Orion Discussion Thread 2

[thespacecow]

After reading the article I don't think it's "what they are trying to do". I think it's what their upper management and business development folks are trying to pitch to NASA. I strongly suspect this will go absolutely nowhere, just like "commercialized SLS" in 2022.

I don't think this is as absurd as "Commercial SLS", they have a chance if NASA switches to "Commercial Crew to the Moon" model in the near future. The question is whether they can actually cut the cost and run it under fixed price contract.

[catdlr]

And now you know... (on the Orion)


Vlog 18: The lunar loo – or going to the bathroom during a mission to the Moon

[Hadley Delta]

I imagine the surviving Apollo astronauts are pretty jealous right now.

[woods170]

I imagine the surviving Apollo astronauts are pretty jealous right now.

They've been jealous since 1977. That's when the Space Shuttle toilet (the Waste Collection System - WCS) was publically revealed by NASA. The Orion UWMS (Universal Waste Management System) is a descendant of the shuttle WCS.

[leovinus]

<humor>As we have no current SLS/Orion party thread, let me put this silly note here. I was researching some old articles from 1963 and stumbled on a headline "Air Force Funds Orion program". Given all the doom-and-gloom, I thought "huh?" and found the surprising attached note. Good times. PS: Missiles&Rockets May 6,1963 was the source.</humor>

[eric z]

 Wow, now that's a blast from the past!

[pochimax]

From what I see in the Athena Document, Jared seemed to favor the idea of ​​using Orion by launching it on other rockets; I imagine that would be the New Glenn.

Considering that Lockheed also seems willing to study that option, and that BO has presented the new 9x4 variant of the New Glenn, and that Jared himself saw the BO rocket land, it's possible that we'll see the transition from the SLS to the NG in the coming years.

I suppose there will be some kind of transition period where both options overlap. And it's possible that BO and Lockheed won't have all of this available until after Artemis V.

[Jim]

From what I see in the Athena Document, Jared seemed to favor the idea of ​​using Orion by launching it on other rockets; I imagine that would be the New Glenn.

Can't say that.  NASA would have to compete it.

[thespacecow]

NASA should stop funding Orion after Artemis V (or even earlier if possible), and return the control of the program to LM. If Blue wants to use Orion in their end-to-end lunar architecture, they can negotiate directly with LM.

What Isaacman should do is follow PBR and stand up the commercial Moon to Mars (M2M) transportation system program, which will replace both SLS and Orion after Artemis V (again, the earlier the better), the prime of the M2M contract can decide if they want to continue using Orion or not.

[sdsds]

What Isaacman should do is follow PBR [...]

What Isaacman should do is follow the law.

[thespacecow]

What Isaacman should do is follow PBR [...]

What Isaacman should do is follow the law.

When the law and PBR contradict each other, then yes he should follow the law (and he should also try to convince the lawmakers to make changes to the law in case the law is harming the nation)

But in this particular case the law is silent about commercial M2M transportation system, so Isaacman should be following PBR which does not contradict the law in this matter.

[hektor]

From what I see in the Athena Document, Jared seemed to favor the idea of ​​using Orion by launching it on other rockets; I imagine that would be the New Glenn.

Can't say that.  NASA would have to compete it.

It's difficult to compete when there is no real candidate. No existing launcher can send Orion directly to TLI. The only theoretical option would be to tug Orion using a separately launched propulsion stage, but Orion was not designed to withstand the loads in the opposite (eyeballs out) direction.

[StraumliBlight]

The Orion Integrated Test Lab (ITL) brings the spacecraft to life on Earth, offering a one‑to‑one, high‑fidelity replica of NASA's Orion where every cable, switch, display and piece of avionics mirrors the flight vehicle. The lab supports end‑to‑end rehearsals of Artemis II—testing launch, orbit insertion, splashdown and fault‑injection scenarios—while also providing critical training for the Artemis II crew.

[StraumliBlight]

Forbes: Orion Capsule’s Maker Set To Offer Moon Treks To Spacefarers Worldwide [Dec 28]

Lockheed is now setting the stage to begin “offering commercial flights to individuals as well as other space agencies” aboard the Orion, Byers told me during an extensive interview.

[...]

Beginning with the Artemis III mission - the first astronaut landing on the Moon’s powdered surface in the new century - Lockheed’s engineers aim to restore the entire craft after each flight for future missions, Byers says.

[...]

They project the Artemis V capsule will cost less than half of the Artemis II version, and predict more dramatic drops running through the Artemis VIII iteration.

[...]

“We launch Orion on one commercial launch vehicle, and then we launch an in-space transfer stage or a kick stage or boost stage on a separate launch vehicle.”

“They mate in low Earth orbit and that transfer stage does the translunar injection burn that pushes us to the Moon.”

“There are upper stages that are currently available on the market that could be easily modified to support this mission,” he says, “and then we are also exploring a Lockheed Martin variant.”

He says he was impressed by Blue Origin’s recent picture-perfect launch of its New Glenn booster: “We’re absolutely open to working with Blue Origin and exploring the New Glenn.”

This article might be a little biased.

[sstli2]

I don't doubt the physics would work. Centaur V and the Cislunar Transporter could make it work. Maybe even a beefier Helios.

I question their ability to make the numbers work, however. There are already only a handful of people who would bite at a price tag as "modest" as the ~$300M that Jared Issacman paid. An Orion requiring two launches of a commercial rocket would still cost meaningfully more than that, even if reused. Their best case is a price tag of $500M, but something closer to $1B is more likely. Demand thins out quickly at that level.

[hektor]

If ESA pays for the ESMs (see interview) and the crew module is indeed reusable, they can reduce the cost of Orion in the short term. Of course, they would forgo the revenue they might have earned from seats allocated to ESA, but that impact would be further downstream.

And then they need to negotiate a good agreement with launch providers.

[pochimax]

I'm surprised that relevant technical details haven't been leaked. What wet mass should the booster stage have? What modifications would Orion require?

For example, I'd like to know if a modified second stage from the Ariane 6 could be used and launched on an Ariane 64.

I don't know the cost ratios, but perhaps this collaboration with ESA would be enough to guarantee a European astronaut on every Orion launch. Furthermore, this would allow the SLS to launch cargo instead of the crewed spacecraft and could potentially simplify the current Artemis architecture.

[Eric Hedman]

From what I see in the Athena Document, Jared seemed to favor the idea of ​​using Orion by launching it on other rockets; I imagine that would be the New Glenn.

Can't say that.  NASA would have to compete it.

It's difficult to compete when there is no real candidate. No existing launcher can send Orion directly to TLI. The only theoretical option would be to tug Orion using a separately launched propulsion stage, but Orion was not designed to withstand the loads in the opposite (eyeballs out) direction.

Why would a tug have to attach to the docking port?  A tug could have a fixture on its nose that could attach to the Orion Service Module.  It might require some modifications to the service module.  So why not?

[hektor]

 

Getting around this OMS-E nozzle would be a piece of cake.

[DanClemmensen]

From what I see in the Athena Document, Jared seemed to favor the idea of ​​using Orion by launching it on other rockets; I imagine that would be the New Glenn.

Can't say that.  NASA would have to compete it.

It's difficult to compete when there is no real candidate. No existing launcher can send Orion directly to TLI. The only theoretical option would be to tug Orion using a separately launched propulsion stage, but Orion was not designed to withstand the loads in the opposite (eyeballs out) direction.

Why would a tug have to attach to the docking port?  A tug could have a fixture on its nose that could attach to the Orion Service Module.  It might require some modifications to the service module.  So why not?

When two spacecraft connect to each other, the process is called "docking" (or berthing if assisted by e.g. a canadarm). The hardware used on the spacecraft is called a "docking port". Your "fixture" is the tug's docking port. The hardware on the SM is its docking port.  This hardware on both sides must provide all of the functions needed for this particular docking operation. This particular port does not need to provide for transfer of fluids or personnel.  Feel free to argue the terminology, but the spacecraft must somehow get into coarse alignment, then get into precise alignment, and then achieve a hard lock.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_and_berthing_of_spacecraft