Author Topic: Do we need Orion (Super) Lite as a lifeboat?  (Read 86099 times)

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do we need Orion (Super) Lite as a lifeboat?
« Reply #180 on: 06/10/2010 11:11 pm »
The very fact that they propose cancelling everything and replacing with a "program", that does nothing, and then refuse to even justify how it was derived should say enough.

Add into that a decision, which is equally just as mysterious, to bring back Orion as a CRV where it has much less capability but most of the price and you can see they have no real plan and no real goal for this agency except to bog it down, make it functionally useless so that it can be dismanted during the course of this administration. 

I used to consider myself a political independent, moderate, etc.  The one thing this administration has been able to do is push people like me away from him and their philosophy.  That is the change I can believe in. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Do we need Orion (Super) Lite as a lifeboat?
« Reply #181 on: 06/10/2010 11:19 pm »

I used to consider myself a political independent, moderate, etc.  The one thing this administration has been able to do is push people like me away from him and their philosophy.  That is the change I can believe in. 

That statement describes my sentiment about the previous administration, but yeah, I'm beginning to think the current one is no better.  And there was such a great opportunity to correct the Program of Record and do something great while putting this administration's stamp on a common sense approach to exploration.  Instead, we have chaos, uncertainty, and a return to the "better, faster, cheaper" mantra of the 1990's in the form of "commercialization" of human spaceflight.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2010 11:20 pm by vt_hokie »

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Do we need Orion (Super) Lite as a lifeboat?
« Reply #182 on: 06/11/2010 04:38 am »
I am wondering a few things.

1) If the Orion is being designed only as a crew return vehicle, then how would it be able to do the asteroid and Mars orbit missions that has recently been asked of NASA?

It's called "block development" or "spiral development". Block 0 = CRV, Block 1 = CTV, Block 2 = CEV. Apollo was similar, with Block 1 being a LEO CTV only, with Block 2 being used for lunar missions. Except Apollo's budget was high enough that both blocks were developed almost in parallel, while Orion would be serial.

Quote
2) Why are we spending billions on a crew return vehicle.  The ISS already has crew return vehicles, the Soyuz.  What is the point of creating something that we already have?

To eliminate US dependence on Russia.

Quote
3) What rocket will the Orion fly on?

The Block 0 CRV could fly on a stock Atlas V 552 or Delta IV-Heavy, since it would not need a LAS.
JRF

Offline mikegi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Do we need Orion (Super) Lite as a lifeboat?
« Reply #183 on: 06/11/2010 05:03 am »
The Block 0 CRV could fly on a stock Atlas V 552 or Delta IV-Heavy, since it would not need a LAS.
Many here on NSF feared that unmanned/robotic spaceflight would be the next domino after NASA's manned spaceflight got cut. Looks like those fears were unfounded :)

Offline Arthur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Do we need Orion (Super) Lite as a lifeboat?
« Reply #184 on: 06/11/2010 12:53 pm »
No we don't need another return vehicle, we haven't for the past 12 years and we don't need to waste the money on it now.

The problem is that something could hapen to ground the Russian CRV (remember the chaos after Challenger grounded the STS fleet). For the last 12 years, the Shuttle could have been pressed into service as a CRV in the event of a Russian 'crisis'. That is no longer possible (we are retiring the orbiters and running out of launch parts with no plans to build more).

For the price of the CRV Ares I doesn't look too bad. Remember the CRV isn't capable of delivering crew to orbit but yearly costs are about equal to that of the Ares I.

Apples to oranges.

Offline phantomdj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Standing in the Saturn V nozzle
  • Merritt Island, Fl
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Do we need Orion (Super) Lite as a lifeboat?
« Reply #185 on: 06/11/2010 01:06 pm »
[T]here was such a great opportunity to correct the Program of Record and do something great while putting this administration's stamp on a common sense approach to exploration.  Instead, we have chaos, uncertainty, and a return to the "better, faster, cheaper" mantra of the 1990's in the form of "commercialization" of human spaceflight.

And the one thing we learned about “better, faster, cheap” is you can only have two out of the three.
SpaceX has become what NASA used to be in the '60's, innovative and driven.

Online EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: Do we need Orion (Super) Lite as a lifeboat?
« Reply #186 on: 06/11/2010 01:31 pm »
I am wondering a few things.

1) If the Orion is being designed only as a crew return vehicle, then how would it be able to do the asteroid and Mars orbit missions that has recently been asked of NASA?

It's called "block development" or "spiral development". Block 0 = CRV, Block 1 = CTV, Block 2 = CEV. Apollo was similar, with Block 1 being a LEO CTV only, with Block 2 being used for lunar missions. Except Apollo's budget was high enough that both blocks were developed almost in parallel, while Orion would be serial.

snip...

The bolded above might actually make sense if that's the way they would present their 'plan'.  But they have not been quite so explicit in this.  They seem to only have offered the CRV idea as a political compromise to the Texas and Colorado delegations in Congress.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2010 01:37 pm by EE Scott »
Scott

Offline simonth

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Do we need Orion (Super) Lite as a lifeboat?
« Reply #187 on: 06/11/2010 01:34 pm »
They seem to only have thrown out the CRV idea as a political compromise to the Texas and Colorado delegations in Congress.

Especially considering that after spending 4.5 billion for Orion CRV there will be running costs of a billion per year and IN ADDITION another 5-6 billion at least in development costs to get to the original BEO Orion. Somebody has yet to come up with a way to pay for this spacecraft.

Online EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: Do we need Orion (Super) Lite as a lifeboat?
« Reply #188 on: 06/11/2010 01:42 pm »
They seem to only have thrown out the CRV idea as a political compromise to the Texas and Colorado delegations in Congress.

Especially considering that after spending 4.5 billion for Orion CRV there will be running costs of a billion per year and IN ADDITION another 5-6 billion at least in development costs to get to the original BEO Orion. Somebody has yet to come up with a way to pay for this spacecraft.

I have read that they will carve out the R&D money that would have been used to make the 'breakthroughs' they think are necessary to go to Mars.  Since we seem to be playing a zero sum game at best with the HSF budget, keeping Orion even in the CRV role seems to be an idea that we cannot afford.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2010 01:43 pm by EE Scott »
Scott

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: Do we need Orion (Super) Lite as a lifeboat?
« Reply #189 on: 06/11/2010 04:52 pm »
No we don't need another return vehicle, we haven't for the past 12 years and we don't need to waste the money on it now.

The problem is that something could hapen to ground the Russian CRV (remember the chaos after Challenger grounded the STS fleet). For the last 12 years, the Shuttle could have been pressed into service as a CRV in the event of a Russian 'crisis'. That is no longer possible (we are retiring the orbiters and running out of launch parts with no plans to build more).

For the price of the CRV Ares I doesn't look too bad. Remember the CRV isn't capable of delivering crew to orbit but yearly costs are about equal to that of the Ares I.

Apples to oranges.
Except oranges were deemed too expensive.

I am wondering a few things.

1) If the Orion is being designed only as a crew return vehicle, then how would it be able to do the asteroid and Mars orbit missions that has recently been asked of NASA?

It's called "block development" or "spiral development". Block 0 = CRV, Block 1 = CTV, Block 2 = CEV. Apollo was similar, with Block 1 being a LEO CTV only, with Block 2 being used for lunar missions. Except Apollo's budget was high enough that both blocks were developed almost in parallel, while Orion would be serial.

snip...

The bolded above might actually make sense if that's the way they would present their 'plan'.  But they have not been quite so explicit in this.  They seem to only have offered the CRV idea as a political compromise to the Texas and Colorado delegations in Congress.
I thought NASA just saw it as a better way than having to pay the fees associate with canceling the contract.
« Last Edit: 06/11/2010 04:55 pm by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Do we need Orion (Super) Lite as a lifeboat?
« Reply #190 on: 06/11/2010 06:44 pm »

I thought NASA just saw it as a better way than having to pay the fees associate with canceling the contract.

Not quite. The politics behind it were to throw the space states and lockheed a bone to reduce opposition to fy2011. It was also a good place for a conversation to start about what the space states wanted out the deal. However the space state congress people are pushing for things that cost more than fy2011 and in my opinion are politically impossible. Extention of the shuttle beyond a few flights requires restarting the line($$$$). Cxp makes no sense at all and requires more money.


Orion as lifeboat is not a bad idea per see. It reduces requirements in commercal crew and is a good evolution point from a BEO crew return or crew taxi. However Orion is expensive and some people still think a BEO ORION is politcaly viable. Others want commercal crew to take the CRV position.

I think it could be worth it as a crew return becasue it could be evoled into a capsule with long term storage capbility. Both the ISS and a BEO mission can use that. Otherwise, let commercal crew do it. The other problem is if Lockheed martin can make money on the thing.

Tags:
 

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