"Boeing recently conducted a Service Module instrumentation TIM (Technical Interchange Meeting) at WSTF (White Sands Test Facility) on March 19."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.
Is this correct? I was not aware that Boeing was directly involved in Orion!
"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!
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.
They will have names.
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.
They will have names.
Rigel, Betelgeuse, Bellatrix and Saiph?
Something for Farscape, Michael Keaton, and Harry Potter fans, at least...
from EM-1 Orion crew module set for first weld milestone in MayWhat will KSC Ground Operations do with EFT-1?
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?It's supposed to be used for the flight abort test in 2018.
Thanks!What will KSC Ground Operations do with EFT-1?It's supposed to be used for the flight abort test in 2018.
Is PA-1 and AA-2 the full list of Orion abort tests?
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.
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.
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. :)
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
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.
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).
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.
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.
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 ?
Orion is a deep space vehicle, it is to fly with a hab module for missions past cis lunar space.
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.
Orion is a deep space vehicle, it is to fly with a hab module for missions past cis lunar space.
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.
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.As well as a beef up heat shield, must be able to be functional for the duration of the mission.
Still, the Orion design makes no sense to me for deep space - it is way over-engineered for that task.
Real aim for the first crewed flight remains August 2021.
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).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.
$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??
$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??
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.
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.
$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??
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.
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."
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.$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.
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.
$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.
What are we doing?? Why are we doing this??To rendezvous with an asteroid.
What are we doing?? Why are we doing this??To rendezvous with an asteroid.
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 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.
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?
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.
$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.
Are we stuck like this with NASA until someone comes along and sues them like SpaceX did for DOD launches?
I had felt that SLS/Orion was a dead program walking,
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.
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?
the RS-25E comes online in a timely and affordable fashion.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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...
And of course the money freed from cancelling the SLS would be used to purchase cheaper LVs and help develop these new payloads.
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.
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
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.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
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.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.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
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 ??
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.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
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).QuoteLaunch 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.
QuoteThe 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.
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.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
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.
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??!
An earth rentry vehicule to Mars is as useful as a skis in the middle of the desert.
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.
There is a big difference between a spacecraft designed for LEO and one that is designed for BEO.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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(?)
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.
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.
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 ??
Lockheed Martin did not design the Orion, NASA did. Boeing would be having the same problems today if they were building it.
But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it.
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.
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.
It has to undergo a thorough redesign, so much so that you might as well be designing a new vehicle.
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 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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
But the interface between the Dragon and its SM could be redesigned if the mission required it.
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.
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.
I think those modifications could be done before Orion carries its first astronaut. Did Apollo have radiation shielding?
Instead of just docking to a docking port the pilot could fly the capsule into a 20 feet long docking bay.
{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.
No. The only shielding Apollo had was it's structure. No dedicated shielding needed when in deep-space for at most 10 days.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?
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.
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.
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.
Emphasis mine: Your statement is partially incorrect.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.
The CEV was originally scheduled to fly with a PICA heatshield.
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.
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:QuoteFor 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.
The switch to AVCOAT took place three years later.
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."https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/orion-rises-208901/
Ames researchers expect that whichever potential TPS option is selected at the Orion PDR, it will be ablative.
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.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?
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.
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.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.
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.
The NASA article states that a metallic coating will be bonded to the backshell tiles:There is no mass budget for installing panels over the backshell TPS. Besides such panels would invalidate the primary function of the backshell TPS.
"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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.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.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)....
...I guarantee we aren't saving money with this. It's just to keep Orion from being canceled.
...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.
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.
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.
The Airbus-designed solar panels generate 11 MW
Shuttle White Room on Trailer (from Collect Space)Yes, that's the CAA with the white room lying on it's side. Shame...
http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-101811a/002.jpg
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
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)
1. One revolution at 100 nmi.
2. Injection to 100 x 19,000 nmi.
3. At first apogee, raise raise perigee to 500 nmi.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
Where'd you come up with those numbers? Thats smaller than the Apollo CM, but still heavier
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.
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
what is the reason for its supposed overweight?
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.
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
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
I remember reading in the ESAS report that a small capsule + mission module would be heavier than a large capsule.
Better to let NASA spend a dozen years and a dozen billion making a new capsule/orbital module.
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.
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.
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!
;)
Characteristic | Unit | Apollo | Orion | Orion/Apollo |
Mass | lbm | 12,250 | 21,650 | 1.8 |
Pressurized Volume | ft3 | 366 | 691 | 1.9 |
Habitable Volume | ft3 | 218 | 316 | 1.5 |
Habitable/Pressurized Volume | -- | 0.60 | 0.46 | 0.77 |
Length | ft | 11.4 | 10.9 | 0.96 |
Diameter | ft | 12.8 | 16.6 | 1.3 |
Crew Size | -- | 3 | 4 | 1.3 |
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!
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.
The Boeing CEV proposal had a mission module.Use of an OM would save a lot of mass.
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.
A major factor in Orion's relatively large mass may be the launch-abort acceleration it need tolerate. The attached
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?
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.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.
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.
Any requirements should be written in broadest possible terms and fixed price contracts only.
Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?
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.
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.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?
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.
Orion now needs to justify itself. What can the Orion do that the Dragon V2 and Starliner CST-100 cannot do?
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.
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.
Thank you. I had made the bad assumption that Lunar orbit meant low orbit, such as Apollo did.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
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.
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.
I had made the bad assumption that Lunar orbit meant low orbit, such as Apollo did.
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?
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 have. And it's substantially longer than the few days required to hop crews to and from the ISS.
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.
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.
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.
What, like a week or more?I have. And it's substantially longer than the few days required to hop crews to and from the ISS.
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.
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.......
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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,
This uses Orion to do what it is actually designed for:......
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
Early Mars architectures, like Von Braun's visualized by Disney, envisioned multiple vehicles of like kind in self-support enroute at the same time.
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.The use of the (originally) LEM was only to be a mission module.
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.
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.Yes.
Just saw this gem on twitter, put it here for future reference.
Just saw this gem on twitter, put it here for future reference.
Commercial spaceflight PR= always good and accurate.
Just saw this gem on twitter, put it here for future reference.
I wonder what "percent hotter" lunar return is in Celsius. ::)
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.
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.
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.
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.
{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?)
....
How anyone GETS to the lander though is anyone's guess.
How anyone GETS to the lander though is anyone's guess.
Some Dragon or CST-100 type vehicle?
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.
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.
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...
Unfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposable
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
Dragon at least lacks the dV, and is a tight ride.
Unfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposable
There actually is no conclusive answer on this either way.QuoteLarry 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.
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.
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).
Summary: Crew on EM-1 would have accelerated NASA exploration. Unfortunately, they weren't sure the heat shield would work. Also, money.
Wikipedia lists Dragon 2 pressurized volume at 10 cubic meters while the Apollo CSM is listed at 10.4 cubic meters pressurized.
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.
False, on both accounts. And yeah, you should have discussed it in that thread.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. ....
Sorry for the tangent I've sent this thread on Chris!New design. Heatshield is now made out of multiple blocks in stead of being monolithic. A modular Avcoat heatshield has never been tested before.
Back to a more Orion specific focus:
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/890972613706690560Quote from: Eric BergerSummary: 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?
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.
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.
QuoteBig 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.
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.
Orion (or any other capsule) is fine.
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.
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.
Heritage? Space X Dragon
Since the heritage they are copying is Dragon, why not use PicaX? Avcoat is known to crack...
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.
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.
MMOD resistance was not the main driver for selecting Avcoat over Pica.
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.
MMOD resistance is not even in that list.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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....
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....
It is from EFT-1 and the LM built SM ETA that flew burned up on reentry.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. >
Lockheed Martin engineers wear the goggles to help them assemble the crew capsule Orion—without having to read thousands of pages of paper instructions.
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.
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/)
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.
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.
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.
{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}
{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.
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)
{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.
{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.
{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.
A drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.
A drop test would have to include separation from a boilerplate LAS to be valid.
Why?
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.
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.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.
Credits: NASA/ESA/ATG Medialab
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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 partsIt was a test of the Launch Abort System, not the Earth Landing System (ELS) which has the chutes and the uprighting bags.
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
Tumbling was more than likely due to "vortex shedding". Drogue cute deployment would stabilize that during normal ops...
Agreed, it looked to me to be more of an oscillation rather than a continuous tumble (rotation)...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)...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.
Thank you, I'll take a look at it.Agreed, it looked to me to be more of an oscillation rather than a continuous tumble (rotation)...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.
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.
I don't think it's on fire. Looks like it's creating contrails.Thank you, I'll take a look at it.Agreed, it looked to me to be more of an oscillation rather than a continuous tumble (rotation)...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.
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.
That was a really slow liftoff, similar to Athena II. I actually expected it to go a bit faster after ignition.
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
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
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.
Agreed, it looked to me to be more of an oscillation rather than a continuous tumble (rotation)...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.
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:
Yeah. And the boilerplate has a different cone angle, if I recall correctly.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)
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.
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.
Artemis 1 Orion Spacecraft CSMSome 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.
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.
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.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.
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!
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
Good. I'm glad they've finally announced initial plans for reuse for Orion!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!
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.
So now they are going to build a bunch of these things and SLS will get canceled.
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.
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.
It's all well and good but, where's the lander? :-\
There is no penalty paid if they decide in 2022 to walk away from Orion?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?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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
Your predicting qualities are noted sir.Oi! I think I deserve some credit too! :PI 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.
Would OmegA Heavy have enough grunt to get Orion into LEO?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'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)
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!".
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.
...
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.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.
... I don't have a problem with Boeing doing cost plus for development....
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode or 57 saving the outer 2 boosters.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.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.
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.
FH can do 63.8 tonne into a 28.5ºLEO if fully expendable mode or 57 saving the outer 2 boosters.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.
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.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.
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.
and TLI is another hit.
Emphasis mine.(bold)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)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.
Though not ideal, I was merely attempting to compare "like for like" using easy to find, quick reference numbers.
I don't understand your comparison, you make the FH sound as though its on equal footing capability wise. It's not.
In regards to this mission, I agree. Thanks for holding my hand AND spelling it out for me.Emphasis mine.(bold)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.
Though not ideal, I was merely attempting to compare "like for like" using easy to find, quick reference numbers.
You also saidI 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.
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.
I dont know where it leaves SLS, it hasnt even flown yet. Perhaps a "future" asset with unknown capabilities?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?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.
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).
I dont know where it leaves SLS, it hasnt even flown yet. Perhaps a "future" asset with unknown capabilities?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.
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).
I dont know where it leaves SLS, it hasnt even flown yet. Perhaps a "future" asset with unknown capabilities?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.
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).
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?
There may be fewer skeptical of SpaceX, but you make an excellent point about payload/mass and orbits and config. Thank you.I dont know where it leaves SLS, it hasnt even flown yet. Perhaps a "future" asset with unknown capabilities?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.
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
Bold emphasis mine.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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEPkG5VLa5gCould do without the music, IMO.
a video recapping the year's achievements (for orion)
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.
number 1: this is just a short explainer video for the general public
Confirmation that SLS Block IB performance is only 37 t to TLI, nearly 10 t less than Saturn V.
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.
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'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
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
Both are correct. Essentially, the Apollo SM was over-engineered while the Orion ESM is under-engineered.
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.
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.
How did anything you say contradict that? Or are you being intentionally obtuse about my meaning?Both are correct. Essentially, the Apollo SM was over-engineered while the Orion ESM is under-engineered.
Emphasis mine.
This is incorrect. -snip-
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 cancelledThe Apollo SM was built and designed for direct ascent. The mission changed. The design didn't. Was Apollo pork?
How did anything you say contradict that? Or are you being intentionally obtuse about my meaning?Both are correct. Essentially, the Apollo SM was over-engineered while the Orion ESM is under-engineered.
Emphasis mine.
This is incorrect. -snip-
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 cancelledThe 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.I don't agree.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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
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
Will there be worms on Orion / SLS or was it just first flight of Dragon
Will there be worms on Orion / SLS or was it just first flight of DragonThere will, and they will be painted on the SRBs.
Having a discussion today on some odor control challenges with the Orion toilet. No febreeze, glade, or candles allowed.
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
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.
Our toilet and trash bags are designed with odor control features but breakthrough will occur after some amount of time.
The unsung heroes of the space program are the certified sniffers at White Sands who get to verify the odor control features work correctly.
QuoteNASA’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.https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2020/09/01/orion-program-completes-key-review-for-artemis-i/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Why is the assumption that these estimates are primarily driven by the mating/demating process?
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
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?
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
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...
ESA does not produce anything. Work is made by contractors.
That being said CMA is not part of European deliveries.
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...
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
New article:It's hard to disagree with the bottom line of the article. Orion has been a money pit.
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:QuoteThe 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.
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.
The ESM has cost a few hundred of millions....
I also find it peculiar that Orion still didn't fly with life support systems and will not fly next (?) year.
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 ?
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.
Compared to the Crew Module and Crew Module Adapter the ESM is dirt cheap.
This is absolutely not how ESA is working. I do not know the figures but I would suspect 10% and maybe I am pessimistic.
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?
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.
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
... 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.
... 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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]
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" :) )
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.
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!
Yeah. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that NASA would not deem this acceptable on a crewed flight.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.
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*
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
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.
https://twitter.com/airbusspace/status/1342795619434377216 (https://twitter.com/airbusspace/status/1342795619434377216)QuoteView 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
Is it just me, or does this mass of spaghetti look, I dunno, overly complicated for the function?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.
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... :(
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... :(
After seeing this: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.
<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)
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.
Found this interesting
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.
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... :(
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.
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.
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.
After seeing this:They did Dragon Crew splash tests pretty close to the actual mission.
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)
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.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.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.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.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.
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.
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 ~
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.
I doubt it'd be a massive challenge, honestly.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.
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!
Here’s an annotated version. @MPiatowski
twitter.com/astro_jessica/status/1428865915333001223QuoteToday 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)QuoteHere’s an annotated version. @MPiatowski
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.
Pressurized/habitable volume isn’t a huge limit. 2 astronauts spent 14 days in the 2.55 cubic meter Gemini spacecraft.
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.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.
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?
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.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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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."
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.QuoteThe 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.
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.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.QuoteThe 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.
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.
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.
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"
So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon
to supplement and eventually replace Orion?
Why does it need to be supplemented or replaced?
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."
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.
yes, I was just pointing out that capsule and MPLM type module were not dictatedActually, 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.
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."
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.
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.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.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract
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.
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
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.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.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract
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.
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
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.
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/)Reuse of most of the Crew Module is still the plan for OPOC. There’s varying degrees of reuse:QuoteAfter 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.
<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.
<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.
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?
As in 2024? Or 2025-2026?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.
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 -
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.
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.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/)Reuse of most of the Crew Module is still the plan for OPOC. There’s varying degrees of reuse:QuoteAfter 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.
“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.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/)Reuse of most of the Crew Module is still the plan for OPOC. There’s varying degrees of reuse:QuoteAfter 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.
“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.
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.
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.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
... 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. ...
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?
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.Were we ever told what the consequences would be of the other channel failing?
A loss of data.
What if Artemis 1 explodes because of the PDU channel failing?
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?
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?
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?
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
If Orion has no power, oxygen, or communications with Mission Control, then how the bloody hell can it support a crew?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?
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
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.
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.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.
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.
And to other points, Orion Capsule needs to land in water and couldn't slow its descent enough to land on the surface.
....... Orion Capsule ...........would need significant upgrades to make it to the surface and meet any temporary habitat requirements. Thanks.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
NASA Orders Three More Orion Spacecraft From Lockheed Martin:
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2022-10-20-NASA-Orders-Three-More-Orion-Spacecraft-from-Lockheed-MartinQuote from: LM News Release2022: NASA orders three additional Orion spacecraft missions for Artemis VI-VIII for $1.99 billion.
https://twitter.com/garynapier/status/1583437638824230912
Don't worry. I still have confidence for Artemis 2 to launch in May 2024. Godspeed Artemis!I will take that bet.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
What exactly limits the lifetime of Orion to 21 days?
What exactly limits the lifetime of Orion to 21 days?
So Orion has zero room for anything else? No samples, no instruments, no nothing?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.
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.So Orion has zero room for anything else? No samples, no instruments, no nothing?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.
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.So Orion has zero room for anything else? No samples, no instruments, no nothing?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.
Yep. SLS/Orion create a severe constraint. The best way to fix would be to use a better transport system.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.So Orion has zero room for anything else? No samples, no instruments, no nothing?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.
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.
So Orion has zero room for anything else? No samples, no instruments, no nothing?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.
"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/
"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?
[...] 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."
[...] there was a need for additional analysis on the performance of hinges in the side hatch.
[...] 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?