Orion as a CRV

[Jim]

A small spacecraft bus, like what OSC is developing for Cygnus is the answer. 

ULA is only proposing the using the shuttle because they can't build tug for the last mile.  That's why the couldn't put forth a COTS or CSR proposal. 

I was under the understanding that Cygnus was not capable of return.  Did I miss something?

My point had nothing to do with return.  It was about getting an ELV payload (whatever it is) to the ISS

[William Barton]

What is the soonest Orion could be ready to fly, assuming no budgetary limits?

If it were up to me, and I had unlimited budget, I might fund competing capsule designs to the tune of a billion $$$ apiece for Dream Chaser, Dragon, CXV, manned Cygnus, and whoever else seemed plausible, and fly them on Atlas Vs (or even Shuttle flights) to see if they worked. If we were lucky, at least one design would actually work.

[siatwork]

Verifying a manned vehicle system takes time.  Time (and corresponding reflection/feedback) is actually at least as valuable resource as money.  It might be, alternatively, prudent to select a most promising vehicle from the technical prospective (conservative design, gets the mission objectives done, can be upgraded) and pumping everything we've got (I mean public funds, the independents can do whatever) into it.

[William Barton]

Verifying a manned vehicle system takes time.  Time (and corresponding reflection/feedback) is actually at least as valuable resource as money.  It might be, alternatively, prudent to select a most promising vehicle from the technical prospective (conservative design, gets the mission objectives done, can be upgraded) and pumping everything we've got into it.

No matter which vehicle you pick, one or more people here will pop up and assert that it is a flawed concept that can't possibly work. So the question is, how much time? Two years? Six? Fifty?

[siatwork]

Verifying a manned vehicle system takes time.  Time (and corresponding reflection/feedback) is actually at least as valuable resource as money.  It might be, alternatively, prudent to select a most promising vehicle from the technical prospective (conservative design, gets the mission objectives done, can be upgraded) and pumping everything we've got into it.

No matter which vehicle you pick, one or more people here will pop up and assert that it is a flawed concept that can't possibly work. So the question is, how much time? Two years? Six? Fifty?

We are not in the 40s.  We know which vehicles work, and how long it took back then. It's a basis for an estimate. 4-6 years, my estimate.  (keeping it a conservative vehicle, nothing fancy or non related to the mission, I assume we have defined the mission as LEO/Moon)  EELVs and their extensions are the LV candidates. 

(e.g. throwing money on something like Hotol would be out of the question)

[Free2Think]

It's not just conservative design but also proven development team.  Frequently people forget that experience does mater!

[siatwork]

It's not just conservative design but also proven development team.  Frequently people forget that experience does mater!

I agree with that.  Certainly experience matters.  A lot.

[marsavian]

I hate to play into the really stupid extend the shuttle memo, but if you're looking for a quick and dirty CRV, the logical starting off point is the SpaceX Dragon.  One, it's a reentry vehicle already undergoing development work.  Two, it's planned to be a manned reentry vehicle eventually, you'd just be funding whatever work is necessary to make it so and speed up the process.  Three, the cargo rocket carrying it to the ISS need not be manned, nor undergo any modifications to be "mannable".   Four, that cargo rocket can even be the Shuttle if the Dragon can fit in the Shuttle bay, with some type of fittings, which I presume it can.  Five, it would take the place of two Soyuz worth of down capability, while being not-Russian in nature, American even; might be cheaper on that basis, if the Shuttle is bringing it up anyways.

Manned re-entry vehicles are damned hard. Look at the trouble Russia is having with Soyuz where it looks like the safety of returning astronauts has been effected more by some unknown lucky combination of design amendments than clear well understood design choices. NASA is also having aerodynamic stability issues with Orion even though they have already got a previously very successful working shape, Apollo, to base it on. Dragon will probably take longer to come to successful fruition than Orion given the level of system engineering expertise SpaceX have demonstrated so far and is not a serious viable option until SpaceX start surprising us on the upside.

[Jim]

   Four, that cargo rocket can even be the Shuttle, you deluded Shuttle nuts, if the Dragon can fit in the Shuttle bay, with some type of fittings, which I presume it can. 

Wrong presumption

[Jim]

I hate to play into the really stupid extend the shuttle meme, but if you're looking for a quick and dirty CRV, the logical starting off point is the SpaceX Dragon. 

It is far from being a given or even a choice

[libs0n]

I demand to know why I'm wrong, Jim.  I only presumed so because the Dragon shares the Falcon9's diameter, which I think is around the 3 meters mark, rather than the Shuttle's 4m limit, roughly.  Also in speculative drawings featuring both the ISS and the Dragon, it is either less than or approaching the size of a ISS module.  Is it because the Dragon would contain propellants?

Quick, safe, cheap.  Pick two.  The Dragon was the choice where one of your picks was quick. The alternative is starting from scratch, or waiting for the Orion and its launcher to come online.  Subject the Dragon to whatever qualifying regime you were going to subject the original CRV to.  Again, this would also feature NASA oversight and analysis during the rest of the Dragon developmental campaign.  And think of all those folks at SpaceX whose work we haven't seen fail yet, like that webcast cohost.  What, you want me to build you all a time machine and show you successful post facto results before you would consider things?  Thoughts and paths forward require risk, easy safe cheap options rarely exist.  Buy a Soyuz seat if you want that, but that's a bitter pill for some of you, and outside the frame of this theoretical discussion.  Now what is your second pick safe or cheap?

There is also a buffer before abject failure.  Chance.  The idea may be considered risky, but that risk is only realized during rare situations.  Lethal failure would depend upon the capability actually being exercised, and then failing.  Caveat: capsule integrity while attached to station.  As someone said, every capsule swap brings with it a test of capsule performance, from which to take lessons and improve from. 

Let's up the stakes.  There is no Soyuz to fall back on.  No CRV means a man tended ISS.  Consider the risk of losing the station itself, or building it and then infrequently using it.  Dragon worth the risk now, an option to consider?

edit:  That can't be it.  The original CRV would have contained deorbit propellants.

[Jim]

Quick, safe, cheap.  Pick two. 

None of the choices are valid.  Dragon is not any of those, because it is not a given. 

Dragon isn't the only choice.   Boeing, LM and OSC have OSP concepts that could be used.   Boeing was proposing a capsule for COTS.  OSC has a capsule concept.  Orion could fly earlier if not tied to Ares I.

Spacex is not the magic cure.   I will go back to my America football analogy.  Would you believe the coach/owner of a expansion/first year team who says that they are going to win the Super Bowl?  Especially after they have lost 3 preseason/exhibition games? 

Why would anyone think Spacex is going to be successful at anything?  They haven't shown anything worthy of such adoration

[Kaputnik]

Shoot this idea down in flames, if you will, but could we drag an old Apollo CM out of a museum, dust it off, and use it as a temporary/emergency CRV? $$ needed for some sort of SM, probably need to gut the avionics, but is it any more realistic than a Dragon or OSP derived craft?

[Jorge]

Shoot this idea down in flames, if you will, but could we drag an old Apollo CM out of a museum, dust it off, and use it as a temporary/emergency CRV? $$ needed for some sort of SM, probably need to gut the avionics, but is it any more realistic than a Dragon or OSP derived craft?

Consider it shot.

[barb.space]

Quick, safe, cheap.  Pick two. 

None of the choices are valid.  Dragon is not any of those, because it is not a given. 

Dragon isn't the only choice.   Boeing, LM and OSC have OSP concepts that could be used.   Boeing was proposing a capsule for COTS.  OSC has a capsule concept.  Orion could fly earlier if not tied to Ares I.

Spacex is not the magic cure.   I will go back to my America football analogy.  Would you believe the coach/owner of a expansion/first year team who says that they are going to win the Super Bowl?  Especially after they have lost 3 preseason/exhibition games? 

Why would anyone think Spacex is going to be successful at anything?  They haven't shown anything worthy of such adoration

The trip down hill is no easier than the trip up hill.  Look how long it has taken SpaceX to get to their current position of 3 Falcon I launch failures.  They have a lot of promise, and given money and time they may well succeed in proving Falcon I and eventually Falcon 9.  They’ve got an equally long and uncertain development ahead for Dragon.

I hope that SpaceX is given the opportunity to proceed, but for saving America’s access to ISS, and likely ISS it self, I really hope that NASA quickly decides to pursue a reasonable, conservative path to get something flying by the end of 2011.  This short schedule really means using a proven launch vehicle and developing a minimal, conservative capsule by a team that has demonstrated such a capability.  Boeing and Lockheed Martin may well be the only two organizations that have such a history.  But even they will only succeed if requirements are kept to a minimum, defined up front, not allowed to continuously migrate and NASA’s “help” is truly help.

[libs0n]

Quick, safe, cheap.  Pick two. 

None of the choices are valid.  Dragon is not any of those, because it is not a given. 

Dragon isn't the only choice.   Boeing, LM and OSC have OSP concepts that could be used.   Boeing was proposing a capsule for COTS.  OSC has a capsule concept.  Orion could fly earlier if not tied to Ares I.

Spacex is not the magic cure.   I will go back to my America football analogy.  Would you believe the coach/owner of a expansion/first year team who says that they are going to win the Super Bowl?  Especially after they have lost 3 preseason/exhibition games? 

Why would anyone think Spacex is going to be successful at anything?  They haven't shown anything worthy of such adoration

That's all starting from scratch, more or less.  Dragon is being built now.  As I was alluding to, the other pick is made for us.  In this scenario, the money was spent on the Shuttle.  The Orion doesn't necessarily get sped up, it may even be delayed.  NASA makes their own choices; if they truly need a domestic CRV, they will pick their horse, be it the Dragon or one of the others.  I say the Dragon can be a contender, be the favourite even.

My time machine is slow.  Not much faster than not using it really.  We will sit in it and wait for SpaceX to show you the results you want to see before you can start considering them, or for me to be wrong in thinking they can finish their work on the Dragon to the degree that it can perform under the parameters I have outlined.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Where you *can* save is by deferring the big main engine until Block II. The Orion AUX thrusters are plenty large enough for deorbit from LEO, and have plenty of redundancy.

Coming to the thread late after a weekend away, but a question for Jorge:  how much time/$$ does that really save in the development cycle?  The large main engine is just a pressure-fed hypergolic engine, is it not?  It certainly saves mass not to have to carry it or its fuel load, but development of this engine should be a relative piece of cake shouldn't it?

[madscientist197]

Isn't the main engine supposed to be an off-the-shelf design anyway?

[imcub]

...

That's all starting from scratch, more or less.  Dragon is being built now.  As I was alluding to, the other pick is made for us.  In this scenario, the money was spent on the Shuttle.  The Orion doesn't necessarily get sped up, it may even be delayed.  NASA makes their own choices; if they truly need a domestic CRV, they will pick their horse, be it the Dragon or one of the others.  I say the Dragon can be a contender, be the favourite even.

My time machine is slow.  Not much faster than not using it really.  We will sit in it and wait for SpaceX to show you the results you want to see before you can start considering them, or for me to be wrong in thinking they can finish their work on the Dragon to the degree that it can perform under the parameters I have outlined.

Given plenty of money, taking all the time they need to work out the bugs in between failed flights ... after nearly 4 years of trying (Nov 05-Sept 08) they have yet to reach orbit with a small and relatively simple launcher (minimal engines, values, etc).  Expecting them to be able to safely launch and recover a large manned spacecraft in just over three years (end of 2011), a huge step in capability ... is simply not deemed to be very realistic.  Elon is not Kelly Johnson and SpaceX is not the Skunkworks.  If manned spaceflight were easy, there would be more than three nations on this planet with the capacity to launch and recover manned spacecraft. 

[William Barton]

...

That's all starting from scratch, more or less.  Dragon is being built now.  As I was alluding to, the other pick is made for us.  In this scenario, the money was spent on the Shuttle.  The Orion doesn't necessarily get sped up, it may even be delayed.  NASA makes their own choices; if they truly need a domestic CRV, they will pick their horse, be it the Dragon or one of the others.  I say the Dragon can be a contender, be the favourite even.

My time machine is slow.  Not much faster than not using it really.  We will sit in it and wait for SpaceX to show you the results you want to see before you can start considering them, or for me to be wrong in thinking they can finish their work on the Dragon to the degree that it can perform under the parameters I have outlined.

Given plenty of money, taking all the time they need to work out the bugs in between failed flights ... after nearly 4 years of trying (Nov 05-Sept 08) they have yet to reach orbit with a small and relatively simple launcher (minimal engines, values, etc).  Expecting them to be able to safely launch and recover a large manned spacecraft in just over three years (end of 2011), a huge step in capability ... is simply not deemed to be very realistic.  Elon is not Kelly Johnson and SpaceX is not the Skunkworks.  If manned spaceflight were easy, there would be more than three nations on this planet with the capacity to launch and recover manned spacecraft. 

8-5 = 3. I wouldn't say "plenty of money" either, esepcially in the context of how much money Ares I seems to be costing. But the point is valid. They haven't done it until they've done it. On the other hand, Kelly Johnson is dead, and so are Von Braun and Korolev. Two of the three nations able to conduct manned spacecraft are doing so with assets developed back when those men were still alive, and the third nation is doing so with a leg up from one of the others. I won't even grant that the US and Russia can develop a new manned spacecraft anymore. Not until I see Orion fly. And Russia isn't even really trying. NASA doesn't get cut any more slack than Musk until we're back on the Moon. Griffin isn't Kelly Johnson either, come to think of it.