Could Dragon and or Dream Chaser be a backup if Orion goes the way of the X33?

[Sid454]

I wonder should we consider a plan B if the next administration decides to pretty much erase everything of the Bush administration which might even include constellation.

I know this may anger a few in here esp those in KSC area but this is a serious possibility that must be considered.

Ares I has been delayed numerous times ,coming up short on performance more then once .
The stick or scotty rocket has become a bit of a scandal for NASA while the public just asks why are we building another EELV.

The public doubt is looking much worse then anything I saw during the X33 program and the money involved is oddly enough even larger.

Instead of trying to fix things NASA is embarking on a series of PR campaigns thinking the public doesn't know the existence of the program pretty much rehashing the same stuff that has been published in popsci and similar magazines.

This money would be better spent doing some early studies on finding a replacement for Ares I.

Griffin seems to be unaware of this public outcry and even expects to get an extra 2B to fix Ares I along with an even larger sum of money to build Ares V.
I find this fanciful and even fool hardy in the present economic climate.

Even I was unimpressed by the 607 Orion's specs as a they are not much better then many private vehicles who's operational costs are just a fraction of the Orion's.
I felt like I was promised a Mercedes AMG G55  and I was given a Hyundai but still charged the Mercedes price while someone down the street is selling Honda's and Chevy's for 20K each.

Even though the Orion design team is not at fault for making a lack luster over priced vehicle as this blame rests squarely on the Stick and it's proponents.
 Congress and the next president may not see this and just go about pulling the plugs on what they view as failed programs and Orion could fall under this.

[Jim]

not viable.  The other vehicles don't meet Orion specs for lunar missions.
DC has not even progressed much past a study

[nacnud]

Nether Dragon or Dream Chaser are capable returning from or even going to the Moon, that is what Orion is for.

[bad_astra]

Orion/Ares is only one way of going to the moon. There are others.

http://www.constellationservices.com/Lunar_ExpressSM_system_brief_NewSpace2006_20_July_2006.pdf

The heat shield on Dragon could be thickened. Lunar Express gets you to the Moon in a hurry. Developing the rest of the hardware to land and stay there, that still requires a dose of political will, but it would keep the public interested instead of waiting 12-15 years on Ares V.

One thing I especially liked about Lunar Express is the option do to Partial-G experiments, including on humans. We lost that with the lack of a centrifuge module on ISS. You could continue the Lunar Express style missions, giving a reason for keeping ISS around after 2016 while slowly putting together a politically viable Lunar and NEO manned program.

[Sid454]

I like your answer it was a good educated answer vs some yes or no type I'm not going to give this any thought answer.

If you ask me Dragon appears to have been designed from the beginning to eventually handle lunar returns of course with said heat shield upgrade.
 But they are using PICA the same material that  startdust used and is being used on Orion.

The F9-H with a cryogenic stage may have a 50T payload that if you ask me looks like something you could use to go visit the moon with.

As for dream chaser it likely would have to perform a skip reentry though being a lifting body and having an integrated SM propulsion system makes this a lot easier since DC could correct it's path between skips.

Plan B which I seen in some spacedev videos and artwork a reusable conic capsule transfer vehicle that aerobrakes into LEO is used instead except this vehicle doesn't land.

Other vehicles that also may be up to the task with some work might include the t/space CXV. Though more lift will have to be gotten out of the shuttlecock shape to keep the g loading under 4 to 6g even though a few soyuz malfunctions have shown 8g reentries are perfectly survivable by the average person.

Also using soyuz as an early vehicle is a great a idea I like it.
One modification that might need to be done might be to add redundancy to the navigational systems so there is less chance it might perform a ballistic reentry on lunar missions.

[libs0n]

The Orion fulfills two roles, LEO transit and the moon profile, and the second is not happening for quite some time as it is.  If its LEO access you want, then yes, those two qualify, but the DC would need much more work done to get there, and carries less people than the Dragon.  It's a matter of waiting to see whether or not the Dragon comes online.

[libs0n]

Sid454 - 16/3/2008  2:33 PM
The public doubt is looking much worse then anything I saw during the X33 program and the money involved is oddly enough even larger.

Instead of trying to fix things NASA is embarking on a series of PR campaigns thinking the public doesn't know the existence of the program pretty much rehashing the same stuff that has been published in popsci and similar magazines.

This I question.  I think that NASA itself lends a certain authority on these issues to whatever concept it presents.  Any doubts that arise take the form of whether such a large expense should be expended on the program as whole or on other demands, not on whether it can be done in a manner contrary to what NASA has deemed the solution.  Even on that last tack, a superior alternative is always assumed to be the robotic solution, of probes versus humans.  I think the space geek community as a whole is dubious of much of what NASA has presented to various degrees, but that community does not represent the broader public opinion, or even the opinion of your pro-space enthused public, for whom it's NASA's way or the highway.  At least thats my take.

[Comga]

bad_astra - 16/3/2008  2:41 PM
Orion/Ares is only one way of going to the moon. There are others.
http://www.constellationservices.com/Lunar_ExpressSM_system_brief_NewSpace2006_20_July_2006.pdf

Cute presentation.  He does start out with a silly error.  A free return trajectory around the Moon is not "Apollo 8 style"  It is "Apollo 13 style".  He acknowledges that later when referring to the "Lunar Logistics Container" as "similar to the Apollo 13 LM" as it would "provide lunar mission logistic: food, water, oxygen, hygiene".

This is about the only way that presentation addresses the question of this topic.  While capsules like Dragon and the LM concept for the Atlas V, neither of which is anywhere near flying, or even the venerable Soyuz, don't have Orion's capabilities for lunar flights, those are not absolutely needed.  The Russians solved this problem over forty years ago.  You don't have to reenter with all the capabilities you need in transit or in orbit.  You make a small launch and reentry module, and put the rest of the stuff in an orbital module.   Something like the "Lunar Logistics Container" can extend a short duration taxi vehicle to capabilities for much greater missions.  

If you like to "camp" in roadside campgrounds, you don't need to commute to work in a motor home.  You buy a vehicle with some power, and you pull a trailer on the infrequent occasions you go on longer trips.

[josh_simonson]

Dreamchaser is highly unsuitable for missions beyond LEO because it would have a poorer payload fraction than capsules, and the mediocre ISP of it's hybrid propulsion makes it dramatically less practical the farther from the ground you use it.

Both DC and Dragon would need an order of magnitude more DV/fuel in order to replace the CEV.  

Either craft in their 'as is' design could support lunar missions with an architecture that leaves the DC/Dragon in LEO, and includes an extra aerobrake and docking step at the end of the mission.  That would still require NASA to develop an aerobraking return vehicle though, which would probably be as expensive as CEV.