-
#40
by
pathfinder_01
on 28 Jun, 2010 18:19
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Yeah but up to 3 months could be a reasonable time for that and like the`ISS a Bigelow facility could have a CRV(either Orion CRV or dedicated version of CST100 or one of the other commerical carriers).
-
#41
by
pathfinder_01
on 28 Jun, 2010 18:51
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
And there you go.....
OV, you are probably thinking an LEO capsule, how dull. Anyway what makes this one interesting is the fact that this will be a capsule optimized for cost esp. cost of refurbishment over performance. This leads to something quite different than the shuttle or putting my hatred of Cxp aside Orion. With the Shuttle or Orion the mission was set in stone. With commercial crew the mission is just get the crew safely to the ISS. Wither you do it by rocket, large rubber band, or astral projection does not matter.
With the commercial systems the question are how long is a reasonable on orbit lifetime? How specialized does a crew taxi get? Does it get so specialized it can’t carry cargo? Does it get so specialized it can’t stay in space for 6 months?
What sorts of comprises do you make to reduce costs? There is something fascinating about a minimalist vehicle. The one thing I like most about commercial crew is the fact that no one company thinks exactly the same.
For Dragon, will it find a market as dragon lab? For Dream chaser, is landing on a runway worth the expense? For CST100, what does an old experienced aerospace company think makes a commercial crew?
I find it amazing to live at a time when so many LEO craft are being developed at once.
-
#42
by
Namechange User
on 28 Jun, 2010 18:55
-
OV, you are probably thinking an LEO capsule, how dull.
Quite honestly, I did not understand anything about what you were trying to say.
All of these vehicles, including this one, are LEO "taxis". Don't over-complicate it.
-
#43
by
ugordan
on 28 Jun, 2010 19:04
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it.
That's kind of what it says
in the opening post, isn't it:
It is being built for short missions to the space station.
I don't know what's all this fuss about.
-
#44
by
FinalFrontier
on 28 Jun, 2010 19:10
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it.
That's kind of what it says in the opening post, isn't it:
It is being built for short missions to the space station.
I don't know what's all this fuss about.
People speculating on how long it will be able to stay in space, or whether or not (and for that matter why it would be "required") it will have long duration capability.
-
#45
by
yg1968
on 28 Jun, 2010 19:13
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it.
That's kind of what it says in the opening post, isn't it:
It is being built for short missions to the space station.
I don't know what's all this fuss about.
Yes, this is what was said in the space com article:
The capsule is being built for short missions to the space station, meaning it will not be designed to stay in space for long periods of time.
Although, if Dragon is able to stay 6 months in space and Boeing's capsule is only able to stay for short missions, Dragon will have the advantage if NASA eventually has to choose between the two.
-
#46
by
ugordan
on 28 Jun, 2010 19:17
-
Although, if Dragon is able to stay 6 months in space and Boeing's capsule is only able to stay for short missions, Dragon will have the advantage if NASA ever has to choose between the two.
As was already pointed out, there's a difference between months
in space and months
at the ISS. That requirement isn't even decided yet, and if NASA goes ahead with the Orion CRV it wouldn't likely ever be exercised for crew taxi s/c. The latter would also simplify the commercial taxi operator's life so they're not involved in day-to-day ISS operations.
-
#47
by
manboy
on 28 Jun, 2010 19:19
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
The Orion life boat plan is so crappy. In that scenario you would launch in one vehicle and than have to launch an entirely different one to return home. And it would cost over a billion a year just to have that capability.
-
#48
by
manboy
on 28 Jun, 2010 19:24
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
And there you go.....
I find it amazing to live at a time when so many LEO craft are being developed at once.
I'll be amazed when they're built, I read a lot of magazines as a kid about what they were going to build and what the future was going to be that I got turned into a bit of a hardened realist.
-
#49
by
agman25
on 28 Jun, 2010 19:34
-
From the article ...
"It's a little smaller than Orion, but a little bigger than Apollo," Reiley said of the CST-100 spacecraft. "It carries seven, but it's fairly small – it's not as large or as spacious as the Orion."
John Young (among others) had a study which suggested just that in the pre-Orion days. Can anybody find a link to that document.
Thanks
-
#50
by
Archibald
on 28 Jun, 2010 19:59
-
There ! klabs.org/richcontent/Reports/NASA_Reports/apollo_hw_crv_ctv.htm
Young, Myers and others said that a 8% - 10 % upscale of Apollo would be fine. That's roughly 4.50 m in diameter (Apollo was 3.90 m, Orion is 5 m)
-
#51
by
agman25
on 28 Jun, 2010 20:10
-
There ! klabs.org/richcontent/Reports/NASA_Reports/apollo_hw_crv_ctv.htm
Young, Myers and others said that a 8% - 10 % upscale of Apollo would be fine. That's roughly 4.50 m in diameter (Apollo was 3.90 m, Orion is 5 m)
Thanks
-
#52
by
pathfinder_01
on 28 Jun, 2010 21:27
-
In all seriousness folks, what is this vehicle meant to do?
Once you answer that, and do not go on adding in capabilities and "if's" (which is something called requirements creep, that NASA is often chastized for) then you have your answer on what powers this vehicle.
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
The Orion life boat plan is so crappy. In that scenario you would launch in one vehicle and than have to launch an entirely different one to return home. And it would cost over a billion a year just to have that capability.
Barring the whole does it make sense to use orion as crv, having a crv is not as bad an idea as you think. If you hate Orion CRV imagine say Dragon CRV.
From a logistical view point being tied to your craft is not a good idea. In order to do a crew rotation you would need two craft. With a CRV you only need one craft. That craft could drop off the new crew and pick up the old one. The CRV would remain in space. This means Boeing can have fewer craft and simply turn them around faster. If the craft stays with it’s crew then Boeing will be unable to service it until it lands. With a CRV and a reusable capsule Boeing could use one or two craft for ISS crew taxi service. Without it two or three may be required.
There may also be savings in design and certification. Three months or less in space is more than enough to exchange crew. This means you could choose propellants, heat shields, and other items with shorter shelf life. This can led to reduced costs through relaxed requirements.
Finally should your craft get damaged on the way to the station and be unable to return to earth there is a way off the station via the CRV.
-
#53
by
Robotbeat
on 28 Jun, 2010 21:44
-
I don't think the Orion CRV plan is crappy. In fact, I was disappointed when FY2011 originally got rid of Orion and happy when it returned (hopefully it survives this ADA political posturing). In the long run, it's better to have a commercial capability with two or more providers and no NASA crew launch capability (but keeping Orion CRV) rather than a NASA crew launch capability and no commercial. Then again, just about everyone supports commercial crew capability, including Griffin.
Anyways, here's a better place to discuss whether Orion CRV is a good idea or not:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21784.msg612401#msg612401
-
#54
by
Jorge
on 29 Jun, 2010 00:52
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Good point.
Also, is it not possible to have the capsule launched on a more direct trajectory, so that you can get into the vicinity of ISS within a short time (i.e. minutes or hours, not days)? ULA claimed they could do that with their Payload Bay Fairing, so why not a capsule?
Of course it's possible to rendezvous on flight day 1. It's just not possible to get every-day launch windows to ISS from KSC/CCAFS.
-
#55
by
clongton
on 29 Jun, 2010 00:55
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Good point.
Also, is it not possible to have the capsule launched on a more direct trajectory, so that you can get into the vicinity of ISS within a short time (i.e. minutes or hours, not days)? ULA claimed they could do that with their Payload Bay Fairing, so why not a capsule?
Of course it's possible to rendezvous on flight day 1. It's just not possible to get every-day launch windows from KSC/CCAFS.
Of course it is. All you need is sufficient propellant for the phasing maneuvering.
-
#56
by
kkattula
on 29 Jun, 2010 02:54
-
...
No I was thinking battery technology of all kinds. I know lithium ion can store a lot of power and be lightwieght. I don't know if they can store enough power to support a craft holding 7 people for 2-3 days to get to the ISS.
As an indicator of power requirements, DragonLab specs indicate an average power supply of 2 kW with a peak of 4 kW. 2 kW for 3 days is 144 kWh. Using Li-Po batteries at 150 Wh/kg gives just under 1 t of batteries. Quite a lot for a small capsule, but not impossible.
I suspect power requiments could be designed to be a lot less too.
-
#57
by
Jorge
on 29 Jun, 2010 03:10
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Good point.
Also, is it not possible to have the capsule launched on a more direct trajectory, so that you can get into the vicinity of ISS within a short time (i.e. minutes or hours, not days)? ULA claimed they could do that with their Payload Bay Fairing, so why not a capsule?
Of course it's possible to rendezvous on flight day 1. It's just not possible to get every-day launch windows from KSC/CCAFS.
Of course it is. All you need is sufficient propellant for the phasing maneuvering.
Your answer is theoretically correct but practically useless.
-
#58
by
ChefPat
on 29 Jun, 2010 03:33
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Yeah but up to 3 months could be a reasonable time for that and like the`ISS a Bigelow facility could have a CRV(either Orion CRV or dedicated version of CST100 or one of the other commerical carriers).
The Shuttle never went to ISS & waited for the crew to complete their 6 month assignment. But IIRC it could have.
I just can't see Bigelow paying to have an empty capsule sent up to use as a ride home. They'll be all capable of that duty in order to keep the cost down. Making 1 capable of a months long mission & 3 that can only go up & come right back down doesn't make good business sense.
-
#59
by
jongoff
on 29 Jun, 2010 03:36
-
Most likely? Its a commcecial crew LEO taxi for ISS. Thats it. I don't see any reason that boeing would design this to have lifeboat or long duration stay capability if Orion is going to serve as an additional lifeboat to the soyuz capsules.
Its a commercial crew taxi. Thats all, IMO.
I would expect it to be able remain on station for the duration of a stay at a Bigelow facility.
Good point.
Also, is it not possible to have the capsule launched on a more direct trajectory, so that you can get into the vicinity of ISS within a short time (i.e. minutes or hours, not days)? ULA claimed they could do that with their Payload Bay Fairing, so why not a capsule?
Of course it's possible to rendezvous on flight day 1. It's just not possible to get every-day launch windows from KSC/CCAFS.
Of course it is. All you need is sufficient propellant for the phasing maneuvering.
Your answer is theoretically correct but practically useless.
A more useful answer (but still non-trivial, and definitely cheating) is if you do an air-launch vehicle you can move your actual launch position around enough to get frequent (I imagine daily?) 1st orbit rendezvous opportunities. But building an airlauncher that can carry more than 1-2 people to orbit is as I said, relatively non-trivial...
~Jon
