ares V is somewhere north  of 150 tonnes in LEO.  2 times J-130 is about that.

Yep. There is no way to do an NEO mission without about that much mass in LEO or more. Most of that mass is the propellant needed to escape from Earth.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #33 on: 07/22/2011 05:05 AM »

Now that would make a lot of sense and then the hab could be reused maybe as a lunar stop over etc.


In theory a SEP propelled Hab could take itself back to l1/l2 on autopilot and Orion could depart some time  before hand.

I think you would need EVA suits(or suits capable of EVA) in Orion, but you could leave the MMU behind or be more like Skylab suits(with the umbilical cord rather than shuttle suits(with the back pack). Just in case you need to make a spacewalk from Orion or during the trip to or from.
I would agree that an oven is overkill (although Orion currently was planned to have a Galley).

In theory the hab could be reused for another mission if you had a new propulsion module(for safety reasons). I also think it could excite the public for a bit (i.e. the Nautilus departs again for such and such place.).

It also could be upgradeable (depending on the radiation issues). I.e. Add storage and possibly bigger propulsion unit/kick stage) for next mission and slowly work our way to Mars.

I also wonder would it be possible to design the SEP in such a way that the engine is the only thing that gets replaced (i.e. keep solar panels/refuel tanks).

I think it needs to be much smaller than the Nautilus presentation and much less grand but if done I think it will fire the imagination like the shuttle did. 
« Last Edit: 07/22/2011 05:06 AM by pathfinder_01 »

Offline alamo

  • Member
  • Posts: 53
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orion BEO Mission/s to Asteroids ?
« Reply #34 on: 07/22/2011 07:43 AM »

In theory the hab could be reused for another mission if you had a new propulsion module(for safety reasons). I also think it could excite the public for a bit (i.e. the Nautilus departs again for such and such place.).

It also could be upgradeable (depending on the radiation issues). I.e. Add storage and possibly bigger propulsion unit/kick stage) for next mission and slowly work our way to Mars.

I also wonder would it be possible to design the SEP in such a way that the engine is the only thing that gets replaced (i.e. keep solar panels/refuel tanks).

I think it needs to be much smaller than the Nautilus presentation and much less grand but if done I think it will fire the imagination like the shuttle did. 


"low price" variant Nautilus?

"L ship":
http://www.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/SSDW/history/results2008.en.php


http://www.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/SSDW/history/estec2008/results_red/SSDW08_PosterRED.jpg

Tags: