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.
Quote from: GWH on 07/27/2017 07:31 pmHow 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/890648329628954624Orion 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.
Dragon at least lacks the dV, and is a tight ride.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/27/2017 08:36 pmUnfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposableThere 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.htmlI 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.
Quote from: GWH on 07/27/2017 08:16 pmDragon 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.