|
TomH
|
|
« Reply #30 on: 04/09/2012 02:43 AM » |
|
A reusable Orion Crew Module could only happen if:
1) They get rid of the Hypergolic RCS
2) Go back to ground landings
Wouldn't they also have to add mass for ability to jettison heat shield and deploy air bags? That up mass on a 6 person Orion to LEO/ISS and return would not have the penalty a deep space Orion would incur. I could see the first of those versions being reusable. To take an Orion that had spent 2.5 years in deep space, endured the 32k mph reentry, and recondition it for re-use might be more expensive than just single use Orions. Computers and some other electronics would be out of date after one mission. When Orion was first conceived with 2 versions, were both the LEO 6 person and the 4 person deep space versions to be reusable? The early configuration(s) were designed with the a small degree of ability to adjust pitch during reentry and thus use aerodynamics to adjust flight path. Does the current iteration have this ability? I would think this ability would require more on-board propellant and thus more mass to carry on the entire journey out and back. Was this ability dropped as unnecessary on a single use ocean recoverable capsule?
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #31 on: 04/09/2012 03:58 AM » |
|
All versions use a lifting reentry, so all can change their flight-path (at least slight). A non-lifting reentry is more constraining on the TPS design and g-loads, etc.
|
|
|
|
renclod
|
|
« Reply #32 on: 04/09/2012 06:02 PM » |
|
...
The early configuration(s) were designed with the a small degree of ability to adjust pitch during reentry and thus use aerodynamics to adjust flight path. Does the current iteration have this ability? I would think this ability would require more on-board propellant ...
If I remember correctly from a presentation, the Orion capsule RCS does no direct pitch control in entry because the small thrusters don't have the required authority to pitch against the aero loads. They use only yaw and roll control to the same effect (entry path control) - think c-of-g offset.
|
|
|
|
BeanEstimator
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 04/09/2012 06:09 PM » |
|
Is there a ballpark cost on how much each Orion will cost to manufacture, after the R&D is complete ? How much does the low anticipated flight rate factor into manufacturing cost ?
Would it cost significantly less if we manufactured 3 or 4 per year, instead of the anticipated 1 every other year ?
just a bunch of roms exist today to go with the various missions. it's dependent on what you want it to do. others are in the general area. for grins you can go back and figure out how much we've spent on ddte. i'll get you started. fy11 = 1.2b, fy12 = 1.2b, fy13 = figure the same 1.2b then add in fy06-fy10. then take some anti-depressants.
|
|
|
|
Prober
|
|
« Reply #34 on: 04/09/2012 06:29 PM » |
|
Remember, Lockheed owns Orion, not NASA.
Lockheed privatized Orion after NASA canceled Orion along with the rest of Constellation.
Orion is being built to NASA requirements, but NASA is still buying the Orion Spacecraft from Lockheed.
What prevents LM or another company from bidding on Commercial Crew? All things equil LM could do a Atlas V or Delta IV with an LEO version, right?
|
|
|
|
pathfinder_01
|
|
« Reply #35 on: 04/09/2012 06:53 PM » |
|
Remember, Lockheed owns Orion, not NASA.
Lockheed privatized Orion after NASA canceled Orion along with the rest of Constellation.
Orion is being built to NASA requirements, but NASA is still buying the Orion Spacecraft from Lockheed.
What prevents LM or another company from bidding on Commercial Crew?
All things equil LM could do a Atlas V or Delta IV with an LEO version, right?
If I remember correctly they are barred from commercial crew unless congress votes(i.e. Orion in ccrew would not be fair to the other companies, since Orion was 100% government financed and the ccdev craft are not). In addition Orion's mass pretty much requires the Delta IV heavy. Atlas heavy could do , but no plans to make it(and the man rateing of Atlas is only looking at single stick versions of Atlas). Orion is limited to 4 crew due to parachute issuses(i.e. it is so heavy that they can not launch 6 to LEO as planned).
|
|
|
|
renclod
|
|
« Reply #36 on: 04/09/2012 07:44 PM » |
|
...
Orion is limited to 4 crew due to parachute issuses(i.e. it is so heavy that they can not launch 6 to LEO as planned).
This myth was busted. CxP eliminated the 6 crew Orion config for lack of funding resources and lack of hard requirements - not for lack of performance.
|
|
|
|
Namechange User
|
|
« Reply #37 on: 04/09/2012 07:49 PM » |
|
Remember, Lockheed owns Orion, not NASA.
Lockheed privatized Orion after NASA canceled Orion along with the rest of Constellation.
Orion is being built to NASA requirements, but NASA is still buying the Orion Spacecraft from Lockheed.
What prevents LM or another company from bidding on Commercial Crew?
All things equil LM could do a Atlas V or Delta IV with an LEO version, right?
1. If I remember correctly they are barred from commercial crew unless congress votes(i.e. Orion in ccrew would not be fair to the other companies, since Orion was 100% government financed and the ccdev craft are not).
2. In addition Orion's mass pretty much requires the Delta IV heavy. Atlas heavy could do , but no plans to make it(and the man rateing of Atlas is only looking at single stick versions of Atlas).
3. Orion is limited to 4 crew due to parachute issuses(i.e. it is so heavy that they can not launch 6 to LEO as planned).
1. No. 2. No. 3. No. It would not be Orion-MPCV.
|
|
|
|
Proponent
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 04/10/2012 09:16 AM » |
|
No, not reusable. The switch to a Lockheed-owned Orion happened after the switch to (essentially) expendable Orion. And with about one (dual-launch) mission every four years at the currently-foreseen SLS production rate, it's likely that re-usability would cost more, not less. Even if you're optimistic and think the SLs production rate will rise someday to one vehicle per year, it seems unlikely that re-usability would be worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
Rocket Science
|
|
« Reply #39 on: 04/10/2012 10:22 AM » |
|
If memory serves correct, this vehicle was originally designed to hold 7 astronauts in its early days.
|
|
|
|
spaceStalker
|
|
« Reply #40 on: 04/10/2012 01:03 PM » |
|
I am confused.
When SLS is ready at what annual rate will fly to space?
|
|
|
|
Robotbeat
|
|
« Reply #41 on: 04/10/2012 03:44 PM » |
|
I am confused.
When SLS is ready at what annual rate will fly to space?
I don't have my crystal ball handy, but if budget constrained like now, then once every one or two years at most. Possibly up to 2-3 per year for a concerted launch campaign, but then you have to answer what they're launching and where they're getting the money. But as I said, I don't have a crystal ball.
|
|
|
|
spaceStalker
|
|
« Reply #42 on: 04/10/2012 03:49 PM » |
|
2-3 times?
If so expensive why even bother to build the thing?
|
|
|
|
Jason1701
|
|
« Reply #43 on: 04/10/2012 03:51 PM » |
|
2-3 times?
If so expensive why even bother to build the thing?
Sends money to the right districts.
|
|
|
|
Namechange User
|
|
« Reply #44 on: 04/10/2012 03:57 PM » |
|
2-3 times?
If so expensive why even bother to build the thing?
Sends money to the right districts.
A typical response by the misinformed who instead would like to have the same amount of money sent to *their* preferred "right districts". Here are the facts. How "expensive" the vehicle is is still ultimately pretty much unknown. That "expense" will not change dramatically with 0 flights or 6 flights, much like ULA, SpaceX or anyone else. The flight rate is still largely unknown due to a lack of integrated strategy and tactical execution.
|
|
|
|
