Author Topic: Bigelow Aerospace proposes "Orion Lite" concept to Augustine panel  (Read 54646 times)

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
I saw this on Clark Lindsay's Space Transport News, based on an article in the print edition of Space News. It's good to see that Bigelow Aerospace has been interacting with the Augustine Committee, although I really wish news of this had come out sooner!

Apparently they have a full-scale mockup constructed. Do you think their projected 2013 launch date for an "Orion Lite" on an Atlas V is realistic? I think it's also neat that an Orion Lite could potentially go on a Falcon 9, which helps provide a further guarantee of launch flexibility.

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=14480

[update]

Original article is now freely available here: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090814-orion-lite.html
« Last Edit: 08/14/2009 07:15 pm by neilh »
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline fotoguzzi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 335
  • Phobos first!
  • PDX, Oregon, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I saw this on Clark Lindsay's Space Transport News, based on an article in the print edition of Space News.
Air-capture.  That's novel!  Interesting development.
My other rocket is a DIRECT Project 2

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
I saw this on Clark Lindsay's Space Transport News, based on an article in the print edition of Space News.
Air-capture.  That's novel!  Interesting development.

Indeed. Has air-capture been proposed before for a manned capsule? I imagine you might have a scenario where if air-capture is missed the capsule isn't reusable (but the crew presumably still survives the terrestrial parachute landing), whereas if air-capture is successful the crew and downmass cargo get a gentler landing, and it becomes easier to reuse the capsule.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline thomson

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Gdansk, PL
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 49
Air-capture.  That's novel!  Interesting development.
A newbie question: What are the benefits of air-capture? The capsule still needs heat-shield and parachutes, so no weight gains here. Is the shock during splashdown/touchdown eliminated being main reason?
Maybe the ability to deorbit in any area? But then one needs to deploy the air-retrieval team in advance.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
What are the benefits of air-capture?

It is entirely about reducing the shock at splash/touchdown.  As matters stand, the contact between the capsule and the planet's surface (be it solid or liquid) could potentially cause considerable structural deformation inside the capsule.  IIRC, Orion was originally intended to overcome this with acceleration-dampening airbags and a very tough structure.  Bigelow's lighter vehicle doesn't have this option so it uses being caught in mid-air and gently lowered to the ground to keep the capsule fit for reuse.

FWIW, SpaceX seem to think that they can reuse their Dragon capsule without any such fancy tactics.  However, I note that, at this time, they propose re-using crewed Dragon capsules only as uncrewed DragonLab robot science platforms.

[Dah! Don't ask me how I missed that typo! Corrected now]
« Last Edit: 08/12/2009 01:59 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!!!

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
What are the benefits of air-capture?
It is entirely about reducing the shock at splash/touchdown. 

Also about avoiding corrosive saltwater exposure (splashdown) or rolling over (airbag touchdown due to horizontal velocity).

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Perhaps we will see today whether this concept was taken seriously and incorporated, or even mentioned, in the commission's most likely options to be presented to the President.
Scott

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Perhaps we will see today whether this concept was taken seriously and incorporated, or even mentioned, in the commission's most likely options to be presented to the President.

The nub of the issue - IMHO - is whether the powers that be favor or oppose Bigelow based human destinations in LEO that are not directly within NASA's jurisdiction (MirCorp II concepts).

An Orion-lite has reasonable utility for ISS and enormous utility for a privately owned (or foreign owned) Bigelow facility in LEO.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
It looks like the article is now freely available:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090814-orion-lite.html
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Variable

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
What are the benefits of air-capture?
It is entirely about reducing the shock at splash/touchdown. 

Also about avoiding corrosive saltwater exposure (splashdown) or rolling over (airbag touchdown due to horizontal velocity).

Air capture is not a new idea.

In the present case start with the weight of Orion and what size of aircraft would be required to snatch that.  Follow on with the contingency plan if the first grab attempt fails, etc.
I'll get a ladder...

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Wow this is excellent news. I think I said we need an "Orion Lite" in the Direct thread last night. I wonder how hard it would be to upgrade it to have lunar capabilites. I mean Elon has been designing Dragon to have lunar capabilities from the start, so it is possible.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Also about avoiding corrosive saltwater exposure (splashdown) or rolling over (airbag touchdown due to horizontal velocity).
Air capture is not a new idea.

In the present case start with the weight of Orion and what size of aircraft would be required to snatch that.  Follow on with the contingency plan if the first grab attempt fails, etc.
[/quote]

Well, let's see...Orion as planned as a reentry mass around 18klb, and this may be lighter.  Using the 3GMAR technique described in this paper: http://www.vertigo-inc.com/aiaa/AIAA20051673.pdf that's well within the capacity of several US helicopters.  Using a parfoil, you get multiple capture attempts.

I'm still a fan of vertical powered landing myself, but it's not crazy.

~Jon

Offline Variable

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Also about avoiding corrosive saltwater exposure (splashdown) or rolling over (airbag touchdown due to horizontal velocity).
Air capture is not a new idea.

In the present case start with the weight of Orion and what size of aircraft would be required to snatch that.  Follow on with the contingency plan if the first grab attempt fails, etc.

Well, let's see...Orion as planned as a reentry mass around 18klb, and this may be lighter.  Using the 3GMAR technique described in this paper: http://www.vertigo-inc.com/aiaa/AIAA20051673.pdf that's well within the capacity of several US helicopters.  Using a parfoil, you get multiple capture attempts.

I'm still a fan of vertical powered landing myself, but it's not crazy.

~Jon
[/quote]

So there you go!
Next problem?   ;)
I'll get a ladder...

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Also about avoiding corrosive saltwater exposure (splashdown) or rolling over (airbag touchdown due to horizontal velocity).
Air capture is not a new idea.

In the present case start with the weight of Orion and what size of aircraft would be required to snatch that.  Follow on with the contingency plan if the first grab attempt fails, etc.

Well, let's see...Orion as planned as a reentry mass around 18klb, and this may be lighter.  Using the 3GMAR technique described in this paper: http://www.vertigo-inc.com/aiaa/AIAA20051673.pdf that's well within the capacity of several US helicopters.  Using a parfoil, you get multiple capture attempts.

I'm still a fan of vertical powered landing myself, but it's not crazy.

~Jon

So there you go!
Next problem?   ;)
[/quote]

I wasn't trying to imply it was trivial.  Just that it was possible.  Me personally, if I were using this I'd still want to do it over a body of water, so you have a backup of your backup.  But having your primary recovery mode be one that results in the capsule getting back with a really gentle landing, on land, has big benefits.

~Jon

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Air capture is not a new idea.

In the present case start with the weight of Orion and what size of aircraft would be required to snatch that.  Follow on with the contingency plan if the first grab attempt fails, etc.

Well, let's see...Orion as planned as a reentry mass around 18klb, and this may be lighter.  Using the 3GMAR technique described in this paper: http://www.vertigo-inc.com/aiaa/AIAA20051673.pdf that's well within the capacity of several US helicopters.  Using a parfoil, you get multiple capture attempts.

What's the plan for the second capture attempt if the parafoil gets fouled by the first attempt?
JRF

Offline Variable

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 117
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
I wasn't trying to imply it was trivial

Yep, I know.  My 'next problem' is just wishful thinking that _something_ around here could be solved easily for a change..

Quote
What's the plan for the second capture attempt if the parafoil gets fouled by the first attempt?

That's the catch, or lack of, isn't it.

I suppose there would be a back up, but what if the fouling damages that, or upsets the capsule, or the gear on the retriever is fouled.. all those what ifs and the ground is coming up quick.
I'll get a ladder...

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Air capture is not a new idea.

In the present case start with the weight of Orion and what size of aircraft would be required to snatch that.  Follow on with the contingency plan if the first grab attempt fails, etc.

Well, let's see...Orion as planned as a reentry mass around 18klb, and this may be lighter.  Using the 3GMAR technique described in this paper: http://www.vertigo-inc.com/aiaa/AIAA20051673.pdf that's well within the capacity of several US helicopters.  Using a parfoil, you get multiple capture attempts.

What's the plan for the second capture attempt if the parafoil gets fouled by the first attempt?

Well, if you do it over water, the backup would be a backup parachute.  It does help that this is a process that can be practiced a lot before it has to be done.  Using the process they were talking about, it can also be done at very low relative velocities, and the sink rate on a capsule with a parafoil isn't that fast.  You get several opportunities, and if it fails, and you plan for backups, you can use backup chutes and splashdown.

I'm not totally convinced this is the right thing to do, but even just normal parachute landing isn't as safe as most people seem to think.  You'd have to design the thing to handle emergency water landings anyway, because that's where it would land for most launch aborts.

Once again, I think that there are probably workable solutions, and that this isn't an idea that should be dismissed out of hand just because its unconventional. 

~Jon

Offline Bubbinski

Could NASA use the Orion-Light as a testbed for the lunar/deep space Orion systems?  Maybe fly individual systems and test them when they're ready? 

Dragon and Orion-Light - I like the thought of both of them flying and available.  Combine that with shuttle to 2012 or 2015 and we've at least narrowed the gap somewhat, if everything works out as planned.  (Of course that can be a big if).
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline simcosmos

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Portugal
    • SIMCOSMOS
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Anyone interested in doing some quick math brainstorm with me about this topic?
(or, if the precise details are online somewhere, could someone please point me to a link?)


12500 Kg : Atlas 402 payload to 28.5 degrees, 185Km circular LEO.
( 9050 Kg : "Max. Structural Capability w/o Analysis or LV Mods")


Some of my own preliminary Orion-Lite assumptions next:
(just and only to start the brainstorm)

  7500 Kg : trimmed down CM for LEO only (?)
  2000 Kg : mini SM (?)
  1100 Kg : SM propellants (MMH/N2O4?; R-4D cluster?: ~490N, 312s vac. ISP)
------------
10600 Kg spacecraft total mass (?)

The above assumptions would give an ideal dV budget of ~327m/s.
(while assuming ~2.3% inside the SM at the end of the mission)

  4200 Kg : Launch Abort System for this specific Orion-Lite CM / launcher (?)
    500 Kg : Centaur DE US-SM Adapter?

This would give a total mass at lift-off of about 15.3t, which is 6.25t beyond the 'structural capability without launch vehicle analysis or modifications'.


I guess that one of the main questions would be: how light can a Command Module, based on Orion's outer mold, be for simplified LEO 'taxi' duties?

As a follow-up question: can the total mass of the Spacecraft + LAS + Adapter be ~10t!?

It all depends of the assumptions for Orion-Lite but, without knowing those assumptions and extra details, I'm not sure if something like an Atlas 402 is up to the task for such spacecraft configuration but again, not much numerical info out there about Orion-Lite design / mass breakout.

António
« Last Edit: 08/15/2009 11:28 am by simcosmos »
my pics @ flickr

Offline DGH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 4
Anyone interested in doing some quick math brainstorm with me about this topic?
(or, if the precise details are online somewhere, could someone please point me to a link?)


12500 Kg : Atlas 402 payload to 28.5 degrees, 185Km circular LEO.
( 9050 Kg : "Max. Structural Capability w/o Analysis or LV Mods")


Some of my own preliminary Orion-Lite assumptions next:
(just and only to start the brainstorm)

  7500 Kg : trimmed down CM for LEO only (?)
  2000 Kg : mini SM (?)
  1100 Kg : SM propellants (MMH/N2O4?; R-4D cluster?: ~490N, 312s vac. ISP)
------------
10600 Kg spacecraft total mass (?)

The above assumptions would give an ideal dV budget of ~327m/s.
(while assuming ~2.3% inside the SM at the end of the mission)

  4200 Kg : Launch Abort System for this specific Orion-Lite CM / launcher (?)
    500 Kg : Centaur DE US-SM Adapter?

This would give a total mass at lift-off of about 15.3t, which is 6.25t beyond the 'structural capability without launch vehicle analysis or modifications'.


I guess that one of the main questions would be: how light can a Command Module, based on Orion's outer mold, be for simplified LEO 'taxi' duties?

As a follow-up question: can the total mass of the Spacecraft + LAS + Adapter be ~10t!?

It all depends of the assumptions for Orion-Lite but, without knowing those assumptions and extra details, I'm not sure if something like an Atlas 402 is up to the task for such spacecraft configuration but again, not much numerical info out there about Orion-Lite design / mass breakout.

António


I am guessing but I think NASA would want a larger service module.
Also why the 500 kg for the adapter. The Atlas already has an adapter which would not be needed saving mass.

The only way I see getting close to 10mt would be with an MLAS based abort stage.
If it was used during the second stage burn for addition thrust it could reduce the size of the service module.

It seems to me they would be better off going for a larger rocket and putting a modified MPLM or Cygnus underneath. Orion could the turn around after orbit and attach. As long as they are careful what went into it the cargo module would serve as a multi ton firewall in case of an explosion.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0