Orion as a CRV

[bad_astra]

If the US decided, on pretext of current international concerns, continue the shuttle program for a few more years, could work on Orion be altered to develop it rapidly into a crv?

With funding diverted to an Orion CRV, it could be launched using a EELV, and if necessary, towed to ISS via STS and put in place with the canadarms.

It would seem as if a far more basic service module could be readied for it's task. This would take Soyuz out of the critical path.

Could this realistically be done within 2 years?

[Jim]

1.  If the US decided, on pretext of current international concerns, continue the shuttle program for a few more years, could work on Orion be altered to develop it rapidly into a crv?

2.  With funding diverted to an Orion CRV, it could be launched using a EELV, and if necessary, towed to ISS via STS and put in place with the canadarms.

3.  It would seem as if a far more basic service module could be readied for it's task. This would take Soyuz out of the critical path.

4.  Could this realistically be done within 2 years?

1.  Orion is/was to be able to stay a docked for 6 months

2.  There is no need for a shuttle to be involved

3.  The service module needs the same systems, no real savings

4.  no

[Giovanni DS]

Would be easier to create a return-only vehicle to be delivered by the shuttle together with the crew ?

May be the unused vehicles could be used to return some cargo after its service period is over (even just to test its functionality after the 6 months).

I imagine that such vehicle could have a different shape compared to orion because it would only re-enter from LEO, it would have a minimal service module, no solar panels etc.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Would be easier to create a return-only vehicle to be delivered by the shuttle together with the crew ?

May be the unused vehicles could be used to return some cargo after its service period is over (even just to test its functionality after the 6 months).

I imagine that such vehicle could have a different shape compared to orion because it would only re-enter from LEO, it would have a minimal service module, no solar panels etc.

That was the original SSF plan for the ACRV (Assured Crew Return Vehicle).  Of course, development funding kept getting pushed back and then finally the Russians were brought on board and SSF morphed into ISS and Soyuz took over that role.

[Kaputnik]

Would be easier to create a return-only vehicle to be delivered by the shuttle together with the crew ?

May be the unused vehicles could be used to return some cargo after its service period is over (even just to test its functionality after the 6 months).

I imagine that such vehicle could have a different shape compared to orion because it would only re-enter from LEO, it would have a minimal service module, no solar panels etc.

That was the original SSF plan for the ACRV (Assured Crew Return Vehicle).  Of course, development funding kept getting pushed back and then finally the Russians were brought on board and SSF morphed into ISS and Soyuz took over that role.

Actually I think the timeline went more like:

SSF+ACRV

ISS + Soyuz + ACRV

ISS + Soyuz + OSP

ISS + Soyuz + gap + CEV

I still wonder how different things might have been if the ACRV had been operational before STS107... with such an obvious STS successor already available, but one that was also not really suited to lunar missions, what would NASA's be doing instead of VSE?

[Namechange User]

Would be easier to create a return-only vehicle to be delivered by the shuttle together with the crew ?

May be the unused vehicles could be used to return some cargo after its service period is over (even just to test its functionality after the 6 months).

I imagine that such vehicle could have a different shape compared to orion because it would only re-enter from LEO, it would have a minimal service module, no solar panels etc.

You are so off base on all of this I won't even go into any detail. 

[Giovanni DS]

You are so off base on all of this I won't even go into any detail. 

Thank you anyway

[Zach]

If the US decided, on pretext of current international concerns, continue the shuttle program for a few more years, could work on Orion be altered to develop it rapidly into a crv?

With funding diverted to an Orion CRV, it could be launched using a EELV, and if necessary, towed to ISS via STS and put in place with the canadarms.

It would seem as if a far more basic service module could be readied for it's task. This would take Soyuz out of the critical path.

Could this realistically be done within 2 years?

I think you are on to something here.  NASA is considering extending the current shuttle missions (same total number of missions over more time) to help close the gap, however this only solves half the problem.  The other half is how do these astronauts come back home if needed when the shuttle isn’t docked and if we aren’t using Soyuz.  A near term Orion derivative could solve the emergency return while at the same time gaining knowledge/experience on Orion itself.

A near term SM that only has to deorbit Orion could be incredibly simple, minimal propellant, 3 axis control not 6, 24 hour life support, no built in rendezvous capability, and the list goes on.  One also defers the need to human rate the launch vehicle develop the abort motors.  On the way up, this Orion Crew Rescue Vehicle could be stuffed to the gills with cargo.  I wonder if the Orion capsule would even fit inside an EELV 5.4m PLF?  This would further reduce launch vehicle integration, reducing program costs/schedule.

A lot of work has been done by NASA, Boeing and ULA looking at using the shuttle as an on orbit tug to provide the last mile transportation for hardware launched by the EELV’s.   I noticed that Mark Foster is going to present how the Space Shuttle working with EELV’s can benefit ISS at Space 2008.  http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMSPACE08_1872/PV2008_7763.pdf  This type of cooperation could be extended to hardware beyond just the Orion-CRV and include AMS, ISS elements and resupply, hugely magnifying NASA’s ability to service ISS with exclusively shuttles over the next 5 to 10 years.

Is 2 years reasonable, I don't know, but I'd love to see NASA try.  It would give the program real near term focus that is lacking.

[Jorge]

A near term SM that only has to deorbit Orion could be incredibly simple, minimal propellant, 3 axis control not 6, 24 hour life support, no built in rendezvous capability, and the list goes on.

Agreed with most, but you still need 6-axis control for undocking/sep. Could get away with 4 (3 rotational and -X translation) if the station can be guaranteed stable, but the baseline requirements for Orion are that it be able to separate from a station that has lost attitude control, and that requirement seems prudent to keep for a Block I Orion CRV. That requires 3-DOF translation capability to prevent recontact until Orion clears the station envelope.

Where you *can* save is by deferring the big main engine until Block II. The Orion AUX thrusters are plenty large enough for deorbit from LEO, and have plenty of redundancy.

[Jim]

A near term SM that only has to deorbit Orion could be incredibly simple, minimal propellant, 3 axis control not 6, 24 hour life support, no built in rendezvous capability,

Aside from the thrusters and prop on the SM, the "rendezvous capability" (sensors and avoinics)  resides in the CM

[Jim]

A lot of work has been done by NASA, Boeing and ULA looking at using the shuttle as an on orbit tug to provide the last mile transportation for hardware launched by the EELV’s.   I noticed that Mark Foster is going to present how the Space Shuttle working with EELV’s can benefit ISS at Space 2008.  http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMSPACE08_1872/PV2008_7763.pdf  This type of cooperation could be extended to hardware beyond just the Orion-CRV and include AMS, ISS elements and resupply, hugely magnifying NASA’s ability to service ISS with exclusively shuttles over the next 5 to 10 years.

It was found to be cheaper to not have a shuttle involved with AMS.  Shuttle cut the shuttle out completely.  A small spacecraft bus, like what OSC is developing for Cygnus is the answer. 

ULA is only proposing the using the shuttle because they can't build tug for the last mile.  That's why the couldn't put forth a COTS or CSR proposal. 

[Zach]

A lot of work has been done by NASA, Boeing and ULA looking at using the shuttle as an on orbit tug to provide the last mile transportation for hardware launched by the EELV’s.   I noticed that Mark Foster is going to present how the Space Shuttle working with EELV’s can benefit ISS at Space 2008.  http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMSPACE08_1872/PV2008_7763.pdf  This type of cooperation could be extended to hardware beyond just the Orion-CRV and include AMS, ISS elements and resupply, hugely magnifying NASA’s ability to service ISS with exclusively shuttles over the next 5 to 10 years.

It was found to be cheaper to not have a shuttle involved with AMS.  Shuttle cut the shuttle out completely.  A small spacecraft bus, like what OSC is developing for Cygnus is the answer. 

ULA is only proposing the using the shuttle because they can't build tug for the last mile.  That's why the couldn't put forth a COTS or CSR proposal. 

Any study can be shown to give the results the author desires, just look at “safe, simple, soon”.  If shuttle is extended for other reasons I have a very hard time believing that using it to also snag another free flying payload is very expensive.

In my opinion, NASA is taking a huge gamble that either Dragon or Cygnus will be flying in the next 2, 3 or even 5 years.  NASA is investing $500m, trying to get 2 launch vehicles and 2 spacecraft that can rendezvous with station.  How many billions was ATV, how many years in the making has HTV been. 

All of the elements of using Shuttle and EELV’s in this role have already been flight demonstrated on various missions.  This is a sure fire way to allow NASA to continue to build and support ISS.

[Zach]

A near term SM that only has to deorbit Orion could be incredibly simple, minimal propellant, 3 axis control not 6, 24 hour life support, no built in rendezvous capability,

Aside from the thrusters and prop on the SM, the "rendezvous capability" (sensors and avoinics)  resides in the CM

To get something flying fast you need to open the trade space.  Even if the senors and thrusters are on the CM, qualifying them in time to support rendezvous with a $100B national asset will take time.  Also, last I heard, the baseline CM thrusters are also O2/CH4 and still in development.  Using existing, qualified N2H4 propulsion will help speed the schedule.

[Jim]

 If shuttle is extended for other reasons I have a very hard time believing that using it to also snag another free flying payload is very expensive.

It is because the shuttle can't really two missions at once.  The basic mission has to be very simple and short

[libs0n]

I hate to play into the really stupid extend the shuttle meme, but if you're looking for a quick and dirty CRV, the logical starting off point is the SpaceX Dragon.  One, it's a reentry vehicle already undergoing development work.  Two, it's planned to be a manned reentry vehicle eventually, you'd just be funding whatever work is necessary to make it so and speed up the process.  Three, the cargo rocket carrying it to the ISS need not be manned, nor undergo any modifications to be "mannable".   Four, that cargo rocket can even be the Shuttle, you deluded Shuttle nuts, if the Dragon can fit in the Shuttle bay, with some type of fittings, which I presume it can.  Five, it would take the place of two Soyuz worth of down capability, while being not-Russian in nature, American even; might be cheaper on that basis, if the Shuttle is bringing it up anyways.

So yeah, there.  Your damn solution.  Also I will be toasting the last Shuttle launch with an Orange Crush, just wanted to let you know.

[Jorge]

I hate to play into the really stupid extend the shuttle meme, but if you're looking for a quick and dirty CRV, the logical starting off point is the SpaceX Dragon.  One, it's a reentry vehicle already undergoing development work.  Two, it's planned to be a manned reentry vehicle eventually, you'd just be funding whatever work is necessary to make it so and speed up the process.  Three, the cargo rocket carrying it to the ISS need not be manned, nor undergo any modifications to be "mannable".   Four, that cargo rocket can even be the Shuttle, you deluded Shuttle nuts, if the Dragon can fit in the Shuttle bay, with some type of fittings, which I presume it can.  Five, it would take the place of two Soyuz worth of down capability, while being not-Russian in nature, American even; might be cheaper on that basis, if the Shuttle is bringing it up anyways.

So yeah, there.  Your damn solution.  Also I will be toasting the last Shuttle launch with an Orange Crush, just wanted to let you know.

Wow, you're just begging for a bitch-slapping from the moderators today, aren't you?

[Free2Think]

I hate to play into the really stupid extend the shuttle meme, but if you're looking for a quick and dirty CRV, the logical starting off point is the SpaceX Dragon.  One, it's a reentry vehicle already undergoing development work.  Two, it's planned to be a manned reentry vehicle eventually, you'd just be funding whatever work is necessary to make it so and speed up the process.  Three, the cargo rocket carrying it to the ISS need not be manned, nor undergo any modifications to be "mannable".   Four, that cargo rocket can even be the Shuttle, you deluded Shuttle nuts, if the Dragon can fit in the Shuttle bay, with some type of fittings, which I presume it can.  Five, it would take the place of two Soyuz worth of down capability, while being not-Russian in nature, American even; might be cheaper on that basis, if the Shuttle is bringing it up anyways.

So yeah, there.  Your damn solution.  Also I will be toasting the last Shuttle launch with an Orange Crush, just wanted to let you know.

You are assuming that SpaceX's luck will be better with Dragon than Falcon.  I hope SpaceX suceeds on both accounts, but I wouldn't bet a national asset on it!

[libs0n]

Well under the idea, SpaceX would be subjected to the riguers of NASA analysis and oversight, so there's that.  Also, perhaps some COTS test flights will pan out the legitimacy of the idea in the timeframe, although I'm not aware of what the COTS schedule is.  I wonder what the original testing plan for the X-38 type CRV was to be.  But yeah, that's the bet I'd make(in the confines of the theoretical Shuttle extension needing domestic CRV discussion).  Whether that was a smart bet will have to wait for when we see actual Dragon reentry performance, and manned Dragon reentry performance.

[Swatch]

A small spacecraft bus, like what OSC is developing for Cygnus is the answer. 

ULA is only proposing the using the shuttle because they can't build tug for the last mile.  That's why the couldn't put forth a COTS or CSR proposal. 

I was under the understanding that Cygnus was not capable of return.  Did I miss something?

[mr.columbus]

A small spacecraft bus, like what OSC is developing for Cygnus is the answer. 

ULA is only proposing the using the shuttle because they can't build tug for the last mile.  That's why the couldn't put forth a COTS or CSR proposal. 

I was under the understanding that Cygnus was not capable of return.  Did I miss something?

"The Cygnus spacecraft to be launched aboard the Taurus II rocket will be capable of delivering up to 2,300 kg of cargo to the ISS and will be able to return 1,200 kg of cargo from the ISS to Earth."

from Orbital's press release on the COTS grant: http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/release.asp?prid=644