Author Topic: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure  (Read 19917 times)

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
O.K., so I know this is not part of the plan. This is purely for the sake of speculation.  Some of this was in another thread that was about one specific LV; this thread is to discuss the overall concept of Orion being sent up by itself to EOR with the rest of an assembly just prior to deep space departure. I'd like to compare and contrast several possibilities.

The rationale for Ares I was to separate Orion, for the sake of safety, from the rest of the stack on a mega-liquid LV. Personally, I don't think riding on top of a mega solid is any safer. My other thread was in regard to ATK winning the advanced booster competition with a SRB then trying to use that advanced SRB as the first stage on an Ares I-Super type launcher. That idea blew up before the thread could go anywhere.

For the purpose of risk analysis, I'd like to consider whether Orion should go up on an SLS Block II with other hardware beneath her, or if Block II should be cargo only with Orion going last on something else to EOR prior to deep space departure. If this is worthy of consideration, the next question becomes, "On what?" I accept that early flights will be on Block I and Block IA, so this speculation is for well down the line in the future.

Other than riding on SLS Block II with other hardware, these are the possibilities that I can see (all man rated with emergency detection):

1) Atlas V Heavy
2) Delta IV Heavy
3) If LRB wins advanced competition, make it vectorable, use as first stage, add US.
4) If SRB wins advanced competition, build Ares I-Super as described above.
5) Atlas V Phase II
6) Do not phase out Block I or IA; keep it for this purpose after Block II comes on line and use Block II only for cargo, especially if Block IA goes with LRB.
7) (Edit) Falcon 9 Heavy (As Lobo points out below, I neglected this one.)

Firstly, how would you rank these seven LVs (and the Orion atop Block II stack) against each other as far as risk to vehicle and crew?

Secondly, what other issues do you see for each one in design, R/D, operational cost, politics, etc.?
« Last Edit: 03/21/2012 11:43 pm by TomH »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Delta IV Heavy is the obvious choice IMHO, since EFT-1 will also use Delta IV Heavy as well. Delta IV Heavy has better performance than Ares I would have had.

Because of that inertia and (future) institutional experience and the possibility of problems with SLS and funding constraints, I actually would give Delta IV Heavy just as good odds (if not better) as SLS for the first manned flight of Orion.

Delta IV Heavy isn't going away, and I have a feeling the EFT-1 Orion test flight will cause a lot of people to think twice about waiting until SLS is finished to launch Orion. If only one SLS pad is built, it may be required if a one-launch SLS architecture isn't practical.

Also, going cargo-only for SLS may save a lot of development and infrastructure cost for SLS (very important since we're going to be pretty constrained financially no matter what), besides likely reducing risks (and reducing the requirement for more test-flights, thus allowing earlier operational flights).

Already, SLS will probably utilize a Delta IV Heavy upper stage (so that has to be man-rated either way) for the first two flights (at least) and many on the SLS team are going to be/are currently involved with integrating Orion on the Delta IV Heavy for EFT-1, so you have some political/institutional support there as well.

It fits quite well into the vacuum of Ares I, IMHO. It would make both Orion and SLS more viable (SLS can avoid man-rating requirements and can more easily get away with just one pad). And the integration/analysis work being done for EFT-1 goes a long way to making this more viable, IMHO.
« Last Edit: 03/21/2012 10:02 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437

Other than riding on SLS Block II with other hardware, these are the possibilities that I can see (all man rated with emergency detection):

1) Atlas V Heavy
2) Delta IV Heavy
3) If LRB wins advanced competition, make it vectorable, use as first stage, add US.
4) If SRB wins advanced competition, build Ares I-Super as described above.
5) Atlas V Phase II
6) Do not phase out Block I or IA; keep it for this purpose after Block II comes on line and use Block II only for cargo, especially if Block IA goes with LRB.

Firstly, how would you rank these six LVs (and the Orion atop Block II stack) against each other as far as risk to vehicle and crew?

Secondly, what other issues do you see for each one in design, R/D, operational cost, politics, etc.?

Well, there’s how I’d rank them as I like the technical/economical merits, from best to worst:

1)   LRB with DCSS or kick stage, if this was a feasible option.  Depends on the LRB design.
2)   Atlas V Phase 2.
3)   Atlas V Heavy or FH.
4)   Delta IV Heavy.
5)   Block 1A (Block 1 goes away completely with Block 1A, so that’s not really an option.)

Obviously I like the idea of the LRB being used as a stand along MLV.  If the engines gimbaled (they might not have to for an LRB), and if they were designed with some sort of load bearing base ring and strong back (to lift from the top and take the full load of the stack on the pad, per SLS requirements for a booster), that could be omitted if used as a stand alone LV.  After that, A5P2 would be a good match, if ULA every wants to actually build the thing.  That’s up for debate.  Would probably cost a fair bit, and depends if they thought there’d be any need for it other than a LEO Orion.  Atlas V Heavy and FH would probably be closer than A5P2, because the central cores will be man-rated anyway for commercial crew.  Should be pretty easy to man-rate the heavy version.   FH might have a bit of a leg up, as it –should- be flying anyway.  A5H will only get built once there is a customer to pay for it’s development.  D4H is flying, but isn’t man-rated.  A5 is getting the man-rated upgrades, so not much need for D4 to be.  Probably be easier to develop the man-rated A5H once man rated A5 is done, than do develop man-rated D4H.
Block 1/1A is the least desirable to get Orion to LEO, as it’s hugely over powered for that purpose.  If you are looking to do a 1.5 Launch, you’d be doing a 2-launch with SLS, can’t do a 1.5 launch with the HLV.

So here’s how I’d rank them in order I think they’d me most likely given my understanding of the variables.

1)   SLS 1A (2-launch architecture, really the PoR right now I think).
2)   LRB with kick stage.
3)   FH or AVH.
4)    D4H
5)   AVP2.

I think more likely than a 1.5 architecture with SLS Block II, and a smaller LV launching Orion, is a 2 X SLS Block 1A architecture.  One carrying Orion and CPS, the other carrying a payload and perhaps a CPS.  Depends on how much mass CPS can throw through a TLI, or wherever you are going.
After that, LRB with kick stage/DCSS (if LRB is designed to launch stand alone, it might or might not), because it’ll already be man-rated, and NASA will already be using it and familiar with it.  It’ll seem a little more like a “NASA Rocket” than a “Commercial Rocket”, likely.  So NASA might like that.  Ultimately, such a system would be almost like CxP.
After that, once F9 is man-rated, FH should be pretty easy to man-rate.  AVH would need to be developed and man-rated, but it’s probably closer to ready than ran-rated D4H (might be a push), and man-rated D4H would be closer than man-rated AVP2, which isn’t even designed, much less flying yet. 

Just my 2 cents.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
A 2-launch SLS architecture needs 2 pads, which isn't the current plan and would require more money.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
A 2-launch SLS architecture needs 2 pads, which isn't the current plan and would require more money.

As would a 1.5 launch architecture. 

Dual SLS might not necessarily need two pads, but it would definitely need two launch platforms which also would require more money.

Given the money situation, and the ICPS thing, Delta 4 Heavy seems the likeliest alternative, but I'm doubting any such plans will come to fruition.  SLS is a big bad rocket - why not simply use it to launch everything at once together?  It has the same number of separation events as Delta 4 Heavy, etc.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/22/2012 01:48 am by edkyle99 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
A 2-launch SLS architecture needs 2 pads, which isn't the current plan and would require more money.

As would a 1.5 launch architecture. 

Dual SLS might not necessarily need two pads, but it would definitely need two launch platforms which also would require more money.

Given the money situation, and the ICPS thing, Delta 4 Heavy seems the likeliest alternative, but I'm doubting any such plans will come to fruition.  SLS is a big bad rocket - why not simply use it to launch everything at once together?  It has the same number of separation events as Delta 4 Heavy, etc.

 - Ed Kyle

Yea, I was about to say something like that.

Also, I think I saw on one of the slides that have come out recently, that they are considering launching a lunar lander and CPS to some lunar parking orbit, then like 120 days later, launch Orion with CPS to the same orbit for LOR. 

If your payload/lander, and the CPS are designed for enough loiter time, then you don't really need two pads.  You could stage your mission.

But even if you wanted to launch them closer together, do you really need two pads?  Or two ML's?  So you can stack them in the VAB at the same time, then launch them close together, with just the required turn around time to do any mods to the flame trench that might need, which shouldn't be too long.  They could build another ML, and build it to something like USA's concept of a universal ML that can handle SLS, Atlas, Delta, or Falcon.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
A 2-launch SLS architecture needs 2 pads, which isn't the current plan and would require more money.

Also...as luck would have it, LC39 has two pads!

lucky that...

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32734
  • Likes Given: 8178
Delta-IV Heavy.

1) Its available now.
2) Upper stage is already being crew-rated.
3) It can be used for the first crewed launch of an Orion in a LEO test. I think the first crewed Orion mission going all the way to the Moon is too risky.
4) It can be used as a viable backup for commercial crew.

Disadvantages

1) Need to crew-rate booster stages.
2) Need to build a new pad.
3) It makes too much sense. :-)
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Option 1
Orion to an EML2 ISS-EP station ( SLS block 1 or 1A )( FH possible if it has the delta v ), crew then is sent to moon by a reusable lunar lander fueled by lunar made fuel.
( fuel from moon could then be used for Mars missions launched from EML2 station or NEO mission )

Option 2
Orion to LLO ( SLS block 1 or 1A )( FH possible if it has the delta v )
LOR with a hypergolic lander ( same launcher as Orion, cargo or crew version )

What about ACES/Orion, ACES as it's CM ( from ULA PDF ) on an Atlas V?
That would even get us the ability to have fuel depot(s) when needed.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2012 04:44 am by RocketmanUS »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
I think one way to look at human rating is by asking, "How many more non-crewed flights would you require to succeed before you would ride the rocket yourself?"  For me:

Delta IV Heavy  --- Zero. I would ride the very next one.

Atlas V Heavy \
               +--- Two.  They're each variants of a well qualified base vehicle.
Atlas V Ph. 2 /

LRB-derived   \
               +--- Ten.  I would be trusting the abort system even then.           
Falcon Heavy  /

SRB-derived     --- Twenty, plus two successful ascent aborts tests.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #10 on: 03/22/2012 05:28 am »
Shame it's so subjective.. anyway, back to the topic?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #11 on: 03/22/2012 10:36 am »
I think one way to look at human rating is by asking, "How many more non-crewed flights would you require to succeed before you would ride the rocket yourself?"  {snip}

This sounds like a quality control problem and can therefore use similar statistical methods.  With an accuracy of 1 in 1000 how many successful flights in a row are needed to show that the probability of being killed is less than 1%?

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #12 on: 03/22/2012 11:14 am »
I'm a supporter of a ~50t IMLEO-based launcher strategy.  That would use:

* Atlas VH Phase I
* Delta-IVH Phase I
* Falcon Heavy
* SRB-X with AIUS/Liberty upper stage? (optional)

This would use a lot of EOR, as the OP rightly pointed out; that is going to be needed no matter how large the launcher so it is something we're going to have to accept.

I would also like to see the use of dry launch and cryogenic prop transfer.  It wouldn't be strictly needed for a cis-Lunar program but it would be something that it would be nice to try out and prove before you really need it for inner solar system/main astroid belt exploration.  It would also keep the 10-20t IMLEO medium launchers nice and busy.

The argument for 50t IMLEO, in my mind at least is that, with a high-energy upper stage, you're looking at up to 20t to EML with a single launch, which is a good mass for commercial cargo and fuel support of lunar exploration.  This is, in my view, the next stage for commercial space development.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #13 on: 03/22/2012 03:28 pm »

Well, D4H seems like the likely choice.  My concerns with it, is it has no plans (going forward) to man rate it, where AV does.  Seems overly expensive to have two man rated LV's (3 including Falcon).  If D4 was the better LV to man-rate, why didn't they go that route with CST-100 and Dreamchaser?  Heck, CST-100 and D4 are both Boeing even.  Seems like it would have been better if D4 was the better LV for HSF, then you'd have D4H already flying. 

AVH has never flown as a tri-core, but obviously AV has a stellar flight record.  AV is already getting the things done to man rate.  So AVH by extension, would be man-rated too. 

I hadn't thought about man-rating the upper stage.  That is a good point about the 5m DCSS being man-rated for the first two SLS flights. 
But obviously Centaur will be man rated for commercial crew for CST-100 and DReamchaser. 

So I supposed the question is, will it be cheaper to develop and fly AVH once AV is man-rated?  Or will it be cheaper to develop man-rated D4/D4H?
I guess I assumed it would be cheaper to develop and fly AVH after AV was man rated.  But that might not be the case....

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #14 on: 03/22/2012 03:45 pm »

Well, D4H seems like the likely choice.  My concerns with it, is it has no plans (going forward) to man rate it, where AV does.  Seems overly expensive to have two man rated LV's (3 including Falcon).  If D4 was the better LV to man-rate, why didn't they go that route with CST-100 and Dreamchaser?  Heck, CST-100 and D4 are both Boeing even.  Seems like it would have been better if D4 was the better LV for HSF, then you'd have D4H already flying. 

AVH has never flown as a tri-core, but obviously AV has a stellar flight record.  AV is already getting the things done to man rate.  So AVH by extension, would be man-rated too. 

I hadn't thought about man-rating the upper stage.  That is a good point about the 5m DCSS being man-rated for the first two SLS flights. 
But obviously Centaur will be man rated for commercial crew for CST-100 and DReamchaser. 

So I supposed the question is, will it be cheaper to develop and fly AVH once AV is man-rated?  Or will it be cheaper to develop man-rated D4/D4H?
I guess I assumed it would be cheaper to develop and fly AVH after AV was man rated.  But that might not be the case....

Man-rating Delta-4H was discussed a few years back. IIRC, it was estimated to require $1 billion and 5 years time. It would also have required an upgrade to the RS-68 (I think it was called RS-68B).

However, the opportunity to man-rate this rocket is has now passed and won't be coming back. D4H will not be man-rated. The USAF opposes it and will fight it tooth and nail (because they fear that man-rating the rocket will further drive up costs on an already very expensive launcher and also because they consider the D4H to be "their own launcher" and don't want to share it with NASA).

Too bad, actually. I was a fan of Orion on D4H as a crew launcher (instead of Ares-1) back in the early Constellation days (with a J-246 type SDLV for the heavy lift stuff). Selecting this option in 2005 would probably have us launching crews to ISS on D4H right now; and it would also make better use of the under-used Delta manufacturing facillites and probably drive costs down. Also, the Delta-4H could have been spin-doctored as the "worlds first green rocket" (even if it isn't quite true), which would probably increase support of the manned space program among the liberals...

Damn you, Mike Griffin. Why didn't you chose this option? Oh, I know, too sensible...

« Last Edit: 03/22/2012 03:50 pm by aquanaut99 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #15 on: 03/22/2012 04:02 pm »
Re. aquanaut's comments: I think this is why a new upper stage (be it Common Cenatur or ACES) would have to be part of major utilisation of D-IV by NASA for HSF.  The non-human-rating of RS-68A doesn't matter as no humans would be riding on a D-IVH cargo launcher.  However, after rendezvous, the upper stage would likely be a propulsion stage and would need to be human-rated to some degree.  So, a seperate NASA upper stage would neatly side-step DoD's objections to NASA utilising the type.

* A-VH (5H2) - Crew launcher
* D-IVH Phase 1 - Cargo launcher
* FH - Cargo launcher

If LC-37A is brought to service, that would be about 150t + crew to LEO per pad cycle.  That's effectively a CxP lunar mission in four launches.  IIRC, the EELVs have an option for 6- and 7-meter PLFs, so the potential width of modules isn't a necessarily a red flag.

1) Lander to parking orbit;
2) EDS to parking orbit - is the active vehicle in rendezvous with lander;
3) Tanker to rendezvous with stack and top up prop tanks on both lander and EDS;
4) Crew launch.

A cargo-only flight to the Moon could get away with just the first two launches.  As I pointed out above, a cargo support mission to an EML gateway station could actually be a single launch with D-IVH Phase 1 or FH.

As aquanaut asked: Why isn't NASA already doing this?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #16 on: 03/22/2012 04:15 pm »
We used to launch our astronauts on converted nuclear missiles. I'm pretty sure it's not too late to man-rate Delta IV Heavy (I don't buy the argument that the RS-68A can't be man-rated... ask ULA). And if the Delta IV Heavy upper stage is man-rated for iCPS, you're already almost half-way. Can't really beat the flight history, either.

I just don't see the Atlas V Heavy being used, not unless someone else wants to use it (that someone else is USAF).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #17 on: 03/22/2012 04:16 pm »
It's also interesting to think about how things might have evolved if instead of CxP being chosen back in 2004, if something Direct-like had been chosen, in conjunction with a man-rated EELV and EELV-HEavy.  Either AV or D4. 
Then you'd have a man rated 10mt LV, 23-30mt LV (depending on D4H or AVH), a 70mt LV, and a 105mt LV. 

Gives a lot of options from ISS taxi service, to lunar missions.  LV's could be mixed and matched as the missions called for.

The only real costs would have been the new Jupiter core and MPS, Orion, JUS, and man-rating costs of the EELV. 

Seems like a real bargin compared to what was spent on CxP then tranitioned into SLS. 

Or even better yet, AJAX in 2004.  Need a new AJAX core and MPS, and man-rating of AV.  It doesn't need a LUS.  An EELV-US would work.  AV is now man rated, so you just need AVH to fly for ORion or smaller paylaods.   Man-rated AV is then available for commercial crew.
AJAX is then scalable from 70-130mt by just adding AV CCB boosters.  Not that you really need 130mt, since this program would mean NAA2010 would never have come to be required.  But if you designed the core for up to 8 boosters, then you have that option if needed. 
A CPS would probably be useful for AJAX, but you wouldn't need it right away, that could have been an incremental thing. 
AJAX wouldn't have needed any CT upgrades, and the MLP's could have just had towers remounted to them, as the empty LV wouldn't weigh more than the empty Saturn V did.     

Oh...the missed opportunities...

But I digress...

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #18 on: 03/22/2012 05:25 pm »
Damn you, Mike Griffin. Why didn't you chose this option? Oh, I know, too sensible...

Mr. Griffin was tasked with landing astronauts on the surface of the Moon, and keeping them there, while creating a future Mars landing capability. 

The current program will spend billions, though fewer than Constellations billions, so that astronauts can see the Moon slide by their windows before they loop back home.

Different missions entirely.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/22/2012 05:27 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #19 on: 03/22/2012 06:33 pm »
Damn you, Mike Griffin. Why didn't you chose this option? Oh, I know, too sensible...

Mr. Griffin was tasked with landing astronauts on the surface of the Moon, and keeping them there, while creating a future Mars landing capability. 

The current program will spend billions, though fewer than Constellations billions, so that astronauts can see the Moon slide by their windows before they loop back home.

Different missions entirely.

 - Ed Kyle

Delta IV would be great for launching crew in each option. Griffin seemed to go out of his way to pick the worst possibility.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #20 on: 03/22/2012 06:36 pm »

Well, D4H seems like the likely choice.  My concerns with it, is it has no plans (going forward) to man rate it, where AV does.  Seems overly expensive to have two man rated LV's (3 including Falcon).  If D4 was the better LV to man-rate, why didn't they go that route with CST-100 and Dreamchaser?  Heck, CST-100 and D4 are both Boeing even.  Seems like it would have been better if D4 was the better LV for HSF, then you'd have D4H already flying. 

AVH has never flown as a tri-core, but obviously AV has a stellar flight record.  AV is already getting the things done to man rate.  So AVH by extension, would be man-rated too. 

I hadn't thought about man-rating the upper stage.  That is a good point about the 5m DCSS being man-rated for the first two SLS flights. 
But obviously Centaur will be man rated for commercial crew for CST-100 and DReamchaser. 

So I supposed the question is, will it be cheaper to develop and fly AVH once AV is man-rated?  Or will it be cheaper to develop man-rated D4/D4H?
I guess I assumed it would be cheaper to develop and fly AVH after AV was man rated.  But that might not be the case....
Cheaper and faster to develop and fly AVH even before AV is man-rated.  Note, ULA is already doing the work to allow DCSS to be used on the Atlas V per their development roadmap, opening up more options there.

In addition, AVH is not strictly needed, Atlas V 552 can also do the job, although not for deep space travel as the Orion's SM engine would be needed to finish the burn.  As the Atlas SRB's are part of the man-rating task (being used for Boeing's crew capsule configuration) this is the cheapest/fastest option to get an option working.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #21 on: 03/22/2012 07:08 pm »
In addition, AVH is not strictly needed, Atlas V 552 can also do the job, although not for deep space travel as the Orion's SM engine would be needed to finish the burn.  As the Atlas SRB's are part of the man-rating task (being used for Boeing's crew capsule configuration) this is the cheapest/fastest option to get an option working.

Downix, though I love your AJAX, the AV552 doesn't do this job unless the SV gets refueled. Orion is not intended to stay in LEO. As the OP, the question I posited is about getting Orion not just to LEO, but to EOR prior to deep space departure. The whole concept is to use a differing LV to get Orion by itself safely to rendezvous, after which the entire assembly can depart for deep space. The SM needs to be fully fueled prior to departure. If you want to refuel @ EOR, that's a possibility.  If not, AV552 doesn't meet the mass to orbit requirements.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #22 on: 03/22/2012 07:14 pm »
In addition, AVH is not strictly needed, Atlas V 552 can also do the job, although not for deep space travel as the Orion's SM engine would be needed to finish the burn.  As the Atlas SRB's are part of the man-rating task (being used for Boeing's crew capsule configuration) this is the cheapest/fastest option to get an option working.

Downix, though I love your AJAX, the AV552 doesn't do this job unless the SV gets refueled. Orion is not intended to stay in LEO. As the OP, the question I posited is about getting Orion not just to LEO, but to EOR prior to deep space departure. The whole concept is to use a differing LV to get Orion by itself safely to rendezvous, after which the entire assembly can depart for deep space. The SM needs to be fully fueled prior to departure. If you want to refuel @ EOR, that's a possibility.  If not, AV552 doesn't meet the mass to orbit requirements.
That depends on what role you are using Orion for.  Remember, the SLS authorization requires that a plan for using Orion for ISS resupply and crew rotation must be part of the program, and this configuration, while not working for deep space, would fit the letter of the law.  The AVH would enable BEO operations with Orion, but the systems can be verified in LEO using the 552.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #23 on: 03/22/2012 07:40 pm »
In addition, AVH is not strictly needed, Atlas V 552 can also do the job, although not for deep space travel as the Orion's SM engine would be needed to finish the burn.  As the Atlas SRB's are part of the man-rating task (being used for Boeing's crew capsule configuration) this is the cheapest/fastest option to get an option working.

Downix, though I love your AJAX, the AV552 doesn't do this job unless the SV gets refueled. Orion is not intended to stay in LEO. As the OP, the question I posited is about getting Orion not just to LEO, but to EOR prior to deep space departure. The whole concept is to use a differing LV to get Orion by itself safely to rendezvous, after which the entire assembly can depart for deep space. The SM needs to be fully fueled prior to departure. If you want to refuel @ EOR, that's a possibility.  If not, AV552 doesn't meet the mass to orbit requirements.
That depends on what role you are using Orion for.  Remember, the SLS authorization requires that a plan for using Orion for ISS resupply and crew rotation must be part of the program, and this configuration, while not working for deep space, would fit the letter of the law.  The AVH would enable BEO operations with Orion, but the systems can be verified in LEO using the 552.
Also, the Mars Orion (at least in Constellation days) was supposed to only have a very lightweight service module and could easily be launched on Atlas 552.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #24 on: 03/22/2012 08:40 pm »
Mr. Griffin was tasked with landing astronauts on the surface of the Moon, and keeping them there, while creating a future Mars landing capability. 

Tasked with? OMB beat to Griffin's drum, not the other way around.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #25 on: 03/22/2012 08:49 pm »
That depends on what role you are using Orion for.  Remember, the SLS authorization requires that a plan for using Orion for ISS resupply and crew rotation must be part of the program, and this configuration, while not working for deep space, would fit the letter of the law.  The AVH would enable BEO operations with Orion, but the systems can be verified in LEO using the 552.

Also, the Mars Orion (at least in Constellation days) was supposed to only have a very lightweight service module and could easily be launched on Atlas 552.

Understand and agree with both. OTOH, how practical would it be to set in place a man rated LV that can get the lighter version S/M Orion to LEO, but not the standard version? Would it not be more pragmatic to have an LV that could accomplish both?

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #26 on: 03/22/2012 09:27 pm »
That depends on what role you are using Orion for.  Remember, the SLS authorization requires that a plan for using Orion for ISS resupply and crew rotation must be part of the program, and this configuration, while not working for deep space, would fit the letter of the law.  The AVH would enable BEO operations with Orion, but the systems can be verified in LEO using the 552.

Also, the Mars Orion (at least in Constellation days) was supposed to only have a very lightweight service module and could easily be launched on Atlas 552.

Understand and agree with both. OTOH, how practical would it be to set in place a man rated LV that can get the lighter version S/M Orion to LEO, but not the standard version? Would it not be more pragmatic to have an LV that could accomplish both?
The Atlas is a system, not a particular launcher.  From the 401 to the triple core Heavy, it is all the same system.  The Heavy version needs to be qualified, but the design work was done as part of the Atlas V program already.  The human-rating is already happening to Atlas.  It's not setting in place a human flight LV, it is using one that is already set in place and being developed for CCDev regardless, while qualifying the Heavy version already developed (to PDR last time I checked).
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #27 on: 03/22/2012 09:55 pm »
The Atlas is a system, not a particular launcher.  From the 401 to the triple core Heavy, it is all the same system.....The human-rating is already happening to Atlas.  It's not setting in place a human flight LV, it is using one that is already set in place and being developed for CCDev regardless,...

Already knew this part.

The Heavy version needs to be qualified, but the design work was done as part of the Atlas V program already....while qualifying the Heavy version already developed (to PDR last time I checked).

Being a teacher (Bio., Chem., Physics, and now elem.) who's passionate about space, but not a rocket scientist, I understand a good deal of the info. in these threads, but not the highly specialized engineering. If I am following you correctly, once the single core Atlas V is man rated, it is not that much more difficult to rate the CCB Heavy. With AV already being man rated for commercial crew, the 552 could carry the lighter Orion to LEO/EOR, and then it would not be too much more difficult to man rate the Heavy for the heavier Orion. It would be necessary to qualify a configuration of AV that has never been built. I am guessing that the pad situation may be more of an issue than qualifying the Heavy for manned flight. Am I following correctly and drawing the right conclusions?

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #28 on: 03/22/2012 10:05 pm »
The Atlas is a system, not a particular launcher.  From the 401 to the triple core Heavy, it is all the same system.....The human-rating is already happening to Atlas.  It's not setting in place a human flight LV, it is using one that is already set in place and being developed for CCDev regardless,...

Already knew this part.

The Heavy version needs to be qualified, but the design work was done as part of the Atlas V program already....while qualifying the Heavy version already developed (to PDR last time I checked).

Being a teacher (Bio., Chem., Physics, and now elem.) who's passionate about space, but not a rocket scientist, I understand a good deal of the info. in these threads, but not the highly specialized engineering. If I am following you correctly, once the single core Atlas V is man rated, it is not that much more difficult to rate the CCB Heavy. With AV already being man rated for commercial crew, the 552 could carry the lighter Orion to LEO/EOR, and then it would not be too much more difficult to man rate the Heavy for the heavier Orion. It would be necessary to qualify a configuration of AV that has never been built. I am guessing that the pad situation may be more of an issue than qualifying the Heavy for manned flight. Am I following correctly and drawing the right conclusions?
You got it, although the 552 can carry the full Orion, but with reduced capability due to the use of the SM engine for final orbital burn.  (good way to do a full test however)  You can also carry the full Orion, without a crew (hence no LAS) without use of the SM for orbital burn.  Handy for a reboost/crew rescue mission to the ISS.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #29 on: 03/22/2012 10:11 pm »
So AV552 for short term ( LEO ) and the possible future 5m single core Atlas phase II with or without solid boosters for BEO missions.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #30 on: 03/22/2012 11:38 pm »
Assuming Orion always went to EOR on something else, how much would be saved if SLS were cargo only and never had to be man rated?
« Last Edit: 03/22/2012 11:40 pm by TomH »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #31 on: 03/23/2012 12:35 am »
Assuming Orion always went to EOR on something else, how much would be saved if SLS were cargo only and never had to be man rated?
About $2-3 billion in development costs, $120 million per launch (FY10 dollars in both cases) and would be ready a year sooner.

The 1.5 architecture of Constellation was a smart move, their dumb mistake was in developing an all-new medium lift vehicle for crew launch.  Had they not made that mistake, and just used an EELV, likely it would never have been cancelled.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #32 on: 03/23/2012 01:07 am »
Imagine the sunshine and rainbows* if commercial crew was on the critical path for deep space exploration.

* and moonbeams too I guess..
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #33 on: 03/23/2012 01:41 am »
About $2-3 billion in development costs, $120 million per launch (FY10 dollars in both cases) and would be ready a year sooner.

And I assume developing and certifying AV552 and AVH would be a lot less.

The 1.5 architecture of Constellation was a smart move, their dumb mistake was in developing an all-new medium lift vehicle for crew launch.  Had they not made that mistake, and just used an EELV, likely it would never have been cancelled.

I still wish AJAX could be built. Absent that, how do you feel about a new crusade to make the current program into (or similar to) a 1.5 architecture? (SLS cargo only; Orion different LV)

« Last Edit: 03/23/2012 01:54 am by TomH »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #34 on: 03/23/2012 01:48 am »
Imagine the sunshine and rainbows* if commercial crew was on the critical path for deep space exploration.

* and moonbeams too I guess..

The smaller commercial crew capsules (i.e. CST-100 and Dragon) would actually be a better fit in some architectures merely because they're smaller/less-massive than Orion.

Of course, Orion has different requirements (and thus capabilities) than the commercial capsules since Orion's requirements were driven by the Constellation architecture. For instance, Orion has a lot more innate delta-V capability than the other capsules. But it also is a heavier and more expensive spacecraft.

There may indeed be places in deep space exploration where the commercial crew vehicles (with beefed up heatshield) would fit better technically.

Of course, once commercial crew is already developed, the risk to putting it on the critical path for exploration is a lot less.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2012 01:49 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #35 on: 03/23/2012 01:56 am »
About $2-3 billion in development costs, $120 million per launch (FY10 dollars in both cases) and would be ready a year sooner.

And I assume developing and certifying AV552 and AVH would be a lot less.

The 1.5 architecture of Constellation was a smart move, their dumb mistake was in developing an all-new medium lift vehicle for crew launch.  Had they not made that mistake, and just used an EELV, likely it would never have been cancelled.

I still wish AJAX could be built. Absent that, how do you feel about a new crusade to make the current program into (or similar to) a 1.5 architecture? (SLS cargo only; Orion different LV)


We are better off leaving SLS as is. Once it is flying then we could possible us another launcher available at that time to launch Orion for EOR.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #36 on: 03/23/2012 02:05 am »
About $2-3 billion in development costs, $120 million per launch (FY10 dollars in both cases) and would be ready a year sooner.

And I assume developing and certifying AV552 and AVH would be a lot less.

The 1.5 architecture of Constellation was a smart move, their dumb mistake was in developing an all-new medium lift vehicle for crew launch.  Had they not made that mistake, and just used an EELV, likely it would never have been cancelled.

I still wish AJAX could be built. Absent that, how do you feel about a new crusade to make the current program into (or similar to) a 1.5 architecture? (SLS cargo only; Orion different LV)


We are better off leaving SLS as is. Once it is flying then we could possible us another launcher available at that time to launch Orion for EOR.
Correct.  The less we change, the less delays will happen.  I keep my AJAX stuff close now so as to not rock the boat.  I may not like SLS as is, but I don't find it a critical failure waiting to happen either.  And if there is an issue, AJAX is still waiting.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #37 on: 03/23/2012 02:33 am »
I understand the rationale. Still, $2-3B for EDS/human rating is an astounding amount to spend when there is a way not only to save the money, but to do things better.  :'(

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #38 on: 03/23/2012 04:57 am »
I understand the rationale. Still, $2-3B for EDS/human rating is an astounding amount to spend when there is a way not only to save the money, but to do things better.  :'(

You should be aware that from the perspective of many analysts there is not a way to "save the money" and "do things better."  Yes, there is a less expensive and higher quality technical solution, but that solution doesn't solve the organizational and funding problems.

As regards Dr. Griffin: hate him if you must; hate his solution if you choose to do so.  But recognize that at least he was trying to solve the problem in all three domains (technical, organizational, and funding) simultaneously.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #39 on: 03/23/2012 08:12 pm »
Looking back
We could have human rated the Atlas V similar to what we are for ISS crew and supply. ( Concentrate on shuttle LEO replacement first then equipment needed for BEO ).

Made a new VAB and launch pad that would work for both the new human rated Atlas V and future Atlas phase II ( single core Orion ISS, triple core BEO ).

That is looking back. As for now we could launch the Orion unmanned and use commercial crew to send to Orion in space. Orion is designed to stay in space for a long time ( more than most talked about lunar missions ). So how much does an Orion escape tower cost?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #40 on: 03/23/2012 08:42 pm »
The Atlas is a system, not a particular launcher.  From the 401 to the triple core Heavy, it is all the same system.....The human-rating is already happening to Atlas.  It's not setting in place a human flight LV, it is using one that is already set in place and being developed for CCDev regardless,...

Already knew this part.

The Heavy version needs to be qualified, but the design work was done as part of the Atlas V program already....while qualifying the Heavy version already developed (to PDR last time I checked).

Being a teacher (Bio., Chem., Physics, and now elem.) who's passionate about space, but not a rocket scientist, I understand a good deal of the info. in these threads, but not the highly specialized engineering. If I am following you correctly, once the single core Atlas V is man rated, it is not that much more difficult to rate the CCB Heavy. With AV already being man rated for commercial crew, the 552 could carry the lighter Orion to LEO/EOR, and then it would not be too much more difficult to man rate the Heavy for the heavier Orion. It would be necessary to qualify a configuration of AV that has never been built. I am guessing that the pad situation may be more of an issue than qualifying the Heavy for manned flight. Am I following correctly and drawing the right conclusions?
You got it, although the 552 can carry the full Orion, but with reduced capability due to the use of the SM engine for final orbital burn.  (good way to do a full test however)  You can also carry the full Orion, without a crew (hence no LAS) without use of the SM for orbital burn.  Handy for a reboost/crew rescue mission to the ISS.

This begs a bit of an interesting question.

Assuming NASA wanted to send Orion to ISS for a crew rotation, because of some delay/issue with Commercial Crew.  But they don’t really want to use full SLS.  Let’s say it’s 2018, Orion’s checked out and ready, and AV is man-rated and ready for Commercial crew to be ready.

Are there any options for sending Orion to ISS on single stick AV? (with SRB’s if they will be man-rated as part of the program.  That I didn’t know). 
Meaning, could Orion be sent up without the SM, but with some trunk instead with the ECLSS system?  Does the capsule have enough battery power to get to the ISS and dock?
 (thus would be running off ISS power I assume while docked?) 
Can Centaur get the Orion Capsule by itself to the ISS?  I think the capsule is around 8mt by itself?  Maybe with a little heatshield protecting trunk?  Then Orion uses it’s RCS to depart the ISS and do reentry?  Not sure how heavy the LAS is, but the whole Orion/SM/LAS stack masses around 22mt, right?  SO if the SM is removed, and just a light trunk installed, that should reduce the mass down to where an AV-551 or something could get Orion with a crew to the ISS, I’d think.

Or, as a different option, could Full Orion be sent on an AV, and have the SMME do the 2nd stage and circ burn?  Dunno if it could, just curious if it could if it was only pushing the CM to orbit.  So AV wouldn’t be pushing the weight of Centaur, and the SM acted as the 2nd stage, maybe it could get Orion to the ISS?  When would the LAS be jettisoned compared to when the core would separate?  I think the SM having to push the LAS would be an additional problem.

I’d think the first option would be more likely due to the better isp and fuel capacity of Centaur vs. the Service Module.  But I don’t know.  This just got me thinking about some options.  Basically, if just going to the ISS, the capsule doesn’t need much.  I don’t think CST-100 even has solar panels in the trunk, or much else other than the pusher LAS.  And thus has to get to the ISS shortly after launch.  Could something like that be done with Orion, in a pinch?

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #41 on: 03/23/2012 08:46 pm »

That is looking back. As for now we could launch the Orion unmanned and use commercial crew to send to Orion in space. Orion is designed to stay in space for a long time ( more than most talked about lunar missions ). So how much does an Orion escape tower cost?

Actually you could launch Orion unmanned to the ISS via Atlas(without an escape tower). Launch an EDS and crew via commercail crew. However the law will not allow that. SLS must be man rated.

Anyway http://www.nasawatch.com/images/heft.presentation.pdf

Estimated cost of an Orion without EDS would be $597 million a unit vs.  $840 a unit(with 25% uncertianty each way). Given the fact that all commercail crew craft can carry 7, and you need to rotate the staff of the ISS anyway 3-4 seats would be available for use.

If FH can lift 53 tons that would be more than enough for an EDS capable of sending Orion to L1/L2. In a perfect world you would have ULA work on a Delta Phase I that likewise could lift 40 tons. 

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #42 on: 03/23/2012 10:21 pm »
Looking back
We could have human rated the Atlas V similar to what we are for ISS crew and supply. ( Concentrate on shuttle LEO replacement first then equipment needed for BEO ).

Made a new VAB and launch pad that would work for both the new human rated Atlas V and future Atlas phase II ( single core Orion ISS, triple core BEO ).

That is looking back. As for now we could launch the Orion unmanned and use commercial crew to send to Orion in space. Orion is designed to stay in space for a long time ( more than most talked about lunar missions ). So how much does an Orion escape tower cost?
You just described the Constellation Program under Administrator Sean O'Keefe, before Mike Griffin took over.  He had the crew vehicle narrowed down to pretty much the Atlas from what I was reading, and the capsule was down to two choices (one of which is Boeing's CST-100).
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #43 on: 03/24/2012 12:00 am »
If we had gone the O'Keefe path, we'd already be flying right now and be testing the lander.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #44 on: 03/24/2012 12:32 am »
Is there on open link to O'Keefe plan? Already tried to find one.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Alternate LV for Orion to EOR Prior to Deep Space Departure
« Reply #45 on: 03/24/2012 01:12 am »
Is there on open link to O'Keefe plan? Already tried to find one.
It was not finalized, and was not a comprehensive complete plan.  Instead of NASA-control, it was piecemail.  NASA would set down "we need xyz" and take proposals from various firms, and picked the pieces for each segment of the mission profile from them.  They were doing fly-offs, as it were, USAF style.  You can read all of the proposals to fit the plan here:

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/vision_concepts.html
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1