It is insane to fly a different profile in the uncrewed EM-1 test mission than will be flown in the EM-2 mission. I hope astronauts don't die due to lack of testing the specific flight profile.
I don't think Apollo CSM was flyable uncrewed. Someone had to change the current program in the AGC.
...One 42 hour orbit means only 3 traversals of the Van Allen Belts during the out-bound phase of the mission.
...One thing that worries me is the ECS, which would only have about 2 days of testing before departing for the Moon. I vaguely remember plans to test some or all of it on the ISS. I think it won't be ready for EM-1, which would fly without a complete or fully functional ECS, and in any case wouldn't have 4 humans consuming oxygen and emitting CO2, water and heat for 2 weeks.
Quote from: david-moon on 12/14/2018 08:41 pmIt is insane to fly a different profile in the uncrewed EM-1 test mission than will be flown in the EM-2 mission. I hope astronauts don't die due to lack of testing the specific flight profile.Though I agree with you, a young and impetuous NASA did exactly that once upon a time. The mission was called Apollo 8.
Quote from: david-moon on 12/14/2018 09:22 pmI don't think Apollo CSM was flyable uncrewed. Someone had to change the current program in the AGC.Of course it was. There were several unmanned flights before the planned Apollo 1, and the first 2 Saturn 5 flights (Apollo 4 and 6) included an uncrewed Apollo CSM.
Many of the functions of the Orion's ECLSS can be tested on the Earth by locking people into a capsule on the ground for 2 weeks. Give then some books to read. Running the ECLSS in space in an empty capsule will show that nothing falls off during launch or re-entry.
Quote from: rpapo on 12/14/2018 08:49 pmQuote from: david-moon on 12/14/2018 08:41 pmIt is insane to fly a different profile in the uncrewed EM-1 test mission than will be flown in the EM-2 mission. I hope astronauts don't die due to lack of testing the specific flight profile.Though I agree with you, a young and impetuous NASA did exactly that once upon a time. The mission was called Apollo 8.I devoutly wish EM-2 could fly the Apollo 8 mission profile, but the selection of lunar orbits is constrained by the capability of the combined SLS and Orion system. Access (orbit insertion plus return) to simple “Keplerian” orbits—such as low-lunar orbits, prograde circular orbits, and elliptical lunar orbits—is simply infeasible or only marginally achievable with the SLS/Orion system. These orbits are essentially off the table since access from Earth is restricted by SLS’s performance margin and Orion/ESM’s limited propellant load.That's why EM-2 is a circumlunar mission instead of a lunar orbital one like Apollo 8.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 12/15/2018 01:03 amMany of the functions of the Orion's ECLSS can be tested on the Earth by locking people into a capsule on the ground for 2 weeks. Give then some books to read. Running the ECLSS in space in an empty capsule will show that nothing falls off during launch or re-entry.There is the small matter of micro gravity and how does one simulated it on Earth for the dirtside ECLSS test results to be valid.
But that’s the point, no ECLSS on EM1, it won’t be ready in time. Turning it upside down or sideways on earth is not a valid simulation for microgravity either...Whatever happened to ‘test like you fly’?
Quote from: zodiacchris on 12/17/2018 12:22 amBut that’s the point, no ECLSS on EM1, it won’t be ready in time. Turning it upside down or sideways on earth is not a valid simulation for microgravity either...Whatever happened to ‘test like you fly’?It is difficult and very time consuming to test as you fly when you have an anemic flight rate of one flight per 18-24 months.Normally one would suggest another EFT flight on a Delta IV-H, but that’s also difficult if your backup launcher is also incredibly expensive and not mandated. Orion really could have used a Saturn I to its Saturn V (SLS) for LEO testing. Although if Orion development is just as long pole as SLS (?) then the benefit of that is questionable. Such a mess.
{snip}Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/17/2018 06:59 am{snip}Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.That is why the test sequence I gave in reply #8 starts with people locked up in an Orion for 2 weeks. All the parts of the ECLSS have to work, if something fails then it is easy to get them out. The second part of the test ensures that flying the ECLSS does not cause any problems without risking any lives. Even empty temperature controls and fans still have to work. The third part tests Orion and ECLSS with people inside.
The Falcon Heavy may not be able to get the Orion spacecraft to the Moon but it can put a 26 tonne object in LEO.
Both Falcon Heavy and New Glenn will be capable of putting Orion into LEO. Orion is supposed to be launcher agnostic...
Quote from: clongton on 12/17/2018 12:01 pmBoth Falcon Heavy and New Glenn will be capable of putting Orion into LEO. Orion is supposed to be launcher agnostic...Throwing a wet towel on this:The only US manned spacecraft, currently under development, that is launcher agnostic, is CST-100 Starliner.Orion was permanently wedded to SLS quite a few years ago.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/17/2018 01:25 pmQuote from: clongton on 12/17/2018 12:01 pmBoth Falcon Heavy and New Glenn will be capable of putting Orion into LEO. Orion is supposed to be launcher agnostic...Throwing a wet towel on this:The only US manned spacecraft, currently under development, that is launcher agnostic, is CST-100 Starliner.Orion was permanently wedded to SLS quite a few years ago.Only permanently wedded to SLS by political will. It did after all launch on a Delta IV Heavy once, so if there is a will there's a way.But both SLS and Orion seem wedded to each other, but the relationship seems more like a suicide pact rather than a shotgun wedding. Both are highly dependent on each other.
Quote from: Lars-J on 12/17/2018 05:31 pmQuote from: woods170 on 12/17/2018 01:25 pmQuote from: clongton on 12/17/2018 12:01 pmBoth Falcon Heavy and New Glenn will be capable of putting Orion into LEO. Orion is supposed to be launcher agnostic...Throwing a wet towel on this:The only US manned spacecraft, currently under development, that is launcher agnostic, is CST-100 Starliner.Orion was permanently wedded to SLS quite a few years ago.Only permanently wedded to SLS by political will. It did after all launch on a Delta IV Heavy once, so if there is a will there's a way.But both SLS and Orion seem wedded to each other, but the relationship seems more like a suicide pact rather than a shotgun wedding. Both are highly dependent on each other.The suicide pact has to change. You're correct Lars. It's only wedded by political will. Orion could be made launcher agnostic if NASA wanted it to be. If they don't do it then one of the preflight activities for Orion will be to remove the ton of dust that has accumulated on the spacecraft between flights. It's even entirely possible that a NASA astronaut may fly in Orion and then many years later their adult son or daughter will fly in the same spacecraft for it's next flight. NASA could build a fleet of 5 reusable spacecraft and 2 or 3 of them will never actually fly.Meanwhile commercial crews will have built several permanently occupied bases all over the lunar globe and SpaceX will have over 1,000 settlers on the surface of Mars. That's how utterly ridiculous NASA's SLS/Orion plans are.
Why does every single SLS thread have to turn into this? I used to really enjoy reading through the posts, I felt privileged to be part of such a knowledgeable, civil community. But even something as benign as the EM-2 mission profile turns into this mess of who's opinion can be heard the loudest. I will always be part of NSF, but its quite sad
Quote from: Khadgars on 12/18/2018 05:08 pmWhy does every single SLS thread have to turn into this? I used to really enjoy reading through the posts, I felt privileged to be part of such a knowledgeable, civil community. But even something as benign as the EM-2 mission profile turns into this mess of who's opinion can be heard the loudest. I will always be part of NSF, but its quite sad Because we are measuring NASA against itself... Perhaps they set the bar "too-high" fifty years ago...
I understand your concerns Chuck.But...This is not another "SLS stinks, Orion sucks and NASA is bad"-thread.Let's get back on topic shall we?Thank you.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/18/2018 05:14 pmQuote from: Khadgars on 12/18/2018 05:08 pmWhy does every single SLS thread have to turn into this? I used to really enjoy reading through the posts, I felt privileged to be part of such a knowledgeable, civil community. But even something as benign as the EM-2 mission profile turns into this mess of who's opinion can be heard the loudest. I will always be part of NSF, but its quite sad Because we are measuring NASA against itself... Perhaps they set the bar "too-high" fifty years ago...In fact they did. Had the Space Race not come along the first manned lunar landing would still be in the future IMO. Apollo was a brilliant achievement but also way ahead of its time. At least 5 to 6 decades too early.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 12/18/2018 05:14 pmBecause we are measuring NASA against itself... Perhaps they set the bar "too-high" fifty years ago...In fact they did. Had the Space Race not come along the first manned lunar landing would still be in the future IMO. Apollo was a brilliant achievement but also way ahead of its time. At least 5 to 6 decades too early.
Because we are measuring NASA against itself... Perhaps they set the bar "too-high" fifty years ago...
Landing on the Moon was an aberration. Check out my thread from eight years back and look where we still are now... https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25469.0
Absent of this [international competition], what is going to urge the country on a commitment?
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 12/17/2018 07:39 amQuote from: woods170 on 12/17/2018 06:59 am{snip}Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.That is why the test sequence I gave in reply #8 starts with people locked up in an Orion for 2 weeks. All the parts of the ECLSS have to work, if something fails then it is easy to get them out. The second part of the test ensures that flying the ECLSS does not cause any problems without risking any lives. Even empty temperature controls and fans still have to work. The third part tests Orion and ECLSS with people inside.The second part (all-up ECLSS on an uncrewed orbiting vehicle) will absolutely not happen on Orion: they go straight from people-in-the-loop testing on the ground to all-up manned test in orbit.There is no in-between step in this case, given that EM-1 carries only a partial ECS, without most of the systems needed for an all-up ECLSS.Which is fine btw. given that unmanned testing of a full-up ECLSS didn't happen either on Mercury, Gemini and Space Shuttle.
There is only a partial ECLSS on EM-1, specifically a rudimentary ECS.The "Life Support" portion is still in development. Besides, even if a full-blown ECLSS was on EM-1 it could not be properly tested. You see, there is nobody on board to breathe.Breathing does four things for an ECLSS:- Use up oxygen (which must be replenished by the ECLSS)- Produce CO2 (which must be scrubbed by the ECLSS)- Produce water vapour (which must be largely removed by the ECLSS)- Produce particle effluent (which must be largely filtered by the ECLSS)Other than the little detail of breathing, humans also shed a lot of other stuff into the atmosphere, mainly hairs and dead skin tissue (skin flaking). Both must be filtered from the cabin environment. That, again, is done by the ECLSS.Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/17/2018 10:02 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 12/17/2018 07:39 amQuote from: woods170 on 12/17/2018 06:59 am{snip}Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.That is why the test sequence I gave in reply #8 starts with people locked up in an Orion for 2 weeks. All the parts of the ECLSS have to work, if something fails then it is easy to get them out. The second part of the test ensures that flying the ECLSS does not cause any problems without risking any lives. Even empty temperature controls and fans still have to work. The third part tests Orion and ECLSS with people inside.The second part (all-up ECLSS on an uncrewed orbiting vehicle) will absolutely not happen on Orion: they go straight from people-in-the-loop testing on the ground to all-up manned test in orbit.There is no in-between step in this case, given that EM-1 carries only a partial ECS, without most of the systems needed for an all-up ECLSS.Which is fine btw. given that unmanned testing of a full-up ECLSS didn't happen either on Mercury, Gemini and Space Shuttle.I'm of the opinion it is not FINE. Building out and integrating the ECLSS and then flying it in zero G would be a good test. We just don't know what problems might turn up. You are correct that it would be a good idea to have something consuming the the LSS ... dog? monkey? a small custom built test rig? It's wasteful to fly a couple billion dollar test without, ahem, testing things.
The difference with Shuttle or Apollo ECLSS is that they were first tested for days in LEO where the mission could abort at any time if there was a malfunction. For Apollo, there had been several LEO flights to certify the system before Apollo 8.
Also the backup plan for SpaceLab? Close the door and stay in the Shuttle. So, not quite the same thing.NASA can do what it wants... subject to the orders from its paymasters, which don't include (almost all of) us. But some of the decisions do seem a bit hypocritical. This has been pointed out before so not sure how much value rehashing that actually is. We do have a lot of threads that seem to cover some of the same ground re SLS.
The difference with Shuttle or Apollo ECLSS is that they were first tested for days in LEO where the mission could abort at any time if there was a malfunction. For Apollo, there had been several LEO flights to certify the system before Apollo 8.If there is an ECLSS malfunction after the Earth departure burn, there is no abort capability.An EM-1.5 long-duration manned flight to LEO to test not only ECLSS, but also other human factors (equipment interaction, waste management, manned operations, user interface, EVA, comms, and so on) seems like a no-brainer to me before committing to a BEO shakedown cruise. It could even dock with the ISS for safety and to test RV and docking procedures.
Quote from: Lar on 12/19/2018 12:04 pmAlso the backup plan for SpaceLab? Close the door and stay in the Shuttle. So, not quite the same thing.NASA can do what it wants... subject to the orders from its paymasters, which don't include (almost all of) us. But some of the decisions do seem a bit hypocritical. This has been pointed out before so not sure how much value rehashing that actually is. We do have a lot of threads that seem to cover some of the same ground re SLS.Emphasis mine:Minor nit: the alternative was close the door and terminate the mission. Without the payload being available there was no purpose in remaining on orbit. The mission would be cut short.
Quote from: freddo411 on 12/19/2018 01:01 amQuote from: woods170 on 12/17/2018 10:02 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 12/17/2018 07:39 amQuote from: woods170 on 12/17/2018 06:59 am{snip}Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.That is why the test sequence I gave in reply #8 starts with people locked up in an Orion for 2 weeks. All the parts of the ECLSS have to work, if something fails then it is easy to get them out. The second part of the test ensures that flying the ECLSS does not cause any problems without risking any lives. Even empty temperature controls and fans still have to work. The third part tests Orion and ECLSS with people inside.The second part (all-up ECLSS on an uncrewed orbiting vehicle) will absolutely not happen on Orion: they go straight from people-in-the-loop testing on the ground to all-up manned test in orbit.There is no in-between step in this case, given that EM-1 carries only a partial ECS, without most of the systems needed for an all-up ECLSS.Which is fine btw. given that unmanned testing of a full-up ECLSS didn't happen either on Mercury, Gemini and Space Shuttle.I'm of the opinion it is not FINE. Building out and integrating the ECLSS and then flying it in zero G would be a good test. We just don't know what problems might turn up. You are correct that it would be a good idea to have something consuming the the LSS ... dog? monkey? a small custom built test rig? It's wasteful to fly a couple billion dollar test without, ahem, testing things.Quite frankly I don't understand what gets you ticked off on this one. It is very simple: NASA doesn't plan on testing its full-up ECLSS system for Orion on unmanned missions.That's it.What you think of it is completely irrelevant. So is what I think of it....snip ...
My big beef is with the test launch theatre. Why bother to have an EM-1 if you aren't testing/flying (most|all) real components? It's a very expensive missed opportunity for no good reason that I can fathom. There's a small chance there will a flaw in the design, construction or integration of the system that might become apparent on this flight.
As pointed out by Lar, the lack of ECLSS testing in microgravity before committing to the Moon has been discussed before. I agree that it is a risk, with the EM-2 profile only partly mitigating that risk. A simple solution is to launch Orion uncrewed on a Delta 4 Heavy to ISS. Crew board it and then it spends two weeks in LEO testing all the systems out.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/19/2018 07:07 amQuote from: freddo411 on 12/19/2018 01:01 amI'm of the opinion it is not FINE. Building out and integrating the ECLSS and then flying it in zero G would be a good test. We just don't know what problems might turn up. You are correct that it would be a good idea to have something consuming the the LSS ... dog? monkey? a small custom built test rig? It's wasteful to fly a couple billion dollar test without, ahem, testing things.Quite frankly I don't understand what gets you ticked off on this one. It is very simple: NASA doesn't plan on testing its full-up ECLSS system for Orion on unmanned missions.That's it.What you think of it is completely irrelevant. So is what I think of it....snip ...Granted, my humble opinion is just that. Also, I don't worry about the system too much, as I expect that engineering will have lots of heritage, and undergone lots of on the ground testing. We probably agree broadly on that.My big beef is with the test launch theatre. Why bother to have an EM-1 if you aren't testing/flying (most|all) real components? It's a very expensive missed opportunity for no good reason that I can fathom. There's a small chance there will a flaw in the design, construction or integration of the system that might become apparent on this flight. Hubble's mirror troubles come to mind as an example of missing the chance to do all up testing....
Quote from: freddo411 on 12/19/2018 01:01 amI'm of the opinion it is not FINE. Building out and integrating the ECLSS and then flying it in zero G would be a good test. We just don't know what problems might turn up. You are correct that it would be a good idea to have something consuming the the LSS ... dog? monkey? a small custom built test rig? It's wasteful to fly a couple billion dollar test without, ahem, testing things.Quite frankly I don't understand what gets you ticked off on this one. It is very simple: NASA doesn't plan on testing its full-up ECLSS system for Orion on unmanned missions.That's it.What you think of it is completely irrelevant. So is what I think of it....snip ...
I'm of the opinion it is not FINE. Building out and integrating the ECLSS and then flying it in zero G would be a good test. We just don't know what problems might turn up. You are correct that it would be a good idea to have something consuming the the LSS ... dog? monkey? a small custom built test rig? It's wasteful to fly a couple billion dollar test without, ahem, testing things.
Testing Orion on anything else but SLS defeats the purpose of ordering more SLS hardware...
But, but, but Steven - everybody says that Orion is not launch vehicle agnostic, that only the SLS can launch it. So that is not a correct statement?
Quote from: freddo411 on 12/20/2018 09:18 amMy big beef is with the test launch theatre. Why bother to have an EM-1 if you aren't testing/flying (most|all) real components? It's a very expensive missed opportunity for no good reason that I can fathom. There's a small chance there will a flaw in the design, construction or integration of the system that might become apparent on this flight.Now don't start making logical arguments and asking questions here, this is SLS we're talking about. If you want an example of how NASA would like to do testing, look at commercial crew. Drop tests, abort tests, full uncrewed mission with the final design. I don't doubt they'd do the same on SLS if they could. That would require a system that they'd actually finished designing and building before flying though.
Quote from: niwax on 12/20/2018 10:36 amQuote from: freddo411 on 12/20/2018 09:18 amMy big beef is with the test launch theatre. Why bother to have an EM-1 if you aren't testing/flying (most|all) real components? It's a very expensive missed opportunity for no good reason that I can fathom. There's a small chance there will a flaw in the design, construction or integration of the system that might become apparent on this flight.Now don't start making logical arguments and asking questions here, this is SLS we're talking about. If you want an example of how NASA would like to do testing, look at commercial crew. Drop tests, abort tests, full uncrewed mission with the final design. I don't doubt they'd do the same on SLS if they could. That would require a system that they'd actually finished designing and building before flying though.I hear the sarcasm. And I'm in sympathy with it too.However, let's be serious here for a minute. Is it a wise idea to *not* all up test a complete Orion? Can I get an opinion on that from Bridenstine? from the ASAP committee? All up testing seems to be the gold standard as applied to both CC vehicles.I've referred specifically to the lack of ECLSS, but I also understand that EM-1 won't fly a working LAS. Anyone else like to mention other things that are different on EM-1 vs. EM-2 and other manned Orion flights?Test like you fly, fly like you test.
On the differences between EM-1 and EM-2- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves instead of dual fault tolerance.- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems instead of dual fault tolerance.- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems instead of single fault tolerance.- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).
Quote from: clongton on 12/20/2018 11:15 amBut, but, but Steven - everybody says that Orion is not launch vehicle agnostic, that only the SLS can launch it. So that is not a correct statement?Considering that Orion has already flown on Delta IV Heavy, albeit with a dummy SM, that's about as incorrect as it gets. CST-100 also couldn't fly on Atlas-V, but the payload and vehicle was adapted to make it work (the shroud at the base of the CST-100 SM). The same adaption could be done for Falcon Heavy, Ariane V and Proton!
On the differences between EM-1 and EM-2- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves in stead of dual fault tolerance.- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems in stead of dual fault tolerance.- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems in stead of single fault tolerance.- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).
Quote from: woods170 on 12/21/2018 12:21 pmOn the differences between EM-1 and EM-2- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves in stead of dual fault tolerance.- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems in stead of dual fault tolerance.- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems in stead of single fault tolerance.- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have never seen such info any where else.
>Far from extra-ordinary claims, since most of these can't be tested or used in space without humans. Toilets, docking hardware, etc. All of that would be wasted money.In every test you decide what the test is testing, and then build your test article accordingly. Adding superfluous equipment is wasteful, and in some cases can pollute the test results.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 12/21/2018 04:15 pm>Far from extra-ordinary claims, since most of these can't be tested or used in space without humans. Toilets, docking hardware, etc. All of that would be wasted money.In every test you decide what the test is testing, and then build your test article accordingly. Adding superfluous equipment is wasteful, and in some cases can pollute the test results.The next logical questions are;1) what items will be missing from Crew Dragon DM-1 and Starliner OFT, and 2) how do they align with EM-1's MIA list?Not really expecting a satisfactory answer....
There is no need to have the full 8.6 tonne propellant load on Orion for a hypothetical LEO test run, so Delta IV Heavy might even be excessively large for launching Orion to the ISS.
Add orbital refueling and you get a mission architecture that doesn't need SLS.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/21/2018 12:21 pmOn the differences between EM-1 and EM-2- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves instead of dual fault tolerance.- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems instead of dual fault tolerance.- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems instead of single fault tolerance.- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).Wow, I was not aware that much was missing/incomplete. As far as I am concerned that is unacceptable - as in not flyable. I would have expected the Delta-IV launch to be carrying that incomplete a spacecraft, not EM-1. That pretty much turns the whole flight into a very bad joke.
What is the purpose of EM-1?
Quote from: clongton on 12/21/2018 03:38 pmQuote from: woods170 on 12/21/2018 12:21 pmOn the differences between EM-1 and EM-2- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves instead of dual fault tolerance.- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems instead of dual fault tolerance.- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems instead of single fault tolerance.- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).Wow, I was not aware that much was missing/incomplete. As far as I am concerned that is unacceptable - as in not flyable. I would have expected the Delta-IV launch to be carrying that incomplete a spacecraft, not EM-1. That pretty much turns the whole flight into a very bad joke.What is the purpose of EM-1?Is it to test the SLS with a partial Orion acting as a dummy test load?
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 12/21/2018 11:46 pmWhat is the purpose of EM-1?Is it to test the SLS with a partial Orion acting as a dummy test load?Hey A_M. If you’re genuinely interested in learning the purposes of EM-1, I will gladly lay that out to the best of my ability. If it’s just a rhetorical question and you’re already familiar with the test objectives, then disregard my post.
What is the purpose of EM-1?Is it to test the SLS with a partial Orion acting as a dummy test load?
Quote from: Markstark on 12/22/2018 01:36 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 12/21/2018 11:46 pmWhat is the purpose of EM-1?Is it to test the SLS with a partial Orion acting as a dummy test load?Hey A_M. If you’re genuinely interested in learning the purposes of EM-1, I will gladly lay that out to the best of my ability. If it’s just a rhetorical question and you’re already familiar with the test objectives, then disregard my post. I do not need the details just the 2 line description that allows me to understand what is being tested. With all those parts missing it obviously not the Orion that is being tested.
<snip>EM-1 is there to test the new SM, ...</snip>
How much of EM-1 has to be successful before a manned EM-2 can be commited ??..with such a low number of flights planned , there is a lot riding on each and every flight that has to work...
Quote from: woods170 on 12/21/2018 12:21 pmOn the differences between EM-1 and EM-2- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves instead of dual fault tolerance.- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems instead of dual fault tolerance.- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems instead of single fault tolerance.- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).Quote from: woods170 on 12/22/2018 11:17 am<snip>EM-1 is there to test the new SM, ...</snip>Emphasis mine.It seams to me that the Service Module (ESM) is not ready to be tested yet.
Tell me Chuck...Why would you need ....