NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Orion and Exploration Vehicles => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 04/15/2015 03:29 pm

Title: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/15/2015 03:29 pm
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/em-1-orion-crew-module-first-weld-milestone-may/
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/15/2015 03:47 pm
Nice article Chris. Pretty meaty also. Thanks
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kcrick on 04/15/2015 04:02 pm

Thanks Chris for another fine article !   :)

I agree with Chuck - a lot of meaty details.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: BrightLight on 04/15/2015 04:37 pm
Good read ion the Orion, although not surprised in the least about the ESA service module leading the delay to launch.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: SgtPoivre on 04/15/2015 06:06 pm
"Boeing recently conducted a Service Module instrumentation TIM (Technical Interchange Meeting) at WSTF (White Sands Test Facility) on March 19."

Is this correct? I was not aware that Boeing was directly involved in Orion!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rcoppola on 04/15/2015 06:15 pm
I love this, "MPPF Servicing Stand Stair Modification 90 percent Design Review". I'm sorry, I just found that funny. It just seemed so random. With the enormity and complexity of this effort and the fact, as the article illustrates, that we have once again subcontracted the living heck out of this system, that they included the percentage of how far along they are on designing the modifications to a set of stairs.

Frankly, sometimes, I dont't know whether to laugh or cry.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rcoppola on 04/15/2015 06:22 pm
"Boeing recently conducted a Service Module instrumentation TIM (Technical Interchange Meeting) at WSTF (White Sands Test Facility) on March 19."

Is this correct? I was not aware that Boeing was directly involved in Orion!
In Orion? No. But they are the Primary for what the Orion and ESA's SM will sit atop. Think of it as Systems integration.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 04/15/2015 08:03 pm
Hopefully ESA gets the service module put together.  Apparently ATV technology is tricky to rush order.  Still, given ESA has built Columbus and Spacelab for the shuttle in addition to the ATVs, they should reasonably know what they're doing.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/15/2015 09:09 pm
Glad to see the EM-1 Orion fabrication start. Hopefully the Europeans will spend a bit more money and effort on the service module so we can have it ready to go the same time as Orion and SLS.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ixian77 on 04/16/2015 09:14 pm
Nice article. Towards the end some interesting wording.......'a fleet of Orion's'.

Will the Orions be reused? 
If so, will they be named?
If they will not be reused, why not?

I know the answer is out there, just don't have time to look.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/16/2015 09:20 pm
Ooo, thanks for the kind word guys!

"Boeing recently conducted a Service Module instrumentation TIM (Technical Interchange Meeting) at WSTF (White Sands Test Facility) on March 19."

Is this correct? I was not aware that Boeing was directly involved in Orion!


Yep, but it's likely to do with integration with SLS....which is very much Boeing.

Nice article. Towards the end some interesting wording.......'a fleet of Orion's'.

Will the Orions be reused? 
If so, will they be named?
If they will not be reused, why not?

I know the answer is out there, just don't have time to look.

I think they plan to reuse Orions, but there will be a number of them. Probably four, I was told, first use for the first four missions, potentially reuse them from that point, add more if needed.

They will have names.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rsnellenberger on 04/17/2015 12:36 am

They will have names.

Rigel, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix and Saiph?

Something for Farscape, Michael Keaton, and Harry Potter fans, at least...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/17/2015 05:34 pm
Nice article. Towards the end some interesting wording.......'a fleet of Orion's'.

Will the Orions be reused? 
If so, will they be named?
If they will not be reused, why not?

I know the answer is out there, just don't have time to look.

I think they plan to reuse Orions, but there will be a number of them. Probably four, I was told, first use for the first four missions, potentially reuse them from that point, add more if needed.

They will have names.

Excellent! I guess they aren't going to name the EFT-1 Orion though. Any word on if/when they will name the EM-1 Orion?


They will have names.

Rigel, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix and Saiph?

Something for Farscape, Michael Keaton, and Harry Potter fans, at least...

How about Prometheus, Phoenix, Rogers, and Auburn?

Something for Alien, Stargate, Greek mythology, Harry Potter, Roy, Fred, and Steve Rogers fans as well as for alums of Auburn University. :)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/18/2015 01:36 pm
Quote
from EM-1 Orion crew module set for first weld milestone in May
The crew module is currently at the Launch Abort System Facility (LASF) at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) before being turned over to KSC Ground Operations.
What will KSC Ground Operations do with EFT-1?

Chris: A very informative article!  Thank you!

Zubenelgenubi
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 04/18/2015 03:50 pm
What will KSC Ground Operations do with EFT-1?
It's supposed to be used for the flight abort test in 2018.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/19/2015 10:26 pm
What will KSC Ground Operations do with EFT-1?
It's supposed to be used for the flight abort test in 2018.
Thanks!

Is there a current list of the Orion abort tests?  Or a discussion thread?

I recall Pad Abort 1 back in May 2010 at White Sands.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18511.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18511.0)

I did a little research:
Then there's Ascent Abort 2, using the Orion Abort Test Booster from CC SLC-46, scheduled for December 2018.
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/nasa/nasa-official-talks-ascent-abort-2/ (http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/nasa/nasa-official-talks-ascent-abort-2/)
(Is the above an ok source to quote?)
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/atb.htm (http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/atb.htm)

Is PA-1 and AA-2 the full list of Orion abort tests?
I'm guessing AA-1 (and others) were cancelled along the torturous Orion development path?

Zubenelgenubi
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/20/2015 09:58 am
Is PA-1 and AA-2 the full list of Orion abort tests?

Yes.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 04/20/2015 12:46 pm
Glad to see the EM-1 Orion fabrication start. Hopefully the Europeans will spend a bit more money and effort on the service module so we can have it ready to go the same time as Orion and SLS.
That is as unlikely as hell freezing over.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/22/2015 05:09 pm
Glad to see the EM-1 Orion fabrication start. Hopefully the Europeans will spend a bit more money and effort on the service module so we can have it ready to go the same time as Orion and SLS.
That is as unlikely as hell freezing over.

Well if the next administration "sweetens the pot" by offering European participation in cis-lunar exploration they might be incentivized to see the SM project as more than a one-time deal.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: bob the martian on 04/22/2015 07:01 pm
Nice article. Towards the end some interesting wording.......'a fleet of Orion's'.

Will the Orions be reused? 
If so, will they be named?
If they will not be reused, why not?

I know the answer is out there, just don't have time to look.

I think they plan to reuse Orions, but there will be a number of them. Probably four, I was told, first use for the first four missions, potentially reuse them from that point, add more if needed.

They will have names.

Excellent! I guess they aren't going to name the EFT-1 Orion though. Any word on if/when they will name the EM-1 Orion?


They will have names.

Rigel, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix and Saiph?

Something for Farscape, Michael Keaton, and Harry Potter fans, at least...

How about Prometheus, Phoenix, Rogers, and Auburn?

Something for Alien, Stargate, Greek mythology, Harry Potter, Roy, Fred, and Steve Rogers fans as well as for alums of Auburn University. :)

I will be bitterly disappointed if they aren't one of:

Larry, Moe, Curly, Shemp.

John, Paul, George, Ringo.

Bob, Carol, Ted, Alice.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Remes on 05/08/2015 11:07 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/welding-begins-on-orion-pathfinder

a few really nice pieces of metal. :)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MikeEndeavor23 on 05/14/2015 12:38 am
Rigel, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix and Saiph?

Those should totally be the names of the first four capsules.

Who do we send this to? ;)

MikeEndeavor23
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: newpylong on 05/14/2015 12:41 am
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/may/orion-mock-up.html?utm_content=sf9148527&utm_medium=spredfast&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=Lockheed+Martin&sf9148527=1

"Orion Test Lab Mockup for Next Flight Finished"

For anyone who is keeping track this is the modified structure with the mass savings and improved cable routing, etc.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/14/2015 07:45 am
Here's the photo of the mockup. Its stuff like this that makes it feel like 1965, but in a good way. :-)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: newpylong on 05/27/2015 04:47 pm
Modifications are being made inside the Multi-Payload Processing Facility (MPPF) at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. This is a close-up view of the service platform that will be used for offline processing and fueling of the Orion spacecraft and service module stack before launch. The Ground Systems Development and Operations Program (GSDO) is overseeing the upgrades to the facility
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/28/2015 10:56 am
Modifications are being made inside the Multi-Payload Processing Facility (MPPF) at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. This is a close-up view of the service platform that will be used for offline processing and fueling of the Orion spacecraft and service module stack before launch. The Ground Systems Development and Operations Program (GSDO) is overseeing the upgrades to the facility

Pretty amazing to see the Powerpoints turn into reality.

(http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Z72.jpg)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 07/21/2015 02:35 am
NASA’s Orion Spacecraft:

Happy #MoonDay! On our next flight, Orion will pass within 100KM (62 Miles) of the lunar surface.

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/29/2015 05:51 pm
Talking about welding things together, there's going to be a google webcast of a fairing sep test, blowing panels apart :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtFCOERZBzo&sf11442859=1
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/29/2015 06:06 pm
Hmmm, only one panel. I guess they want to ensure this comes off (a previous test with all the panels saw one of them stay on I remember!) Fair play to the interview, she actually referenced that!!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/29/2015 06:21 pm
Test in five minutes.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/29/2015 06:27 pm
Pop!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jacqmans on 07/30/2015 07:03 pm
Lockheed Martin Successfully Tests Design Changes for Orion Spacecraft’s Fairing Separation System

Data from First Test Flight Makes Technology Safer, Lighter and More Reliable

Sunnyvale, Calif., July 30, 2015 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) engineers have successfully completed testing of design changes made to the NASA Orion spacecraft’s fairing separation system. These changes resulted from data collected during Orion’s first test flight on Dec. 5, 2014.

A finished Orion spacecraft has three fairings, or panels, that protect the service module radiators and solar arrays from heat, wind and acoustics during ascent into space. For the purposes of collecting data during these tests, only one fairing was separated.

The separation took about three seconds and the design changes tested were:
New push-off springs that push on the fairing for a longer period of time to provide increased safety and reliability.
As part of an ongoing mass reduction effort, the team used four crew module structural attachments instead of six.
Star trackers, or cameras that provide positioning from the stars, are used for navigation on the spacecraft. The fairing separation system pulls off the star tracker covers which prevent contamination before launch, and this process was tested for the first time.

In addition, these tests evaluated different pyrotechnic variances and higher load cases in order to prepare for Exploration Mission-1, when Orion is launched on NASA’s new Space Launch System rocket. The team was also able to collect shock data, which will be provided to the European Space Agency (ESA) to support their work designing, building and testing the service module. In fact, these same fairings will be used for service module acoustics and vibe testing taking place at NASA’s Plum Brook facility in Ohio later this year.

“The fairing separation is one of our very first critical events,” said Mike Hawes, Lockheed Martin Orion vice president and program manager. “If it doesn’t work as planned, it’s probable the mission cannot continue, and tests like this help ensure it will work right the first time and every time.”
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Prober on 09/08/2015 08:52 pm
real nice welding jpg for Orion.

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/first-pieces-of-nasa-s-orion-for-next-mission-come-together-at-michoud
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 09/16/2015 06:05 pm
Mr. Lightfoot mentions an ISS resupply mission as an option for one Orion mission. That would be a crazy use of SLS/Orion. Please no! That's just silly use of SLS and Orion.

To put it mildly.  If Orion has to go to the ISS, it better be hauling a new module with it.

Gerst dances around the question about how far Orion will travel on Mars missions (because Orion's unlikely to be able to go to Mars).

Indeed; anyone whose done vehicle calculations knows Orion is little better than a taxi in Cislunar space and a lead paperweight at Mars.  Maybe there's a way to utilize the capsule portion of Orion for atmospheric entries, but at Mars they'd need a totally different parachute system with some retropropulsion (which Orion lacks yet something like Dragon 2 has).  At best Orion would be awkward at Mars.  It's best function would be to ferry crew from Earth to an assembly point in HEO, LRO, or the Lunar Lagrange points.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/16/2015 09:54 pm
Mr. Lightfoot mentions an ISS resupply mission as an option for one Orion mission. That would be a crazy use of SLS/Orion. Please no! That's just silly use of SLS and Orion.

The Orion's docking ability should be tested before it goes to deep space.

Launch a LEO mission with a new 30-40 ton spacestation. The astronauts can then commission the spacestation and test docking procedures.

The extra mass allows the spacestation to have its own station keeping module and say a set of arms turning it into a flying spaceship yard.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/16/2015 11:07 pm
Mr. Lightfoot mentions an ISS resupply mission as an option for one Orion mission. That would be a crazy use of SLS/Orion. Please no! That's just silly use of SLS and Orion.

The Orion's docking ability should be tested before it goes to deep space.

Orion is not really a deep space vehicle, since it's life support is limited, and the crew space is very limited.  At best it would be used for trips to the region of the Moon and back (which was the original CxP task for it).

Quote
Launch a LEO mission with a new 30-40 ton spacestation. The astronauts can then commission the spacestation and test docking procedures.

If all you need to do is test the docking system, it would be cheaper to dock with the ISS than to build a brand new type of space station.  Still a big waste of money though, since docking issues are pretty rare.  Or use the USA to send up a dummy mass with a docking adapter with the Orion so the Orion can practice on it - which would be far cheaper, and wouldn't cause such a big delay as waiting for a customer space station to be built would be.

Quote
The extra mass allows the spacestation to have its own station keeping module and say a set of arms turning it into a flying spaceship yard.

Something for the private sector to do, not NASA.  NASA shouldn't be expected to do everything, nor is it funded to do everything.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/16/2015 11:28 pm
On the teleconference today:

It is a No Later Than (NLT) not a No Earlier Than (NET). They are still targeting 2021. This isn't an official delay like what happened with EM-1. Also they are basing it on the President's budget and the current President isn't a supporter of SLS/Orion.

If the next President decides to support the SLS/Orion program the time will come back.

The funding levels given by NASA today result in a deficit of $1.5 Billion dollars below what Congress has authorized time and time again. If we go with what Congress has authorized we reach the level of funding NASA says is needed sometime in 2021-2022.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jeff Lerner on 09/16/2015 11:32 pm
I don't get it...why not use a Dragon 2  or Boeing Starliner to drop the crew off to cis- Lunar Space ?...even if you have to modify Dragon or Starliner, it's got to be less expensive then building Orion ?


Seems like every PowerPoint to date  had  pictures of Orion at Mars...and now it's not going there ???...ok, for good reasons perhaps but then why do you need what is a beefed up taxi ??
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/16/2015 11:35 pm
I don't get it...why not use a Dragon 2  or Boeing Starliner to drop the crew off to cis- Lunar Space ?...even if you have to modify Dragon or Starliner, it's got to be less expensive then building Orion ?

Starliner doesn't have the heat shield or life support needed. Dragon has the heat shield but it doesn't have the life support or propulsion capability.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/16/2015 11:36 pm
Orion is a deep space vehicle, it is to fly with a hab module for missions past cis lunar space.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/17/2015 02:31 am
Orion is a deep space vehicle, it is to fly with a hab module for missions past cis lunar space.

Depends on what your definition of "deep space" is...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 09/17/2015 03:25 am
If Orion is to re-enter from a deep space mission, at higher speeds than from a Lunar mission, is the only required change from the current design a beefier heat shield?   Self contained life support is not an issue, since the Orion would be part of a much larger craft with its own life support.

Still, the Orion design makes no sense to me for deep space - it is way over-engineered for that task.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 09/17/2015 03:34 am
Article for KDP-C:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/orion-passes-kdp-c-cautious-2023-crew-debut/

Decided to cover some of the history way back to CEV (some from an old article as it covered the Ares I woes) and then into the KDP-C.
.

Another great read Chris (the bets in my opinion) and thanks for the history to put this into perspective.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 09/17/2015 04:53 am
Orion is a deep space vehicle, it is to fly with a hab module for missions past cis lunar space.

Orion passes KDP-C with cautious 2023 crew debut
September 16, 2015 by Chris Bergin

Quote from: Chris Bergin
The actual plan for Orion has always been one that involves missions to Mars. However, Orion – per documentation (L2) – is unlikely to make that trip

William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, intimated – without directly citing – Orion will play an important role in the initial and final elements of such a mission, pointing to a role that will involve technological validation work in the “proving grounds” of deep space, before a role ferrying astronauts to Cislunar space, where they will board the transportation to the Red Planet.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/17/2015 06:51 am
If Orion is to re-enter from a deep space mission, at higher speeds than from a Lunar mission, is the only required change from the current design a beefier heat shield?   Self contained life support is not an issue, since the Orion would be part of a much larger craft with its own life support.

Still, the Orion design makes no sense to me for deep space - it is way over-engineered for that task.
As well as a beef up heat shield, must be able to be functional for the duration of the mission.
 
As I see it. The Orion only have 2 main tasks for currently envisaged deep space missions. First get the crew to a larger interplanetary spacecraft or a cis-Lunar vehicle stack in LEO from the Earth. Second return the crew from a deep space mission to Earth with a splashdown in the Ocean. Both tasks with 4 crew members abroad.

IMO, the Orion is too big as crew taxi and reentry vehicle but too small to be use as habitat for any mission beyond cis-Lunar space.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Star One on 09/17/2015 07:11 am

Real aim for the first crewed flight remains August 2021.

But that's unfortunately not how I've seen it reported more widely, it's the 2023 date that has been picked up on.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/17/2015 07:43 am
Orion is a deep space vehicle, it is to fly with a hab module for missions past cis lunar space.
Not according to the recent document provided by NASA. It is assumed in that document that Orion will, at most, go as far as cis-lunar.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/17/2015 07:50 am
The possible delay of EM-2 to 2023 is now all over the news:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/16/orion-spacecraft-may-not-fly-with-astronauts-until-2023/
http://spacenews.com/first-crewed-orion-mission-may-slip-to-2023/

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/17/2015 10:59 am
At one time, the conop was for Orion to fly crew to the MTV and then serve as backup control center and safe refuge.  Upon return from Mars, Orion would detach from the MTV at lunar distances and perform a divert maneuver, targeting for entry (while the MTV flies by earth).  Orion would have to sustain the crew for a few days until landing.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 09/17/2015 11:05 am
Orion is a deep space vehicle, it is to fly with a hab module for missions past cis lunar space.
Not according to the recent document provided by NASA. It is assumed in that document that Orion will, at most, go as far as cis-lunar.
Previous DRM had it go to Mars, then do reentry on return (so that the hab / rest of stack didn't need to brake into Earth orbit).

Just the CM, no SM. (Or only a minimal SM.)

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Todd Martin on 09/17/2015 02:44 pm
$17B and "may slip" to 2023.

Can this capsule land on Mars?  No.  The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.
Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars?  No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed.  Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.
Is this capsule intended for lunar missions?  No.  President says so.  NASA says so.  Congress says so.
Is this capsule intended for ISS?  No.  There are far cheaper spacecraft.
Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous?  It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/17/2015 03:21 pm
$17B and "may slip" to 2023.

Can this capsule land on Mars?  No.  The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.
Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars?  No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed.  Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.
Is this capsule intended for lunar missions?  No.  President says so.  NASA says so.  Congress says so.
Is this capsule intended for ISS?  No.  There are far cheaper spacecraft.
Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous?  It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??

Yet NASA continues to lie to the public about this. They claim on facebook all the time that it is "The spacecraft that will take us to Mars some day."

Also, I thought they did design the heatshield to withstand that kind of re-entry. Even SpaceX is claiming the Dragon can. Is there a source/article/forum thread that discusses what trajectories it can handle?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 09/17/2015 03:54 pm
$17B and "may slip" to 2023.

Can this capsule land on Mars?  No.  The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.
Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars?  No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed.  Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.
Is this capsule intended for lunar missions?  No.  President says so.  NASA says so.  Congress says so.
Is this capsule intended for ISS?  No.  There are far cheaper spacecraft.
Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous?  It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??

Orion was designed for cis-lunar operations. It would be great for going to a gateway station at EML-2 and with a small module as part of its SLS launch it could be used for lunar or asteroid missions. It can also be upgraded for Mars missions, assuming the MTV is discarded. If the MTV is reusable, Orion can meet it at EML-2 to transfer the crew. It's a good BEO vehicle.

Unfortunately, the current administration gave up on lunar exploration and Congress hasn't funded any missions. So "Why are we doing this?" is a good question.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/17/2015 04:09 pm
The possible delay of EM-2 to 2023 is now all over the news:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/16/orion-spacecraft-may-not-fly-with-astronauts-until-2023/
http://spacenews.com/first-crewed-orion-mission-may-slip-to-2023/

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Apollo cost 150 billion in today's dollars. So, meh, seems about ballpark with historical precedent. The CSM was one of 3 major components for Apollo: Saturn V, CSM and the LM. If a modern replacement each cost 17 billion to develop, all three components would cost about 50 billion or one third of Apollo's total cost. Could some capitalist probably do it cheaper working out of their proverbial garage than a government program: yeah, probably.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: grakenverb on 09/17/2015 04:11 pm
If the powers that be wanted to give Lockheed Martin another $17 Billion maybe they just should have ordered another hundred or so F-35's.  At least then there would be something to show for it, rather than a vehicle for a trip to nowhere.   This program brings to mind a family of 5 that wants to go camping who spend all of their money to buy a Ferrari to drive to the campground, only to discover that it only seats 2 and has no room for tents or supplies.   I know that sounds childish and bitter, but I had no sleep last night  and am disgusted that the space program is in its current state. I was hoping for a moon base by now, for petes sake.  Perhaps my usual optimism will return after a good night sleep.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: montyrmanley on 09/17/2015 04:23 pm
The possible delay of EM-2 to 2023 is now all over the news:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/16/orion-spacecraft-may-not-fly-with-astronauts-until-2023/
http://spacenews.com/first-crewed-orion-mission-may-slip-to-2023/

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Whenever NASA says that the Orion can be used for anything, what they're really saying is that it doesn't really have a purpose -- and that means that the design of the capsule was driven by no particular goal or purpose other than to keep money flowing. Most of that money should be considered a kind of "aerospace welfare" fund, which kept NASA employees and contactors busy during the post-Shuttle doldrums. (Just like ISS development funds were given to the Russians in part to keep their scientists and engineers from defecting to weapons development at home or abroad.)

I often think of this as the primary misson of SLS/Orion -- to keep workers on the payroll until something better comes along. We may see SLS and Orion achieve some of the fantastic goals hinted at by NASA, but honestly I doubt it. By the time these systems are operational in the mid-2020's, I suspect they'll be obsolete already. Much depends on what goes on with the likes of SpaceX, Orbital/ATK, Boeing, and ULA.(And maybe Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin.)

Consider SpaceX's Dragon, for example. I suspect the main hindrance to allowing the Dragon a longer tenure in space is not the capsule design, but the service module and life-support systems (much as it is with the Orion system). Given Elon's aspirations, SpaceX is no doubt hard at work at integrating life-support systems that will allow Dragon to support crews in orbit on the order of at least several weeks. That's enough time to allow a mission to, e.g., a Bigelow station at earth-moon L2 or something similar. Boeing's CST-100 (I guess I should call it the "Starliner" now) is likewise probably adaptable to cislunar operation, given a robust enough service module.

The question of "what's it for?" is going to dog Orion and SLS forever, because neither NASA nor the industrial contractors can admit that the actual purpose of these systems is to create (or maintain) aerospace jobs on the ground, not to enable the exploration of space. If this seems like an echo of the mid-1970's era of NASA and development of the Shuttle, you know what they say about the past repeating itself.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 09/17/2015 04:30 pm
Since ESA is now paying for the Orion's service module, is it correct that the figure of $17 billion excludes it?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/17/2015 04:33 pm
$17B and "may slip" to 2023.

Can this capsule land on Mars?  No.  The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.
Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars?  No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed.  Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.
Is this capsule intended for lunar missions?  No.  President says so.  NASA says so.  Congress says so.
Is this capsule intended for ISS?  No.  There are far cheaper spacecraft.
Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous?  It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??

Nice strawman arguments. Nobody ever claimed Orion would land on Mars. Most missions would require the use of a mission-specific module, which would also be true of any other spacecraft going somewhere in deep space.

The baseline mission plans I've seen assume a maximum reentry speed of 12.4 km/s, so I think it is safe to assert that the Orion can handle reentry speeds at least up to 12.4 km/s, and yes, there are Mars return trajectories with reentry speeds less than 12.4 km/s.

It is an internet myth that the Orion cannot handle Mars return speeds. I have never seen this claim be substantiated anywhere.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: montyrmanley on 09/17/2015 04:45 pm
The possible delay of EM-2 to 2023 is now all over the news:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/16/orion-spacecraft-may-not-fly-with-astronauts-until-2023/
http://spacenews.com/first-crewed-orion-mission-may-slip-to-2023/

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Apollo cost 150 billion in today's dollars.

Well, sure, but we got something for our money. Apollo went from essentially zero to a functional moon rocket in ten years. New technologies for everything from engines to life-support and computers had to be invented from scratch. So it cost a lot, but given the Herculean task, it's amazing that it was done at all.

But what has Orion provided (or will it provide) to offset the massive cost? It's been in development for as long as the entire Apollo infrastructure, and it's still between five and ten years away from carrying humans into space.

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: chrisking0997 on 09/17/2015 04:46 pm
Yet NASA continues to lie to the public about this. They claim on facebook all the time that it is "The spacecraft that will take us to Mars some day."

mere semantics...this is the spacecraft that will take us to the spacecraft that will take us to Mars some day  ::)


while I understand the "delay" is not being presented as a delay, the mere fact that they have given themselves an out is enough to conclude that this wont launch humans until 2023 (or until the next delay).  Unless someone can point out another government run program that has been managed under constant delays which suddenly got its act together and came in "on time"?  I cant think of one
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Prettz on 09/17/2015 05:07 pm
$17B and "may slip" to 2023.

Can this capsule land on Mars?  No.  The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.
Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars?  No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed.  Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.
Is this capsule intended for lunar missions?  No.  President says so.  NASA says so.  Congress says so.
Is this capsule intended for ISS?  No.  There are far cheaper spacecraft.
Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous?  It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??

Nice strawman arguments. Nobody ever claimed Orion would land on Mars. Most missions would require the use of a mission-specific module, which would also be true of any other spacecraft going somewhere in deep space.

The baseline mission plans I've seen assume a maximum reentry speed of 12.4 km/s, so I think it is safe to assert that the Orion can handle reentry speeds at least up to 12.4 km/s, and yes, there are Mars return trajectories with reentry speeds less than 12.4 km/s.

It is an internet myth that the Orion cannot handle Mars return speeds. I have never seen this claim be substantiated anywhere.
Sure, but Orion will never, ever be involved in any mission to Mars. You wouldn't want to mate it to a larger spacecraft and take it to Mars because it's overkill and much too heavy. You wouldn't want it to be the reentry portion of a Mars return craft because it's overkill and much too heavy. Orion was designed for relatively short, Apollo-style missions to the Moon and nothing else.

Orion was designed for cis-lunar operations. It would be great for going to a gateway station at EML-2 and with a small module as part of its SLS launch it could be used for lunar or asteroid missions.
Orion at least has this going for it. It's a fine transportation for to and from missions to things in lunar orbit or L2 stations. But no one in congress has any desire to fund such things, no Republicans or Democrats.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Todd Martin on 09/17/2015 05:12 pm
$17B and "may slip" to 2023.

Can this capsule land on Mars?  No.  The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.
Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars?  No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed.  Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.
Is this capsule intended for lunar missions?  No.  President says so.  NASA says so.  Congress says so.
Is this capsule intended for ISS?  No.  There are far cheaper spacecraft.
Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous?  It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??

Nice strawman arguments. Nobody ever claimed Orion would land on Mars. Most missions would require the use of a mission-specific module, which would also be true of any other spacecraft going somewhere in deep space.

The baseline mission plans I've seen assume a maximum reentry speed of 12.4 km/s, so I think it is safe to assert that the Orion can handle reentry speeds at least up to 12.4 km/s, and yes, there are Mars return trajectories with reentry speeds less than 12.4 km/s.

It is an internet myth that the Orion cannot handle Mars return speeds. I have never seen this claim be substantiated anywhere.

Here's a NASA article stating 15 to 21 km/s for a Manned Mars mission return.  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660015097.pdf 

Consider that actual reentry heating will depend on the accuracy of the return vector and the weather (among other things), I think depending on a heat shield rated for 12.4 km/s Mars return is unlikely.  I also think it is unlikely Orion can be upgraded to handle a Mars mission, since the parachute system is incapable of handling much increased mass safely. 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: savuporo on 09/17/2015 05:18 pm
What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??
To rendezvous with an asteroid.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: montyrmanley on 09/17/2015 05:32 pm
What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??
To rendezvous with an asteroid.

I'm going to plant my flag in the ground right here and declare that the "asteroid heist" mission is never going to happen (at least not as currently envisoned). Robots can do just fine in characterizing and (eventually) mining asteroids. We might need to get humans involved somewhere down the line in the ore-processing and material-fabrication steps, but that's years (maybe decades) away. And as an engineering exercise, the asteroid-heist scenario never made much sense.

If we're serious about cislunar operations (we're not, by the way) we'd be looking to build a station at the earth-moon L2 as a waystation for Mars, or to developing a cislunar ecosystem of fuel depots and solar power systems (to be used to deliver power to space-based assets, not to deliver to the ground). We'd be building robotic systems to complement human missions. We'd be looking at the moon as a test bed for colonization techniques that would, in due time, be used on Mars. (Or we'd ask ourselves what's so great about Mars anyway and dedicate ourselves to building large space-based habitats that wouldn't require us to trade one deep gravity-well for another one.)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 09/17/2015 05:35 pm
The possible delay of EM-2 to 2023 is now all over the news:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/16/orion-spacecraft-may-not-fly-with-astronauts-until-2023/
http://spacenews.com/first-crewed-orion-mission-may-slip-to-2023/

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Apollo cost 150 billion in today's dollars. So, meh, seems about ballpark with historical precedent. The CSM was one of 3 major components for Apollo: Saturn V, CSM and the LM. If a modern replacement each cost 17 billion to develop, all three components would cost about 50 billion or one third of Apollo's total cost. Could some capitalist probably do it cheaper working out of their proverbial garage than a government program: yeah, probably.

The attached spreadsheet shows the money spent on various components of Apollo by fiscal year (from Apollo by the Numbers (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm)), with inflation to FY 2015 using the NASA New-Start Inflation Index.  Spending through FY 1967 was $28 billion in FY 2015 terms.  The first manned flight occurred about a third of the way into FY 1968 (the fiscal year started in July then), when NASA was spending on the CSM at a rate of about $4 billion per year.  So, that makes the cost to first manned flight round about $30 billion.  That figure definitely includes Apollo's service module, whereas Orion's service module is now being funded by ESA.  Furthermore, technology has moved on since the 1960s, and it should be easier to develop Orion than Apollo.

All in all, I agree that Orion's price tag is not obviously out of line with Apollo's.

What it does seem out of line with is Starliner and Dragon.  Granted, Orion can fly a much longer mission and has a larger delta-V, but that's largely due to the service module, most of the cost of which probably isn't included in the $17 billion quoted for Orion.

EDIT:  If probably would make sense to add in the figures for spacecraft support.  both spacecraft-support and command-and-service-modules numbers are reported only from FY 1963 onward.  In 1962, there is a spacecraft-development number which should probably be included too.  All of these together raise the NNSI-adjusted total to about $34 billion through the first manned flight.  There are other numbers that might be added too, such as those for developing the Little Joe 2 booster used solely to test Apollo's launch-escape system.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/17/2015 05:54 pm
The possible delay of EM-2 to 2023 is now all over the news:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/16/orion-spacecraft-may-not-fly-with-astronauts-until-2023/
http://spacenews.com/first-crewed-orion-mission-may-slip-to-2023/

About the price-tag: 17 Billion US dollars from start (CEV) to end of EM-2. If that isn't just plain silly then I don't know what. 17 Billion US dollars for an Apollo CSM on steroids. Mind-boggling.

Apollo cost 150 billion in today's dollars. So, meh, seems about ballpark with historical precedent. The CSM was one of 3 major components for Apollo: Saturn V, CSM and the LM. If a modern replacement each cost 17 billion to develop, all three components would cost about 50 billion or one third of Apollo's total cost. Could some capitalist probably do it cheaper working out of their proverbial garage than a government program: yeah, probably.

The attached spreadsheet shows the money spent on various components of Apollo by fiscal year (from Apollo by the Numbers (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/SP-4029.htm)), with inflation to FY 2015 using the NASA New-Start Inflation Index.  Spending through FY 1967 was $28 billion in FY 2015 terms.  The first manned flight occurred about a third of the way into FY 1968 (the fiscal year started in July then), when NASA was spending on the CSM at a rate of about $4 billion per year.  So, that makes the cost to first manned flight round about $30 billion.  That figure definitely includes Apollo's service module, whereas Orion's service module is now being funded by ESA.  Furthermore, technology has moved on since the 1960s, and it should be easier to develop Orion than Apollo.

All in all, I agree that Orion's price tag is not obviously out of line with Apollo's.

What it does seem out of line with is Starliner and Dragon.  Granted, Orion can fly a much longer mission and has a larger delta-V, but that's largely due to the service module, most of the cost of which probably isn't included in the $17 billion quoted for Orion.

Starliner and Dragon are more like the Mercury program which only cost $2 billion(today's dollars) total which is pretty much inline with Dragon and Starliner. So, yeah, apparently LEO is a lot cheaper than Cis-lunar no matter the program/decade/administration. Cislunar is also a lot cheaper than interplanetary.

edit: the ESA service module cost is basically rounding error on that 17 billion.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 09/17/2015 06:15 pm
Dragon, for example, with up to seven passengers, the capability of rendezvousing and docking with ISS and, we're told, a heat shield capable of withstanding re-entry from Mars is far more than the equivalent of a Mercury capsule.  It's quite a bit more capable than Orion without a service module.  I'm skeptical that the cost of Orion's service module could be small if it provides consumables for 84 person-days and over 1000 m/s of delta-V.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 09/17/2015 06:35 pm
Just saw today's news.   Jaw literally on the floor.

The original RFP for the CEV was in January 2005.   That's nearly 11 years ago.

Yet the first crewed test flight is STILL another 8 years away? Seriously?

And with the better part of another decade to wait, does ANYONE seriously think we won't see further slippage?


When we wrapped-up DIRECT in 2011, our team collectively decided to step back and not publicly criticize things that we knew were still sub-optimal (mostly SLS issues such as 5-seg, all-new manufacturing at MAF, lack of parallel Shuttle continuation etc).   But Orion was, at that time, looking like a reasonable plan.

NOT ANY LONGER.

The old king (Griffin's Constellation) clearly had no clothes at all.   The current one is certainly charging for a really big wardrobe, but I'm seeing far too much skin to be at all comfortable, thank-you so very much.

Absolutely appalling show.   Many heads need to be rolling for this fiasco, but I doubt anything will really change.

Ross.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/17/2015 06:41 pm
I have a question - where are all these costs coming from? How can this thing cost so much to develop, in particular the rocket itself? Is it the design itself, or are the companies involved trying to profit as much as possible?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: montyrmanley on 09/17/2015 06:59 pm
I have a question - where are all these costs coming from? How can this thing cost so much to develop, in particular the rocket itself? Is it the design itself, or are the companies involved trying to profit as much as possible?

Easy: staff. NASA staff, Lockmart staff, subcontractor staff, ESA staff, etc. As I mentioned upthread, the costs for Orion and SLS only make sense when you think of it in terms of keeping paychecks flowing to the various management, design, and fab centers for the system. (And to NASA centers, obviously.) Ten years' worth of well-paid aerospace jobs in lots of different states with congressmen to run political cover. NASA botched the Constellation project (underfunded though it was) and required a lifeline after cancellation to keep body and soul together until "the next big thing" came long. That "next big thing" hasn't come along yet, and may not come along for a good while. So: Orion and SLS are there to keep the welders welding and the programmers programming to keep the industrial base alive and to keep NASA's hand in the rocket-building game.

NASA wants to avoid closing one or more field centers. The big defense contractors want to avoid further painful layoffs as industry consolidation continues in an era of tight federal budgets. Congressmen want to keep high-paying aerospace jobs in their districts. You can't ask for an engineering rationale to these incredible costs because there isn't one.

We did Apollo nearly fifty years ago with technology that is hilariously primitive compared to what we have now, so the "space is hard" argument (always rather specious) rings ever more hollow. Space is hard, but it was far harder back then and we still managed to do it, from development to flight, in timespans of less than a decade.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/17/2015 07:12 pm
I have a question - where are all these costs coming from? How can this thing cost so much to develop, in particular the rocket itself? Is it the design itself, or are the companies involved trying to profit as much as possible?

Easy: staff. NASA staff, Lockmart staff, subcontractor staff, ESA staff, etc. As I mentioned upthread, the costs for Orion and SLS only make sense when you think of it in terms of keeping paychecks flowing to the various management, design, and fab centers for the system. (And to NASA centers, obviously.) Ten years' worth of well-paid aerospace jobs in lots of different states with congressmen to run political cover. NASA botched the Constellation project (underfunded though it was) and required a lifeline after cancellation to keep body and soul together until "the next big thing" came long. That "next big thing" hasn't come along yet, and may not come along for a good while. So: Orion and SLS are there to keep the welders welding and the programmers programming to keep the industrial base alive and to keep NASA's hand in the rocket-building game.

NASA wants to avoid closing one or more field centers. The big defense contractors want to avoid further painful layoffs as industry consolidation continues in an era of tight federal budgets. Congressmen want to keep high-paying aerospace jobs in their districts. You can't ask for an engineering rationale to these incredible costs because there isn't one.

We did Apollo nearly fifty years ago with technology that is hilariously primitive compared to what we have now, so the "space is hard" argument (always rather specious) rings ever more hollow. Space is hard, but it was far harder back then and we still managed to do it, from development to flight, in timespans of less than a decade.

That's what I had gathered.

In the future though, will it make sense to start over? Would that even be possible?

Are we stuck like this with NASA until someone comes along and sues them like SpaceX did for DOD launches? I guess that's outside the scope of this thread.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/17/2015 07:22 pm
$17B and "may slip" to 2023.

Can this capsule land on Mars?  No.  The parachutes are insufficient, no retro-propulsion.
Can this capsule return to Earth from Mars?  No, the heat-shield cannot handle the re-entry speed.  Nor is it rated to operate for 2 years on a mission.
Is this capsule intended for lunar missions?  No.  President says so.  NASA says so.  Congress says so.
Is this capsule intended for ISS?  No.  There are far cheaper spacecraft.
Is this capsule intended for Asteroid rendezvous?  It has no airlock, no arm, no un-pressurized cargo hold.

What are we doing??  Why are we doing this??

Nice strawman arguments. Nobody ever claimed Orion would land on Mars. Most missions would require the use of a mission-specific module, which would also be true of any other spacecraft going somewhere in deep space.

The baseline mission plans I've seen assume a maximum reentry speed of 12.4 km/s, so I think it is safe to assert that the Orion can handle reentry speeds at least up to 12.4 km/s, and yes, there are Mars return trajectories with reentry speeds less than 12.4 km/s.

It is an internet myth that the Orion cannot handle Mars return speeds. I have never seen this claim be substantiated anywhere.

Here's a NASA article stating 15 to 21 km/s for a Manned Mars mission return.  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660015097.pdf 

Consider that actual reentry heating will depend on the accuracy of the return vector and the weather (among other things), I think depending on a heat shield rated for 12.4 km/s Mars return is unlikely.  I also think it is unlikely Orion can be upgraded to handle a Mars mission, since the parachute system is incapable of handling much increased mass safely.

Yes, of course there are Mars-return trajectories with higher reentry speeds (these would also have faster Earth-Mars / Mars-Earth transit times as well), but these do not represent an absolute minimum speed limit. There are studies that consider return velocities between 11.5 km/s and 12.4 km/s.

www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Exploration/Cryogenic_Propulsive_Stage_Mission_Sensitivity_Studies_-_Low_Earth_Orbit_Departure.pdf (http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Exploration/Cryogenic_Propulsive_Stage_Mission_Sensitivity_Studies_-_Low_Earth_Orbit_Departure.pdf)

See pages 29-33.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/17/2015 07:35 pm

Are we stuck like this with NASA until someone comes along and sues them like SpaceX did for DOD launches?

No, not the same thing.  Spacex doesn't have case to sue NASA.  NASA can operate its own vehicle (Orion) or it can procure crew transport services like Dragon or CST-100.  The DOD case was where Spacex wasn't allowed to compete for a block of launches.   NASA isn't preventing Spacex from doing anything.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: SLC17A5 on 09/17/2015 07:45 pm
I had felt that SLS/Orion was a dead program walking, but this article has really cemented that belief.  I will be shocked if the first crewed launch takes place at all.  I also do not believe there is a possibility of reforming the process.  It will continue as long as Congress is allowed to task NASA to design and build rockets at public expense.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/17/2015 07:49 pm
I had felt that SLS/Orion was a dead program walking,

See my posts from years ago
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 09/17/2015 08:05 pm

I must say, I just popped in to this thread via the main NSF page (didn't have it on notify) and see the recent comments.  Ouch--how very disturbing and sad.  Granted, for years I too have been stating "SLS will only fly 2-4 times, if it flies at all", but to see some of the most knowledgeable and trusted (to me anyway) voices speak so bluntly brings it home that much harder.  Orion and SLS are tied at the hip, so one delayed means all delayed.  At this point my biggest and best hope is that Europa Clipper flies on SLS Block-1 (iCPS) before the whole thing is shut down (or that funding for HSF gets a boost, and the funds are well used--yeah, right...)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/17/2015 09:12 pm
Is it actually that bad of a rocket/capsule?

Say NASA somehow got some nice stuff funded - small lunar base to learn how to do stuff with, a station at the L2 point, and year long stays for 4-6 astronauts at said lunar base. Would the SLS be bad at that point?

Would another system be cheaper per actual flight, not considering this disastrous development costs?

Is there a world where the SLS is as beloved by our children (grandchildren for some of us) as we love the Saturn V?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 09/17/2015 09:17 pm
Are we stuck like this with NASA until someone comes along and sues them like SpaceX did for DOD launches? I guess that's outside the scope of this thread.

What NASA really has to fear is something like the Truman Commitee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Committee) in Congress.  Orion/SLS could not survive that, and neither could some NASA centers.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 09/17/2015 09:24 pm
Is it actually that bad of a rocket/capsule?

Say NASA somehow got some nice stuff funded - small lunar base to learn how to do stuff with, a station at the L2 point, and year long stays for 4-6 astronauts at said lunar base. Would the SLS be bad at that point?

Would another system be cheaper per actual flight, not considering this disastrous development costs?

Is there a world where the SLS is as beloved by our children (grandchildren for some of us) as we love the Saturn V?

So many questions, allow me to try to answer all by answering the last:

Booster:
SLS would be beloved if ATK brought the "advanced boosters" online in a timely fashion, and at 1/3 to 1/2 the current cost of the 5-seg, and with better performance.   As well, the Block 1B->Block II variant has re-useable main engine pod or the RS-25E comes online in a timely and affordable fashion.
Orion:
Orion is a 'tweener.  Not capable enough of going the long haul (interplanetary, or even moderate/large asteroids where they live), and way too much for LEO.  It makes sense if an EML2 way-point is established, and it makes the runs to and from (and to polar lunar orbit for a station at one or both lunar poles).
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/17/2015 09:39 pm
the RS-25E comes online in a timely and affordable fashion.


How much cheaper is the RS-25E expected to be than inflation adjusted cost for the RS-25D?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 09/17/2015 09:40 pm
Its not like there's something to fly to before 2023.

Orion cost has been known.


Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 09/17/2015 09:54 pm
the RS-25E comes online in a timely and affordable fashion.


How much cheaper is the RS-25E expected to be than inflation adjusted cost for the RS-25D?

Truth be told, "they" are just calling it RS-25 now, and it is thought the "E" version will come along in an iterative manner.  That is, the RS-25D will continue to be produced for SLS, with slight changes to reduce cost over time.  Of course, that means a very expensive and capable set of engines being tossed in the Atlantic for years to come once/if the program gets off the ground...
(and like I said, the cost of the engines may be one of the reasons we see only a few flights before the system is mothballed, if it flies at all.  Once the existing booster segments and RS-25s are used up...ummm....and there is some question as to how many booster segments there are)

Oh, and I should have added to my response about being "beloved" to include a flight rate of two to three per year (not one per year). 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 09/17/2015 09:57 pm
The 2023 date, still only has a 70% Confidence Rating. And they won't even introduce the ECLSS until EM-2. So we're sending out 4 Astronauts, for a 3 week trip past the moon with a brand new ECLSS? No crewed LEO shakedown mission?

Some time ago there was discussion of having a, IIRC, 30-hour stay in parking orbit to shake down the ECLSS before heading off toward the moon (I've looked, but I can't find the article of Chris's where this was mentioned).  That would mitigate the risk to a degree. Since the apogee of the parking orbit is about 900 nmi, though, it also means subjecting the crew to multiple passes into the lower regions of the inner van Allen Belt.

EDIT" "shakedown" -> "shake down", since it's a verb in this case.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: b0objunior on 09/17/2015 10:11 pm
Even if Orion would fly tomorrow, it would still be useless right now. Same exact thing for SLS, there needs to be a program for space exploration that give NASA a clear goal. Even if it as been said a least a billion times before here I'll say it anyways, it's to the next president and congress to choose. Whatever the results of Orion or SLS, NASA is just as dependent as everyone else on them. 2023 is a long ways away and everything could happen between now and that date.

What I would personnally like is for Orion to never leave the confines of the earth and moon system. An earth rentry vehicule to Mars is as useful as a skis in the middle of the desert. Build a small station using some bigelow's A330 in cislunar space with SLS. After that build the ship thats going to Mars, whatever the propusion system. For the ground operations at Mars, launch the different cargo (habitat, food, rovers, etc.) on direct trajectories with SLS or with space tugs, doesn't matter right now because it as to go in unison with the goal choosen (think of Kennedy).

This plan can work but it still as to be choosen by the president and approved by congress, so for whoever wants something to happen, writing to the next one and to congress. Is it all making sense or I'm just saying bull**** without noticing?

Thank you for reading I guess!!!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/17/2015 10:12 pm
Some time ago there was discussion of having a, IIRC, 30-hour stay in parking orbit to shakedown the ECLSS before heading off toward the moon (I've looked, but I can't find the article of Chris's where this was mentioned).

I remember reading about that idea too, and pretty sure it was here at NSF.

Quote
That would mitigate the risk to a degree. Since the apogee of the parking orbit is about 900 nmi, though, it also means subjecting the crew to multiple passes into the lower regions of the inner van Allen Belt.

We're 7 years away from finalizing the mission planning for that event, so I'd say the plan could change a whole lot of times between now and then.  What's more important will be the decision about the SLS, which is supposed to be operational by that date - whether that program becomes operational is a bigger factor than how to test the Orion ECLSS, since that may change the carrier vehicle and timing for an Orion test.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 09/17/2015 10:17 pm
Some time ago there was discussion of having a, IIRC, 30-hour stay in parking orbit to shakedown the ECLSS before heading off toward the moon (I've looked, but I can't find the article of Chris's where this was mentioned).

I remember reading about that idea too, and pretty sure it was here at NSF.


Me too, and it was on this site.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: bombyx on 09/17/2015 10:18 pm

Some time ago there was discussion of having a, IIRC, 30-hour stay in parking orbit to shakedown the ECLSS before heading off toward the moon (I've looked, but I can't find the article of Chris's where this was mentioned).  That would mitigate the risk to a degree. Since the apogee of the parking orbit is about 900 nmi, though, it also means subjecting the crew to multiple passes into the lower regions of the inner van Allen Belt.

That's here :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32750.0
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Darkseraph on 09/17/2015 10:30 pm
That's an utterly mind-boggling delay...


Would it not better to cancel the SLS but repurpose this Orion capsule as the return-only vehicle for deep space missions? You don't send people up with it, you do that with LEO commercial vehicles...but you return them at high velocity with it.

By that I mean the Orion would be launched unmanned to be mated in orbit with other mission hardware, like landers, habitats, EDS, depots..which are all launched with currently available or soon to be available LVs. (Falcon Heavy, Atlas, Vulcan, Ariane V..)

So if people are not launched up on it,  the escape system and its massive weight could be totally deleted. Crew could be sent up on commercial vehicles, expanding their role beyond the ISS but without requiring new expensive BEO versions of them. The high speed re-entry at the end of deep space missions would be done with the Orion capsule.

And of course the money freed from cancelling the SLS would be used to purchase cheaper LVs and help develop these new payloads.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/17/2015 11:01 pm
That would defeat the SLS/Orion's main purpose as a jobs program though
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 09/17/2015 11:14 pm

It's been a few years since I've posted something like this, so may as well do it here, now.

As a taxpayer I fully endorse and support my govt spending billions of dollars on space exploration (robotic, human, human to Mars, etc).  This is especially true considering the fraction of a percent even a robust HSF program comprises of the overall budget.  Jobs program?  I'd rather this jobs program than the "Let's train Syrian soldiers" jobs program, or the "Let's train Iraqi soldiers" jobs program, or the "Let's get boots on the ground in some primitive foreign land" program (each of which is far far more expensive).  I'd better stop--creeping to OT, and I try to adhere to the rules.

It is sad that there is waste, and graft, and pork, but at least let it be in name and action of exploring our solar system and beyond...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/17/2015 11:21 pm

It's been a few years since I've posted something like this, so may as well do it here, now.

As a taxpayer I fully endorse and support my govt spending billions of dollars on space exploration (robotic, human, human to Mars, etc).  This is especially true considering the fraction of a percent even a robust HSF program comprises of the overall budget.  Jobs program?  I'd rather this jobs program than the "Let's train Syrian soldiers" jobs program, or the "Let's train Iraqi soldiers" jobs program, or the "Let's get boots on the ground in some primitive foreign land" program (each of which is far far more expensive).  I'd better stop--creeping to OT, and I try to adhere to the rules.

It is sad that there is waste, and graft, and pork, but at least let it be in name and action of exploring our solar system and beyond...

Indeed. There's so much spent just on maintaining the jobs/facilities. It wouldn't even cost double that number to launch at least 2 of these Senate Launch Systems a year. I think we'll be lucky to get much farther than an Apollo 10 minus the lander.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: montyrmanley on 09/18/2015 12:06 am
And of course the money freed from cancelling the SLS would be used to purchase cheaper LVs and help develop these new payloads.

I think a more likely outcome would be the closure of Marshall, Stennis, and the Michoud facility. Without a big rocket, those centers don't really have a reason to exist. (They barely have a reason to exist as it is.)

It's a mistake to think that SLS money would automatically be diverted to other (perceived) "worthwhile" efforts. SLS/Orion money gets spent in certain Congressional House districts, and both Congresscritters and Senators will fight for the jobs that money brings. Politicians don't give a crap about space exploration; they're about high-paying jobs on the ground. The SLS was tailor-made as a jobs program, a consolation prize for the cancellation of Constellation to keep as many shuttle-era jobs in place as they could. Orion exists mainly as a purpose for the SLS, and vice-versa (much as the Shuttle and the ISS existed mainly for the benefit of each other, with no real larger purpose envisioned). Orion does for the industrial contractor (Lockmart) what SLS does for the NASA centers -- it keeps the workforce in place while NASA waits for better days and bigger budgets to come along.

NASA has from the very first had a split personality. There's the the science and research side, exemplified by the JPL/Ames/Goddard/Glenn nexus; and there's the engineering side, which centers around Johnson, Stennis, Marshall, and KSC. The engineering side has always been the dominant personality of NASA, but it's never been the most effective part of NASA (in fact, it's long been the most dysfunctional part). It's no accident that NASA's unmanned probes and science programs are far more successful than the manned programs; the science programs have a reason to exist. They have an end goal in mind. The big-ticket science missions have their problems, but they usually deliver big results. How many robotic missions could have been launched for what has been spent on Orion so far?

NASA's goal for the manned program is ostensibly the colonization of Mars by the 2030's (or whatever; the window always seems to be twenty years into the future of whatever the current time is). Yet nothing they're doing right now helps to achieve that goal -- there's precious little work or money going into propellant depots, space-based power, ISRU, orbital construction facilities, or anything. No, the most visible piece of the Mars program is Orion and SLS...and odds are that system will never be used in any Mars-based capacity, if indeed it is ever used at all.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Billium on 09/18/2015 01:41 am
I'm just a spaceflight fan, but human spaceflight is I think really interesting and inspiring for many people. The thought of going to Mars is really cool, but having to wait almost a decade just for a maned test flight around the moon causes me to loose a lot of interest to be honest.

SLS, despite the critisims, will be available with high probability in 2018. It could be used for a variety of missions, and the absence of another HLV, especially a funded one, really makes it appealing. Orion on the other hand just seems like the heavy, expensive, long delayed cousin of the commercial crew spacecraft.

If they could keep SLS, but use commercial crew for the taking humans up and down part maybe they could free up the Orion money for other hardware like BEO habitats, landers ect. Maybe keep the jobs and money flowing, just use it on other necessary hardware? Even Boeing might like this.

Anyways I know nothing will change until after the next president comes in, but if spacex can pull off the Falcons heavy (I know it is still like half an SLS) and a crewed Dragon test flight by the end of next year, I think there will be a lot of pressure on the Orion program.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/18/2015 01:49 am
I'm just a spaceflight fan, but human spaceflight is I think really interesting and inspiring for many people. The thought of going to Mars is really cool, but having to wait almost a decade just for a maned test flight around the moon causes me to loose a lot of interest to be honest.

SLS, despite the critisims, will be available with high probability in 2018. It could be used for a variety of missions, and the absence of another HLV, especially a funded one, really makes it appealing. Orion on the other hand just seems like the heavy, expensive, long delayed cousin of the commercial crew spacecraft.

If they could keep SLS, but use commercial crew for the taking humans up and down part maybe they could free up the Orion money for other hardware like BEO habitats, landers ect. Maybe keep the jobs and money flowing, just use it on other necessary hardware? Even Boeing might like this.

Anyways I know nothing will change until after the next president comes in, but if spacex can pull off the Falcons heavy (I know it is still like half an SLS) and a crewed Dragon test flight by the end of next year, I think there will be a lot of pressure on the Orion program.

You'd still want Orion for missions to the Moon or to a L2 station.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/18/2015 06:57 am
Here's a NASA article stating 15 to 21 km/s for a Manned Mars mission return.  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660015097.pdf

Here's another article that says the speed can be as low as 12.5 km/s at any opportunity (see Figure 6).

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/14747
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/18/2015 07:24 am
Here's a NASA article stating 15 to 21 km/s for a Manned Mars mission return.  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660015097.pdf

Here's another article that says the speed can be as low as 12.5 km/s at any opportunity (see Figure 6).

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/14747
All recent mars mission proposals use Orion as a taxi to and from a cislunar gateway. The mars trip departs and returns to this gateway, leaving the Orion parked at gateway. This means Orion only needs to handle re entry speeds from moon.

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 09/18/2015 12:59 pm
Here's a NASA article stating 15 to 21 km/s for a Manned Mars mission return.  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660015097.pdf

Here's another article that says the speed can be as low as 12.5 km/s at any opportunity (see Figure 6).

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/14747
All recent mars mission proposals use Orion as a taxi to and from a cislunar gateway. The mars trip departs and returns to this gateway, leaving the Orion parked at gateway. This means Orion only needs to handle re entry speeds from moon.
Entry speeds aside parking Orion at L2 or DRLO saves 20+mt that the Mars bound spacecraft doesn't have to haul all the way to Mars and back. Staging in Cis-Lunar space makes sense even if Orion could survive entry at any speed. Its similar to why they chose LRO rather than direct decent for Apollo. Of course you have to come back to where Orion was parked but the ability to reuse the Mars spacecraft is pretty much enabled bu that scheme.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: bad_astra on 09/18/2015 03:13 pm
I don't get it...why not use a Dragon 2  or Boeing Starliner to drop the crew off to cis- Lunar Space ?...even if you have to modify Dragon or Starliner, it's got to be less expensive then building Orion ?


Seems like every PowerPoint to date  had  pictures of Orion at Mars...and now it's not going there ???...ok, for good reasons perhaps but then why do you need what is a beefed up taxi ??

To Slowly Go Where We Have Been Before
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 09/18/2015 06:30 pm
Here's a NASA article stating 15 to 21 km/s for a Manned Mars mission return.  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660015097.pdf

Here's another article that says the speed can be as low as 12.5 km/s at any opportunity (see Figure 6).

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/14747
All recent mars mission proposals use Orion as a taxi to and from a cislunar gateway. The mars trip departs and returns to this gateway, leaving the Orion parked at gateway. This means Orion only needs to handle re entry speeds from moon.

I don't believe that NASA's own DRM (Design Reference Mission) follows that architecture -- and this is NASA's vehicle, and potential Mars mission, we're talking about.

I am pretty certain that NASA's DRM stages all the modules in LEO prior to TMI, and takes the Orion capsule all the way to Mars and back.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/18/2015 07:37 pm
Mr. Lightfoot mentions an ISS resupply mission as an option for one Orion mission. That would be a crazy use of SLS/Orion. Please no! That's just silly use of SLS and Orion.

The Orion's docking ability should be tested before it goes to deep space.

Orion is not really a deep space vehicle, since it's life support is limited, and the crew space is very limited.  At best it would be used for trips to the region of the Moon and back (which was the original CxP task for it).

Quote
Launch a LEO mission with a new 30-40 ton spacestation. The astronauts can then commission the spacestation and test docking procedures.

If all you need to do is test the docking system, it would be cheaper to dock with the ISS than to build a brand new type of space station.  Still a big waste of money though, since docking issues are pretty rare.  Or use the USA to send up a dummy mass with a docking adapter with the Orion so the Orion can practice on it - which would be far cheaper, and wouldn't cause such a big delay as waiting for a customer space station to be built would be.


Orion to a LEO spacestation, like the ISS, can probably be lifted by an Atlas V.
Orion and a LEO test target by a Falcon Heavy.
But Orion and a LEO spacestation needs an SLS.

Having got a new spacestation up there NASA can act as an anchor tenant and make use of it. The ISS is the micro-gravity spacestation so spaceship yard or prototype Lagrange point spacestation or LEO gateway spacestation are possibilities. The first Bigelow BA330 should be flying when the Orion is ready so later ones can be used as test equipment.

Quote

Quote
The extra mass allows the spacestation to have its own station keeping module and say a set of arms turning it into a flying spaceship yard.

Something for the private sector to do, not NASA.  NASA shouldn't be expected to do everything, nor is it funded to do everything.

The private sector likes financial returns within 3-4 years. So it is unlikely to build an in-space ship yard to assemble the Mars Transfer Vehicles (MTV) until about 4 years before the prototype MTV starts its construction phase. That may triggered by the MTV's Critical Design Review (CDR). Prior to that the private sector will need a contract.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: a_langwich on 09/18/2015 08:24 pm
Here's a NASA article stating 15 to 21 km/s for a Manned Mars mission return.  http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660015097.pdf

Here's another article that says the speed can be as low as 12.5 km/s at any opportunity (see Figure 6).

https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/14747
All recent mars mission proposals use Orion as a taxi to and from a cislunar gateway. The mars trip departs and returns to this gateway, leaving the Orion parked at gateway. This means Orion only needs to handle re entry speeds from moon.

I don't believe that NASA's own DRM (Design Reference Mission) follows that architecture -- and this is NASA's vehicle, and potential Mars mission, we're talking about.

I am pretty certain that NASA's DRM stages all the modules in LEO prior to TMI, and takes the Orion capsule all the way to Mars and back.

The DRMs are not NASA's plan of record.  There is no plan of record regarding an actual Mars mission.  There are only more and less detailed looks at whether a particular mission plan could work, and if so, how much would it take. 

My impression is the DRMs, while probably the most serious and detailed studies of missions, represent something like the direct ascent plans to reach the moon:  really expensive and large.  On the budget side, while closer and more realistic than some of the previous attempts, they still are pretty unlikely in the current budget climate.  The lunar DRO missions and the minimal Mars design, on the other hand, seem like they might fit into a realistic budget.  And from a technical viewpoint, the imagined Mars reentry problems go away.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/18/2015 08:32 pm

The DRMs are not NASA's plan of record.  There is no plan of record regarding an actual Mars mission.  There are only more and less detailed looks at whether a particular mission plan could work, and if so, how much would it take. 

My impression is the DRMs, while probably the most serious and detailed studies of missions, represent something like the direct ascent plans to reach the moon:  really expensive and large.  On the budget side, while closer and more realistic than some of the previous attempts, they still are pretty unlikely in the current budget climate.  The lunar DRO missions and the minimal Mars design, on the other hand, seem like they might fit into a realistic budget.  And from a technical viewpoint, the imagined Mars reentry problems go away.


Yes, they are.  They are a common starting point and a "design reference".   They can change and will until one is chosen and followed.  "direct ascent plans to reach the moon" was the DRM of record until changed to the LOR DRM.  There were some Direct ascent DRM requirements that were kept or not changed because of contracts, like the size of the SPS.  There were others. The shuttle has some and they changed over the course of the program.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Pollagee on 09/18/2015 08:43 pm
Wow $17B and over 18 years before the first crewed flight! That's really sad. Perhaps it's time to shut the Orion program down and move the money to Commercial Crew. The proposed asteroid mission will be a big expense with little reward. Congress will never adequately fund a mission to Mars for decades to come. Orion is a big expense without a legitimate mission(s). What has happened to NASA??! 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/18/2015 10:10 pm
Wow $17B and over 18 years before the first crewed flight! That's really sad. Perhaps it's time to shut the Orion program down and move the money to Commercial Crew. The proposed asteroid mission will be a big expense with little reward. Congress will never adequately fund a mission to Mars for decades to come. Orion is a big expense without a legitimate mission(s). What has happened to NASA??!

I have to agree that the progress on Orion so far has been disappointing. There are many reasons for that including contractor issues, management issues, technical issues, funding and other political issues.

LM is having a lot of trouble with its top projects recently (F-35) and they had never built a manned spacecraft before. If you look at how well Boeing is doing with CST-100 you can see the difference.

One of the big issues was that Orion was originally designed to be both a cis-lunar and a LEO spacecraft and was married to an underpowered rocket. They were trying to fit everything into one craft. After CxP was canceled Orion basically had to be reborn which resulted in delays.

It also has never had the funding spike that it needs to overcome more than one big issue at a time. This has resulted in delays and increasing cost. A flat budget is a big issue.

Edit: That is why getting full funding for CCP is so important. They need the funding spike to deal with all the issues they need to deal with before they can launch.

Then of course there is the political aspect given how the current administration feels about SLS/Orion.

It stinks and its disappointing that more progress hasn't been made. That said merely modifying the commercial crew vehicles isn't the walk in the park you might think it is. There is a big difference between a spacecraft designed for LEO and one that is designed for BEO. At this point we are better sticking with Orion than starting up a whole new program.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 09/19/2015 12:18 pm


An earth rentry vehicule to Mars is as useful as a skis in the middle of the desert.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ski+sand+dunes&oq=ski+sand+du&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l3.7851j0j4&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 09/19/2015 12:35 pm
Entry speeds aside parking Orion at L2 or DRLO saves 20+mt that the Mars bound spacecraft doesn't have to haul all the way to Mars and back.

<sigh> This. AGAIN!

10.6mT in DRM 5.0.

Cheers, Martin

Edit:- https://www.dropbox.com/s/mtyqjoyctn1cwrz/Mars%20mass%20breakdown.gif?dl=0
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 09/19/2015 12:38 pm
There is a big difference between a spacecraft designed for LEO and one that is designed for BEO.

It seems to me that a "capsule" for both LEO and BEO missions needs to do three things:
1.  Carry people safely to LEO, with possibility of abort.
2.  Survive a long voyage in a powered down state without gettings its systems fried by radiation.
3.  Safely bring people back to Earth.

Kinda like Soyuz and Dragon.

A key part of all three mission segments is that you want it as light in mass as possible.  All the long term mission stuff for navigation and communication and life support can be in the real 'spaceship' or 'station', that hopefully can be reused.  Once placed in space by an unmanned launch(es), it stays there.

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 09/19/2015 12:44 pm
Entry speeds aside parking Orion at L2 or DRLO saves 20+mt that the Mars bound spacecraft doesn't have to haul all the way to Mars and back.

<sigh> This. AGAIN!

10.6mT in DRM 5.0.

Cheers, Martin

Edit:- (https://www.dropbox.com/s/mtyqjoyctn1cwrz/Mars%20mass%20breakdown.gif?dl=0)

Well, to get that 10.6mt figure that would assume they weren't carrying the full 9 ton propellant load envisaged for a BEO Orion, as during Constellation(?)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/19/2015 03:44 pm
I have to agree that the progress on Orion so far has been disappointing. There are many reasons for that including contractor issues, management issues, technical issues, funding and other political issues.
{snip}
One of the big issues was that Orion was originally designed to be both a cis-lunar and a LEO spacecraft and was married to an underpowered rocket.

You really need to go back to the genesis of the Constellation program to see the series of assumptions and decisions that were made that led us to this point, including the overall goal, which was a return to the Moon.  That's where the costs we see today originated, not with contractor NASA is using today.

We will return to the Moon at some point, so it's not a question of if.  But back then they should have discarded the Apollo-style of thinking in terms of "Point A is the goal, so what is the fastest way there", and instead focused on building out the technologies that would allow us to expand out into space in the most sustainable fashion.  Because the real goal should be to expand humanity out into space, and we don't have a deadline for that.

Orion represents the maximum size for a capsule, and it may even border on being beyond the maximum size.  Time will tell.  So it's not an evolutionary path we can continue, meaning all this money we're pouring into it won't be specifically usable for the next generation vehicle we'll need to send an increasing number of people into space and beyond LEO.

So what should be next?  Commercial crew for the Earth to LEO and back portion, but for beyond LEO it should be reusable space-only vehicles.  But that's a separate topic...

Quote
LM is having a lot of trouble with its top projects recently (F-35) and they had never built a manned spacecraft before. If you look at how well Boeing is doing with CST-100 you can see the difference.

Lockheed Martin did not design the Orion, NASA did.  Boeing would be having the same problems today if they were building it.

Quote
It also has never had the funding spike that it needs to overcome more than one big issue at a time. This has resulted in delays and increasing cost. A flat budget is a big issue.

Flat funding meets the needs of the politicians who are backing programs that benefit their political districts.  And until we have an agreed upon goal for what we're doing in space, and all our politicians get behind it, this situation likely won't change.

Which is why I don't believe NASA will be doing much in space after the ISS is decommissioned...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 09/19/2015 04:05 pm


Entry speeds aside parking Orion at L2 or DRLO saves 20+mt that the Mars bound spacecraft doesn't have to haul all the way to Mars and back.

<sigh> This. AGAIN!

10.6mT in DRM 5.0.

Cheers, Martin

Edit:- (https://www.dropbox.com/s/mtyqjoyctn1cwrz/Mars%20mass%20breakdown.gif?dl=0)

Well, to get that 106mt figure that would assume they weren't carrying the full 9 ton propellant load envisaged for a BEO Orion, as during Constellation(?)

You are assuming that it actually has an SM.

It may have a ~4t sm if it needs to do burns before reentry (see the book-keep comment):-

"As  the MTV  approaches  Earth  upon  completion  of  the 30-month  round-trip mission, the crew  performs  a preundock  health  check  of  all entry-critical systems,  transfers  to the CEV, closes  hatches,  performs  leak  checks,  and undocks  from  the MTV. The MTV is  targeted for an  Earth  fly-by  with  subsequent  disposal in  heliocentric space. The CEV departs  from  the MTV  24 to  48 hours  prior to  Earth  entry  and conducts  an  on-board-targeted, ground-validated burn  to target for the proper entry  corridor; as  entry  approaches, the CEV CM  maneuvers  to the proper entry  interface (EI) attitude  for a direct-guided  entry  to  the landing  site. The CEV performs  a nominal water landing,  and  the crew and vehicle are recovered. Earth  entry  speeds  from  a nominal Mars  return  trajectory  may  be as  high  as  12 km/s, as compared  to  11  km/s for the lunar CEV. This difference will necessitate the development of  a higher-density, lightweight  TPS.

Two other factors (besides the primary concern of Earth entry speed) will drive the evolution of the CEV from a lunar vehicle to a Mars vehicle. The first is the need to re-certify the Orion for a 3-year on-orbit lifetime. Additionally, a science-driven mission to Mars would likely result in the desire to bring back an adequate amount of martian material (the current suggestion is 250 kg). Given the gear ratios involved in a round trip to Mars, the mass of such material would either have to be kept to a minimum or the upgrade would have to adopt an undetermined strategy by which to accommodate the mass and volume of this scientific material. 

It was not within the scope of the DRA 5.0 activity to recommend specific design upgrades for the Orion vehicle or to develop an upgrade strategy. Instead, a mass estimate of 10 t was used for the vehicle CM to size propulsion stages. An additional 4 t was book-kept for a service module that may be needed to perform an Earth-targeting burn. Future activities, likely in conjunction with the Orion Project Office, will better define an upgrade strategy. 

Depending on the trajectory flown, the entry speed of the Orion on a Mars return trajectory could be significantly higher than that for the lunar return at 11 km/s. Furthermore, since there would be a crew of six rather than four as would be the case for a lunar mission, the Mars block upgrade vehicle would be heavier than the lunar vehicle without incorporating other mass reduction efforts. 

Figure 4-9 depicts the effect of g-constraints and vehicle mass on both peak heating rates and maximum heat load as a function of entry speed. The red dot at 11 km/s and mass of 9,227 kg corresponds to the Orion lunar vehicle with a heating rate of slightly less than 1,000 W/cm2 and a heat load slightly more than 1,000 MJ/m2. As can be seen in the figure, significant increases in heating rates and loads are introduced as the speed increases from 11 to 14 km/s while increasing maximum g’s at a given entry speed results in less severe augmentations. Note that limiting the entry speed to the DRA 5.0 recommended limit of 12 km/s can provide significant reduction in TPS technology requirements as compared to previous studies with entry speeds up to 14 km/s."

Cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: llanitedave on 09/20/2015 04:08 am
Orion was designed for the Moon.  The so-called Mars effort I think is just a sop to the Obama administration, once the next administration comes in, chances are he or she will be convinced that the Moon is the logical next stop and, wonder of wonders, there's an Orion waiting to take us there.


Orion was also designed before Starliner and Dragon 2.  They will both be flying crews before it is.  The SLS itself could be a good cargo rocket.  It makes most sense to go back to a CxP 1.5 architecture, with a commercial crew vehicle launched separately from a lander/DSH on SLS, and doing an orbital or lunar or EML rendevous.  The SLS as a launcher can sill be justified, in other words, but I'm not so sure that Orion is not already hopelessly obsolete.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/20/2015 06:48 am
Orion was designed for the Moon.  The so-called Mars effort I think is just a sop to the Obama administration, once the next administration comes in, chances are he or she will be convinced that the Moon is the logical next stop and, wonder of wonders, there's an Orion waiting to take us there.


Orion was also designed before Starliner and Dragon 2.  They will both be flying crews before it is.  The SLS itself could be a good cargo rocket.  It makes most sense to go back to a CxP 1.5 architecture, with a commercial crew vehicle launched separately from a lander/DSH on SLS, and doing an orbital or lunar or EML rendevous.  The SLS as a launcher can sill be justified, in other words, but I'm not so sure that Orion is not already hopelessly obsolete.

Only the Orion with SLS is capable of delivering crew to EML. The Orion SM gives it 1.34Km/s, both Dragon and Starliner have only a few 100m/s. TLI to EML1 is about 700m/s, EML1 to Earth is also about 700m/s. For either CC vehicle to do these missions they would need a few extra mts of propellant which neither's LAS can handle.

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Todd Martin on 09/20/2015 04:41 pm
Orion was designed for the Moon.  The so-called Mars effort I think is just a sop to the Obama administration, once the next administration comes in, chances are he or she will be convinced that the Moon is the logical next stop and, wonder of wonders, there's an Orion waiting to take us there.


Orion was also designed before Starliner and Dragon 2.  They will both be flying crews before it is.  The SLS itself could be a good cargo rocket.  It makes most sense to go back to a CxP 1.5 architecture, with a commercial crew vehicle launched separately from a lander/DSH on SLS, and doing an orbital or lunar or EML rendevous.  The SLS as a launcher can sill be justified, in other words, but I'm not so sure that Orion is not already hopelessly obsolete.

Only the Orion with SLS is capable of delivering crew to EML. The Orion SM gives it 1.34Km/s, both Dragon and Starliner have only a few 100m/s. TLI to EML1 is about 700m/s, EML1 to Earth is also about 700m/s. For either CC vehicle to do these missions they would need a few extra mts of propellant which neither's LAS can handle.



So, why can't Dragon or Starliner be provided a Service Module to provide the 1000m/s ?? 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/20/2015 07:57 pm
Only the Orion with SLS is capable of delivering crew to EML.

With the current single-use architecture (i.e. SLS + Orion), sure.

But that only gets you four people for every launch, which is pretty expensive, and those costs won't have any opportunity to decrease much.  That to me is not a formula for increasing humanities presence out into space.

Quote
The Orion SM gives it 1.34Km/s, both Dragon and Starliner have only a few 100m/s. TLI to EML1 is about 700m/s, EML1 to Earth is also about 700m/s.

ULA's distributed launch proposal could solve this too (ULA paper (http://www.ulalaunch.com/uploads/docs/Published_Papers/Extended_Duration/Distributed-Launch-2015.pdf)), for any vehicle that needs a boost out of LEO.  Which could include space-only vehicles and stations.  We need to perfect this technique anyways in order to expand humanity out into space, so the sooner we do it the better.

Quote
For either CC vehicle to do these missions they would need a few extra mts of propellant which neither's LAS can handle.

At some point we need to develop space-only reusable vehicles that will transit between Earth and the region of the Moon.  The decision to create that capability will happen when the number of people commuting between Earth and the region of the Moon incurs too great a cost when using the four person Orion+SLS.  Let's hope that need comes sooner than later...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/20/2015 08:05 pm

So, why can't Dragon or Starliner be provided a Service Module to provide the 1000m/s ??

A couple of reasons.

1. Starliner's heat shield can't take re-entry speeds from BLEO.

2. From what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong) the current design of the Dragon precludes this possibility. The "SM" of Dragon is directly integrated into the vehicle. The trunk is for cargo storage and solar panels. There are no connections for the extra life support you would need from the new SM. Also as Trevor pointed out it the mass of the new SM would far exceed the ability of the LAS to pull it away with Dragon. Remember both the trunk and the capsule would be pulled away in the current abort scenario.

As for Orion being "obsolete" by the time it launches we have to recall that Orion has undergone several evolutions in design. It isn't stuck in 2006. For example by the time it launches with humans the computers won't be 2006 level, rather 2015 level or so.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 09/20/2015 08:18 pm
But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it.   Dragon+SM today is designed for LEO missions.  But the heat shield is clearly designed for bigger things.   I am guessing that the reason the SM stays on today is for aerodynamic stability during the boost phase of a pad abort.   A modified scheme could be worked out that could provide the aerodynamic stability without lugging all the extra mass of BLEO support along with it.  No design is cast in stone forever.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2015 08:57 pm

Lockheed Martin did not design the Orion, NASA did.  Boeing would be having the same problems today if they were building it.

No, Lockheed designed it. NASA just provided requirements.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/20/2015 08:59 pm
But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it.

True enough but as you said that requires a redesign of the system which isn't trivial. My point is you can't just slap a new SM on it. It has to undergo a thorough redesign, so much so that you might as well be designing a new vehicle.

Edit:

Lockheed Martin did not design the Orion, NASA did.  Boeing would be having the same problems today if they were building it.

No, Lockheed designed it. NASA just provided requirements.

Exactly Jim.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jak Kennedy on 09/20/2015 10:00 pm
But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it.

True enough but as you said that requires a redesign of the system which isn't trivial. My point is you can't just slap a new SM on it. It has to undergo a thorough redesign, so much so that you might as well be designing a new vehicle.

Why couldn't the SM be below the truck and left behind on abort? A bit like the Apollo LM where the capsule had to flip around and dock.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 09/20/2015 10:18 pm
It has to undergo a thorough redesign, so much so that you might as well be designing a new vehicle.

I really doubt that the pressure vessel, the hatches, the seating, the outer profile, the SuperDracos, etc, would need to be redesigned if a thrust-and-life-support-providing SM was added on behind the current hollow segment.  Some control and plumbing connections would have to be added.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/21/2015 01:15 am
But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it.

True enough but as you said that requires a redesign of the system which isn't trivial. My point is you can't just slap a new SM on it. It has to undergo a thorough redesign, so much so that you might as well be designing a new vehicle.

Why couldn't the SM be below the truck and left behind on abort? A bit like the Apollo LM where the capsule had to flip around and dock.

The Dragon could be connected to the SM using the same the same flip around trick. The iLIDS docking ports have air, power, data and control connectors as standard. The SM may be part of the same launch or waiting in LEO.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/21/2015 02:19 am

The Dragon could be connected to the SM using the same flip around trick. The iLIDS docking ports have air, power, data and control connectors as standard. The SM may be part of the same launch or waiting in LEO.

That would definitely work without requiring direct modifications. That said there is still the radiation issues brought up by Gerst and lack of redundancy. IMHO Orion will remain the go to deep space crew vehicle until a "Dragon 3" comes out devoted to BLEO operations. What you suggested would definitely be the way to go for a "Dragon 3" since it would require the least amount of mods to Dragon 2.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: llanitedave on 09/21/2015 02:20 am

So, why can't Dragon or Starliner be provided a Service Module to provide the 1000m/s ??

A couple of reasons.

1. Starliner's heat shield can't take re-entry speeds from BLEO.

2. From what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong) the current design of the Dragon precludes this possibility. The "SM" of Dragon is directly integrated into the vehicle. The trunk is for cargo storage and solar panels. There are no connections for the extra life support you would need from the new SM. Also as Trevor pointed out it the mass of the new SM would far exceed the ability of the LAS to pull it away with Dragon. Remember both the trunk and the capsule would be pulled away in the current abort scenario.

As for Orion being "obsolete" by the time it launches we have to recall that Orion has undergone several evolutions in design. It isn't stuck in 2006. For example by the time it launches with humans the computers won't be 2006 level, rather 2015 level or so.


Well that does limit you to Earth Orbit Rendevous missions.  But that's not much of a limitation.  The Constellation architecture went for the same concept.  Using Dragon or starliner + SLS is not that different than what was envisioned for Constellation.  Slightly less capacity, but much less cost.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: savuporo on 09/21/2015 03:07 am
The Dragon could be connected to the SM using the same the same flip around trick. The iLIDS docking ports have air, power, data and control connectors as standard. The SM may be part of the same launch or waiting in LEO.
Gemini Agena. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gemini#Lunar_orbit_missions)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: darkenfast on 09/21/2015 07:39 am
Article on some site called TechnoBuffalo with the headline: "NASA says it will send astronauts to Mars by April 2023".  It's apparently taken from the recent release regarding the first crewed Orion flight.  Isn't modern journalism wonderful?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/21/2015 08:16 am
Article on some site called TechnoBuffalo with the headline: "NASA says it will send astronauts to Mars by April 2023".  It's apparently taken from the recent release regarding the first crewed Orion flight.  Isn't modern journalism wonderful?

Still possible, didn't say anything about returning them.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 09/21/2015 10:27 am
That would mitigate the risk to a degree. Since the apogee of the parking orbit is about 900 nmi, though, it also means subjecting the crew to multiple passes into the lower regions of the inner van Allen Belt.

We're 7 years away from finalizing the mission planning for that event, so I'd say the plan could change a whole lot of times between now and then.  What's more important will be the decision about the SLS, which is supposed to be operational by that date - whether that program becomes operational is a bigger factor than how to test the Orion ECLSS, since that may change the carrier vehicle and timing for an Orion test.

The 900-nmi apogee may not be easily changed, though, as I believe it's the highest-energy orbit into which the SLS core can inject Orion+ICPS.  Lower the apogee, and the ICPS might not have the delta-V to put Orion on a translunar trajectory.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/21/2015 01:30 pm
But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it. 

Yes, it could. However, that wouldn't be a trivial exercise. With all the other modifications (including communications, thermal and ionising radiation shielding), you'd be effectively looking at Dragon v.2.5 or even v.3.0. Not impossible, certainly, but definitely complex, costly and, likely, time-consuming.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 09/21/2015 02:11 pm
But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it. 

Yes, it could. However, that wouldn't be a trivial exercise. With all the other modifications (including communications, thermal and ionising radiation shielding), you'd be effectively looking at Dragon v.2.5 or even v.3.0. Not impossible, certainly, but definitely complex, costly and, likely, time-consuming.

I think those modifications could be done before Orion carries its first astronaut.   Did Apollo have radiation shielding?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/21/2015 04:00 pm

The Dragon could be connected to the SM using the same flip around trick. The iLIDS docking ports have air, power, data and control connectors as standard. The SM may be part of the same launch or waiting in LEO.

That would definitely work without requiring direct modifications. That said there is still the radiation issues brought up by Gerst and lack of redundancy. IMHO Orion will remain the go to deep space crew vehicle until a "Dragon 3" comes out devoted to BLEO operations. What you suggested would definitely be the way to go for a "Dragon 3" since it would require the least amount of mods to Dragon 2.

How much radiation protection do we need?
Does the 18 inch wall on the Bigelow BEAM give sufficient protection?

Instead of just docking to a docking port the pilot could fly the capsule into a 20 feet long docking bay.

The bay wall would need 2 or 3 masts to stop it wobbling and to extend it. Retraction of wall and space-end door are optional features.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/21/2015 04:28 pm

I think those modifications could be done before Orion carries its first astronaut.   Did Apollo have radiation shielding?

Remember that its gonna take a couple billion in NASA funding along with 7 years of development time just to go from Dragon 1 to Dragon 2. Impressive to be sure but not immediate. A Dragon 3 would take time and if NASA wasn't funding it then it would be a very long time.

Apollo's electronics were much much less sensitive to radiation than today's electronics. Having redundancy and or space hardened parts is a must have for BLEO spacecraft.

Instead of just docking to a docking port the pilot could fly the capsule into a 20 feet long docking bay.

Interesting thought although I don't know of anything like what you are describing coming out in the near future.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/21/2015 08:12 pm
{snip}
Instead of just docking to a docking port the pilot could fly the capsule into a 20 feet long docking bay.

Interesting thought although I don't know of anything like what you are describing coming out in the near future.

This is because no one has asked for it.

IMHO Cost developing the cover at twice the cost of the BEAM. Cost not price, these may have been some loss leading. The cost of modifying an upperstage, such as a Centaur, to act as an Earth departure stage will need adding; plus the cost of the launches and flight test.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jtrame on 09/21/2015 08:33 pm
Please excuse this question from a non-engineer, but what is the additional radiation shielding provided by the Orion spacecraft?  Is is the greater mass, the tiles covering the conical section, or something else entirely?  Thanks.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/22/2015 07:21 am
But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it. 

Yes, it could. However, that wouldn't be a trivial exercise. With all the other modifications (including communications, thermal and ionising radiation shielding), you'd be effectively looking at Dragon v.2.5 or even v.3.0. Not impossible, certainly, but definitely complex, costly and, likely, time-consuming.

I think those modifications could be done before Orion carries its first astronaut.   Did Apollo have radiation shielding?
No. The only shielding Apollo had was it's structure. No dedicated shielding needed when in deep-space for at most 10 days.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: b0objunior on 09/25/2015 12:50 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-applies-insights-for-manufacturing-of-orion-spacecraft-heat-shield

Heatshield made out of multiple pieces. We knew that but it's fun to look at it for the first time.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 09/25/2015 05:15 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-applies-insights-for-manufacturing-of-orion-spacecraft-heat-shield

Heatshield made out of multiple pieces. We knew that but it's fun to look at it for the first time.

Yep... I attached an image from the link.

Heatshield tiles? Who would have thought? And so one of the main arguments for Avcoat (vs PICA) is chucked out the window.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/25/2015 07:14 pm
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-applies-insights-for-manufacturing-of-orion-spacecraft-heat-shield

Heatshield made out of multiple pieces. We knew that but it's fun to look at it for the first time.

Yep... I attached an image from the link.

Heatshield tiles? Who would have thought? And so one of the main arguments for Avcoat (vs PICA) is chucked out the window.

Lets not forget that the decision to use AVCOAT over PICA was made long before something the size of Dragon used it as a heat shield. The fact is AVCOAT will work just as well and it is good that NASA is making improvements to lower the cost and manpower needed to make the heat shield.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: b0objunior on 10/11/2015 04:08 am
This image is the first weld of Orion. Looks pretty if you ask me!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 10/21/2015 03:29 am
So the welding together of the pressure vessel should be complete ... soon? At what point will it be ready for some sort of pressure test? I recall the ground test article was pressure tested in Colorado, and then the EFT-1 article was pressure tested (and suffered some damage) at KSC. Does EM-1 Orion get the former or latter treatment?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/22/2015 04:07 am
The fact is AVCOAT will work just as well and it is good that NASA is making improvements to lower the cost and manpower needed to make the heat shield.

NASA should have known about the cost differences well before they built the AVCOAT version.  The contractor would have bid manual labor for filling the holes, which if you have watched the video was very laborious (and not very consistent).  If cost was an issue they would have gone with the tiles to start.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 10/22/2015 05:59 am
NASA should have known about the cost differences well before they built the AVCOAT version.  The contractor would have bid manual labor for filling the holes, which if you have watched the video was very laborious (and not very consistent).  If cost was an issue they would have gone with the tiles to start.

By the "start" do you mean in 2006 when LM was awarded the Orion work? The timeline back then put a bit of pressure on them. Orion development was to be complete by the end of 2011, with crewed flight in 2014 (on Ares I, of course).

So the decision in 2006 to focus on the AVCOAT version may have been silly given a first test flight in 2014, but that wasn't the plan to start....
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 10/22/2015 09:06 am
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-applies-insights-for-manufacturing-of-orion-spacecraft-heat-shield

Heatshield made out of multiple pieces. We knew that but it's fun to look at it for the first time.

Yep... I attached an image from the link.

Heatshield tiles? Who would have thought? And so one of the main arguments for Avcoat (vs PICA) is chucked out the window.

Lets not forget that the decision to use AVCOAT over PICA was made long before something the size of Dragon used it as a heat shield.
The fact is AVCOAT will work just as well and it is good that NASA is making improvements to lower the cost and manpower needed to make the heat shield.
Emphasis mine: Your statement is partially incorrect.
The CEV was originally scheduled to fly with a PICA heatshield. NASA didn't switch to AVCOAT until April of 2009. The switch was primarily over mass considerations.

See here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa39s-orion-heat-shield-decision-expected-this-323585/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/orion-tps.html
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum39/HTML/000078.html
http://archive.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2009/04/nasa-selects-apollo-era-heat-shield.shtml

SpaceX had chosen PICA for Dragon two months earlier (february 2009). See here:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20090223005140/en/SpaceX-Manufactured-Heat-Shield-Material-Passes-High
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 10/22/2015 09:18 am
The CEV was originally scheduled to fly with a PICA heatshield.

Where do you get that? From one of the sources you yourself provide, the 2009 Florida Today article:
Quote
For more than three years, NASA's Orion Thermal
Protection System Advanced Development Project considered eight
different candidate materials, including the two final candidates,
Avcoat and Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator, or PICA, both of
which have proven successful in previous space missions.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 10/22/2015 12:48 pm
The CEV was originally scheduled to fly with a PICA heatshield.

Where do you get that? From one of the sources you yourself provide, the 2009 Florida Today article:
Quote
For more than three years, NASA's Orion Thermal
Protection System Advanced Development Project considered eight
different candidate materials, including the two final candidates,
Avcoat and Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator, or PICA, both of
which have proven successful in previous space missions.

Look at the first link (FlightGlobal), it gives a good summary of the developments of the CEV/Orion TPS between 2006 and 2009.
The CEV proposal by LockMart featured segmented PICA. When LockMart was chosen as prime contractor the baseline for the TPS was set as PICA. Boeing received a contract to do the PICA-based TPS for the CEV, as a sub to LockMart. This all played out between 2006 and late 2008. Boeing even delivered to NASA a prototype of the segmented PICA in late 2007.
Orion was, through-out most of CxP set to get to CDR with a PICA heatshield. However, the continued mass-trouble associated with the Ares-1/Orion combination led to AVCOAT eventually being selected as a replacement because of mass-savings. That happened in april 2009, when CxP was already very much in dire-straits and CEV/Orion already had a good three years of development under it's belt.
When NASA chose the LockMart proposal voor the CEV, they inherently chose PICA as the TPS baseline. The switch to AVCOAT took place three years later.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 10/22/2015 06:08 pm
The switch to AVCOAT took place three years later.

Ah, thanks! That makes sense from Lockheed Martin's perspective. From NASA's perspective, though, wouldn't the decision have been "made" at the PDR milestone rather than at the contract award?

Here's a quote (with emphasis added) from a different flightglobal article:
Quote
Lockheed wants to use the Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator developed by NASA Ames and used for Lockheed's cometary-dust capturing Stardust capsule, which returned to Earth in January. McKenzie says: "We have baselined for the TPS the Stardust capsule material."

Ames researchers expect that whichever potential TPS option is selected at the Orion PDR, it will be ablative.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/orion-rises-208901/

The article also mentions some bit about how the heat shield would have to be ejected so the landing airbags could be deployed. My how times have changed!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 10/22/2015 11:32 pm
For those who are curious, here is a picture of the Boeing heat shield prototype, built with PICA: (image from 2007)

source: http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum39/HTML/000078.html
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 10/23/2015 09:35 am
The switch to AVCOAT took place three years later.
Ah, thanks! That makes sense from Lockheed Martin's perspective. From NASA's perspective, though, wouldn't the decision have been "made" at the PDR milestone rather than at the contract award?
NASA chose the LockMart proposal for the CEV. Proposals are rather complete at such stages including initial material choices for all major parts of a design.
However, that does not mean that the material originally proposed ends up being the material actually used.
 When going into development many of the initial choices will be researched thru risk-reduction studies. (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/pr530.pdf)
This also applied to the CEV heatshield. The risk-reduction studies were done by NASA Ames. They studied a range of TPS candidate materials. But from day 1, the LockMart-chosen PICA and NASA-heritage Avcoat were placed in the roles of leading candidate and back-up. Why was Avcoat in the back-up role? Answer: flight experience on Apollo.
What happened in late 2008 and early 2009 is that the two materials switched places. Avcoat became leading with PICA being the back-up. This was the result of not just the risk-reduction studies but also other contributing factors such as the earlier mentioned mass considerations.

On a different note:
Although the above-linked NASA presentation suggests that SpaceX chose PICA for Dragon based on the work done by NASA, that is not entirely correct. The basic choice for PICA had already been made by SpaceX at that time. The results from the NASA study only served to re-confirm the the soundness of the initial choice of PICA for Dragon.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: b0objunior on 10/29/2015 03:14 am
Great video about the Orion heatshield by an engineer at NASA. He explains in detail the road to EFT-1 and what's ahead for the EM missions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4qsEz9ILGc
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: vulture4 on 11/15/2015 07:25 pm
What about the airbags? Weren't they deleted to fit the payload capacity of the Ares I? Why couldn't they be replaced when the SLS became the LV?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 11/16/2015 09:14 am
What about the airbags? Weren't they deleted to fit the payload capacity of the Ares I? Why couldn't they be replaced when the SLS became the LV?
The airbags were deleted in an early DAC of Orion. The DAC's had been all but completed by the time Orion was repurposed to fly on SLS.
It is not exactly easy to fit things back into a design that has evolved considerably from the original design.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: vulture4 on 11/16/2015 04:33 pm
What about the airbags? Weren't they deleted to fit the payload capacity of the Ares I? Why couldn't they be replaced when the SLS became the LV?
The airbags were deleted in an early DAC of Orion. The DAC's had been all but completed by the time Orion was repurposed to fly on SLS.
It is not exactly easy to fit things back into a design that has evolved considerably from the original design.
Land recovery was originally chosen because it reduced cost and risk. I would have thought the decision to abandon it would be reconsidered when the reason for the decision went away. Maybe I am just naive.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Dante80 on 11/16/2015 09:18 pm
Land recovery was originally chosen because it reduced cost and risk. I would have thought the decision to abandon it would be reconsidered when the reason for the decision went away. Maybe I am just naive.

You are not. Its simply a fact of Orion moving too much along to change it now, while at the same time never having the funding to change the design a lot in the first place.

If ESA was not making the trunk, Orion would be in big funding trouble by now.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: b0objunior on 11/19/2015 10:57 pm
NASA has made another change to the EM-1 spacecraft, but it was predictable. They will ''paint'' it in a metallic finish for temperature control. I like the way it looks, reminiscent of Apollo.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/engineers-refine-thermal-protection-system-for-orion-s-next-mission
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jacqmans on 11/24/2015 05:57 pm
some new pictures made public by ESA
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jacqmans on 11/24/2015 05:58 pm
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 11/24/2015 06:35 pm
These are also available on NASA's Orion Flickr page!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 11/25/2015 11:52 am
These are also available on NASA's Orion Flickr page!
Correct. And their source is NASA, not ESA. The latter just re-issued them thru it's own channels.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/26/2015 01:27 pm
The NASA article states that a metallic coating will be bonded to the backshell tiles:

"For these future Orion missions, a silver, metallic-based thermal control coating will also be bonded to the crew module’s thermal protection system back shell tiles."

When they say "a coating", it makes me think that each tile will be individually silvered during the manufacturing process. But the renderings make it look like a silver film is applied in large sheets to the backshell. And actually the graphics make it look like more substantial metallic sheets are riveted to the backshell, not just a film or coating.

So does anyone know if this reflective coating will be "painted" on the tiles individually, applied as a film to the backshell, or installed as heavier panels secured mechanically to the backshell?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 11/26/2015 01:43 pm
The NASA article states that a metallic coating will be bonded to the backshell tiles:

"For these future Orion missions, a silver, metallic-based thermal control coating will also be bonded to the crew module’s thermal protection system back shell tiles."

When they say "a coating", it makes me think that each tile will be individually silvered during the manufacturing process. But the renderings make it look like a silver film is applied in large sheets to the backshell. And actually the graphics make it look like more substantial metallic sheets are riveted to the backshell, not just a film or coating.

So does anyone know if this reflective coating will be "painted" on the tiles individually, applied as a film to the backshell, or installed as heavier panels secured mechanically to the backshell?

Thanks.

There is no mass budget for installing panels over the backshell TPS. Besides such panels would invalidate the primary function of the backshell TPS.
The primary function of this coating is for thermal protection while in space, more specific to prevent over-heating when the backshell TPS is exposed to the sun for prolonged periods.
Given that the backshell tiles are black I can see where this is coming from.
This coating therefore must be lightweight, be able to provide thermal regulation and not interfere with the primary TPS role (and backup MMOD protection role) of the backshell TPS tiles.

Well, guess what: that's exactly what led to the Apollo CSM backshell being taped with strips of metallic-coated Kapton.
So, my guess is that a (Kapton?) film will be applied over the backshell TPS, much like was done on the Apollo CSM. It will burn-off easily upon re-entry with the remains being easily removable in support of post-flight assessment of the condition of the TPS.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Raj2014 on 11/28/2015 10:36 am
Good images of the CM with the new coating added. There was a video released by ESA showing an antenna extending from the ESM and Jim said it will be part of the Orion spacecraft. Yet there are images not showing the antenna. Could someone confirm this, please? It is confusing on which images and videos are accurate.   
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 11/28/2015 12:30 pm
Good images of the CM with the new coating added. There was a video released by ESA showing an antenna extending from the ESM and Jim said it will be part of the Orion spacecraft. Yet there are images not showing the antenna. Could someone confirm this, please? It is confusing on which images and videos are accurate.   

ESM is part of the Orion spacecraft
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 11/30/2015 01:02 am
...
Well, guess what: that's exactly what led to the Apollo CSM backshell being taped with strips of metallic-coated Kapton.
So, my guess is that a (Kapton?) film will be applied over the backshell TPS, much like was done on the Apollo CSM. It will burn-off easily upon re-entry with the remains being easily removable in support of post-flight assessment of the condition of the TPS.
Actually, the metallic coating on the Apollo CSM didn't just all burn up on reentry. Remember, this is the back-shell, so the thermal environment is orders of magnitude less intense than the heatshield itself. I attached a picture of Apollo 8 after it came back from the Moon. Kapton film still clinging to the spacecraft.

Honestly, I think those black TPS tiles are WAAAAYYY overkill for the whole backshell when just some kapton film seems to survive at least to some degree. They would be better off with just a thin bit of ablative material or something over most of the backshell, IMHO. Heck, they could probably do alright with some white tiles or blankets over most of the backshell.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 11/30/2015 06:18 am
Carrying this over from the SLS thread as that one had gone OT:

Guaranteed it wouldn't be cheaper. It never is. We're not saving money on the Orion service module being done by Europe, because there's huge overhead trying to communicate across continents and across language barriers, unit barriers, protocol barriers, cultural barriers. The only "advantage" is that it makes Orion much harder to cancel.

Well, the overall effort doesn't cost less, but the amount the U.S. has to pay overall is less because the Europeans are picking up the Service Module portion of the Orion (or at least a major part of it)....
Nope. It doesn't save the US money. Remember, we already half-had a design for the service module. We're still doing the overall engineering for Orion. We're also supplying ESA with many of the service module parts.

...I guarantee we aren't saving money with this. It's just to keep Orion from being canceled.
The US is indeed supplying ESA with parts for the ESM. But neither many, nor for free. Most parts of US origin (such as avionics components) are bought from US suppliers by the ESM main-contractor (Airbus). That includes the 8 auxilliary engines. Just about the only major component given to ESA 'for free' is the OMS engine.
There is no sense in selling the OMS engine to ESA/Airbus given that they are surplus items from the STS program.

The actual reason for ESM still costing the US a lot of money is the additional testing and certification and integration efforts involved. In stead of relying on ESA to do ALL testing and certification and integration for them, NASA has decided to do a major portion of the testing, just about all of the certification, and most of the integration (with the crew module) activities themselves.

Simply designing, developing, basic testing and building the ESM is not really where all the money is spent. Particularly not given that many of the ESM systems and components are direct descendants from ATV systems and components. It explains why the ESA-cost for ESM is well below Euro 500 million. The really expensive activities involved with ESM are still being done by the US.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 11/30/2015 06:24 am
...
Well, guess what: that's exactly what led to the Apollo CSM backshell being taped with strips of metallic-coated Kapton.
So, my guess is that a (Kapton?) film will be applied over the backshell TPS, much like was done on the Apollo CSM. It will burn-off easily upon re-entry with the remains being easily removable in support of post-flight assessment of the condition of the TPS.
Actually, the metallic coating on the Apollo CSM didn't just all burn up on reentry. Remember, this is the back-shell, so the thermal environment is orders of magnitude less intense than the heatshield itself. I attached a picture of Apollo 8 after it came back from the Moon. Kapton film still clinging to the spacecraft.

Honestly, I think those black TPS tiles are WAAAAYYY overkill for the whole backshell when just some kapton film seems to survive at least to some degree. They would be better off with just a thin bit of ablative material or something over most of the backshell, IMHO. Heck, they could probably do alright with some white tiles or blankets over most of the backshell.

Bad example. Take a look at some of the images of Apollo lunar missions showing the 'wind' side of the backshell (image below of Apollo 11, 13, 14, 16, 17): most, if not all, of the Kapton gone (burned off) and degradation of the underlying TPS.
Remember, the backshell still sees very high temperatures despite them being an order of magnitude less than the primary heatshield does.

Also, the black TPS tiles are a carry-over from a previous program and do the job just fine. Particularly given that the CSM was originally designed to be reusable and the fact that the backshell TPS holds a secondary role of MMOD protection. It might sound counter-intuitive but those TPS tiles-on-a-carrier-plate do a better job as MMOD protection than does the Apollo-style ablative material.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 02/23/2016 08:57 pm
Could not find a thread for general Orion updates, so putting this here:

Orion Simulations Help Engineers Evaluate Mission Operations for Crew
Last Updated: February 23, 2016 - Mark Garcia

When the first astronauts travel to deep space in Orion, they’ll know their mission is solidly built on years of hard work by engineers on the ground. While manufacturing and assembly work continues on the Orion spacecraft for its first uncrewed mission atop the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket in 2018, currently known as Exploration Mission-1, a multi-NASA center team also has been busy developing displays and controls for flights with astronauts and testing advanced software to ensure human deep space missions on the journey to Mars are a success.

In early February, flight controllers and astronauts took part in a joint simulation to evaluate the prototype Orion crew display and control system, advanced caution and warning system for flight controllers and communication protocols. The test was conducted in the Rapid Prototyping Lab (RPL) at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, where engineers are creating and evaluating the display and control systems that Orion’s crew will use to navigate and operate the spacecraft.

“One of the main things this simulation was designed for was to figure out what the first contact between crew and mission controllers looks like,” said Jeff Fox, deputy of the RPL. “We wanted to see how the crew interface systems we’re developing work with the team on the ground.”

Orion will have a sophisticated display and control system as well as advanced software and operational concepts to aid the crew on long missions far from Earth, where astronauts will be required to work more independently than on missions in low-Earth orbit. On the space shuttle, there were nearly 2,000 switches and controls used to operate the orbiter. NASA’s new spaceship will have software to allow the crew to command the vehicle in most scenarios using just three display screens, saving mass and volume.

“We’re evaluating a totally new software model that allows us to automatically diagnose if a failure occurs during a mission and for messages to be displayed for flight controllers on the ground,” said Haifa Moses, a human factors engineer who is working on NASA’s Autonomous Systems and Operations project, which is funded by the agency’s Advanced Exploration Systems program.

The February simulation involved two astronauts and several flight controllers, including a flight director, capsule communicator or CAPCOM to communicate with the crew, and controllers who manage electrical power subsystems and environmental control and life support elements. Together they worked through a failure scenario in which part of Orion’s power system failed. This scenario required troubleshooting to get pumps and other systems back up and running to support the systems the crew needs to survive. Evaluating extreme failure scenarios is a routine part of training for mission in space.

“This is one of the first times we’ve integrated these two teams and had communications across headsets and have been able to practice making calls,” said Moses.

As the RPL continues to build and evaluate the displays for crew, it also is providing hand-on engineering experience for students in Texas. Mechanical engineering students at the University of Texas at Tyler have designed and built a mount to attach the cursor control device that serves as one way to operate Orion’s displays, also delivering their hardware to NASA in February.

“The students worked through the product development process, conducted several different analyses and design reviews, along with building prototypes the same way that we do at NASA, which gives the students real world experience in the engineering field,” said Fox.

Students from the university previously designed and built seatbacks and headrests for an Orion mockup housed at Johnson, which is used to train crew and evaluate hardware, along with additional support hardware.

As engineers continue to develop Orion’s display, controls and software for crewed flights, teams will conduct additional simulations. The RPL will also continue to look for potential ways to include student ingenuity in the lab.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/orion-simulations-help-engineers-evaluate-mission-operations-for-crew (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/orion-simulations-help-engineers-evaluate-mission-operations-for-crew)

Photo Caption: An engineer evaluates Orion’s display and control system.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MattMason on 03/02/2016 02:35 pm
Let me ask a simple question (and if it has been answered before, just point me up with a link of that discussion).

Since Orion is designed for long-duration flight, the use of fuel cells would be completely impractical, correct? You couldn't carry enough reactants for a 60 day flight. The Airbus-designed solar panels generate 11 MW, which, with modern electronic power needs, would give a substantial surplus to charge batteries and work for flights anywhere between here and Mars.

So, are thermal rolls such as those used for Apollo going to work? Or do the panels have the ability to rotate as the ISS solar panels do? Or, like the ISS or even the Shuttle Orbiter, are passive thermal rolls a real concern?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/02/2016 02:46 pm
the arrays can be pointed.  I bet attitudes for thermal control are still in work.  Passive thermal rolls are the exception.  Most spacecraft don't do them
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: chipguy on 03/02/2016 04:40 pm
The Airbus-designed solar panels generate 11 MW

I think you meant 11 KW.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 10/09/2016 01:02 am
Can someone please characterize the nature of this hardware pictured near a trailer apparently blown onto its side by Hurricane Matthew? Surely not a test or flight article.... A mock-up? Size or fit test article?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/09/2016 02:26 pm
I believe that is the mockup that was used for tests with handling.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/ground/orionvabstack.html

(the rolled trailer is the shuttle white room)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 10/09/2016 06:20 pm
Shuttle White Room on Trailer (from Collect Space)


http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-101811a/002.jpg
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 10/10/2016 07:32 am
Shuttle White Room on Trailer (from Collect Space)


http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-101811a/002.jpg
Yes, that's the CAA with the white room lying on it's side. Shame...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 11/09/2016 10:41 pm
From the Youtube description:
Quote
PACIFIC OCEAN (Oct. 28, 2016) Navy divers assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit 3 and Mobile Dive and Salvage Company 3-1 conduct towing techniques and safety procedures for a training capsule called the boilerplate-testing article (BTA), belonging to NASA’s Orion program, in the Pacific Ocean Oct. 28, 2016. NASA is currently testing the BTA with help from USS San Diego (LPD 22) utilizing NASA and Naval technology with the goal of reducing manning and increasing safety. (U.S. Navy Combat Camera photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Alfred A. Coffield/Relased)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bToq0dbLafE
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 12/02/2016 06:39 am
NASA’s First Flight with Crew will Mark Important Step on Journey to Mars (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-first-flight-with-crew-will-mark-important-step-on-journey-to-mars)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 12/02/2016 09:12 am
NASA’s First Flight with Crew will Mark Important Step on Journey to Mars (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-first-flight-with-crew-will-mark-important-step-on-journey-to-mars)

It seems to me there's something wrong here:

"Basically, the spacecraft will circle our planet twice while periodically firing its engines to build up enough speed to push it toward the moon...."

"After launch, the spacecraft and upper stage of the rocket will first orbit Earth twice to ensure its systems are working normally."

"Following the first orbit, the rocket’s powerful exploration upper stage (EUS) and four RL-10 engines will perform an orbital raise, which will place Orion into a highly elliptical orbit around our planet. This is called the partial translunar injection. This second, larger orbit will take approximately 24 hours with Orion flying in an ellipse between 500 and 19,000 nautical miles above Earth."

I make the period of a 500 x 19,000-nmi. orbit to be about 10.8 hours.  It has to be well under 24 hours, because GEO is at 20,000 nmi.  So what's actually happening?  I'm guessing that the sequence will be:

1. One revolution at 100 nmi.
2. Injection to 100 x 19,000 nmi.
3. At first apogee, raise raise perigee to 500 nmi.
4. TLI at second perigee passage after raising perigee (i.e. after completing two highly elliptical orbits), about 23 hours after launch (one 90-minute orbit plus two highly elliptical).

Why bother raising the perigee from 100 to 500 nmi?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 12/02/2016 09:37 am
1. One revolution at 100 nmi.
2. Injection to 100 x 19,000 nmi.
3. At first apogee, raise raise perigee to 500 nmi.

That gets there using impulsive burns. Can't it also be accomplished with a single burn of some non-zero duration? EFT-1 used a single burn to raise apogee and simultaneously lower perigee, which seems even more wacky.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 12/02/2016 09:46 am
Hadn't thought of what might be possible with an extended burn.  But it's easier to see how you could lower perigee during an apogee-raising maneuver than raise it:  even a zero-duration impulse will do: just make sure there's an outward component of velocity at MECO, and perigee will be lower than the MECO altitude.

I suppose it's possible.  You just have to make sure that MECO occurs at 500 nmi. with a purely tangential velocity vector (or at a higher altitude with an outward velocity component).  I imagine the burn would be rather inefficient, but for this mission the EUS should have plenty of delta-V, as long as the secondary payloads are light.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 12/02/2016 09:59 am
Thinking about this as a long duration burn leads to another point. With only a rather modest propellant reserve to cover the contingency, the mission could continue even if one of the RL10 engines on the EUS were to shut down unexpectedly, without risking loss of crew.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 12/07/2016 05:37 pm
Although it's a vague thought for the moment, given that the ESM is "secure" for both EM-1 and EM-2 now and the later not due to fly for 7 years, what of the possibility of making an American-made SM?  If the SLS can be upgraded the same philosophy should be applied to the Orion too, barring it getting totally replaced.  The ESM is a decent start, but as is it won't provide enough "oomph" to get the Orion closer to the Moon or do much good in Mars orbit either.  In the case of the Moon, this will be a hindrance in assisting lunar landing or constructing an new space station.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/08/2016 12:51 am
Although it's a vague thought for the moment, given that the ESM is "secure" for both EM-1 and EM-2 now and the later not due to fly for 7 years, what of the possibility of making an American-made SM?  If the SLS can be upgraded the same philosophy should be applied to the Orion too, barring it getting totally replaced.  The ESM is a decent start, but as is it won't provide enough "oomph" to get the Orion closer to the Moon or do much good in Mars orbit either.  In the case of the Moon, this will be a hindrance in assisting lunar landing or constructing an new space station.

Better to spend the money on a propulsion and service module for a lunar lander.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 01/24/2017 11:06 pm
Quote
In a lab at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, engineers simulated conditions that astronauts in space suits would experience when the Orion spacecraft is vibrating during launch atop the agency’s powerful Space Launch System rocket on its way to deep space destinations. A series of tests occurring this month at Johnson will help human factors engineers assess how well the crew can interact with the displays and controls they will use to monitor Orion’s systems and operate the spacecraft when necessary.

Test subjects wore modified advanced crew escape suits that are being developed for astronauts in Orion, and sat in the latest design of the seat atop the crew impact attenuation system. This was the first time this key hardware was brought together to evaluate how launch vibrations may impact the astronaut’s ability to view the displays and controls. While Orion’s late 2018 mission will be uncrewed, engineers are hard at work performing all the necessary evaluations to make sure the spacecraft is ready for crewed missions beginning as early as 2021.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/25/2017 08:12 am
Although it's a vague thought for the moment, given that the ESM is "secure" for both EM-1 and EM-2 now and the later not due to fly for 7 years, what of the possibility of making an American-made SM?  If the SLS can be upgraded the same philosophy should be applied to the Orion too, barring it getting totally replaced.  The ESM is a decent start, but as is it won't provide enough "oomph" to get the Orion closer to the Moon or do much good in Mars orbit either.  In the case of the Moon, this will be a hindrance in assisting lunar landing or constructing an new space station.
Sorry for the late response.
The increased "oomph" you hint at does not require a new, American-made, service module. What it requires is the originally planned Orion Main Engine. This OME, under the original 606-version of Orion, would be a more powerfull further development of the STS OMS engines. However, as with so many aspects of Orion this idea was overtaken by reality. More specifically: lack of funding. As a result NASA decided to accept that Orion would be fitted with a less powerfull main engine; refurbished STS OMS engines.
So, it was a cost-saving measure and has nothing to do with the service module being American-made or not.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 01/25/2017 04:21 pm
The increased "oomph" you hint at does not require a new, American-made, service module. What it requires is the originally planned Orion Main Engine. This OME, under the original 606-version of Orion, would be a more powerfull further development of the STS OMS engines. However, as with so many aspects of Orion this idea was overtaken by reality. More specifically: lack of funding. As a result NASA decided to accept that Orion would be fitted with a less powerfull main engine; refurbished STS OMS engines.
So, it was a cost-saving measure and has nothing to do with the service module being American-made or not.

In short, with proper funding there could be room for improvement?

What were the specifications for the 606 version and how would it differ from the current ESM?  If there is still a way to utilize hypergolic fuels and somehow produce better thrust and delta-v that'd be an alley worth investigating if anyone wants the Orion to become more useful.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/25/2017 04:48 pm
The increased "oomph" you hint at does not require a new, American-made, service module. What it requires is the originally planned Orion Main Engine. This OME, under the original 606-version of Orion, would be a more powerfull further development of the STS OMS engines. However, as with so many aspects of Orion this idea was overtaken by reality. More specifically: lack of funding. As a result NASA decided to accept that Orion would be fitted with a less powerfull main engine; refurbished STS OMS engines.
So, it was a cost-saving measure and has nothing to do with the service module being American-made or not.

In short, with proper funding there could be room for improvement?

What were the specifications for the 606 version and how would it differ from the current ESM?  If there is still a way to utilize hypergolic fuels and somehow produce better thrust and delta-v that'd be an alley worth investigating if anyone wants the Orion to become more useful.
Propellant amount for the 606/607 versions of the original LockMart SM and the current ESM is almost identical. The secondary propulsion thrusters are identical. Both versions use the same hypergolic propellant combination for main propulsion and RCS.
The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/26/2017 04:17 am
The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

That's a pretty small difference in thrust. My preferred solution is actually a new capsule/orbital module with a mass of 5.9 t, about 3.2 m in diameter and carrying 4 crew. The volume per crew member would greatly increase, making the trip to the Moon and back much more comfortable. Keep the SM the same. Not having to lug that extra 4 t of the Orion capsule all the way to the Moon and back makes a pretty big difference (equivalent to 20 t extra mass in LEO).
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: brickmack on 01/26/2017 01:32 pm
The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

My preferred solution is actually a new capsule/orbital module with a mass of 5.9 t, about 3.2 m in diameter and carrying 4 crew.

Where'd you come up with those numbers? Thats smaller than the Apollo CM, but still heavier
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/26/2017 01:42 pm
The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

My preferred solution is actually a new capsule/orbital module with a mass of 5.9 t, about 3.2 m in diameter and carrying 4 crew.

Where'd you come up with those numbers? Thats smaller than the Apollo CM, but still heavier

Will this do?
http://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/27/2017 04:43 am
Where'd you come up with those numbers? Thats smaller than the Apollo CM, but still heavier

The numbers are basically scaled up versions of the Soyuz/Shenzhou configuration. The Apollo 16 and 17 CM massed 5840 kg.

                             Soyuz Shenzhou Orion Orion2
mass capsule (t)              2.95  3.24    9.82   3.90
mass orbital module (t)       1.30  1.50      -    1.97
mass service module (t)       2.10  2.10    3.80   2.52
mass space craft (t)          6.35  6.84   13.62   8.39
mass propellant (t)           0.80  1.00    9.20   5.67
mass total (t)                7.15  7.84   22.82  14.06
volume capsule (m^3}           3.5   6.0     9.0    8.2
volume orbital module (m^3)    5.0   8.0      -    10.5
volume total (m^3)             8.5  14.0     9.0   18.7
diameter (m)                  2.17  2.52    5.03   3.31
Crew                             3     3       4      4
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 01/27/2017 11:15 am
The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

IIRC the need for the extra SM thrust from the OME was a contingency scenario (abort) rather than the nominal mission. And it only applied to launches into the inclination of the ISS, which would take the flight path over the  Down-range Abort Exclusion Zone.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070031124.pdf
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 01/27/2017 11:19 am
Where'd you come up with those numbers? Thats smaller than the Apollo CM, but still heavier

The numbers are basically scaled up versions of the Soyuz/Shenzhou configuration. The Apollo 16 and 17 CM massed 5840 kg.

                             Soyuz Shenzhou Orion Orion2
mass capsule (t)              2.95  3.24    9.82   3.90
mass orbital module (t)       1.30  1.50      -    1.97
mass service module (t)       2.10  2.10    3.80   2.52
mass space craft (t)          6.35  6.84   13.62   8.39
mass propellant (t)           0.80  1.00    9.20   5.67
mass total (t)                7.15  7.84   22.82  14.06
volume capsule (m^3}           3.5   6.0     9.0    8.2
volume orbital module (m^3)    5.0   8.0      -    10.5
volume total (m^3)             8.5  14.0     9.0   18.7
diameter (m)                  2.17  2.52    5.03   3.31
Crew                             3     3       4      4


I remember reading in the ESAS report that a small capsule + mission module would be heavier than a large capsule.

I'm always a bit skeptical when people say Orion is too heavy, because apart from the slightly inefficient capsule shape (mass-wise) what is the reason for its supposed overweight?

By the way the pressurized volume of Orion is ~20m^3. I assume it's full of equipment/supplies such that the habitable volume shrinks to 9m^3.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 01/27/2017 11:27 am
what is the reason for its supposed overweight?

IMHO? Requirements. As you add requirements a structure tends to gain mass. At one point Orion needed to carry thrust both from the aft (during launch) and from the fore (from propulsion provided by Altair). If a requirement is later lifted it is still difficult to undo the mass gain.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 01/27/2017 11:55 am
what is the reason for its supposed overweight?

IMHO? Requirements. As you add requirements a structure tends to gain mass. At one point Orion needed to carry thrust both from the aft (during launch) and from the fore (from propulsion provided by Altair). If a requirement is later lifted it is still difficult to undo the mass gain.

Ok but thrust from the aft is unavoidable and (comparatively small) thrust from the fore is a likely scenario.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/27/2017 01:27 pm
The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

My preferred solution is actually a new capsule/orbital module with a mass of 5.9 t, about 3.2 m in diameter and carrying 4 crew.

Where'd you come up with those numbers? Thats smaller than the Apollo CM, but still heavier

Will this do?
http://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon

nope, not close
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/27/2017 05:54 pm
The only major difference in propulsion is OME versus OMS. The former would have produced 7,500 pounds of thrust, while the latter produces only 6,000 pounds of thrust, with only a slight difference in ISP.

My preferred solution is actually a new capsule/orbital module with a mass of 5.9 t, about 3.2 m in diameter and carrying 4 crew.

Where'd you come up with those numbers? Thats smaller than the Apollo CM, but still heavier

Will this do?
http://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon

nope, not close

You're right, Jim. 
Better to let NASA spend a dozen years and a dozen billion making a new capsule/orbital module.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/27/2017 06:08 pm
If 2 astronauts can spend 2 weeks in a Gemini capsule, then Dragon or Starliner is big enough.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/28/2017 09:38 am
I remember reading in the ESAS report that a small capsule + mission module would be heavier than a large capsule.

That same report said Ares I would be cheaper than EELV! There were so many thumbs on scale in there, the report is basically useless.

Better to let NASA spend a dozen years and a dozen billion making a new capsule/orbital module.

With the current experience it should not take 12 years and $12B. That would be more than what has been spent on Orion Block I. Development cost should be about $3B, with a production cost of $1.5B for ten spacecraft. I used the Spacecraft/Vehicle Level Cost Model based on the NASA/Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM) database.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jtrame on 01/28/2017 11:39 am
I would base Orion II closely on Apollo Block 2.  The more I look at it, it provided exactly the right amount of space for three, the tunnel location and navigation bay under the instrument panel was a great utilization of available space, and a modern version might be lighter with modern avionics and materials.  If they want the forward facing windows, plenty of room for that since the instrument panel would be much smaller.  In fact, one could base it on the CST-100 structure and save even more.  Then you would be back to 2 versions, Orion Lite (Starliner) for LEO and Orion II for deep space. 

Imagine Apollo 8 with the addition of a science module/ Hab module.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 01/28/2017 07:20 pm
I remember reading in the ESAS report that a small capsule + mission module would be heavier than a large capsule.

That same report said Ares I would be cheaper than EELV! There were so many thumbs on scale in there, the report is basically useless.

The Ares I with 4-segment RSRB and SSME upper stage compared favourably to Atlas Heavy with American-made RD-180 and new upper stage respectively
Delta Heavy with new upper stage. It doesn't surprise me that a cost model would show them as more or less equally expensive to develop.

But cost projections are a tricky thing. When it comes to technical expertise I do not see why the report should not be trusted.

The relevant part:

Quote
5.3.2.5 CEV Split Versus Single Volume

A considerable amount of time was spent analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of a CEV split versus single volume. Separating the CEV volume into a CM used primarily for ascent and entry and a mission module that could be sized and outfitted for each particular mission has operational advantages depending on the mission to be supported. Also, separation of the mission module with the SM after the Earth deorbit burn provides the lightest and smallest reentry shape.

The difficulty in minimizing the ascent/entry volume of the vehicle became a driving factor because this volume must accommodate a maximum crew of six for the Mars return mission. Once the ascent/entry volume for six was determined, all other DRM crew sizes by definition will fit in this volume. A CEV sized for the six-crew DRM is the minimum size for the ascent/entry module.

The study found a single volume, which is less complex from a build-and-integrate standpoint, to be more mass-efficient and volume-efficient for a given mass. A larger single-volume vehicle also has lower entry heating and g’s as a result of a larger surface area, and thereby lower ballistic coefficient, than a smaller ascent/entry split volume. A mission module was determined to not be required for the ISS and the Mars return DRMs and was of limited value to the lunar DRM, if the single volume is large enough, and the CEV is not taken all the way to the lunar surface.

Of course that doesn't mean split would not be the better choice today.

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/28/2017 07:43 pm
Except a smaller entry capsule means less heat shield mass, less LAS mass, less parachute, less a lot of things.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 01/30/2017 07:42 am
The Boeing CEV proposal had a mission module.

http://www.astronautix.com/c/cevboeing.html

The capsule was 6.5t while the mission module was 5t. But the mission module looks big on the picture. A lot more combined volume than Orion.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 01/30/2017 09:05 am
The Boeing CEV proposal was lovely! I think the sole drawback was that it only supported a crew of four. NASA was adamant about the Mars mission requirement being a crew of six.... (And yes, they were equally determined to bring the Earth atmosphere re-entry vehicle all the way to Mars and back.)

So Oli, it's those darn requirements again!

;)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 02/03/2017 09:03 am
The Boeing CEV proposal was lovely! I think the sole drawback was that it only supported a crew of four. NASA was adamant about the Mars mission requirement being a crew of six.... (And yes, they were equally determined to bring the Earth atmosphere re-entry vehicle all the way to Mars and back.)

So Oli, it's those darn requirements again!

;)

Mars return requires only 2 days of stand-alone free-flight capability. Kind of surprised the Boeing CEV couldn't bring back more than a crew of 4, it's the same size as CST-100. Looks like BEO capability takes up volume beyond mere supplies.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 02/07/2017 02:28 am
NASA's Rick Mastracchio discusses how Astronaut Office is getting Orion ready to fly

SpaceFlight Insider - Official Page

Published on Feb 6, 2017
NASA astronaut Rick Mastracchio and the agency's Orion Assistant Manager for Integration, Annette Hasbrook spoke with SpaceFlight Insider about how the spacecraft, Mission Control, the crews who would fly in her - are all being designed to ensure crew survival - and mission success.

https://youtu.be/WH2FJ257yWs?t=001

https://youtu.be/WH2FJ257yWs
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jgoldader on 02/27/2017 10:09 am
With all the talk of possibly putting people on EM-1, is there a summary here or elsewhere about the current state of the ECLSS?  I confess to not having followed the Orion development stuff closely, but about all I know is that EM-1 was not going to have the regular/full ECLSS.  For example, does it exist entirely on paper, or has a "breadboard" been built yet for preliminary testing?  Is the system at a sufficiently advanced stage that building it is just a matter of money, or is there a lot of "how do we do that?" still to be worked out?  And, how would it be tested--two weeks in a space environment chamber with a CO2 generator?  Might make a good article (hint, beg, whatever).  Thanks!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 02/27/2017 11:14 am
Question:  Why is the Orion crew module so heavy?  Compare Orion's figures (from the attached document) with those of Apollo's command module (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module)):

CharacteristicUnitApolloOrionOrion/Apollo
Masslbm12,25021,6501.8
Pressurized Volumeft33666911.9
Habitable Volumeft32183161.5
Habitable/Pressurized Volume--0.600.460.77
Lengthft11.410.90.96
Diameterft12.816.61.3
Crew Size--341.3


You might look at the numbers and say that Orion's mass scales up from Apollo's in approximately the same ratio as the pressurized volume.  At the level of basic physics, that makes some sense.  But, considering the advances in materials and, especially avionics since the mid-1960s, shouldn't Orion be quite a bit lighter than it is?  And why is the fraction of pressurized volume that's habitable in Orion smaller than in Apollo?  I'd have thought that Orion's larger diameter would increase the efficiency volume utilization.

You might also argue that to some extent mass should scale with crew size (ECLSS, crew seats, etc.), but, again, Orion seems quite overweight by that metric, even before consideration of four decades' worth of technological advances.

Does Orion's CM take over some of the functionality that was provided by the SM on Apollo?  Is there some other way in which its functionality is much greater than that of Apollo's CM?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/27/2017 11:21 am
What atmosphere is Orion pressurized with? Apollo only had 5 psi in flight.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 02/27/2017 11:29 am
That's a good point: other things being equal, it would tend to triple the mass of the pressure vessel and no doubt increase the mass of the ECLSS and some other systems too.  That then begs the question of how much of Apollo's mass was accounted for by the pressure vessel.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 02/27/2017 12:35 pm
Actually, pressure can't have much to do with it.  The pressure being of the order of 100 kPa, the specific strength of aluminum being on the order of 100 kJ/kg and the volume being on the order of 10 m3, the mass of a spherical pressure vessel of the same volume  is on the order of (100 kPa)(10 m3)/(100 kJ/kg), i.e., a number on the order of 10 kg.  No doubt the actual pressure shell is quite a bit more massive than that, but the role of Orion's higher pressure can't be very large.

Per Wikipedia (loc. cit. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module)), the entire structural mass of Apollo's CM was just 3450 lbm, i.e., only 28% of the CM's total mass.

Now, that pressure-vessel mass of 10 kg seems awfully low to me, so I've done a reality check by looking at scuba tanks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_cylinder).  Apparently, a typical tank contains the equivalent of 2 m3 of sea-level-pressure air.  I don't know what the tanks weigh, but they're obviously nearer 10 kg than 100 kg.  And, of course, that includes things aside from the pressure vessel itself, which no doubt has a large safety margin built into it.  So, 10 kg for a pure pressure vessel with five times the capacity does not seem outrageous.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 02/27/2017 01:33 pm
I get about 120 kg for a sphere-capped conical balloon of high strength aluminum, of roughly Orion's dimensions and holding in 100 kPa... so not really that far off your first estimate. However, there are a lot of detailed parts that are not under pure tension, like hatches, valves, windows, etc. Those scale non-linearly with pressure because they are subjected to bending.

If I recall correctly, Apollo used 33 kPa pure O2 because of the extra ECLSS mass that would have been required for a nitroxy atmosphere.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/27/2017 03:15 pm
With all the talk of possibly putting people on EM-1, is there a summary here or elsewhere about the current state of the ECLSS?  I confess to not having followed the Orion development stuff closely, but about all I know is that EM-1 was not going to have the regular/full ECLSS.  For example, does it exist entirely on paper, or has a "breadboard" been built yet for preliminary testing?  Is the system at a sufficiently advanced stage that building it is just a matter of money, or is there a lot of "how do we do that?" still to be worked out?  And, how would it be tested--two weeks in a space environment chamber with a CO2 generator?  Might make a good article (hint, beg, whatever).  Thanks!

State of the ECLSS.

Looking at the photographs in this thread and the update thread I can see plenty of progress on the layout and propulsion side of the Orion. What I do not see is a group of people (or animals) locked in a sealed room for 2 weeks to test the ECLSS.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Arch Admiral on 02/27/2017 07:46 pm
Another difference from Apollo is that Orion was originally designed to touchdown ON LAND with only parachutes and airbags, no Soyuz-style rockets. This imposed brutal loads, especially when the airbags burst as they usually did in tests under the big crane at Langley. This alone required a much more rugged structure. Weight growth has required a reversion to water landing where the loads are much weaker, but there is no time or money to redesign the spacecraft.

As for new technology, Orion was specifically designed NOT to use new and untested technology. That's why the heat shield is a straight copy of Apollo's, made in the same factory, in the same room, with some of the same equipment.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/28/2017 05:37 am
Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 02/28/2017 12:02 pm
Another difference from Apollo is that Orion was originally designed to touchdown ON LAND with only parachutes and airbags, no Soyuz-style rockets. This imposed brutal loads, especially when the airbags burst as they usually did in tests under the big crane at Langley. This alone required a much more rugged structure. Weight growth has required a reversion to water landing where the loads are much weaker, but there is no time or money to redesign the spacecraft.

Apollo was originally intended for touchdown on land too, though I'd be very surprised if its designers did not take full advantage of the reversion to splashdowns to trim weight.

Are you sure weight was not trimmed after touchdown on land was eliminated?  Weight seemed to be such a big problem during the Ares I era that I'd have thought no opportunity to slim down would have been missed.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 02/28/2017 12:15 pm
A major factor in Orion's relatively large mass may be the launch-abort acceleration it need tolerate.  The attached spreadsheet indicates accelerations around 10.6 G for Orion versus 6.7 for Apollo.  Drag would reduce those figures some, though probably not a lot for a pad abort.

This NSF article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/02/orion-las-to-be-less-harrowing-than-apollo/) on Orion's LAS describes an Orion abort as being "less harrowing" than an Apollo abort.  Interestingly, however, the article mentions an acceleration of 6 G for Apollo but does not actually quote a figure for Orion.  What it does suggest is that the jerk (rate of change in acceleration) may be less than for Apollo.  And it makes sense that Orion would need a higher peak acceleration during abort given 1) the lower jerk, and 2) the inability to shutdown SLS's SRBs.

EDIT:  "less than Apollo" -> "less than for Apollo" in penultimate sentence.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 03/01/2017 05:36 am
The Boeing CEV proposal had a mission module.

http://www.astronautix.com/c/cevboeing.html

The capsule was 6.5t while the mission module was 5t. But the mission module looks big on the picture. A lot more combined volume than Orion.
Use of an OM would save a lot of mass.
Though if I were to do a major redesign on a second generation Orion I'd go with the habitation module in back with access through a door in the heat shield like Gemini B or go with a biconic design or the original LEM lifting CEV proposal so the LAS doesn't need to be powerful enough to lift both the OM and DM.
Plus the habitation module doesn't need to be designed to handle abort g forces and the reentry vehicle is left in the proper configuration for EDL without any extra separation events.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 03/01/2017 06:13 am
A major factor in Orion's relatively large mass may be the launch-abort acceleration it need tolerate.  The attached

Have you looked at the TLI loading for each? I think for Apollo the LM was not on the capsule's nose during TLI, but for CxP Altair would have been (i.e. eyeballs out load paths)? Also for LOI?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Patchouli on 03/01/2017 06:40 am
I read they kept the J2X at less than 80% thrust to minimize stress on the stack and crew but still the docking connector would have a tough job.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/01/2017 10:37 am
A major factor in Orion's relatively large mass may be the launch-abort acceleration it need tolerate.  The attached

Have you looked at the TLI loading for each? I think for Apollo the LM was not on the capsule's nose during TLI, but for CxP Altair would have been (i.e. eyeballs out load paths)? Also for LOI?

Good point.  We need to know the thrust of Altair's descent engine and Altair's wet mass.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: corneliussulla on 03/04/2017 01:15 pm
Before 1 man travels in the Orion $16 billion will have been spent on development. This is more than Musk is suggesting for development of the ITS. It is also $3 billion more than a fully loaded Nimitz class carrier.

This seems like a tragic waste of resources and why NASA should never be allowed develop another spacecraft. Any requirements should be written in broadest possible terms and fixed price contracts only. E.G. Requirement for delivery of 10 people to Mars surface with 80 tonnes of cargo by 2030.

That way maybe we will get something done.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 03/04/2017 10:17 pm
Before 1 man travels in the Orion $16 billion will have been spent on development. This is more than Musk is suggesting for development of the ITS. It is also $3 billion more than a fully loaded Nimitz class carrier.

This seems like a tragic waste of resources and why NASA should never be allowed develop another spacecraft. Any requirements should be written in broadest possible terms and fixed price contracts only. E.G. Requirement for delivery of 10 people to Mars surface with 80 tonnes of cargo by 2030.

That way maybe we will get something done.
Fixed price contracts aren't the panacea people seem to think they are. Very few fixed-price contracts cover everything front to back or lock in any follow-on prices. This means any overruns in the initial contract will just get passed on to these follow-on contracts. Just look at SpaceX's CRS-1 contract. 12 flights for 1.6 billion dollars, while the 8 extension flights were 1.5 billion dollars. A 30% increase isn't inflation, it's shifted overruns.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/04/2017 10:59 pm
Any requirements should be written in broadest possible terms and fixed price contracts only.

completely infeasible and nonsensical. 
Spacex would have been out of the business if they did that for ISS cargo.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 03/05/2017 01:04 am
Not that I am an expert by any means in this field, but I agree with Jim.  Some large companies will not even bid a fixed price contract.  Too much risk.  Customer changes stuff.  Fixed Price.  Eat the cost.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/05/2017 03:09 am
Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?

Go into orbit around the Moon and return to Earth.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/05/2017 06:48 am
Not that I am an expert by any means in this field, but I agree with Jim.  Some large companies will not even bid a fixed price contract.  Too much risk.  Customer changes stuff.  Fixed Price.  Eat the cost.

On a fixed price contract you do not allow the customer to change the specifications. That is why government departments (unofficially) prefer cost plus. Extra stages that increase the price and either delay the deliver date or are a mark 2 may be a compromise that allows financial control.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: darkenfast on 03/05/2017 07:34 am
Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?

Go into orbit around the Moon and return to Earth.
Does Orion have the fuel capacity to go into Lunar orbit and return?  I thought it couldn't do that.  In the original proposal for a lunar version, the lander (with LH/LOX engines), provided the LOI burn.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 03/05/2017 08:06 am
Does Orion have the fuel capacity to go into Lunar orbit and return?

As currently designed
and built, the Orion vehicle is around 25 t, with around 8 t of
usable propellant. This leaves a total ∆V budget of around
1250 m/s with a total lifetime of 21 days for 4 crew members.
Thus any orbit designed needs to cost less than 1250 m/s to
enter and leave the orbit, or additional, currently unplanned,
transportation elements will be required.
[...]
circular orbit (3,000
to 5,000 km altitude), Elliptical orbit (100 x 10,000 km
altitude) and frozen orbit (800 x 8,800 km altitude) respectively.
All of these orbits are round trip accessible by Orion
for specific epochs. However, the performance margins are
small and the total costs are irregular.
[...]
. For the L2 Halo, the cost varies
depending on the size of the halo and it’s location, but the
optimal cost can be as low as 637 m/s for a 31 day mission or
around 811 m/s for an 18 day mission. For the DRO the
cost can also vary; for a 70,000 km DRO the ∆V cost can be
as low as 840 m/s for a 26 day mission.


https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019648.pdf

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 03/05/2017 10:16 am
Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?

BEO Dragon (I assume it will be a special version) cannot go in and out of L1/L2/LDRO (the likely destinations for NASA), it doesn't have enough fuel/efficient propulsion.

From what we know BEO Dragon can support a crew of 2 for 7 days. Barely sufficient for getting to L1 and back but not for L2/LDRO.

Other considerations: MMOD and radiation protection for longer duration missions.

I bet though NASA could get those upgrades from SpaceX for the cost of 2 years of Orion development or less.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/05/2017 12:21 pm
The Orion's guidance system, extra propellant and consumables gives it a valid reason to exist. The team now need to make a video showing Orion flying 4 people to a spacestation in lunar orbit. The spacestation despatching a Mars Transfer Vehicle and a lunar lander. At the end of the mission the Orion returns everyone safely to Earth.

This is a head start not a monopoly. So get it flying.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: corneliussulla on 03/06/2017 05:25 am
Any requirements should be written in broadest possible terms and fixed price contracts only.

completely infeasible and nonsensical. 
Spacex would have been out of the business if they did that for ISS cargo.

You misunderstand my point. NASA writes it requirements in the broadest possible terms. Of course any response would have to be specific and contracts agreed on specific detail.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: corneliussulla on 03/06/2017 05:40 am
Fixed price contracts aren't the panacea people seem to think they are. Very few fixed-price contracts cover everything front to back or lock in any follow-on prices. This means any overruns in the initial contract will just get passed on to these follow-on contracts. Just look at SpaceX's CRS-1 contract. 12 flights for 1.6 billion dollars, while the 8 extension flights were 1.5 billion dollars. A 30% increase isn't inflation, it's shifted overruns.
[/quote]

SpaceX met Its commitment under the first fixed price contract CRS-1. NASA did not have to accept SPaceX next bid. SpaceX may not have had any overruns at all, it may just have increased its profit margins given it knew its rivals couldn't match the higher price. I would love to know dragon2 development costs versus Orion $16 billion. I know they are different craft but not different enough to warrant the vast difference in cost. In fact the SpaceX craft employs newer tech in many ways.

Nobody can seriously think that $16 bill was good value for money. We can tell NASA doesn't think so given the fact that it went out to tender for New orion or a replacement with similar capabilities a few months ago
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: corneliussulla on 03/06/2017 05:59 am
The Orion's guidance system, extra propellant and consumables gives it a valid reason to exist. The team now need to make a video showing Orion flying 4 people to a spacestation in lunar orbit. The spacestation despatching a Mars Transfer Vehicle and a lunar lander. At the end of the mission the Orion returns everyone safely to Earth.

This is a head start not a monopoly. So get it flying.

Another video of something which is unlikely to happen.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: darkenfast on 03/06/2017 06:34 am
Does Orion have the fuel capacity to go into Lunar orbit and return?

As currently designed
and built, the Orion vehicle is around 25 t, with around 8 t of
usable propellant. This leaves a total ∆V budget of around
1250 m/s with a total lifetime of 21 days for 4 crew members.
Thus any orbit designed needs to cost less than 1250 m/s to
enter and leave the orbit, or additional, currently unplanned,
transportation elements will be required.
[...]
circular orbit (3,000
to 5,000 km altitude), Elliptical orbit (100 x 10,000 km
altitude) and frozen orbit (800 x 8,800 km altitude) respectively.
All of these orbits are round trip accessible by Orion
for specific epochs. However, the performance margins are
small and the total costs are irregular.
[...]
. For the L2 Halo, the cost varies
depending on the size of the halo and it’s location, but the
optimal cost can be as low as 637 m/s for a 31 day mission or
around 811 m/s for an 18 day mission. For the DRO the
cost can also vary; for a 70,000 km DRO the ∆V cost can be
as low as 840 m/s for a 26 day mission.


https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019648.pdf


Thank you.  I had made the bad assumption that Lunar orbit meant low orbit, such as Apollo did.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 03/06/2017 02:41 pm
Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?

BEO Dragon (I assume it will be a special version) cannot go in and out of L1/L2/LDRO (the likely destinations for NASA), it doesn't have enough fuel/efficient propulsion.

This is not obvious. The DragonFly test article had sufficient fuel to get 744 m/s from its Dracos, which is enough to get to some DRO orbits and back with a small payload. SpaceX hasn't made any claims for the capabilities of Dragon 2 in this regard, but Red Dragon will need over 800 m/s since that's required for Mars EDL.

Quote
From what we know BEO Dragon can support a crew of 2 for 7 days. Barely sufficient for getting to L1 and back but not for L2/LDRO.

Other considerations: MMOD and radiation protection for longer duration missions.

I bet though NASA could get those upgrades from SpaceX for the cost of 2 years of Orion development or less.

Again, this are all real concerns, but we don't really know what Dragon 2 can or cannot do. We do know Starliner won't be going BEO anytime soon, but the Dragon-Orion comparison is pretty vague - and that's likely intentional. SpaceX doesn't want to poke NASA any more than necessary.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 03/06/2017 04:47 pm
Fix your quotes, people!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 03/06/2017 11:46 pm
Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?

Go into orbit around the Moon and return to Earth.

For Starliner CST-100 you are correct. It was never intended for beyond LEO operations. However Dragon v2 is intended for that. As for lunar orbit and earth return, that is not a function of the Dragon spacecraft, Steven. That is a reflection of the propulsion systems used to get them there.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 03/07/2017 04:57 am
I had made the bad assumption that Lunar orbit meant low orbit, such as Apollo did.

Exactly -- we all tend to use the Apollo architecture as a baseline in our thinking. But note that of the orbits listed in that paper the easiest to get into (and out of) in terms of LOI (and TEI) delta-v are hardly lunar orbits at all! The orbits around EML-1 and EML-2 for example don't go around the Moon.

Orion as it is designed and being built is totally capable of bringing a crew to a rendezvous point in those orbits and then waiting there as the crew goes off in a lander to spend time on the lunar surface.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/07/2017 07:46 am
Yet the mission for which Orion is designed includes staging in low lunar orbit.  That's pretty striking when you consider that access to the lunar poles was a design requirement.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 03/08/2017 04:30 pm
Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?

Go into orbit around the Moon and return to Earth.

For Starliner CST-100 you are correct. It was never intended for beyond LEO operations. However Dragon v2 is intended for that. As for lunar orbit and earth return, that is not a function of the Dragon spacecraft, Steven. That is a reflection of the propulsion systems used to get them there.

How is Dragon V2 designed for BLEO? 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rockets4life97 on 03/08/2017 04:56 pm

How is Dragon V2 designed for BLEO?

The first part of the answer is the heat shield. It is overbuilt for LEO. It will allow for higher speed re-entry that is required for BLEO missions. The moon free return mission is the case in point.

The second part is the ECLSS system can handle longer duration missions.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 03/08/2017 05:14 pm

How is Dragon V2 designed for BLEO?

The first part of the answer is the heat shield. It is overbuilt for LEO. It will allow for higher speed re-entry that is required for BLEO missions. The moon free return mission is the case in point.

The second part is the ECLSS system can handle longer duration missions.

I understand the heat shield (otherwise the moon mission would be off the table) but the ECLSS?  I haven't seen anything indicating how long the ECLSS can support crew.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 03/08/2017 05:29 pm

How is Dragon V2 designed for BLEO?

The first part of the answer is the heat shield. It is overbuilt for LEO. It will allow for higher speed re-entry that is required for BLEO missions. The moon free return mission is the case in point.

The second part is the ECLSS system can handle longer duration missions.

I understand the heat shield (otherwise the moon mission would be off the table) but the ECLSS?  I haven't seen anything indicating how long the ECLSS can support crew.

I have. And it's substantially longer than the few days required to hop crews to and from the ISS.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 03/08/2017 06:06 pm
Don't forget it's designed for 7 people. Take 4 or 5 out, and you'll be able to stretch the ECLSS a lot further already.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 03/08/2017 07:44 pm

How is Dragon V2 designed for BLEO?

The first part of the answer is the heat shield. It is overbuilt for LEO. It will allow for higher speed re-entry that is required for BLEO missions. The moon free return mission is the case in point.

The second part is the ECLSS system can handle longer duration missions.

I understand the heat shield (otherwise the moon mission would be off the table) but the ECLSS?  I haven't seen anything indicating how long the ECLSS can support crew.

I have. And it's substantially longer than the few days required to hop crews to and from the ISS.

Understood and thank you for the update. 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 03/09/2017 06:21 am
Yet the mission for which Orion is designed includes staging in low lunar orbit.  That's pretty striking when you consider that access to the lunar poles was a design requirement.

It's all about the engine(s) used for LOI and lunar braking descent. In this context that is to say, "For Orion, lunar surface access was all about Altair."
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: b0objunior on 03/09/2017 06:32 am

How is Dragon V2 designed for BLEO?

The first part of the answer is the heat shield. It is overbuilt for LEO. It will allow for higher speed re-entry that is required for BLEO missions. The moon free return mission is the case in point.

The second part is the ECLSS system can handle longer duration missions.

I understand the heat shield (otherwise the moon mission would be off the table) but the ECLSS?  I haven't seen anything indicating how long the ECLSS can support crew.

I have. And it's substantially longer than the few days required to hop crews to and from the ISS.
What, like a week or more?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Flying Beaver on 03/09/2017 08:56 pm
Could the launch trajectory be changed for a crewed EM-1 to launch into the plane of the ISS? It would be still possible to get to the Moon (be it only one window a month), and it would allow the ISS to be used as a life-boat if a docking port was added to Orion for the flight (or maybe just EVA transfer :P).

Only real reason though would be orbital debris or MMO strikes to the heat shield in LEO.

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Norm38 on 07/08/2017 09:00 pm
NASA: "It's cool, we were going to clean it anyway".

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/07/politics/mike-pence-nasa-picture/index.html
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AnnK on 07/09/2017 10:50 pm
Orion is a terrible waste of money and resourses. Boeing and SpaceX are going to be in space with their crewed product 5 years ahead of the first Orion flight. Really how long will it take for either to come up with a service module that surpasses Orion? The problem with Orion is it was designed by Congressional commitee. It is designed to deliver as much pork as possible to the Congressional leaders districts.

I am sure that SpaceX and even Boeing (If they want) will be on Mars before the Orion program can really start with flights. NASA is all about risk adversion and the horror about losing astronaughts. Life is well dangerous and driving our ground cars is taking our life in our own hands.

I think Orion should be canceled and NASA should support companies that will design and operate our next series of spacecraft. The orgional Apollo program had inspiration and not the crippling risk adversion of today. We are going to lose people and there is no getting around that fact.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 07/10/2017 03:04 am
Orion is a terrible waste of money and resourses. Boeing and SpaceX are going to be in space with their crewed product 5 years ahead of the first Orion flight.......

While I think everybody knows that Orion has many issues I think comparing something designed for BEO flight to a system (Starliner) designed for LEO taxi duty is unfair. Starliner's job is to get people from Earth to LEO. Its heat shield and ECLSS are insufficient for BEO flight. It is a perfectly good spacecraft for the job its being asked to do but it can't (without major, major mods and redesigns) go BEO manned.

As for Dragon, which has been designed with BEO capability, we still don't know the extent of its usefulness in the BEO regime. Its heatshield is BEO rated but in terms of propulsion and ECLSS Orion is superior AFAIK.

Quote
I am sure that SpaceX and even Boeing (If they want) will be on Mars before the Orion program can really start with flights.


If you mean "on Mars with humans" (in 6 years) I have some ocean front real estate in Oklahoma to sell you.  :)Elon and SpaceX have been making lots of progress with their Mars plans but even the rosiest of schedules doesn't show manned landings in 6 years.

Quote
NASA is all about risk adversion and the horror about losing astronaughts. Life is well dangerous and driving our ground cars is taking our life in our own hands.

While I agree with you that groups like ASAP sometimes push for unrealistic safety standards I think going to the other extreme isn't helpful either. Remember, astronauts are real people with real lives and real families. Balance must be kept between maintaining the safety of astronauts and pushing the boundaries of spaceflight.

Quote
I think Orion should be canceled and NASA should support companies that will design and operate our next series of spacecraft.

NASA is already supporting Boeing and SpaceX through commercial crew contracts.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AnnK on 07/10/2017 11:00 pm
Going straight from a Mars to Earth reentry is an old fashion NASA concept. Any returning craft need just to enter Earth orbit and at the right time reenter the Earths atmosphere. The Orion is over engineered and has too much mass. The Dragon 2 or Starliner will work better with the right service module. NASA loves to waste money and throw away the entire spacecraft. Boeing and SpaceX can develop new service modules long before the overprice, overengineered Orion will ever make a crewed flight. It is time to remove this pork from the picture.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/10/2017 11:22 pm
Going straight from a Mars to Earth reentry is an old fashion NASA concept.

No, it's efficient.

Quote
Any returning craft need just to enter Earth orbit and at the right time reenter the Earths atmosphere.

Entering Earth orbit after returning from Mars would require lots of fuel. If you think Orion has too much mass now, it would require much, much more fuel mass to enter Earth orbit after returning from Mars. A direct reentry is more efficient.

Quote
The Orion is over engineered and has too much mass. The Dragon 2 or Starliner will work better with the right service module. NASA loves to waste money and throw away the entire spacecraft. Boeing and SpaceX can develop new service modules long before the overprice, overengineered Orion will ever make a crewed flight. It is time to remove this pork from the picture.

Neither Dragon nor Starliner are capable of doing much what Orion is designed to be able to do, regardless of the capabilities of their service modules.

NASA for the most part does the best it can with the money it gets, which really isn't much, all things considered. And NASA has to work within the constraints of the directions it receives from Congress, they can't just do whatever it wants to do.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/11/2017 01:11 pm
Going straight from a Mars to Earth reentry is an old fashion NASA concept. Any returning craft need just to enter Earth orbit and at the right time reenter the Earths atmosphere.

That is idiotic.  The propellant required to enter earth orbit would necessitate a stage the same size that was used to leave earth orbit.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 07/11/2017 05:51 pm
Going straight from a Mars to Earth reentry is an old fashion NASA concept. Any returning craft need just to enter Earth orbit and at the right time reenter the Earths atmosphere.

That is idiotic.  The propellant required to enter earth orbit would necessitate a stage the same size that was used to leave earth orbit.

A more generous interpretation of the comment would be that aerocapture is used to enter Earth orbit. But that is also tricky and requires a spacecraft capable of handling the aerocapture.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/11/2017 06:07 pm

A more generous interpretation of the comment would be that aerocapture is used to enter Earth orbit. But that is also tricky and requires a spacecraft capable of handling the aerocapture.

And if you are going to do that, might as well just go all the way and land
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/11/2017 08:25 pm
Neither Dragon nor Starliner are capable of doing much what Orion is designed to be able to do, regardless of the capabilities of their service modules.

We need to keep in mind though that the Orion is just a transportation system. It doesn't have an airlock, and is not meant to be occupied for more than 21 total days during it's mission - and keeping more than 2 people in that small of space for 21 days would be very taxing for passengers. It is basic transportation for Earth-local trips.

Alternative transportation systems, if needed, are already near-term possibilities.

Quote
NASA for the most part does the best it can with the money it gets, which really isn't much, all things considered.

Through 2015 the Orion program had consumed $11B, and it is projected to consume another $9B by the time it is able to become operational - for a total of $20B. And that is just the development cost, it does not include the cost of building each expendable CM+SM shipset.

As a comparison, the ISS program started in 1985 and thru 2015 it was estimated (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1) that NASA's part of it would end up being $72.4B in 2010 dollars. And the ISS is a reusable vehicle/space station.

The cost difference - the value that NASA & the U.S. Taxpayer gets from the money spent - is certainly part of the reason why the Orion is not universally loved...

Quote
And NASA has to work within the constraints of the directions it receives from Congress, they can't just do whatever it wants to do.

As the existence of the Orion proves.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AnnK on 07/12/2017 05:20 am

A more generous interpretation of the comment would be that aerocapture is used to enter Earth orbit. But that is also tricky and requires a spacecraft capable of handling the aerocapture.

And if you are going to do that, might as well just go all the way and land

Of course land as in how much of the spacecraft? NASA will throw almost all of theirs away. It reminds me of Apollo and their launch vehicile/ reentry vehicile reminds me too much of the shuttle. Modified center tank, soild boosters and tiles are a recipe for diaster.

I believe like Elon Musk that as much of the spacecraft needs to be reused as possible. It is my understanding that aerobraking will be used at first but in the future all things are possible.

My experience is mostly aviation but has a space element. My biggest complaint with NASA is that is is just another type of pork.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/12/2017 03:52 pm
Going straight from a Mars to Earth reentry is an old fashion NASA concept. Any returning craft need just to enter Earth orbit and at the right time reenter the Earths atmosphere.

That is idiotic.  The propellant required to enter earth orbit would necessitate a stage the same size that was used to leave earth orbit.

This is only true if pushing the same vehicle with the same payload into the same orbit for entry as for departure. But almost no proposed Mars architectures do this.

For example, a chemical Mars Orbital mission needs to send its return fuel through TMI, which already makes the departure stage FAR larger than the return stage. And chemical departure is typically proposed from LEO (vs SEP from HEO), while capture is typically into cislunar Earth orbit, which requires about 1/4 the delta-v compared to a LEO departure.

A chemical return craft could propulsively capture into high earth orbit for on the order of 1,000 m/s (depends somewhat on the type of return), for a cislunar Orion rendezvous and return. This will be more efficient than dragging Orion through TMI, Mars orbit injection, and TEI for any return craft that masses under 40 tonnes. This uses Orion to do what it is actually designed for: a cislunar taxi. It's not an interplanetary vehicle.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/12/2017 04:02 pm

1.  Of course land as in how much of the spacecraft?

2.   Modified center tank, soild boosters and tiles are a recipe for diaster.

3.  My experience is mostly aviation but has a space element. My biggest complaint with NASA is that is is just another type of pork.

1.  Doesn't matter.  The change in velocity is the same.

2.  Irrelevant for this topic, not to mention blatantly wrong.

3.  And that type of incorrect sweeping characterization discredits any further statements.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/12/2017 04:41 pm
Entering Earth orbit after returning from Mars would require lots of fuel. If you think Orion has too much mass now, it would require much, much more fuel mass to enter Earth orbit after returning from Mars. A direct reentry is more efficient.

Orion is 20+ tonnes of dead mass in interplanetary space, it doesn't have the endurance for more than a trip to cislunar space and back. Replacing it with an equivalent mass of fuel and propulsion would allow a large in-space-only transfer hab to propulsively brake into HEO for rendezvous with an Orion taxi.

This is the current plan for using Orion, the DSG, and the DST. Orion isn't going to Mars, and it isn't doing direct entry from Mars.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/12/2017 05:04 pm
Orion is 20+ tonnes of dead mass in interplanetary space,

Wrong, it serves as a safe haven and backup control center.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/12/2017 05:05 pm
This uses Orion to do what it is actually designed for:......

wrong
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/12/2017 05:40 pm
Orion is 20+ tonnes of dead mass in interplanetary space,

Wrong, it serves as a safe haven and backup control center.

For how long out of the year+ trip to Mars and back? For 90+% of the trip, a major issue with the transit vehicle will result in LOC even if Orion is there.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/12/2017 05:53 pm
Early Mars architectures, like Von Braun's visualized by Disney, envisioned multiple vehicles of like kind in self-support enroute at the same time.

A DST is already mass limited given propulsion, offloading to a Mars gateway hibernated resources likely prepositioned with other transport.

A minimalist mission smaller wouldn't benefit with "backup control center" (mostly software, telecom, integration).
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: tea monster on 07/12/2017 05:58 pm
For how long out of the year+ trip to Mars and back? For 90+% of the trip, a major issue with the transit vehicle will result in LOC even if Orion is there.

Hopefully you never need to use it at all. But if you need to use it just once, you will be damned glad its there.
There are all sorts of scenarios where something can go wrong and not take out the vehicle and crew.

One actually flew - Apollo 13.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/12/2017 06:10 pm
For how long out of the year+ trip to Mars and back? For 90+% of the trip, a major issue with the transit vehicle will result in LOC even if Orion is there.

Not true at all.  If you are going to criticize the concept, first try to understand it.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/12/2017 08:39 pm
For how long out of the year+ trip to Mars and back? For 90+% of the trip, a major issue with the transit vehicle will result in LOC even if Orion is there.

Not true at all.  If you are going to criticize the concept, first try to understand it.

That doesn't answer my question. How long is a crew going to be able live in Orion if the transit vehicle is uninhabitable?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/12/2017 08:54 pm
Contingencies have to have a sensible conclusion. Not just ... hold your breath  ::)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/13/2017 11:23 am
For how long out of the year+ trip to Mars and back? For 90+% of the trip, a major issue with the transit vehicle will result in LOC even if Orion is there.

Not true at all.  If you are going to criticize the concept, first try to understand it.

That doesn't answer my question. How long is a crew going to be able live in Orion if the transit vehicle is uninhabitable?

If you are asking that question, then you don't understand it.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/13/2017 02:54 pm
For how long out of the year+ trip to Mars and back? For 90+% of the trip, a major issue with the transit vehicle will result in LOC even if Orion is there.

Not true at all.  If you are going to criticize the concept, first try to understand it.

That doesn't answer my question. How long is a crew going to be able live in Orion if the transit vehicle is uninhabitable?

If you are asking that question, then you don't understand it.

Surely an short explanation would have been simpler than 4 consecutive posts of "you're wrong" without any of them adding anything to the discussion...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: BrightLight on 07/13/2017 03:15 pm
For how long out of the year+ trip to Mars and back? For 90+% of the trip, a major issue with the transit vehicle will result in LOC even if Orion is there.

Not true at all.  If you are going to criticize the concept, first try to understand it.

That doesn't answer my question. How long is a crew going to be able live in Orion if the transit vehicle is uninhabitable?

If you are asking that question, then you don't understand it.

Surely an short explanation would have been simpler than 4 consecutive posts of "you're wrong" without any of them adding anything to the discussion...
It appears that the Mars Transit Vehicle will not have an Orion connected with it, the point of the DSG and Transit Vehicle in Cis-lunar orbit is to evaluate and characterize the requirements for a Mars mission with long-duration experiments  - the LOM/LOC issues will be mitigated there.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/13/2017 03:27 pm
It appears that the Mars Transit Vehicle will not have an Orion connected with it, the point of the DSG and Transit Vehicle in Cis-lunar orbit is to evaluate and characterize the requirements for a Mars mission with long-duration experiments  - the LOM/LOC issues will be mitigated there.

Already noted above. And in the DSG/DST concept, Orion never leaves cislunar space, so the whole discussion of direct interplanetary entry vs propulsive capture to HEO is irrelevant.

In the older DSH+Orion concept, Orion was to do direct interplanetary entry on return from Mars.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/14/2017 02:03 am
Early Mars architectures, like Von Braun's visualized by Disney, envisioned multiple vehicles of like kind in self-support enroute at the same time.

Elon Musk talks about the same for their interplanetary transportation plans.

I think we need to shake off the limitations we are setting for ourselves with single-launch and single-ship transportation architectures. Apollo was built to satisfy a political goal, and it was not designed to be the best way to get to our Moon, so we shouldn't automatically think that the same model is the best architecture to standardize on. And if the U.S. Government is truly going to go to Mars, then we should go in a way that is sustainable and redundant - meaning multiple reusable spaceships.

And before NASA was locked into the SLS/Orion transportation architecture it was looking at reusable in-space only transportation systems, like Nautilus-X and the Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV).

If two or more Nautilus-X ships are traveling to Mars, and one of them experiences a problem, then an SEV can be used to move crew between ships - problem solved. With such a capability there would probably be some crew movement between ships anyways during the journey, so it would not be an unusual thing to do.

An Orion would not be well suited for such a task since it's not currently re-fuelable or reusable. It would only be an emergency vehicle, but even then if there is only one transport ship, the Orion is not going to be a permanent lifeboat due to it's limited capabilities, so another transport ship would be required for redundancy anyways.

For now the Orion is best assumed to stay in Earth-local space.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/14/2017 03:32 am
This is an useful topic. Tempted to setup another thread "Comparative interplanetary HSF mission contingencies", but not sure about others enthusiasm/commitment for a serious discussion for such as this.

(Totally blown away by Jim's cryptic posts. Hard to reconcile them to the recent DSG/DST concept, best could figure was it matched the prior concepts that brought along Orion, as if we're supposed to read minds to learn hidden detail that the newer concept isn't real w/o Orion tagging along, even though propulsion requires it not to be.)

On this thread we should discuss the scope of Orion, its capabilities, and the details of mission contingencies it supports. In a quick scan of recent (last two years) could not find much to corroborate claims on this thread.

Early Mars architectures, like Von Braun's visualized by Disney, envisioned multiple vehicles of like kind in self-support enroute at the same time.

Elon Musk talks about the same for their interplanetary transportation plans.

I think we need to shake off the limitations we are setting for ourselves with single-launch and single-ship transportation architectures.

AIUI, Musk suggests the first few flights (the riskiest) would be  single ship sorties, working gradually up to doubling the "fleet" every synod.

Quote
Apollo was built to satisfy a political goal, and it was not designed to be the best way to get to our Moon, so we shouldn't automatically think that the same model is the best architecture to standardize on.
The use of the (originally) LEM was only to be a mission module.

Apollo 13 improvised its LM into an insane plan that barely worked, saving the otherwise doomed astros.

For the scope of time/distance of cislunar missions, where you're a few days out, you could survive in a smaller craft long enough, like Apollo 13. For solar system missions, you'd need to either duplicate consumables, or be able to translate remainders from the "dead" vehicle, or have the ability to "repair/replace". It rapidly becomes infeasible.

(An odd thought. Perhaps Jim's comment makes more sense if one imagines Orion/DSG never gets used for Mars, but instead after being build and ISS gone, things are rescoped to just lunar exploration. A giant head fake.)

(By the way, I've proposed the ability to rescue Orion missions with a LON FH/Dragon, as well as a cost recovery means with lunar "free return" adventurers to use the unused capability post Orion mission - there's a way to retrieve astros not unlike what Jim was suggesting, in the case of Orion lunar missions in the near future. Perhaps the need for a second craft is peculiar only to govt HSF SC, and only in those cases?)

Quote
And if the U.S. Government is truly going to go to Mars, then we should go in a way that is sustainable and redundant - meaning multiple reusable spaceships.
Yes, this is most sensible. Von Braun said this back in the early 60's.

Perhaps its just a question of costs. DSG/DST, absent a "tag along" Orion, could just about get there/back with SEP and on credible, in the decade or so budget. Crossing into the territory of "possible".

Quote
And before NASA was locked into the SLS/Orion transportation architecture it was looking at reusable in-space only transportation systems, like Nautilus-X and the Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV).

If two or more Nautilus-X ships are traveling to Mars, and one of them experiences a problem, then an SEV can be used to move crew between ships - problem solved. With such a capability there would probably be some crew movement between ships anyways during the journey, so it would not be an unusual thing to do.

Yes, that's a rational contingency. In the worst case of losing a vehicle you double up crew and stretch overabundant (or raided consumables from the abandoned vehicle),  and plan a low risk return.

Even with just two DSTs in tandem, one with a SEV, the other with excess consumables, you'd have a solid plan B that might fit the mass budget better than Orion would, as well as allowing more options/better contingency.

(I'll admit to being surprised when I heard the lack of a direct return to Earth via capsule being mooted years back, that's always been there for most rapid medical treatment. But if you have a medical emergency on a multiyear mission, those 2-3 days won't amount to much saved in not returning to DSG - conceivably you could even send medical talent/equipment to stabilize a patient to the DSG and evaluate them to be brought to condition to withstand reentry, thus having an advantage over direct return.)

Quote
An Orion would not be well suited for such a task since it's not currently re-fuelable or reusable. It would only be an emergency vehicle, but even then if there is only one transport ship, the Orion is not going to be a permanent lifeboat due to it's limited capabilities, so another transport ship would be required for redundancy anyways.
Yes.

It seems ill suited as a backup. You jump into the capsule, you're alive - fine. Now what do you do, even if you have the ability to diagnose the vehicle, such repairs or access to DSH consumables would require additional capabilities and training. How could you know that you had brought along / trained for the thing that went wrong?

Orion is too unspecialized for the tasks suggested in this thread. This really confused me.

I can understand the desire to give Orion more "meaning", so as to keep in mission plans.

But the only rational thing is doubling mission expenses by flying two DSTs at a time and having them self-support each other.

The larger picture I agree with you - we've got to think about contingencies and prepositioned assets that allow more recovery/redundancy. At a minimum, redundant consumables/vehicles/docking ports.

Surely this has been documented/studied. Where?

add:

I guess what bugs me about this the most, is the same thing that bugs me about hab space on the DSG concept.

The point of astros is to do "exploring" better than robots, not to have them hang around sitting in an gateway hab, or attempting to figure out how to survive with a broken transport hab.

We survived Apollo 13, that's good. But we shouldn't take the lesson as attempting to barely survive again, for that's nuts. The lesson is, like with Columbia, you have a live, comprehensive plan B on the pad or in flight, so that covers the need.

After that, it's like QuantumG and clongton suggests - you provide enough rational safety but then there's the inherent risk of spaceflight.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/14/2017 05:05 pm
Just saw this gem on twitter, put it here for future reference.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: chipguy on 07/14/2017 07:04 pm
Just saw this gem on twitter, put it here for future reference.

I wonder what "percent hotter" lunar return is in Celsius.  ::)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: darkenfast on 07/14/2017 07:47 pm
Just saw this gem on twitter, put it here for future reference.

"ONLY ORION CAN DO DEEP SPACE"!  Well, glad we got THAT sorted out.  SpaceX must have been lying through their teeth when they claimed that their upstart Dragon will be able to handle BLEO return.  Sure glad the Oldspace/Government Revolving Door contingent set us straight!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 07/14/2017 07:50 pm
Wow, this thread really is almost nothing but snark and snide comments now.  We get it- government spaceflight PR= always bad, waste of money.  Commercial spaceflight PR= always good and accurate. 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/14/2017 08:27 pm
Commercial spaceflight PR= always good and accurate.

I only see Lockheed Martin listed on that graphic, so I guess that means the graphic is "good and accurate"?   :D
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/14/2017 08:49 pm
Just saw this gem on twitter, put it here for future reference.

I wonder what "percent hotter" lunar return is in Celsius.  ::)

74%. It's even 64% hotter in Kelvins. Once you get far enough away from zero, using an absolute or relative scale makes much less of a difference.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AS-503 on 07/14/2017 09:28 pm
Wow, this thread really is almost nothing but snark and snide comments now.  We get it- government spaceflight PR= always bad, waste of money.  Commercial spaceflight PR= always good and accurate.

In partial defense of darkenfast, I work as an engineer for LM in the Orion test department and can say definitively that there is (as far as I can see) a company wide belief that Orion is going to Mars and that only Orion can do deep space. Which in my opinion is uninformed and borderline fantasy.

Personally I am a huge SpaceX fan and can also say that almost no one I work with knows much of anything about SpaceX's launch vehicles/spacecraft/history or any other aerospace history that might add some context and/or backing to their strongly held "beliefs". ;)

So to wrap up, it's fair to say that most/all LM employees that i work with don't have good things to say about SpaceX or new-space in general (while also being extremely uninformed to have such a bias). While on the flipside I can imagine that SpaceX employees/fans might also not have good things to say about LM or old-space.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 07/14/2017 10:29 pm
So to wrap up, it's fair to say that most/all LM employees that i work with don't have good things to say about SpaceX or new-space in general (while also being extremely uninformed to have such a bias). While on the flipside I can image that SpaceX employees/fans might also not have good things to say about LM or old-space.

To put it lightly.  Lately it seems like its gone full-cult on one side of this.  Arguably they both exaggerate the capabilities of their spacecraft, though one gets a pass on that from the community.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/14/2017 10:42 pm
So to wrap up, it's fair to say that most/all LM employees that i work with don't have good things to say about SpaceX or new-space in general (while also being extremely uninformed to have such a bias).

This extends to NASA mission PI's who work with LM SC/employees - they re-radiate the same bias. One told me about all the people that would die flying Dragon and BFS over the next decade, without any informed basis. Confronted him with the fact that there's been a Dragon flying for years w/no Orion, and just about the same amount of work going into Boeing/LM/SX ECLSS/avionics/flight test as objective measures ... and you couldn't shake that religious belief, articles of faith. Like a maroon. A PHd maroon no less. And his science has some gaping holes waiting to be fixed, but that's another matter for when sense is recovered. Plenty to do.

Quote
While on the flipside I can image that SpaceX employees/fans might also not have good things to say about LM or old-space.

Yes, they have an "allergy" to such. Easy to trigger, just use some common terms of art from systems engineering and a film forms over the eyes, and the walls go up. Sometimes takes an intervention to get things going again.

Yet you can get them to go at it with each other, and they have more in common than they'd like to admit. True of any who do this for a while, hard to shake it off.

Back to Orion - what is its true "utility" as currently scoped? Believable contingencies? Cislunar? Further?

Where's the boundaries?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 07/14/2017 11:24 pm
"as currently scoped"

What a bulls eye.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AS-503 on 07/15/2017 03:53 am
With respect to SpaceGhost's question about Orion's utility, it's no as much about what Orion can do but unfortunately what Orion can't do.****

Orion can't get anywhere/do anything without a ride.*

Orion can't do long duration missions without other significant/expensive hardware. Most of which is not even on paper much less funded.**

Orion can't go very far deltaV wise without the exploration-class upper stage and possibly a different service module (Realistic timeline/funding?)***



*I am not going to bash SLS here....but really? The flight rate, the SSME production, the vertical weld tool mishap, the hydrogen dome drop, the flight software delays, etc.. It's 2017, remember the justification to use Shuttle derived hardware dating back to ESAS from 2005 and then also the very valid reasoning that team DIRECT proposed with respect to Shuttle derived. The clock is still ticking and 2020 is still not looking good.

**Yes, there have been some new developments with respect to the required hab-module. But how long are missions projected to last with the re-purposed ISS module as the new in-the-works hab-module? The Orion program has touted BEO from the very beginning but how much "B" are we really talking about with the ISS module? Hab-module aside there is no lander of any sort for lunar or other "exploration". With Apollo as an historic example the lander is a serious/monumental funding/engineering challenge. Mars anyone?

***Yes, there have been some new developments with respect to the exploration upper stage coming online sooner than expected (EM2-ish). But, if that's the case have all of the long-poles in that tent been fully charted with expected budgets and technical slides to the right? EM2 really? Even then what are we going to do/where are we going to go with just an Orion and it's current service module with all of the delta V of the exploration class upper stage and no lander?


****It's somewhat ironic that 13 years post Columbia we are still in a "no, because" mode, rather than a "yes, if" mode.
 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: WylieC on 07/15/2017 04:09 am
All of these points have been stated over and over and over. How many different ways can the same things be said? This is getting old.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AS-503 on 07/15/2017 04:19 am
All of these points have been stated over and over and over. How many different ways can the same things be said? This is getting old.

My apologies, i completely agree with you it is all old and stale.
So stale in fact, people in-the-know have been saying we'll "be on Mars in 20 years" since the 1960s.
So add 20 years to 2017 and that's about where we are right now (at least with NASA).

Yes, I know it's stale but here we are in the summer of 2017 having a "discussion" in the Orion Discussion Thread 2
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2017 09:36 am
{snip}
(By the way, I've proposed the ability to rescue Orion missions with a LON FH/Dragon, as well as a cost recovery means with lunar "free return" adventurers to use the unused capability post Orion mission - there's a way to retrieve astros not unlike what Jim was suggesting, in the case of Orion lunar missions in the near future. Perhaps the need for a second craft is peculiar only to govt HSF SC, and only in those cases?)
....

That is the equivalent of sending a car to rescue people from a damaged camper van. Both vehicles can cover the miles but only the camper van lets you stay for a month.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 07/27/2017 05:25 pm
Any spacecraft that is designed to return to the surface of the earth will have limitations on its size.  The fact that Orion will need a habitation module for long duration stays is not some mistake by NASA.

Perhaps many of you have ITS etched into your brains, which hasn't been proven, any long duration mission would require a habitation module, be it Orion or any other spacecraft.

Orion is perfectly suited and robust for the cis-lunar missions and DSG construction. 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 07/27/2017 07:31 pm
From the rumor mill:
https://twitter.com/Capoglou/status/890648329628954624

Orion out - commercial lunar lander in.  How anyone GETS to the lander though is anyone's guess.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 07/27/2017 07:55 pm
How anyone GETS to the lander though is anyone's guess.

Some Dragon or CST-100 type vehicle?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 07/27/2017 08:16 pm
How anyone GETS to the lander though is anyone's guess.

Some Dragon or CST-100 type vehicle?

Yeah one would probably be better off discussing that in more detail here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35787.100

Probably wouldn't be quick and easy. Starliner is limited to 60 hour free flight, Dragon at least lacks the dV, and is a tight ride.  Would need to see how/if that shakes out.  As the rumor goes it seems like trading one hole in capability for another.

Although if the lander could act as a service module and transit hab that would make a Dragon at least much more feasible, and possibly being a lighter vehicle fit within SLS mass contraints.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/27/2017 08:29 pm
From the rumor mill:
https://twitter.com/Capoglou/status/890648329628954624

Orion out - commercial lunar lander in.  How anyone GETS to the lander though is anyone's guess.

Yeah, a lunar lander would not necessitate the cancellation of Orion.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/27/2017 08:36 pm
Any spacecraft that is designed to return to the surface of the earth will have limitations on its size.

Sure, but that limitation is based on the mode used to return to the surface of Earth.

For instance, the Shuttle Orbiter empty weight was about 65mT, yet even though the Orion only weighs 8.5mT it is recognized that it's capsule design has reached the upper mass limit to safely return to Earth. The difference? The Shuttle used wings to land on Earth whereas the Orion depends on parachutes.

What Elon Musk is planning for the ITS is propulsive landings, which we've seen is possible with sub-orbital vehicles, and SpaceX feels is possible with far larger vehicles coming to Earth beyond LEO. And I think it's too early to know for sure what the upper end is for size until such a vehicle is actually successfully tested.

Quote
The fact that Orion will need a habitation module for long duration stays is not some mistake by NASA.

Certainly not a mistake by NASA, since "NASA" did not really design the Orion in the first place. It was a design mandated by Michael Griffin which he called "Apollo on steroids", and it was not a very well thought out design.

NASA acknowledging that the only way to make the Orion truly usable is to add a habitation module is not surprising.

Quote
Perhaps many of you have ITS etched into your brains, which hasn't been proven, any long duration mission would require a habitation module, be it Orion or any other spacecraft.

No, I'd say you are assuming that everything we do in space has to use the single-launch Apollo model - or at least the "go it alone" model.

The 450mT ISS has shown that we can build and operate "large" vehicles in space that have a constant stream of supply & service vehicles visiting. Plus, as we expand out into space we should not assume that we'll only do it in independent sorties. Which means that the future of space is many vehicles going on expeditions, and many vehicles visiting in-space destinations. Meaning the future of human activity in space is not to be constrained to small "habitation" modules, but to live in space stations and travel in significantly-sized spaceships.

Oh, and notice I'm only referencing stuff that NASA has been doing - I wish SpaceX good luck with the ITS, but NASA is not stuck with only one option for it's future in space.

Quote
Orion is perfectly suited and robust for the cis-lunar missions and DSG construction.

What we also learned with the ISS is that reusable vehicles in space do work, and we don't need to throw away perfectly good hardware after one use. Unfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposable, which means in no way is it "perfect" for doing anything in space, nor is it "robust" since it can't stay in space very long - the ISS has been continuously occupied in space for over 16 years, but the Orion is limited to 21 days of occupancy with 4 (very cramped) crew.

The Orion is a transportation element. If the mission/program needs fits within it's capabilities then the Orion can do the job, and I'm sure do it safely. But it has pretty limited capabilities compared to other alternatives...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 07/27/2017 11:17 pm
Quote
What we also learned with the ISS is that reusable vehicles in space do work, and we don't need to throw away perfectly good hardware after one use. Unfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposable, which means in no way is it "perfect" for doing anything in space, nor is it "robust" since it can't stay in space very long - the ISS has been continuously occupied in space for over 16 years, but the Orion is limited to 21 days of occupancy with 4 (very cramped) crew.

The Orion is a transportation element. If the mission/program needs fits within it's capabilities then the Orion can do the job, and I'm sure do it safely. But it has pretty limited capabilities compared to other alternatives...

ISS has been continuously occupied for 16 years because it is continuously re-supplied with fuel, food, supplies and spare parts. It also receives boosts from other spacecraft to increase orbital altitude and would not be occupied without this.

Orion can stay active for at least 21 days, but can stay in quiescence for 6 months or more completely on its own.  This is a very different problem of not just existing in space for long periods of time, but being completely self sufficient and outside of earths aid.  This has never been proven by anyone, period.  No matter what else may be in a pdf or paper.  Orion is set to test this, along with other modules, in cis-lunar space.  For this, it is well suited.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/28/2017 02:51 am
Unfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposable

There actually is no conclusive answer on this either way.

Quote
Larry Price, Lockheed Martin's Orion deputy program manager, explained that Orion's design locates the majority of these electronics not only in the crew module, but within the pressurized section of the crew module in which the astronauts ride. This chamber is able to withstand the vacuum of space, and will also serve to keep out salty ocean water upon returning to Earth.
https://www.space.com/21541-nasa-orion-spacecraft-reusable.html

I guess we will see how well their efforts turn out.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: brickmack on 07/28/2017 01:54 pm
Dragon at least lacks the dV, and is a tight ride.

Dragon was borderline on delta v for a LDRO or NRHO mission before. Now that propulsive landing is off the table (which should itself add 200+ m/s budget to work with, plus whatever mass reductions are possible from eliminating the legs and ballast sled), it should quite easily be able to visit either of those plus maybe a couple other types of cislunar orbits. It can't go to LLO, but neither can Orion (even with no comanifested payload), so thats not a point against Dragon. And Dragon 2 has like 50% more internal volume than Apollo did (and modern tech means less of that volume is needed for equipment), given that Apollo could support 3 astronauts for ~11 days (Apollo 7) without an LM or anything, Dragon should be able to do the same at minimum.

Unfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposable

There actually is no conclusive answer on this either way.

Quote
Larry Price, Lockheed Martin's Orion deputy program manager, explained that Orion's design locates the majority of these electronics not only in the crew module, but within the pressurized section of the crew module in which the astronauts ride. This chamber is able to withstand the vacuum of space, and will also serve to keep out salty ocean water upon returning to Earth.
https://www.space.com/21541-nasa-orion-spacecraft-reusable.html

I guess we will see how well their efforts turn out.

As far as I'm aware, Orion's CM is disposable only because of the low flightrate making it not worth it, not any hardware constraints. Most of the CM hardware was specified to be reusable, and that was NASAs public claim up until Orion planning went from 1 launch every couple months to 1 launch every couple years
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/28/2017 02:23 pm

Certainly not a mistake by NASA, since "NASA" did not really design the Orion in the first place. It was a design mandated by Michael Griffin which he called "Apollo on steroids", and it was not a very well thought out design.

NASA acknowledging that the only way to make the Orion truly usable is to add a habitation module is not surprising.


Wrong takeaway and spreading misinformation again.

Orion was alway designed to work with a "mission module".

This has been discussed many times before.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30877.msg1001537#msg1001537
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31570.msg1036611#msg1036611
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/28/2017 02:23 pm
Come on, you guys should know better than to discuss random twitter rumors.

Orion isn't a lander. Altair was the lander, but billions. Perfect sense to do a RFI for commercial lander. Zero documentation on Orion end.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/28/2017 04:06 pm
Dragon at least lacks the dV, and is a tight ride.
And Dragon 2 has like 50% more internal volume than Apollo did (and modern tech means less of that volume is needed for equipment).

Wikipedia lists Dragon 2 pressurized volume at 10 cubic meters while the Apollo CSM is listed at 10.4 cubic meters pressurized. There really is no good technical information on Dragon 2 though simply because SpaceX doesn't publish much. Information on dV is calculated from old dragon rider information and mass information. Dragon rider may have been a stripped down variant with different mass numbers and so derived dV numbers aren't reliable. Not to mention a BEO variant would likely add non-propellant mass on top of that. The only mission that we know the Dragon v2 can do is a lunar flyby.

The propulsion system of Dragon v2 wouldn't be very good at efficient insertion into NRHO because the efficient trajectories include powered lunar flybys. The draco thruster has 2 orders of magnitude less thrust than then the OMS engine on Orion and the super-draco thrusters have poor vacuum isp and off axial thrust.

All of this can be fixed by beefing up the trunk into a service module for dragon v2. But it is no where near ready to go as it was designed for LEO crew transportation.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 07/28/2017 04:40 pm
Sorry for the tangent I've sent this thread on Chris!

Back to a more Orion specific focus:
 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/890972613706690560
Quote from: Eric Berger
Summary: Crew on EM-1 would have accelerated NASA exploration. Unfortunately, they weren't sure the heat shield would work. Also, money.

This is the first I've heard on the heat shield, I know they wanted to redesign for lowered cost.  Anyone that can summarize why the heat shield wouldn't be up to the task?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/28/2017 04:55 pm
Wikipedia lists Dragon 2 pressurized volume at 10 cubic meters while the Apollo CSM is listed at 10.4 cubic meters pressurized.

The Wikipedia page I'm looking at for the Apollo Command/Service Module (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module) lists the internal volume as 6.2 cubic meters. For Orion Wikipedia lists the habitable pressurized volumes as 8.95 cubic meters. If we were only looking at habitable volume it would appear that Dragon Crew has the larger internal area of the three vehicles.

However all of these capsules are really just meant for basic transportation. In fact I would argue that for any capsule the farther is gets from Earth orbit the less efficient the design becomes, because their core competency is returning safely to Earth through Earth's atmosphere - every other function they may be pressed into doing in space can be done far better by space-only elements.

Quote
The propulsion system of Dragon v2 wouldn't be very good at efficient insertion into NRHO because the efficient trajectories include powered lunar flybys. The draco thruster has 2 orders of magnitude less thrust than then the OMS engine on Orion and the super-draco thrusters have poor vacuum isp and off axial thrust.

All of this can be fixed by beefing up the trunk into a service module for dragon v2. But it is no where near ready to go as it was designed for LEO crew transportation.

Except for the lunar fly-by, I think SpaceX is assuming it will be leaving LEO in some version of an ITS, not a Dragon, so I think we can ignore Dragon what-if's.

Big picture though, if we are only thinking about having four people in space at a time, then sure, Orion can be a capable vehicle for cislunar operations. Not the most comfortable ride, but those going would put up with such discomforts for the chance to do what few have done in space.

But I would hope we are setting our sights at having more than four people in space at any one time, which is one of my touchstones for critiques of any HSF hardware. Does it allow & promote the expansion of humanity out into space? With expansion in this case not meaning distance, but the number of people.

And because adding people to space means money, we either have to get a bigger pot of money (not likely to happen for NASA), or we have to somehow reduce the cost for doing anything in space. And it is from the perspective of cost that I have the most objection to the SLS & Orion, because I see them as slowing down our expansion out into space, not accelerating it.

My $0.02
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/28/2017 05:04 pm
How anyone GETS to the lander though is anyone's guess.

Some Dragon or CST-100 type vehicle?

Yeah one would probably be better off discussing that in more detail here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35787.100

Probably wouldn't be quick and easy. Starliner is limited to 60 hour free flight, Dragon at least lacks the dV, and is a tight ride.  ....
False, on both accounts. And yeah, you should have discussed it in that thread.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/28/2017 05:16 pm
Coastal is right about capsules(/reentry vehicles) not being ideal for BLEO travel. A OTV with attached habitat module would be better and far more flexible. But require fuel depots and in orbit refuelling, as BLEO -LEO DV is same as LEO-BLEO.

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 07/28/2017 06:43 pm
Sorry for the tangent I've sent this thread on Chris!

Back to a more Orion specific focus:
 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/890972613706690560
Quote from: Eric Berger
Summary: Crew on EM-1 would have accelerated NASA exploration. Unfortunately, they weren't sure the heat shield would work. Also, money.

This is the first I've heard on the heat shield, I know they wanted to redesign for lowered cost.  Anyone that can summarize why the heat shield wouldn't be up to the task?
New design. Heatshield is now made out of multiple blocks in stead of being monolithic. A modular Avcoat heatshield has never been tested before.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/28/2017 10:24 pm
Coastal is right about capsules(/reentry vehicles) not being ideal for BLEO travel. A OTV with attached habitat module would be better and far more flexible. But require fuel depots and in orbit refuelling, as BLEO -LEO DV is same as LEO-BLEO.
Disagree. It only takes 3 days to reach lunar orbit or back. That compares to a couple days to launch or return from ISS, and up to 2 weeks for Shuttle missions. Cislunar transport doesn't need extra space than is needed for typical LEO capsule missions.

A separate cislunar transport craft (in addition to a capsule and a lander) doesn't make sense to me. Just another development project to amortize and another docking event.

Orion (or any other capsule) is fine.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 07/28/2017 10:59 pm
Quote
Big picture though, if we are only thinking about having four people in space at a time, then sure, Orion can be a capable vehicle for cislunar operations. Not the most comfortable ride, but those going would put up with such discomforts for the chance to do what few have done in space.

But I would hope we are setting our sights at having more than four people in space at any one time, which is one of my touchstones for critiques of any HSF hardware. Does it allow & promote the expansion of humanity out into space? With expansion in this case not meaning distance, but the number of people.


I don't understand this pure fantasy.  We have not in anyway proven how to live and survive in deep space without the aid of earth.  Until that is well known and proven, you can't start building spacecraft for 100s of people, its just too risky.

You are acting like we're on the verge of Star Trek technology or something.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/30/2017 07:44 pm
Quote
Big picture though, if we are only thinking about having four people in space at a time, then sure, Orion can be a capable vehicle for cislunar operations. Not the most comfortable ride, but those going would put up with such discomforts for the chance to do what few have done in space.

But I would hope we are setting our sights at having more than four people in space at any one time, which is one of my touchstones for critiques of any HSF hardware. Does it allow & promote the expansion of humanity out into space? With expansion in this case not meaning distance, but the number of people.


I don't understand this pure fantasy.

???  You think having more than four people in space is pure fantasy?

Quote
We have not in anyway proven how to live and survive in deep space without the aid of earth.

I don't understand what you are responding to. Where did I make such a claim?

Quote
Until that is well known and proven, you can't start building spacecraft for 100s of people, its just too risky.

Again, where did I make such a claim?

Quote
You are acting like we're on the verge of Star Trek technology or something.

I guess you don't keep up with what NASA thinks is a near-term possibility?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Nautilus-X_Global-view-1.png)

If the ISS has shown us anything is that we can occupy space with more than four humans at a time, and I advocate that our goal should be to start focusing on expanding that number - I don't care what the rate is, as long as the numbers go up and not down.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/30/2017 07:52 pm
Coastal is right about capsules(/reentry vehicles) not being ideal for BLEO travel. A OTV with attached habitat module would be better and far more flexible. But require fuel depots and in orbit refuelling, as BLEO -LEO DV is same as LEO-BLEO.

I'm reordering some of what you wrote:

Quote
Orion (or any other capsule) is fine.

I never said it wouldn't work. But it depends on what the goals are whether it fits the needs.

Quote
Disagree. It only takes 3 days to reach lunar orbit or back. That compares to a couple days to launch or return from ISS, and up to 2 weeks for Shuttle missions. Cislunar transport doesn't need extra space than is needed for typical LEO capsule missions.

If you're going to limit the passengers to people that have been highly trained, then sure, they can put up with each other for those few days. But that assumes we're not expanding the number of humans in space.

Quote
A separate cislunar transport craft (in addition to a capsule and a lander) doesn't make sense to me. Just another development project to amortize and another docking event.

Depends on how many people are going to be in transit. If there will only be four people per year, then no, you don't need anything else. But if you are going to be having a constant stream of people going out to a DSG, and then down to the Moon and/or on to other destinations, then pretty soon a four person disposable capsule starts becoming a limitation, not an asset.

So it depends on what the goals are.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/25/2018 09:06 am
This video was posted in the Commercial Crew Vehicles General section, but I thinks its worth posting here as it explains NASA's reason for the switch of the heat shield design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccJ6LpnSK20

The decision was made to switch from gunned honeycomb to blocks, similar to the SpaceX heatshield, but using Avcoat instead of PICA-X. The problem is that the Apollo heatshield suffers from cracks, which the EFT-1 heatshield also had. NASA fixed the cracks by drilling the cracks out and refilling them. The Apollo heat shield could also crack under stress during flight. Apollo analysis and tests showed that these cracks would not compromise the heat shield. There was also the question mark of whether the witness tests represented the strength of the heat shield. By going to blocks, cracks are much less prone to happening and the witness tests would be more accurate, but if there is a crack or the block debonds that is a catastrophic failure. The other advantage is that making the blocks and the shield can be done in parallel instead of in series as with plugged honeycomb. A disadvantage is ensuring the material used to fill the gaps between the blocks (a vulcanising material) should ablate at the same rate as the Avcoat.

Looking at the risk chart, NASA gives the same orange or high risk for both shields, so there is no increase in safety. Apollo had a greater risk of cracks, but the consequence was much less. Blocks have a much lower risk of cracks, but the consequence is catastrophic. Also, it seems to me that NASA overlooked an obvious means of reducing delay with honeycomb. Perform operations in pipeline. That is instead of

BBB+PPP>SSS
        BBB+PPP>SSS
                BBB+PPP>SSS


where B is the backshell manufacture, PPP is plugging the shield, and SSS is the complete shield. The pipeline method is as follows:

BBB+PPP>SSS
    BBB+PPP>SSS
        BBB+PPP>SSS


So, production of the first shield for EFT-1 takes a long time, but the shields after that are produced twice as fast. This seems to me to be a much faster and much more economic solution, since it avoids the very large development costs of a new shield and all its associated tooling.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/25/2018 01:25 pm
Quote
Looking at the risk chart, NASA gives the same orange or high risk for both shields, so there is no increase in safety. Apollo had a greater risk of cracks, but the consequence was much less. Blocks have a much lower risk of cracks, but the consequence is catastrophic.

Quote
Heritage? Space X Dragon

Since the heritage they are copying is Dragon, why not use PicaX?   Avcoat is known to crack... 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 01/25/2018 04:46 pm
Since the heritage they are copying is Dragon, why not use PicaX?   Avcoat is known to crack... 

Well, for one, though I can't speak to PicaX, Pica tends not to like getting hit by MMOD.  Avcoat does much better.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/25/2018 05:08 pm
Since the heritage they are copying is Dragon, why not use PicaX?   Avcoat is known to crack... 

Well, for one, though I can't speak to PicaX, Pica tends not to like getting hit by MMOD.  Avcoat does much better.

There should be plenty of flight data on PicaX in the toughest MMOD environment, LEO. 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/25/2018 06:37 pm
Since the heritage they are copying is Dragon, why not use PicaX?   Avcoat is known to crack... 

Well, for one, though I can't speak to PicaX, Pica tends not to like getting hit by MMOD.  Avcoat does much better.

Which is no concern for Orion given that its primary heatshield is fully nested inside the MMOD protected CMA (Crew Module Adapter)
MMOD resistance was not the main driver for selecting Avcoat over Pica.

Further reading here: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/pr530.pdf
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/25/2018 07:34 pm
Search started in 2006... 3 year study for $150M.
TRL3/4 raised to TRL5/6. 
Built capsule/heatshield for EFT-1. 
Flew it. 
Changed direction due to cracking, which they had also seen during study. 
Going to do blocks now, still using AVCOAT, which wasn't studied in block form.

In the mean time, PicaX was developed.
Flown a dozen times without problems.
TRL 9.

I ask again, why not use PicaX?

Easy to see why these projects cost NASA so much...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 01/26/2018 05:06 pm
MMOD resistance was not the main driver for selecting Avcoat over Pica.

Your link notwithstanding (note that it says nothing about MMOD other than that testing was performed), this statement is not really all that accurate.  It was a driver in the downselect.  I have some direct knowledge in this field.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/26/2018 06:20 pm
MMOD resistance was not the main driver for selecting Avcoat over Pica.

Your link notwithstanding (note that it says nothing about MMOD other than that testing was performed), this statement is not really all that accurate.  It was a driver in the downselect.  I have some direct knowledge in this field.

What letter in the word "main" did you not parse?

When I state that something was "not a main driver" it means that it was a driver, just not one of the main (as in: biggest) drivers.
The link I provided does a nice job of summing-up what down-select evaluation metrics were used. And guess what: MMOD resistance is not even in that list.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 01/26/2018 07:15 pm

What letter in the word "main" did you not parse?

When I state that something was "not a main driver" it means that it was a driver, just not one of the main (as in: biggest) drivers.
The link I provided does a nice job of summing-up what down-select evaluation metrics were used. And guess what: MMOD resistance is not even in that list.

Your snottiness aside, I'm simply saying that document doesn't tell the whole story.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: deruch on 01/29/2018 02:14 am
MMOD resistance is not even in that list.

Sure it is.  It's just hiding in the subparts of #7) Reliability.  Good evidence for why it wasn't considered a main evaluation criterion.  But, that doesn't mean it mightn't have been one of the main deciding points over which the systems were distinguished from each other if they were otherwise relatively evenly scored. 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/01/2018 01:38 pm
Not sure if this is the best thread, suggestions welcome!

Quote
About to start 2 days of Net Habitable Volume testing for Orion. Basically, do we have enough room to do stuff with our current cabin config & stowage arrangements.

https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/991306894626127872
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 06/14/2018 06:49 pm
Quote
This afternoon, I'm leading a half-day review of the @NASA_Orion fire response concept of operations to determine if the planned design sufficiently supports Orion crew fighting & recovering from a fire.

https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1007301796535197701

Quote
While our engineering teams have designed everything to preclude the possibility of a fire through materials selection, atmosphere composition, power system safing, etc., we could never reduce the chance of a fire to 0.0%.

https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1007301798221271041

Quote
Much of the fire-fighting or protection equipment is going through design reviews now. The goal today is to see how all the individual component designs mesh together into an integrated con ops or to find gaps in the design and assess the associated risk.

https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1007301799538249731

Quote
Very important for us to understand where we are with these potentially life-saving capabilities as we try to finalize(-ish) the Orion design in the fall.

https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1007301800834355200
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/23/2018 02:26 am
They got Orion to the White House as showcase for some Made in America parade: https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1021088510504316930, pretty strange choice given the service module is built by the Europeans....
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 07/23/2018 05:32 am
They got Orion to the White House as showcase for some Made in America parade: https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1021088510504316930, pretty strange choice given the service module is built by the Europeans....

Here is more of the arrival:  https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/albums/72157669355997107
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/23/2018 04:51 pm
They got Orion to the White House as showcase for some Made in America parade: https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1021088510504316930, pretty strange choice given the service module is built by the Europeans....

I don't see the service module at all. That looks like the EFT-1 module, which didn't even have a real service module.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/24/2018 03:23 pm
They got Orion to the White House as showcase for some Made in America parade: https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1021088510504316930, pretty strange choice given the service module is built by the Europeans....

I don't see the service module at all. That looks like the EFT-1 module, which didn't even have a real service module.
It is from EFT-1 and the LM built SM ETA that flew burned up on reentry.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/25/2018 02:27 pm
They got Orion to the White House as showcase for some Made in America parade: https://twitter.com/nasahqphoto/status/1021088510504316930, pretty strange choice given the service module is built by the Europeans....

I don't see the service module at all. That looks like the EFT-1 module, which didn't even have a real service module.

I'll just quote @nasawatch which explains the irony better: http://nasawatch.com/archives/2018/07/that-madeinamer.html

Quote
Keith's note: And the eager #MadeInAmerica fans left out a paragraph "The Service Module is being built by Airbus Defence and Space." which is, of course, a European company using lots of European subcontractors. The European Service Module (ESM) is a rather crucial part of the overall system. How odd that the Coalition - and NASA - seem to forget to mention this fact in the furry of trying to hop on the latest White House slogan bandwagon.

Its also odd, that in the rush to tow piece of space hardware inside the White House gate that no one mentions the wholly American spacecraft being built by the private sector by Boeing, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, Virgin Galactic, and Blue Origin. That is the real #MadeInAmerica story. And why wasn't the Commercial Spaceflight Federation invited to participate? Their members have more spacecraft and launch systems #MadeInAmerica than NASA does.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 07/26/2018 12:51 am
Not sure I understand the backlash.  I would ague the Orion capsule, of which several are being built currently, is much more technically challenging and requires more R&D than the Service Module.  Not that the SM isn't critically important, but NASAWATCh is just splitting hairs so they can make their usual, dull point over and over.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/26/2018 04:51 pm
Not sure I understand the backlash.

Boeing, SpaceX, Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada are building spacecraft that are 100% built in the U.S. of A.

Quote
I would ague the Orion capsule, of which several are being built currently, is much more technically challenging and requires more R&D than the Service Module.

No one was debating the percentage, but if you look at the stack the Service Module is a significant portion of the Orion transportation system. Even if it's an 80/20 content ratio, it's pretty close to 50/50 in size.

And regardless why ESA is building the Service Module, the Orion Command Module can't go anywhere without it - so NASA can't go anywhere in space without European help. So not as "Built in America" as commercial spacecraft.

The Trump administration just wanted to tout NASA, but in doing so they ignored the real American innovation taking place in space transportation.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 07/27/2018 08:02 pm
Are you even sure that is a true statement?  Did SpaceX or BO even provide any interest on being there?  Knowing Trump, the event was likely ill planned without much notice.

There could be many reasons why they did not take part in the event that doesn't include shying away from your (and mine) favorite private enterprises.

As a side note, I agree it would have been nice to see D2, CST-100, DreamChaser there, but bashing NASA yet again for something they literally have no control over is just childish.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/27/2018 08:27 pm
Are you even sure that is a true statement?  Did SpaceX or BO even provide any interest on being there?  Knowing Trump, the event was likely ill planned without much notice.

Yet Trump's people were able to get NASA to hustle up the Orion vehicle from Florida with no problem.

Do you think Elon Musk or Boeing would pass up a chance to show off their spacecraft?

Blue Origin would not have been invited because of Trump's tiff with Bezos, and maybe promoting Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser would have been iffy because of the owners - even though they are living the American Dream©.

Quote
There could be many reasons why they did not take part in the event that doesn't include shying away from your (and mine) favorite private enterprises.

As you said, bad planning can't be ruled out when talking about Trump's executive office. But if NASA can hustle up an Orion, Boeing and SpaceX could have hustled up a version of their spacecraft.

Quote
As a side note, I agree it would have been nice to see D2, CST-100, DreamChaser there, but bashing NASA yet again for something they literally have no control over is just childish.

NASA wasn't in control of the event, so why would you think I'm "bashing NASA"? Weird.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TripleSeven on 07/29/2018 03:02 pm
Are you even sure that is a true statement?  Did SpaceX or BO even provide any interest on being there?  Knowing Trump, the event was likely ill planned without much notice.



NASA wasn't in control of the event, so why would you think I'm "bashing NASA"? Weird.

my "guess" is that Trump's people did not want anything but Orion there.  this is a political not technical judgment...but my guess is that Trump will latch onto Orion like its his personal "cat" and hope like heck that it flies sometime in his first term as a symbol of "America being great"

I dont think that they consider the private efforts part of that plan
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 07/29/2018 04:29 pm
To be honest, I think Trump intentionally did not invite SpaceX and BO because they're considered "liberal" or democrat "companies" if that makes sense.  He's shown to be quite petty in that regard.

In any case, you can't fault Orion for being there.  It's definitely supporting American R&D and manufacturing.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 07/29/2018 08:08 pm
To be honest, I think Trump intentionally did not invite SpaceX and BO because they're considered "liberal" or democrat "companies" if that makes sense.  He's shown to be quite petty in that regard.

In any case, you can't fault Orion for being there.  It's definitely supporting American R&D and manufacturing.

How is Orion supporting R&D?
It's a capsule... that lands in the ocean.  (I think that has already been developed.)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/30/2018 02:51 am
To be honest, I think Trump intentionally did not invite SpaceX and BO because they're considered "liberal" or democrat "companies" if that makes sense.  He's shown to be quite petty in that regard....
I doubt it.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 08/27/2018 04:12 am
To be honest, I think Trump intentionally did not invite SpaceX and BO because they're considered "liberal" or democrat "companies" if that makes sense.  >

You clearly missed the praise he gave SpaceX & Musk after the Falcon Heavy debut launch.

Ars...  (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/president-trump-amazed-by-the-falcon-heavy-landing-and-its-low-cost/)

Not to mention the administraton's support for  regulatory changes "NewSpace" requested, and have so far received.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: SciNews on 10/10/2018 07:24 pm
NASA is using HoloLens AR headsets to build its new spacecraft faster
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612247/nasa-is-using-hololens-ar-headsets-to-build-its-new-spacecraft-faster/
Quote
Lockheed Martin engineers wear the goggles to help them assemble the crew capsule Orion—without having to read thousands of pages of paper instructions.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: docmordrid on 11/27/2018 04:24 pm
Ummmmm...

https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb/status/1067464407523962880

Anatoly Zak @RussianSpaceWeb
We hear that after years of development, @NASA_Orion's rendezvous system was deemed too unreliable for the cis-station project. So, the effort is underway to upgrade it. INSIDER CONTENT: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/insider-content.html (http://"http://www.russianspaceweb.com/insider-content.html")
12:05 PM - Nov 27, 2018
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 11/27/2018 06:08 pm
What? Lockheed Martin has been working on this thing for twelve years. The original version would have to dock with Altair in lunar orbit, so docking with LOP-G isn't a new requirement.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: M129K on 11/28/2018 04:02 pm
Docking at LOP-G likely isn't the problem. Orion not only has to dock, it also has to manoeuvre space station components around and dock those as well, which I think is the likely reason it's deemed unreliable all of a sudden.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 11/29/2018 08:00 am
Docking at LOP-G likely isn't the problem. Orion not only has to dock, it also has to manoeuvre space station components around and dock those as well, which I think is the likely reason it's deemed unreliable all of a sudden.

Until there is more information available about this supposed problem any posts here, taking guesses at the cause, are pure conjecture.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 11/29/2018 03:31 pm
To be honest, I think Trump intentionally did not invite SpaceX and BO because they're considered "liberal" or democrat "companies" if that makes sense.  >

You clearly missed the praise he gave SpaceX & Musk after the Falcon Heavy debut launch.

Ars...  (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/president-trump-amazed-by-the-falcon-heavy-landing-and-its-low-cost/)

Yeah, but Trump seems to have little persistent interest in space: it's handled by Pence, who is definitely an SLS man.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AnnK on 02/11/2019 02:05 pm
Another NASA waste of money, it would be better if they could recover the capsule. The capsule could be checked for structural damage. Now NASA will have to do another test with the parachutes activated. I do not think that drop tests equal a deployment of the parachutes in an abort situation.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/11/2019 03:36 pm
Another NASA waste of money, it would be better if they could recover the capsule. The capsule could be checked for structural damage. Now NASA will have to do another test with the parachutes activated. I do not think that drop tests equal a deployment of the parachutes in an abort situation.

There are going to be no more Orion abort tests, there's no plan or budget for them.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 02/12/2019 12:24 am
Another NASA waste of money, it would be better if they could recover the capsule. The capsule could be checked for structural damage. Now NASA will have to do another test with the parachutes activated. I do not think that drop tests equal a deployment of the parachutes in an abort situation.

It's not an actual Orion capsule, it's a boilerplate so there's no useful information to be gathered from the structure.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 02/12/2019 08:43 am
Another NASA waste of money, it would be better if they could recover the capsule. The capsule could be checked for structural damage. Now NASA will have to do another test with the parachutes activated. I do not think that drop tests equal a deployment of the parachutes in an abort situation.

The quoted post reflects a fine example of someone who didn't bother reading up on the subject before posting a clueless post.

Here are the six things wrong with said post:

1.  This test is not a waste of money: NASA rightfully will want the Launch Abort System thoroughly tested before risking the lives of its astronauts.

2.  The vehicle is not a capsule. It is a boilerplate that only simulates a number of key aspects of a real capsule. Such as outer moldline, mass, center of gravity, etc.

3.  There is no need for the boilerplate to be recovered. All data collected by the instruments on board is going out - in realtime - as telemetry. And for back-up the data recorders will be ejected and recovered. Once the LAS has done its thing the boilerplate becomes useless. Recovering it would be a waste of money.

4.  The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.

5.  The author of the post is ill-informed. Drop tests are very much capable of simulating an in-flight abort scenario for parachute deployment. See my point 4.

6.  The author of the post thinking that he/she knows better than the NASA- and contractor engineers who are actually involved in this test.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/12/2019 11:36 am
{snip}
4.  The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.
{snip}

There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 02/12/2019 12:33 pm
{snip}
4.  The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.
{snip}

There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.

Emphasis mine.

Has already been done thru the PTV drop tests.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/13/2019 05:05 am
In 1965, when NASA's Apollo budget was $20.8B in today's money, NASA could afford to fly capsules with parachutes in their abort tests, to get that extra bit of data. Today, NASA is only getting $4.3B for SLS/Orion and is trying to minimise cost as much as they can. There are other examples where NASA is cutting costs, for example, having the first flight of the crew environmental control system go all the way to the Moon, instead of first testing in LEO, like Apollo 7 did in 1968.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqeJzItldSQ
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/13/2019 07:54 am
They have already done an abort test with parachutes: PA-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c9rS5G5X6Y
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 02/13/2019 09:37 am
They have already done an abort test with parachutes: PA-1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c9rS5G5X6Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c9rS5G5X6Y)


Yes, but that was the pad-abort test which is not quite valid for in-flight abort scenario for multiple reasons:

- Very early design iteration of the CPAS (Capsule Parachute Assembly System). The flight CPAS is substantially improved compared to the one used on PA-1.
- Different flight regime (much lower altitude, lower velocity, different decceleration levels, etc)

Therefore, several of the CPAS dev and qual PTV drop-test explicitely explored and characterized in-flight abort chute deployment scenarios. These test were much more representative for in-flight abort chute deployment than was PA-1.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/13/2019 12:24 pm
{snip}
4.  The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.
{snip}

There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.

Emphasis mine.

Has already been done thru the PTV drop tests.

I do not require a full capsule with life support just equip the abort boilerplate with the latest CPAS (Capsule Parachute Assembly System). The two things are meant to work together in the correct sequence.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 02/13/2019 12:47 pm
{snip}
4.  The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.
{snip}

There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.

Emphasis mine.

Has already been done thru the PTV drop tests.

I do not require a full capsule with life support just equip the abort boilerplate with the latest CPAS (Capsule Parachute Assembly System). The two things are meant to work together in the correct sequence.

Emphasis mine.

It seems to me that you think you know better than the engineers that are actually involved in the development of Orion.
Having said that I will add a bit more explanation to aid in your education.
CPAS working in the correct sequence with the LAS has already been proven on PA-1.
The two systems work in a specified sequence, but activation of the second system (CPAS) is not triggered by jettison of the first system (LAS).
That applies to both pad abort and ascent abort.

This disconnect is exactly one of the reasons why testing of the CPAS under in-flight-abort conditions can be decoupled from flying an in-flight abort test.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 02/13/2019 02:49 pm
We had an outbreak of political sniping. It referenced previous outbreaks that hadn't been cleaned. It's too disruptive to go back to July and delete stuff... but all the more recent stuff is gone. Whether Obama deliberately snubbed Houston by not giving them a shuttle?  Oddly, that's off topic for an Orion thread. Crazy I know...

Let's not have more political sniping in this thread please.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/13/2019 03:03 pm
{snip}
4.  The in-flight abort parachute regime has already been tested on several of the drop-tests of the dedicated parachute testing vehicle (PTV). Therefore: no need to equip the in-flight abort boilerplate with parachutes. In fact: equipping the boilerplate with parachutes would not provide NASA with any new information and it would be a waste of money.
{snip}

There are plenty of ways the force of the in-flight abort system along with its tendency to tip the capsule over could disrupt the parachute deployment systems. The sequence should be tested.

Emphasis mine.

Has already been done thru the PTV drop tests.

I do not require a full capsule with life support just equip the abort boilerplate with the latest CPAS (Capsule Parachute Assembly System). The two things are meant to work together in the correct sequence.

Emphasis mine.

It seems to me that you think you know better than the engineers that are actually involved in the development of Orion.

EASILY. Neither the CPAS nor the LAS design engineers are in charge of the entire sequence. That will be some manager somewhere.

I am reminded of the unplanned roll the Falcon 9 had on its first flight caused by the exhaust from the gas generators. Everything worked but not together.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a5852/spacex-falcon9-first-flight (https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a5852/spacex-falcon9-first-flight)

Quote
Having said that I will add a bit more explanation to aid in your education.
CPAS working in the correct sequence with the LAS has already been proven on PA-1.
The two systems work in a specified sequence, but activation of the second system (CPAS) is not triggered by jettison of the first system (LAS).
That applies to both pad abort and ascent abort.

This disconnect is exactly one of the reasons why testing of the CPAS under in-flight-abort conditions can be decoupled from flying an in-flight abort test.

A drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 02/13/2019 03:08 pm
A drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.

Why?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/13/2019 11:24 pm
A drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.

Why?

The LAS covers the top of the vehicle so the parachutes cannot deploy until the LAS has separated from the capsule. Plenty of ways things can go wrong, or slowly, there.

p.s. As a test of the reentry systems no LAS is valid since it would have departed several days before. As a milestone test of a sub-assembly of the abort system it is valid but not of a test of the entire system.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 02/14/2019 07:31 am
A drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.

Why?

The LAS covers the top of the vehicle so the parachutes cannot deploy until the LAS has separated from the capsule. Plenty of ways things can go wrong, or slowly, there.

Emphasis mine.

That has already been flight-tested twice: PA-1 and EFT-1. And will flight-tested again on AA-2. It is not a concern for deployment of chutes under ascent-abort conditions.

Again: if there was any validity in your concerns regarding no-chutes on AA-2 than NASA would be doing the test with chutes.
The fact that NASA chooses to do the test without chutes serves to invalidate your concerns.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 02/18/2019 05:42 am
A drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.

Why?

The LAS covers the top of the vehicle so the parachutes cannot deploy until the LAS has separated from the capsule. Plenty of ways things can go wrong, or slowly, there.

Emphasis mine.

That has already been flight-tested twice: PA-1 and EFT-1. And will flight-tested again on AA-2. It is not a concern for deployment of chutes under ascent-abort conditions.

Again: if there was any validity in your concerns regarding no-chutes on AA-2 than NASA would be doing the test with chutes.
The fact that NASA chooses to do the test without chutes serves to invalidate your concerns.
Correct. NASA retired several concerns after various drop and propulsive tests so several planned abort tests were cancelled although hardware is available if cancelled tests end up needed but would delay EM-1 and EM-2 because their LAS's would be needed to perform additional propulsive abort tests.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jacqmans on 02/22/2019 09:06 am
Credits: NASA/ESA/ATG Medialab
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jacqmans on 02/22/2019 09:07 am
Credits: NASA/ESA/ATG Medialab
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jacqmans on 02/22/2019 09:08 am
Credits: NASA/ESA/ATG Medialab
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 02/22/2019 09:22 am
Credits: NASA/ESA/ATG Medialab

Thanks for posting these Jacques.

Several of the details of a real Orion are missing or incorrect. For example: the brackets that are holding the folded SAW's in place, prior to deployment, are not present in this digital model.
Also: the thickness of the SAW panels is uniform, whereas on an actual Orion the innermost SAW panels are over twice as thick as the outermost SAW panels.
The Earth-orbit Orion is missing the white coating on the backside of the SAW's. Uncoated black backside of SAW's is applicable to BEO Orions only.
The CM portion is missing a host of details on the docking system, CMA and backshell.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jacqmans on 03/09/2019 07:42 am
Orion is NASA’s next spacecraft to send humans into space. It is designed to send astronauts farther into space than ever before, beyond the Moon to asteroids and even Mars.

ESA has designed and is overseeing the development of Orion’s service module, the part of the spacecraft that supplies air, electricity and propulsion. Much like a train engine pulls passenger carriages and supplies power, the European Service Module will take the Orion capsule to its destination and back.

The Orion spacecraft is built by NASA with ESA providing the service module. The arrangement stems from the international partnership for the International Space Station. NASA’s decision to cooperate with ESA on a critical element for the mission is a strong sign of trust and confidence in ESA’s capabilities.

More than 20 companies around Europe are now building the European Service Module as NASA works on Orion and the Space Launch System.

Credit: ESA
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: theinternetftw on 03/11/2019 05:30 pm
From the budget presentation today: Planning to reuse parts of Orion, including the pressure vessel by EM-4.

1) That's quite a long time from the first SLS launch, which is quite a long time from now.

2) Wonder how much that's planned to save.

According to Zapata (PDF) (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf), Orion is expect to cost $980M per capsule if produced at the rate of one per year.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/11/2019 11:52 pm
From the budget presentation today: Planning to reuse parts of Orion, including the pressure vessel by EM-4.

1) That's quite a long time from the first SLS launch, which is quite a long time from now.

2) Wonder how much that's planned to save.

According to Zapata (PDF) (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf), Orion is expect to cost $980M per capsule if produced at the rate of one per year.

I would be surprised if reuse saved anything at all at a flight rate of one per year.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: gongora on 03/13/2019 01:55 pm
New thread for the possibility of EM-1 on commercial launchers discussion/speculation:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47641.0
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 03/28/2019 04:10 am
Question about yesterday’s Bridenstine’s testimony. Is the « surge » mentioned by him to get two SLS a year also applicable to Orion or not? Are these additional SLS for Orion launch?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/28/2019 05:13 pm
Question about yesterday’s Bridenstine’s testimony. Is the « surge » mentioned by him to get two SLS a year also applicable to Orion or not? Are these additional SLS for Orion launch?

NASA got to figure out first what kind of BEO service module is needed for the Orion and who is going build them.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 03/28/2019 07:43 pm
See above. The European service module is built by ESA with a CMA by Lockheed.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 04/08/2019 10:37 pm
SpaceX likely to win NASA’s crew competition by months, for billions less.

What lessons can the space agency learn as it considers a lunar return?

ERIC BERGER - 4/8/2019, 10:24 AM

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/spacex-likely-to-win-nasas-crew-competition-by-months-for-billions-less/

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ZachS09 on 07/02/2019 02:09 am
What would happen if they didn't put in nearly 45,400 kilograms of ballast? I understand they’re doing it to slow the vehicle down, but would it make sense for it to go faster past Mach 1.3 and go through Max-Q before aborting?

I also don’t get the idea of going up to only 9.5 kilometers.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/02/2019 03:02 am
What would happen if they didn't put in nearly 45,400 kilograms of ballast? I understand they’re doing it to slow the vehicle down, but would it make sense for it to go faster past Mach 1.3 and go through Max-Q before aborting?

I also don’t get the idea of going up to only 9.5 kilometers.

The whole point of Orion inflight abort test is to see if the launch escape system works during the worst part of the expected acceleration profile of the SLS. Also there is acceleration restrictions with the Orion due to the manned rating.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 07/02/2019 11:25 am
I know the test article was not a "real" Orion, but the CG and OML were accurate, right? I'm asking because after LAS jettison the article started oscillating and finally did at least one full rotation before the camera cut away. Obviously that would not be a good scenario for a "real" Orion with crew.

Of course a real Orion would have deployed chutes by then, so this would probably not be a problem.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ZachS09 on 07/02/2019 12:12 pm
That was a really slow liftoff, similar to Athena II. I actually expected it to go a bit faster after ignition.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/02/2019 03:52 pm
I've seen several references to AA-2 being launched today by a "Minotaur IV", which I do not believe is precisely accurate.

Northrop Grumman's press release today called it an "ATB", which I presume means "Abort Test Booster".  It says that ATB was "based on Northrop Grumman’s Minotaur family of launch vehicles".  Minotaur IV itself is listed on the web site and user's guide as a multi-stage launch vehicle flown under the U.S. Air Force Orbital/Suborbital Program-3 (OSP-3) contract, which would not seem to apply to AA-2.
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-rockets-support-successful-abort-tes...

Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center also calls it ATB and notes that the SR118 "Peacekeeper motor used for this launch originally stood watch at F.E. Warren Air Force Base from June 30, 1993 to Aug. 13, 2003".
https://www.losangeles.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1893639/from-swords-to-plowshares-history...

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/02/2019 04:07 pm
I know the test article was not a "real" Orion, but the CG and OML were accurate, right? I'm asking because after LAS jettison the article started oscillating and finally did at least one full rotation before the camera cut away. Obviously that would not be a good scenario for a "real" Orion with crew.

Of course a real Orion would have deployed chutes by then, so this would probably not be a problem.

There are no attitude control thrusters on the test capsule. There are on any production Orion spacecraft. This was a test of the behavior of the abort engine, the capsule is basically a mass simulator and instrumentation.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: drnscr on 07/02/2019 05:25 pm
I’m sort of curious how this can be considered a complete validation test of the abort system without testing the capsule stabilization and landing parts
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/02/2019 05:38 pm
I’m sort of curious how this can be considered a complete validation test of the abort system without testing the capsule stabilization and landing parts

Is capsule stabilization absolutely required though? Dragon did an abort test where the capsule was tumbling quite rapidly. Besides crew comfort and potentially losing your lunch, it isn't necessarily much of a crew safety concern.

see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FXVjf46T8

anyways, the pad abort test had full parachutes deploy post seperation.

see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c9rS5G5X6Y
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: DaveS on 07/02/2019 05:39 pm
I’m sort of curious how this can be considered a complete validation test of the abort system without testing the capsule stabilization and landing parts
It was a test of the Launch Abort System, not the Earth Landing System (ELS) which has the chutes and the uprighting bags.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/02/2019 05:49 pm
"Analysis showed a significant risk of Orion and its launch vehicle tumbling out of control if an abort was initiated at transonic flight speeds. If tumbling occurred, the vehicle would almost certainly experience an aerodynamic breakup that would lead to a loss of crew and vehicle. However, analysis showed that a ballast with a maximum weight of 600 pounds shifted the vehicle’s center of gravity, made the vehicle more stable, and mitigated the worst of the tumbling. The nose cone was therefore modified so that a ballast could be added if tumbling was anticipated in future vehicle configurations. Additional wind tunnel testing and land-landing analyses have since validated the Program’s approach as a risk mitigation strategy, and the Ascent Abort 2 flight test is expected to establish system-level performance near the transonic region during ascent."

from the NASA OIG report IG-16-029 from 2016 on the Orion crew vehicle.

I read that as the AA-2 test should have shown that capsule tumbling would not occur... so if it did tumble, that would seem to be potentially quite serious. However, it could be that the observed tumbling is within acceptable tolerance. I hope NASA makes some sort of public statement about that.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 07/02/2019 05:59 pm
I’m sort of curious how this can be considered a complete validation test of the abort system without testing the capsule stabilization and landing parts

Those are validated on different tests (see parachute drop tests).
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/02/2019 06:19 pm
Tumbling was more than likely due to "vortex shedding". Drogue cute deployment would stabilize that during normal ops...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/02/2019 09:30 pm
Tumbling was more than likely due to "vortex shedding". Drogue cute deployment would stabilize that during normal ops...

I looked at the footage again, there is surprisingly little rotation placed on the capsule after LAS jettison. It then stays up right with no attitude control thrusters and no parachutes. Of course, there are attitude changes but it seems to self correct and not tumble.

see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJgqhznBntE

edit: That video seems to cut off where the tumble happened. It does appear in the live webcast that occurred.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/02/2019 10:58 pm
Tumbling was more than likely due to "vortex shedding". Drogue cute deployment would stabilize that during normal ops...

I looked at the footage again, there is surprisingly little rotation placed on the capsule after LAS jettison. It then stays up right with no attitude control thrusters and no parachutes. Of course, there are attitude changes but it seems to self correct and not tumble.

see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJgqhznBntE

edit: That video seems to cut off where the tumble happened. It does appear in the live webcast that occurred.
Agreed, it looked to me to be more of an oscillation rather than a continuous tumble (rotation)...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/02/2019 11:57 pm
Tumbling was more than likely due to "vortex shedding". Drogue cute deployment would stabilize that during normal ops...

I looked at the footage again, there is surprisingly little rotation placed on the capsule after LAS jettison. It then stays up right with no attitude control thrusters and no parachutes. Of course, there are attitude changes but it seems to self correct and not tumble.
Agreed, it looked to me to be more of an oscillation rather than a continuous tumble (rotation)...

It was tumbling wildly further in its descent, and also seemed to be on fire, in the 4K video posted in the update thread. Those probably aren't off-nominal for an unguided capsule that just got toasted with rocket exhaust, but it's an interesting look nonetheless.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/03/2019 12:12 am
Tumbling was more than likely due to "vortex shedding". Drogue cute deployment would stabilize that during normal ops...

I looked at the footage again, there is surprisingly little rotation placed on the capsule after LAS jettison. It then stays up right with no attitude control thrusters and no parachutes. Of course, there are attitude changes but it seems to self correct and not tumble.
Agreed, it looked to me to be more of an oscillation rather than a continuous tumble (rotation)...

It was tumbling wildly further in its descent, and also seemed to be on fire, in the 4K video posted in the update thread. Those probably aren't off-nominal for an unguided capsule that just got toasted with rocket exhaust, but it's an interesting look nonetheless.
Thank you, I'll take a look at it.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Scylla on 07/03/2019 12:24 am
Tumbling was more than likely due to "vortex shedding". Drogue cute deployment would stabilize that during normal ops...

I looked at the footage again, there is surprisingly little rotation placed on the capsule after LAS jettison. It then stays up right with no attitude control thrusters and no parachutes. Of course, there are attitude changes but it seems to self correct and not tumble.
Agreed, it looked to me to be more of an oscillation rather than a continuous tumble (rotation)...

It was tumbling wildly further in its descent, and also seemed to be on fire, in the 4K video posted in the update thread. Those probably aren't off-nominal for an unguided capsule that just got toasted with rocket exhaust, but it's an interesting look nonetheless.
Thank you, I'll take a look at it.
I don't think it's on fire. Looks like it's creating contrails.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/03/2019 12:55 am
I'm not a fan of the Orion or the SLS, but this test was of the Launch Abort System (LAS), not the Orion spacecraft, so anything that happened after the boilerplate Orion-shaped test mass was ejected successfully from the LAS is, for the most part, irrelevant.

I also think it's a disservice to call this a test of the Orion spacecraft, since the LAS never makes it to space, so it's never part of what the Orion spacecraft actually does in space. If anything the LAS is NOT part of the Orion spacecraft, it is part of the SLS safety system.

/rant
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/03/2019 01:22 am
It was a long time coming and regardless where we stand, it was a good test day...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 07/03/2019 03:42 am
That was a really slow liftoff, similar to Athena II. I actually expected it to go a bit faster after ignition.

It was mentioned by Mark Kirasich (Orion Program Manager) during the after launch discussion segment that the LV was weighted down to slow its takeoff, otherwise, it would go too fast. 

Video segment provided here:

https://youtu.be/a-i8ENCtpVs
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/03/2019 02:32 pm
BONUS: Also this: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/c89rye/i_was_able_to_see_the_atb_crash_into_the_water/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/c89rye/i_was_able_to_see_the_atb_crash_into_the_water/)  :o :o ;D

That's a great video clip.

Can anyone figure out how far apart the booster and capsule splashed down? I'm curious how far the LES actually gets the capsule away from the LV.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 07/03/2019 02:49 pm
I'm not a fan of the Orion or the SLS, but this test was of the Launch Abort System (LAS), not the Orion spacecraft, so anything that happened after the boilerplate Orion-shaped test mass was ejected successfully from the LAS is, for the most part, irrelevant.

I also think it's a disservice to call this a test of the Orion spacecraft, since the LAS never makes it to space, so it's never part of what the Orion spacecraft actually does in space. If anything the LAS is NOT part of the Orion spacecraft, it is part of the SLS safety system.

/rant

The LAS to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) falls under the Orion in the Org chart no?  That to me makes it a subsystem of Orion, as the LAS presumably would be used on another LV if SLS went away.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: eeergo on 07/03/2019 04:16 pm
BONUS: Also this: https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/c89rye/i_was_able_to_see_the_atb_crash_into_the_water/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceLaunchSystem/comments/c89rye/i_was_able_to_see_the_atb_crash_into_the_water/)  :o :o ;D

That's a great video clip.

Can anyone figure out how far apart the booster and capsule splashed down? I'm curious how far the LES actually gets the capsule away from the LV.

The splashdown point will depend so much on winds, parachutes (or lack thereof, as in this test), what the booster's doing (this one was a few seconds away from tailing off at the time the abort was triggered) and in what condition (looks like the aeroshell held up pretty well even with a blunt front blasted by the LAS exhaust, which allowed the SR-118 to keep flying true and impeded disintegration or pre-burnout tumbling)... that I'd say the actual separation distance between impact points is meaningless, at least for an operational abort scenario.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 07/03/2019 05:01 pm
Tumbling was more than likely due to "vortex shedding". Drogue cute deployment would stabilize that during normal ops...

I looked at the footage again, there is surprisingly little rotation placed on the capsule after LAS jettison. It then stays up right with no attitude control thrusters and no parachutes. Of course, there are attitude changes but it seems to self correct and not tumble.

see:


edit: That video seems to cut off where the tumble happened. It does appear in the live webcast that occurred.
Agreed, it looked to me to be more of an oscillation rather than a continuous tumble (rotation)...

As ncb1397 noted, that clip ends before the full tumble started. I guess they didn't want to publicize Orion (even a test one) crashing into the ocean. Even in the live coverage, they cut away long before impact. But the live coverage did last longer than the clip, several seconds after the final "data recorders will be ejected soon" comment. Then the tumbling started, and they cut back to the commentators.

I'm not trying to start a conspiracy theory, I just thought the Orion was supposed to be aerodynamically stable. I didn't realize that its descent attitude had to be dynamically maintained with thrusters.

Unfortunately, I was unable to record the live stream.

Thanks.

Edit: after watching this clip, I don't think the word "tumble" quite does it justice: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45593.msg1962634#msg1962634

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/03/2019 05:24 pm
Good close-in video of the capsule after separation from the LAS (starting at 1:45)
https://youtu.be/2RbbSGrO_tY?t=105

Oscillations don't start until the 2:10 mark, tumbling starts at about 2:40 (though there are a couple of cuts in the video, so I'm not sure exactly when the oscillating starts after LAS separation).

Either way, this is well after the drogue parachute deploy in a normal in-flight abort, and the drogue would stabilize the capsule.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Stan-1967 on 07/04/2019 03:11 pm
The tumbling of the Orion capsule was very reminiscent of the crash of the Genesis probe into the Utah dessert many years ago.  I'll speculate some Hollywood movie will work this footage into a storyline someday.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 07/04/2019 05:11 pm
I'm not trying to start a conspiracy theory, I just thought the Orion was supposed to be aerodynamically stable. I didn't realize that its descent attitude had to be dynamically maintained with thrusters.
I'm fairly certain the tumbling is just a consequence of the boilerplate capsule:
A: having no parachutes
B: not being designed to test splashdown (and therefore likely having a different mass distribution)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 07/04/2019 05:59 pm
"Apollo like" capsules use an offset CoG in conjunction with RCS to maintain attitude, generate lift, steer and cross-range on entry.
Within the test flight envelope for this test the vehicle separated cleanly from the LAS and maintained a reasonable attitude with some oscillation when drogue deploy would happen.The flight test parameters were over at this point with the required data.
As the vehicle descended the oscillation and with the increased air density so the magnitude of the vortex shedding, as lift was achieved and dumped in rapid succession tumbling occurred which is to be expected with this moldline. At this point the vehicle would have been under chute control thus out of the test parameters...
If this were a lifting body such as Dream Chaser it would have been using it's lift and control surfaces until touch down to maintain stability...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/05/2019 02:05 am
I'm not trying to start a conspiracy theory, I just thought the Orion was supposed to be aerodynamically stable. I didn't realize that its descent attitude had to be dynamically maintained with thrusters.
I'm fairly certain the tumbling is just a consequence of the boilerplate capsule:
A: having no parachutes
B: not being designed to test splashdown (and therefore likely having a different mass distribution)
Yeah. And the boilerplate has a different cone angle, if I recall correctly.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 07/05/2019 02:51 am
I would think it important for purposes of this test that the boilerplate's mass distribution match that of the the real thing.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/05/2019 03:55 am
I hope none of the capsules oscillations or rotations or tumbling would prevent the parachutes from deploying.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 07/05/2019 11:15 am
I hope none of the capsules oscillations or rotations or tumbling would prevent the parachutes from deploying.
That is what you have drogues for: to stabilize the motion of the capsule enough that the mains can be safely deployed.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 07/21/2019 07:28 pm
Question about completed Orion.

The image published in the SpaceNews coverage of Pence's Apollo 11 speech (https://spacenews.com/nasa-announces-orion-achievement-on-apollo-11-anniversary/) shows what appears to be three missing tiles.  This can be seen from slightly different angles at 11:53 and 19:25 in the following video.

https://youtu.be/kBKoSvQrK6Q?t=1165 (https://youtu.be/kBKoSvQrK6Q?t=1165)

What is the purpose behind having apparently missing tiles?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: DistantTemple on 07/21/2019 07:36 pm
Is that the finished Orion? Or some other development or test article?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Joseph Peterson on 07/21/2019 07:46 pm
According to the speech it is the EM-1 capsule, complete and ready for testing.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/23/2019 04:38 am
According to the speech it is the EM-1 capsule, complete and ready for testing.
It has some protection covers over some of the panels panels on the backshell TPS with a few missing tiles hence why they lack their covers.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/23/2019 08:51 am
Here's the image in question. We see the missing tiles right in front of Pence.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/23/2019 07:55 pm
Artemis 1 Orion Spacecraft CSM
here's a higher definition image of the CSM but one thing that's easy to notice is the lack of solar panels and some panels on Orion and the ESM. It seems that some parts were removed from the ESM and the Orion heatshield seems to be sticking out which means that it's not fully placed into the crew module adapter.
Some hardware was returned to Europe and hardware not needed for the Plum Brook tests were removed. Specifics I cannot disclose but can be read in L2.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ddspaceman on 08/23/2019 06:54 pm
How NASA Will Protect Astronauts From Space Radiation at the Moon

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/how-nasa-protects-astronauts-from-space-radiation-at-moon-mars-solar-cosmic-rays
Jessica Vos (foreground), deputy health and medical technical authority for Orion, and astronaut Anne McClain (background) demonstrate the radiation protection plan in a representative Orion spacecraft. During an SEP event, the crew will use stowage bags on board Orion to create a dense shelter from radiation.
Credits: NASA
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 09/18/2019 10:51 pm
Top Five Technologies Needed for a Spacecraft to Survive Deep Space: #1 Systems to Live and Breathe..

https://twitter.com/NASA_Orion/status/1174442978519244801
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Tywin on 09/23/2019 09:49 pm
Great news for the future "constellation of Orion"...Lockheed, was a  awards for NASA for build six new Orion...

Quote
DENVER, Sept. 23, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- NASA and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) have finalized a contract for the production and operations of six Orion spacecraft missions and the ability to order up to 12 in total. Orion is NASA's deep space exploration spaceship that will carry astronauts from Earth to the Moon and bring them safely home. Lockheed Martin has been the prime contractor during the development phase of the Orion program.


https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-awards-lockheed-martin-contract-for-six-orion-spacecraft-300923540.html
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pochimax on 09/23/2019 09:57 pm
A very big contract.

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1176230874012106752
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Targeteer on 09/23/2019 09:58 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract

Sept. 23, 2019
RELEASE 19-074
NASA Commits to Long-term Artemis Missions with Orion Production Contract

NASA is setting in motion the Orion spacecraft production line to support as many as 12 Artemis missions, including the mission that will carry the first woman and next man to the Moon by 2024.

The agency has awarded the Orion Production and Operations Contract (OPOC) to Lockheed Martin of Littleton, Colorado. Spacecraft production for the Orion program, managed at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, will focus on reusability and building a sustainable presence on the lunar surface.

“This is a great day for the men and women at Johnson Space Center. They are crucial to our national space program, and have an undeniable legacy and record of success in advancing America’s leadership in the human exploration of space,” said Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. “I am pleased that Administrator Bridenstine has heeded my calls and is taking significant steps to ensure that Johnson continues to grow with the exciting future of manned exploration that lies ahead. More needs to be done, and I look forward to production ramping up in the weeks and months to come and to more opportunities with NASA.”

OPOC is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract that includes a commitment to order a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 Orion spacecraft, with an ordering period through Sept. 30, 2030. Production and operations of the spacecraft for six to 12 missions will establish a core set of capabilities, stabilize the production process, and demonstrate reusability of spacecraft components.

“This contract secures Orion production through the next decade, demonstrating NASA’s commitment to establishing a sustainable presence at the Moon to bring back new knowledge and prepare for sending astronauts to Mars,” said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. “Orion is a highly-capable, state-of-the-art spacecraft, designed specifically for deep space missions with astronauts, and an integral part of NASA’s infrastructure for Artemis missions and future exploration of the solar system.”

With this award, NASA is ordering three Orion spacecraft for Artemis missions III through V for $2.7 billion. The agency plans to order three additional Orion capsules in fiscal year 2022 for Artemis missions VI through VIII, at a total of $1.9 billion. Ordering the spacecraft in groups of three allows NASA to benefit from efficiencies that become available in the supply chain over time – efficiencies that optimize production and lower costs.

Spacecraft reusability – itself a significant cost saver for the agency – will help NASA build the capabilities for sustainable exploration at the Moon and beyond. The long-term plan is to reuse the recovered crew modules at least once. The first phase of reusability will start with Artemis II. Interior components of the spacecraft, such as flight computers and other high value electronics, as well as crew seats and switch panels, will be re-flown on Artemis V. The Artemis III crew module will be re-flown on Artemis VI.

The first six spacecraft will be acquired by cost-plus-incentive-fee ordering. Because the cost of a complex, high-tech system generally decreases over time as the design stabilizes and production processes mature, NASA will negotiate firm-fixed-price orders for future missions to take advantage of the anticipated spacecraft production cost decreases. Furthermore, the cost incentives on the cost-plus-incentive-fee orders are designed to motivate favorable cost performance during early OPOC production and drive substantially lower prices for any subsequent firm-fixed-price orders issued under this contract.

“As the only vehicle capable of deep space exploration, the Orion spacecraft is critical to America’s continued leadership,” said Rep. Brian Babin of Texas. “Today’s announcement signals that we are moving closer towards operation and production. While I look forward to learning more of the details, it’s encouraging to see that this program is moving along as it should be. I am proud of the Orion program team and contractor partners at Johnson Space Center as they move towards getting the vehicle ‘flight ready.’ Without the brilliant minds and extraordinary leadership of the hard-working men and women at Johnson, our country would not be the preeminent spacefaring nation in the world.”

Work under this contract also will support production of NASA’s lunar-orbiting Gateway and evolving mission requirements. Production of certain spacecraft components already designed and qualified for Orion will be provided for Gateway use, eliminating the need for the Gateway Program to develop and qualify similar components.

“The men and women at Johnson Space Center represent the best and brightest scientific minds, and I’m confident with additional Orion spacecraft they will push the limits of exploration to the Moon and beyond,” said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. “I commend the Trump Administration for recognizing the importance and tradition of Houston as the center of human spaceflight and exploring the next frontier.”

Houston has long been the hub of America’s human space exploration program, from the early days of Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo to Artemis. With NASA’s accelerated return to the Moon, Johnson Space Center now is managing more major human spaceflight programs than ever before. In addition to the Orion program, the Texas facility also manages NASA’s Gateway and International Space Station programs, and is home to the Mission Control Center and America’s astronaut corps – the next moonwalkers. Johnson also manages the agency’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services, the first two deliveries for which are targeted to launch to the Moon in July 2021.

“No other spacecraft in the world can keep humans alive hundreds of thousands of miles from Earth for weeks at a time with the safety features, crew accommodations, technical innovations, and reliability that Orion provides,” said Mark Kirasich, Orion Program manager at Johnson. “With the design and development phase of Orion largely behind us, this new contract will enable us to increase efficiencies, reuse the spacecraft, and bring down the cost of reliably transporting people between earth and the Gateway.”

NASA is working to land the first woman and next man on the Moon in five years as part of the agency’s Artemis program. Orion, the Space Launch System rocket and Gateway are part of NASA’s backbone for deep space exploration. Work is well underway on both the Artemis I and II Orion spacecraft. Engineers at Kennedy Space Center in Florida have completed and attached the crew and service modules for Artemis I and are preparing the spacecraft for environmental testing. Meanwhile, teams at Kennedy are integrating thousands of parts into the crew module for Artemis II in preparation for the first crewed Artemis mission.

The Artemis program is the next step in human space exploration. It’s part of NASA’s broader Moon to Mars exploration approach, in which we will quickly and sustainably explore the Moon and use what we learn there to enable humanity’s next giant leap, sending astronauts to Mars.

For more information about Orion, visit:

https://www.nasa.gov/orion
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/23/2019 10:31 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract

Spacecraft reusability – itself a significant cost saver for the agency – will help NASA build the capabilities for sustainable exploration at the Moon and beyond. The long-term plan is to reuse the recovered crew modules at least once. The first phase of reusability will start with Artemis II. Interior components of the spacecraft, such as flight computers and other high value electronics, as well as crew seats and switch panels, will be re-flown on Artemis V. The Artemis III crew module will be re-flown on Artemis VI.


Good. I'm glad they've finally announced initial plans for reuse for Orion!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/24/2019 06:19 am
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract

Spacecraft reusability – itself a significant cost saver for the agency – will help NASA build the capabilities for sustainable exploration at the Moon and beyond. The long-term plan is to reuse the recovered crew modules at least once. The first phase of reusability will start with Artemis II. Interior components of the spacecraft, such as flight computers and other high value electronics, as well as crew seats and switch panels, will be re-flown on Artemis V. The Artemis III crew module will be re-flown on Artemis VI.


Good. I'm glad they've finally announced initial plans for reuse for Orion!

IMO this wouldn't be anywhere as close as it is today if it hadn't been for SpaceX pushing NASA to OK reuse of cargo Dragons. NASA learned A LOT from that.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jacqmans on 09/24/2019 08:07 am
News Release Issued: Sep 23, 2019 (4:19pm EDT)


NASA Awards Lockheed Martin Contract for Six Orion Spacecraft

Production Starts on Spacecraft that will Take Astronauts to the Moon

DENVER, Sept. 23, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- NASA and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) have finalized a contract for the production and operations of six Orion spacecraft missions and the ability to order up to 12 in total. Orion is NASA's deep space exploration spaceship that will carry astronauts from Earth to the Moon and bring them safely home. Lockheed Martin has been the prime contractor during the development phase of the Orion program.

Orion is NASA’s deep space exploration spaceship that will carry astronauts from Earth to the Moon and bring them safely home.

"This contract clearly shows NASA's commitment not only to Orion, but also to Artemis and its bold goal of sending humans to the Moon in the next five years," said Rick Ambrose, executive vice president of Lockheed Martin Space. "We are equally committed to Orion and Artemis and producing these vehicles with a focus on cost, schedule and mission success."

The agency's Orion Production and Operations Contract (OPOC) is an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contact for NASA to issue both cost-plus-incentive fee and firm-fixed-price orders. Initially, NASA has ordered three Orion spacecraft for Artemis missions III-V for $2.7 billion. Then in fiscal year 2022, the agency plans to order three additional Orion spacecraft for Artemis missions VI-VIII for $1.9 billion.

OPOC will realize substantial savings compared to the costs of vehicles built during the design, development, test and evaluation (DDT&E) phase.

Up to six additional Orion spacecraft may be ordered under the IDIQ contract through Sept. 30, 2030, leveraging spacecraft production cost data from the previous six missions to enable the lowest possible unit prices.

The first spacecraft delivered on this contract, Artemis III, will carry the first woman and the next man to the Moon in 2024, where they will dock with the Gateway and ultimately land on the surface using a lunar landing system. Orion is a critical part of the agency's Artemis program to build a sustainable presence on the lunar surface and to prepare us to move on to Mars.

Reusable Orion crew modules and systems, use of advanced manufacturing technologies, material and component bulk buys and an accelerated mission cadence all contribute to considerable cost reductions on these production vehicles.

"We have learned a lot about how to design and manufacture a better Orion—such as designing for reusability, using augmented reality and additive manufacturing—and we're applying this to this next series of vehicles. Driving down cost and manufacturing them more efficiently and faster will be key to making the Artemis program a success," said Mike Hawes, Orion program manager for Lockheed Martin Space. "One must also appreciate how unique Orion is. It's a spaceship like none other. We've designed it to do things no other spacecraft can do, go to places no astronaut has been and take us into a new era of human deep space exploration."

Lockheed Martin and NASA recently announced the completion of the Orion crew and service module being developed for the Artemis I mission, an uncrewed mission to the Moon. Work on the spacecraft for the Artemis II mission, the first crewed flight to the Moon, is well underway at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

More information about Orion:
Lockheed Martin Orion page: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/orion
NASA Orion page: https://www.nasa.gov/orion
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Eric Hedman on 09/24/2019 09:26 am
Does anyone know if NASA has agreed to anything with ESA on how the services modules get funded for all these capsules?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/24/2019 10:14 am
So that works out to $900M each for the first three and $633M each for the next three.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 09/24/2019 01:44 pm
Does anyone know if NASA has agreed to anything with ESA on how the services modules get funded for all these capsules?
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/1176425286570786816
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jstrotha0975 on 09/24/2019 01:49 pm
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 09/24/2019 02:17 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract

Spacecraft reusability – itself a significant cost saver for the agency – will help NASA build the capabilities for sustainable exploration at the Moon and beyond. The long-term plan is to reuse the recovered crew modules at least once. The first phase of reusability will start with Artemis II. Interior components of the spacecraft, such as flight computers and other high value electronics, as well as crew seats and switch panels, will be re-flown on Artemis V. The Artemis III crew module will be re-flown on Artemis VI.


Good. I'm glad they've finally announced initial plans for reuse for Orion!
Good. I'm glad they've finally announced initial plans for reuse for Orion!

I wonder whether reuse (actually just salvageability for the time being) really saves any money at the very low flight rates envisioned.  And note that the contract is cost-plus.  It all seems soooo 20th-century.  I'll bet LockMart gets a juicy termination fee too.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/24/2019 02:19 pm
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.

If SLS gets cancelled then it is very likely that all of this will get cancelled along with it.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 09/24/2019 02:22 pm
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.

I'll bet we'll soon here of a similar cost-plus contract for more SLS's.  The Alabama delegation is surely pounding the table for it as we speak.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 09/24/2019 02:28 pm
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.
If you still believe that will happen anytime soon at this point, then I'm not sure what to tell ya.

I wonder of people will still be claiming this when NASA's inked a contract with Boeing for 6 more SLS cores.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: LaunchedIn68 on 09/24/2019 02:52 pm
It's all well and good but, where's the lander?  :-\
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/24/2019 03:16 pm
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.
If you still believe that will happen anytime soon at this point, then I'm not sure what to tell ya.

I wonder of people will still be claiming this when NASA's inked a contract with Boeing for 6 more SLS cores.

NASA only ordered 3 Orion for now, not 6. All they have done is negotiated the price for the next three.

All 6 would be cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts, which is a HUGE win for Lockheed Martin.

Normally when you have a stable product you would use firm-fixed price contracting, but Lockheed Martin must have put on some dog & pony show to convince the government that the Orion program is NOT stable enough to be able to anticipate how much it will cost. That would be a BIG RED flag to me in the manufacturing world...  :o
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/24/2019 04:37 pm
It's all well and good but, where's the lander?  :-\

NASA is reading the fixed price quotes for the lander.
https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep/humanlander2 (https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep/humanlander2)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 09/24/2019 04:40 pm
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.
If you still believe that will happen anytime soon at this point, then I'm not sure what to tell ya.

I wonder of people will still be claiming this when NASA's inked a contract with Boeing for 6 more SLS cores.

NASA only ordered 3 Orion for now, not 6. All they have done is negotiated the price for the next three.
There is no penalty paid if they decide in 2022 to walk away from Orion?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/24/2019 04:49 pm
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.
If you still believe that will happen anytime soon at this point, then I'm not sure what to tell ya.

I wonder of people will still be claiming this when NASA's inked a contract with Boeing for 6 more SLS cores.

NASA only ordered 3 Orion for now, not 6. All they have done is negotiated the price for the next three.
There is no penalty paid if they decide in 2022 to walk away from Orion?

We'd have to see the contract, but I don't think there would be much actual liability.

Addendum:

NASA owns the Orion design and so far Lockheed Martin has been doing all work as a cost-plus contractor, meaning that they get paid - in real time - for the labor and material that they consume on the program.

If NASA didn't exercise the 2nd contract for 3ea Orion, which are already pre-negotiated to be cost-plus contracts too, I'm not sure what liability there could be, since I don't see any evidence of Lockheed Martin investing anything into the program - they seem to have ZERO liability, other than having a standing army of personnel.

For instance, if Lockheed Martin had invested in production Orion tooling at NASA's behest, and the tooling was designed to produce a minimum of six Orion, then Lockheed Martin would have standing to seek financial relief for the unused tooling value if NASA only ordered three Orion.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 09/25/2019 02:02 pm
The Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition document for the recent award under the Orion Production and Operations Contract (OPOC) was posted yesterday.

See: https://www.fbo.gov/notices/d52cdcc78ced996d69cccfe366f99f88 (https://www.fbo.gov/notices/d52cdcc78ced996d69cccfe366f99f88)

JOFOC: https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=fe66ce6def788d22962448fefd3ea93f (https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=fe66ce6def788d22962448fefd3ea93f)

(copy also attached - 17 pages)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 10/06/2019 06:52 pm
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.

If SLS gets cancelled then it is very likely that all of this will get cancelled along with it.

You have at least two upcoming launchers from the Air Force competition that could lift Orion.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/06/2019 11:29 pm
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.

If SLS gets cancelled then it is very likely that all of this will get cancelled along with it.

You have at least two upcoming launchers from the Air Force competition that could lift Orion.

I believe the Delta IV is not man rated so the Orion would probably have to be launched unmanned. The Orion, ISS, crew Dragon and CST-100 all have IDSS complaint docking ports. The IDSS is meant to be androgynous but sometimes mass is saved, so can the Orion get is crew by docking with at least one of the other 3 vehicles?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GrandByte on 10/07/2019 12:43 am
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.

If SLS gets cancelled then it is very likely that all of this will get cancelled along with it.

You have at least two upcoming launchers from the Air Force competition that could lift Orion.

I believe the Delta IV is not man rated so the Orion would probably have to be launched unmanned. The Orion, ISS, crew Dragon and CST-100 all have IDSS complaint docking ports. The IDSS is meant to be androgynous but sometimes mass is saved, so can the Orion get is crew by docking with at least one of the other 3 vehicles?

At this point, you would need a DIVH to launch Orion into LEO (which I think it technically can't, since Orion either needs a slight diet or to use it's own propulsion to get into orbit), a Falcon or Atlas to launch the crew in either Dragon or Starliner, and a third launch to send up the fuel and engine to send the whole thing towards the Moon. That's three launches, all to replicate SLS Block 1's performance - to say nothing about the co-manifest ability that Block 1B and beyond can provide and makes things like Gateway a lot easier to make. At that rate is it really worth making it that much more complicated (and with the added cost due to needing all these other rockets/spacecraft and designing/making a new transfer stage, along with changing all the co-manifested payloads) just to avoid using SLS?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/07/2019 02:28 am

At this point, you would need a DIVH to launch Orion into LEO (which I think it technically can't, since Orion either needs a slight diet or to use it's own propulsion to get into orbit), a Falcon or Atlas to launch the crew in either Dragon or Starliner, and a third launch to send up the fuel and engine to send the whole thing towards the Moon. That's three launches, all to replicate SLS Block 1's performance - to say nothing about the co-manifest ability that Block 1B and beyond can provide and makes things like Gateway a lot easier to make. At that rate is it really worth making it that much more complicated (and with the added cost due to needing all these other rockets/spacecraft and designing/making a new transfer stage, along with changing all the co-manifested payloads) just to avoid using SLS?

Replacing the SLS is a contingency plan. It would only be used if the SLS is not ready to launch the Orion in 2024.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 10/17/2019 04:39 pm
I'll bet we'll soon here of a similar cost-plus contract for more SLS's.  The Alabama delegation is surely pounding the table for it as we speak.

"NASA will award Boeing a cost-plus contract for up to 10 SLS rockets." (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49073.msg2005733#msg2005733)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 10/17/2019 06:58 pm
I'll bet we'll soon here of a similar cost-plus contract for more SLS's.  The Alabama delegation is surely pounding the table for it as we speak.

"NASA will award Boeing a cost-plus contract for up to 10 SLS rockets." (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49073.msg2005733#msg2005733)

Your predicting qualities are noted sir.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 10/17/2019 10:42 pm
Your predicting qualities are noted sir.
Oi! I think I deserve some credit too!  :P
I wonder of people will still be claiming this when NASA's inked a contract with Boeing for 6 more SLS cores.
I actually under-estimated how large of a block-buy they'd go for.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 10/18/2019 06:23 am
Your predicting qualities are noted sir.
Oi! I think I deserve some credit too!  :P
I wonder of people will still be claiming this when NASA's inked a contract with Boeing for 6 more SLS cores.
I actually under-estimated how large of a block-buy they'd go for.

Did you predict the "cost-plus" part? Because that was the "hard" part of an otherwise fairly predictable prediction (pun intended).
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hog on 10/18/2019 03:30 pm
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.

If SLS gets cancelled then it is very likely that all of this will get cancelled along with it.

You have at least two upcoming launchers from the Air Force competition that could lift Orion.
Would OmegA Heavy have enough grunt to get Orion into LEO? 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: happyflower on 10/21/2019 06:35 pm
I'll bet we'll soon here of a similar cost-plus contract for more SLS's.  The Alabama delegation is surely pounding the table for it as we speak.

"NASA will award Boeing a cost-plus contract for up to 10 SLS rockets." (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49073.msg2005733#msg2005733)

This is very disappointing news to me. I mean I don't have a problem with Boeing doing cost plus for development, but at what point does a company like Boeing figure out if they have finished developing a rocket? I mean its been 5 years, and SLS is not some ground breaking technological project... Yet the new contract is to start the job and we will tell you later how much. reminds me a bit of "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today!".
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/23/2019 01:41 pm
I'll bet we'll soon here of a similar cost-plus contract for more SLS's.  The Alabama delegation is surely pounding the table for it as we speak.

"NASA will award Boeing a cost-plus contract for up to 10 SLS rockets." (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=49073.msg2005733#msg2005733)

This is very disappointing news to me. I mean I don't have a problem with Boeing doing cost plus for development, but at what point does a company like Boeing figure out if they have finished developing a rocket? I mean its been 5 years, and SLS is not some ground breaking technological project... Yet the new contract is to start the job and we will tell you later how much. reminds me a bit of "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today!".

SLS still needs development for Block 1B upper stage and Block 2 boosters, although I thought the purpose of oversizing the core initially was that the core stages wouldn't need constant development down the road.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 10/23/2019 03:26 pm
Orion is way too heavy.  About 45-55 tons for Orion + service module fully fueled.  Only vehicle other than SLS to get it to LEO is FH.  Even SLS can't get it to the moon without an upper stage, which has not been designed or built yet.

FH could launch Orion to orbit, another FH or other provider can launch a fully fueled upper stage, dock, and on the way to the moon.  Cost for a FH is around $100 million, same with Vulcan, about $300 million with Delta IV heavy.  New Glenn is said to be around $100 million.  Even with extra launches, the cost is still way below SLS. 

Now the prices are base prices are ballpark base prices from these providers.  Even if you double the costs for extra handling, etc, for NASA.  It is still way below SLS.  Using multiple providers more often keeps the assembly lines going and thus lower costs to eliminate idle time. 

Even if Congress awards 10 more SLS launchers, it would still be only one launch per year.  Boeing has said they currently can only build one per year, two adding extra shifts.  Right now NASA will not allow Orion to be launched on any other vehicle than SLS.  Orion only has a 4 man crew.  So, going back to the moon seems like only flags and footprints again, unless NASA cuts costs and uses existing and proposed new rockets from the launch providers.  NASA does not have an unlimited budget. 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/24/2019 01:01 am
Orion is way too heavy.  About 45-55 tons for Orion + service module fully fueled.  Only vehicle other than SLS to get it to LEO is FH.  Even SLS can't get it to the moon without an upper stage, which has not been designed or built yet.
...

Orion with the service module is only 25.8 tonnes fully fueled, and SLS with ICPS can get it almost to TLI. Orion has to do a very small burn to finish TLI.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: gemmy0I on 10/24/2019 05:25 am
Orion is way too heavy.  About 45-55 tons for Orion + service module fully fueled.  Only vehicle other than SLS to get it to LEO is FH.  Even SLS can't get it to the moon without an upper stage, which has not been designed or built yet.
...

Orion with the service module is only 25.8 tonnes fully fueled, and SLS with ICPS can get it almost to TLI. Orion has to do a very small burn to finish TLI.
On this note, I would like to remind everyone that Falcon Heavy, with ICPS on top as a third stage between FH and Orion, is essentially a drop-in replacement for SLS Block 1. :) FH can get the complete ICPS+Orion stack into a LEO orbit that's (close enough to) equivalent to where the SLS Block 1 core stage leaves it, allowing it to perform any of the Block 1-based Artemis missions.

Interestingly enough, NASA has actually run the numbers on this and Bridenstine, at least, considers it to be a viable concept, although it was rejected for the "EM-1 on a commercial launcher" study because it would have taken longer to do the aerodynamics studies, payload adapter, and GSE work than to accelerate SLS. Bridenstine brought this up at the NASA employees' town hall he held after that study, and seemed quite excited about the idea, although it was clearly controversial within NASA (he joked with Gerstenmaier in the room that Gerst wasn't so sold on it). He did make a point to emphasize that although it was off the table for Artemis-1, it most certainly was still on the table for future Artemis missions, because he believed there would be sufficient time to do the aerodynamics and GSE work in time for the 2024 landing.

We haven't heard anything whatsoever publicly about this since then, which is understandable given it would potentially torpedo the already-cautious support Artemis has from the pro-SLS lobbyists. There's a good chance Bridenstine was pushing it mainly to light a fire under Boeing's butt to accelerate SLS, which seems to have worked (to the extent possible). But if we're talking about which vehicles can get Orion to its intended destinations, it is an interesting possibility to remember. :)

Maybe NASA could sell it to Congress by painting the FH center core orange and calling it "SLS Block F"? ;)

(I jest, but only in part...do any of the legally-minded folk around here know if this could actually be shoehorned into the legislative mandates for the creation of SLS? To my recollection, the legislation specifies only certain performance requirements, and a requirement that existing assets be utilized "to the maximum extent practicable", or something like that. "Maximum extent practicable" is subject to interpretation, and at this point, Falcon Heavy is indeed an "existing asset".)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 10/24/2019 01:39 pm
... I don't have a problem with Boeing doing cost plus for development....

I do, because Shuttle-derived heavy lift was sold as being just a matter of re-arranging the Shuttle stack.  As Mike Griffin put it (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1020):

... as NASA Administrator today, I already own a heavy lifter. That heavy lifter is the Space Shuttle stack - it currently carries the Orbiter. So every time I launch, I launch 100 metric tons into low orbit.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hog on 10/25/2019 12:18 am
Orion is way too heavy.  About 45-55 tons for Orion + service module fully fueled.  Only vehicle other than SLS to get it to LEO is FH.  Even SLS can't get it to the moon without an upper stage, which has not been designed or built yet.
...

Orion with the service module is only 25.8 tonnes fully fueled, and SLS with ICPS can get it almost to TLI. Orion has to do a very small burn to finish TLI.
On this note, I would like to remind everyone that Falcon Heavy, with ICPS on top as a third stage between FH and Orion, is essentially a drop-in replacement for SLS Block 1. :) FH can get the complete ICPS+Orion stack into a LEO orbit that's (close enough to) equivalent to where the SLS Block 1 core stage leaves it, allowing it to perform any of the Block 1-based Artemis missions.

Interestingly enough, NASA has actually run the numbers on this and Bridenstine, at least, considers it to be a viable concept, although it was rejected for the "EM-1 on a commercial launcher" study because it would have taken longer to do the aerodynamics studies, payload adapter, and GSE work than to accelerate SLS. Bridenstine brought this up at the NASA employees' town hall he held after that study, and seemed quite excited about the idea, although it was clearly controversial within NASA (he joked with Gerstenmaier in the room that Gerst wasn't so sold on it). He did make a point to emphasize that although it was off the table for Artemis-1, it most certainly was still on the table for future Artemis missions, because he believed there would be sufficient time to do the aerodynamics and GSE work in time for the 2024 landing.

We haven't heard anything whatsoever publicly about this since then, which is understandable given it would potentially torpedo the already-cautious support Artemis has from the pro-SLS lobbyists. There's a good chance Bridenstine was pushing it mainly to light a fire under Boeing's butt to accelerate SLS, which seems to have worked (to the extent possible). But if we're talking about which vehicles can get Orion to its intended destinations, it is an interesting possibility to remember. :)

Maybe NASA could sell it to Congress by painting the FH center core orange and calling it "SLS Block F"? ;)

(I jest, but only in part...do any of the legally-minded folk around here know if this could actually be shoehorned into the legislative mandates for the creation of SLS? To my recollection, the legislation specifies only certain performance requirements, and a requirement that existing assets be utilized "to the maximum extent practicable", or something like that. "Maximum extent practicable" is subject to interpretation, and at this point, Falcon Heavy is indeed an "existing asset".)
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode or 57 saving the outer 2 boosters.
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

I don't understand your comparison, you make the FH sound as though its on equal footing capability wise.   It's not.

FH is an existing asset with unproven capabilities, as of yet.  I wanna see one soar with some BIG mass to LEO.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: QuantumG on 10/25/2019 02:23 am
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode or 57 saving the outer 2 boosters.
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

I don't understand your comparison, you make the FH sound as though its on equal footing capability wise.   It's not.

FH is an existing asset with unproven capabilities, as of yet.  I wanna see one soar with some BIG mass to LEO.

and TLI is another hit.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/25/2019 02:38 am
Falcon Heavy expendable - IF it had it's upper stage upgraded - would rival Block 1 SLS in capability. But only with the expendability and upgrades. FH's biggest advantage is lower cost and the fact it now has flight heritage.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: gemmy0I on 10/25/2019 04:46 am
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode or 57 saving the outer 2 boosters.
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

I don't understand your comparison, you make the FH sound as though its on equal footing capability wise.   It's not.
As I understand it, SLS Block 1 was baselined - early in its development - as targeting "at least" 70 tonnes to LEO. They were hoping/expecting to get more than that out of it (and they did), but Orion had to be designed for that "worst case scenario". Hence ICPS+Orion is within that baseline.

In fact, ICPS and Orion, fully fueled, have a combined mass of about 56.5 tonnes. That's within FH's capability with both side boosters landing downrange (and the center core expended).

(Note that this doesn't count the launch abort tower that Orion will have with it during early phases of launch. Computing the hit that would incur on payload to LEO isn't straightforward since it's dropped off mid-way, but going to a fully expendable FH should comfortably accommodate it.)

What this would miss out on is SLS Block 1's ability to send some co-manifested payload along with Orion. However, NASA doesn't seem to be planning on utilizing that capability in any significant way for the Block 1-based Artemis missions. (Some cubesats for sure but no Gateway modules or lander parts.)

So perhaps I should clarify my earlier statement: FH+ICPS is a drop-in replacement for SLS Block 1 for Orion missions with no comanifested payload, i.e. for the scenarios envisioned for Artemis.

I worked out the math for this in a discussion over on the ULA Reddit board (https://old.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/a5mon7/ula_chief_tory_bruno_on_competing_with_blue/ebq4kcy/) last year, and the delta-v numbers add up, although they're a bit tight. I suspect in practice all three of FH's cores would be expended to make the margins more generous by launching to a slightly higher LEO parking orbit. These "armchair calculations" predated any announced interest on NASA's part in pursuing such an option, so I was quite excited to hear Bridenstine confirm the option had been considered and found viable in their own study. :)
Quote
FH is an existing asset with unproven capabilities, as of yet.  I wanna see one soar with some BIG mass to LEO.
Yeah. Hopefully we'll see some bigger payloads come along once they upgrade the fairing (which they'll have to do if they win some NSSL launches in the block buy). Or perhaps we'll see some upcoming designs for GEO comsats ordered in the post-FH era really taking advantage of its capabilities. FH (like F9) is such an extremely LEO-optimized rocket (high-thrust, low-specific-impulse upper stage) that it's leaving tons of performance on the table when it launches satellites to GTO (and especially GEO). A satellite ultimately going to GEO should be able to get strictly better net performance on F9/H for every pound of additional orbit-raising fuel it adds to the satellite in exchange for a lower (i.e. subsynchronous) delivery orbit. (Hypergolics have similar Isp to kerolox but the mass fraction is way better since you don't need that high-thrust engine.) We've seen this trend a little bit with the Telstar 18/19V satellites launched last year (which were about ~7 tonnes launched to ~GTO-2250 by F9) but that's just the tip of the iceberg of what would be possible.

Interestingly, the fact that FH is so LEO-optimized is why it would do so well with a hydrogen third stage (like ICPS). It's unlikely to happen outside of NASA bringing it together as a customer for something like Artemis, but ULA's ACES/Centaur V would be a great fit for Falcon Heavy missions to high-energy destinations. That configuration should significantly outperform Vulcan Heavy.

Hilariously enough, Orion+ICPS is the first tangible payload I've heard anyone come up with that would actually fully exercise FH's capability to LEO. :)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/25/2019 02:36 pm
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode...
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

SLS performance to 200 km circular is not particularly helpful, since Orion+ICPS doesn't want to stage in that orbit.

SLS Block 1 is going to take Orion+ICPS to a higher orbit. That orbit is at a point where the payload capability of the Block 1 (before the ICPS burn) is rapidly decreasing, and at some point above 200 km circular LEO FH can actually out-lift the SLS Block 1 core stage.

Orion+ICPS is about 60 t wet mass at staging, and both FH and SLS could get that mass quite a bit above the standard 200 km circular LEO. The question is... how far above, and is it high enough for ICPS to get Orion to the energy it needs?


and TLI is another hit.

Orion doesn't need to launch directly to TLI. ICPS can't quite get it all the way to TLI, even from the higher energy elliptical LEO where SLS Block 1 core stage leaves it.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hog on 10/25/2019 03:08 pm
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode...
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

SLS performance to 200 km circular is not particularly helpful, since Orion+ICPS doesn't want to stage in that orbit.

SLS Block 1 is going to take Orion+ICPS to a higher orbit. That orbit is at a point where the payload capability of the Block 1 (before the ICPS burn) is rapidly decreasing, and at some point above 200 km circular LEO FH can actually out-lift the SLS Block 1 core stage.

Orion+ICPS is about 60 t wet mass at staging, and both FH and SLS could get that mass quite a bit above the standard 200 km circular LEO. The question is... how far above, and is it high enough for ICPS to get Orion to the energy it needs?


and TLI is another hit.

Orion doesn't need to launch directly to TLI. ICPS can't quite get it all the way to TLI, even from the higher energy elliptical LEO where SLS Block 1 core stage leaves it.
Emphasis mine.(bold)

Though not ideal, I was merely attempting to compare "like for like" using easy to find, quick reference numbers.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/25/2019 05:22 pm
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode...
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

SLS performance to 200 km circular is not particularly helpful, since Orion+ICPS doesn't want to stage in that orbit.

SLS Block 1 is going to take Orion+ICPS to a higher orbit. That orbit is at a point where the payload capability of the Block 1 (before the ICPS burn) is rapidly decreasing, and at some point above 200 km circular LEO FH can actually out-lift the SLS Block 1 core stage.

Orion+ICPS is about 60 t wet mass at staging, and both FH and SLS could get that mass quite a bit above the standard 200 km circular LEO. The question is... how far above, and is it high enough for ICPS to get Orion to the energy it needs?


and TLI is another hit.

Orion doesn't need to launch directly to TLI. ICPS can't quite get it all the way to TLI, even from the higher energy elliptical LEO where SLS Block 1 core stage leaves it.
Emphasis mine.(bold)

Though not ideal, I was merely attempting to compare "like for like" using easy to find, quick reference numbers.


You also said

I don't understand your comparison, you make the FH sound as though its on equal footing capability wise.   It's not.

With regards to launching Orion towards the Moon, the "easy to find, quick reference numbers" do not help at all. FH and SLS Block 1 may or may not be on "equal footing" for this mission. Determining that requires evaluating the specific mission, which is wildly different than just lifting a given mass to a LEO reference orbit.

As it turns out, FH+ICPS is comparable performance-wise to SLS Block 1 with ICPS. NASA looked into it but chose to move forward with EM-1 on SLS for reasons other than performance including schedule, infrastructure requirements, and politics.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hog on 10/25/2019 05:43 pm
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode...
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

SLS performance to 200 km circular is not particularly helpful, since Orion+ICPS doesn't want to stage in that orbit.

SLS Block 1 is going to take Orion+ICPS to a higher orbit. That orbit is at a point where the payload capability of the Block 1 (before the ICPS burn) is rapidly decreasing, and at some point above 200 km circular LEO FH can actually out-lift the SLS Block 1 core stage.

Orion+ICPS is about 60 t wet mass at staging, and both FH and SLS could get that mass quite a bit above the standard 200 km circular LEO. The question is... how far above, and is it high enough for ICPS to get Orion to the energy it needs?


and TLI is another hit.

Orion doesn't need to launch directly to TLI. ICPS can't quite get it all the way to TLI, even from the higher energy elliptical LEO where SLS Block 1 core stage leaves it.
Emphasis mine.(bold)

Though not ideal, I was merely attempting to compare "like for like" using easy to find, quick reference numbers.


You also said

I don't understand your comparison, you make the FH sound as though its on equal footing capability wise.   It's not.

With regards to launching Orion towards the Moon, the "easy to find, quick reference numbers" do not help at all. FH and SLS Block 1 may or may not be on "equal footing" for this mission. Determining that requires evaluating the specific mission, which is wildly different than just lifting a given mass to a LEO reference orbit.

As it turns out, FH+ICPS is comparable performance-wise to SLS Block 1 with ICPS. NASA looked into it but chose to move forward with EM-1 on SLS for reasons other than performance including schedule, infrastructure requirements, and politics.
In regards to this mission, I agree.  Thanks for holding my hand AND spelling it out for me.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 10/27/2019 10:43 pm
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode or 57 saving the outer 2 boosters.
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

I don't understand your comparison, you make the FH sound as though its on equal footing capability wise.   It's not.

FH is an existing asset with unproven capabilities, as of yet.  I wanna see one soar with some BIG mass to LEO.

Oh boy, if FH is “an existing asset with unproven capabilities”, where does that leave SLS?!?

FH has flown three times for crying out loud, I think SpaceX knows exactly what it can and cannot do.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hog on 10/27/2019 11:37 pm
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode or 57 saving the outer 2 boosters.
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

I don't understand your comparison, you make the FH sound as though its on equal footing capability wise.   It's not.

FH is an existing asset with unproven capabilities, as of yet.  I wanna see one soar with some BIG mass to LEO.

Oh boy, if FH is “an existing asset with unproven capabilities”, where does that leave SLS?!?

FH has flown three times for crying out loud, I think SpaceX knows exactly what it can and cannot do.
I dont know where it leaves SLS, it hasnt even flown yet.  Perhaps a "future" asset with unknown capabilities?

No one here was discussing whether or not FH has flown or not.  You can cry out loud, or in a corner by yourself, it's still a fact that Falcon Heavy hasn't come close to fully flexing her muscles, yet.(hopefully)  It's heaviest payload thus far is right around 10% of its expended capacity.
 
It put up a 1,250 kg (2,760 lb) car,
6,465 kg (14,253 lb) satellite
3,700 kg (8,200 lb)and various secondary payloads(one was 6 x 300kgs).

It's all smoke and mirrors until advertised capabilities are demonstrated. After all that, I still really want to see a Falcon actually EARN that (H).

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 10/28/2019 01:13 am
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode or 57 saving the outer 2 boosters.
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

I don't understand your comparison, you make the FH sound as though its on equal footing capability wise.   It's not.

FH is an existing asset with unproven capabilities, as of yet.  I wanna see one soar with some BIG mass to LEO.

Oh boy, if FH is “an existing asset with unproven capabilities”, where does that leave SLS?!?

FH has flown three times for crying out loud, I think SpaceX knows exactly what it can and cannot do.
I dont know where it leaves SLS, it hasnt even flown yet.  Perhaps a "future" asset with unknown capabilities?

No one here was discussing whether or not FH has flown or not.  You can cry out loud, or in a corner by yourself, it's still a fact that Falcon Heavy hasn't come close to fully flexing her muscles, yet.(hopefully)  It's heaviest payload thus far is right around 10% of its expended capacity.
 
It put up a 1,250 kg (2,760 lb) car,
6,465 kg (14,253 lb) satellite
3,700 kg (8,200 lb)and various secondary payloads(one was 6 x 300kgs).

It's all smoke and mirrors until advertised capabilities are demonstrated. After all that, I still really want to see a Falcon actually EARN that (H).

Oh, so you’re one of those “FH performance truthers”? Good to know.

Sigh. At some point you can only fly what customers want you to fly. “Smoke and mirrors”, good grief. Do you think that they are lying about engine performance numbers, or a stronger payload adapter is exotic technology?

Applying the same logic to SLS, it hasn’t even put a kg or pound in orbit, so how can you trust it to do anything?

All I’m looking for is consistent logic.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TripleSeven on 10/28/2019 01:39 am
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode or 57 saving the outer 2 boosters.
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

I don't understand your comparison, you make the FH sound as though its on equal footing capability wise.   It's not.

FH is an existing asset with unproven capabilities, as of yet.  I wanna see one soar with some BIG mass to LEO.

Oh boy, if FH is “an existing asset with unproven capabilities”, where does that leave SLS?!?

FH has flown three times for crying out loud, I think SpaceX knows exactly what it can and cannot do.
I dont know where it leaves SLS, it hasnt even flown yet.  Perhaps a "future" asset with unknown capabilities?

No one here was discussing whether or not FH has flown or not.  You can cry out loud, or in a corner by yourself, it's still a fact that Falcon Heavy hasn't come close to fully flexing her muscles, yet.(hopefully)  It's heaviest payload thus far is right around 10% of its expended capacity.
 
It put up a 1,250 kg (2,760 lb) car,
6,465 kg (14,253 lb) satellite
3,700 kg (8,200 lb)and various secondary payloads(one was 6 x 300kgs).

It's all smoke and mirrors until advertised capabilities are demonstrated. After all that, I still really want to see a Falcon actually EARN that (H).

there are few here more skeptical of things SpaceX then "me" but even an amateur orbits/performance guy like me can take the 1,250KG car, look at the orbit it went into and figure out (or my computer can)  what that means for performance to various other orbits...in that configuration.  they seem to match up closely with what is advertised
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 10/28/2019 08:22 am
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode or 57 saving the outer 2 boosters.
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

I don't understand your comparison, you make the FH sound as though its on equal footing capability wise.   It's not.

FH is an existing asset with unproven capabilities, as of yet.  I wanna see one soar with some BIG mass to LEO.

Oh boy, if FH is “an existing asset with unproven capabilities”, where does that leave SLS?!?

FH has flown three times for crying out loud, I think SpaceX knows exactly what it can and cannot do.
I dont know where it leaves SLS, it hasnt even flown yet.  Perhaps a "future" asset with unknown capabilities?

No one here was discussing whether or not FH has flown or not.  You can cry out loud, or in a corner by yourself, it's still a fact that Falcon Heavy hasn't come close to fully flexing her muscles, yet.(hopefully)  It's heaviest payload thus far is right around 10% of its expended capacity.
 
It put up a 1,250 kg (2,760 lb) car,
6,465 kg (14,253 lb) satellite
3,700 kg (8,200 lb)and various secondary payloads(one was 6 x 300kgs).

It's all smoke and mirrors until advertised capabilities are demonstrated. After all that, I still really want to see a Falcon actually EARN that (H).



By this metric you will never believe that SLS Block I can lift 70 metric tons to LEO. Because SLS Block I will never actually lift 70 metric tons to LEO. If we go by your line of reasoning the promised 70 metric tons to LEO capability of SLS Block I is all "smoke and mirrors".
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 10/28/2019 08:43 am
I always wondered if the 70 tonnes figure included unburned propellants in the SLS (interim) upper stage? Saturn V's LEO figure of 141 metric tons for Apollo 15 (I looked it up) included the mass of the SIV-B and it's leftover propellants after the first burn, the Instrument Unit, Payload Adapter shroud, The LM and the CSM. The propellants leftover before Trans-Lunar Injection should be about 73 or 74 tonnes.

What is the mass breakdown for Block 1 SLS, if measured as payload delivered into low Earth orbit? Where did the 70 metric ton figure actually spring from?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 10/28/2019 11:34 am
I always wondered if the 70 tonnes figure included unburned propellants in the SLS (interim) upper stage? Saturn V's LEO figure of 141 metric tons for Apollo 15 (I looked it up) included the mass of the SIV-B and it's leftover propellants after the first burn, the Instrument Unit, Payload Adapter shroud, The LM and the CSM. The propellants leftover before Trans-Lunar Injection should be about 73 or 74 tonnes.

What is the mass breakdown for Block 1 SLS, if measured as payload delivered into low Earth orbit? Where did the 70 metric ton figure actually spring from?

70 "tons" is from the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that specifies the minimum requirements for SLS without an upper stage. The Act does not specify if these are short, long, or metric tons, so it could be anywhere from 63,500 kg to 70,000 kg depending on the interpretation.

SLS with no upper stage (Block 0, will not be flown) could get a ~75-85,000 kg payload to 200 km circular LEO. It's rather oversized to the Act's specifications, particularly if you interpret "tons" as short tons.

SLS with ICPS (Block 1) could get a 95,000 kg payload to 200 km LEO.

However, there are no payloads of anywhere near that size. In practice, the LEO "payload" of SLS Block 1 is the ICPS and Orion, which together mass about 60,000 kg. SLS will put this to a slightly higher orbit than the 200 km reference orbit, but because the burnout mass of the SLS core stage is enormous, the payload drops VERY rapidly as it goes higher, going from 95,000 kg at 200 km circular LEO to 60,000 at the 1800x-93 km staging orbit.

FH payload to the same 1800x-93 staging orbit should be quite similar to SLS. Because FH reaches orbit with a ~4 t upper stage instead of the 100 t core stage, the payload hit from 200 km circular to 1800x-93 elliptical is only ~6,000 kg instead of 35,000 kg, leaving about 58,000 kg of payload capacity to the staging orbit.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hog on 10/28/2019 02:56 pm
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode or 57 saving the outer 2 boosters.
Block-1 SLS can do 95 tonnes to the same orbit.

I don't understand your comparison, you make the FH sound as though its on equal footing capability wise.   It's not.

FH is an existing asset with unproven capabilities, as of yet.  I wanna see one soar with some BIG mass to LEO.

Oh boy, if FH is “an existing asset with unproven capabilities”, where does that leave SLS?!?

FH has flown three times for crying out loud, I think SpaceX knows exactly what it can and cannot do.
I dont know where it leaves SLS, it hasnt even flown yet.  Perhaps a "future" asset with unknown capabilities?

No one here was discussing whether or not FH has flown or not.  You can cry out loud, or in a corner by yourself, it's still a fact that Falcon Heavy hasn't come close to fully flexing her muscles, yet.(hopefully)  It's heaviest payload thus far is right around 10% of its expended capacity.
 
It put up a 1,250 kg (2,760 lb) car,
6,465 kg (14,253 lb) satellite
3,700 kg (8,200 lb)and various secondary payloads(one was 6 x 300kgs).

It's all smoke and mirrors until advertised capabilities are demonstrated. After all that, I still really want to see a Falcon actually EARN that (H).

there are few here more skeptical of things SpaceX then "me" but even an amateur orbits/performance guy like me can take the 1,250KG car, look at the orbit it went into and figure out (or my computer can)  what that means for performance to various other orbits...in that configuration.  they seem to match up closely with what is advertised
There may be fewer skeptical of SpaceX, but you make an excellent point about payload/mass and orbits and config.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hog on 10/28/2019 03:30 pm
I always wondered if the 70 tonnes figure included unburned propellants in the SLS (interim) upper stage? Saturn V's LEO figure of 141 metric tons for Apollo 15 (I looked it up) included the mass of the SIV-B and it's leftover propellants after the first burn, the Instrument Unit, Payload Adapter shroud, The LM and the CSM. The propellants leftover before Trans-Lunar Injection should be about 73 or 74 tonnes.

What is the mass breakdown for Block 1 SLS, if measured as payload delivered into low Earth orbit? Where did the 70 metric ton figure actually spring from?

70 "tons" is from the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that specifies the minimum requirements for SLS without an upper stage. The Act does not specify if these are short, long, or metric tons, so it could be anywhere from 63,500 kg to 70,000 kg depending on the interpretation.

SLS with no upper stage (Block 0, will not be flown) could get a ~75-85,000 kg payload to 200 km circular LEO. It's rather oversized to the Act's specifications, particularly if you interpret "tons" as short tons.

SLS with ICPS (Block 1) could get a 95,000 kg payload to 200 km LEO.

However, there are no payloads of anywhere near that size. In practice, the LEO "payload" of SLS Block 1 is the ICPS and Orion, which together mass about 60,000 kg. SLS will put this to a slightly higher orbit than the 200 km reference orbit, but because the burnout mass of the SLS core stage is enormous, the payload drops VERY rapidly as it goes higher, going from 95,000 kg at 200 km circular LEO to 60,000 at the 1800x-93 km staging orbit.

FH payload to the same 1800x-93 staging orbit should be quite similar to SLS. Because FH reaches orbit with a ~4 t upper stage instead of the 100 t core stage, the payload hit from 200 km circular to 1800x-93 elliptical is only ~6,000 kg instead of 35,000 kg, leaving about 58,000 kg of payload capacity to the staging orbit.
Bold emphasis mine.

Is this one of the disadvantages of SLS using a 1.5 Stage architecture?(same as shuttle)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 10/28/2019 08:04 pm
Is this one of the disadvantages of SLS using a 1.5 Stage architecture?(same as shuttle)
It's more of a disadvantage of Block 1 not having a proper upper-stage. The core has to do a lot of the heavy-lifting the upper stage would usually do.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woog on 11/12/2019 02:48 am
Apollo XI CSM in O&C in 1969 vs Artemis I CSM in O&C 2019

It's really exciting that now, for the first time in almost 50 years, we have both a moon rocket and a moon spacecraft.
the 2020s are looking very exciting!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 11/12/2019 12:45 pm
Who is the guy with the blue shirt ? 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rondaz on 11/12/2019 01:25 pm
Great to see the full @NASA_Orion and European Service Module on its next step of its voyage to the #Moon:

https://twitter.com/esaspaceflight/status/1194201826696007681
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woog on 11/16/2019 04:19 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEPkG5VLa5g

a video recapping the year's achievements (for orion)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 11/16/2019 04:33 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEPkG5VLa5g

a video recapping the year's achievements (for orion)
Could do without the music, IMO.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: bitbyte2015 on 11/16/2019 05:38 am
Super Guppy landed at KSC today. Nothing on the scanners or the video feeds so I suspect they'll wait till tomorrow to start loading.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woog on 12/06/2019 07:15 am
OTD 5 years ago... Exploration Flight Test 1 https://youtu.be/bGR43d_Us_0
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/25/2020 08:50 am
Moving the discussion here from the EM-3 update thread.

Graphic in video hides the true performance of Saturn V and SLS by saying they both have payloads "greater than 40 tons". For crewed versions, Saturn V had a TLI mass of 46.8 t [1] compared to SLS Block IB with 39.1 t [2].
I will say that the SLS Crewed Block 1B estimate as being "more than 40 tons" is a more up-to-date estimate than that 39 ton figure. All the SLS Block 1B payload capacity estimates NASA's released seem to have slightly increased since the EUS redesign.

Here's a more recent paper that says Block IB performance ranges from 39 to 44 t.

B. Donahue, S. Sigmon and D. Cooper, "The NASA SLS Development and Mission Opportunities," AIAA SPACE Forum, Orlando, USA, Sep. 2018.

This very recent paper gives 37 t for crewed Block IB and 41 t for cargo Block IB, with BOLE boosters adding 3 t of performance, giving the upper limit of 44 t.

M. E. Tobias, D. R. Griffin, J. E. McMillin, T. D. Haws, M. E. Fuller, "Booster Obsolescence and Life Extension (BOLE) for Space Launch System (SLS)," NASA Technical Reports Server, Nov. 2019.

The "40 ton" value works if using American tons, which is 36.3 t and is less than the 37 t value from the BOLE paper. I chose to use the earlier 39.1 t value, as that's the highest value that I've seen for crewed launches, but perhaps the performance has gone down since then.

number 1: this is just a short explainer video for the general public

That's no excuse for providing misleading performance information and gross orbital mechanics errors. Anyways, NASA was fine to give precise values for the vehicle height and thrust, which just so happen to be greater for SLS. NASA should have done the same for TLI payload mass.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/04/2020 04:29 am
Confirmation that SLS Block IB performance is only 37 t to TLI, nearly 10 t less than Saturn V.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 02/04/2020 07:22 pm
Confirmation that SLS Block IB performance is only 37 t to TLI, nearly 10 t less than Saturn V.

Thanks Steven.  As we discussed months ago, going with 2 or 3x BE-3U seemed to be a better solution.  What is the quick calc for performance of a 2x BE-3U EUS?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 02/04/2020 08:03 pm
Confirmation that SLS Block IB performance is only 37 t to TLI, nearly 10 t less than Saturn V.
Correction: SLS Crewed Block 1B performance. You have to remember that keeping the Universal Stage Adapter through the TLI burn imposes a roughly 2t payload penalty.

And it looks like the crewed performance might actually be closer to 38t now, as Aerojet Rocketdyne's more recent lander study (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5lyj90kbfpnncl2/Kokan_1-29-20.pdf?dl=0) (Note: The site this was originally hosted on (http://fiso.spiritastro.net/archivelist.htm) doesn't like hyperlinks, so I've mirrored it on Dropbox) lists the cargo variant as having a payload capacity of 40t to TLI.

Also, since they got cut off in the screenshot, here's AR's assumptions:
(a) Public;
(b) AR internal payload estimate anchored to publically-available GTO payload;
(c) AR internal payload estimate anchored to publically-available GEO payload
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 02/05/2020 09:39 am
Confirmation that SLS Block IB performance is only 37 t to TLI, nearly 10 t less than Saturn V.
Correction: SLS Crewed Block 1B performance. You have to remember that keeping the Universal Stage Adapter through the TLI burn imposes a roughly 2t payload penalty.

I was comparing like with like (that is crewed Block IB with crewed Saturn V), so there is no error. The BOLE paper had Block IB cargo performance of 41 t using RSRMV boosters, so if anything, SLS performance has gone down even further! :-)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FiniteBurn on 02/05/2020 01:49 pm
Just some notes, the performance numbers for SLS are based on an “approved” set of numbers meant to keep consistency across the many infographics. Also, sometimes there is a game of telephone from what something actually is and what it shows up as on the infographic.

And as an aside when it comes to bookkeeping, the USA and Orion LAS are substantially heavier than their Apollo-era counterparts. Keep that in mind when comparing vehicles.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: nicp on 03/17/2020 03:30 pm
I've not been following progress on Orion for a long time, and have a genuine question (not intended to be any kind of criticism - I just want to understand a design decision).

Why does the European Service Module (according to Wikipedia) carry about half the propellant load of the Apollo SM? (9 tons or so vs 18).

Regards,
Nic
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AS-503 on 03/17/2020 03:41 pm
I've not been following progress on Orion for a long time, and have a genuine question (not intended to be any kind of criticism - I just want to understand a design decision).

Why does the European Service Module (according to Wikipedia) carry about half the propellant load of the Apollo SM? (9 tons or so vs 18).

Regards,
Nic

My understanding is that the original program Project Constellation, called for the CM\Lander stack to be put into lunar orbit by a burn from the lander (Altair) as apposed to the Apollo method using the SM propulsion.

From Wikipedia: "Mission requirements obliged the vehicle to be able to descend from an equatorial or high-inclination lunar orbit to a polar landing site, along with bringing it and the Orion spacecraft into lunar orbit, as the Orion spacecraft's onboard Aerojet AJ-10 rocket engine and the amount of fuel it carried would have been insufficient to brake the Orion/Altair stack into lunar orbit (also necessary if flown without Orion for cargo-only missions)."
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 03/18/2020 02:05 am
I've not been following progress on Orion for a long time, and have a genuine question (not intended to be any kind of criticism - I just want to understand a design decision).

Why does the European Service Module (according to Wikipedia) carry about half the propellant load of the Apollo SM? (9 tons or so vs 18).

Regards,
Nic

Also, IIRC, the Apollo Service Module had some "over-performance" because the CM and SM started life before the decision to use Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR), and therefore the need for a Lunar Module, was made.  Seeking correction if I'm wrong.

That "over-performance" allowed more flexibility in contingency situations, such as having to fetch an under-performing Ascent Module from a very low lunar orbit.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 03/20/2020 10:17 am
Both are correct. Essentially, the Apollo SM was over-engineered while the Orion ESM is under-engineered.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: eric z on 03/20/2020 11:13 am
  I'm off to get a root canal job this afternoon-yikes!- and I'd much rather have an over-performing dentist than an under-performing one!
 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 03/20/2020 01:59 pm
Both are correct. Essentially, the Apollo SM was over-engineered while the Orion ESM is under-engineered.

Emphasis mine.

This is incorrect. The Orion ESM is engineered to exactly match the performance requirements for the original LockMart 606 version of Orion. The performance requirements for Orion were firmly set during Constellation. Back then the plan was that Altair would brake the combination of Orion and Altair into Low Lunar Orbit (as already mentioned by AS-503 in reply #476).

When Constellation was cancelled, and subsequently Orion was re-instated by US Congress, the performance requirements for Orion were NOT altered in any way. Which effectively meant that the CxP performance requirements for Orion were still in place when, in 2012, ESA was officially invited by NASA to build the Orion service module. ESA then successfully managed to design a service module as close to the original 606 LockMart module as possible. Because that is what NASA expected.

The new plan for the use of Orion, what is currently known as Artemis, was not installed until many years AFTER the design of the Orion ESM had been frozen.

As such, the Orion SM is not under-engineered. It is exactly what was envisioned when the Orion design went thru CDR in the 2015/2016 timeframe.

However, reality has changed, but Orion has not. As such, NASA will have to make do with a spacecraft which is exactly what NASA envisioned 12 years ago. Which, unfortunately, falls short of what is required now.

But that is what you get when NASA ordered "stay the course" while realities were changing. Not to mention the fact that certain politicians didn't like having their pork barrel cancelled.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 03/20/2020 06:17 pm
I believe ESA is looking at upgrades to the ESM, especially since after flight 3 the OMS will be all used up and a new engine will be required.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/20/2020 07:04 pm
The Orion ESM is engineered to exactly match the performance requirements for the original LockMart 606 version of Orion. The performance requirements for Orion were firmly set during Constellation. Back then the plan was that Altair would brake the combination of Orion and Altair into Low Lunar Orbit (as already mentioned by AS-503 in reply #476).

...

The new plan for the use of Orion, what is currently known as Artemis, was not installed until many years AFTER the design of the Orion ESM had been frozen.

As such, the Orion SM is not under-engineered. It is exactly what was envisioned when the Orion design went thru CDR in the 2015/2016 timeframe.

So another way to say that, is that the current limitations of the Orion are due to the way the Artemis program was designed, not due to the design of the Orion.

And Artemis program limitations are being driven mainly by the insistence of this administration for the 2024 Moon landing date.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/20/2020 08:13 pm
IIRC, the Apollo Service Module had some "over-performance" because the CM and SM started life before the decision to use Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR), and therefore the need for a Lunar Module, was made.  Seeking correction if I'm wrong.

That "over-performance" allowed more flexibility in contingency situations, such as having to fetch an under-performing Ascent Module from a very low lunar orbit.

As you note, the Apollo SM had quite a bit more thrust than necessary, because of the early expectation that it would be taking off from the lunar surface.  But that's not to say it had a great deal of excess delta-V.  After Apollo 12, the SM was used to lower the LM's orbit, so as to increase hover time available as the LM neared touch-down.  But to do that, the free-return trajectory to the moon had to be abandoned (without free-return, LOI could be done with a single burn; that's why Apollo 13 had to do a hairy DPS burn).  That shows that delta-V was fairly tight.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 03/22/2020 08:58 am
Both are correct. Essentially, the Apollo SM was over-engineered while the Orion ESM is under-engineered.

Emphasis mine.

This is incorrect. -snip-
How did anything you say contradict that? Or are you being intentionally obtuse about my meaning?

But that is what you get when NASA ordered "stay the course" while realities were changing. Not to mention the fact that certain politicians didn't like having their pork barrel cancelled
The Apollo SM was built and designed for direct ascent. The mission changed. The design didn't. Was Apollo pork?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 03/22/2020 11:17 am
Both are correct. Essentially, the Apollo SM was over-engineered while the Orion ESM is under-engineered.

Emphasis mine.

This is incorrect. -snip-
How did anything you say contradict that? Or are you being intentionally obtuse about my meaning?

Your statement about Orion being under-engineered is incorrect. It was engineered to exactly provide what was originally required (which wasn't all that much performance). The new plan failed to take into account the limited capabilities of the original Orion design.
Stating that Orion is under-engineered is like stating that the Space Shuttle was a poor design because it couldn't land on the Moon: it's silly. Orion was never designed to be as powerful as the Apollo CSM, as much as shuttle was never designed to land on the Moon.

But that is what you get when NASA ordered "stay the course" while realities were changing. Not to mention the fact that certain politicians didn't like having their pork barrel cancelled
The Apollo SM was built and designed for direct ascent. The mission changed. The design didn't. Was Apollo pork?

The big difference between Orion now and Apollo CSM back then is that the original Apollo capabilities were more than adequate for the new plan. It fit the new plan without any need for modification. It went from brute force to a more elegant solution.

That's not the case with Orion. NASA has known since 2012 that Orion's original capabilities were not going to be good enough for any new plan. What was once a elegant solution required to go more like brute force. That required a redesign.
Yet NASA didn't bother to act on this information. One of the reasons being that US Congress leaned on them to "stay the course".
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 03/22/2020 07:09 pm
If saying the Orion SM is under-engineered is "incorrect" because it wasn't for its original purpose, it's equally "incorrect" to say the Apollo CSM is over-engineered, because it wasn't for its original purpose.

Obviously, I'm not talking in relation to their original purpose, but to their ultimate purpose.

Quote
The big difference between Orion now and Apollo CSM back then is that the original Apollo capabilities were more than adequate for the new plan. It fit the new plan without any need for modification. It went from brute force to a more elegant solution.

That's not the case with Orion. NASA has known since 2012 that Orion's original capabilities were not going to be good enough for any new plan. What was once a elegant solution required to go more like brute force. That required a redesign.
I don't agree.

The Apollo solution was brute force. Staging from LLO allowed for a smaller lander, but limited landing sites to an equatorial strip of land. Inclination changes would be hilariously expensive, and mission length would be limited by the instability of the CSM's LLO, leading to a very brittle and non-flexible mission architecture.

The Artemis architecture is what's elegant and flexible. A high orbit allows for cheap inclination changes and global Lunar access, and reduces the effects of mascons, allowing Orion (and later Gateway) to remain in orbit with little station-keeping. Sure it shifts dV to the lander, but you're getting an architecture that's overall more adaptable and flexible than Apollo for it.

Both architectures were informed by the limitations of changing requirements and equipment, but one seems far more suited to a long-term program in my view.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/22/2020 07:42 pm
The Artemis architecture is the next best to that of a fully up-and-running, In-Situ Resource Utilization Lunar station producing propellants - or at least LOX - for a fully reusable Lander system. And that could come after Artemis is up and running. Bob Zubrin's 'Moon Direct' has some important pointers for how it should be done. And I think one of the most important things to come is not to make any Lunar mission architecture so reliant on the SLS. Artemis and indeed all Lunar initiatives should be launcher agnostic.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/22/2020 08:23 pm
If saying the Orion SM is under-engineered is "incorrect" because it wasn't for its original purpose, it's equally The Artemis architecture is what's elegant and flexible. A high orbit allows for cheap inclination changes and global Lunar access, and reduces the effects of mascons, allowing Orion (and later Gateway) to remain in orbit with little station-keeping. Sure it shifts dV to the lander, but you're getting an architecture that's overall more adaptable and flexible than Apollo for it.

As currently proposed Artemis would use a Near Rectilinear Orbit (NRO), which has an orbital period of 6-8 days. And sure, little station keeping required. But it also be true that it would be quicker to go back to Earth then it would be to wait for the Lunar Gateway to swing by again.

There are much closer orbits to the Moon that don't require much station keeping either, such as ELO & PCO and provide far more frequent access to the Moon. And if there is a regular supply of propellant from Earth, which there would be for sustained operations on the surface of the Moon, then LLO would be an option too.

NASA has no choice but to use NRO, which of course means that they LOVE NRO's, and are happy to describe why being 6-8 days away from supporting surface operations is MUCH better than being 2-11 hours away. But let's not kid ourselves, that is a limitation of the hardware stack NASA has to use, not what anyone would actually prefer.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 03/22/2020 08:34 pm
Orion isn't wedded to NRHO. It is wedded to high Lunar orbits, but not NRHO in particular. As Artemis 1 shows, Orion is fully capable of entering and exiting DRO, for example. NRHO was a function of Gateway, not Orion.

A 2018 lander proposal by Boeing (https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2018-5344) (paper is pay-walled, unfortunately) suggested moving the staging orbit to DRO. However, I believe the reasoning stated shows exactly why NASA would not support such a move.

Quote from: the 2018 lander paper
This Lunar Lander study architecture was based on a single, roughly equatorial, Gateway cislunar orbit (10,000 km DRO).

This orbit is optimally suited for landing within +/- 10 degrees of the lunar equator, but not for accessing the scientifically interesting and potentially useful (from an In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) perspective) lunar poles. [emphasis mine]
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/23/2020 12:53 am
Try this link (not the same document - but pretty cool anyway)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=2ahUKEwiKvMSiva_oAhXiwzgGHYO1B8AQFjAGegQICBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrace.tennessee.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D3296%26context%3Dutk_chanhonoproj&usg=AOvVaw1G1YnhgdCiskh24nuZN8hI
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/23/2020 03:07 pm
Apollo's design was specified by engineers. After LOR was selected, they could have re-spec'ed the SM but chose not to, presumably because of the delay it would have entailed.

Orion's design was selected long ago, also by engineers. In the meantime, the politicians have changed the mission but have mandated that Orion be used nonetheless. It's unlikely that engineers, given their druthers, would choose Orion's current design to fulfill the current mission. Consequently, a whiff of political aroma inevitably accompanies Orion.

EDIT: Deleted extra "the"
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 03/23/2020 06:57 pm
Apollo's design was specified by engineers. After LOR was selected, they could have re-spec'ed the SM but chose not to, presumably because of the delay it would have entailed.

Orion's design was selected long ago, also by engineers. In the meantime, the politicians have changed the mission but have mandated that Orion be used nonetheless. It's unlikely that engineers, given their druthers, would choose Orion's current design to fulfill the the current mission. Consequently, a whiff of political aroma inevitably accompanies Orion.

Emphasis mine.

More like a pungent political stench.

But I digress.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/24/2020 02:13 pm
The Apollo solution was brute force. Staging from LLO allowed for a smaller lander, but limited landing sites to an equatorial strip of land. Inclination changes would be hilariously expensive, and mission length would be limited by the instability of the CSM's LLO, leading to a very brittle and non-flexible mission architecture.

The Artemis architecture is what's elegant and flexible. A high orbit allows for cheap inclination changes and global Lunar access, and reduces the effects of mascons, allowing Orion (and later Gateway) to remain in orbit with little station-keeping. Sure it shifts dV to the lander, but you're getting an architecture that's overall more adaptable and flexible than Apollo for it.

Constellation offered global access while staging in LLO.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 03/24/2020 02:39 pm
If saying the Orion SM is under-engineered is "incorrect" because it wasn't for its original purpose, it's equally The Artemis architecture is what's elegant and flexible. A high orbit allows for cheap inclination changes and global Lunar access, and reduces the effects of mascons, allowing Orion (and later Gateway) to remain in orbit with little station-keeping. Sure it shifts dV to the lander, but you're getting an architecture that's overall more adaptable and flexible than Apollo for it.

As currently proposed Artemis would use a Near Rectilinear Orbit (NRO), which has an orbital period of 6-8 days. And sure, little station keeping required. But it also be true that it would be quicker to go back to Earth then it would be to wait for the Lunar Gateway to swing by again.

There are much closer orbits to the Moon that don't require much station keeping either, such as ELO & PCO and provide far more frequent access to the Moon. And if there is a regular supply of propellant from Earth, which there would be for sustained operations on the surface of the Moon, then LLO would be an option too.

NASA has no choice but to use NRO, which of course means that they LOVE NRO's, and are happy to describe why being 6-8 days away from supporting surface operations is MUCH better than being 2-11 hours away. But let's not kid ourselves, that is a limitation of the hardware stack NASA has to use, not what anyone would actually prefer.

Honest question:

What's the backup plan if astronauts need to leave the surface quickly for some reason?  If I understand correctly, they are 5-ish days away from NRHO, and another 3 days away from Earth from there.    This may be manageable if there substantial surface enclave options ... but there won't be for Artemis.   

Does the ASAP committee comment on architecture choices?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/24/2020 04:36 pm
NASA has no choice but to use NRO, which of course means that they LOVE NRO's, and are happy to describe why being 6-8 days away from supporting surface operations is MUCH better than being 2-11 hours away. But let's not kid ourselves, that is a limitation of the hardware stack NASA has to use, not what anyone would actually prefer.

Honest question:

What's the backup plan if astronauts need to leave the surface quickly for some reason?  If I understand correctly, they are 5-ish days away from NRHO, and another 3 days away from Earth from there.    This may be manageable if there substantial surface enclave options ... but there won't be for Artemis.

Good question. As currently planned, those on the surface would have to wait for the next orbital pass of the Orion vehicle. That is the risk they take.

Any time you are doing operations in remote locations you have to take into account what your backup plan is, and if possible you want to have the ability to have more than one exit ability. Elon Musk is planning on sending fleets of ships to Mars so that one ship won't be alone.

But for the Artemis program, where launching one Orion per year is all that is planned initially, failure is not an option.

Quote
Does the ASAP committee comment on architecture choices?

They do. But they are an advisory board (i.e. NASA doesn't have to do what they recommend), and I'm not sure what they have said about Artemis. Anyone?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/24/2020 05:38 pm
If I understand correctly, they are 5-ish days away from NRHO, and another 3 days away from Earth from there.

Is return to Earth from NRHO possible at any time, or might a crew have to wait a few days for a trans-Earth window to open?

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/24/2020 05:50 pm
By the way, on the topic of Apollo's Service Propulsion System having enough thrust for a CSM lift-off from the lunar surface itself, I'll mention that in November 1966, NASA's Lunar Exploration Working Group proposed a four-phase post-Apollo exploration program in which six-man crews would travel directly to and from the moon in a modified CM attached to a modified 2-stage SM that would ascend directly from the moon near the end of a 180-day mission (see p. 226 of David Shayler's book Apollo: The Lost and Forgotten Missions (https://www.amazon.com/Apollo-Forgotten-Missions-Springer-2009-02-22/dp/B01K0SYW96/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=shayler+%22apollo+lost+and+forgotten%22&qid=1585075725&sr=8-1).
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/25/2020 07:42 am
Is return to Earth from NRHO possible at any time, or might a crew have to wait a few days for a trans-Earth window to open?

The window for Earth return opens every seven days, since Orion has to be in a certain position in its seven day orbit before TEI can start. I don't know know how big the window is.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 03/30/2020 07:23 am
NASA requesting proposals for Orion engine (https://spacenews.com/nasa-requesting-proposals-for-orion-engine/)

Quote
NASA anticipates that the first five Artemis missions will use those engines, which means that the new engine will not be needed before at least the mid-2020s.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/30/2020 12:54 pm
The window for Earth return opens every seven days, since Orion has to be in a certain position in its seven day orbit before TEI can start. I don't know know how big the window is.

How often is there a launch window from the surface to the Orion waiting in NRHO, and how long is the trip to NRHO?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/31/2020 08:29 am
How often is there a launch window from the surface to the Orion waiting in NRHO, and how long is the trip to NRHO?

Anytime aborts have a maximum duration of 3.5 days from the surface to the NRO orbit. In the first 3.5 days of the window, flights are made directly to NRO. In the second 3.5 days of the window, you wait in LLO for up to 3 days and then perform a half day transfer. Delta-V is 750 m/s from the poles and 900 m/s from the equator.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019648.pdf

You will then have to wait for the Earth return window, which opens every 7 days.

In comparison, aborting from the poles or the equator to LLO has a window every two hours. Aborting back to Earth will involve waiting up to seven days. From other inclinations, you will need to wait up to seven days on the surface and then up to another seven days to abort back to Earth.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/15/2020 06:12 pm
Quote
May 14, 2020

Searching with Sasquatch: Recovering Orion

By Jim Cawley
NASA's Kennedy Space Center

For Artemis missions, NASA’s Orion spacecraft will be traveling at 25,000 mph as it reenters the Earth’s atmosphere, which will slow it down to 325 mph. Parachutes will then bring it down to about 20 mph.

During the parachute deploy sequence, hardware will be jettisoned and fall into the Pacific Ocean below while the recovery ship awaits near the landing site. Keeping the ship and recovery team safe is critical to mission success.

The Landing and Recovery team, led by Exploration Ground Systems at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, is prepared to safely recover Orion and attempt to recover the jettisoned hardware. A four-person team of engineers from NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston will also be onboard the U.S. Navy recovery ship with a “Sasquatch” — no, not an elusive hairy creature, but a very important software tool created specifically for Orion.

“Sasquatch is the software NASA uses to predict large footprints — that’s why we call it Sasquatch — of the various debris that is released from the capsule as it is reentering and coming through descent,” said Sarah Manning, a Sasquatch operator and aerospace engineer from the Engineering Directorate at Johnson.

The hardware jettisoned, or released, during parachute deployment includes drogue and pilot parachutes that help initially slow and stabilize Orion, along with other elements necessary for the parachute sequence to deploy. The primary objective for the Sasquatch team is to help get the ship as close as possible to recover Orion quickly. A secondary objective is to recover as much hardware as possible.

Incorporating wind data gathered from the balloons with Sasquatch’s information about the debris, such as how quickly it falls, will show how the debris will spread based on the winds that day — scenarios the team has practiced for years in the Arizona desert where the Orion program conducted parachute testing. That’s where Sasquatch and eight weather balloons, released from the recovery ship by a team from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, come into play. They will use that information to position the recovery ship, small boats and helicopters outside the debris field to avoid injuries or damage.

“The upper-level wind speed and direction are critical in modeling the debris trajectories,” said Air Force Maj. Jeremy J. Hromsco, operations officer, 45th Weather Squadron at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. “Data provided to U.S. Navy and NASA forecast teams will allow them to accurately characterize and forecast the atmosphere during recovery operations.”

Positioning is paramount to recovering the hardware before it sinks. The team will first focus on recovering the capsule’s forward bay cover, a protective ring that covers the back shell of the capsule and protects the parachutes during most of the mission, as well as the three main parachutes. If they are successful, engineers can inspect the hardware and gather additional performance data.

About five days before splashdown, the Landing and Recovery team heads to a midway point between shore and where Orion is expected to land. As the spacecraft approaches, the Navy ship with the team continues its approach. How close they can get — and how quickly they can get to the capsule — depends on the work of the Sasquatch team.

“We have locations ready two hours before splashdown, but anything could change,” Manning said. “Then we have to make real-time decisions and people need to move.”

Helicopters that capture valuable imagery during descent and landing take off about an hour before splashdown. These aircraft set their flight plans based on the latest information from the Sasquatch team.

Artemis I will be an uncrewed flight test of NASA’s Orion spacecraft, Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, with the newly upgraded ground systems at Kennedy. During future Artemis missions, crew will be onboard. The recovery team intends to recover the crew and capsule within two hours of splashing down.

“Safety is absolutely very important,” Manning said. “We want to get as close as we can — far enough away that the recovery team is safe, but close enough that they can get there quickly.”

Last Updated: May 14, 2020
Editor: James Cawley

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/searching-with-sasquatch-recovering-orionB

Caption for attached photo:

Quote
During Underway Recovery Test-8 in March, NASA's Landing and Recovery team from Exploration Ground Systems at Kennedy Space Center performs its first full mission profile test of the recovery procedures for Artemis I aboard the USS John P. Murtha in the Pacific Ocean.
Credits: NASA/Kenny Allen

https://youtu.be/kJDwlC2PrAw
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 07/28/2020 09:51 am
Will there be worms on Orion / SLS or was it just first flight of Dragon
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 07/28/2020 05:20 pm
Will there be worms on Orion / SLS or was it just first flight of Dragon

If Bridenstine is still administrator when it flies, I would assume so. :)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 07/29/2020 11:37 pm
Will there be worms on Orion / SLS or was it just first flight of Dragon
There will, and they will be painted on the SRBs.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/18/2020 01:30 pm
https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1295712064833572872

Quote
Having a discussion today on some odor control challenges with the Orion toilet. No febreeze, glade, or candles allowed.

twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1295712065915625474

Quote
If you want to recreate that used spacecraft smell, take a couple dirty diapers, some microwave food wrappers, a used airsickness bag, & a few sweaty towels, put them in an old school metal trash can and let it bake in the summer sun for 10 days. Then open the kid & breathe deep

https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1295712066842644483

Quote
Pity the first ground crew member to open that hatch. Flight crew can be desensitized to it a bit as the stank gradually increases through the mission.

twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1295712712580792321

Quote
Our toilet and trash bags are designed with odor control features but breakthrough will occur after some amount of time.

https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1295713929021345797

Quote
The unsung heroes of the space program are the certified sniffers at White Sands who get to verify the odor control features work correctly.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: leovinus on 09/01/2020 09:52 pm
Quote
NASA’s Orion Program has completed the System Acceptance Review and Design Certification Review to certify the Artemis I spacecraft is fit for flight, ready to venture from Earth to the lunar vicinity, and return home for landing and recovery.

The review examined every spacecraft system, all test data, inspection reports, and analyses that support verification, to ensure every aspect of the spacecraft has the right technical maturity.

In effect, the review gives the stamp of approval to the entire spacecraft development effort and is the final formal milestone to pass before integration with the Space Launch System rocket.

In addition to spacecraft design, the review certified all reliability and safety analyses, production quality and configuration management systems, and operations manuals.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2020/09/01/orion-program-completes-key-review-for-artemis-i/

While I am happy to see to another spacecraft come online, I'd love to hear more about the level of detail of such a review. Will there be a public, more detailed report? Phrases like "the right technical maturity" peek my interest.

In particular, did the 80 NASA recommendations to the Starliner program feed in here as well? In general, what is the level of detail compared to review in CommercialCrew for other contemporary crewed capsules? And, any end-to-end HW/SW testing completed based on NASA post-Shuttle recommendations ?

Thanks for any insights!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/08/2020 09:37 pm
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1303443625544646656

Quote
NASA has selected Catherine Koerner as manager of the agency’s Orion Program. She replaces Mark Kirasich who has moved on to planning for Artemis missions.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 09/09/2020 07:21 am
NASA article

NASA Selects Catherine Koerner as Orion Program Manager (https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-catherine-koerner-as-orion-program-manager)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 10/13/2020 04:12 pm
I like the worm but I wish they'd stop putting it right next to the meatball. The two clash badly.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 12/01/2020 01:11 am
NASA Blog: Update on Orion Final Assembly and Transfer (https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2020/11/30/update-on-orion-final-assembly-and-transfer/), Kathryn Hambleton, November 30
Quote
While powering up the spacecraft to prepare for the pressurization of the crew module uprighting system, which ensures the capsule is oriented upward after splashdown, engineers identified an issue with a redundant channel in a power and data unit (PDU) on Orion’s crew module adapter.

I'm scratching my head trying to understand how it could take 9 months to separate Orion from it's service module.

I just don't get it.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: refsmmat on 12/01/2020 04:30 am
When EM-1 flies, nobody is already going to fly on it. This fault is part of a redundancy. How redundant does it have to be before it's treated as such?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 12/01/2020 06:16 am
When EM-1 flies, nobody is already going to fly on it. This fault is part of a redundancy. How redundant does it have to be before it's treated as such?
I think NASA is worried that this could point to a systemic issue. They don't want to shrug their hands and let it fly only for the second TDU to fail a few days before launch.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/01/2020 06:33 am
When EM-1 flies, nobody is already going to fly on it. This fault is part of a redundancy. How redundant does it have to be before it's treated as such?

I think that a key component failure months before launch is probably outside normal acceptable need for redundancy.

IMO, launching with only your redundant component working properly not only makes this seem like a faulty spacecraft being flown for political reasons. It also violates the key idea of a test flight which is to see if everything will work nominally.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 12/01/2020 06:40 am
Why is the assumption that these estimates are primarily driven by the mating/demating process?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 12/01/2020 06:47 am
Regression testing ?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 12/01/2020 06:57 am
Well the CM has been sitting at O&C for a long time but the equipment is in the CMA not in the CM.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 12/01/2020 08:33 am
From The Verge article - "As many as nine months would be needed to take the vehicle apart and put it back together again, in addition to three months for subsequent testing, according to the presentation".

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/30/21726753/nasa-orion-crew-capsule-power-unit-failure-artemis-i

Why is the assumption that these estimates are primarily driven by the mating/demating process?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/01/2020 08:44 am
Suddenly the SLS being pretty much a hanger queen is sounding like it doesn't matter any more.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: BunkerTheHusky on 12/03/2020 05:37 pm
From The Verge article - "As many as nine months would be needed to take the vehicle apart and put it back together again, in addition to three months for subsequent testing, according to the presentation".

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/30/21726753/nasa-orion-crew-capsule-power-unit-failure-artemis-i

I'm kinda shocked that more people aren't talking about this. I know up thread there has been a back and forth about how long the SRBs can remain stacked without a destacking and inspection, but with the broad consensus of it being a year, and Orion now potentially being delayed by up to 12 months, that would almost certainly mean they need to delay further stacking operations, or possibly even demate the solids that they already have assembled, wouldn't you think?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 12/03/2020 07:19 pm
From The Verge article - "As many as nine months would be needed to take the vehicle apart and put it back together again, in addition to three months for subsequent testing, according to the presentation".

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/30/21726753/nasa-orion-crew-capsule-power-unit-failure-artemis-i (https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/30/21726753/nasa-orion-crew-capsule-power-unit-failure-artemis-i)

I'm kinda shocked that more people aren't talking about this. I know up thread there has been a back and forth about how long the SRBs can remain stacked without a destacking and inspection, but with the broad consensus of it being a year, and Orion now potentially being delayed by up to 12 months, that would almost certainly mean they need to delay further stacking operations, or possibly even demate the solids that they already have assembled, wouldn't you think?

I need to point out that nine months to a full year, to R&R the PDU, is the worst-case scenario.

But quite frankly, the folks that have been around here for longer than just a few years are not shocked by this at all. They have been around long enough to realise that the NASA is pretty much incapable of doing anything rapidly these days. Let alone decisively.

It goes with the territory. NASA is unbelievably risk averse. When something happens that wasn't expected they first study all possible solutions to death. Then they form a committee to weigh all options and only then do they decide the next course of action. I fully expect a decision, on either replacing the PDU or flying with it as-is, to be weeks away.
Had this been a commercial entity, that decision would have been made yesterday.

On the exact nature of the PDU problem: it is IMO not the smartest of designs if you stick stuff in the CMA (Crew Module Adapter) that is only accessible when the Crew Module is NOT sitting on top of it.
It is IMO also not the smartest of operational designs when removing the CM, than putting it back in place and retesting the integrated spacecraft takes up to six months to do.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 12/03/2020 10:12 pm
Risk-averse, please, as in having an aversion to risk.  It's common mistake even among native speakers of English, though.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: savantu on 12/04/2020 09:00 am
You know a project is in delay when components with a decade shelf life expire and the hardware still hasn't left the ground.
Just looking at their options/timeframes screams of poor design / no desire for serviceability. Everything seems to be done as clumsy and as unfixable as possible. Which makes sense if the business model is never to leave the ground and constantly iterate.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/05/2020 04:03 am
There's also this option, which I expect is the one NASA will choose. One of the Space Shuttle flights had done something similar on the port OMS pod before flight, where they cut away a bit of the OMS outer structure to get to the defective part. I think it might have been STS-26, but not 100% sure.

"Lockheed has another option, but it’s never been done before and may carry extra risks, Lockheed Martin engineers acknowledge in their presentation. To do it, engineers would have to tunnel through the adapter’s exterior by removing some of the outer panels of the adapter to get to the PDU. The panels weren’t designed to be removed this way, but this scenario may only take up to four months to complete if engineers figure out a way to do it."
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/05/2020 05:15 am
From The Verge article - "As many as nine months would be needed to take the vehicle apart and put it back together again, in addition to three months for subsequent testing, according to the presentation".

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/30/21726753/nasa-orion-crew-capsule-power-unit-failure-artemis-i

I'm pretty sure replacing the failed unit wouldn't be an issue if the Orion spacecraft were a reusable one. Reusable vehicle, of all types, typically put parts that can fail in easy to reach places.

And sure, NASA and Lockheed Martin are building a single-use vehicle that they test the heck out of every component so that they only have to assemble it once, but as we can see that design philosophy has big flaws when the 1 in 1,000 problem occurs before launch.

I hope someone at NASA is taking notes about what NOT to do with future spacecraft...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/05/2020 05:21 am
From The Verge article - "As many as nine months would be needed to take the vehicle apart and put it back together again, in addition to three months for subsequent testing, according to the presentation".

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/30/21726753/nasa-orion-crew-capsule-power-unit-failure-artemis-i

I'm pretty sure replacing the failed unit wouldn't be an issue if the Orion spacecraft were a reusable one. Reusable vehicle, of all types, typically put parts that can fail in easy to reach places.

And sure, NASA and Lockheed Martin are building a single-use vehicle that they test the heck out of every component so that they only have to assemble it once, but as we can see that design philosophy has big flaws when the 1 in 1,000 problem occurs before launch.

I hope someone at NASA is taking notes about what NOT to do with future spacecraft...

Regardless of Orion's re-usability, the failed component is in the adapter section on top of the SM, not in Orion itself.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 12/05/2020 08:00 pm
Just curious, who made the CMA?  Lockheed, or ESA?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 12/05/2020 08:16 pm
ESA does not produce anything. Work is made by contractors.

That being said CMA is not part of European deliveries.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: John Santos on 12/05/2020 08:38 pm
Isn't Artemis 2 supposed to be about a year after Artemis 1?  If so, it might be quicker and cheaper to bin the Orion for A1 and use the A2 Orion instead.  Maybe they could accelerate it some by leaving off some non-essential or insufficiently tested components.  IIRC, the A1 Orion is missing some life support systems, control panels and other outfitting to actually support humans, so they wouldn't need to build or install that equipment for A1.  OTOH, it probably turns out not doing work takes longer and costs more than doing it.  Fast, cheap, reliable: pick none. ::)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 12/05/2020 10:04 pm
ESA does not produce anything. Work is made by contractors.

That being said CMA is not part of European deliveries.

Sorry, meant to type ESA contractors, my bad.  Trying to type on my phone on a moving train isn't the best way to do this.

So, the CMA was made by Lockheed, then?  Your response was somewhat oddly phrased,  which is why I'm asking clarification... apologies if i found your response oddly phrased because English isn't your first language.  :)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/05/2020 10:15 pm
From The Verge article - "As many as nine months would be needed to take the vehicle apart and put it back together again, in addition to three months for subsequent testing, according to the presentation".

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/30/21726753/nasa-orion-crew-capsule-power-unit-failure-artemis-i

I'm pretty sure replacing the failed unit wouldn't be an issue if the Orion spacecraft were a reusable one. Reusable vehicle, of all types, typically put parts that can fail in easy to reach places.

And sure, NASA and Lockheed Martin are building a single-use vehicle that they test the heck out of every component so that they only have to assemble it once, but as we can see that design philosophy has big flaws when the 1 in 1,000 problem occurs before launch.

I hope someone at NASA is taking notes about what NOT to do with future spacecraft...

That's news to me that Orion will not be re-used.  If you mean the SM, all capsule SM's are discarded in-orbit.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Eric Hedman on 12/06/2020 12:53 am
Regarding Orion reusability I'm finding some mixed information.  The following article from Spaceflightnow.com from September of last year said that NASA is ordering 6 capsules and may buy up to 12 by 2030. 

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/09/23/nasa-taps-lockheed-martin-to-build-six-more-orion-crew-capsules/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/09/23/nasa-taps-lockheed-martin-to-build-six-more-orion-crew-capsules/)

At the planned pace of flights 12 capsules by 2030 doesn't sound like any reuse in the next ten years.

the following article from 2013 says it is reusable:

https://www.space.com/21541-nasa-orion-spacecraft-reusable.html (https://www.space.com/21541-nasa-orion-spacecraft-reusable.html)

As does this article from 2016:

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/moonshot-nasas-orion-spacecraft-will-be-reusable-20160503-gokutu.html (https://www.smh.com.au/technology/moonshot-nasas-orion-spacecraft-will-be-reusable-20160503-gokutu.html)

Does anyone know for sure if it is reusable?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/06/2020 01:18 am
Regarding Orion reusability I'm finding some mixed information.  The following article from Spaceflightnow.com from September of last year said that NASA is ordering 6 capsules and may buy up to 12 by 2030. 

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/09/23/nasa-taps-lockheed-martin-to-build-six-more-orion-crew-capsules/ (https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/09/23/nasa-taps-lockheed-martin-to-build-six-more-orion-crew-capsules/)

At the planned pace of flights 12 capsules by 2030 doesn't sound like any reuse in the next ten years.

the following article from 2013 says it is reusable:

https://www.space.com/21541-nasa-orion-spacecraft-reusable.html (https://www.space.com/21541-nasa-orion-spacecraft-reusable.html)

As does this article from 2016:

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/moonshot-nasas-orion-spacecraft-will-be-reusable-20160503-gokutu.html (https://www.smh.com.au/technology/moonshot-nasas-orion-spacecraft-will-be-reusable-20160503-gokutu.html)

Does anyone know for sure if it is reusable?

From the Spacefligth now article

Quote
NASA announced Monday it will order at least six reusable Orion crew capsules from Lockheed Martin for $4.6 billion to fly astronauts to the vicinity of the moon in the 2020s, and the agency said it plans to purchase hardware for up to 12 Orion vehicles by 2030

I take the 12 orders for Orion by 2030 as just that, orders.  Doesn't mean all 12 will be delivered and used by 2030.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 12/06/2020 09:35 am
I know that the CMA is not provided by ESA to NASA. It is not part of the deal between NASA and ESA. I do not know which organisation is building the CMA.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 12/06/2020 01:36 pm
I know that the CMA is not provided by ESA to NASA. It is not part of the deal between NASA and ESA. I do not know which organisation is building the CMA.

Lockheed Martin
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/15/2020 07:45 pm
New article:

The Orion spacecraft is now 15 years old and has flown into space just once (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/12/six-years-after-orions-first-spaceflight-america-still-waits-for-an-encore/) | Ars Technica

Relevant quote:
Quote
The Orion spacecraft dates back to 2005, when NASA issued a "request for proposals" to industry with the goal of "developing a new Crew Exploration Vehicle by 2014 that is capable of carrying astronauts beyond low Earth orbit."...

Since that time, according to The Planetary Society's Casey Dreier, NASA has spent $23.7 billion developing the Orion spacecraft. This does not include primary costs for the vehicle's Service Module, which provides power and propulsion, as it is being provided by the European Space Agency.

Bottom line of the article:
Quote
The take-home message for policymakers is pretty simple, Garver said. Public-private partnerships and fixed-price contracts like those for commercial crew have been shown to work—and expensive, slow, cost-plus programs like Orion and the SLS are to be avoided in the future if at all possible.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Eric Hedman on 12/15/2020 10:58 pm
New article:

The Orion spacecraft is now 15 years old and has flown into space just once (https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/12/six-years-after-orions-first-spaceflight-america-still-waits-for-an-encore/) | Ars Technica
Bottom line of the article:
Quote
The take-home message for policymakers is pretty simple, Garver said. Public-private partnerships and fixed-price contracts like those for commercial crew have been shown to work—and expensive, slow, cost-plus programs like Orion and the SLS are to be avoided in the future if at all possible.
It's hard to disagree with the bottom line of the article.  Orion has been a money pit.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 12/16/2020 02:37 am
Yes, I have heard that Boeing accepted (and signed) a fixed-price contract for Starliner under the assumption that, as soon as it started costing more than their lowball bid, NASA would just convert it to a cost-plus contract, like they and DoD had always done.  And when NASA refused, Boeing had a corporate heart attack and demanded the additional payout they received above and beyond their contract that they said they needed or else they couldn't complete the spacecraft.

Now, Boeing and the (few) other aerospace companies are coming to realize that they can't just keep delaying production, adding more and more costs the government is forced to pay, and in general setting up certain programs as cash cows that, if they had their druthers, would take two or three times longer than they bid the job for to complete, and costs at least 10 times more.  The old "just toss it into the budget, Congress is so used to seeing line items for this they won't even notice" mindset.

That is going away.  As it should.  Thanks to D.D. Harriman.  Er, um, Elon Musk.  :D

I would wager than Orion will be the very last government-designed-and-built crewed spacecraft in the U.S.  It will most definitely be the last one built for NASA under a cost-plus contract.  Though I will note that NASA has tried to set up fixed price contracts ever since Apollo, and has failed in many of their attempts.  They never could figure out how to budget the amount it would cost to design and build the LM, for example.  More than a year of hard work between Grumman and NASA HQ ended up with a cost-plus contract and agreements to try and keep the costs and the "pluses" to a minimum.  So, there are always going to be exceptions to the rule, like trying to pre-plan and budget out the very first vehicle designed to perform a given task.  You gotta make allowances for the unknown unknowns, I guess...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 12/16/2020 11:51 am
The point about the ESM cost is a bit curious in the demonstration of Ars Technica. The ESM has cost a few hundred of millions so it is negligible compared to the tens of billions mentioned.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: loekf on 12/16/2020 01:37 pm
The point about the ESM cost is a bit curious in the demonstration of Ars Technica. The ESM has cost a few hundred of millions so it is negligible compared to the tens of billions mentioned.

What strikes me, if you have finished the design of Orion years ago, you still have a run rate of 1.6B USD per year. What are they paying for that ? What are these engineers doing the whole day ? Or does that figure includes production of new capsules ?

I also find it peculiar that Orion still didn't fly with life support systems and will not fly next (?) year.

We have seen with Dragon that life support and specially environmental control is not trivial. I think also on Crew-2 there were still issues with temperature control.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 12/16/2020 02:32 pm
The ESM has cost a few hundred of millions....

How do you know that?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 12/16/2020 02:35 pm
I also find it peculiar that Orion still didn't fly with life support systems and will not fly next (?) year.

Isn't it also the case that while EFT-1 was billed principally as a test of Orion's heat shield, the design of same has since been changed, to a significant extent invalidating the results?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 12/16/2020 03:48 pm
What strikes me, if you have finished the design of Orion years ago, you still have a run rate of 1.6B USD per year. What are they paying for that ? What are these engineers doing the whole day ? Or does that figure includes production of new capsules ?

Same problem with SLS and the Shuttle program. Even if you're not flying or building you still have to pay the staff and bills. If you don't pay to "keep the lights on" then the program self cancels as the staff has to get jobs somewhere else. Program delays and inadequate funding end up costing a fortune. This is a problem of government run cost plus contracts.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 12/16/2020 03:57 pm
The ESM has cost a few hundred of millions....

How do you know that?

In 2014 Airbus was awarded a contract by ESA, to develop AND build the first ESM. The contract was worth €390 million.
The contract for the construction of the second service module was announced in 2017. Contract value was € 200 million.
The contract for the third was announced in 2020: € 250 million for the construction of the third ESM.

http://spaceref.biz/company/airbus-defence-and-space/esa-commissions-airbus-defence-and-space-as-prime-contractor-for-us-space-capsule-orion-service-modu.html (http://spaceref.biz/company/airbus-defence-and-space/esa-commissions-airbus-defence-and-space-as-prime-contractor-for-us-space-capsule-orion-service-modu.html)

https://orionesm.airbusdefenceandspace.com/blog/airbus-defence-and-space-wins-200-million-euros-esa-contract-for-second-service-module-for-nasas-orion-crewed-space-capsule/ (https://orionesm.airbusdefenceandspace.com/blog/airbus-defence-and-space-wins-200-million-euros-esa-contract-for-second-service-module-for-nasas-orion-crewed-space-capsule/)

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2020/05/airbus-wins-esa-contract-to-construct-third-european-service-module-for-nasas-orion-spacecraft.html (https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2020/05/airbus-wins-esa-contract-to-construct-third-european-service-module-for-nasas-orion-spacecraft.html)

Compared to the Crew Module and Crew Module Adapter the ESM is dirt cheap. The total expense for development and construction of the first 3 flight-worthy ESMs has been less than € 1 billion (roughly € 850 million, which translates to $ 1.02 billion). Now compare that to $ 16.7 billion (through January 2020) spent on the development and construction of the first 3 flight-worthy Orion Crew Modules.

https://spacenews.com/nasas-inspector-general-criticizes-orion-cost-accounting/ (https://spacenews.com/nasas-inspector-general-criticizes-orion-cost-accounting/)


Put simply: the development and construction of the first 3 Crew Modules/Crew Module Adapters is 15 times more expensive than the development and construction of the first 3 European Service Modules.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 12/16/2020 04:32 pm
In 2014 Airbus was awarded a contract by ESA, to develop AND build the first ESM. The contract was worth €390 million.
The contract for the construction of the second service module was announced in 2017. Contract value was € 200 million.
The contract for the third was announced in 2020: € 250 million for the construction of the third ESM.

That's the amount of money going to the contractors, but it excludes the amount consumed by ESA in managing those contracts.  Of every dollar appropriated to NASA for Orion/SLS, its contractors receive less than 50 cents.  I can't figure out how much money ESA receives for ESM, but if we apply the same ratio of contract value to agency budget to ESM, we get a figure around €2 billion spent so far.  It may just be that I'm less familiar with ESA's budgets than with NASA's, but deciphering ESA's spending seems more difficult than deciphering NASA's.  That makes me suspect that the budget-to-contract ratio might be even higher for ESA than for NASA.

Quote
Compared to the Crew Module and Crew Module Adapter the ESM is dirt cheap.

I don't disagree with your larger conclusion.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 12/16/2020 04:37 pm
This is absolutely not how ESA is working. I do not know the figures but I would suspect 10% and maybe I am pessimistic. 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 12/16/2020 04:40 pm
This is absolutely not how ESA is working. I do not know the figures but I would suspect 10% and maybe I am pessimistic. 

Why?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 12/16/2020 04:51 pm
This is absolutely not how ESA is working. I do not know the figures but I would suspect 10% and maybe I am pessimistic. 

Why?

Because ESA, unlike NASA, is not in the business of designing the actual hardware. They just issue the requirments (which in this case they got straight from NASA, via LockMart) to industry and basically tell them: "here's the requirements, go design and build a thing to match those requirements".

ESA overhead is minimal compared to how NASA operates under FAR and Cost-Plus. For example: the development AND build contract for the first ESM was a Firm Fixed Price contract: € 390 million, and not a Eurocent more. In return - for Airbus not getting a juicy cost-plus construction - ESA promised to dial-back the intrusive insight and oversight regime.

This is completely different from how NASA operates with regards to the Crew Module and Crew Module Adapter.

Even the preliminary design for ESM, which was leaked to the press in 2011, came straight from Airbus, as a result of a very small contract (less than € 7 million) to study the possibilities of ESA supplying an ATV-based Service Module for NASA's Orion spacecraft.

Another reason that the ESM is relatively dirt cheap is because all the "heavy lifting" with regards to development had already been done 15 years earlier, for ATV.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/16/2020 05:54 pm

Compared to the Crew Module and Crew Module Adapter the ESM is dirt cheap. The total expense for development and construction of the first 3 flight-worthy ESMs has been less than € 1 billion (roughly € 850 million, which translates to $ 1.02 billion). Now compare that to $ 16.7 billion (through January 2020) spent on the development and construction of the first 3 flight-worthy Orion Crew Modules.


Can't square this with the source...

Quote
Through January 2020, NASA spent $16.7 billion for the development of the Orion spacecraft, averaging about $1.1 billion annually, or about 6 percent of the overall Agency budget. 20 Figure 3 summarizes the spending on the program as of January 2020.
https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-20-018.pdf

The Orion program includes more than just the Crew Module and Crew Module Adapter. The report specifically states the figures excludes the ESM, but it does not list the launch abort system as excluded(which is oddly missing from your statement). Airbus/ESA easily provides less than 20% of the content of the program, not half - just counting modules is overly simplistic. It would be more accurate to count subsystems -the spacecraft including spacecraft fairings, abort system, crew module adapter, crew module provides far more than 50% of the subsystem functionality of the entire spacecraft including the ESM. The ESM is even missing major functionality provided by the Apollo service module like communications. That being said, ESA/Airbus doesn't even provide the complete ESM either and played a secondary role in major propulsion and environmental testing. For instance, I am 90% sure that Europe didn't pay a dime to raise power  lines along the route used to transport their service module to Plum Brook. Just one example of probably thousands of things that would fully illustrate the complete lack of equality between NASA and ESA in this particular case(and how comparisons such as this are completely invalid and not really enlightening). ESA is a junior partner in this particular case, not a 50% content provider.

It is about as ridiculous as comparing the Solar Orbiter's program cost of $1.5 billion to the NASA provided launch vehicle's cost of $172.7 million. Or we could compare Cassini-Huygens and how much the program cost and how much ESA spent on  Huygens and figure out the ratio.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 12/16/2020 06:19 pm
... ESA, unlike NASA, is not in the business of designing the actual hardware. They just issue the requirments (which in this case they got straight from NASA, via LockMart) to industry and basically tell them: "here's the requirements, go design and build a thing to match those requirements".

ESA overhead is minimal compared to how NASA operates under FAR and Cost-Plus. For example: the development AND build contract for the first ESM was a Firm Fixed Price contract: € 390 million, and not a Eurocent more. In return - for Airbus not getting a juicy cost-plus construction - ESA promised to dial-back the intrusive insight and oversight regime.

This is completely different from how NASA operates with regards to the Crew Module and Crew Module Adapter.

Is it possible to see ESA's budget, item by item?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 12/16/2020 06:52 pm
... ESA, unlike NASA, is not in the business of designing the actual hardware. They just issue the requirments (which in this case they got straight from NASA, via LockMart) to industry and basically tell them: "here's the requirements, go design and build a thing to match those requirements".

ESA overhead is minimal compared to how NASA operates under FAR and Cost-Plus. For example: the development AND build contract for the first ESM was a Firm Fixed Price contract: € 390 million, and not a Eurocent more. In return - for Airbus not getting a juicy cost-plus construction - ESA promised to dial-back the intrusive insight and oversight regime.

This is completely different from how NASA operates with regards to the Crew Module and Crew Module Adapter.

Is it possible to see ESA's budget, item by item?

Not in the way NASA's budget is presented. Strictly high-level breakdowns at domain level are publically available.
Again, totally different way of doing things compared to NASA.
ESA's budget is established once every few years, for a multi-year period. There are certain elements that require mandatory funding from all member-states. But other items, such as ESA's contribution to Orion, are subscription-based.

Anyway, latest ESA budget presentation: https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Corporate_news/Funding

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 12/17/2020 06:22 pm
Since ESA is apparently unwilling to provide the information needed to estimate its budget-to-contract ratio, would you forgive me if I were to remain skeptical?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 12/18/2020 06:46 am
Since ESA is apparently unwilling to provide the information needed to estimate its budget-to-contract ratio, would you forgive me if I were to remain skeptical?

You are forgiven :)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: leovinus on 12/18/2020 04:00 pm
https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2020/12/17/artemis-i-orion-progress-update/

NASA has decided to not make an attempt to replace the PDU with a redundant channel failure and will proceed with launch processing.

While I am reading yesterday's news, I am a bit surprised, and almost a bit shocked, to read the message above. I have no need to beat Lockheed-Martin or NASA but maybe some of you can help discuss and provide some more perspective? Sure, I do understand that "it does functionally work at the moment due to redundancy" but I just can't believe that they wouldn't repair it. The safety margin just got smaller.

To my limited knowledge, in general, if we had a military aircraft, or an European ATV spacecraft, or CrewDragon, they would not be allowed to fly with a known defect above the level of a broken cabin light. Departure with a broken part of a redundant system like the avionics (2 out 3 computers is enough for take-off?), engines (3 out of 4 engines is enough to take-off?), or instrumentation or power systems, would be news to me. And yes, I read about the STS-93 anomaly events on take-off :)

I searched the threads as much as I could but apologies if I missed something from past discussions. In that sense, here are some questions please.

History : I know of no other instance where NASA launched a (new) spacecraft with a similar rationalization and press release about a known defect before launch. Therefore my question whether you know of NASA spacecraft that have been allowed to depart with an error in a redundant system?

Schedule : Why isn’t this situation a “schedule pressure” example that NASA would not do anymore after Challenger? That press release seems like a big rationalization of why we can press ahead towards 2024. I thought NASA would be more conservative.

Design : A new spacecraft and they cannot repair a broken part in time for launch? Out of historical interest, were there other NASA spacecraft that were designed such that a repair before launch was not possible in time? I mean, after reading various Lockheed books about Kelly Johnson, Ben Rich, it seems that a first flight with known defect would be "frowned upon".

Repairability : A bit hyperbole but an analogy that comes to mind is military aircraft. They get shot at. They have to be repaired. They are reusable. And the repair turn-around time of any part is pretty quick, like hours or days. If a military aircraft would be designed with repair times of "two or more months per part" then that would be a non-viable product in the battlefield.

For the sake of argument, if the Orion design allowed the repair of any component within a given timeframe of say, e.g., 2 days, then the PDU would be replaced and no need for a press release and redundancy arguments. Just a broken part and a repair and done.

Therefore, we could ask whether “repairability” was a design requirement. While I browsed NTRS for Orion design and requirements, there is is just too much for me to answer that question quickly. Hence, I wanted to ask your feedback please on "repairability design requirements" for Orion or other spacecraft for comparison?

Future : Where there is one issue there are typically more. What other parts cannot be replaced in a, say, a month? Does this mean that in future all Orion’s will go up with known issues?

Appreciate your thoughts. 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/18/2020 04:32 pm
Remember, this is a test flight.  The requirements to launch are not quite the same as if with crew or paying payload.  NASA did a risk evaluation and found all milestones for the test can be completed with one part of a redundant system not functioning.

I don't see this as a ground breaking decision, not ideal clearly but not crazy.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: leovinus on 12/18/2020 04:50 pm
Remember, this is a test flight.  The requirements to launch are not quite the same as if with crew or paying payload.  NASA did a risk evaluation and found all milestones for the test can be completed with one part of a redundant system not functioning.

I don't see this as a ground breaking decision, not ideal clearly but not crazy.

Appreciate your "test flight" point. It does make some sense but look at it the other way. With the first test flights of simpler systems such as airplanes (granted, manned), I cannot recall any that would make their first flight with a known defect. And now with a more complex spacecraft they want to fly without a repair of a known issue. Indeed, clearly not ideal.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 12/18/2020 06:22 pm
Remember, this is a test flight.  The requirements to launch are not quite the same as if with crew or paying payload.  NASA did a risk evaluation and found all milestones for the test can be completed with one part of a redundant system not functioning.

I don't see this as a ground breaking decision, not ideal clearly but not crazy.

Appreciate your "test flight" point. It does make some sense but look at it the other way. With the first test flights of simpler systems such as airplanes (granted, manned), I cannot recall any that would make their first flight with a known defect. And now with a more complex spacecraft they want to fly without a repair of a known issue. Indeed, clearly not ideal.

On a multi billion dollar flagship mission this is simply astounding. It’s NASAs risk to take, and I hope they get away with it, but a risk it is. Hopefully the failure is understood, and common mode is not a concern. However, if the PDU goes down in the year leading up to launch there could be big schedule implications. If it fails in flight we could be in Starliner territory with the need to repeat before crewed flight.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/18/2020 06:45 pm
So, let me get this straight, there are two communication cards and two channels per card. So, if we label the channels 1-4

1: card 1, channel 1
2: card 1, channel 2
3: card 2, channel 1
4: card 2, channel 2

One of them fails, lets say it is channel 2 identified above. Things are presumably fine in terms of overall functionality if channel 1 goes out because card 2 is still functional. Things are also fine if either 3 or 4 go out because each card still has a redundant channel. Now, let's say that 3 and 4 fail after 2 in this particular PDU, you still have card 1 fully functionally because it has one redundant channel operational. So, I guess the question is if the PDU works with just one card, or if both have to be functional. If it only needs one card, then there is triple redundancy and 4 channels in total on one PDU would have to fail to bring down the PDU (still hasn't been explained the result if this particular PDU goes down). Can Orion limp along with just 7 PDUs? There are more questions than answered in the blog post, but the engineers working on the program have information on every component of the spacecraft so I would defer to them until more  information comes out. Typically for a manned spacecraft, everything has at least 2 backups, so I don't think another channel would cause the mission to fail (which would be the case if both cards had to be functional and you can't lose one PDU), so in that case 3 more channels would have to fail. NASA may look at the double redundancy that is preserved as equivalent to the 3 flight computers max on Shuttle, and by historical precedent, adequate redundancy is still preserved.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: leovinus on 12/19/2020 03:50 pm
So, let me get this straight, there are two communication cards and two channels per card. So, if we label the channels 1-4
[snip]


I like your analysis. Did some similar thinking myself earlier.

While it is not a "P1 critical" issue, it is a "P3? important" hardware issue. While I have been part of the trend in Silicon Valley to ship software or systems not when they are 100% correct (never happens) but when all P1 and P2s are done (and the P3 and P4 get addressed later), I have not seen this approach with spacecraft hardware.

In other words, we could speculate whether the decision might just be part of wider NASA move which recognizes that "100% correct" is not going to happen anymore with increasingly complex hardware and software. That would be an interesting NASA culture shift in itself for another thread.

As you can see a few posts ago, I am looking for historical perspective as well. For comparison, let me ask please - do you think that STS-1 would have launched with such an equivalent issue, or not? (I know there might not be a PDU on Shuttle. I know the APUs but not beyond that. Hence I asked "equivalent" :) )
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: leovinus on 12/19/2020 03:52 pm
An external thread around the same Orion PDU issue and decision.

"NASA to skip repair of Orion electronics unit"
https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-skip-repair-of-orion-electronics-unit/
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/19/2020 04:40 pm
For comparison, let me ask please - do you think that STS-1 would have launched with such an equivalent issue, or not? (I know there might not be a PDU on Shuttle. I know the APUs but not beyond that. Hence I asked "equivalent" :) )

A fundamental difference--the subsonic Enterprise glider tests and STS-1 were all crewed with human beings.  A whole 'nother level.

How NASA dealt with similar issues on the unmanned test flights of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo: I don't know.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AnnK on 12/19/2020 06:35 pm
For comparison, let me ask please - do you think that STS-1 would have launched with such an equivalent issue, or not? (I know there might not be a PDU on Shuttle. I know the APUs but not beyond that. Hence I asked "equivalent" :) )

A fundamental difference--the subsonic Enterprise glider tests and STS-1 were all crewed with human beings.  A whole 'nother level.

How NASA dealt with similar issues on the unmanned test flights of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo: I don't know.

Yet somehow NASA was able to make it work without all sorts of computers and complex software. Boeing keeps stepping in it. Believing that computer programs can make stable craft which are unstable. My speciality is aircraft structures and a great design starts with the structure. To those who think computers fly anything better than a human. You are wrong and dead wrong. A computer will fly anything into the ground in a heartbeat as the programs lack critical thinking.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/19/2020 06:50 pm
So, I found some more information on the Orion Avionics system. It looks like there is PDU level redundancy meaning the entire PDU could go down. So, even if both NICs are required for a PDU to be operational, you need one channel in the same card as the failed channel to fail and two corresponding channels both in one of the two NICs on the alternate PDU to fail. So there is still triple redundancy preserved. At least 3 more channels would have to go out and even then they have to be specific sets.

So, as far as risk goes, considering this is a brand new heavy 20 t + spacecraft on a brand new heavy lift rocket, the increased risk in relative terms due to this specific item is pretty marginal.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 12/19/2020 07:22 pm
IMO the best thing to do is get a test flight completed and deal with any outstanding unknowns of the actual flight.  Let the Orion team focus on a path forward and the next mission that actually carries people.

Not fret endlessly over one faulty PDU in a redundant system over all the other myriad of systems that still need to be proven in flight.

Oh, and build in a reasonable access portal on the next one!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: leovinus on 12/20/2020 12:06 am
IMO the best thing to do is get a test flight completed and deal with any outstanding unknowns of the actual flight.  Let the Orion team focus on a path forward and the next mission that actually carries people.

Agreed, it might be that NASA learns more about Orion by flying the system "as-is" compared to letting it sit on the ground for another year. If that is the case then NASA could be more upfront about it.

Not fret endlessly over one faulty PDU in a redundant system over all the other myriad of systems that still need to be proven in flight.

I have seen a few times in the past that issues with model v1.0 could not be resolved with V1.1 but needed a V2.0, a redesign. The reasoning for Orion fly-as-is seems more opaque than upfront which does not inspire confidence which is why I had some questions earlier (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37310.msg2170053#msg2170053).

Oh, and build in a reasonable access portal on the next one!

Very much agree :)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 12/20/2020 07:21 pm
For comparison, let me ask please - do you think that STS-1 would have launched with such an equivalent issue, or not? (I know there might not be a PDU on Shuttle. I know the APUs but not beyond that. Hence I asked "equivalent" :) )

A fundamental difference--the subsonic Enterprise glider tests and STS-1 were all crewed with human beings.  A whole 'nother level.

How NASA dealt with similar issues on the unmanned test flights of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo: I don't know.
Yeah. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that NASA would not deem this acceptable on a crewed flight.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/21/2020 04:56 pm
https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2020/12/17/artemis-i-orion-progress-update/

NASA has decided to not make an attempt to replace the PDU with a redundant channel failure and will proceed with launch processing.

While I am reading yesterday's news, I am a bit surprised, and almost a bit shocked, to read the message above. I have no need to beat Lockheed-Martin or NASA but maybe some of you can help discuss and provide some more perspective? Sure, I do understand that "it does functionally work at the moment due to redundancy" but I just can't believe that they wouldn't repair it. The safety margin just got smaller.

To my limited knowledge, in general, if we had a military aircraft, or an European ATV spacecraft, or CrewDragon, they would not be allowed to fly with a known defect above the level of a broken cabin light.

*snip*

They fly with waivers all the time. The majority are minor, but a good counter-example is the COPVs on the Falcon 9. NASA authorized launches with them until the new COPVs were tested out and cleared as OK. It was a known issue, potentially catastrophic, that NASA allowed flights with. It was a flagged item on NASA's ASAP board for a long time.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 12/26/2020 11:10 am
https://twitter.com/airbusspace/status/1342795619434377216

Quote
View from below to where the Orbital Manoeuvring System Engine (OMS-E) will be integrated. It's the main engine of the Orion spacecraft.
#DYK that the OMS-E is actually a repurposed space shuttle engine?
#behindthescenes #spacematters #spacecare #michaelnajjar #firstartistinspace
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Overwatchfan123 on 02/24/2021 09:39 am
How long will Orion be in the MPPF for?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 02/24/2021 09:59 am
Till it goes to LASF.

 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 02/24/2021 02:17 pm
If I had to guess I would say sometime in May/June.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 03/06/2021 03:58 am
Random thought of the day: Orion is the most versatile human rated spacecraft to date when it comes to launch vehicles. Think about it: It was originally designed to fly on Ares I, a completely different vehicle from current launcher of choice: SLS. Then one of its prototypes also flew on Delta IV Heavy. Has there ever been a human rated spacecraft that was designed to fly on two different LVs then flew on a 3rd as well?

Something to think about when people insist "but Orion can only launch on SLS!"
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/06/2021 12:49 pm
Orion flew on Delta IV Heavy without the LAS and with a dummy service module, so I'm not sure how much it actually counts.  It's a little like pointing out that the Apollo command module flew on the Little Joe II.

It's not obvious Orion ever could have flown on Ares I.  Not only were there on-going weight problems, but there was a credible analysis indicating that an abort under certain conditions would have resulting in fragments of solid propellant destroying Orion's parachutes, thereby dooming the crew.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ike17055 on 03/07/2021 09:41 pm
except Little Joe was never a true launcher. Delta IVH is. Early designs of CEV (which became Orion) were clearly planned to be able to launch on EELVs, particularly Delta IV, especially when CEV was considered to serve as NASA's orbital taxi, not just a BEO vehicle. Other than its weight problems, it was originally considered to be able to launch in a variety of ways, and until quite late in development, designed without knowing exactly what launcher it would be using.



Orion flew on Delta IV Heavy without the LAS and with a dummy service module, so I'm not sure how much it actually counts.  It's a little like pointing out that the Apollo command module flew on the Little Joe II.

It's not obvious Orion ever could have flown on Ares I.  Not only were there on-going weight problems, but there was a credible analysis indicating that an abort under certain conditions would have resulting in fragments of solid propellant destroying Orion's parachutes, thereby dooming the crew.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AU1.52 on 03/23/2021 02:07 am
https://twitter.com/airbusspace/status/1342795619434377216 (https://twitter.com/airbusspace/status/1342795619434377216)

Quote
View from below to where the Orbital Manoeuvring System Engine (OMS-E) will be integrated. It's the main engine of the Orion spacecraft.
#DYK that the OMS-E is actually a repurposed space shuttle engine?
#behindthescenes #spacematters #spacecare #michaelnajjar #firstartistinspace


Woo that looks like a mass of spaghetti! I would hate to be the one trying to make head or tail of all the SM insides!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 03/23/2021 01:57 pm
Is it just me, or does this mass of spaghetti look, I dunno, overly complicated for the function?

With all of those tiny conduits going everywhere, an apparent nightmare of documentation and management, I know I ask myself if I would be comfortable betting my life on the proper functioning of this mess.  What if one of those thousands of fragile-looking conduits breaks?  Or is improperly connected?  With all of the various possible errors in construction considering how massively complicated the layout is, is there even a test campaign conceivable that could catch all of them?

I dunno... it just looks far more complicated (not complex, just complicated, i.e., for example, using separate conduits for each wire and not well labeling each conduit) than it needs to be... :(
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Nomadd on 03/23/2021 02:04 pm
Is it just me, or does this mass of spaghetti look, I dunno, overly complicated for the function?

With all of those tiny conduits going everywhere, an apparent nightmare of documentation and management, I know I ask myself if I would be comfortable betting my life on the proper functioning of this mess.  What if one of those thousands of fragile-looking conduits breaks?  Or is improperly connected?  With all of the various possible errors in construction considering how massively complicated the layout is, is there even a test campaign conceivable that could catch all of them?

I dunno... it just looks far more complicated (not complex, just complicated, i.e., for example, using separate conduits for each wire and not well labeling each conduit) than it needs to be... :(
It's not just you, but considering the paperwork for moving a single wire an inch or factors like making things pretty can actually make servicing stuff harder, it's difficult to criticize.
 I do have to wonder if in their zeal to eliminate failure points they can introduce more than they solve by adding more stuff to break. People often mistake complexity for sophistication, when they're usually opposite things.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 03/23/2021 02:08 pm
Is it just me, or does this mass of spaghetti look, I dunno, overly complicated for the function?

With all of those tiny conduits going everywhere, an apparent nightmare of documentation and management, I know I ask myself if I would be comfortable betting my life on the proper functioning of this mess.  What if one of those thousands of fragile-looking conduits breaks?  Or is improperly connected?  With all of the various possible errors in construction considering how massively complicated the layout is, is there even a test campaign conceivable that could catch all of them?

I dunno... it just looks far more complicated (not complex, just complicated, i.e., for example, using separate conduits for each wire and not well labeling each conduit) than it needs to be... :(

Not sure how you come to that conclusion from this "birds eye" view.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: loekf on 03/25/2021 06:32 am
After seeing this:

https://twitter.com/NASA_Langley/status/1374802950749622275?s=20

I'm confused why after 14 years of development, 18-20 billion USD and one launch into LO, they still do drop tests into water at this stage ? Sounds like they are still tweaking the design, including at a structural level.

We call this is a "moving target" (maybe due to on-going generous funding for R&D)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: gemmy0I on 03/25/2021 07:41 am
After seeing this:

<Twitter link snipped to prevent embedding in quote>

I'm confused why after 14 years of development, 18-20 billion USD and one launch into LO, they still do drop tests into water at this stage ? Sounds like they are still tweaking the design, including at a structural level.

We call this is a "moving target" (maybe due to on-going generous funding for R&D)
Sounds to me like a classic case of "we're paying a standing army to build and operate this thing as a full-time job, but Orion is all ready for Artemis 1 and the whole thing is held up waiting on the Core Stage, so let's find something vaguely useful to do with the team meanwhile". :) Doesn't necessarily mean they're making big changes to the capsule that need to be re-tested, just that they have time to kill and might as well get some extra data for the engineers.

I seem to remember similar "find something useful to do" events happening in other departments that are likewise waiting on the Core Stage. Like the ground crews adding extra stacking tests of the inert pathfinder SRBs that weren't originally in their schedule to "keep the team sharp" and better prepare them for things to go smoothly when they're doing it for real.

This is not just a NASA/SLS/Orion thing either. Not long ago there was a fairly high profile incident where a SpaceX Starship test flight was held up waiting for FAA approval. The Starship was on the pad ready to fly that day and Elon was reportedly playing chicken with the FAA by proceeding into the countdown and fueling in the hope that the paperwork would come through before their test window closed. The FAA ended up saying "no way, the paperwork will be done when it's done". SpaceX decided to make lemonade out of life giving them lemons and proceeded into a static fire with the already-loaded fuel at what would have been T-0. The static fire was gratuitous since they'd already done several and had enough data to fly, but the engineers were no doubt happy to get some more data points for their models.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: VSECOTSPE on 04/01/2021 04:49 am

Covid impact to Orion at $146M, mainly for Artemis 2 & 3.

Quote
The Orion spacecraft suffered $146 million in costs, including $5 million in fiscal year 2020 and $66 million in fiscal year 2021. Because the Orion spacecraft for the Artemis 1 mission was nearly complete at the time the pandemic hit, the largest effects were on the Orion spacecraft for the Artemis 2 and 3 missions, both still in production. Those problems extended to Europe, with delays in the production of the European Service Module for the Artemis 2 Orion.

https://spacenews.com/pandemic-to-cost-nasa-up-to-3-billion/
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 04/11/2021 09:54 pm
Found this interesting

https://twitter.com/KathyLueders/status/1380520897489014791 (https://twitter.com/KathyLueders/status/1380520897489014791)

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/orion_artemis_lunar_entry_modes.png (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/orion_artemis_lunar_entry_modes.png)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: VSECOTSPE on 04/11/2021 10:51 pm
Found this interesting

I’m nitpicking Leuders’ Twitter entry, but HL-20, Zond, and probably other programs demonstrated skip-glide or boost-glide on human spacecraft.  They were just never crewed.  So skip-glide on Artemis 1 isn’t technically new, but Artemis 2 could be.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 04/11/2021 10:56 pm
Found this interesting

I’m nitpicking Leuders’ Twitter entry, but HL-20, Zond, and probably other programs demonstrated skip-glide or boost-glide on human spacecraft.  They were just never crewed.  So skip-glide on Artemis 1 isn’t technically new, but Artemis 2 could be.

To be fair, it clearly states first skip entry of human spacecraft

Edit: Apologies, I see your point since Artemis 1 is uncrewed.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/11/2021 11:14 pm
Is it just me, or does this mass of spaghetti look, I dunno, overly complicated for the function?

I've seen worse, and we have to remember that they likely haven't finished all the wiring yet, so some is "loose".

Quote
With all of those tiny conduits going everywhere, an apparent nightmare of documentation and management...

A lot of that "spaghetti" is because of the layout of the four clusters of auxiliary thrusters. Otherwise the plumbing for the single Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System engine would likely be pretty simple.

In other words, the wide spacing of the auxiliary thrusters provides the bulk of that "spaghetti". And yes, that would increase the documentation challenges.

Quote
...I know I ask myself if I would be comfortable betting my life on the proper functioning of this mess.

Well, they can test the system on the ground, and I certainly wouldn't call it a "mess", since that implies inconsistency in how the plumbing is arranged, yet it looks symmetrical to me. I remember a test cabinet we were building for testing test equipment (yep), and the first one had a back that looked like a mess, but the second was very organized. Both functioned as required, but the second was easier to troubleshoot.

Quote
What if one of those thousands of fragile-looking conduits breaks?  Or is improperly connected?  With all of the various possible errors in construction considering how massively complicated the layout is, is there even a test campaign conceivable that could catch all of them?

They will do comprehensive testing, which will validate all the connections. I'm not too concerned about that part.

Quote
I dunno... it just looks far more complicated (not complex, just complicated, i.e., for example, using separate conduits for each wire and not well labeling each conduit) than it needs to be... :(

Again, the amount of plumbing and wiring is because of how far apart the four auxiliary thrusters are mounted. And I'm not saying it is ideal, just that the design necessitates a lot of distance the wires and plumbing have to cover. And any time you have lots of wire length or tubing length there is a possibility of something getting rubbed or vibrated. But it is the same challenge in aircraft of any size, especially military cargo ones.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 04/12/2021 06:41 am
Found this interesting

I’m nitpicking Leuders’ Twitter entry, but HL-20, Zond, and probably other programs demonstrated skip-glide or boost-glide on human spacecraft.  They were just never crewed.  So skip-glide on Artemis 1 isn’t technically new, but Artemis 2 could be.

To be fair, it clearly states first skip entry of human spacecraft

Edit: Apologies, I see your point since Artemis 1 is uncrewed.

Good you noted because Zond was also a human spacecraft and it performed lunar-return skip reentry 3 times (Zond 6 in 1968, Zond 7 in 1969 and Zond 8 in 1970).
Like those 3 Zond missions Artemis I will be uncrewed. And thus skip reentry on Artemis I is nothing new, unlike what Kathy seems to be suggesting in her tweet.

Nitpicking by VSECOTSPE is thus fully justified by facts.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 04/12/2021 04:24 pm
MATTBLAK posted this in an Artemis thread; hope it's okay that I'm following up here. I'm reposting the image too, since it's so compelling.

Although; there is a co-manifested payload idea I devised a few months back that could consist of a second, stripped-down Service Module that contains just a main engine, propellants, no crew consumables, no solar arrays - a couple rechargeable batteries - and a docking mechanism on top of the Service Module. A 'Space Tug', then!! After TLI; The Orion could turn and dock with it atop the Exploration Upper Stage, then extract it just like the Apollo LM. Then both vehicles fly on and enter Lunar orbit a few days later; to meet the Human Landing System. The Orion 'Tug Module' would be jettisoned so the Orion CSM could then dock with the HLS.

An idea unlikely to happen - but it would be an 'off the shelf' solution that should solve the lack of propellant problem without having to spend a billion(s) to redesign the Orion. I got the idea from a Lockheed-Martin concept from a few years back where a full pair of redundant Orions dock nose-to-nose to accomplish a mission to a deep space asteroid.

A couple of points/questions:

-Would the second engine the size of an OMS be needed? I somewhat thought the thrust requirement motivating that on the Orion Service Module came from one of the abort scenarios during launch. For in-space propulsion would the smaller thrusters suffice?

- If these tugs were provided by ESA in a fashion similar to the European Service Modules would that avoid some of the FAR hurdles that might otherwise make the procurement difficult?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: yg1968 on 05/22/2021 04:13 pm
Someone on twitter is arguing that Orion could carry 6 astronauts if it's going to Gateway (i.e., if it is going to a habitat that allows room for 6 astronauts). Is this true?

I know that Orion could have carried 6 astronauts to the ISS but I was under the impression that BEO Orion could only carry 4 astronauts. 

P.S. I apologize if this has been discussed before in this thread.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 05/22/2021 05:33 pm
Someone on twitter is arguing that Orion could carry 6 astronauts if it's going to Gateway (i.e., if it is going to a habitat that allows room for 6 astronauts). Is this true?

I know that Orion could have carried 6 astronauts to the ISS but I was under the impression that BEO Orion could only carry 4 astronauts. 

P.S. I apologize if this has been discussed before in this thread.

Orion is designed for four astronauts. Capacity could be increased, but that would require an expensive redesign, so in Orion's current version the answer is no.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2021 03:40 pm
After seeing this:

https://twitter.com/NASA_Langley/status/1374802950749622275?s=20

I'm confused why after 14 years of development, 18-20 billion USD and one launch into LO, they still do drop tests into water at this stage ? Sounds like they are still tweaking the design, including at a structural level.

We call this is a "moving target" (maybe due to on-going generous funding for R&D)
They did Dragon Crew splash tests pretty close to the actual mission.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2021 03:42 pm
Someone on twitter is arguing that Orion could carry 6 astronauts if it's going to Gateway (i.e., if it is going to a habitat that allows room for 6 astronauts). Is this true?

I know that Orion could have carried 6 astronauts to the ISS but I was under the impression that BEO Orion could only carry 4 astronauts. 

P.S. I apologize if this has been discussed before in this thread.

Orion is designed for four astronauts. Capacity could be increased, but that would require an expensive redesign, so in Orion's current version the answer is no.
I hope they do, actually. Starship could easily carry 6, and this would allow more room for international partners. I still hold out hope for Russia and China (and others) joining Artemis.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 05/24/2021 04:05 pm
Someone on twitter is arguing that Orion could carry 6 astronauts if it's going to Gateway (i.e., if it is going to a habitat that allows room for 6 astronauts). Is this true?

I know that Orion could have carried 6 astronauts to the ISS but I was under the impression that BEO Orion could only carry 4 astronauts. 

P.S. I apologize if this has been discussed before in this thread.

Orion is designed for four astronauts. Capacity could be increased, but that would require an expensive redesign, so in Orion's current version the answer is no.
I hope they do, actually. Starship could easily carry 6, and this would allow more room for international partners. I still hold out hope for Russia and China (and others) joining Artemis.

Yeah, that would be great, but Congress would have to pay for it. Time to get the lobbyists and Nelson on the job.

Now if I was in charge I'd ramp it up a step. Using SLS and EUS, co-manifest a small habitat module Orion could use as an orbital module like Soyuz and Shenzhou. With greater Orion capability that might make the whole SLS/Orion combination worth the cost.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/24/2021 04:20 pm
Someone on twitter is arguing that Orion could carry 6 astronauts if it's going to Gateway (i.e., if it is going to a habitat that allows room for 6 astronauts). Is this true?

I know that Orion could have carried 6 astronauts to the ISS but I was under the impression that BEO Orion could only carry 4 astronauts. 

P.S. I apologize if this has been discussed before in this thread.

Orion is designed for four astronauts. Capacity could be increased, but that would require an expensive redesign, so in Orion's current version the answer is no.
I hope they do, actually. Starship could easily carry 6, and this would allow more room for international partners. I still hold out hope for Russia and China (and others) joining Artemis.

If Inspiration 4 can fit 4 people for 3 days in dragon, you should be able to fit more than 4 for 5 days within the larger Orion (I would think). It was cut to 4 due to consumables and the ~month long target Orion length without support. If they dock with a space station with its own ECLSS and supplies, you should be able to increase that somewhat (5-6). If it is an Orion on SLS Block 1B with its own support/cargo module, you could probably expand it even farther.

It wouldn't exactly be unprecedented, Shuttle flew with another seat placed on the mid-deck for ST-61-A to fly 8 people rather than the usual 7.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/24/2021 06:21 pm
Pressurized/habitable volume isn’t a huge limit. 2 astronauts spent 14 days in the 2.55 cubic meter Gemini spacecraft. Even Dragon could fit 6 if they really wanted to. So 6 in Orion is fine from that perspective.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: wheedude on 05/24/2021 06:29 pm
Someone on twitter is arguing that Orion could carry 6 astronauts if it's going to Gateway (i.e., if it is going to a habitat that allows room for 6 astronauts). Is this true?

I know that Orion could have carried 6 astronauts to the ISS but I was under the impression that BEO Orion could only carry 4 astronauts. 

P.S. I apologize if this has been discussed before in this thread.

Orion is designed for four astronauts. Capacity could be increased, but that would require an expensive redesign, so in Orion's current version the answer is no.
I hope they do, actually. Starship could easily carry 6, and this would allow more room for international partners. I still hold out hope for Russia and China (and others) joining Artemis.

If Inspiration 4 can fit 4 people for 3 days in dragon, you should be able to fit more than 4 for 5 days within the larger Orion (I would think). It was cut to 4 due to consumables and the ~month long target Orion length without support. If they dock with a space station with its own ECLSS and supplies, you should be able to increase that somewhat (5-6). If it is an Orion on SLS Block 1B with its own support/cargo module, you could probably expand it even farther.

It wouldn't exactly be unprecedented, Shuttle flew with another seat placed on the mid-deck for ST-61-A to fly 8 people rather than the usual 7.


I like the idea of more on board, but I don't see it.  Shuttle had a different mission architecture, so it's hard to compare expanded capabilities.  Shuttle was never going to the moon... any destination it was bound for was only a few Earth orbits away from a landing (or ISS rendezvous).  Orion on a moon bound mission could face a longer period away from support.  If already in route to lunar orbit and something goes wrong like not being able to dock to the Gateway, they would be faced with the possibility of being stuck inside Orion for the duration of the mission, minimum 8 days, more like 10.  10 days straight in Orion with an expanded crew of 6 would be  torturous. 

With that, I'm pretty sure they have limited crew capacity to 4 to allow for consumables for the crew.  While a short flight to the ISS might not need these; a lunar mission most definitely would.  Unfortunately Orion doesn't have the ability to increase crew. 

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/24/2021 07:29 pm
Why did they make Orion so heavy compared to Dragon II and Starliner?  Seems to be way overweight. 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: joek on 05/24/2021 07:53 pm
Why did they make Orion so heavy compared to Dragon II and Starliner?  Seems to be way overweight.
Orion was designed for BLEO and provides ~8284crew days of free-flying ECLSS (Dragon and Starliner are less than a quarter that). See attached for a more detailed mass breakdown (a bit dated but still nominally correct); note the mass of the LAS and SM in particular.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: joek on 05/24/2021 08:13 pm
Pressurized/habitable volume isn’t a huge limit. 2 astronauts spent 14 days in the 2.55 cubic meter Gemini spacecraft. Even Dragon could fit 6 if they really wanted to. So 6 in Orion is fine from that perspective.

Up to 7 (4 on top, as currently for ISS missions, plus 3 on bottom). But that may push ECLSS-consumables beyond the line depending on nominal mission duration. Believe currently is sized for a crew of 4 free flying for 3 days nominal (12 crew days), 5 days max including contingency (20 crew days); Orion sized for crew of 4, 21 days nominal (84 crew days), not sure of Orion's contingency duration.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/25/2021 12:30 am
Pressurized/habitable volume isn’t a huge limit. 2 astronauts spent 14 days in the 2.55 cubic meter Gemini spacecraft. Even Dragon could fit 6 if they really wanted to. So 6 in Orion is fine from that perspective.

Up to 7 (4 on top, as currently for ISS missions, plus 3 on bottom). But that may push ECLSS-consumables beyond the line depending on nominal mission duration. Believe currently is sized for a crew of 4 free flying for 3 days nominal (12 crew days), 5 days max including contingency (20 crew days); Orion sized for crew of 4, 21 days nominal (84 crew days), not sure of Orion's contingency duration.
I doubt it'd be a massive challenge, honestly.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Overwatchfan123 on 07/03/2021 08:45 am
Did you guys know that yesterday was the 2nd anniversary of the Orion Ascent-Abort 2 test?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/21/2021 07:00 pm
twitter.com/astro_jessica/status/1428865915333001223

Quote
Today we evaluated the internal configuration of the @NASAArtemis #Orion capsule that will carry @NASA_Astronauts back to the Moon! Cargo stow, building a radiation shelter, and practice donning and doffing the suit. Every day in a @NASA spacesuit is a good day!

https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1429112133460107268

Quote
Here’s an annotated version. @MPiatowski
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 08/22/2021 12:26 pm
twitter.com/astro_jessica/status/1428865915333001223

Quote
Today we evaluated the internal configuration of the @NASAArtemis #Orion capsule that will carry @NASA_Astronauts back to the Moon! Cargo stow, building a radiation shelter, and practice donning and doffing the suit. Every day in a @NASA spacesuit is a good day!

https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1429112133460107268 (https://twitter.com/jhutt75/status/1429112133460107268)

Quote
Here’s an annotated version. @MPiatowski

Dang. That Orion interior looks even less organized than the CM's interior.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: libra on 08/22/2021 06:15 pm
Pressurized/habitable volume isn’t a huge limit. 2 astronauts spent 14 days in the 2.55 cubic meter Gemini spacecraft. Even Dragon could fit 6 if they really wanted to. So 6 in Orion is fine from that perspective.

And two guys, 18 days in a Soyuz - although they ended in very (but very !) poor shape. Always found funny that the longest Gemini at 14 days was never beaten by any Apollo  (average 11 days, except the Skylab ones, obviously but they "cheated" being attached to a massive station).
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/23/2021 02:14 pm
Pressurized/habitable volume isn’t a huge limit. 2 astronauts spent 14 days in the 2.55 cubic meter Gemini spacecraft.

Though Frank Borman, a man of great self-discipline, did later say it was the most difficult thing he had ever done.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: LaunchedIn68 on 10/18/2021 06:58 pm
Reading through the EM1/2/3 update threads, my question is about further Orion ships being constructed?  Will there be an EM-4 started soon?  Or is the plan to refurbish the first 3 for now? 
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Eric Hedman on 10/18/2021 07:22 pm
Pressurized/habitable volume isn’t a huge limit. 2 astronauts spent 14 days in the 2.55 cubic meter Gemini spacecraft.

Though Frank Borman, a man of great self-discipline, did later say it was the most difficult thing he had ever done.
I heard Borman and Lovell talk about their mission quite humorously.  Borman said imagine sitting in the front seat of a Volkswagen Beetle for two weeks next to a sailor.  Crew compatibility over a stretch like that does make a difference.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: eeergo on 10/18/2021 07:36 pm
Reading through the EM1/2/3 update threads, my question is about further Orion ships being constructed?  Will there be an EM-4 started soon?  Or is the plan to refurbish the first 3 for now? 


Yes: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/10/orion-update-oct-2021/

Also in Europe, contracts have been signed for subcos to start procuring items for ESM-4, 5 and 6 for Artemis IV, V and VI, see for example this TAS release: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/space/press_release/thales-alenia-space-supports-final-integration-european-service
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/18/2021 08:49 pm
Pressurized/habitable volume isn’t a huge limit. 2 astronauts spent 14 days in the 2.55 cubic meter Gemini spacecraft.

Though Frank Borman, a man of great self-discipline, did later say it was the most difficult thing he had ever done.
I heard Borman and Lovell talk about their mission quite humorously.  Borman said imagine sitting in the front seat of a Volkswagen Beetle for two weeks next to a sailor.  Crew compatibility over a stretch like that does make a difference.

Sure, specially screened and trained crews can survive in such conditions for relatively short periods of time, but it does not represent the future of space exploration. No way.

The Orion is the end of the evolutionary line for capsule type all-in-one spacecraft, and for good reasons (even beyond its $1B per flight cost). The Orion is good enough for the Artemis missions, especially if the Gateway is available.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: cplchanb on 10/19/2021 01:30 pm
Curious why is the Orion assembly building so far away from the VAB? Is there a way to streamline operations and group everything closer together possibly into 1 building?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 10/20/2021 01:48 am
Curious why is the Orion assembly building so far away from the VAB? Is there a way to streamline operations and group everything closer together possibly into 1 building?
The idea with these things is you want to "offline" things as much as possible. You're trying to do as much in parallel as possible and as little in a fixed, sequential order as possible. While Orion is in the LASF, any issues or delays it experiences won't directly impact work going on with the core stage in the VAB, and vice-versa. You're basically trying to minimize the exposure each item has to the critical path.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: eeergo on 10/20/2021 08:38 am
Curious why is the Orion assembly building so far away from the VAB? Is there a way to streamline operations and group everything closer together possibly into 1 building?

Many specialized equipment that is needed on Orion is not on SLS, and viceversa. Likewise, contamination requirements are not the same, and hazardous/delicate work on one may impact that on the other. A bit like the reason why the VAB exists and the LV is not directly assembled at the launch pad, or subcomponents of the system get fabricated elsewhere.

A few hours of rollout once a mission will negligibly affect the overall schedule.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: The Phantom on 10/20/2021 05:16 pm
Curious why is the Orion assembly building so far away from the VAB? Is there a way to streamline operations and group everything closer together possibly into 1 building?

The primary reason the O&C Bldg. became the Orion assembly area is that it was unused, existing floor space already outfitted with many of the systems needed to support assembly of spacecraft. No need to waste money on new building construction. Spending a few hours moving hardware a handful of miles is inconsequential.

It also means that other work is not impacted by safety clears. There have been many times during the Artemis 1 flow when the VAB has been evacuated to the fence-line while hazardous operations are performed by a handful of essential personnel. Doing everything in one building would slow down work.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rcoppola on 10/20/2021 05:50 pm
I do so wish someone from either NASA or LM would see the value in aesthetic design wrt Orion's internal cabin space. It's one of the things I greatly appreciate about SpaceX / Dragon. Good engineering design and good aesthetic design are not mutually exclusive. A shame there seems to be little value placed on it from NASA / LM.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jadebenn on 10/28/2021 06:52 am
I do so wish someone from either NASA or LM would see the value in aesthetic design wrt Orion's internal cabin space. It's one of the things I greatly appreciate about SpaceX / Dragon. Good engineering design and good aesthetic design are not mutually exclusive. A shame there seems to be little value placed on it from NASA / LM.
I think it looks fine. I think Dragon honestly overdoes its aesthetic a bit, and it comes off a bit plastic-y. Less like a functional craft, more like an Apple store.

Course, I like the OCSS suits better than the SpaceX IVA suits (which are themselves leagues better than the Boeing Starliner IVA suits), and the Starliner avionics better than either the Orion or Dragon ones, so I'm clearly biased in favor of what I'd call the "ISS/Shuttle aesthetic."
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kevinof on 10/28/2021 09:32 am
If that's what floats your boat!

To me a Dragon feels like flying in a modern Airbus or a Boeing 777 and the Orion more like riding in the back of a C-130.

As for the avionics - I think Dragon has shown that touch screens work and there is no need for masses of buttons and switches. I can understand why people like "old school" - it's what many people are familiar with and so are comfortable with but I believe the next generation of spacecraft will be more like Dragon and less like Orion or Starliner.


I do so wish someone from either NASA or LM would see the value in aesthetic design wrt Orion's internal cabin space. It's one of the things I greatly appreciate about SpaceX / Dragon. Good engineering design and good aesthetic design are not mutually exclusive. A shame there seems to be little value placed on it from NASA / LM.
I think it looks fine. I think Dragon honestly overdoes its aesthetic a bit, and it comes off a bit plastic-y. Less like a functional craft, more like an Apple store.

Course, I like the OCSS suits better than the SpaceX IVA suits (which are themselves leagues better than the Boeing Starliner IVA suits), and the Starliner avionics better than either the Orion or Dragon ones, so I'm clearly biased in favor of what I'd call the "ISS/Shuttle aesthetic."
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/28/2021 03:01 pm
Curious why is the Orion assembly building so far away from the VAB? Is there a way to streamline operations and group everything closer together possibly into 1 building?

It is not far away (less than 5 miles) and no. 
A.  The VAB is only for stacking rockets and has nothing to do with spacecraft assembly.
b.  Stacking solid motors is hazardous operation and clears out the VAB to a minimum number of people (only those involved with the stacking, all other must leave).
c.  The VAB is an integration facility and not a production facility
d.  The Orion is assembled in the O&C and has no impacts from other operations
e.  the LASF is a separate facility due to hazards involved with the LAS, and it is cleaner than the VAB.  It also makes the LAS ops parallel and not serial to the rest of the SLS flow
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: VSECOTSPE on 11/10/2021 01:38 am
Quote
The cost of developing Orion is going up as well. NASA said at the briefing that it “rebaselined” the program, with a new cost of $9.3 billion from fiscal year 2012 through Artemis 2. The program’s previous cost estimate through Artemis 2 was $6.7 billion.

“There were a lot of requirements changes,” he [Free] said, including the addition of a proximity operations, or “proxops” demonstration on Artemis 2 to tests systems needed for the dockings required with the HLS lunar lander on Artemis 3. Pandemic-related costs also factored into the revised budget, he said

https://spacenews.com/nasa-delays-human-lunar-landing-to-at-least-2025/

Quote
For the Artemis II mission, astronauts will launch inside an Orion spacecraft atop the Space Launch System rocket. This will be the first human flight aboard the Orion spacecraft, a program NASA formally started in 2005. Moving the flight to 2024 represents a significant delay. At one time, NASA had planned to fly this mission—under the name "Exploration Mission-2"—in 2019.

With ongoing delays, the price of Orion keeps going up. On Tuesday, Nelson announced a significant increase in the cost of Orion's development since 2012, when the spacecraft design was modified to its current configuration as a deep-space capsule. Previously, NASA expected to spend $6.7 billion on Orion development from 2012 through Artemis II. Now, officials said, the cost will be $9.3 billion—a nearly 40 percent increase.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/nasa-delays-moon-landings-says-blue-origin-legal-tactics-partly-to-blame/

Good to see that Free is really holding his old program’s feet to the fire.  Would be nice to get a breakout on Orion’s $2.6B in cost growth.  That cost growth is only $300 million less than what NASA is paying fixed-price to develop and demonstrate the lander that Orion will deliver astronauts to...
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: shintoo on 02/15/2022 10:50 pm
I do so wish someone from either NASA or LM would see the value in aesthetic design wrt Orion's internal cabin space. It's one of the things I greatly appreciate about SpaceX / Dragon. Good engineering design and good aesthetic design are not mutually exclusive. A shame there seems to be little value placed on it from NASA / LM.

Dragon and Orion serve very different mission profiles, and the engineering constraints for Orion likely play a more significant role in the design process than a LEO vehicle, but I agree that that is not an excuse to 100% ignore aesthetics. (SpX certainly went the extra mile.)

I have to guess that the line of thinking was that Orion would typically be docked to a larger vehicle, so nice accommodations will be provided there, rather than in the capsule.

In terms of avionics, I agree that the touchscreens have proved successful, and it would be great to have seen them in Orion as well. Not a fan of the UI design on Dragon's displays though, but still much better than the classic MFD-based "glass cockpit" look.

Looking forward to see the interior of the Artemis II Orion, and how much it differs from the mockup in the photos above.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 03/01/2022 07:25 am
https://twitter.com/NASA_Orion/status/1498424430376194048?s=20&t=dJqlvRfGocXHXsBLX2M1Hg (https://twitter.com/NASA_Orion/status/1498424430376194048?s=20&t=dJqlvRfGocXHXsBLX2M1Hg)

Geyer - Kirasich - Koerner - Hu

Did I miss someone ?

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: omelet1978 on 03/10/2022 08:47 pm
Just out of curiosity, what is the latest on re-use or turn-around time for an Orion Capsule?

I know that the Orion Capsule for Artemis 1 is going to be partially re-used. However, when you search around the details are a bit vague. Everything about the program seems geared towards 1 launch a year, so this is mostly a hypothetical question. I guess let's say the Artemis II or Artemis III Orion capsule...once it lands what would be the timeframe to turn it around and refurbish it if there was a SLS core stage and associated equipment "magically" available for a second launch.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: VSECOTSPE on 03/10/2022 09:39 pm
Just out of curiosity, what is the latest on re-use or turn-around time for an Orion Capsule?

I know that the Orion Capsule for Artemis 1 is going to be partially re-used. However, when you search around the details are a bit vague.

Artemis 2 only reuses the avionics from Artemis 1.  It takes 20-21 months to turn those around.

Quote
The timing of the Artemis 1 launch will also affect the schedule for Artemis 2, the first flight with astronauts on board. The Orion spacecraft on Artemis 2 will reuse avionics flown on the Orion for Artemis 1. “This puts this iron bar of, I’ll say, 20, 21 months between the missions,” said Jim Free, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems development, in an Oct. 13 talk at the American Astronautical Society’s Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama. That means Artemis 2 could not launch any earlier than 20 to 21 months after Artemis 1...

https://spacenews.com/nasa-sets-artemis-1-launch-for-no-earlier-than-february/

That’s why we’re now looking at early 2024 for Artemis 2. 

There’s nothing really or easily reusable about Orion.  Even after almost a couple decades of development, the program is just so hardware poor that they have to reuse the avionics, and even that takes over a year-and-a-half to pull off.  It’s PR jabberwocky masquerading a severe program weakness as a technical benefit.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: omelet1978 on 03/11/2022 02:39 pm
Just out of curiosity, what is the latest on re-use or turn-around time for an Orion Capsule?

I know that the Orion Capsule for Artemis 1 is going to be partially re-used. However, when you search around the details are a bit vague.

Artemis 2 only reuses the avionics from Artemis 1.  It takes 20-21 months to turn those around.

Quote
The timing of the Artemis 1 launch will also affect the schedule for Artemis 2, the first flight with astronauts on board. The Orion spacecraft on Artemis 2 will reuse avionics flown on the Orion for Artemis 1. “This puts this iron bar of, I’ll say, 20, 21 months between the missions,” said Jim Free, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems development, in an Oct. 13 talk at the American Astronautical Society’s Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama. That means Artemis 2 could not launch any earlier than 20 to 21 months after Artemis 1...

https://spacenews.com/nasa-sets-artemis-1-launch-for-no-earlier-than-february/

That’s why we’re now looking at early 2024 for Artemis 2. 

There’s nothing really or easily reusable about Orion.  Even after almost a couple decades of development, the program is just so hardware poor that they have to reuse the avionics, and even that takes over a year-and-a-half to pull off.  It’s PR jabberwocky masquerading a severe program weakness as a technical benefit.

So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon to supplement and eventually replace Orion? Or support to build a few more Orion’s with a distributed launch profile?

From reading up on it an updated version of the Dragon would need a better heat shield, updated life support, more radiation shielding, and navigation that is not dependent on GPS satellites. Not a trivial list of items but imho given a few years it could be done and then launched on the Falcon Heavy.

My best guess for a distributed launch with Orion would be with the Vulcan Centaur and then rendezvous with another Vulcan Centaurs upper stage (the ACES 2 I believe). However I don’t know if that has enough power for a Lunar injection.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: DanClemmensen on 03/11/2022 02:49 pm
Just out of curiosity, what is the latest on re-use or turn-around time for an Orion Capsule?

I know that the Orion Capsule for Artemis 1 is going to be partially re-used. However, when you search around the details are a bit vague.

Artemis 2 only reuses the avionics from Artemis 1.  It takes 20-21 months to turn those around.

Quote
The timing of the Artemis 1 launch will also affect the schedule for Artemis 2, the first flight with astronauts on board. The Orion spacecraft on Artemis 2 will reuse avionics flown on the Orion for Artemis 1. “This puts this iron bar of, I’ll say, 20, 21 months between the missions,” said Jim Free, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems development, in an Oct. 13 talk at the American Astronautical Society’s Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama. That means Artemis 2 could not launch any earlier than 20 to 21 months after Artemis 1...

https://spacenews.com/nasa-sets-artemis-1-launch-for-no-earlier-than-february/

That’s why we’re now looking at early 2024 for Artemis 2. 

There’s nothing really or easily reusable about Orion.  Even after almost a couple decades of development, the program is just so hardware poor that they have to reuse the avionics, and even that takes over a year-and-a-half to pull off.  It’s PR jabberwocky masquerading a severe program weakness as a technical benefit.

So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon to supplement and eventually replace Orion? Or support to build a few more Orion’s with a distributed launch profile?

From reading up on it an updated version of the Dragon would need a better heat shield, updated life support, more radiation shielding, and navigation that is not dependent on GPS satellites. Not a trivial list of items but imho given a few years it could be done and then launched on the Falcon Heavy.

My best guess for a distributed launch with Orion would be with the Vulcan Centaur and then rendezvous with another Vulcan Centaurs upper stage (the ACES 2 I believe). However I don’t know if that has enough power for a Lunar injection.
This is the wrong thread for this question. If you want to replace Orion you should replace SLS/Orion and then rethink the entire Artemis  architecture.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: VSECOTSPE on 03/28/2022 03:41 am
So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon to supplement and eventually replace Orion? Or support to build a few more Orion’s with a distributed launch profile?

From reading up on it an updated version of the Dragon would need a better heat shield, updated life support, more radiation shielding, and navigation that is not dependent on GPS satellites. Not a trivial list of items but imho given a few years it could be done and then launched on the Falcon Heavy.

My best guess for a distributed launch with Orion would be with the Vulcan Centaur and then rendezvous with another Vulcan Centaurs upper stage (the ACES 2 I believe). However I don’t know if that has enough power for a Lunar injection.

Rather than picking a point solution (FH/ICPS, distributed launch, Grey Dragon, Starship, etc.) and contracting for that, I’d advise going out with a competitive solicitation for lunar crew transport (Earth to lunar orbit), seeing what combination of industry proposals provide the best value with some measure of redundancy, and pursuing that.  It’s fun to think through specific technical options on forums like this.  But NASA is usually better off seeking the best industry has to offer for a capability competitively, rather than going the design bureau route as it has done with SLS and Orion.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 03/28/2022 08:32 am
So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon to supplement and eventually replace Orion? Or support to build a few more Orion’s with a distributed launch profile?

From reading up on it an updated version of the Dragon would need a better heat shield, updated life support, more radiation shielding, and navigation that is not dependent on GPS satellites. Not a trivial list of items but imho given a few years it could be done and then launched on the Falcon Heavy.

My best guess for a distributed launch with Orion would be with the Vulcan Centaur and then rendezvous with another Vulcan Centaurs upper stage (the ACES 2 I believe). However I don’t know if that has enough power for a Lunar injection.

Rather than picking a point solution (FH/ICPS, distributed launch, Grey Dragon, Starship, etc.) and contracting for that, I’d advise going out with a competitive solicitation for lunar crew transport (Earth to lunar orbit), seeing what combination of industry proposals provide the best value with some measure of redundancy, and pursuing that.  It’s fun to think through specific technical options on forums like this.  But NASA is usually better off seeking the best industry has to offer for a capability competitively, rather than going to design bureau route as it has done with SLS and Orion.

Emphasis mine.

THIS

NASA is better off telling industry:
"I want 20 tons of cargo moved to the ISS, go do it!"
than
"I want two brand new rockets, one capsule and a MPLM-derived disposable vehicle"
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/28/2022 05:16 pm
So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon to supplement and eventually replace Orion? Or support to build a few more Orion’s with a distributed launch profile?

From reading up on it an updated version of the Dragon would need a better heat shield, updated life support, more radiation shielding, and navigation that is not dependent on GPS satellites. Not a trivial list of items but imho given a few years it could be done and then launched on the Falcon Heavy.

My best guess for a distributed launch with Orion would be with the Vulcan Centaur and then rendezvous with another Vulcan Centaurs upper stage (the ACES 2 I believe). However I don’t know if that has enough power for a Lunar injection.

Rather than picking a point solution (FH/ICPS, distributed launch, Grey Dragon, Starship, etc.) and contracting for that, I’d advise going out with a competitive solicitation for lunar crew transport (Earth to lunar orbit), seeing what combination of industry proposals provide the best value with some measure of redundancy, and pursuing that.  It’s fun to think through specific technical options on forums like this.  But NASA is usually better off seeking the best industry has to offer for a capability competitively, rather than going to design bureau route as it has done with SLS and Orion.

Emphasis mine.

THIS

NASA is better off telling industry:
"I want 20 tons of cargo moved to the ISS, go do it!"
than
"I want two brand new rockets, one capsule and a MPLM-derived disposable vehicle"

Actually, it was ""I want two brand new rockets with spacecraft delivering cargo to the ISS, you can choose a one way trip or have a return capability."
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/28/2022 05:18 pm

So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon

No.  No need to direct a design or a specific contractor.

to supplement and eventually replace Orion?

Why does it need to be supplemented or replaced?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: VSECOTSPE on 03/28/2022 06:53 pm
Why does it need to be supplemented or replaced?

Too needlessly big/heavy for the job, which prevents some more elegant/cheaper launch solutions from being considered.

Too low production/flight rate if you want Artemis to be more than one flags-and-footprints mission every year or two.

Too expensive for the job at a minimum of a quarter-billion dollars per astronaut seat — and probably more like a half-billion dollars per astronaut seat when they don’t hit a mission per year — just to get into lunar orbit.

In an ideal world, open up the trade space to allow Orion, other capsules, and Starship to compete for lunar crew transport.  I seriously doubt it, but if Orion is one of the best solutions, it will still float to the top.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: VSECOTSPE on 03/28/2022 06:54 pm
Actually, it was ""I want two brand new rockets with spacecraft delivering cargo to the ISS, you can choose a one way trip or have a return capability."

Saying this as this first COTS PE... Criticism on the new LV requirement is valid.  But that was also forced on the program from above.  It’s not how I set it up.  The program lucked out with F9.

A nit, but it’s important to note that COTS left the trade space on ISS cargo type (pressurized, unpressurized, upmass, downmass) and size wide open.  That aspect no one from above screwed up, thankfully.

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/28/2022 10:49 pm
Why does it need to be supplemented or replaced?

Too needlessly big/heavy for the job, which prevents some more elegant/cheaper launch solutions from being considered.

Too low production/flight rate if you want Artemis to be more than one flags-and-footprints mission every year or two.

Too expensive for the job at a minimum of a quarter-billion dollars per astronaut seat — and probably more like a half-billion dollars per astronaut seat when they don’t hit a mission per year — just to get into lunar orbit.

In an ideal world, open up the trade space to allow Orion, other capsules, and Starship to compete for lunar crew transport.  I seriously doubt it, but if Orion is one of the best solutions, it will still float to the top.


Oh, I agree but not in the context of the question.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/28/2022 10:51 pm
Actually, it was ""I want two brand new rockets with spacecraft delivering cargo to the ISS, you can choose a one way trip or have a return capability."

Saying this as this first COTS PE... Criticism on the new LV requirement is valid.  But that was also forced on the program from above.  It’s not how I set it up.  The program lucked out with F9.

A nit, but it’s important to note that COTS left the trade space on ISS cargo type (pressurized, unpressurized, upmass, downmass) and size wide open.  That aspect no one from above screwed up, thankfully.


yes, I was just pointing out that capsule and MPLM type module were not dictated
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 03/29/2022 08:16 am
So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon to supplement and eventually replace Orion? Or support to build a few more Orion’s with a distributed launch profile?

From reading up on it an updated version of the Dragon would need a better heat shield, updated life support, more radiation shielding, and navigation that is not dependent on GPS satellites. Not a trivial list of items but imho given a few years it could be done and then launched on the Falcon Heavy.

My best guess for a distributed launch with Orion would be with the Vulcan Centaur and then rendezvous with another Vulcan Centaurs upper stage (the ACES 2 I believe). However I don’t know if that has enough power for a Lunar injection.

Rather than picking a point solution (FH/ICPS, distributed launch, Grey Dragon, Starship, etc.) and contracting for that, I’d advise going out with a competitive solicitation for lunar crew transport (Earth to lunar orbit), seeing what combination of industry proposals provide the best value with some measure of redundancy, and pursuing that.  It’s fun to think through specific technical options on forums like this.  But NASA is usually better off seeking the best industry has to offer for a capability competitively, rather than going to design bureau route as it has done with SLS and Orion.

Emphasis mine.

THIS

NASA is better off telling industry:
"I want 20 tons of cargo moved to the ISS, go do it!"
than
"I want two brand new rockets, one capsule and a MPLM-derived disposable vehicle"

Actually, it was ""I want two brand new rockets with spacecraft delivering cargo to the ISS, you can choose a one way trip or have a return capability."

Emphasis mine.
No Jim, it wasn't.

From the original 2006 COTS Announcement (https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/225439main_COTS%20Final%20Announcement%20(Amend%201,%20%202-17-06).pdf), and the amended 2007 COTS announcement (https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/225440main_JSC-COTS-2%20Announcement%20(Final%20Release).pdf):

Quote from: Commercial Crew/Cargo Project Office
This announcement solicits proposals from industry for Earth to orbit space flight demonstrations
of the following capabilities:
- Capability A: External cargo delivery and disposal
- Capability B: Internal cargo delivery and disposal
- Capability C: Internal cargo delivery and return
- Capability D: Crew transportation

The scope of the demonstrations involves the development and operation of an end-to-end space transportation system of services including ground operations and integration, launch, rendezvous, proximity operations, docking or berthing, orbital operations, reentry, and safe disposal or return.

It is therefore very clear what NASA, by voice of the responsible program office, originally asked for: end-to-end transportation system of services. They specifically did NOT ask for new rockets to be developed; offerers were free to use existing ones.

The new LV thing was later forced on C3PO by outside operators, as already explained by VSECOTSPE. But NASA originally did NOT ask for new rockets to be developed.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 03/29/2022 07:05 pm
https://twitter.com/NASA_Orion/status/1508817618383380490
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Conexion Espacial on 03/31/2022 09:47 pm

Full-scale static test concludes qualification testing for Orion spacecraft abort motor (https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-successfully-tests-abort-motor-for-nasas-orion-spacecraft)


Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) and Lockheed Martin successfully performed the final full-scale ground test of the abort motor for NASA’s Orion spacecraft Launch Abort System (LAS) at Northrop Grumman’s Promontory test facility. The 17-foot-tall abort motor is one of three motors comprising the LAS that sits atop the Orion spacecraft aboard NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and is designed to increase astronaut safety on the pad and through initial ascent.

Approximately 250 measurement channels assessed the abort motor as the four exhaust nozzles pointing skyward produced nearly 400,000 pounds of thrust over its two-second firing time. Today’s test concludes the verification of a new insulation formulation and completes qualification testing for the Orion’s LAS.


“This impressive, high-impulse motor burns three times faster than a typical motor of this size, and if needed, the reverse-flow nozzles pull the crew capsule away from the launch vehicle and to safety,” said Wendy Williams, vice president, propulsion systems, Northrop Grumman. “Together, the three solid rocket motors of the LAS equip the SLS with the highest human-rated thrust and acceleration safety system possible.”


The first active LAS system will be integrated into the Orion spacecraft for Artemis II, the first crewed flight of SLS.


Northrop Grumman also produces the attitude control motor (ACM) to directionally control the LAS. The ACM orients the crew capsule for parachute deployment and is manufactured at Northrop Grumman’s Elkton, Maryland, facility.



The company further supports NASA’s Artemis program producing the twin solid rocket boosters for the SLS rocket and was recently awarded a contract to support Artemis missions with flight sets through 2031. Northrop Grumman is also providing the Habitation and Logistics Outpost module for NASA’s Lunar Gateway and internally developing a Lunar Terrain Vehicle that supports human and robotic exploration of the Moon and beyond.


Northrop Grumman is a technology company, focused on global security and human discovery. Our pioneering solutions equip our customers with capabilities they need to connect, advance and protect the U.S. and its allies. Driven by a shared purpose to solve our customers’ toughest problems, our 90,000 employees define possible every day.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/02/2022 12:04 am
Moved from the HLS Option B and the Sustaining Lunar Development Phase (Appendix P) thread.
From what I saw, the Orion production contract covers Artemis III to V and VI to VIII. After that, Orion is supposed to become fixed price but the price hasn't been negotiated yet.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract
If you read the press release, the Orion Production and Operations Contract (OPOC) is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract that includes a commitment to order a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 Orion spacecraft, with an ordering period through Sept. 30, 2030.

No new contracts for the first 12 Orion need to be negotiated, assuming no major changes are made.

That doesn't contradict anything that I said.

You implied that a contract for Orion #4 and beyond had not been negotiated. The NASA announcement was clear that an IDIQ contract had been negotiated for Orion #1-12.

Quote
The press release also says this: "Furthermore, the cost incentives on the cost-plus-incentive-fee orders are designed to motivate favorable cost performance during early OPOC production and drive substantially lower prices for any subsequent firm-fixed-price orders issued under this contract."

But Space News added this: "The contract includes the option for up to six additional Orion spacecraft ordered through September 2030. Those will be ordered under firm-fixed-price contracts, with the price set based on cost data from the previous six Orion spacecraft."

https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-long-term-orion-production-contract-to-lockheed-martin/

The FY23 Budget says this (on page 235): "The first six spacecraft (Artemis III through VIII) will be acquired by cost-plus-incentive fee orders. NASA will negotiate firm-fixed-price orders for future missions to take advantage of the anticipated spacecraft production cost decreases."

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_full_opt.pdf

OK. But that doesn't change the fact that while costs can go down on future purchases, costs are not prohibited from going up.

Remember that the Orion MPCV has not even flown yet, so no one knows if the current design can be human-rated. Nor will we know what needs to be changed until after the Orion MPCV does a complete mission with humans onboard, which won't happen until at least Artemis II, or no earlier than 2024.

And if the launch schedule gets stretched out, Lockheed Martin will have to charge NASA for the factory downtime they experience, which will likely increase costs (same with Boeing and the SLS).

In other words, don't count your savings until the accountants close the books...  ;)
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: yg1968 on 04/02/2022 12:54 am
Moved from the HLS Option B and the Sustaining Lunar Development Phase (Appendix P) thread.
From what I saw, the Orion production contract covers Artemis III to V and VI to VIII. After that, Orion is supposed to become fixed price but the price hasn't been negotiated yet.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract
If you read the press release, the Orion Production and Operations Contract (OPOC) is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract that includes a commitment to order a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 Orion spacecraft, with an ordering period through Sept. 30, 2030.

No new contracts for the first 12 Orion need to be negotiated, assuming no major changes are made.

That doesn't contradict anything that I said.

You implied that a contract for Orion #4 and beyond had not been negotiated. The NASA announcement was clear that an IDIQ contract had been negotiated for Orion #1-12.

I said that the price hadn't been negotiated and I gave you the citation from the FY23 budget that says exactly that (see below). I didn't say anything about a new contract.

You, on the other, are guessing that the prices are going to go up. That seems unlikely given that the goal of the contract is to gradually reduce prices and to transition to fixed prices for missions after Artemis VIII.

The FY23 Budget says this (on page 235): "The first six spacecraft (Artemis III through VIII) will be acquired by cost-plus-incentive fee orders. NASA will negotiate firm-fixed-price orders for future missions to take advantage of the anticipated spacecraft production cost decreases."

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_full_opt.pdf
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: shintoo on 07/27/2022 01:13 am
A bit late to the party, but is anyone else surprised (... or skeptical) of the language regarding reuse of this June 10th article: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/06/orion-status-update/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/06/orion-status-update/)

Quote
After returning the Artemis 3 crew to Earth, the current plan is to take the capsule, refurbish it, and fly it again on Artemis 6.

There are no direct quotes from the source (Jules Schneider, Director of Orion Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations at Lockheed Martin) about reuse in the article, but it does make it sound like that information is coming from him.

I was very much under the impression, from a number of things including discussions in this thread, and from what I read regarding the Orion Production and Operations Contract, that all Orions for future missions would be produced anew. I had thought that the reuse plans were tossed years ago.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Markstark on 07/27/2022 01:50 am
A bit late to the party, but is anyone else surprised (... or skeptical) of the language regarding reuse of this June 10th article: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/06/orion-status-update/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/06/orion-status-update/)

Quote
After returning the Artemis 3 crew to Earth, the current plan is to take the capsule, refurbish it, and fly it again on Artemis 6.

There are no direct quotes from the source (Jules Schneider, Director of Orion Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations at Lockheed Martin) about reuse in the article, but it does make it sound like that information is coming from him.

I was very much under the impression, from a number of things including discussions in this thread, and from what I read regarding the Orion Production and Operations Contract, that all Orions for future missions would be produced anew. I had thought that the reuse plans were tossed years ago.
Reuse of most of the Crew Module is still the plan for OPOC. There’s varying degrees of reuse:
“Light” - major components/subsystems installed on new pressure vessel hardware + new heatshield
“Heavy” - most the of the CM is reused including the pressure vessel + a new heatshield

The Artemis 6 scenario described above  is “Heavy” reuse.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: shintoo on 07/27/2022 02:10 am
<snip />
Reuse of most of the Crew Module is still the plan for OPOC. There’s varying degrees of reuse:
“Light” - major components/subsystems installed on new pressure vessel hardware + new heatshield
“Heavy” - most the of the CM is reused including the pressure vessel + a new heatshield

The Artemis 6 scenario described above  is “Heavy” reuse.

Brilliant, thanks for the clarification. Also thanks for cluing me into the official terms for the types of reuse :) I can't believe I hadn't run into this before, but it does leave me ecstatic. Thanks again.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/08/2022 05:51 pm
<snip />
Reuse of most of the Crew Module is still the plan for OPOC. There’s varying degrees of reuse:
“Light” - major components/subsystems installed on new pressure vessel hardware + new heatshield
“Heavy” - most the of the CM is reused including the pressure vessel + a new heatshield

The Artemis 6 scenario described above  is “Heavy” reuse.

Brilliant, thanks for the clarification. Also thanks for cluing me into the official terms for the types of reuse :) I can't believe I hadn't run into this before, but it does leave me ecstatic. Thanks again.

"Light" reuse is being done for Artemis 2, with seats, avionics, crew control systems, and other subsystems being removed from the Orion used for Artemis 1 and being put into the Orion for Artemis 2. It's a big reason for the ~20 month "iron bar" in the timeline between Artemis 1 and 2.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Martin FL on 08/15/2022 05:14 pm
If they have a major issue on Orion 1's mission that requires a design change, I guess they'll have to implement and fly again without a crew on this Orion [EM-2]? OFT-2 style?

[zubenelgenubi: I split/merged not-L2 splinter discussion to the public side discussion thread.]
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/16/2022 02:07 pm
If they have a major issue on Orion 1's mission that requires a design change, I guess they'll have to implement and fly again without a crew on this Orion? OFT-2 style?

For fear of invoking my inner Jim ;) - let's cross that bridge if we come to it. It's a test flight. It might be ideal to have some problems per the point of a test flight.

Anyway, let's try and get some additional status on Orion-2's status cause it won't be flying for a few years.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/19/2022 07:52 pm
If they have a major issue on Orion 1's mission that requires a design change, I guess they'll have to implement and fly again without a crew on this Orion? OFT-2 style?

For fear of invoking my inner Jim ;) - let's cross that bridge if we come to it. It's a test flight. It might be ideal to have some problems per the point of a test flight.

Anyway, let's try and get some additional status on Orion-2's status cause it won't be flying for a few years.
As in 2024? Or 2025-2026?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 08/23/2022 12:59 pm
Building Orion - Artemis 1 moon mission's spacecraft explained

https://youtu.be/Gc_XtRnVLQ8

https://youtu.be/25Jhy_0fowo

Quote
In the two-part episodes of NASA series "Artemis I Path to the Pad," the Orion spacecraft takes center stage. See what it took to put all its components together. -- Artemis 1 mission -

Quote
Named after one of the largest constellations in the night sky, Orion is the name given to the spacecraft that will carry the first woman and first person of color to the Moon. But before we fly astronauts aboard, the spacecraft, powered by our Space Launch System rocket, will travel tens of thousands of miles on a flight test around the Moon. Watch as teams at NASA's Kennedy Space Center prepare Orion for that journey, outfitting the spacecraft with its necessary components as it moves along its path to the pad.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/23/2022 07:47 pm
A bit late to the party, but is anyone else surprised (... or skeptical) of the language regarding reuse of this June 10th article: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/06/orion-status-update/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/06/orion-status-update/)

Quote
After returning the Artemis 3 crew to Earth, the current plan is to take the capsule, refurbish it, and fly it again on Artemis 6.

There are no direct quotes from the source (Jules Schneider, Director of Orion Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations at Lockheed Martin) about reuse in the article, but it does make it sound like that information is coming from him.

I was very much under the impression, from a number of things including discussions in this thread, and from what I read regarding the Orion Production and Operations Contract, that all Orions for future missions would be produced anew. I had thought that the reuse plans were tossed years ago.
Reuse of most of the Crew Module is still the plan for OPOC. There’s varying degrees of reuse:
“Light” - major components/subsystems installed on new pressure vessel hardware + new heatshield
“Heavy” - most the of the CM is reused including the pressure vessel + a new heatshield

The Artemis 6 scenario described above is “Heavy” reuse.
It occurs to me that this kind of reuse is similar to the kind that Shuttle used for SRBs and (“Heavy”) for the Orbiters. And because it requires nearly all the steps and certifications-between-flights as expendable stuff, if not more, it’s unlikely to produce much (if any) cost reduction.

Spacecraft and rockets are more than the sum of their parts. If you have to take the pieces all apart to reuse them, you’re only getting a small fraction of the benefit of fully integrated stages and spacecraft that stay in one piece in between reuses. The turnaround time for this kind of reuse is FAR faster.

If your reuse strategy introduces an “iron bar” into the schedule, it’s possibly even counter-productive. Turnaround time must be weeks or days or even hours or minutes, not months or years.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: freddo411 on 08/23/2022 09:04 pm
A bit late to the party, but is anyone else surprised (... or skeptical) of the language regarding reuse of this June 10th article: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/06/orion-status-update/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/06/orion-status-update/)

Quote
After returning the Artemis 3 crew to Earth, the current plan is to take the capsule, refurbish it, and fly it again on Artemis 6.

There are no direct quotes from the source (Jules Schneider, Director of Orion Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations at Lockheed Martin) about reuse in the article, but it does make it sound like that information is coming from him.

I was very much under the impression, from a number of things including discussions in this thread, and from what I read regarding the Orion Production and Operations Contract, that all Orions for future missions would be produced anew. I had thought that the reuse plans were tossed years ago.
Reuse of most of the Crew Module is still the plan for OPOC. There’s varying degrees of reuse:
“Light” - major components/subsystems installed on new pressure vessel hardware + new heatshield
“Heavy” - most the of the CM is reused including the pressure vessel + a new heatshield

The Artemis 6 scenario described above is “Heavy” reuse.
It occurs to me that this kind of reuse is similar to the kind that Shuttle used for SRBs and (“Heavy”) for the Orbiters. And because it requires nearly all the steps and certifications-between-flights as expendable stuff, if not more, it’s unlikely to produce much (if any) cost reduction.

Spacecraft and rockets are more than the sum of their parts. If you have to take the pieces all apart to reuse them, you’re only getting a small fraction of the benefit of fully integrated stages and spacecraft that stay in one piece in between reuses. The turnaround time for this kind of reuse is FAR faster.

If your reuse strategy introduces an “iron bar” into the schedule, it’s possibly even counter-productive. Turnaround time must be weeks or days or even hours or minutes, not months or years.

Agreed.  Well said

An “iron bar” of 20 months to refurbish and reuse a component is insane.   Everyone knows the desired cadence is 12 months, or better.  Should have thrown red flags when anyone said this.  I think the engineers and program managers on SLS are smarter than this; There’s probably a hidden reason why a long 20 month iron bar exists that has nothing to do with reused avionics

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: gemmy0I on 08/24/2022 03:23 am
It occurs to me that this kind of reuse is similar to the kind that Shuttle used for SRBs and (“Heavy”) for the Orbiters. And because it requires nearly all the steps and certifications-between-flights as expendable stuff, if not more, it’s unlikely to produce much (if any) cost reduction.

Spacecraft and rockets are more than the sum of their parts. If you have to take the pieces all apart to reuse them, you’re only getting a small fraction of the benefit of fully integrated stages and spacecraft that stay in one piece in between reuses. The turnaround time for this kind of reuse is FAR faster.

If your reuse strategy introduces an “iron bar” into the schedule, it’s possibly even counter-productive. Turnaround time must be weeks or days or even hours or minutes, not months or years.

Agreed.  Well said

An “iron bar” of 20 months to refurbish and reuse a component is insane.   Everyone knows the desired cadence is 12 months, or better.  Should have thrown red flags when anyone said this.  I think the engineers and program managers on SLS are smarter than this; There’s probably a hidden reason why a long 20 month iron bar exists that has nothing to do with reused avionics
I suspect the "hidden reason" is that the requirement to reuse key components between Artemis I and II came from non-technical upper leadership (i.e. for political/PR reasons) rather than being proposed by the people who actually know the design inside and out. Leadership needed an answer to the criticism that NASA was going backwards into expendable designs while private industry embraces reusability. So it became imperative to incorporate some token form of reuse into the earliest Artemis missions, so they could say the program has been designed for reusability from the start.

Unfortunately, Orion in its current form is very much not designed for reusability. The original vision for Orion was "supposed" to be reusable, but I suspect a lot of that went out the window when the mass constraints of Ares I forced the designers to slim away every kilogram they could spare so it wouldn't be too heavy for the silly rocket. The need to optimize so aggressively for a single parameter (mass) would understandably compromise other goals like modularity, accessibility, and inspectability that are necessary for practical reuse.

Recall that the Artemis I Orion is about to fly with a known-faulty power controller (IIRC?) because it was deemed that it would take way too long (on the order of a year IIRC) to take apart and reassemble the spacecraft in order to replace it. Since the controller in question is redundant, the loss of redundancy was deemed an acceptable risk (for a non-crewed flight) to avoid delaying the launch so significantly. If it's that hard to swap out a component that failed on the ground pre-launch, a 20-month "iron bar" for recertifying and reusing a few avionics boxes is not so surprising.

I think attempting to do reuse from "day one" with Orion is a mistake. Even SpaceX didn't try to do that with its first few recovered capsules and boosters. If you're starting with an expendable design, reusability isn't something you can just "make happen" by fiat. You need to learn operationally where the pain points are and adapt the design accordingly through incremental block upgrades that allow you to reuse more and more of the spacecraft, without wasting time and resources doing it the "hard way" that would be better spent just building more of the early expendable vehicles. This can be done, but it requires an engineering culture that is capable and willing to implement continuous changes from flight to flight (especially with a mission cadence as sparse as Orion's); and to do so with a short response time, "live" on the production line as lessons are learned operationally (versus waiting on the full pipeline of long-lead items to "cut in" new design improvements).

An "iron bar" that trades mission cadence for the opportunity to learn operational lessons on reuse may be worthwhile in some cases, particularly if there is no other good way to gather the necessary data to enable more efficient reuse economics in the future. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. It seems more like someone at the top decreed "we should reuse as much as possible on Orion from the get-go rather than 'wasting money' building extra parts" - not recognizing* that the cost of time is far more expensive than that of a few avionics boxes (especially since computer chips are a perfect example of something where the first unit is extremely expensive but the marginal cost of producing more is comparatively minimal).

There's a reason Soyuz still isn't being reused after 60+ years and hundreds of flights. Much like Orion, it was designed to minimize mass above all to fit within the payload limitations of the R-7 rocket family (whose limits it has more or less maxed out through most of its history). Yet it has been a wildly successful design, because its limitations were recognized and mitigated at the program level (e.g., by mass producing the "good enough" design rather than waiting for a more "perfect" one).

*(Or - more cynically - the "iron bar" might have been a "feature" rather than a bug, to drag out the lucrative cost-plus development phase rather than pivoting cleanly into an operational phase with an increasingly mature expendable design that's expected to be built and flown like clockwork. But we need not necessarily ascribe to malice what can be equally ascribed to bureaucratic PR-optimization. :) )
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kdhilliard on 08/25/2022 04:00 am
...  Recall that the Artemis I Orion is about to fly with a known-faulty power controller (IIRC?) because it was deemed that it would take way too long (on the order of a year IIRC) to take apart and reassemble the spacecraft in order to replace it. ...

Flashback!
NASA to skip repair of Orion electronics unit (https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-skip-repair-of-orion-electronics-unit/)
Quote from: Jeff Foust · Space News · December 18, 2020
NASA said it had decided to “use as is” one of eight power and data units (PDU) on the Orion spacecraft, which provide communications between the spacecraft’s computers and other components. One of two redundant channels in one of two communications cards in that PDU is not working.  ...  Lockheed Martin warned it could take up to a year to replace the PDU because it is located in an adapter between the crew module and service module that is inaccessible now that the two modules are mated to each other.

Were we ever told what the consequences would be of the other channel failing?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Overwatchfan123 on 08/25/2022 07:26 am
What if Artemis 1 explodes because of the PDU channel failing?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/26/2022 01:24 pm
Were we ever told what the consequences would be of the other channel failing?

A loss of data.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: DanClemmensen on 08/26/2022 01:55 pm
Were we ever told what the consequences would be of the other channel failing?

A loss of data.
For those of us with no inside info, is this data solely for post-mission analysis or is it used in any control loops during the mission? If the latter, loss-of-data could cause loss-of-mission.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/26/2022 03:44 pm
What if Artemis 1 explodes because of the PDU channel failing?

Why would it?  If that were a real risk with a probability of happening, it would not be used as is.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Explorer33 on 09/14/2022 02:16 pm
Hello Orion Thread experts, I’m coming from the “Will there be a Starship heading to Mars in 2024” thread. I don’t want to derail the Orion thread, just looking for notional advice on whether or not Orion would be suitable for a journey to Mars in 2024 inside a Starship? Qualifications: take lots of cargo, be able to exit the Starship on Mars orbit, perform an EDL (Entry Descent Landing) on Mars, and become a viable temporary habitat for future Mars astronauts providing O2, food, water, communications, radiation protection, Planet Protection, etc. Then in 2026 after again being delivered by a Starship that contained astronauts, Orion delivers those astronauts to the surface while the Starship attempts its first Mars EDL to become a permanent habitat. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 09/14/2022 03:02 pm
For one thing, Orion is not capable of a soft landing on Mars.  In Earth's dense atmosphere, it is slowed to subsonic speeds by its own drag and then its parachutes slow it sufficiently for a safe splashdown.  Mars's thin atmosphere and lack of oceans make Orion a non-starter for Mars.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Explorer33 on 09/14/2022 05:20 pm
For one thing, Orion is not capable of a soft landing on Mars.  In Earth's dense atmosphere, it is slowed to subsonic speeds by its own drag and then its parachutes slow it sufficiently for a safe splashdown.  Mars's thin atmosphere and lack of oceans make Orion a non-starter for Mars.
Okay, was hoping that Orion's EDL support of Deep Space return velocities would help translate to a capability to manage the lower EDL velocity of a Mars orbit even with the thin atmosphere. Would Orion have any thruster capability left over after entry that could be used to facilitate a soft landing? Tradeoff for the Orion proposal on the thread would be to upgrade a SpaceX Crew Dragon to land on Mars. Seems like Orion would already be better suited for the mission requirements?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/14/2022 05:54 pm
For one thing, Orion is not capable of a soft landing on Mars.  In Earth's dense atmosphere, it is slowed to subsonic speeds by its own drag and then its parachutes slow it sufficiently for a safe splashdown.  Mars's thin atmosphere and lack of oceans make Orion a non-starter for Mars.
Okay, was hoping that Orion's EDL support of Deep Space return velocities would help translate to a capability to manage the lower EDL velocity of a Mars orbit even with the thin atmosphere. Would Orion have any thruster capability left over after entry that could be used to facilitate a soft landing? Tradeoff for the Orion proposal on the thread would be to upgrade a SpaceX Crew Dragon to land on Mars. Seems like Orion would already be better suited for the mission requirements?

No, Orion is nothing close to a Mars lander.  Its deep space EDL does nothing more for Mars EDL.  Its thrusters are only for attitude control.  None of them point aft.  Orion is nowhere suited for this role.  It has no power, oxygen, comm or such
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Explorer33 on 09/14/2022 08:28 pm

No, Orion is nothing close to a Mars lander.  Its deep space EDL does nothing more for Mars EDL.  Its thrusters are only for attitude control.  None of them point aft.  Orion is nowhere suited for this role.  It has no power, oxygen, comm or such
Oops, okay, I thought Orion was the SLS's deep space crew capsule. But with no power, O2, comm, guessing that's all offloaded into a service module/tug - Is Orion just seats, tug controls and a re-entry shell? Is there a good Orion pre-read link you could give me?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Overwatchfan123 on 09/14/2022 08:49 pm

No, Orion is nothing close to a Mars lander.  Its deep space EDL does nothing more for Mars EDL.  Its thrusters are only for attitude control.  None of them point aft.  Orion is nowhere suited for this role.  It has no power, oxygen, comm or such
Oops, okay, I thought Orion was the SLS's deep space crew capsule. But with no power, O2, comm, guessing that's all offloaded into a service module/tug - Is Orion just seats, tug controls and a re-entry shell? Is there a good Orion pre-read link you could give me?
If Orion has no power, oxygen, or communications with Mission Control, then how the bloody hell can it support a crew?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: VSECOTSPE on 09/14/2022 08:53 pm
The Martian atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth’s.  And although there was a brief period when a hard surface landing with airbags was considered for Orion, it must now land in a body of liquid water, of which there is none on Mars.  Orion would go splat trying to land Mars.

The thinness of the Martian atmosphere requires different EDL techniques, namely retropulsion (this is what Starship will use) or deployable aerosurfaces like ballutes and decelerators.  An ablative heat shield like Orion, Shuttle, and the Apollo CM used alone is not enough for Mars.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Overwatchfan123 on 09/14/2022 08:54 pm
If Orion has no power, oxygen, or communications with Mission Control, then how the bloody hell can it support a crew?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: John Santos on 09/14/2022 09:02 pm
If Orion has no power, oxygen, or communications with Mission Control, then how the bloody hell can it support a crew?
Because ALL of those services are provided by the ESM, which MUST be jettisoned before EDL.  The power, oxygen and other life support in the Command Module are only sufficient for an hour or so and the comms are only for a range of a few hundred miles, not interplanetary distances.

Sheesh!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Overwatchfan123 on 09/14/2022 09:04 pm
OK, OK, sheesh!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: John Santos on 09/14/2022 09:09 pm
The Martian atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth’s.  And although there was a brief period when a hard surface landing with airbags was considered for Orion, it must now land in a body of liquid water, of which there is none on Mars.  Orion would go splat trying to land Mars.

The thinness of the Martian atmosphere requires different EDL techniques, namely retropulsion (this is what Starship will use) or deployable aerosurfaces like ballutes and decelerators.  An ablative heat shield like Orion, Shuttle, and the Apollo CM used alone is not enough for Mars.
Minor nit: The Shuttle heat shield was not ablative.  At least, not intentionally.  (Often some bits of some tiles would erode away during reentry and those tiles would have to be replaced before the next flight.)  But this doesn't affect your otherwise correct assertion at all.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Explorer33 on 09/14/2022 09:14 pm
So I was going on the published images for "Orion" from the NASA and ESA documents which showed combined crew capsule and service module. I guess what you are saying - Capsule has no power, cooling, etc, and of course only the crew capsule would make it to the surface - service module burns up. And to other points, Orion Capsule needs to land in water and couldn't slow its descent enough to land on the surface. Looks like both Orion Capsule and SpaceX Dragon would need significant upgrades to make it to the surface and meet any temporary habitat requirements. Thanks.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/14/2022 10:47 pm
And to other points, Orion Capsule needs to land in water and couldn't slow its descent enough to land on the surface.

Starliner lands on dirt and it couldn't be used.

The parachutes can only slow to a few hundred miles an hour in Mars atmosphere.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/14/2022 10:49 pm
....... Orion Capsule ...........would need significant upgrades to make it to the surface and meet any temporary habitat requirements. Thanks.


Regardless, it is poor shape factor and not enough volume for a habitat, especially one that need to be exited in an EVA suit.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Explorer33 on 09/15/2022 01:12 pm
Heading back to "Will there be a Starship heading to Mars in 2024" thread. Many thanks to the Orion Tread, I learned a lot. It would seem that we are conspicuously missing a crewed vehicle that can land on Mars - except for Starship perhaps - yet to be proven. In all the good observations and discussion, it did occur to me that there is one fully qualified vehicle that has a proven track record of providing soft landings on Mars - Sky Crane! Maybe there's an angle there for that technology to step into the gap? Good luck with Orion and Gateway Programs.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: VSECOTSPE on 09/15/2022 02:39 pm

Perseverance used Skycrane because it was so much heavier compared to prior Mars rovers and because it needed to safely drive away from its landing site, unlike the Viking missions.  The retrorockets needed to decelerate a one-ton payload like Perserverance the last couple hundred miles per hour could have kicked up debris that would have damaged Perserverance and/or dug holes that Perseverance could not drive out of or around.  Putting those retrorockets above Perseverance on Skycrane avoided those mission risks for the rover.

Starship, at least the lunar version, also places its retrorockets for final descent high on the vehicle to avoid debris damage and surface excavation issues.  So the fundamental technique employed by Skycrane is already in use on one human lander.

Skycrane or the high retrorockets on Lunar Starship only address the final EDL leg — shedding the last couple hundred miles per hour of vehicle velocity.  Skycrane or high retrorockets do nothing to get around the thin Martian atmosphere.  That requires hyper/supersonic retropropulsion at much higher speeds and altitudes and with much larger rockets, which Falcon 9 booster recovery has proven out in spades on Earth, or it requires deployable decelerators, like the inflatable ballutes that NASA’s technology program has been slowly developing/testing.  Skycrane doesn’t provide Orion with a way around those challenges.

Even if a big Skycrane did allow an Orion-like capsule to slow down enough for a safe Mars landing, as others have pointed out upthread, capsules lack the right volumes for donning suits, ingress/egress, etc.  Moreover, they have no propulsion system capable of leaving the surface of Mars.  They would be a one-way ticket.

This is an example of a modern, non-Starship approach to manned Mars lander design:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160004402/downloads/20160004402.pdf

Orion is for transiting the Earth’s atmosphere.  The lander in that paper, Starship, or variations on them, are what you need for transiting the Martian atmosphere.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/15/2022 02:53 pm
Heading back to "Will there be a Starship heading to Mars in 2024" thread. Many thanks to the Orion Tread, I learned a lot. It would seem that we are conspicuously missing a crewed vehicle that can land on Mars - except for Starship perhaps - yet to be proven. In all the good observations and discussion, it did occur to me that there is one fully qualified vehicle that has a proven track record of providing soft landings on Mars - Sky Crane! Maybe there's an angle there for that technology to step into the gap? Good luck with Orion and Gateway Programs.

Skycrane is a method and not a device.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/15/2022 02:56 pm
Heading back to "Will there be a Starship heading to Mars in 2024" thread. Many thanks to the Orion Tread, I learned a lot. It would seem that we are conspicuously missing a crewed vehicle that can land on Mars - except for Starship perhaps - yet to be proven. In all the good observations and discussion, it did occur to me that there is one fully qualified vehicle that has a proven track record of providing soft landings on Mars - Sky Crane! Maybe there's an angle there for that technology to step into the gap? Good luck with Orion and Gateway Programs.

No.   Starship is the lander and the habitat.  Orion is not going to be any better or further along.   It has no room to store consumables.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Explorer33 on 09/20/2022 02:19 pm
Heading back to "Will there be a Starship heading to Mars in 2024" thread. Many thanks to the Orion Tread, I learned a lot. It would seem that we are conspicuously missing a crewed vehicle that can land on Mars - except for Starship perhaps - yet to be proven. In all the good observations and discussion, it did occur to me that there is one fully qualified vehicle that has a proven track record of providing soft landings on Mars - Sky Crane! Maybe there's an angle there for that technology to step into the gap? Good luck with Orion and Gateway Programs.

Skycrane is a method and not a device.
Interesting - so a few last questions, do you think all the 'smarts' for Skycrane were in the Rovers? In other words, Skycrane didn't have any nav, sensing, landing guidance, communications, etc - Rovers had it all? Where could the design details for the Skycrane be found? Who built the Skycrane? Thx.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2022 02:45 pm
Heading back to "Will there be a Starship heading to Mars in 2024" thread. Many thanks to the Orion Tread, I learned a lot. It would seem that we are conspicuously missing a crewed vehicle that can land on Mars - except for Starship perhaps - yet to be proven. In all the good observations and discussion, it did occur to me that there is one fully qualified vehicle that has a proven track record of providing soft landings on Mars - Sky Crane! Maybe there's an angle there for that technology to step into the gap? Good luck with Orion and Gateway Programs.

Skycrane is a method and not a device.
Interesting - so a few last questions, do you think all the 'smarts' for Skycrane were in the Rovers? In other words, Skycrane didn't have any nav, sensing, landing guidance, communications, etc - Rovers had it all? Where could the design details for the Skycrane be found? Who built the Skycrane? Thx.

Again, there is no such thing as a "skycrane"
The descent stage, which performs the skycrane maneuver, has minimal avionics.  Most are in the rover.  The descent stage has the landing radar, antennas and an IMU but the computer in the rover with its INU does all the work.  The radio is also in the rover.  The descent stage has a controller to allow it to fly away.    JPL built the descent stage.  Detail can be found in press kits and paper submitted.  There are no drawings or plans available on the internet.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Explorer33 on 09/20/2022 08:04 pm
Jim, thanks for the help. I realize that you are speaking technically when you say "there is no such thing as a skycrane", but understand that if you Search the Internet, it is full of articles that contain the term skycrane and even articles about skycrane. So, please don't shoot the messenger. Thx.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: yg1968 on 10/21/2022 05:06 pm
See below:

NASA Orders Three More Orion Spacecraft From Lockheed Martin:
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2022-10-20-NASA-Orders-Three-More-Orion-Spacecraft-from-Lockheed-Martin

Quote from: LM News Release
2022: NASA orders three additional Orion spacecraft missions for Artemis VI-VIII for $1.99 billion.

https://twitter.com/garynapier/status/1583437638824230912
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/07/2022 04:06 pm
Question - Does anyone know who pays for Orion's recovery? Is it NASA or the Navy, or do they share costs? I can't find any references that say where the costs go. It would be reasonable to assume that costs are being paid for similarly now as it was for Apollo.

Also -- It was bothering me, so I looked it all up:

The USS Arlington did the first Orion stationary recovery test in August 2013. The ship was docked at port and the Orion was maneuvered in the water into the LPD's bay.

The USS San Diego did the first underway recovery test (URT) in February 2014.

The USS Anchorage then did URT-2 in August 2014 and URT-3 in September 2014. 

URT-4A was a test of Orion being towed on a line and then raised up with a crane, this was not done by an LPD, but the USNS Salvor, in a joint operation at the same time as URT-3. When URT-4A was completed, the Orion test capsule was released by the Salvor, the Anchorage then recovered the capsule, which completed URT-3.

The Anchorage recovered the Orion for EFT-1 in December 2014.

The USS San Diego did URT-5 in 2016.

The USS Anchorage did URT-6 in January 2018.

The USS John P. Murtha did URT-7 in November 2018, then URT-8 in March 2020, and URT-9 (which included nighttime recovery operations tests) in November 2021. I expected the Murtha to be the one  to recover the Orion for Artemis 1.

But the USS Portland is recovering the Orion for Artemis 1. I know that they have done and are doing training for Orion recovery, but apparently this was not given a URT designation because I can't find anything when I search for "URT-10"

This represents almost the entire LPD fleet that operates out of San Diego. The only one that hasn't done any Orion recovery training (as far as I can tell) is the USS Somerset. I did find a reference that said the Somerset was supposed to do Orion recovery training in late 2018, but the Murtha clearly did that instead.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ar1978 on 12/16/2022 03:02 pm
https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-2-mission-2024-why-so-long

Is it just the re-use of avionics on Orion that is delaying Artemis II or is there still time needed to develop the life support system on Orion.

It's a bit disappointing that we'll have to wait at least 2 more years before Atermis II. From digging around the second SLS core stage is being delivered in March for example. Bill Nelson did an announcement about a year ago talking about the life support on Orion (I could not find the link unfortunately), so that's why I'm asking. It was after Jeff Bezos dropped the lawsuit against the decision not to buy his lunar lander.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Overwatchfan123 on 12/16/2022 04:32 pm
Don't worry. I still have confidence for Artemis 2 to launch in May 2024. Godspeed Artemis!
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/21/2022 03:47 pm
Don't worry. I still have confidence for Artemis 2 to launch in May 2024. Godspeed Artemis!
I will take that bet.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ar1978 on 12/21/2022 07:25 pm
https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-2-mission-2024-why-so-long

Is it just the re-use of avionics on Orion that is delaying Artemis II or is there still time needed to develop the life support system on Orion.

It's a bit disappointing that we'll have to wait at least 2 more years before Atermis II. From digging around the second SLS core stage is being delivered in March for example. Bill Nelson did an announcement about a year ago talking about the life support on Orion (I could not find the link unfortunately), so that's why I'm asking. It was after Jeff Bezos dropped the lawsuit against the decision not to buy his lunar lander.

Don't worry. I still have confidence for Artemis 2 to launch in May 2024. Godspeed Artemis!



Don't worry. I still have confidence for Artemis 2 to launch in May 2024. Godspeed Artemis!
I will take that bet.

Any more information on the life support for Orion or the two of you feeling confident that Orion will launch in May of 2024? I hope it does launch then by the way. 27 months to turn around the electronics would be around May of 2025 though.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/21/2022 07:30 pm
I don’t expect it to launch in May, 2024, and I will bet that it launches later than that.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/21/2022 08:49 pm
https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-2-mission-2024-why-so-long

Is it just the re-use of avionics on Orion that is delaying Artemis II or is there still time needed to develop the life support system on Orion.

It's a bit disappointing that we'll have to wait at least 2 more years before Atermis II. From digging around the second SLS core stage is being delivered in March for example. Bill Nelson did an announcement about a year ago talking about the life support on Orion (I could not find the link unfortunately), so that's why I'm asking. It was after Jeff Bezos dropped the lawsuit against the decision not to buy his lunar lander.


The recovery, inspection, testing, and certification processes for the reused avionics systems is the primary "iron bar" that requires 2 years between Artemis 1 and 2, yes.

AFAIK, the life support systems and other subsystems are already being installed.

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/engineers-power-up-crew-module-for-first-artemis-mission-with-astronauts

I believe this is the most recent update from NASA on the progress of the Orion build for Artemis 2
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ar1978 on 12/25/2022 05:22 pm
https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-2-mission-2024-why-so-long

Is it just the re-use of avionics on Orion that is delaying Artemis II or is there still time needed to develop the life support system on Orion.

It's a bit disappointing that we'll have to wait at least 2 more years before Atermis II. From digging around the second SLS core stage is being delivered in March for example. Bill Nelson did an announcement about a year ago talking about the life support on Orion (I could not find the link unfortunately), so that's why I'm asking. It was after Jeff Bezos dropped the lawsuit against the decision not to buy his lunar lander.


The recovery, inspection, testing, and certification processes for the reused avionics systems is the primary "iron bar" that requires 2 years between Artemis 1 and 2, yes.

AFAIK, the life support systems and other subsystems are already being installed.

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/engineers-power-up-crew-module-for-first-artemis-mission-with-astronauts

I believe this is the most recent update from NASA on the progress of the Orion build for Artemis 2


Was there ever a way to avoid this “iron bar” in reusing the avionics and the over 2 years process to re-certify them?

From what I can tell NASA and everyone involved in the SLS worked pretty hard to make Atermis 1 happen in the last 2 or 3 years. The article discusses how this decision dates back almost a decade. Could they have no just decided to build new avionics for the second Orion capsule back in like 2019 to avoid this?

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 01/05/2023 07:29 pm
https://www.space.com/nasa-artemis-2-mission-2024-why-so-long

Is it just the re-use of avionics on Orion that is delaying Artemis II or is there still time needed to develop the life support system on Orion.

It's a bit disappointing that we'll have to wait at least 2 more years before Atermis II. From digging around the second SLS core stage is being delivered in March for example. Bill Nelson did an announcement about a year ago talking about the life support on Orion (I could not find the link unfortunately), so that's why I'm asking. It was after Jeff Bezos dropped the lawsuit against the decision not to buy his lunar lander.


The recovery, inspection, testing, and certification processes for the reused avionics systems is the primary "iron bar" that requires 2 years between Artemis 1 and 2, yes.

AFAIK, the life support systems and other subsystems are already being installed.

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/engineers-power-up-crew-module-for-first-artemis-mission-with-astronauts

I believe this is the most recent update from NASA on the progress of the Orion build for Artemis 2


Was there ever a way to avoid this “iron bar” in reusing the avionics and the over 2 years process to re-certify them?

From what I can tell NASA and everyone involved in the SLS worked pretty hard to make Atermis 1 happen in the last 2 or 3 years. The article discusses how this decision dates back almost a decade. Could they have no just decided to build new avionics for the second Orion capsule back in like 2019 to avoid this?

NASA could have spent a few hundred million dollars to build new avionics systems and whatever other equipment they are reusing. Then that stuff could have already been installed or be in the process of being installed in the Orion for Artemis 2.

But indeed, the time to make that decision was several years ago.

There's two main reasons for reuse.

1. It saved the aforementioned couple hundred million dollars in hardware costs.

2. It buys down some risk for future reuse (the full Orion capsules from Artemis 3-6 are intended to be reused for Artemis 7-9+), because it serves as a pathfinder for recertification of that hardware for future reuse.

The cost is mainly in the 20-24 months that are required to recover, remove, evaluate, (refurbish, if necessary), test, recertify, reinstall, and perform final integration tests for everything being reused. There is some hope that doing this now will reduce the time it will take for Orion capsules to be reused in the future.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 01/27/2023 06:35 pm
https://twitter.com/nasagroundsys/status/1619045940266156032

Quote
Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3! 🌊

The @NASA_Orion Crew Module Test Article (CMTA) has been transported to the @NASAKennedy turn basin ahead of recovery operations testing next week. The test article will be dropped into water to simulate conditions similar to return from Artemis II.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jackvancouver on 04/23/2023 10:27 pm
Any update on the O2O optical communications experiment? Psyche was delayed so no optical communication there, and ILLUMINA-T has not been set for a Crew launch or CRS mission yet.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 08/01/2023 05:48 pm
https://youtu.be/fn9OLlsZclg

Quote
Why A 1950's Rocket Engine Design Flies On NASA's 21st Century Moon Rocket.

Scott Manley
1 Aug 2023

The AJ-10 Series of Engines dates to the 1950's and an example flew last year on Artemis 1, propelling Orion into a distant retrograde orbit around the moon. It's not a single engine design, but the common factor is pressure fed, hypergolic bipropellent engines designed and built by Aerojet.

The earliest examples I can find were the AJ-10-24 on Aerobee sounding rockets, generating just over 1 ton of thrust. The AJ-10-37 propelled the Vanguard rocket second stage, which was a 3.5 ton thrust engine. That was adapted to fly on Thor/Delta, Atlas and Titan. Then the Apollo Service Propulsion system used a much larger design, which was largely a complete redesign.

The shuttle Orbital maneuvering system thrusters were a smaller 2.5 ton engine running on MMH/NTO and those same engines were refurbished for flight on Orion.

This is a fine table listing the known AJ-10 variants used in orbital spaceflight.
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets/Specials/U.S._Rocket_engines/engines.htm
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 09/02/2023 08:33 pm
https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1698061817761726557

Quote
A deep dive into the status of the Orion spacecraft from Artemis III and IV, as humans prepare to return to the Moon.

Overview by Philip Sloss.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/09/lm-nasa-orion-artemis-iii-iv/
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/10/2023 11:09 pm
What exactly limits the lifetime of Orion to 21 days?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: joek on 09/10/2023 11:17 pm
What exactly limits the lifetime of Orion to 21 days?

ECLSS. The original Orion concept had a couple variants with different free flight and crewed lifetimes (e.g., LEO/ISS vs. Lunar). When they morphed to MPCV they dispensed with the variants. So now we're at 21 days crewed and indefinite (?) uncrewed (e.g., docked to station).
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/10/2023 11:48 pm
And what are the consumables limits? CO2 scrubbing is indefinite, but water and oxygen, right?

Is there any way that couldn’t be supplemented by oxygen candles and water bottles?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/12/2023 09:33 pm
What exactly limits the lifetime of Orion to 21 days?

The limit of 21 days is from the amount of food and water that can be packed on board for 4 astronauts, with a crew of 2 you can double the mission time to 42 days. Anything longer than that needs some kind of a mission module with more supplies.

The ECLSS has very large margins. IIRC Orion could be fully depressed and repressed 2 or 3 times with plenty of nitrogen and oxygen margin to spare.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/12/2023 11:43 pm
What exactly limits the lifetime of Orion to 21 days?

The limit of 21 days is from the amount of food and water that can be packed on board for 4 astronauts, with a crew of 2 you can double the mission time to 42 days. Anything longer than that needs some kind of a mission module with more supplies.

The ECLSS has very large margins. IIRC Orion could be fully depressed and repressed 2 or 3 times with plenty of nitrogen and oxygen margin to spare.
So Orion has zero room for anything else? No samples, no instruments, no nothing?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: VSECOTSPE on 09/13/2023 01:24 am
It depends on the mission, but no, there was no baseline Orion requirement for scientific payload/sample mass, power, thermal, etc.  The only way those things get on a mission is if there is anything leftover from astronaut support.  There will be, but it’s a very limited, very difficult, and frankly bass ackwards way to run a research program and is unlikely to get much of anything done.  It’s the old Apollo flags-and-footprints approach all over again.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: DanClemmensen on 09/13/2023 01:43 am
What exactly limits the lifetime of Orion to 21 days?

The limit of 21 days is from the amount of food and water that can be packed on board for 4 astronauts, with a crew of 2 you can double the mission time to 42 days. Anything longer than that needs some kind of a mission module with more supplies.

The ECLSS has very large margins. IIRC Orion could be fully depressed and repressed 2 or 3 times with plenty of nitrogen and oxygen margin to spare.
So Orion has zero room for anything else? No samples, no instruments, no nothing?
Orion is supposed to dock to either Gateway or Starship HLS. If food and water are the constraints, then there is plenty of room and mass in either Starship HLS or a Gateway/Dragon XL to extend the mission in two ways. First, the crew can move out of Orion and live on the resources in Gateway or HLS. Second, they can move consumables into Orion. Not sure about the BO HLS, but it won't fly until after Gateway and Dragon XL are operational.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/13/2023 01:53 am
What exactly limits the lifetime of Orion to 21 days?

The limit of 21 days is from the amount of food and water that can be packed on board for 4 astronauts, with a crew of 2 you can double the mission time to 42 days. Anything longer than that needs some kind of a mission module with more supplies.

The ECLSS has very large margins. IIRC Orion could be fully depressed and repressed 2 or 3 times with plenty of nitrogen and oxygen margin to spare.
So Orion has zero room for anything else? No samples, no instruments, no nothing?
Orion is supposed to dock to either Gateway or Starship HLS. If food and water are the constraints, then there is plenty of room and mass in either Starship HLS or a Gateway/Dragon XL to extend the mission in two ways. First, the crew can move out of Orion and live on the resources in Gateway or HLS. Second, they can move consumables into Orion. Not sure about the BO HLS, but it won't fly until after Gateway and Dragon XL are operational.

OK, Starship HLS and other assets can extend the mission duration for crew beyond what Orion by itself can do, but the limited amount of space on the Orion also means that regardless how much capacity Starship HLS (or any HLS) has to bring samples back from the Moon, the constraint will be how much (or how little) room there will be in the Orion for the trip back to Earth.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: DanClemmensen on 09/13/2023 03:04 am
What exactly limits the lifetime of Orion to 21 days?

The limit of 21 days is from the amount of food and water that can be packed on board for 4 astronauts, with a crew of 2 you can double the mission time to 42 days. Anything longer than that needs some kind of a mission module with more supplies.

The ECLSS has very large margins. IIRC Orion could be fully depressed and repressed 2 or 3 times with plenty of nitrogen and oxygen margin to spare.
So Orion has zero room for anything else? No samples, no instruments, no nothing?
Orion is supposed to dock to either Gateway or Starship HLS. If food and water are the constraints, then there is plenty of room and mass in either Starship HLS or a Gateway/Dragon XL to extend the mission in two ways. First, the crew can move out of Orion and live on the resources in Gateway or HLS. Second, they can move consumables into Orion. Not sure about the BO HLS, but it won't fly until after Gateway and Dragon XL are operational.

OK, Starship HLS and other assets can extend the mission duration for crew beyond what Orion by itself can do, but the limited amount of space on the Orion also means that regardless how much capacity Starship HLS (or any HLS) has to bring samples back from the Moon, the constraint will be how much (or how little) room there will be in the Orion for the trip back to Earth.
Yep. SLS/Orion create a severe constraint. The best way to fix would be to use a better transport system.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/13/2023 04:32 am
What exactly limits the lifetime of Orion to 21 days?

The limit of 21 days is from the amount of food and water that can be packed on board for 4 astronauts, with a crew of 2 you can double the mission time to 42 days. Anything longer than that needs some kind of a mission module with more supplies.

The ECLSS has very large margins. IIRC Orion could be fully depressed and repressed 2 or 3 times with plenty of nitrogen and oxygen margin to spare.
So Orion has zero room for anything else? No samples, no instruments, no nothing?

Depends on what you mean by "anything else."

Orion doesn't have a dedicated sample stowage area. Fun fact: Neither did the Apollo CM. Most of Apollo's lunar sample bags were stowed where lithium hydroxide cannisters had been stowed at launch. When those cannisters were used up, that space was freed up for sample bags. Similar will happen with Orion, as consumables are used up, that space will become available for samples.

Again as with Apollo, whatever instruments or tools are needed will almost certainly all be on the lander.
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 10/26/2023 06:20 am
Australian companies Axiom Precision Manufacturing and Nupress Group will be providing precision machined parts for the Orion spacecraft via Lockheed Martin!

"In a significant step for the Australian space industry, Axiom Precision Manufacturing (Axiom) and the Nupress Group (Nupress) have been selected as global supply chain partners by Lockheed Martin for the Orion spacecraft program, a cornerstone of NASA's Artemis missions to the Moon."

https://lockheedmartinau.mediaroom.com/Lockheed-Martin-selects-Australian-firms-Axiom-and-Nupress-for-Orion-spacecraft-program
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/05/2024 03:37 pm
"ASAP, in its annual report released in January, makes a passing reference to a “delta-pressure capability” issue with the hatch, noting that the program “is also conducting side hatch delta-pressure testing that should help define the system’s limits and operational and contingency operations procedure.”

NASA spokesperson Rachel Kraft told SpaceNews March 1 that there was a need for additional analysis on the performance of hinges in the side hatch. “The ASAP requested a status on the design of Orion’s side hatch regarding requirements for pressure changes in normal and emergency scenarios to ensure the hatch can safely open in all cases either by recovery personnel or by the crew themselves, if necessary,” she said.

“Full-scale testing is underway to verify the capability and develop operations required to ensure the hatch can be opened in a variety of different potential pressure scenarios,” she added."

https://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-issues-with-orion-hatch-design/
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 03/05/2024 08:55 pm
"ASAP, in its annual report released in January, makes a passing reference to a “delta-pressure capability” issue with the hatch, noting that the program “is also conducting side hatch delta-pressure testing that should help define the system’s limits and operational and contingency operations procedure.”

NASA spokesperson Rachel Kraft told SpaceNews March 1 that there was a need for additional analysis on the performance of hinges in the side hatch. “The ASAP requested a status on the design of Orion’s side hatch regarding requirements for pressure changes in normal and emergency scenarios to ensure the hatch can safely open in all cases either by recovery personnel or by the crew themselves, if necessary,” she said.

“Full-scale testing is underway to verify the capability and develop operations required to ensure the hatch can be opened in a variety of different potential pressure scenarios,” she added."

https://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-issues-with-orion-hatch-design/

The side hatch is definitely  not a Boeing door plug, but is it an inward-swinging plug door? Which is to ask: does the requirement of concern involve opening the door when Orion is pressurized and in vacuum?
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/05/2024 10:04 pm
"ASAP, in its annual report released in January, makes a passing reference to a “delta-pressure capability” issue with the hatch, noting that the program “is also conducting side hatch delta-pressure testing that should help define the system’s limits and operational and contingency operations procedure.”

NASA spokesperson Rachel Kraft told SpaceNews March 1 that there was a need for additional analysis on the performance of hinges in the side hatch. “The ASAP requested a status on the design of Orion’s side hatch regarding requirements for pressure changes in normal and emergency scenarios to ensure the hatch can safely open in all cases either by recovery personnel or by the crew themselves, if necessary,” she said.

“Full-scale testing is underway to verify the capability and develop operations required to ensure the hatch can be opened in a variety of different potential pressure scenarios,” she added."

https://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-issues-with-orion-hatch-design/

The side hatch is definitely  not a Boeing door plug, but is it an inward-swinging plug door? Which is to ask: does the requirement of concern involve opening the door when Orion is pressurized and in vacuum?

Orion is built by Lockeed Martin. The side hatch opens outwards. The issue is a pressure differential in off-nominal / contingency scenarios both on the pad and post-splashdown. What scenarios those are, are not specified.

I suspect this may, at least partly, be related to the pyrotechnic mechanism that blows the hatch open in case of an emergency. That's made by Karman Space & Defense in Huntington Beach, California.

https://karman-sd.com/karman-space-defense-manufactures-nasas-orion-spacecraft-hardware/

"The hatch release mechanisms are a group of self-contained pyrotechnics devices that force the door of the Orion crew module open in the event of an emergency egress of the astronaut crew. First, a pressure cartridge initiates and fires into the Pin Puller device to retract a pin and disengage the hatch mechanical gearbox. Within milliseconds, two Pin Pushers fire and drive two latch trains into the unlatched position, allowing the counterbalance to open the door."
Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 03/05/2024 10:27 pm
[...] The side hatch opens outwards. The issue is a pressure differential in off-nominal / contingency scenarios both on the pad and post-splashdown. What scenarios those are, are not specified.

I suspect this may, at least partly, be related to the pyrotechnic mechanism that blows the hatch open in case of an emergency. That's made by Karman Space & Defense in Huntington Beach, California.

https://karman-sd.com/karman-space-defense-manufactures-nasas-orion-spacecraft-hardware/

"The hatch release mechanisms are a group of self-contained pyrotechnics devices that force the door of the Orion crew module open in the event of an emergency egress of the astronaut crew. First, a pressure cartridge initiates and fires into the Pin Puller device to retract a pin and disengage the hatch mechanical gearbox. Within milliseconds, two Pin Pushers fire and drive two latch trains into the unlatched position, allowing the counterbalance to open the door."

Wow, thanks for that!

Quote from: SpaceNews
[...] there was a need for additional analysis on the performance of hinges in the side hatch.

Do these combined give the impression contingency egress involves blowing the door off the hinges, or just blowing it open without involving gearing?

Title: Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/05/2024 11:13 pm
[...] The side hatch opens outwards. The issue is a pressure differential in off-nominal / contingency scenarios both on the pad and post-splashdown. What scenarios those are, are not specified.

I suspect this may, at least partly, be related to the pyrotechnic mechanism that blows the hatch open in case of an emergency. That's made by Karman Space & Defense in Huntington Beach, California.

https://karman-sd.com/karman-space-defense-manufactures-nasas-orion-spacecraft-hardware/

"The hatch release mechanisms are a group of self-contained pyrotechnics devices that force the door of the Orion crew module open in the event of an emergency egress of the astronaut crew. First, a pressure cartridge initiates and fires into the Pin Puller device to retract a pin and disengage the hatch mechanical gearbox. Within milliseconds, two Pin Pushers fire and drive two latch trains into the unlatched position, allowing the counterbalance to open the door."

Wow, thanks for that!

Quote from: SpaceNews
[...] there was a need for additional analysis on the performance of hinges in the side hatch.

Do these combined give the impression contingency egress involves blowing the door off the hinges, or just blowing it open without involving gearing?

I understand the description on the Karman-SD website to mean that it forces the gear and latch to disengage and shoves the hatch open, so it remains on its hinges but is open.