NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Orion and Exploration Vehicles => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 12/03/2014 05:30 pm
-
Looks like we're lacking one of these, so here it is.
To kick it off:
NSF EFT-1 News Articles:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/eft-1/
--
Orion Forum Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=38.0
EFT-1 Pre-Launch Updates:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31078.0
-
Media perceptions about this launch:
NPR - NASA Prepares To Test New Spacecraft (That You've Likely Never Heard Of) (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/02/366832916/nasa-prepares-to-test-new-spacecraft-that-youve-likely-never-heard-of)
A quote from the article:
"It's designed for deep space, but Orion's first mission will be back to the neighborhood of the moon."
NBC News.com - Orion Test Flight Brings Back That Old Apollo Feeling at NASA (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/orion-test-flight-brings-back-old-apollo-feeling-nasa-n260856)
A quote from the article:
"NASA plans to use Orion spaceships to send astronauts to an asteroid by the mid-2020s, and to Mars and its moons starting in the 2030s."
Space.com - Orion Spacecraft Test Thursday a Big Leap Toward Mars, NASA Says (http://www.space.com/27909-nasa-orion-capsule-mars-exploration.html)
A quote from the article:
"...But the agency envisions Orion traveling even farther afield — to near-Earth asteroids and, eventually, to Mars."
It's interesting that the NASA PR for the Orion is that it is the vehicle that is taking us to Mars. But it can't of course.
NASA already suffers an identity crisis as far as what it's purpose is after the ISS, and mischaracterizing what the Orion is only makes things worse. As currently designed, the Orion can only support operations to the region of the Moon for short-duration trips, and would require major funding to make what is likely only incremental improvements.
So after the Orion becomes operational the U.S. Taxpayer is going to wonder when NASA is going to go to Mars with it, and the response from NASA would be "it can't go to Mars without a substantial redesign, so we need $Billions more in funding from U.S. Taxpayers". That's bait and switch, and will only lead to a big letdown.
NASA needs to stop hyping. It should be more realistic in what it can and can't do. Taxpayers are adults and can handle the truth, and there might even be a chance that taxpayers, when presented with the honest truth, would be open to funding NASA for a more ambitious goal. Or not - maybe going to space is not important to them. But hyping misleading claims about what NASA is doing does not help either way.
-
...As currently designed, the Orion can only support operations to the region of the Moon for short-duration trips, and would require major funding to make what is likely only incremental improvements.
Oh, c'mon. For one thing, there is no way you can fit all the food you need for a long-term mission into a capsule that's capable of re-entering Earth's atmosphere.
For *any* kind of long-term mission, you need a mission/logistics module of some kind to contain and transport consumables like food and water and air. Orion is not, and never was, intended to be the sole support system for extended LEO or BLEO missions.
Orion doesn't require require significant redesign to support a Mars mission. It requires what a Mars mission would always have required -- mission/logistics modules to support the specific needs of the mission. Orion is the vehicle in which your crew launches from, and returns to, the Earth. Not where they live to and from Mars, and not what they use to land on Mars.
-
Hmmm. An SLS rep at KSC today told me,when I asked whether the service module is configurable for longer journeys so the astronauts can stretch their legs etc, that Orion is like a taxi that takes you to the way points which are space stations at L2 and similar points. He did admit the Mars question couldn't be answered that way..
-
During the press conference of today, a reporter asked: NSF says that the first crewed flight won't be until 2024? Obviously, Chris never said that. What was said was that the ARM mission wouldn't be until 2024 (not the first crewed flight).
-
Fantastic article William; stellar, in fact. Thanks.
Absolutely a must-read article to bring one up to speed on Delta history, Orion, and its recovery.
-
Another article with an even more interesting claim about the Orion:
Businessweek - NASA's Orion Test Flight Gets Us Closer to Mars (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-02/nasas-orion-test-flight-gets-us-closer-to-mars)
Haven't seen this claim before:
"With the first test flight on Thursday, NASA wants to make it abundantly clear that much of the hardware that can get humans to Mars already exists and is ready to fly."
It's obvious some sort of fanboi wrote this piece, because not even the spin doctors at NASA PR would make this type of claim. But unfortunately it doesn't look like they are going to correct it either, which makes them complicit in the amount of misinformation there is about the Orion/MPCV and what it will and won't be able to do.
-
You can't say it's incorrect. They say "much" of the hardware, not "most". And they don't define which hardware it is. So technically, it's vague enough to be irrefutable.
-
Businessweek - NASA's Orion Test Flight Gets Us Closer to Mars (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-02/nasas-orion-test-flight-gets-us-closer-to-mars)
Haven't seen this claim before:
"With the first test flight on Thursday, NASA wants to make it abundantly clear that much of the hardware that can get humans to Mars already exists and is ready to fly."
Wow, that is indeed a fairly extreme exaggeration. More accurately, "A successful EFT-1 mission will make it clear that one small piece of the gigantic Humans-to-Mars mission NASA envisions is ready to fly, in an early prototype form."
Of course I don't suppose NASA really wants to make that clear.... ;)
-
Hmmm. An SLS rep at KSC today told me,when I asked whether the service module is configurable for longer journeys so the astronauts can stretch their legs etc, that Orion is like a taxi that takes you to the way points which are space stations at L2 and similar points. He did admit the Mars question couldn't be answered that way..
That analogy is good, and another one I was thinking of today was that the Orion/MPCV is like a cruise ship lifeboat tender that is used to transport passengers and crew to/from shore when there are no harbors at their ports of call.
And in that analogy the lifeboat tender manufacturer would never claim that passengers were traveling to their vacation destinations aboard the tenders and not the cruise ships (something the cruise ship companies would frown upon). Same with the Orion/MPCV, which may transport passengers and crew to/from the space-only vehicle that is transporting them to Mars, but is the not the primary transport vehicle for getting to Mars.
-
You can't say it's incorrect. They say "much" of the hardware, not "most". And they don't define which hardware it is. So technically, it's vague enough to be irrefutable.
If asked to make a realistic appraisal, I think NASA would say that they currently have "none" of the hardware they need to get to Mars. There aren't even any approved designs for the hardware that is going to Mars with humans.
So yes, I could say it's incorrect.
-
Umm, yeah. EFT-1 will test an Orion CM (particularly the heat shield) and the shroud jettison system.
Metal is being bent for SLS, but nothing there is remotely ready to fly.
Not even designed or funded, much less in process, would be
- a TMI stage
- a BLEO SM
- an MOI/TEI stage
- a cruise habitat module
- a lander
- a surface habitat module and its landing system
- an in-situ fuel factory and its landing system
- a Mars ascent vehicle and its landing system
This is the maximum number of vehicles I can imagine we would need to design, build and launch to go to Mars. Obviously, you could combine some things, but this list represents pretty much all of the functions you would need to cover.
So -- "much of," I don't think so. Here you and I completely agree, Ron.
-
EDIT_
So -- "much of," I don't think so. Here you and I completely agree, Ron.
How do you eat a government-funded elephant?
One 7-billion dollar spoonful at a time.
:)
Still, regardless of future funding or hardware, always exciting to see a new vehicle fly.
All NASA streaming channels now on Orion coverage live feed
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html#.VH_vKme-SyF
-
I haven't actually found any details at the NASA TV website as to what, exactly, we can expect to see in the coverage of the flight. I know that there are video cameras inside the Orion CM, both pointing at the interior (I imagine looking at the instrument panels, among other things) and pointing out the windows.
But is any of this expected to be real-time? Or will we be seeing replays after things get read out from video tape or digital storage?
Also, are there any planned live video assets that could see the CM during re-entry, and also on the 'chutes to splashdown?
All I see on the NASA TV site is a big block of time labeled as coverage of EFT-1. That runs from 4:30 am to 12 noon, EST, and is followed by coverage replays and then by a post-fight presser.
Anyone have any more detailed info? Thanks!
-
I know there are cameras on board pointed out the windows but live feed.... ?
I would be pretty surprised if there wasn't a live feed of Orion under chutes prior to splashdown but I would guess that there are many factors deciding whether they could do that or not.
-
According to http://www.space.com/27916-nasa-orion-capsule-launch-ready.html
we will have live images. No mention of live video.
-
I like to view the webcam at KSCVC from time to time. I looked just a few minutes ago and noticed this on the cam. It isn't on any other snapshots I have saved. Is it the Delta IV visible from the roof cam?
-
During the pre-launch interview with Charlie Bolden, two items I heard of note ...
1) "This is day one of the Mars-era", emphasizing the spin NASA is putting on this flight being about establishing Mars destination infrastructure, and
2) SLS presents opportunity to supply Lunar-destination support when anyone says they want to go there, whether that's US or some other nation wanting to send a lander to the Moon that SLS can launch for them.
I'd not heard that 2nd one before ... but the impression I got was that while the Moon is not NASA's immediate interest, they're more than willing to offer SLS to support other nation's efforts to get there (!?).
-
Fouled range? What the heck? Another sailboat?
-
...
2) SLS presents opportunity to supply Lunar-destination support when anyone says they want to go there, whether that's US or some other nation wanting to send a lander to the Moon that SLS can launch for them.
I'd not heard that 2nd one before ... but the impression I got was that while the Moon is not NASA's immediate interest, they're more than willing to offer SLS to support other nation's efforts to get there (!?).
Think it is nonsense. No one is going pony up the $1B+ price tag for each SLS flight. There are cheaper alternatives.
-
Fouled range? What the heck? Another sailboat?
Boat of some sort they are saying.
-
Why did they change to Com 1? What was all that about?
-
What is the fire visible down-left in images?
-
What is the fire visible down-left in images?
Hydrogen flare.
-
^^^ The red flame? Hydrogen being flared off.
Why doesn't NASA TV have a countdown clock? Got up to shower, couldn't get any audio on my phone, and no clock, didn't know they were on hold till just now.
Edit: Nevermind. They put the clock back up, then took it back down as soon as they announced the Hold due to winds. They must have been in a hold the whole time I was watching earlier.
-
What is the fire visible down-left in images?
Hydrogen flare.
Why?!?
-
What is the fire visible down-left in images?
Hydrogen flare.
Why?!?
Liquid hydrogen is boiling off in the vehicle and needs to be disposed of.
-
Does anyone know how the Delta IV-H wind limits compare to other vehicles. Don't recall the F9 ever having to hold due to wind. But it's a much smaller vehicle.
-
It's proprietary. Makes forecasting more difficult :)
-
According to NTV just now, it's 21 knots.
-
Not sure that was supposed to slip out :)
-
Why would such thing be a "secret"? Its just a wind speed..
-
I think I see two cameras close one to the other in the TV stream.
Was any launch ever streamed in 3d? That would be amazing!
Is anybody aware of available streams (or recordings, in next hours) from quite-similar points of view? I'll try to create a 3d footage.
What does "Fuel and drain valve did not close" mean?
-
Not sure that was supposed to slip out :)
Might not be the "usual" wind limit for a DIV-H launch
-
Fuel and drain vales. I am wondering where they are in the schematic. I imagine a large pressurized liquid hydrogen/oxygen tank inside the rocket, with a valve sticking out the side. They connect the fuel line to this valve when it is time to fill the rocket up, or to drain it. Since the tank is pressurized, if the valve doesn't shut, then the fuel will all leak out. Why would they need to shut this valve so late in the countdown? Isn't the valve closed when they are done filling the tank?
-
Why would they need to shut this valve so late in the countdown? Isn't the valve closed when they are done filling the tank?
As the propellants boil off there is a need to "top off the tanks" prior to launch.
-
"Fill and Drain". These are at the bottom of the tanks (you can't drain from the top ....), and because of the nature of the fuel/oxiders (cryogenic), they need to top off (replenish) to make up for boil-off. So the valves are open until shortly before launch; near the end of the count, you ensure that you're as full as you need to be, then close the valves, then, in short oder, you go.
-
Are the countdown steps of Delta-IV (or any other rocket) public? (at least for last 10-20 minutes)
-
Problems with port and core valve cycling. LOX valves are OK. The problems are with the LH2 valves.
'Sticky' valves from a long pre-launch cold soak?
Concur.
So is the valve not working to spec? Or the spec does not require the valve to work after a long hold? Either one seems odd to me - long holds are hardly an unusual occurance, so it should be covered by the spec. And on the valve side, surely some acceptance test requires it to work after a long cold soak.
-
Are the countdown steps of Delta-IV (or any other rocket) public? (at least for last 10-20 minutes)
This mission for Delta IV-Heavy is on L2.
-
Are the countdown steps of Delta-IV (or any other rocket) public? (at least for last 10-20 minutes)
not anymore. Propriety and ITAR information
-
Problems with port and core valve cycling. LOX valves are OK. The problems are with the LH2 valves.
'Sticky' valves from a long pre-launch cold soak?
Concur.
So is the valve not working to spec? Or the spec does not require the valve to work after a long hold? Either one seems odd to me - long holds are hardly an unusual occurance, so it should be covered by the spec. And on the valve side, surely some acceptance test requires it to work after a long cold soak.
You seem like the expert, don't you have the answers?
-
When is next launch window?
-
Tomorrow same times I believe.
-
Stupid Question: what are the causes of the limited launch window?
-
When is next launch window?
Dec 5 12:05 GMT, its a 24 hour recycle.
-
From what I've found online EFT-1 will be the 8th launch of the Delta IV-Heavy. How many scrubs have there been in the previous attempts?
-
Stupid Question: what are the causes of the limited launch window?
lighting constraints at the launch site and landing area
-
I hate a very noobish question from earlier today.
Why isn't there strict security for boaters?
-
I hate a very noobish question from earlier today.
Why isn't there strict security for boaters?
Because it is a large ocean, the US territorial waters are only out to 12 miles and we don't live in a police state
-
Will this valve problem cause trouble during detanking?
-
Will this valve problem cause trouble during detanking?
It was a problem with closing, they are open for detanking
-
I'd presume not - the problem is that it wouldn't fully close. You pump it dry, close other valves up the line, and then vent the tanks to clear out any residuals. Then get they guys with the WD-40 to fix the valves.
-
So is the valve not working to spec? Or the spec does not require the valve to work after a long hold? Either one seems odd to me - long holds are hardly an unusual occurance, so it should be covered by the spec. And on the valve side, surely some acceptance test requires it to work after a long cold soak.
Thinking about this some more. Surely the valve is designed to work even after a cold soak - it's a known operating condition. And so surely they took at least one valve, soaked it in liquid hydrogen for 6 hours (or whatever the longest cold soak might be) then verified it still worked.
But I guess they don't do this for each valve off the production line, since such a test is cumbersome and expensive. I'd guess they test it at room temperature, or maybe liquid nitrogen temps, and measure the margins. If they are within spec the valve is deemed good to go. (This is what they do for chips, like the ones in your cell phone. They are supposed to work from 0 deg C to 85 deg C, but they don't test every chip for this. Instead they test it at room temp, and if the margins are good enough, then assume it will work at the temperature extremes, based on full-temp-range testing of chips in the lab.)
So what they have now is some case where the valve can pass all tests, with appropriate margins, but still not work right after a long cold soak at liquid hydrogen temps.So in the long run they could test each valve after a cold soak (expensive) or figure out what they can do to reliably predict whether it will work after a long cold soak (could take longer).
But they can't do this by tomorrow. And swapping out the valves might not help, either, if 2 out of 3 valves show this problem. I'd doubt they can load the liquid hydrogen later - this seems like a huge change in procedure. So I suspect all they can do for tomorrow is have their valve-banging procedures at the ready, and hope for a short (if any) hold.
-
Thinking about this some more. Surely the valve is designed to work even after a cold soak - it's a known operating condition. And so surely they took at least one valve, soaked it in liquid hydrogen for 6 hours (or whatever the longest cold soak might be) then verified it still worked.
But I guess they don't do this for each valve off the production line, since such a test is cumbersome and expensive.
And the need to replace a failed valve after a scrub is not expensive?
I'd be surprised if the valves are not tested multiple times over their operating ranges before leaving the factory. That said, just because they are tested doesn't mean they can't have issues later, but two at the same time is not a good sign. I'm sure ULA will have a chat with their valve supplier...
-
A second article from Businessweek with an interesting claim:
Businessweek - Why NASA's Orion Spacecraft Looks So Familiar (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-03/why-nasas-orion-spacecraft-looks-so-familiar)
"Orion is roughly three times larger than the Apollo crew module, built to carry four astronauts as far as Mars, a 70-million mile round-trip journey that could take as much as 23 months."
It's amazing the pervasiveness of this meme.
-
A second article from Businessweek with an interesting claim:
Businessweek - Why NASA's Orion Spacecraft Looks So Familiar (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-03/why-nasas-orion-spacecraft-looks-so-familiar)
"Orion is roughly three times larger than the Apollo crew module, built to carry four astronauts as far as Mars, a 70-million mile round-trip journey that could take as much as 23 months."
It's amazing the pervasiveness of this meme.
LOL - that same article has a picture of the Orion mockup on a truck in front of the White House tagged as a picture of "the United Launch Alliance Delta 4 rocket". I didn't even bother reading the rest of the article.
-
What is the procedure now - are they going to replace the valve or try and make it work?
-
A second article from Businessweek with an interesting claim:
Businessweek - Why NASA's Orion Spacecraft Looks So Familiar (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-03/why-nasas-orion-spacecraft-looks-so-familiar)
"Orion is roughly three times larger than the Apollo crew module, built to carry four astronauts as far as Mars, a 70-million mile round-trip journey that could take as much as 23 months."
It's amazing the pervasiveness of this meme.
The sadder part is that NASA itself perpetuates that meme, oversimplifying the fact that Orion is only the general command and reentry spacecraft, not the mission extended excursion mode.
-
Valves aren't going to be replaced
-
A second article from Businessweek with an interesting claim:
Businessweek - Why NASA's Orion Spacecraft Looks So Familiar (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-03/why-nasas-orion-spacecraft-looks-so-familiar)
"Orion is roughly three times larger than the Apollo crew module, built to carry four astronauts as far as Mars, a 70-million mile round-trip journey that could take as much as 23 months."
It's amazing the pervasiveness of this meme.
The sadder part is that NASA itself perpetuates that meme, oversimplifying the fact that Orion is only the general command and reentry spacecraft, not the mission extended excursion mode.
I'll take that a step further... Orion/SLS is considered a complete system just like STS....
-
A second article from Businessweek with an interesting claim:
Businessweek - Why NASA's Orion Spacecraft Looks So Familiar (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-12-03/why-nasas-orion-spacecraft-looks-so-familiar)
"Orion is roughly three times larger than the Apollo crew module, built to carry four astronauts as far as Mars, a 70-million mile round-trip journey that could take as much as 23 months."
It's amazing the pervasiveness of this meme.
The sadder part is that NASA itself perpetuates that meme, oversimplifying the fact that Orion is only the general command and reentry spacecraft, not the mission extended excursion mode.
Lockheed Martin also perpetuates this myth. There are radio ads running here in Colorado proclaiming that this is the spacecraft that will take us to mars... Not quite false, not quite true...
-
When it does take off, it is predictable that the NASA announcer will say something like "Liftoff of Orion, the spacecraft that will take us to Mars." They have a tradition of saying something dramatic (and usually corny) every time.
-
Orion is part of the system for BEO exploration.
NASA is aware of its audience, and is targetting its message. Everyone here has to remember that we are of the upper echelon of space travel knowledge, the average common person doesnt have the same space knowledge base that we do(we as in typical NSFer's).
A large majority dont know what Orion is, and even less would be able to differentiate a service module from the control/re-entry capsule. We NSF'ers are an extreme niche minority.
Know your target audience, tailor your message to THEM. The Exploration Design Challenge which reached 127,000 students, the Orion Boarding Pass drive that had 1.3 million participants, and NASA's drive to reach the masses via social media(special viewing tickets for NON-media that possess a social media following). These efforts are evidence of NASA's efforts to create an interest in HSF by inspiring people, young and old.
I enjoy the supposed "corny launch commentary". I wish we had more opportunities to hear those iconic launch vocals.
Everyones a critic, such negativity.....
-
Some of you guys are too much.
"Orion won't get us to Mars alone, NASA is lying."
As the previous person wrote, they know their audience and they explaining it simply and drumming excitement up in the best way possible.
Administration officials have been asked repeatedly in the last few days by the media this very question and they have always replied that Orion will be paired with other modules in the future.
Quit the nitpicking and enjoy the launch.
-
Hear, hear. Enjoy the launch. It's amazing what humans (engineers!) can do, and I'm happy for it to be corny if that helps people appreciate it :)
-
Agreed that it's a sensible set of test goals, but considering the booster alone is more than 1/3 of a billion bucks, I too am disappointed (as a taxpayer) that they could not cram a few more tests in.
These things are going to carry people! They should wring them out, piece by piece, for as long as it takes and for as much as it costs, before anyone is strapped into one.
Before astronauts prepared to fly an Apollo, NASA launched four unmanned Apollo spacecraft, five boilerplate Apollos, and 15 unmanned Saturn rockets. Six of those were suborbital missions that lasted a half-hour or less. And guess what? That still wasn't enough, because then the AS-201 fire happened.
No, NASA should fly as many tests as its most conservative engineering calls for. Then it should fly a few more just to be sure. Any decision maker who balks at the cost should be escorted to view the STS-107 debris, or equivalent.
- Ed Kyle
I think you've got this backwards. I'm suggesting *more* tests, and you are suggesting fewer. In practice, you've got a budget, and you can only afford a certain number of (expensive) flight tests. So to your point, you should have enough flight tests to convince yourself it's safe (safe enough, not perfectly safe). But to my point, once your flight test schedule is determined, you should cram each flight test with as many tests as possible (this was the "all-up" testing of Apollo, which was considered radical at the time).
I'm moving this here from the pre-launch update thread.
EFT-1 is an example of an early test. The idea is to accomplish what can be accomplished now. Right now there is a basic CM and LAS, etc, that can be tested. Right now there is not a Service Module - and there won't be one for four more years or so. EFT-1 is the test that can be performed now, and I believe that it includes all of the testing that is reasonably possible at this time.
I think you'll find that I am in favor of more testing. Some have suggested that I support too much testing. Perhaps. I have to admit that I would have supported the Project Mercury decision to send up just one more primate before Mr. Shepard, I would have had serious reservations about sending Apollo 8 on its way when it went, and I'm still having trouble getting over STS-1!
- Ed Kyle
-
Hi all!
Can anyone speculate why we only have 1 test flight for Orion? Shouldn't we be doing more than one test flight? Since the Space Shuttle had technically, 4 test flights?
Just a thought....
MikeEndeavour23
-
Hi all!
Can anyone speculate why we only have 1 test flight for Orion? Shouldn't we be doing more than one test flight? Since the Space Shuttle had technically, 4 test flights?
Just a thought....
MikeEndeavour23
Well there will be another unmanned flight Orion EM - 1 that is slated for 2018 that will be another test for Orion and a test for the SLS system.
-
Hello,
There's gong to be one more test flight, unmanned, to circumlunar space in 2018.
And, we have to remember the Space Shuttle NEVER EVER had an unmanned test flight ;D ;D
:)
Best wishes!
-
I find it completely absurd that American people can not grasp the need for a hab module on such a long journey. Why not be upfront about it? You might be surprised.
-
I find it completely absurd that American people can not grasp the need for a hab module on such a long journey. Why not be upfront about it? You might be surprised.
NASA has been "up front" about it, and has been relatively clear, if you listen to them. The problem is that you are wanting the full, hour-long, detailed discussion in an "elevator talk" designed to cover the most important points in 30 seconds. Also, the point is to focus on today's mission, and the part being tested today is Orion, not SLS, not a service module, not a habitation module, not a lander, not some other piece of future hardware. Orion.
-
Hi,
Could anyone kindly point me to a ground track for the re-entry? I'm wondering if it will be visible from Honolulu.
Thanks!
-
Hi,
Could anyone kindly point me to a ground track for the re-entry? I'm wondering if it will be visible from Honolulu.
Thanks!
The NASA Press Kit has a crude orbit trace map on page 10. It seems to show that your best bet might be a look at the second stage reentry, which should be north east of Hawaii, but may be too far away at about 30 N 150W. CM reentry looks to be far to the east, and it will be daylight.
- Ed Kyle
-
The sadder part is that NASA itself perpetuates that meme, oversimplifying the fact that Orion is only the general command and reentry spacecraft, not the mission extended excursion mode.
I'll take that a step further... Orion/SLS is considered a complete system just like STS....
Sure the Orion/SLS is a complete system, but only if the destination is within the Earth-Moon area.
I think the best analogy is that we'll be going to Mars in ships, but the Orion is like the boat ships use to get passengers and crew to shore. It's a short-range transport vehicle that is carried by larger vehicles.
Saying the Orion is taking us to Mars is like saying the Soyuz spacecraft is a research space station whenever it docks at the ISS...
-
Valves aren't going to be replaced
Exercised? Lubricated? Purged?
Just hope they work?
-
When it does take off, it is predictable that the NASA announcer will say something like "Liftoff of Orion, the spacecraft that will take us to Mars." They have a tradition of saying something dramatic (and usually corny) every time.
"Liftoff of Orion, the spacecraft that we will haul to Mars and back" doesn't have quite the same ring to it...
-
Valves aren't going to be replaced
Exercised? Lubricated? Purged?
Just hope they work?
Heck call in the exorcist if need be.
-
Hi,
Could anyone kindly point me to a ground track for the re-entry? I'm wondering if it will be visible from Honolulu.
Thanks!
The NASA Press Kit has a crude orbit trace map on page 10. It seems to show that your best bet might be a look at the second stage reentry, which should be north east of Hawaii, but may be too far away at about 30 N 150W. CM reentry looks to be far to the east, and it will be daylight.
- Ed Kyle
Thanks, Ed Kyle!
That would put the second stage re-entry at around 5 degrees elevation at a range of 670 nmi, and the command module even worse (1600 nmi). Doesn't look like I'll be able to see either from Honolulu. :(
-
Valves aren't going to be replaced
Exercised? Lubricated? Purged?
Just hope they work?
Speculatively, the root cause of the valve stickiness might be insufficient dry nitrogen purging before they became cold. The solution might just be to turn up the flow (or dryness) of the purge gas. Did any of the meteorologic people comment on e.g. ambient humidity?
-
Some of you guys are too much.
"Orion won't get us to Mars alone, NASA is lying."
As the previous person wrote, they know their audience and they explaining it simply and drumming excitement up in the best way possible.
Administration officials have been asked repeatedly in the last few days by the media this very question and they have always replied that Orion will be paired with other modules in the future.
Quit the nitpicking and enjoy the launch.
I was glad to finally read this and its preceding post after getting frustrated with all the negative posts criticizing the way this mission has been marketed.
And I say "marketed" on purpose because I believe that one of the problems NASA has had for years is a lack of effective marketing, and I was glad to see them finally marketing this mission by saying this is how we will get to Mars.
There has been plenty of criticism of SLS and Orion as the rocket to nowhere, or what ever, so I was glad to hear NASA finally present what the ultimate destination is. We all know that it is a huge evolutionary process to actually get there, but once you have the first steps identified and you need support to move forward with limited funding, giving people vision of the reason we are needing to do this is a big help.
Contrary to many comments previously in this thread, NASA has said what is really needed. They are not hiding those additional details. They have said that Orion is primarily how we get people from the ground to BEO and back to the ground, and that there is plenty of additional hardware need for a full mission. But most people don't read those details, or care. Right now, we are trying to generate attention to the first steps in an actual flight test of Orion. With out starting there, you don't get to Mars.
When the average person finally watches people launch on the way to Mars, what will they see? Well, according to the current plan, they will see those people in an Orion spacecraft on an SLS launch vehicle. That's what they will think of as "taking us to Mars", and if we need to get people excited and willing to support future spaceflight, we need to present it to them in terms they can understand and get behind.
Lets face it - the US taxpayers pay the bills and are therefore the "customer", but unfortunately, most of them have no clue what is involved in developing space flight systems. Its a very complicated task. Most of us on this forum get that, and as an engineer in the space hardware industry, I get that. But I also get that to achieve your goals, you need to properly communicate to your audience - whether it is your customer, or your boss, or some investor that helps pay the bills, etc., you need to get the support to do the things needed to achieve the goal. And that often requires breaking down the tasks into simple, understandable steps. If you go into too much detail, or say you need an unachievable amount or resources all up front to do anything, you will get nothing.
I hope I haven't rambled too much here - its been a long day and I'm very tired, but I felt the need to add my comments.
So lets enjoy the first flight of Orion, and hope it helps generate more support and greater funding for NASA in the future so we can get where we need to be as soon as possible!
-
I was glad to finally read this and its preceding post after getting frustrated with all the negative posts criticizing the way this mission has been marketed.
And I say "marketed" on purpose because I believe that one of the problems NASA has had for years is a lack of effective marketing, and I was glad to see them finally marketing this mission by saying this is how we will get to Mars.
NASA Administrator Bolden has an editorial on CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/opinion/bolden-orion-mars-mission/) where he states:
"We intend to learn as much as possible before Orion carries astronauts to explore an asteroid and then on a journey to Mars."
According to the NASA Administrator we will be getting to Mars using the Orion. Not getting just to BEO, but all the way there, and presumably all the way back. In a vehicle that, as currently designed, can only keep 4 people alive for 21 days, and can only safely return from a distance as far out as our Moon. I've heard that good marketing can convince you to buy something you didn't even know you needed, so maybe that's what's going on here...
Contrary to many comments previously in this thread, NASA has said what is really needed. They are not hiding those additional details. They have said that Orion is primarily how we get people from the ground to BEO and back to the ground, and that there is plenty of additional hardware need for a full mission.
See the above quote from Bolden. Plus, aerospace experts have testified before Congress that at it's present funding levels NASA will never be able to reach Mars. Never.
But most people don't read those details, or care. Right now, we are trying to generate attention to the first steps in an actual flight test of Orion. With out starting there, you don't get to Mars.
NASA doesn't need to generate public interest for going to Mars - it didn't generate public interest for going to the Moon, yet we went there. It didn't generate public interest for the ISS or the various robotic missions we've sent to Mars before they flew. That's not how things work. Congress has to be interested, and so far they have not been.
When the average person finally watches people launch on the way to Mars, what will they see? Well, according to the current plan, they will see those people in an Orion spacecraft on an SLS launch vehicle.
I'm not sure you're up to date with current technology. Current and future space travelers are connected to the public virtually all the time, and launching from Earth is just a small part of the journey. And today people are more engaged when there is human interaction, which is not happening when they are climbing into the Orion and holding on for dear life on the bumpy ride up.
...But I also get that to achieve your goals, you need to properly communicate to your audience - whether it is your customer, or your boss, or some investor that helps pay the bills, etc., you need to get the support to do the things needed to achieve the goal. And that often requires breaking down the tasks into simple, understandable steps. If you go into too much detail, or say you need an unachievable amount or resources all up front to do anything, you will get nothing.
Well apparently it's been noticed that they have dumbed it down too much.
But again, it's not the U.S. Taxpayer who makes the decisions about funding, it's Congress. So maybe the dumbed down PR messaging has been for that small group of the public, since we all know Congress doesn't pay attention much to what NASA does. But if anyone thinks this Orion test flight is going to convince Congress to fund a human mission to Mars, then I think you're in for a bit of disappointment.
So lets enjoy the first flight of Orion, and hope it helps generate more support and greater funding for NASA in the future so we can get where we need to be as soon as possible!
I have no doubt the flight will go as planned when it finally lifts off - this is 50 year old technology and techniques we're talking about. In fact considering the technological leap that the Shuttle represented when John Young and Robert Crippen flew STS-1 compared to this flight, I'd be surprised if there were any surprises. Which raises the question for why it's so critical to test the Orion at this point - is it that marginal of a design?
-
Which raises the question for why it's so critical to test the Orion at this point - is it that marginal of a design?
I think the best way to phrase that question is, "What made testing Orion now (late 2014) worth the purchase of a Delta-IV Heavy back in 2010?" Those were strange times.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22880
Chris Bergin wrote a fine article once the fog had cleared:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/11/nasa-approve-eft-1-flight-orion-pushes-2013-orbital-debut/
-
Sesame Street's Elmo stopped by to visit the launch pad as United Launch Alliance prepares to launch NASA's NASA’s Orion Spacecraft, which was built by Lockheed Martin. Photo credit: NASA — at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 37.
(https://scontent-b-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10359506_10152769121015379_1009299976937459957_n.jpg?oh=8253e94e94f2ef928b6a082ce74a0488&oe=54D22040)
-
Weather Channel (USA) reporter just explained the orange flare as steam from fuel boil-off lit by lights. Subtle-enough an explanation that it sounds true. But upthread on the update thread it's said to be a flare-off of excess fuel - I assume that's right?
-
Question: Why do they make their clock hold at the 4 minute mark - for 15 minutes? Why not make the launch sequence 15 minutes longer?
-
Hi guys
Why do they burn the excessive H2 from the boiloff rather than saving it for later? Is it that cheap?
-
Hi guys
Why do they burn the excessive H2 from the boiloff rather than saving it for later? Is it that cheap?
They burn it off for safety, plus gaseous hydrogen is useless to anything launch related.
-
Question: Why do they make their clock hold at the 4 minute mark - for 15 minutes? Why not make the launch sequence 15 minutes longer?
The hold at T-4 is variable and can be extended. It is a good holding point since it is before the terminal count.
-
Hi guys
Why do they burn the excessive H2 from the boiloff rather than saving it for later? Is it that cheap?
It would take more energy to recover and reliquify it
-
The hold at T-4 is variable and can be extended. It is a good holding point since it is before the terminal count.
Ahh thx.. They gave the impression the 15 minute hold is a fix time period.
-
Love that live view of the faring? sep!!
-
The hold at T-4 is variable and can be extended. It is a good holding point since it is before the terminal count.
Ahh thx.. They gave the impression the 15 minute hold is a fix time period.
they stay in that hold for most of yesterday
-
The usual fireball that accompanies ignition on Delta IV-Heavy didn't seem quite as large this time. Were steps taken to mitigate it on this flight?
-
The usual fireball that accompanies ignition on Delta IV-Heavy didn't seem quite as large this time. Were steps taken to mitigate it on this flight?
They start one booster before the others.
-
Jim, just to be clear was the LES loaded and fired or just inert, jetisoned and by what means?
-
Jim, just to be clear was the LES loaded and fired or just inert, jetisoned and by what means?
The abort motor is inert and the jettison motor was live.
-
Jim, just to be clear was the LES loaded and fired or just inert, jetisoned and by what means?
The abort motor is inert and the jettison motor was live.
Thanks! :)
-
Congrats to ULA on the Delta Heavy launch ;)
Jim special congrats to you; sure your feeling good right now :)
-
Quick notes on US media coverage. Advantage of a 7:05 launch is the three main national morning shows have all just started. I recorded two on TIVO and used my iphone for the third. (sorry for low tech pictures taken from a TV set.)
I didn't expect much coverage of the launch, because this was NOT a slow news day. But two of the big three covered it live:
- Good Morning America ABC covered it live, starting at about t-20 seconds. Stayed on it for about 1.5 minutes.
- CBS This Morning. Covered it as "just moments ago" with replay of the last few seconds of count and first 20 sec of launch on tape and commentary for a few minutes.
- NBC Today show covered it live, but I didn't get that recorded for more info.
-
Congratulations to ULA - Delta IV teams and Nasa, Orion Teams!
And to you Night Gator. No idea how you were involved but I'm assuming you were?
-
Congratulations to ULA - Delta IV teams and Nasa, Orion Teams!
And to you Night Gator. No idea how you were involved but I'm assuming you were?
Providing the processing facility and support; and comm requirements documentation (to fill in the gaps of what ULA and LM couldn't supply) .
-
I concur with Jim.
If you'd like, you could say Orion is in it's (ridiculously elliptical and about to be really hot) post-deorbit-burn trajectory, but yeah ... no longer "in orbit".
-
NASA/DOD did not publish any list of tracking sites for Orion EFT-1.
On NASA TV the commentator mentioned tracking stations participating in the mission: Antigua, South Africa, Diego Garcia, Kwajelein, Hawaii (may have missed one). Any idea what type/city (location) of these stations?
Others I know of are support locations:
Patrick AFB: 920 Rescue Wing, 45th Weather Wing, Range Support Operations
NASA Centers: Johnson, Glenn, Armstrong, Ames
White Sands TDRSS station
Schriever AFB - NORAD tracking
Recovery
Fleet Weather Center - San Diego
Naval Station - San Diego (port after recovery, ship Orion back to KSC)
US Navy - USS Anchorage and USNS Salvor
Any others?
-
Regarding the cameras, one of the damage mechanisms for camera sensors by ionizing radiation is 'over charging' of the sensor. If the sensor is powered down the margins before this damage happens are much higher.
That's about as much as I can say in a short post. It is much more sensible to power them down.
-
Assume for a moment that Orion is manned.
If the Astronauts onboard closed their eyes, is then when they would notice the blue streaks in their vision? (Cherenkov radiation)
I heard someone say that the cosmic rays are the issue when traversing the VanAllen belt. Is this true?
Are particles from the Solar wind or Cosmic rays more of an issue for a imagined "manned EFT-1"?
-
I concur with Jim.
If you'd like, you could say Orion is in it's (ridiculously elliptical and about to be really hot) post-deorbit-burn trajectory, but yeah ... no longer "in orbit".
Totally agree. I just didn't want any folks getting the impression Orion was heading off somewhere else! :)
(Roger! I was just thinking how awesome it would be if you were online, while we are in a bit of a coast can you comment on the attitude for the second burn?)
-
Quick notes on US media coverage.
CNN and MSNBC did not provide live coverage at all. CNNHN showed a replay about two minutes after launch.
-
(Roger! I was just thinking how awesome it would be if you were online, while we are in a bit of a coast can you comment on the attitude for the second burn?)
That apogee altitude is pretty breath-taking... the altitude-vs-time plot they showed on NASA TV a bit ago was really impressive.
It'll be good to have this trajectory data for a *lot* of reasons, including being able to re-test a lot of the trajectory prediction vs tracking vs onboard systems for spacecraft like this. Things have progressed quite a bit (duh) since Apollo, so this is a good real-world test to pass.
Now, if only there was something else to do with this information other than wait for another 3-4 years. (frown)
-
I concur with Jim.
If you'd like, you could say Orion is in it's (ridiculously elliptical and about to be really hot) post-deorbit-burn trajectory, but yeah ... no longer "in orbit".
Sure, but suppose they now circularize at apogee (I realize they have no intent to do this and no fuel to do it anyway, but supposing). So would you say that during this period they are *not* in orbit? That seems really weird, too.
-
NASA Centers: Johnson, Glenn, Armstrong, Ames
Glenn, Armstrong, Ames had little to do with operational support.
-
NASA/DOD did not publish any list of tracking sites for Orion EFT-1.
On NASA TV the commentator mentioned tracking stations participating in the mission: Antigua, South Africa, Diego Garcia, Kwajelein, Hawaii (may have missed one). Any idea what type/city (location) of these stations?
Others I know of are support locations:
Patrick AFB: 920 Rescue Wing, 45th Weather Wing, Range Support Operations
White Sands TDRSS station
Schriever AFB - NORAD tracking
The Eastern Range which is run by the 45th Space Wing's 1st Range Operations Squadron has tracking sites at Cape Canaveral AFS (TEL-IV), JDMTA, and Antigua AS. It is also the lead range for the mission.
The Air Force Satellite Control Network is managed by the 50th Space Wing out of Schriever AFB, CA and has sites at Hawaii, Guam, Vandenberg AFB, and Diego Garcia.
The Army's Reagan Test Site at Kwajelein has tracking assets providing support
The NASA TDRSS has a ground station at White Sands but Goddard SFC distributes the data.
-
I have one question. Is Brandi married? ;D Just kidding, the real question is, is Orion pressurized as it would be if there were astronauts inside?
And one more - are these camera footage recorded onboard or do they just transmit video? Because I would like to know if we would get some HQ video from them after splashdown.
-
I have one question. Is Brandi married? ;D Just kidding, the real question is, is Orion pressurized as it would be if there were astronauts inside?
Answered earlier in the thread.
-
@Jim
Is Wideawake on Ascension Island involved with the tracking?
-
I concur with Jim.
If you'd like, you could say Orion is in it's (ridiculously elliptical and about to be really hot) post-deorbit-burn trajectory, but yeah ... no longer "in orbit".
Sure, but suppose they now circularize at apogee (I realize they have no intent to do this and no fuel to do it anyway, but supposing). So would you say that during this period they are *not* in orbit? That seems really weird, too.
Nope. I'd say they were in a transfer orbit, but that transfer orbit was "re-entrant".
Shuttle ascent trajectories were re-entrant until OMS-2. We weren't safely in orbit until then. ;)
-
Answered earlier in the thread.
Answering "yes" or "no" would be easier, but thanks anyway.
-
@Jim
Is Wideawake on Ascension Island involved with the tracking?
I believe they are shutting it down. Don't need it with TDRSS
-
Answered earlier in the thread.
Answering "yes" or "no" would be easier, but thanks anyway.
Of course it's pressurized.
-
Can't find Orion ephemeris on heavens-above site. How can I know if it's gonna pass over my head in next minutes?
-
Is it GoPro looking out of Orion's window? Reflection looked like it.
-
Answered earlier in the thread.
Answering "yes" or "no" would be easier, but thanks anyway.
Of course it's pressurized.
Should have equipment conditioning as well...
-
Can't find Orion ephemeris on heavens-above site. How can I know if it's gonna pass over my head in next minutes?
Look at the map on the feed (hint: nowhere near Rome :) )
-
Can't find Orion ephemeris on heavens-above site. How can I know if it's gonna pass over my head in next minutes?
Its alreadfy passed you, plus it was a bit far South for you to see it. It isnt night time in Rome right now, so you wouldnt se it even if it was direct;y overhead.
-
NASA Centers: Johnson, Glenn, Armstrong, Ames
Glenn, Armstrong, Ames had little to do with operational support.
The UAV is from Armstrong, so they are heavily involved in recovery support.
-
Anyone here know the duration of the Delta upper stage disposal burn? How much separation will its reentry track have from that of Orion?
-
NASA Centers: Johnson, Glenn, Armstrong, Ames
Glenn, Armstrong, Ames had little to do with operational support.
Armstrong Center has pilots that will be directing the unmanned MQ-9 flying in the recovery area to photograph the re-entry.
-
Anyone here know the duration of the Delta upper stage disposal burn? How much separation will its reentry track have from that of Orion?
They said it was a 1 minute burn and it looked likely to splash about 250 miles uprange of the Orion.
-
NASA/DOD did not publish any list of tracking sites for Orion EFT-1.
On NASA TV the commentator mentioned tracking stations participating in the mission: Antigua, South Africa, Diego Garcia, Kwajelein, Hawaii (may have missed one). Any idea what type/city (location) of these stations?
Others I know of are support locations:
Patrick AFB: 920 Rescue Wing, 45th Weather Wing, Range Support Operations
White Sands TDRSS station
Schriever AFB - NORAD tracking
The Eastern Range which is run by the 45th Space Wing's 1st Range Operations Squadron has tracking sites at Cape Canaveral AFS (TEL-IV), JDMTA, and Antigua AS. It is also the lead range for the mission.
The Air Force Satellite Control Network is managed by the 50th Space Wing out of Schriever AFB, CA and has sites at Hawaii, Guam, Vandenberg AFB, and Diego Garcia.
The Army's Reagan Test Site at Kwajelein has tracking assets providing support
The NASA TDRSS has a ground station at White Sands but Goddard SFC distributes the data.
With the orbit out to 3600 miles does the AFSCN tracking reach out that far? How from Earth does a spacecraft need to be where the Deep Space Network has to provide support?
NASA TV also mentioned a South Africa station - type???
-
With the orbit out to 3600 miles does the AFSCN tracking reach out that far? How from Earth does a spacecraft need to be where the Deep Space Network has to provide support?
NASA TV also mentioned a South Africa station - type???
DSN is not much use until stuff gets at least 10,000 km out. There are only 3 sites, so it needs to be pretty high until you can be sure one of them can see it.
As far as South Africa, what is now the Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory was originally built as a NASA tracking station, and can still be used occasionally for telemetry, I think. No idea if this is the one they refer to, though.
-
Does this test flight mean that a significant amount of risk has been retired with respect to EM-1?
-
The Air Force Satellite Control Network is managed by the 50th Space Wing out of Schriever AFB, CA and has sites at Hawaii, Guam, Vandenberg AFB, and Diego Garcia.
Schriever AFB is in Colorado Springs, CO...
-
Congratulations to ULA, LM & NASA for their success today!
---
One thing bothered me... & I am no expert in parachute behaviour ...
The main chute performance bothered me a bit. They had an oscillation that caused them to bump into each other and then separate a great distance & repeat. It seems possible that in conditions not too far from today's, they could interfere (tangle or collapse?) with each other.
Was this expected and/or accepted as safe?
-
Congratulations on a great flight! :)
But why is it taking so long for them to get to Orion? How far away is the ship?
-
So, as ORION was falling back to earth, I was watching the altitude on the telemetry display, and it seemed to continuously fall at pretty close to one mile per second. That works out to 3600 mph. Why did it not increase in speed to closer to 5mps? Was I not watching correctly or perhaps looking at the wrong thing?
-
Congratulations on a great flight! :)
But why is it taking so long for them to get to Orion? How far away is the ship?
They've been around 120 yards upwind from it for a while, they are waiting for it to power down.
On normal flights they will power it down pretty fast, they are leaving it running for an hour this time to keep collecting telemetry, thermal in particular.
Based on drone and helicopter footage, they appeared to be further away.
Now a bit of speechifying on the NASA comm with USS Anchorage. Annoying to hear people communicate for "posterity" rather than talking directly to each other.
-
Congratulations to ULA, LM & NASA for their success today!
---
One thing bothered me... & I am no expert in parachute behaviour ...
The main chute performance bothered me a bit. They had an oscillation that caused them to bump into each other and then separate a great distance & repeat. It seems possible that in conditions not too far from today's, they could interfere (tangle or collapse?) with each other.
Was this expected and/or accepted as safe?
Seems like it's pretty common for multiple chutes to oscillate like that for awhile. The SRB chutes did the same thing until near splashdown.
-
Congratulations to ULA, LM & NASA for their success today!
---
One thing bothered me... & I am no expert in parachute behaviour ...
The main chute performance bothered me a bit. They had an oscillation that caused them to bump into each other and then separate a great distance & repeat. It seems possible that in conditions not too far from today's, they could interfere (tangle or collapse?) with each other.
Was this expected and/or accepted as safe?
Seems like it's pretty common for multiple chutes to oscillate like that for awhile. The SRB chutes did the same thing until near splashdown.
Similar behaviour was common on Apollo CM splashdowns as well.
-
Seems like it's pretty common for multiple chutes to oscillate like that for awhile. The SRB chutes did the same thing until near splashdown.
Similar behaviour was common on Apollo CM splashdowns as well.
Thank you both for the feedback. I will have to look at some SRB and Apollo CM splashdown footage now!
-
I took a day off yesterday to see the launch, but I couldn't today, so I missed it. Shame. I did see the splashdown, though.
-
Seems like it's pretty common for multiple chutes to oscillate like that for awhile. The SRB chutes did the same thing until near splashdown.
Similar behaviour was common on Apollo CM splashdowns as well.
Thank you both for the feedback. I will have to look at some SRB and Apollo CM splashdown footage now!
I noticed that oscillation as well... in fact right near the point it went through the last cloud deck, one chute actually moved between the other two, which means the riser bundles below would have woven together one turn. I never saw this on Apollo (although I didn't see all existing footage). The riser length to canopy diameter ratio seems larger than what I remember on Apollo, which (**speculation**) may cause higher oscillation. Any parachute experts care to comment? Please direct me to other threads as appropriate.
-
So, as ORION was falling back to earth, I was watching the altitude on the telemetry display, and it seemed to continuously fall at pretty close to one mile per second. That works out to 3600 mph. Why did it not increase in speed to closer to 5mps? Was I not watching correctly or perhaps looking at the wrong thing?
Orion wasn't falling straight down. That one mile per second is only the vertical component of Orion's velocity. It was coming in at a good 5.5 miles per second, but at an angle slightly below horizontal.
-
Ah, that makes perfect sense!
-
Seems like it's pretty common for multiple chutes to oscillate like that for awhile. The SRB chutes did the same thing until near splashdown.
Similar behaviour was common on Apollo CM splashdowns as well.
Thank you both for the feedback. I will have to look at some SRB and Apollo CM splashdown footage now!
I noticed that oscillation as well... in fact right near the point it went through the last cloud deck, one chute actually moved between the other two, which means the riser bundles below would have woven together one turn. I never saw this on Apollo (although I didn't see all existing footage). The riser length to canopy diameter ratio seems larger than what I remember on Apollo, which (**speculation**) may cause higher oscillation. Any parachute experts care to comment? Please direct me to other threads as appropriate.
I went looking, PPB, and found a few useful reads about parachute stability. This is my rollup from several sources, the best being these:
https://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-0426102-134658/unrestricted/Desabrais.pdf (in particular, see 3.3: Canopy Dynamic Behavior)
http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/paracon.html
Impounded air in a parachute system needs to go to a region of lower pressure. In the Soyuz descent videos where a single parachute is involved, you can easily see a breathing or pulsing type of oscillation as internal vortices build up and expand the parachute and then spill out causing some deflation, and the cycle repeats. Apex holes, annular rings, and permeable material are brought into the design in a trade-off between drag and instability, but you don't get one without the other.
When no spill management is involved in the design, the pressure escapes out of the higher side, which sets up a swinging or coning-type oscillation (to the vexation of early parachute jumpers). In the three-parachute system, all three parachutes are forced to be tilted, so their spill occurs continuously to the central high side. It is still a dynamic environment, and you can see breathing (the three chutes moving toward and away from that central point) and oscillation (some degree of swinging in and out by individual parachutes, and I'd include that crossover move as due to this mode). Long story short, both modes of oscillation are normal behavior for simple round chutes in single or ganged configurations. It can be abated by more specialized parachute designs that manage the spill by converting it into more of a Bernoulli effect--as in inflatable wing or asymmetric designs that may be less reliable for "must work now" space recovery (recalling the occasional resurgences of the Rogallo wing).
-
NASA TV also mentioned a South Africa station - type???
Hartebeesthoek tracking site. Commercially procured tracking services.
-
The Air Force Satellite Control Network is managed by the 50th Space Wing out of Schriever AFB, CA and has sites at Hawaii, Guam, Vandenberg AFB, and Diego Garcia.
Schriever AFB is in Colorado Springs, CO...
Oops, typo
-
If you'd like, you could say Orion is in it's (ridiculously elliptical and about to be really hot) post-deorbit-burn trajectory, but yeah ... no longer "in orbit".
Sure, but suppose they now circularize at apogee (I realize they have no intent to do this and no fuel to do it anyway, but supposing). So would you say that during this period they are *not* in orbit? That seems really weird, too.
Nope. I'd say they were in a transfer orbit, but that transfer orbit was "re-entrant".
Shuttle ascent trajectories were re-entrant until OMS-2. We weren't safely in orbit until then. ;)
This was also mention in the TV coverage: Executing the burn to absolute perfection, the DCSS-Orion stack entered a highly elliptical trajectory with a negative perigee – set up to allow Orion to re-enter the atmosphere at a precisely targeted location.
-
In the Pacific for the recovery there was the USS Anchorage and the USNS Salvor ......
were there any other ships in the Pacific to support the recovery?
Were there any "abort" ships in the Atlantic by the launch site?
-
A question about NASA and the units used. During EFT-1 live cover, three units were used to describe distance: nautical miles, statute miles and feet. I thought that NASA moved to mertic system after one of the probes failure was traced back to units confusion.
At first, I thought that maybe that data is converted to miles for general US audience, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
So, which units are used in NASA, LM and ULA: metric or imperial?
-
Were there any "abort" ships in the Atlantic by the launch site?
There was no abort ships or any other ships
-
In the Pacific for the recovery there was the USS Anchorage and the USNS Salvor ......
were there any other ships in the Pacific to support the recovery?
Were there any "abort" ships in the Atlantic by the launch site?
From what I read the abort system except for the separation motor was inert since it was an uncrewed test flight.
One thing I noticed is the reentry seemed rather steep as if it was designed to maximize the peak heating.
I wonder what sorta profile operational reentries will follow.
-
A question about NASA and the units used. During EFT-1 live cover, three units were used to describe distance: nautical miles, statute miles and feet. I thought that NASA moved to mertic system after one of the probes failure was traced back to units confusion.
At first, I thought that maybe that data is converted to miles for general US audience, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
So, which units are used in NASA, LM and ULA: metric or imperial?
ULA is not under contract to NASA for this mission. You would have to see LM's contract to see what units it uses.
-
A question about NASA and the units used. During EFT-1 live cover, three units were used to describe distance: nautical miles, statute miles and feet. I thought that NASA moved to mertic system after one of the probes failure was traced back to units confusion.
At first, I thought that maybe that data is converted to miles for general US audience, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
So, which units are used in NASA, LM and ULA: metric or imperial?
Others who actually work in the field can confirm this, but an internet search notes that NASA generally sticks to the metric system since 2007 for many functions and designs.
However, as an American agency with a long history of how to make the complex understandable to the watching American viewers (who dominantly use Imperial units), the public affairs teams that comment throughout flights like EFT-1 use Imperial units or illustrate things as such.
You're speaking of the Mars Climate Orbiter. A link to the issue is in this Wikipedia page, which supports Jim's comment that designs and standards are a contractual thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter)
Jim's comment, as he is in The Know, about contracts on this mission determine the proper answer if one can find that info from NASA's published sources online.
-
Back in the Apollo/Skylab days the "Hurricane Hunter" HC-130s flew weather support for the launch and recovery areas - were there any such flights for EFT-1?
-
A question about NASA and the units used. During EFT-1 live cover, three units were used to describe distance: nautical miles, statute miles and feet. I thought that NASA moved to mertic system after one of the probes failure was traced back to units confusion.
At first, I thought that maybe that data is converted to miles for general US audience, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
So, which units are used in NASA, LM and ULA: metric or imperial?
Others who actually work in the field can confirm this, but an internet search notes that NASA generally sticks to the metric system since 2007 for many functions and designs.
However, as an American agency with a long history of how to make the complex understandable to the watching American viewers (who dominantly use Imperial units), the public affairs teams that comment throughout flights like EFT-1 use Imperial units or illustrate things as such.
Jim's comment, as he is in The Know, about contracts on this mission determine the proper answer if one can find that info from NASA's published sources online.
I too found some cognitive dissonance on this. The simulated display of apogee and perigee was in NM while the PAO was describing things in statute miles. Being from these United States I tend to be more familiar with the Statute Mile, and since Nautical Miles are based on degrees of latitude, it seems unusual to quote them in terms of vertical distance away from Earth surface. I do know how to do the conversions for the Imperial vs. Metric and Nautical vs Statute, but if they want to appease the viewing audience they should IMHO pick something for a good reason and use it universally.
My two cents.
-
I went looking, PPB, and found a few useful reads about parachute stability. This is my rollup from several sources, the best being these:
https://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-0426102-134658/unrestricted/Desabrais.pdf (in particular, see 3.3: Canopy Dynamic Behavior)
http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/paracon.html
...
Thanks for the feedback.
Looked through your references and some others & I watched multiple splashdown footage for SRB & Apollo (11 thru 17, Skylab 2,3 & ASTP). For those where the parachutes were visible and all 3 deployed (e.g. not Apollo 15), I did see some "oscillation", but nothing of the magnitude of what I saw today on ETF-1 and also apparent on Orion parachute test video footage.
I must assume this is expected and understood, but seeing the footage is still a bit disconcerting to me. I would certainly like to read any comments about the Orion parachute performance from the "Capsule Parachute Assembly System Government Furnished Equipment Project" (is Chris Johnson somewhere on this forum?)
-
Being from these United States I tend to be more familiar with the Statute Mile, and since Nautical Miles are based on degrees of latitude, it seems unusual to quote them in terms of vertical distance away from Earth surface.
NASA has always used nautical miles for orbital altitude.
-
Back in the Apollo/Skylab days the "Hurricane Hunter" HC-130s flew weather support for the launch and recovery areas - were there any such flights for EFT-1?
No. EFT-1 did not use any assets that beyond those normally used for Delta IV launches. This wasn't a manned mission.
-
I went looking, PPB, and found a few useful reads about parachute stability. This is my rollup from several sources, the best being these:
https://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-0426102-134658/unrestricted/Desabrais.pdf (in particular, see 3.3: Canopy Dynamic Behavior)
http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/paracon.html
...
Thanks for the feedback.
Looked through your references and some others & I watched multiple splashdown footage for SRB & Apollo (11 thru 17, Skylab 2,3 & ASTP). For those where the parachutes were visible and all 3 deployed (e.g. not Apollo 15), I did see some "oscillation", but nothing of the magnitude of what I saw today on ETF-1 and also apparent on Orion parachute test video footage.
I must assume this is expected and understood, but seeing the footage is still a bit disconcerting to me. I would certainly like to read any comments about the Orion parachute performance from the "Capsule Parachute Assembly System Government Furnished Equipment Project" (is Chris Johnson somewhere on this forum?)
I too had the concerned reaction when I saw 1 of the 3 parachutes "dance across" between the other 2.
My very limited experience suggested that should they wrap around in a braid of some sort, that the tension would naturally tend to recover and unwind as long as they were unfurled. I also infer that the way they are tethered to the craft itself could have an impact, whether that is a vertical loop with 3 connections (center being able to go back and forth), or a circular horizontal bar that allowed them some latitude to slide around a center point.
Interesting observations and probably cross wind influenced as well.
-
Being from these United States I tend to be more familiar with the Statute Mile, and since Nautical Miles are based on degrees of latitude, it seems unusual to quote them in terms of vertical distance away from Earth surface.
NASA has always used nautical miles for orbital altitude.
Thanks. It would therefore be easier for me to digest if the NASA PAO was speaking using statute miles while nautical miles were on screen. I will keep my calculator handy.
-
Being from these United States I tend to be more familiar with the Statute Mile, and since Nautical Miles are based on degrees of latitude, it seems unusual to quote them in terms of vertical distance away from Earth surface.
NASA has always used nautical miles for orbital altitude.
Agree that they are customary for NASA. I remember Walter Cronkite explaining what they were back in the Mercury days.
However, I'm not sure this a good tradition. You could make an argument for statute miles, which at least are familiar to all Americans, and NASA is an American agency. But if you are not using statute miles, you should use kilometers. As a space fan, I watched Hayabusa launch on Tuesday. They use km. I will watch Ariane launch tomorrow - they use km. So if you are going to make Americans use a (to them) unfamiliar unit, at least make it one they can use in watching all other space programs. Furthermore, the international watchers will be pleased, and NASA can help fulfill its STEM education mandate.
-
Nice launch picture. So proud of NASA and ULA!
-
A question about NASA and the units used. During EFT-1 live cover, three units were used to describe distance: nautical miles, statute miles and feet. I thought that NASA moved to mertic system after one of the probes failure was traced back to units confusion.
At first, I thought that maybe that data is converted to miles for general US audience, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
So, which units are used in NASA, LM and ULA: metric or imperial?
Others who actually work in the field can confirm this, but an internet search notes that NASA generally sticks to the metric system since 2007 for many functions and designs.
Heh, if only. I don't know what Orion uses today, but Shuttle was Imperial and Constellation started in Imperial. Back in the 08-09 timeframe a big effort was spent to convert Constellation (Orion included) to metric, which eventually failed and was rolled back. It's possible that it was done successfully later; I don't know.
The difficulty I've always heard is with manufacturing. So many large, expensive, (possibly custom) factory floor hardware is programmed in Imperial. So you've got to do the conversion at that end, or retool everything. I'm just a software guy so don't know how true that is.
-
Was anyone else waiting/getting nervous for the mains to open as Rob Navias ticked off altitude? It seems the Soyuz gets on its main chute much higher up. I don't a feel for when Apollo got on it's mains because I've never seen film of how high up the chutes opened.
-
What are mechanics of how a burn that raised apogee dropped the perigee at the same time? Was the centroid of the elliptical orbit somehow shifted?
-
Are there any updates on how recovery is proceeding?
-
During reentry they reported that Orion was pulling 8g. Is that what it would be designed to do with astronauts, too, when returning for deep space or was this to create more extreme conditions to test the heat shield and manned returns would use a skip-reentry?
-
During reentry they reported that Orion was pulling 8g. Is that what it would be designed to do with astronauts, too, when returning for deep space or was this to create more extreme conditions to test the heat shield and manned returns would use a skip-reentry?
Apollo would take something like 6.5-7.2 g's on reentry, so I would think this is not that abnormal.
-
Did anyone notice how the UAV seemed to lose track of the landed Orion?
We saw still frames from the helo, but I was getting worried for a while as the flotation spheres seemed to deflate one by one...
At one point I thought it may have sunk...
-
Hello.
I have a question that maybe someone in guidance systems can respond to. Being knowledgeable about guidance systems and Astrodynamics in general, I know that a perfect solution is never possible when the equations are solved. They are for the most part a numerical solution suffering to one degree or another between truncation and round-off errors. Add to that, the inherent sensitivity errors indicative of any gyro or accelerometer, and burn errors of the engines or thrusters themselves. Thus, the most often need for a midcourse correction (planned and unplanned) at one or more points in an orbit.
It was reported by Mission Control during EFT-1 that the guidance system performed so well (better than expectations) that the orbit was calculated such that no midcourse was required and re-entry ended in a "spot-on" landing in the Pacific Ocean. It was stated (in so many words) that this was unusual for such a long flight path.
My big question is, were the algorithms and techniques used truly capable of such precision, considering all of the numerous sources of error, OR, was it simply a matter of all of those sources of error canceling each other out in one of those rare "sweet moments" when all was said and done?
-
It took me about 3 or 4 views of the videos, but I noticed each parachute had it's own distinct pattern of stripes. I assume this was used to track the deployment and movement of each during descent.
-
What are mechanics of how a burn that raised apogee dropped the perigee at the same time? Was the centroid of the elliptical orbit somehow shifted?
Targeteer, You can never shift the centroid of a conic orbit such as an ellipse...A conic orbit is always centered on one of the foci. The only way to keep perigee constant is if the burn occurs exactly at perigee and the flight path angle is exactly tangent to the orbit at the moment of the burn (Local Horizontal). But it is impossible to do a perfect impulse burn (a thrust period only lasting for an instantaneous moment) so even if the above rules are followed, any burn occurs over a time span, so realistically, perigee would always change to one extent or another.
-
What are mechanics of how a burn that raised apogee dropped the perigee at the same time? Was the centroid of the elliptical orbit somehow shifted?
Targeteer, You can never shift the centroid of a conic orbit such as an ellipse...A conic orbit is always centered on one of the foci. The only way to keep perigee constant is if the burn occurs exactly at perigee and the flight path angle is exactly tangent to the orbit at the moment of the burn (Local Horizontal). But it is impossible to do a perfect impulse burn (a thrust period only lasting for an instantaneous moment) so even if the above rules are followed, any burn occurs over a time span, so realistically, perigee would always change to one extent or another.
How does a 4.5 minute posigrade burn raise one part of an orbit while dropping another part of the orbit? You lower an orbit by decreasing velocity so how is velocity decreased in such a short burn for another part of the orbit?
-
How does a 4.5 minute posigrade burn raise one part of an orbit while dropping another part of the orbit?
I think it is sufficient to consider the case of an impulsive burn at perigee.
The burn could not have been purely posigrade, as you suggest. There must have been a component of the burn orthogonal to the direction of motion, radially outward from the Earth. Now run time backwards ;) and see that the new trajectory intersects the atmosphere. Of course with time moving forward it will do so again just short of one revolution around the Earth.
PS: I think this video shows it well, just at the 1 minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVuOlpImsSQ
-
This launch brought back a LOT of memories for me. I remember as a kid watching the Apollo 4 launch which also tested out the command module as well.
-
How does a 4.5 minute posigrade burn raise one part of an orbit while dropping another part of the orbit? You lower an orbit by decreasing velocity so how is velocity decreased in such a short burn for another part of the orbit?
A 4.5 min burn at say a circular orbit of 280 miles altitude above the Earth will be completed in about 1282.6 miles of travel, or about 17.3 degrees of arc. That's a lot.
If the posigrade burn is at perigee, and you assume a perfect instantaneous impulse, you get an increase in apogee with no change in perigee. On the other hand, if the posigrade burn is at apogee, there is an increase in perigee with no change in apogee. So what happens if the LH-burn is somewhere between apogee and perigee? Both perigee and apogee change.
During EFT-1, as we watched the orbit climb out to 3600 miles altitude, you could clearly see perigee change as well. So I can only assume the burn was intentionally started early or late relative to perigee. Add about 17.3 degrees of travel over the burn and you get what you get, which is what they needed to shape the flight path so that reentry was what they needed it to be.
It's been awhile but I think that also, if you burn early or late relative to the peripoint or the apopoint, you also steer the resulting orbit so that the major axis has rotated in the plane of the orbit (argument of the peripoint).
-
You can also affect both perigee and apogee by thrusting "off-vector" - i.e, not along the velocity vector. If you pitch up 90 degrees (engine nozzle pointing down toward the ground) and thrust, you'll change the shape of your orbit. It's not as efficient as a well-timed along-vector impulse (it's a vector sum, so you get cosine losses... ) but it's an option.
-
Gerst mentioned in the post splashdown presser that he is going to appear at hearing in a week’s time. In all the afterglow of EFT-1 I hope the congressmen don’t start mentioning the movie “Interstellar” like they did after “Gravity” came out because I’m really going to puke this time... :o “Money talks”...you know the rest...
-
This launch brought back a LOT of memories for me. I remember as a kid watching the Apollo 4 launch which also tested out the command module as well.
Now that the propaganda machine has run out of steam, time to reflect, compare and face reality.
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=72662
-
Sorry if this has already been answered, but in the video of the launch taken from the service gantry it looked like a few wires remained attached to the rocket until it had risen a couple hundred feet. Does anyone know what those do and why they stay attached so long?
-
Sorry if this has already been answered, but in the video of the launch taken from the service gantry it looked like a few wires remained attached to the rocket until it had risen a couple hundred feet. Does anyone know what those do and why they stay attached so long?
I believe it is some kind of a LOIS (liftoff instrumentation system)
-
Any idea when USS Achorage and USNS Salvor will return to port? Any photos of the return? How long until they unload Orion?
-
I am sure that this has been asked before but why was Orion black (and not white)?
-
Greetings all.
Please forgive my ignorance, but I have seen numerous reports stating Orion is the capsule that will go to Mars and Back. The latest launch was to test the heat shield for very high speed re-entry?
Why?
How is it more efficient to take an Earth re-entry vehicle to Mars and Back?
I was under the impression that that the mission would be assembled at ISS. Launched from ISS. Recovered to ISS.
Leave the ride home in LEO.
The single-launch to Mars idea seems marginal at best for any results. And if there will be multiple launches and assembly in LEO, then why take the re-entry vehicle along? Is someone afraid the ISS will fall down before they get back? ;)
Would it really save resources to take it along? Seems like a lot of mass to haul on a possibly 200 million mile round trip. Seems like a lot of fuel and other consumables could take up that mass fraction.
Where is the flaw in my thinking please? I must be missing something. Are the fuel requirements to slow down to dock with ISS on the way home the issue?
Are we just going to jettison everything but the re-entry vehicle upon arrival back at Earth?
A Mars transfer module would seem to be a re-usable asset, that would need refit for another mission.
I am nowhere near as informed as I would wish to be on this particular subject, but there seems to be a disconnect somewhere between the laws of orbital mechanics and what my common sense is telling me.
I was thinking along the lines of four to five launches, with assembly and insertion from ISS. Then I see all this Orion to Mars media coverage. All I could think of was two years of spam in a can. Null G? All the way there and back? Puffy-faced skinny people on TV selling space discovery? 9 G re-entry after all of that?
Again, I ask myself, what am I missing?
---------------------
The discovery and knowledge gained, as well as the pure human need to push, makes a trip to Mars a requirement in my opinion. But unless we want government and military funding everything, there is a genuine need to get industry and especially tourism into space. There must be a way to make this journey under some form of G, as well as give the travelers enough cubic volume to maintain reasonable mental and emotional health. How it looks is unfortunately almost as important as the actual deed itself.
Raise my taxes if that is what it takes. Show me where to donate. But, please let's not do this on a shoestring. Sending a phone booth that smells like a locker room to Mars will not get a LEO Hyatt Regency built anytime soon. ;) And make no mistake, we need that Hyatt... as well as US Steel, Dow Chemical, etc. I want 100 boosters a year rolling off the lines. Economies of scale.
-----------------
Thanks for your attention. Show me where to send a check.
-
The media aren't exactly careful with the way they use words. Plenty of architectures do leave the capsule in LEO. Some take the capsule out to a Lagrange point, and take it from there. This is probably a better way to do it, but there are things that Orion can do all by itself, especially in terms of navigation, communications, RCS, &c. which are expected of a command/service module. It works much better for lunar missions than Martian ones. In any case, Orion's on-space time specification is far too low for it to function as a Mars anything without modifications.
Also, even if a Mars transfer vehicle was built in LEO, it would not be at the ISS, which is not designed for such activity.
-
Greetings all.
Please forgive my ignorance, but I have seen numerous reports stating Orion is the capsule that will go to Mars and Back. The latest launch was to test the heat shield for very high speed re-entry?
Why?
How is it more efficient to take an Earth re-entry vehicle to Mars and Back?
I was under the impression that that the mission would be assembled at ISS. Launched from ISS. Recovered to ISS.
Leave the ride home in LEO.
If you leave the ride home in LEO then you need to brake into LEO instead of direct reentry. That takes a LOT of delta-v. Much easier to come in directly.
Using electric propulsion changes the equation though. But that brings its own set of brandnew problems.
The other alternative is leaving from and/or returning to some earth-moon L point. But that increases mission complexity also.
-
The other alternative is leaving from and/or returning to some earth-moon L point. But that increases mission complexity also.
Do someone knows exactly why aerobraking a la MRO is not a viable option?
Too much time to ~ circularize the orbit that, in turn, would require more resources on board, so that as the technology allows it, it's better to build an high-performance shield?
Or maybe because is a risky operation open for disaster?
-
I am sure that this has been asked before but why was Orion black (and not white)?
The black parts are tiles like on the Space Shuttle.
-
Do someone knows exactly why aerobraking a la MRO is not a viable option?
Too much time to ~ circularize the orbit that, in turn, would require more resources on board, so that as the technology allows it, it's better to build an high-performance shield?
Or maybe because is a risky operation open for disaster?
I just looked up MRO in Wikipedia. It is as I expected. The arrival speed was quite low. Arrival at earth will be much faster. Then MRO was braked into an elliptical orbit that was circularized by aerobraking.
Doing that at earth will require much higher delta-v expended for capture. Then a lot of time for aerobraking with many passes through the vanAllen Belt. Or you build a vehicle that is designed for aerocapture with aerodynamic shape and a massive heatshield. But then you can land it back on earth. Why brake into LEO? It would require a much larger effort than MRO aerobraking that was done slowly, not requiring strict aerodynamic shape, just protecting some instruments.
Edit: fixed quote
-
Why didn't they use tiles on main heat shield?
-
right, Guckyfan. However, MRO wasn't designed for a real re-entry.
Also, I wonder if there are limits for actual aerobraking. I mean: given a speed, an angle, a planet atmosphere, which are the limits for aerobraking efficiency? It is not completely intuitive that you cannot aerobrake in such a way that the system directly aims to a given trajectory.
-
To me, it makes the most sense to have the MTV seperate from the crew return vehicle where the MTV misses earth and the crew return vehicle intersects it. That way, the MTV can spend all the time it needs to do an efficient manuever with mass efficient propulsion to get captured into some orbit in the Earth-Moon system without worrying about extending the life support endurance to encompass the manuever. The MTV can also do far more daring or experimental manuevers like aerocapture when unmanned. Having a more capable return capsule with some independant life support capabilities means the two vehicles can seperate earlier giving the MTV some more time to get manuevered into an optimal trajectory.
I'm of the opinion that any NASA Mars architecture will have 2 crew return vehicles for redundancy in case one gets damaged or malfunctions. During the Apollo 13 mishap, there was worry that the heatshield was damaged in the explosion. If the Mars crew is 4, then the 2 orions can act as the private quarters for the crew with them rotating every 12 hours - 2 shifts with 2 people assigned to each shift. Beyond that, having two lifeboats will extend the life support endurance of the lifeboats considerably.
In addition, the MPCV could operate in the Mars/Phobos/Diemos system on its own equivalent to how it does Cislunar missions more or less independantly.
-
right, Guckyfan. However, MRO wasn't designed for a real re-entry.
Also, I wonder if there are limits for actual aerobraking. I mean: given a speed, an angle, a planet atmosphere, which are the limits for aerobraking efficiency? It is not completely intuitive that you cannot aerobrake in such a way that the system directly aims to a given trajectory.
All true. And I did mention all of it in my post. At least I intended to, maybe I was not clear enough. My point is that when you design a vehicle capable of that you can very likely go just one step further and land it directly instead of going to LEO. MCT! ;D
The heatshield will have to take more for landing though. A lot more, another 8km/s to brake.
-
Any idea when USS Achorage and USNS Salvor will return to port? Any photos of the return?
The current schedule is arrival in San Diego on Monday. A media event is planned there.
-
Why didn't they use tiles on main heat shield?
The material is not designed to withstand leading edge reentry at those speeds, only secondary structures.
-
Was just peaking at this photo (attached). What are the four satellite looking dishes for on the balconys of the MST? Im assuming they are microwave transmissions to a ground station rather than to a satellite in the sky? If so, won't they fail to work during the launch due to exhaust obstructions and vibrations?
-
Was just peaking at this photo (attached). What are the four satellite looking dishes for on the balconys of the MST? Im assuming they are microwave transmissions to a ground station rather than to a satellite in the sky? If so, won't they fail to work during the launch due to exhaust obstructions and vibrations?
They are only used when the vehicle is covered by the MST. They aren't used when the MST is rolled back
-
Ok. I have seen several views in the photos of a great display model of the orion/ delta IV stack ( yes, including Elmo holding it, i think.) Is this model available somewhere, or a custom build for the NASA pr effort surrounding this launch? This is the most handsome space vehicle i have seen in a long time.
-
Real Space Models makes one for 80.00, but you have to build it yourself. He will soon have one that features the 2nd stage, the Orion Capsule (not just the ballistic cover and LES), etc.
http://realspacemodels.com/cgi-bin/checkitout/checkitout.cgi?realspacSTORE:CKIE:prod144D-IVEFT+
-
Ok. I have seen several views in the photos of a great display model of the orion/ delta IV stack ( yes, including Elmo holding it, i think.) Is this model available somewhere, or a custom build for the NASA pr effort surrounding this launch? This is the most handsome space vehicle i have seen in a long time.
ULA is selling one.
http://www.ulalaunchstore.com/120th-scale-delta-iv-heavy-with-orion-capsule/
-
All right, got the notice from NASA PAO that I'm on the list and will be attending the Orion arrival and offload at the San Diego Naval base tomorrow night.
I will have the opportunity to one on one interview the USS anchorage captain, NASA Astronaut Suni Williams, and NASA Recovery Director Jeremy Graeber. Any specific burning questions any NSFer has that they'd like answered by any of these fine folks?
I will do my best at pictures given that its happening at night and closest stated distance to the vehicle is 50 to 100 feet.
-
All right, got the notice from NASA PAO that I'm on the list and will be attending the Orion arrival and offload at the San Diego Naval base tomorrow night.
I will have the opportunity to one on one interview the USS anchorage captain, NASA Astronaut Suni Williams, and NASA Recovery Director Jeremy Graeber. Any specific burning questions any NSFer has that they'd like answered by any of these fine folks?
The capsule exterior looks surprisingly intact after the ‘trial by fire’. It is well known that Orion was always envisioned to be partially reusable, and we’ve been told that the EFT-1 capsule will be recycled for the ascent abort test. How much refurbishment do they expect in order to ready it for the next test? Some quick plumbing, a complete rebuild, or something in between?
I understand the schedule is budget driven and they’re probably not very concerned with the turnaround, so this is just a hypothetical question. Thanks very much.
-
Greetings all.
Please forgive my ignorance, but I have seen numerous reports stating Orion is the capsule that will go to Mars and Back. The latest launch was to test the heat shield for very high speed re-entry?
Why?
How is it more efficient to take an Earth re-entry vehicle to Mars and Back?
I was under the impression that that the mission would be assembled at ISS. Launched from ISS. Recovered to ISS.
Leave the ride home in LEO.
If you leave the ride home in LEO then you need to brake into LEO instead of direct reentry. That takes a LOT of delta-v. Much easier to come in directly.
Using electric propulsion changes the equation though. But that brings its own set of brandnew problems.
The other alternative is leaving from and/or returning to some earth-moon L point. But that increases mission complexity also.
Or you simply enter directly from a Mars-Earth trajectory, leaving your crew transfer vehicle in solar orbit.
-
Now that the propaganda machine has run out of steam, time to reflect, compare and face reality.
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=72662
I'm not sure why the author is comparing EFT-1 with Apollo 4, which used a Saturn V. A better comparison would have been with AS-201 and AS-202 (the first and third Apollo flights) which used Saturn IB's to launch Block I Apollo CSM's into a suborbital trajectories. These flights achieved peaks of 492 km and 1,143 km, respectively. Re-entry speeds were 8.3 km/s and 8.69 km/s, respectively. EFT-1 had a peak of 5800 km and a speed of 9 km/s, so its doing pretty well compared to these flights.
-
Now that the propaganda machine has run out of steam, time to reflect, compare and face reality.
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=72662
I'm not sure why the author is comparing EFT-1 with Apollo 4, which used a Saturn V. A better comparison would have been with AS-201 and AS-202 (the first and third Apollo flights) which used Saturn IB's to launch Block I Apollo CSM's into a suborbital trajectories. These flights achieved peaks of 492 km and 1,143 km, respectively. Re-entry speeds were 8.3 km/s and 8.69 km/s, respectively. EFT-1 had a peak of 5800 km and a speed of 9 km/s, so its doing pretty well compared to these flights.
Agreed. As observed here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36216.msg1296554#msg1296554) as well.
-
I'm of the opinion that any NASA Mars architecture will have 2 crew return vehicles for redundancy
I too would like to see this, but the difficulty is that the Orion CSM is a lot of mass for not much habitable volume. The propellant cost for transferring two of them from cis-lunar space to high Mars orbit, and then back onto a trajectory that reaches Earth, seems almost unsupportable. (I say "almost" because an abundant chemical propulsion architecture, relying on e.g. lunar propellant production, would make this much less of an issue.)
So I think if NASA goes "Mars before Moon" the failure of the (single) Orion contingency is covered by some other means, likely having the crew stay with the habitat until it can be reached by a freshly launched rescue Orion....
-
Do someone knows exactly why aerobraking a la MRO is not a viable option?
Too much time to ~ circularize the orbit that, in turn, would require more resources on board, so that as the technology allows it, it's better to build an high-performance shield?
Or maybe because is a risky operation open for disaster?
I just looked up MRO in Wikipedia. It is as I expected. The arrival speed was quite low. Arrival at earth will be much faster. Then MRO was braked into an elliptical orbit that was circularized by aerobraking.
Doing that at earth will require much higher delta-v expended for capture. Then a lot of time for aerobraking with many passes through the vanAllen Belt. Or you build a vehicle that is designed for aerocapture with aerodynamic shape and a massive heatshield. But then you can land it back on earth. Why brake into LEO? It would require a much larger effort than MRO aerobraking that was done slowly, not requiring strict aerodynamic shape, just protecting some instruments.
Edit: fixed quote
Could start at EML-1 and end at Mars L-1. Then go back from Mars L-1 to Earth/Moon L-1.
With L-1 to Mars L-1 do the trip in 7 months or less. And from Mars L-1 to surface go directly to the Surface.
And going directly from Earth surface to EML-1. And on return go directly from EML-1 to Earth surface.
And from Earth get to L-1 in about 3 days [only once thru Van Allen, and same from L-1 to Earth surface].
Now in terms Mars L-1, it could be L-2 and/or Lissajous orbits. Or simply a highly elliptical orbit which is traveling at low velocity at apogee but still within Mars gravitational sphere of influence- or say less than 500,000 km from Mars.
So Earth's EML-1 is a region say, 270,000 to 340,000 km from Earth. And the middle point ["the point"] at about 310,000 . Earth's other L-1 [Earth/Sun L-1] point is about 1.5 million km from Earth, though region is say within 1 to 2 million km from Earth. Mars/Sun L-1 middle point is about 500,000 km from Mars but the Zone could "start" say 250,000 from Mars.
So you park stuff in Mars L-1, the crew arrive at Mars, and go into large elliptical orbit going in direction of L-1, With whatever assets in L-1 already at mars be position, so as to meet incoming spacecraft as going outward to the L-1.
Such orbit may be a week in duration, but docking occurs say after two days from the insertion burn at Mars [periapsis]. Or it's not going back to Mars [which could take a week to do [because much of week of time is going very slowly near and at the apoapsis].
So this means one is going brake somewhere on way to the apoapsis so as to dock. And dock with the spacecraft already there and in L-1 halo orbit/Lissajous orbit. Obviously one would most of braking at periapsis, but one also want to get to +200,000 km distance in a short period of time.
Here is article about putting comm sat at Mars L1/2:
http://www.agi.com/downloads/support/productSupport/literature/pdfs/whitePapers/0201_sun_mars_lib_pts.pdf
An advantage of this is the craft going to Mars and back doesn't even need a heat shield- just as MRO didn't have one. Though if you want skip or do something like aerocapture and not use rocket power for the orbital insertion, you would need the heat shield.
And since a bigger elliptical orbit, you use a bit less delta-v for orbital insertion than normally done for say 50,000 km apoapsis orbit.
-
right, Guckyfan. However, MRO wasn't designed for a real re-entry.
Also, I wonder if there are limits for actual aerobraking. I mean: given a speed, an angle, a planet atmosphere, which are the limits for aerobraking efficiency? It is not completely intuitive that you cannot aerobrake in such a way that the system directly aims to a given trajectory.
All true. And I did mention all of it in my post. At least I intended to, maybe I was not clear enough. My point is that when you design a vehicle capable of that you can very likely go just one step further and land it directly instead of going to LEO. MCT! ;D
The heatshield will have to take more for landing though. A lot more, another 8km/s to brake.
Yeah, the heatshield would need to be more serious for landing. Also, anything you land you have to launch again if you want to reuse it. And, there are other things involved in landing, such as parachutes and airbags and such, none of which you need if you're just doing serious aerobraking but not direct landing.
-
Bit off topic: From what I read (but I'm not so sure) at some point you go one way (orbit) or the other ("bouncing" over the atmosphere). Problem is that the line discriminating the two outcomes is so thin that randomness at some point take over with very high risk of catastrophic results.
-
Ok. I have seen several views in the photos of a great display model of the orion/ delta IV stack ( yes, including Elmo holding it, i think.) Is this model available somewhere, or a custom build for the NASA pr effort surrounding this launch? This is the most handsome space vehicle i have seen in a long time.
ULA is selling one.
http://www.ulalaunchstore.com/120th-scale-delta-iv-heavy-with-orion-capsule/
$280 ridiculous. Some of my 3D Printer friends could whip out a cad model in less than an hour, if they haven't all ready.
-
Heard from SANSA that the station at Hartebeesthoek was not involved ..... any other guesses at what South Africa station was involved?
-
Heard from SANSA that the station at Hartebeesthoek was not involved ..... any other guesses at what South Africa station was involved?
There is no other station then
-
I find it completely absurd that American people can not grasp the need for a hab module on such a long journey. Why not be upfront about it? You might be surprised.
Google-fu. It is powerful.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-seeks-proposals-to-develop-capabilities-for-deep-space-exploration-journey/#.VIW18jHF94k
"Orion is the first component of human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and will be capable of sustaining a crew of four for 21 days in deep space and returning them safely to Earth. NASA seeks proposals for concept studies, technology investigation, and concepts of operations to enable extended space habitation as the next foundational cornerstone of a future deep space transit capability. The studies will help define the architecture and subsystems of a modular habitation capability, which will be used to augment planned missions around the moon as well as to provide initial operations and testing in the proving ground for future systems in support of human exploration in deep space. Studies can address transportation, habitation, operations or environmental capabilities of a habitation system."
-
I find it completely absurd that American people can not grasp the need for a hab module on such a long journey. Why not be upfront about it? You might be surprised.
Google-fu. It is powerful.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-seeks-proposals-to-develop-capabilities-for-deep-space-exploration-journey/#.VIW18jHF94k
"Orion is the first component of human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and will be capable of sustaining a crew of four for 21 days in deep space and returning them safely to Earth. NASA seeks proposals for concept studies, technology investigation, and concepts of operations to enable extended space habitation as the next foundational cornerstone of a future deep space transit capability. The studies will help define the architecture and subsystems of a modular habitation capability, which will be used to augment planned missions around the moon as well as to provide initial operations and testing in the proving ground for future systems in support of human exploration in deep space. Studies can address transportation, habitation, operations or environmental capabilities of a habitation system."
Thanks for this. For us astrophiles, it confirms in general that, of course, NASA knows that Orion is only a crew transporter, albeit far more robust and versatile than the Apollo CM. But as others recently clarified with pithy detail, NASA also knows how to groom the general message to the less-informed populace so that they can understand the basics as well as aid the agency in gaining their support.
It's a hard line to balance. Gene Roddenberry had this issue in the making of "Star Trek" (the original) in talking about too much science for an entertainment program. He summed it up with an analogy from the long-running show "Gunsmoke." He said that sheriff Matt Dillon could spend some time talking about the caliber and other technical stats about his gun--or just shoot the bad guy.
NASA has to talk tech and talk in general terms and try satisfy both audiences. I didn't give them enough credit. Thanks to all for the clarifications.
-
I find it completely absurd that American people can not grasp the need for a hab module on such a long journey. Why not be upfront about it? You might be surprised.
Google-fu. It is powerful.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-seeks-proposals-to-develop-capabilities-for-deep-space-exploration-journey/#.VIW18jHF94k
"Orion is the first component of human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and will be capable of sustaining a crew of four for 21 days in deep space and returning them safely to Earth. NASA seeks proposals for concept studies, technology investigation, and concepts of operations to enable extended space habitation as the next foundational cornerstone of a future deep space transit capability. The studies will help define the architecture and subsystems of a modular habitation capability, which will be used to augment planned missions around the moon as well as to provide initial operations and testing in the proving ground for future systems in support of human exploration in deep space. Studies can address transportation, habitation, operations or environmental capabilities of a habitation system."
Apparently NASA already had the habitation technology, then they sold it to Bigelow Aerospace, which they have continued research with NASA. Also with electric propulsion, VASIMR, which Franklin Chang Diaz invented, NASA was working on it then decided to stop in 2007. Bigelow is going to test an inflatable habitat on the ISS also VASIMR was going to be tested on the ISS except now they may not have enough funding to do it.
-
Apparently NASA already had the habitation technology, then they sold it to Bigelow Aerospace, which they have continued research with NASA. Also with electric propulsion, VASIMR, which Franklin Chang Diaz invented, NASA was working on it then decided to stop in 2007. Bigelow is going to test an inflatable habitat on the ISS also VASIMR was going to be tested on the ISS except now they may not have enough funding to do it.
Huh? There isn't any " habitation technology" that NASA has given up. There are many hab designs currently on the ISS. VASMIR isn't a given.
So what is your point?
-
Apparently NASA already had the habitation technology, then they sold it to Bigelow Aerospace, which they have continued research with NASA.
Huh? There isn't any " habitation technology" that NASA has given up.
Bigelow purchased the patent rights to the TransHab inflatable space habitation modules (which, themselves started life as a Mars transport habitation module) from NASA in the early 2000's.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/686/1 - a nice little interview with Bill Schneider, TransHab's inventor. (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6231010)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransHab
-
Apparently NASA already had the habitation technology, then they sold it to Bigelow Aerospace, which they have continued research with NASA.
Huh? There isn't any " habitation technology" that NASA has given up.
Bigelow purchased the patent rights to the TransHab inflatable space habitation modules (which, themselves started life as a Mars transport habitation module) from NASA in the early 2000's.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/686/1 - a nice little interview with Bill Schneider, TransHab's inventor. (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6231010)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransHab
Pfft. Don't trust Wiki if it says the idea was started as a Mars module in the early 2000's. In actuality, some at JSC were pushing inflatables as a replacement for the pressurized modules on Space Station Freedom in the early 90's - typical inter-center B.S. because a LOT of folks at JSC were frakked that Work Package 1 (the pressurized elements and overall station integration) was being managed by MSFC instead of there in Houston. I was working space station at the time and I remember it all very well.
-
The Orion spacecraft's forward bay cover, drogue chutes and pilot chutes -- which were expected to be retrieved from the ocean -- were not able to be recovered.
Any word on why these were not able to be recovered - they had practiced recovery of them.
-
The Orion spacecraft's forward bay cover, drogue chutes and pilot chutes -- which were expected to be retrieved from the ocean -- were not able to be recovered.
Any word on why these were not able to be recovered - they had practiced recovery of them.
They were to recover them if they could, but they were likely to sink.
-
The Orion spacecraft's forward bay cover, drogue chutes and pilot chutes -- which were expected to be retrieved from the ocean -- were not able to be recovered.
Any word on why these were not able to be recovered - they had practiced recovery of them.
They were to recover them if they could, but they were likely to sink.
Are they going to leave the parachutes where they are? They need to be collected if NASA is going to leave them there, they maybe not good for the environment and the life down there. Unless the parachutes are designed to dissolve after some time or do something else.
-
Please forgive my ignorance, but I have seen numerous reports stating Orion is the capsule that will go to Mars and Back. The latest launch was to test the heat shield for very high speed re-entry?
Why?
How is it more efficient to take an Earth re-entry vehicle to Mars and Back?
Because while NASA envisages Orion as the capsule that will go to Mars and back and that will engage in very high-speed re-entry the two are not necessarily on the same mission! :)
NASA has thought up a number of scenarios that they could use Orion for and some of those have such re-entries; so they designed it to handle same and tested it to prove so; but it might never use all of that capability. This is actually similar to Dragon which has a heat shield designed to withstand re-entry velocities much higher than those it faces deorbiting from LEO.
-
During the launch, I noticed the plume looked significantly brighter than I've seen in other Delta IV Heavy launches. While other launches show the standard reddish flame with occasional flashes, I've never seen either the plume or flashes as bright as this time!
I wonder if it could be the result of camera exposure, after all it was dawn and many launch replays seem to show a somewhat over-exposed image. I did hear that this was the heaviest load Delta IV has ever launched, so could it be simply a different setting on the engines?
-
During the launch, I noticed the plume looked significantly brighter than I've seen in other Delta IV Heavy launches. While other launches show the standard reddish flame with occasional flashes, I've never seen either the plume or flashes as bright as this time!
I wonder if it could be the result of camera exposure, after all it was dawn and many launch replays seem to show a somewhat over-exposed image. I did hear that this was the heaviest load Delta IV has ever launched, so could it be simply a different setting on the engines?
I'm voting for camera exposure against a dark sky giving the flame that perceived brightness. I was there, and the launch didn't look any brighter than Delta 4 launches I've seen. Though, obviously, there were three main plumes this time. I too noticed the difference in perceived brightness on replays I saw later that day.
-
Thanks! I wonder if the cameras were still set partially for a lower sun from earlier and the rising sun required some adjustment to get right? Some of ULA's photographs also show the more fiery plume, but there are probably lots of causes for variation there.
-
Was it me or were the 3 boosters less burnt than usual for a DIV-Heavy?
If so, due to the quite strong winds?
-
Was it me or were the 3 boosters less burnt than usual for a DIV-Heavy?
If so, due to the quite strong winds?
No, new startup sequence.
-
Looking at the excellent images that Helodriver has provided and specifically the photo showing the damage caused by the towing harness/line, I can't help but wonder if that specific recovery method will be used again or at least significantly modified.
Looking at the small boats (made to displace water) surrounding the capsule, I found it counter intuitive that Orion would be made to plow through the water for that distance.
Perhaps this is a non issue as Orion is a "one and done" vehicle. <shrug> I would think the retrieval distance should be shortened considerably. Perhaps an inflatable could be used (installed by the recovery team) that would lift Orion up and would have anchor points for tow line attachment.
In any case, if they are considering change they have a couple years to figure it out. :)
-
Looking at the excellent images that Helodriver has provided and specifically the photo showing the damage caused by the towing harness/line, I can't help but wonder if that specific recovery method will be used again or at least significantly modified.
Looking at the small boats (made to displace water) surrounding the capsule, I found it counter intuitive that Orion would be made to plow through the water for that distance.
Perhaps this is a non issue as Orion is a "one and done" vehicle. <shrug> I would think the retrieval distance should be shortened considerably. Perhaps an inflatable could be used (installed by the recovery team) that would lift Orion up and would have anchor points for tow line attachment.
In any case, if they are considering change they have a couple years to figure it out. :)
Is Orion actually going to be a "one and done" vehicle? I thought they were being designed like a fleet of Shuttles? To be continuously refurbished, modified and re-flown?
-
I believe this vehicle will be used for the upcoming launch abort test. Which is kind of neat in a way as this one has already seen launch and entry, and now they can test it as a veteran structure undergoing abort stresses. Also a neat way to further verify that those repaired structural cracks worked really good. Seeing as how future structures will no doubt have their share of repairs. Not sure those little aspects are a big deal to them, though, in their big scheme of "test things".
-
Is Orion actually going to be a "one and done" vehicle? I thought they were being designed like a fleet of Shuttles? To be continuously refurbished, modified and re-flown?
Even though I think there is a plan where they could be refurbished in the future, I think that is dependent on how many future flights that Congress funds. However if you look at the percentage of the Shuttle system that was refurbished versus what the SLS/Orion would be, especially since the entire Orion SM is thrown away, I'm not sure it makes a lot of economic sense.
Not that economic sense stops Congress from mandating things, but for such a low flight-rate vehicle it may cost more to refurbish and re-certify than it would to build new.
-
True...The cost effectiveness curve. Where will Orion land on it?
-
The plan is for one-of's
The parties involved would not be making near enough money if the capsules were refurbished, plus obsolescence would quickly creep in, requiring continual product updates to keep up. Remember, we're talking YEARS between flights, extending into DECADES before ending (hopefully).
The only issue for the TPS damage is how it will look on display in the many museums in the ridings of the politicos helping to fund NASA.
-
Considering Lockmart has said the design is re-usable it is too early to make a call either way. Will need to see damage and wear/tear on EFT-1 article.
Current "plan" is a year between flights, not years. There may be a case to re-use them, there may not be.
-
The original concept for re-usability goes back to the early days when Orion was to perform air bag landings on "terra ferma"... Us "oldsters" here on NSF will recall that... ;)
-
It is ultimately going to boil down to a cost trade.
-
Regarding the reentry video, could someone explain the appearance of the plasma. Why does it come to a point just outside the window—isn't this the side of the vehicle? And the color changes, does this have to do with the gas composition, velocity, etc?
-
No, its the upward facing window (toward the chutes). So what we're seeing (I think) is the point along the rim where the plasma is most streaming past (ie offset CG for lift). The color changes are the due to the ablative material and thermal buildup.
-
Was there ever an answer or explanation regarding the flotation balls that did not inflate after spashdown? From what I can tell, that was the only thing that went less than nominally, and the lack of inflation certainly did not affect anything for this mission.
Also, with regards to the three parachutes "breathing" in and out. And at one point, one parachute crossed between the other two. I was wondering if that behavior is OK, or does that need to be looked at some more?
-
Hasn't been 90 days yet...
-
Oh, is there some sort of rule that they have to wait 90 days before telling us everything? I don't recall ever seeing that before, but I'll take your word for it.
-
No, that is just when LM submits the 90 day report to NASA on the flight with all the data.
-
During the EFT-1 launch, we all know the rocketcam captured video of the ascent until webcams from the Orion took over. But I ask this: how can we have visual evidence of the Launch Abort System jettison if we did not see the smoke go by the lens? It kind of gave me a hint that the jettison motor failed until the PAO gave the confirmation.
-
Visual evidence is not needed. They have telemetry to confirm that it jettisoned.
-
I think Mark Geyer said (in an interview just after launch) that there would be video of the LAS separation (from inside Orion), which I've been waiting for. Am I wrong about this? Regardless of it's real value, I'd just like to watch it.
-
I think Mark Geyer said (in an interview just after launch) that there would be video of the LAS separation (from inside Orion), which I've been waiting for. Am I wrong about this? Regardless of it's real value, I'd just like to watch it.
Me too. I only saw the jettison motor fire during the first LAS Test in 2010 as well as the static firing of the same motor on a testbed.
-
I think Mark Geyer said (in an interview just after launch) that there would be video of the LAS separation (from inside Orion), which I've been waiting for. Am I wrong about this? Regardless of it's real value, I'd just like to watch it.
The footage was briefly played in fairly low resolution during the press coverage of the event. The coverage has been uploaded to Youtube and the moment is here (2:45:42):
http://youtu.be/iY_JKmBNic8?t=2h45m42s
-
From what I saw, the LAS jettison was in slow-motion and played seven times in a row; the feed switched to Mission Control Room on the seventh playback.
-
Thanks okan170 for pointing that out. I guess i was hoping for something a bit more dramatic.
-
Thanks okan170 for pointing that out. I guess i was hoping for something a bit more dramatic.
Well, considering that I've not seen any windows in the BPC, I'd wager that it'd be pretty dramatic if you were inside the cockpit… launch notwithstanding! ;)
-
I hope I am posting these in the right thread...
-
-
-
OH! Most excellent!!! Thank you for these!
-
02 NASA Talk Orion
Published on Jan 21, 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uhfD3nEWNM
-
Here's a post-flight summary of the EFT-1 mission & results presented to the NASA Advisory Council HEO Committee on January 13, 2015. I've extracted these relevant slides from a larger presentation by HEOMD.
-
At what speed can the windows stop objects? If there was a breach from the windows, what will the astronauts do? Also if there was damage to the CM or ESM, what will they do?
-
At what speed can the windows stop objects? If there was a breach from the windows, what will the astronauts do? Also if there was damage to the CM or ESM, what will they do?
Speed is not the only relevant factor, mass of the object also matters.
Those are outer windows, there still are inner windows on the pressure vessel. if there is a breach in the pressure vessel, the crew will put on suits.
As for what the crew will do for other damage, depends on the damage. There is no simple way to answer the question.
-
At what speed can the windows stop objects? If there was a breach from the windows, what will the astronauts do? Also if there was damage to the CM or ESM, what will they do?
Speed is not the only relevant factor, mass of the object also matters.
Those are outer windows, there still are inner windows on the pressure vessel. if there is a breach in the pressure vessel, the crew will put on suits.
As for what the crew will do for other damage, depends on the damage. There is no simple way to answer the question.
I will just add that space is BIG. Really, really big. That trip down to the chemist's is nothing, compared to space.
In other words, there isn't all that much stuff flying around out there, per cubic meter, big enough and moving fast enough (relative to your vehicle) to cause serious issues. (By "out there" I mean beyond LEO.) There is an awful lot of space between the pieces of matter (dust specks, mostly) that are out there, as well.
There is more orbital debris in LEO, by a lot, than you will find natural dust grains flying around BLEO, that could hole your vehicle. Apollo window analysis showed that cislunar space, anyway, is pretty benign when it comes to potential impactors that could result in a Bad Day.
That said, there are somewhat well-known arcs of material, which cause the various meteor showers we see every year. The mass concentration is a little higher in those streams, which are mainly made up of comets that have disassembled themselves as they rounded the Sun. But even with those, we don't see significant issues with spacecraft in LEO, which are pelted by them several times a year. So, still, I don't think it's a problem that can't be overcome with a little common sense in design and in operations.
-
Render of Orion in Low Lunar Orbit, Earth visible over the horizon.