... are we asking Orion to do too much?
As far as I've read, the ship still has an airlock, toilet, plenty of storage lockers, 4/6 crew size, smaller-but-more-powerful SM, and solar panels. Are those not the things that make Orion the evolutionary leap over Apollo that was generally desired?
Quote from: Spacely on 08/01/2008 11:25 pmAs far as I've read, the ship still has an airlock, toilet, plenty of storage lockers, 4/6 crew size, smaller-but-more-powerful SM, and solar panels. Are those not the things that make Orion the evolutionary leap over Apollo that was generally desired? Orion never had an airlock and Apollo had a toilet.
Quote from: barb.space on 07/31/2008 11:32 am If one assumes that Orion will fly on a liquid rocket the escape system also be simplified as you no longer are running away from a lit SRB.Bad assumption. The LAS is sized for an upperstage explosion on the ground
If one assumes that Orion will fly on a liquid rocket the escape system also be simplified as you no longer are running away from a lit SRB.
Ross - Blame Ares I as much as you want - it ain't gonna solve the weight problem with Orion. The ESAS report numbers were not proposed like Moses' tables of stone. ESAS was an architecture study and as such it baselined an architecture (1.5) not kilograms nor percentages.There are limitations to Orion unrelated to the launcher, because even if they would launch Orion with a double capable launcher, Orion must still fit with the rest of the story. Orion cannot be arbitrarily large as long as Ares V is subject to limitations.Discard Ares I's first stage and replace it with any booster you like. It ain't gonna magically solve the LIDS' tolerance to TLI loads; nor the need for a lite Altair ascent stage."essentially the same job the Apollo CSM had to do" no it's not. Much more demanding job.IMO.
Quote from: Jim on 07/31/2008 12:13 pmQuote from: barb.space on 07/31/2008 11:32 am If one assumes that Orion will fly on a liquid rocket the escape system also be simplified as you no longer are running away from a lit SRB.Bad assumption. The LAS is sized for an upperstage explosion on the groundWhen was the last time a US upper or core stage exploded on the pad?I think thats fairly rare maybe rare enough it can be disregarded.
What about flying APAS-89 instead of LIDS if they switch to Jupiter and a two launch scenario and get rid of that awful 1.5 launch scenario the mass issue becomes moot.
From another web site;"NASA has the man-rating requirements of NPR 8705.2 to exclude EELV's as a viable option (in their opinion) during the ESAS. But now the Ares I crowd has requested and gotten a rewrite of that all-important document to DOWNRATE the human rating requirements. Rev A of the document required two-fault tolerance as a minimum, but Rev B (just released in May) now requires only single-fault tolerance as a minimum."Any comments?
Well it seems as though Ares I is moving to the right rather briskly. If NASA holds fast to the plan to abandon the ISS in 2016 is it even necessary to retain the six-man capability for Orion? Will dropping that requirement relieve any schedule/weight requirements?
Quote from: Norm Hartnett on 08/18/2008 07:07 pmWell it seems as though Ares I is moving to the right rather briskly. If NASA holds fast to the plan to abandon the ISS in 2016 is it even necessary to retain the six-man capability for Orion? Will dropping that requirement relieve any schedule/weight requirements?No idea. But NASA isn't holding fast to any plan to drop the ISS. As far as I can tell, NASA ran a few years ago some budget projections based on the assumption that the ISS is abandoned in 2016. But I wouldn't call that a plan since they aren't doing anything now that would change if they decided one way or the other.