Author Topic: Original "big" Orion concepts  (Read 66446 times)

Offline Ike17055

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 190
Original "big" Orion concepts
« on: 12/13/2013 02:44 pm »
While reality washed this all away, I remember some really impressive ideas about what capabilities Orion would have have when it was first publicized: 5.5m diameter, crew of six or more, inflight toilet facility, ability to carry various mission modules, scientific packages in SM, airlock for EVA, etc.   While all this is now relegated to the "wishful thinking" shelf, it did make for some wildly imaginative thinking and dreams of various mission possibilities.   Does anyone know where there are resources available that detail some of the earliest concepts for Orion in this vein?  Fascinating reading for sure at this stage of things. What are the expert opinions on Which capabilities would be the most preferred to add back if the possibility of truly ambitious missions, and adequate lift capability, again became realistic.

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #1 on: 12/14/2013 07:13 pm »
I don't recall Orion ever having those things aside from 5.5m diameter,  science packages and a toilet. I believe the ability to carry small satellites was still available in the 607 config and might still be in the European Service Module. A six person crew is still a requirement for Orion, but it's a "demonstrable" requirement. Not required in the initial variant but can be added later; it's not really gone.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #2 on: 12/17/2013 07:34 pm »
I have to admit, big has a certain appeal, but in the reality that big usually equivocates with massive, big is the enemy of actual success in space flight. Even in its current configuration Orion is still a couple of metric tons overmass. There really is no reason for Orion to exist and certainly no reason for an even more massive version. On a trip to Mars, the vehicle would be in hibernation while the crew lived in a hab. It would be smarter to take the crew to rendezvous in a lighter mass space taxi prior to TMI and leave the taxi behind. Similarly, upon return from Mars the hab would decelerate and park for reuse while the crew transferred to a taxi prior to Earth return. As for lunar missions, a Dragon would suffice just fine for the three day transit there and the same back. I know, the thing looks and seems cool, but the success of actually flying lies in low mass.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #3 on: 12/17/2013 07:46 pm »
1.  ability to carry various mission modules,
2.  airlock for EVA, etc. 

1.  Nothing has changed wrt mission modules.  Orion was never to "carry" them, only to dock with them.  There wasn't any money for them back then either.
2.  Never was part of Orion.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #4 on: 12/17/2013 07:48 pm »
Similarly, upon return from Mars the hab would decelerate and park for reuse while the crew transferred to a taxi prior to Earth return.

That was and is not the plan.  Takes too much DV.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #5 on: 12/17/2013 08:34 pm »
As for lunar missions, a Dragon would suffice just fine for the three day transit there and the same back. I know, the thing looks and seems cool, but the success of actually flying lies in low mass.

We are going off topic, but what are the Astronauts going to breath, eat/drink and go to the bathroom in for over a week in a Dragon? How about power?

It's a LEO taxi in it's current design, people need to get over that. Orion and Dragon are not interchangeable.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2013 08:34 pm by newpylong »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #6 on: 12/18/2013 01:30 am »
Similarly, upon return from Mars the hab would decelerate and park for reuse while the crew transferred to a taxi prior to Earth return.

That was and is not the plan.  Takes too much DV.

I know it is not the plan. Not having to take Orion all the way to Mars and back could allow propellant to be taken which could be used for EOI, maybe in cis-Lunar space. Alternately, a deceleration stage could rendezvous with the craft as it approaches Earth on the return. This way, the hab and associated equipment could be used again rather than rebuilding everything all over again. It seems less expensive in the long run.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #7 on: 12/18/2013 01:36 am »
As for lunar missions, a Dragon would suffice just fine for the three day transit there and the same back. I know, the thing looks and seems cool, but the success of actually flying lies in low mass.

We are going off topic, but what are the Astronauts going to breath, eat/drink and go to the bathroom in for over a week in a Dragon? How about power?

It's a LEO taxi in it's current design, people need to get over that. Orion and Dragon are not interchangeable.

You are right about its current design, but part of that plan is that it evolve. And yes, the vehicles are very different-part of that difference is Orion is overbuilt and overmassed. As far as where to stow power and fluids, O2, H2O, etc. can go in the boot and be transferred through the interface. The power can be solar or LH2/LO2 fuel cells in the boot like Apollo. Musk claims Dragon's eventual variant will be Mars capable. We're only talking a pair of three day transits to and from Luna.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2013 01:41 am by TomH »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #8 on: 12/18/2013 05:13 am »
This was an interesting concept floated by someone a few years ago, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered for Orion. :D (A capsule more spacious than the Shuttle, with an EVA airlock and a massive cargo/science space)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #9 on: 12/18/2013 06:16 am »
This was an interesting concept floated by someone a few years ago, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered for Orion. :D (A capsule more spacious than the Shuttle, with an EVA airlock and a massive cargo/science space)
I think it was LM OSP/CEV, but its been a while... Still a nice one! ;)
« Last Edit: 12/18/2013 06:28 am by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #10 on: 12/18/2013 06:22 am »
This was an interesting concept floated by someone a few years ago, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered for Orion. :D (A capsule more spacious than the Shuttle, with an EVA airlock and a massive cargo/science space)
I think it was LM OSP, but its been a while... Still a nice one! ;)

No, I think *this* was the LM OSP (or CEV)... I've always liked this one. A smaller and more realistic take on the concept above.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2013 06:24 am by Lars_J »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #11 on: 12/18/2013 06:32 am »
This was an interesting concept floated by someone a few years ago, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered for Orion. :D (A capsule more spacious than the Shuttle, with an EVA airlock and a massive cargo/science space)
I think it was LM OSP, but its been a while... Still a nice one! ;)

No, I think *this* was the LM OSP (or CEV)... I've always liked this one. A smaller and more realistic take on the concept above.
Yup, I liked that one as well before they changed their mind. Check out this old thread link...


http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=2677.15

P.S. I saw that other one on Nasawatch years ago...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=493.0
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1055
« Last Edit: 12/18/2013 07:53 am by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #12 on: 12/18/2013 01:56 pm »

I know it is not the plan. Not having to take Orion all the way to Mars and back could allow propellant to be taken which could be used for EOI, maybe in cis-Lunar space. Alternately, a deceleration stage could rendezvous with the craft as it approaches Earth on the return. This way, the hab and associated equipment could be used again rather than rebuilding everything all over again. It seems less expensive in the long run.

not really, propellant to take Orion to Mars and back is minor compared to those options. 

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #13 on: 12/18/2013 01:59 pm »
As for lunar missions, a Dragon would suffice just fine for the three day transit there and the same back. I know, the thing looks and seems cool, but the success of actually flying lies in low mass.

We are going off topic, but what are the Astronauts going to breath, eat/drink and go to the bathroom in for over a week in a Dragon? How about power?

It's a LEO taxi in it's current design, people need to get over that. Orion and Dragon are not interchangeable.

You are right about its current design, but part of that plan is that it evolve. And yes, the vehicles are very different-part of that difference is Orion is overbuilt and overmassed. As far as where to stow power and fluids, O2, H2O, etc. can go in the boot and be transferred through the interface. The power can be solar or LH2/LO2 fuel cells in the boot like Apollo. Musk claims Dragon's eventual variant will be Mars capable. We're only talking a pair of three day transits to and from Luna.

How do you know Orion is overbuilt? They haven't even performed EFT-1 yet to verify the engineering. Same goes for "overmass"... at PDR it was overmass for the design, yet there is plenty of time to resolve before certification. Neither have any bearing over the discussion.

From what info is available we haven't seen any plans to modify Dragon for BLEO missions. All indications are that it was designed with simplicity and cost in mind to get Astronauts into LEO and start making money. By Mars capable he means it can be used as a launch and re-entry vehicle, not for the astronauts to actually spend that time in.

What is a "boot"? If you mean Service Module, Dragon has a trunk - not enough volume for consumables and power storage for any mission of length. If they want to use Dragon MANNED for cis-lunar missions it will need to be redesigned, and it will not be used by itself to go to Mars, the same as Orion will not.

I fail to see what you're going for here.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2013 03:11 pm by newpylong »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #14 on: 12/18/2013 02:16 pm »
Jim, do you remember who came up with this design with the air bags, was it a JSC in-house study?

Regards
Rob
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Pedantic Twit

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #15 on: 12/18/2013 02:29 pm »
Jim, do you remember who came up with this design with the air bags, was it a JSC in-house study?

Regards
Rob

That's from these guys. Second image on this page.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #16 on: 12/18/2013 02:34 pm »
Jim, do you remember who came up with this design with the air bags, was it a JSC in-house study?

Regards
Rob

That's from these guys. Second image on this page.
Oh yes, I've always admired John's work. Thanks! :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #17 on: 12/18/2013 03:02 pm »
Similarly, upon return from Mars the hab would decelerate and park for reuse while the crew transferred to a taxi prior to Earth return.

That was and is not the plan.  Takes too much DV.


I know it is not the plan. Not having to take Orion all the way to Mars and back could allow propellant to be taken which could be used for EOI, maybe in cis-Lunar space. Alternately, a deceleration stage could rendezvous with the craft as it approaches Earth on the return. This way, the hab and associated equipment could be used again rather than rebuilding everything all over again. It seems less expensive in the long run.

not really, propellant to take Orion to Mars and back is minor compared to those options. 

In the first case on braking the DSH, you state its too much dV.  In the second case, adding 6000kg or so to the mission is "minor".

Q: could you elaborate, in particular the pmf you assumed in stating this minor propellant contribution of Orion?  Many estimates place this below 0.50, which is at least a 60M increase in launch costs alone.  Why not just use the 12 mT for DSH braking at L2 or must NASA stick to the Apollo plan?

Also recognize that staging from L2,the L2-based ITV would save approximately 6.3 km/s in ΔV cost compared with an ITV stationed in low-Earth orbit.   So braking is  much different at L2 than earth.

Orion's design is left over from the Apollo/constellation HLV Architecture. when a capsule should be parked and powered down at the L2 gateway, not carried along for the ride, unless one can state that 12 mT is minor.  For 20 mT, one my get GCR protection, for example.

Offline darkbluenine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 208
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #18 on: 12/18/2013 03:11 pm »
How do you know Orion is overbuilt? They haven't even performed EFT-1 yet to verify the engineering, so how do you know? Same goes for "overmass"... at PDR it was overmass for the design

I wouldn't use the term "overbuilt".  MPCV did have a minor structural test failure, after all.  She's not built extra thick.

But I'd argue that the mass issue does bear on the discussion, both because of its severity and because of design philosophy.

The CM alone is 20-25% overweight for its parachutes.  Because the limit is imposed by the parachutes, thousands of pounds have to come out of the CM -- that mass can't be made up from the SM.  (Incidentally, ESA is also delaying the PDR for the SM by six months because it's overweight.)  Without some miraculous data from EFT-1 that the heat shield can be safely made extremely thin, it's not clear where this mass is going to come from.  NASA managers themselves said as much in an AvWeek article a few months back.  Although it's politically impossible, it would be good for the agency to look at alternatives to and off-ramps for MPCV.  Getting the design and requirements to close may become a very expensive and Pyrrhic proposition.  Whether the alternative should be some Dragon-derivative, CST-100 derivative, or other something else, I'll leave to others.

It's also clear, at least to me, that the design approach underlying MPCV -- that of bringing lots of in-space capability back through the atmosphere in a capsule on every mission -- has reached, and may have exceeded, its limits.  MPCV's parachutes are as big as they can be with existing technology and they may not be enough.  It's also an issue that drives the size, complexity and reliability of launch abort systems.  I'd argue that the better approach is focusing the capsule on what the capsule most needs to do -- getting astronauts up and down through the atmosphere as safely as possible -- and shifting other functions to an in-space module.  Again, whether that in-space module is called a boot, a trunk, or a hab, and whether it's ISS-, Cygnus-, Bigelow-, or other-derived, I'll leave to others.

My 2 cents... YMMV.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2013 05:40 pm by darkbluenine »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Original "big" Orion concepts
« Reply #19 on: 12/18/2013 09:00 pm »
How do you know Orion is overbuilt? They haven't even performed EFT-1 yet to verify the engineering, so how do you know? Same goes for "overmass"... at PDR it was overmass for the design

I wouldn't use the term "overbuilt".  MPCV did have a minor structural test failure, after all.  She's not built extra thick.

But I'd argue that the mass issue does bear on the discussion, both because of its severity and because of design philosophy.

The CM alone is 20-25% overweight for its parachutes.  Because the limit is imposed by the parachutes, thousands of pounds have to come out of the CM -- that mass can't be made up from the SM.  (Incidentally, ESA is also delaying the PDR for the SM by six months because it's overweight.)  Without some miraculous data from EFT-1 that the heat shield can be safely made extremely thin, it's not clear where this mass is going to come from.  NASA managers themselves said as much in an AvWeek article a few months back.  Although it's politically impossible, it would be good for the agency to look at alternatives to and off-ramps for MPCV.  Getting the design and requirements to close may become a very expensive and Pyrrhic proposition.  Whether the alternative should be some Dragon-derivative, CST-100 derivative, or other something else, I'll leave to others.

It's also clear, at least to me, that the design approach underlying MPCV -- that of bringing lots of in-space capability back through the atmosphere in a capsule on every mission -- has reached, and may have exceeded, its limits.  MPCV's parachutes are as big as they can be with existing technology and they may not be enough.  It's also an issue that drives the size, complexity and reliability of launch abort systems.  I'd argue that the better approach is focusing the capsule on what the capsule most needs to do -- getting astronauts up and down through the atmosphere as safely as possible -- and shifting other functions to an in-space module.  Again, whether that in-space module is called a boot, a trunk, or a hab, and whether it's ISS-, Cygnus-, Bigelow-, or other-derived, I'll leave to others.

My 2 cents... YMMV.

Yes, this is exactly what I mean by overbuilt. I did not say the skeletal structure was stronger than necessary, but it is overbuilt in terms of all the mass crammed within. All that's needed is a minimalist capsule to use as taxi return from cis-Lunar space.

As far as EOI propellant mass (at cis-Lunar location) vs. hauling Orion all the way to Mars and back, yes, I understand the propellant being more mass than the Orion. Nevertheless, how much money is saved by reusing the entire hab and associated structures rather than building another? Also, it would seem that rather than taking all that propellant through TMI, MOI, and TEI, it would be possible to send a tanker from Earth on a very high elliptical orbit and have it rendezvous with the vehicle as it approaches Earth on its return trajectory. I realize the risk, but we have the mathematical prowess and computing ability to accomplish this.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2013 04:55 am by TomH »

Tags:
 

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