Orion evolution - new version shows large-scale changes

[Chris Bergin]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5097

A selection of smaller protected samples below. Hi Res (twice the size of your screen) and full selection on L2.

[Chris Bergin]

[Chris Bergin]

[Chris Bergin]

[stockman]

ok I have a question. The escape tower on Orion seems quite a bit more robust than the old Apollo tower did. Probaby needs to be for the extra size/weight???  Question is, it appears to be a funnel. This seems to completely cover the Orion capsule (windows doors, etc).

What happens if they fail to eject this thing? It would appear to me that they would be trapped inside without even the option to do an EVA to manually pry the thing off. Not likely I know but this is the first thing that jumped out at me.

[JIS]

stockman - 11/5/2007  5:45 AM

What happens if they fail to eject this thing? It would appear to me that they would be trapped inside without even the option to do an EVA to manually pry the thing off. Not likely I know but this is the first thing that jumped out at me.

LAS ejection happens at suborbit trajectory. I think that Orion can't achieve orbit with LAS so if LAS fails to separate it means LOC. Orion wouldn't be able to deploy chutes and land with LAS attached.
I think there is nothing the crew can do if this happens.
The crew would die also when SM fails to separate during reentry from space.
However, they can survive when only those SM cover panels fail to separate during a launch.

[Jim]

stockman - 11/5/2007  12:45 AM

ok I have a question. The escape tower on Orion seems quite a bit more robust than the old Apollo tower did. Probaby needs to be for the extra size/weight???  Question is, it appears to be a funnel. This seems to completely cover the Orion capsule (windows doors, etc).

What happens if they fail to eject this thing? It would appear to me that they would be trapped inside without even the option to do an EVA to manually pry the thing off. Not likely I know but this is the first thing that jumped out at me.

Apollo had it too.  It is called Boost Protective Cover.  The LAS pulls it off when it is jettsioned.   Not being coy, but how do you think the crew gets in at the pad, the hatch is 'covered"?

There are several events/operations that are necessary for a mission to be successful.  Redundant hardware is used to mitigate the risk of failure.  For example, 2 initiators are use on every frangable nut.
Here is a partial list of "must happen" operations

SRB hold down release
1st stage sep
2nd stage sep
aeroshell sep
LAS sep
CM/SM sep
CM apex sep
para chute deploy
etc

[Jim]

JIS - 11/5/2007  5:28 AM

However, they can survive when only those SM cover panels fail to separate during a launch.

How so?

[stockman]

[/QUOTE]

Apollo had it too.  It is called Boost Protective Cover.  The LAS pulls it off when it is jettsioned.   Not being coy, but how do you think the crew gets in at the pad, the hatch is 'covered"?

Hahaha... not coy but actually thinking!!  Thanks for that very obvious bit of clarification. Obviously I shouldn't post just before bedtime!   - I wasn't terribly worried that this would be a major deal and as it has been pointed out there is a ton of redundancy in the system to ensure it works everytime.

Thanks again for pointing out the obvious.  

[Celeritas]

What are the weight savings of the 606 design?

[NASA_LaRC_SP]

Celeritas - 11/5/2007  8:13 AM

What are the weight savings of the 606 design?

About 750lbs, which is desperately needed for the rest of the vehicle, mainly the Upper Stage. The Orion is not the problem.

[Bruhn]

Celeritas - 11/5/2007  8:13 AM

What are the weight savings of the 606 design?

The 606 design actually increases Gross Liftoff Weight but the claim is that jettisoning the panels will increase mass to orbit.  I have an estimate from back in December but I'd rather not say what it is.  Proprietary and Sensitive and all that.  It's probably changed since then anyway.  I'm skeptical whether the claim is achievable.  Negative impacts to the US Instrument Unit may offset the propsed increased mass to orbit.

[Celeritas]

NASA_Langley_spammer - 11/5/2007  8:57 AM

Celeritas - 11/5/2007  8:13 AM

What are the weight savings of the 606 design?

About 750lbs, which is desperately needed for the rest of the vehicle, mainly the Upper Stage. The Orion is not the problem.

Thanks.  Every pound does help.  

Hopefully, we won't reach the point where the Orion astronauts have to skip the prelaunch meal.  

[Chris Bergin]

Celeritas - 11/5/2007  3:14 PM


What are the weight savings of the 606 design?

[/QUOTE]

I would be wary about asking such questions about how much and what answers you get back. I say that because I've tried that before and got 15 different answers (documented too!).

[Bruhn]

NASA_Langley_spammer - 11/5/2007  8:57 AM

Celeritas - 11/5/2007  8:13 AM

What are the weight savings of the 606 design?

About 750lbs, which is desperately needed for the rest of the vehicle, mainly the Upper Stage. The Orion is not the problem.

Upper Stage isn't the problem either.