-
Original "big" Orion concepts
by
Ike17055
on 13 Dec, 2013 14:44
-
While reality washed this all away, I remember some really impressive ideas about what capabilities Orion would have have when it was first publicized: 5.5m diameter, crew of six or more, inflight toilet facility, ability to carry various mission modules, scientific packages in SM, airlock for EVA, etc. While all this is now relegated to the "wishful thinking" shelf, it did make for some wildly imaginative thinking and dreams of various mission possibilities. Does anyone know where there are resources available that detail some of the earliest concepts for Orion in this vein? Fascinating reading for sure at this stage of things. What are the expert opinions on Which capabilities would be the most preferred to add back if the possibility of truly ambitious missions, and adequate lift capability, again became realistic.
-
#1
by
M129K
on 14 Dec, 2013 19:13
-
I don't recall Orion ever having those things aside from 5.5m diameter, science packages and a toilet. I believe the ability to carry small satellites was still available in the 607 config and might still be in the European Service Module. A six person crew is still a requirement for Orion, but it's a "demonstrable" requirement. Not required in the initial variant but can be added later; it's not really gone.
-
#2
by
TomH
on 17 Dec, 2013 19:34
-
I have to admit, big has a certain appeal, but in the reality that big usually equivocates with massive, big is the enemy of actual success in space flight. Even in its current configuration Orion is still a couple of metric tons overmass. There really is no reason for Orion to exist and certainly no reason for an even more massive version. On a trip to Mars, the vehicle would be in hibernation while the crew lived in a hab. It would be smarter to take the crew to rendezvous in a lighter mass space taxi prior to TMI and leave the taxi behind. Similarly, upon return from Mars the hab would decelerate and park for reuse while the crew transferred to a taxi prior to Earth return. As for lunar missions, a Dragon would suffice just fine for the three day transit there and the same back. I know, the thing looks and seems cool, but the success of actually flying lies in low mass.
-
#3
by
Jim
on 17 Dec, 2013 19:46
-
1. ability to carry various mission modules,
2. airlock for EVA, etc.
1. Nothing has changed wrt mission modules. Orion was never to "carry" them, only to dock with them. There wasn't any money for them back then either.
2. Never was part of Orion.
-
#4
by
Jim
on 17 Dec, 2013 19:48
-
Similarly, upon return from Mars the hab would decelerate and park for reuse while the crew transferred to a taxi prior to Earth return.
That was and is not the plan. Takes too much DV.
-
#5
by
newpylong
on 17 Dec, 2013 20:34
-
As for lunar missions, a Dragon would suffice just fine for the three day transit there and the same back. I know, the thing looks and seems cool, but the success of actually flying lies in low mass.
We are going off topic, but what are the Astronauts going to breath, eat/drink and go to the bathroom in for over a week in a Dragon? How about power?
It's a LEO taxi in it's current design, people need to get over that. Orion and Dragon are not interchangeable.
-
#6
by
TomH
on 18 Dec, 2013 01:30
-
Similarly, upon return from Mars the hab would decelerate and park for reuse while the crew transferred to a taxi prior to Earth return.
That was and is not the plan. Takes too much DV.
I know it is not the plan. Not having to take Orion all the way to Mars and back could allow propellant to be taken which could be used for EOI, maybe in cis-Lunar space. Alternately, a deceleration stage could rendezvous with the craft as it approaches Earth on the return. This way, the hab and associated equipment could be used again rather than rebuilding everything all over again. It seems less expensive in the long run.
-
#7
by
TomH
on 18 Dec, 2013 01:36
-
As for lunar missions, a Dragon would suffice just fine for the three day transit there and the same back. I know, the thing looks and seems cool, but the success of actually flying lies in low mass.
We are going off topic, but what are the Astronauts going to breath, eat/drink and go to the bathroom in for over a week in a Dragon? How about power?
It's a LEO taxi in it's current design, people need to get over that. Orion and Dragon are not interchangeable.
You are right about its current design, but part of that plan is that it evolve. And yes, the vehicles are very different-part of that difference is Orion is overbuilt and overmassed. As far as where to stow power and fluids, O2, H2O, etc. can go in the boot and be transferred through the interface. The power can be solar or LH2/LO2 fuel cells in the boot like Apollo. Musk claims Dragon's eventual variant will be Mars capable. We're only talking a pair of three day transits to and from Luna.
-
#8
by
Lars_J
on 18 Dec, 2013 05:13
-
This was an interesting concept floated by someone a few years ago, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered for Orion.
(A capsule more spacious than the Shuttle, with an EVA airlock and a massive cargo/science space)
-
#9
by
Rocket Science
on 18 Dec, 2013 06:16
-
This was an interesting concept floated by someone a few years ago, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered for Orion. (A capsule more spacious than the Shuttle, with an EVA airlock and a massive cargo/science space)
I think it was LM OSP/CEV, but its been a while... Still a nice one!
-
#10
by
Lars_J
on 18 Dec, 2013 06:22
-
This was an interesting concept floated by someone a few years ago, but I don't think it was ever seriously considered for Orion. (A capsule more spacious than the Shuttle, with an EVA airlock and a massive cargo/science space)
I think it was LM OSP, but its been a while... Still a nice one!
No, I think *this* was the LM OSP (or CEV)... I've always liked this one. A smaller and more realistic take on the concept above.
-
#11
by
Rocket Science
on 18 Dec, 2013 06:32
-
-
#12
by
Jim
on 18 Dec, 2013 13:56
-
I know it is not the plan. Not having to take Orion all the way to Mars and back could allow propellant to be taken which could be used for EOI, maybe in cis-Lunar space. Alternately, a deceleration stage could rendezvous with the craft as it approaches Earth on the return. This way, the hab and associated equipment could be used again rather than rebuilding everything all over again. It seems less expensive in the long run.
not really, propellant to take Orion to Mars and back is minor compared to those options.
-
#13
by
newpylong
on 18 Dec, 2013 13:59
-
As for lunar missions, a Dragon would suffice just fine for the three day transit there and the same back. I know, the thing looks and seems cool, but the success of actually flying lies in low mass.
We are going off topic, but what are the Astronauts going to breath, eat/drink and go to the bathroom in for over a week in a Dragon? How about power?
It's a LEO taxi in it's current design, people need to get over that. Orion and Dragon are not interchangeable.
You are right about its current design, but part of that plan is that it evolve. And yes, the vehicles are very different-part of that difference is Orion is overbuilt and overmassed. As far as where to stow power and fluids, O2, H2O, etc. can go in the boot and be transferred through the interface. The power can be solar or LH2/LO2 fuel cells in the boot like Apollo. Musk claims Dragon's eventual variant will be Mars capable. We're only talking a pair of three day transits to and from Luna.
How do you know Orion is overbuilt? They haven't even performed EFT-1 yet to verify the engineering. Same goes for "overmass"... at PDR it was overmass for the design, yet there is plenty of time to resolve before certification. Neither have any bearing over the discussion.
From what info is available we haven't seen any plans to modify Dragon for BLEO missions. All indications are that it was designed with simplicity and cost in mind to get Astronauts into LEO and start making money. By Mars capable he means it can be used as a launch and re-entry vehicle, not for the astronauts to actually spend that time in.
What is a "boot"? If you mean Service Module, Dragon has a trunk - not enough volume for consumables and power storage for any mission of length. If they want to use Dragon MANNED for cis-lunar missions it will need to be redesigned, and it will not be used by itself to go to Mars, the same as Orion will not.
I fail to see what you're going for here.
-
#14
by
Rocket Science
on 18 Dec, 2013 14:16
-
Jim, do you remember who came up with this design with the air bags, was it a JSC in-house study?
Regards
Rob
-
#15
by
Pedantic Twit
on 18 Dec, 2013 14:29
-
Jim, do you remember who came up with this design with the air bags, was it a JSC in-house study?
Regards
Rob
That's from
these guys. Second image on
this page.
-
#16
by
Rocket Science
on 18 Dec, 2013 14:34
-
Jim, do you remember who came up with this design with the air bags, was it a JSC in-house study?
Regards
Rob
That's from these guys. Second image on this page.
Oh yes, I've always admired John's work. Thanks!
-
#17
by
muomega0
on 18 Dec, 2013 15:02
-
Similarly, upon return from Mars the hab would decelerate and park for reuse while the crew transferred to a taxi prior to Earth return.
That was and is not the plan. Takes too much DV.
I know it is not the plan. Not having to take Orion all the way to Mars and back could allow propellant to be taken which could be used for EOI, maybe in cis-Lunar space. Alternately, a deceleration stage could rendezvous with the craft as it approaches Earth on the return. This way, the hab and associated equipment could be used again rather than rebuilding everything all over again. It seems less expensive in the long run.
not really, propellant to take Orion to Mars and back is minor compared to those options.
In the first case on braking the DSH, you state its too much dV. In the second case, adding 6000kg or so to the mission is "minor".
Q: could you elaborate, in particular the pmf you assumed in stating this minor propellant contribution of Orion? Many estimates place this below 0.50, which is at least a 60M increase in launch costs alone. Why not just use the 12 mT for DSH braking at L2 or must NASA stick to the Apollo plan?
Also recognize that staging from L2,
the L2-based ITV would save approximately 6.3 km/s in ΔV cost compared with an ITV stationed in low-Earth orbit. So braking is much different at L2 than earth.
Orion's design is left over from the Apollo/constellation HLV Architecture. when
a capsule should be parked and powered down at the L2 gateway, not carried along for the ride, unless one can state that 12 mT is minor. For 20 mT, one my get GCR protection, for example.
-
#18
by
darkbluenine
on 18 Dec, 2013 15:11
-
How do you know Orion is overbuilt? They haven't even performed EFT-1 yet to verify the engineering, so how do you know? Same goes for "overmass"... at PDR it was overmass for the design
I wouldn't use the term "overbuilt". MPCV did have a minor structural test failure, after all. She's not built extra thick.
But I'd argue that the mass issue does bear on the discussion, both because of its severity and because of design philosophy.
The CM alone is 20-25% overweight for its parachutes. Because the limit is imposed by the parachutes, thousands of pounds have to come out of the CM -- that mass can't be made up from the SM. (Incidentally, ESA is also delaying the PDR for the SM by six months because it's overweight.) Without some miraculous data from EFT-1 that the heat shield can be safely made extremely thin, it's not clear where this mass is going to come from. NASA managers themselves said as much in an AvWeek article a few months back. Although it's politically impossible, it would be good for the agency to look at alternatives to and off-ramps for MPCV. Getting the design and requirements to close may become a very expensive and Pyrrhic proposition. Whether the alternative should be some Dragon-derivative, CST-100 derivative, or other something else, I'll leave to others.
It's also clear, at least to me, that the design approach underlying MPCV -- that of bringing lots of in-space capability back through the atmosphere in a capsule on every mission -- has reached, and may have exceeded, its limits. MPCV's parachutes are as big as they can be with existing technology and they may not be enough. It's also an issue that drives the size, complexity and reliability of launch abort systems. I'd argue that the better approach is focusing the capsule on what the capsule most needs to do -- getting astronauts up and down through the atmosphere as safely as possible -- and shifting other functions to an in-space module. Again, whether that in-space module is called a boot, a trunk, or a hab, and whether it's ISS-, Cygnus-, Bigelow-, or other-derived, I'll leave to others.
My 2 cents... YMMV.
-
#19
by
TomH
on 18 Dec, 2013 21:00
-
How do you know Orion is overbuilt? They haven't even performed EFT-1 yet to verify the engineering, so how do you know? Same goes for "overmass"... at PDR it was overmass for the design
I wouldn't use the term "overbuilt". MPCV did have a minor structural test failure, after all. She's not built extra thick.
But I'd argue that the mass issue does bear on the discussion, both because of its severity and because of design philosophy.
The CM alone is 20-25% overweight for its parachutes. Because the limit is imposed by the parachutes, thousands of pounds have to come out of the CM -- that mass can't be made up from the SM. (Incidentally, ESA is also delaying the PDR for the SM by six months because it's overweight.) Without some miraculous data from EFT-1 that the heat shield can be safely made extremely thin, it's not clear where this mass is going to come from. NASA managers themselves said as much in an AvWeek article a few months back. Although it's politically impossible, it would be good for the agency to look at alternatives to and off-ramps for MPCV. Getting the design and requirements to close may become a very expensive and Pyrrhic proposition. Whether the alternative should be some Dragon-derivative, CST-100 derivative, or other something else, I'll leave to others.
It's also clear, at least to me, that the design approach underlying MPCV -- that of bringing lots of in-space capability back through the atmosphere in a capsule on every mission -- has reached, and may have exceeded, its limits. MPCV's parachutes are as big as they can be with existing technology and they may not be enough. It's also an issue that drives the size, complexity and reliability of launch abort systems. I'd argue that the better approach is focusing the capsule on what the capsule most needs to do -- getting astronauts up and down through the atmosphere as safely as possible -- and shifting other functions to an in-space module. Again, whether that in-space module is called a boot, a trunk, or a hab, and whether it's ISS-, Cygnus-, Bigelow-, or other-derived, I'll leave to others.
My 2 cents... YMMV.
Yes, this is exactly what I mean by overbuilt. I did not say the skeletal structure was stronger than necessary, but it is overbuilt in terms of all the mass crammed within. All that's needed is a minimalist capsule to use as taxi return from cis-Lunar space.
As far as EOI propellant mass (at cis-Lunar location) vs. hauling Orion all the way to Mars and back, yes, I understand the propellant being more mass than the Orion. Nevertheless, how much money is saved by reusing the entire hab and associated structures rather than building another? Also, it would seem that rather than taking all that propellant through TMI, MOI, and TEI, it would be possible to send a tanker from Earth on a very high elliptical orbit and have it rendezvous with the vehicle as it approaches Earth on its return trajectory. I realize the risk, but we have the mathematical prowess and computing ability to accomplish this.
-
#20
by
Proponent
on 18 Dec, 2013 23:05
-
What makes Orion so heavy, anyway? AIUI, the Orion CM is intended to tip the scales at 22 klb (I presume--see the attached doc--that's
after the weight is reduced to get it down to what its 'chutes can support). The Apollo CM, in comparison, was a waif at 13 klb. You'd expect Orion might be heavier because it has a crew of four rather than Apollo's three, but on the other hand technology, particularly electronics, has moved on quite a bit since the 1960s. Orion might also support its crew for a bit longer than Apollo, but that's probably mostly a matter of weight in the SM, not the CM. I don't get it.
-
#21
by
Lars_J
on 19 Dec, 2013 00:32
-
What makes Orion so heavy, anyway? AIUI, the Orion CM is intended to tip the scales at 22 klb (I presume--see the attached doc--that's after the weight is reduced to get it down to what its 'chutes can support). The Apollo CM, in comparison, was a waif at 13 klb. You'd expect Orion might be heavier because it has a crew of four rather than Apollo's three, but on the other hand technology, particularly electronics, has moved on quite a bit since the 1960s. Orion might also support its crew for a bit longer than Apollo, but that's probably mostly a matter of weight in the SM, not the CM. I don't get it.
Some of it is basic physics... Orion is a scaled up Apollo. From 3.9m diameter to 5m diameter. A 28% increase in diameter.
But that is a ~120% increase in volume. So in overly simple terms, if Orion was made from Apollo materials it should weigh ~27 klb. So Orion isn't doing *that* bad. But still, one would expect it do do even *better*.
Part of the problem may be that the Apollo shape simply doesn't scale up very well.
-
#22
by
TomH
on 19 Dec, 2013 05:20
-
What makes Orion so heavy, anyway? AIUI, the Orion CM is intended to tip the scales at 22 klb (I presume--see the attached doc--that's after the weight is reduced to get it down to what its 'chutes can support). The Apollo CM, in comparison, was a waif at 13 klb. You'd expect Orion might be heavier because it has a crew of four rather than Apollo's three, but on the other hand technology, particularly electronics, has moved on quite a bit since the 1960s. Orion might also support its crew for a bit longer than Apollo, but that's probably mostly a matter of weight in the SM, not the CM. I don't get it.
Some of it is basic physics... Orion is a scaled up Apollo. From 3.9m diameter to 5m diameter. A 28% increase in diameter.
But that is a ~120% increase in volume. So in overly simple terms, if Orion was made from Apollo materials it should weigh ~27 klb. So Orion isn't doing *that* bad. But still, one would expect it do do even *better*.
Part of the problem may be that the Apollo shape simply doesn't scale up very well.
You both raise great points. And remember, Orion is capable of accommodating 6 astronauts in a differing configuration. Rather than going from 5.0 up to the 5.5 m diameter, it would have been better to reduce the diameter for accommodating only 4 astros. Everything that can possibly go into a SM should be there instead of inside the CM. CST-100 has the same shape, but is 4.56 m diameter, mass is ca. 10 tons and can accommodate 6. It's TPS is designed for about 17,300 mph reentry interface following deorbit burn, while Orion's is rated for 32,000 mph Mars reentry, so the TPS is some of the mass difference. Still, the comparison with CST-100 is more revealing than with Apollo. This is why Orion seems IMHO anyway to be over massed and also why it seems reasonable that NASA at least consider looking at the trades involved in leaving Orion behind on a Mars mission, opting to use a taxi and to send a tanker to rendezvous with the hab as it approaches Earth on return prior to EOI in cis-Lunar space. Otherwise, think about an Aldrin cycler; let the higher mass vehicle maintain its inertia and send a high V crew transfer vehicle to rendezvous with it.
-
#23
by
Proponent
on 19 Dec, 2013 08:04
-
What makes Orion so heavy, anyway? AIUI, the Orion CM is intended to tip the scales at 22 klb (I presume--see the attached doc--that's after the weight is reduced to get it down to what its 'chutes can support). The Apollo CM, in comparison, was a waif at 13 klb. You'd expect Orion might be heavier because it has a crew of four rather than Apollo's three, but on the other hand technology, particularly electronics, has moved on quite a bit since the 1960s. Orion might also support its crew for a bit longer than Apollo, but that's probably mostly a matter of weight in the SM, not the CM. I don't get it.
Some of it is basic physics... Orion is a scaled up Apollo. From 3.9m diameter to 5m diameter. A 28% increase in diameter.
But that is a ~120% increase in volume. So in overly simple terms, if Orion was made from Apollo materials it should weigh ~27 klb. So Orion isn't doing *that* bad. But still, one would expect it do do even *better*.
Part of the problem may be that the Apollo shape simply doesn't scale up very well.
But that begs the question of why is it so much larger than Apollo? Is there a good reason for requiring so much more volume per crew member than Apollo offered? Particularly since for any extended mission, additional modules are required anyway. For that matter, come to think of it, is there a firm justification for increasing the crew to four from Apollo's three? Obviously there are advantages to a larger crew -- when you get to the moon or Mars you get more person-hours per mission on the surface -- but did anybody ever rigorously trade those advantages against the costs?
-
#24
by
darkbluenine
on 19 Dec, 2013 13:32
-
For that matter, come to think of it, is there a firm justification for increasing the crew to four from Apollo's three?
Safety during lunar surface operations. The logic is that astronauts should work in teams of two in the event one experiences an accident or equipment failure. They should always have a partner to back them up. (The two teams also back each other up in the event there's an accident or equipment failure that strands one team.)
With no astronaut staying on the CM as was done during Apollo, that third astronaut will be on the surface and needs a partner (a fourth astronaut) to engage in surface operations safely.
Obviously there are advantages to a larger crew -- when you get to the moon or Mars you get more person-hours per mission on the surface
Mars missions usually assume six astronauts due to the long duration of the mission and the skill mix needed. The logic is that it's probably unrealistic for four astronauts to possess all the necessary skills for a mission of that duration and complexity.
-- but did anybody ever rigorously trade those advantages against the costs?
No. It was an assumption in ESAS. From page 18 in the report:
1.2.3 Technical GR&As
The Technical GR&As are listed below.
• The CEV will be designed for up to a crew of six for ISS missions.
• The CEV will be designed for up to a crew of four for lunar missions.
• The CEV will be designed for up to a crew of six for Mars missions.
The total lack of analysis of the sensitivity of cost and safety to requirements, including crew size, was a major weakness of the ESAS effort. More astronauts and safer surface operations are great until they push you out of the budget box and beyond parachute limits and technology.
-
#25
by
Proponent
on 19 Dec, 2013 14:47
-
OK, thanks, it makes a little more sense now. I had erroneously believed that the requirement to carry a crew of six applied only for ISS taxi missions. In that case, since the basic Apollo CM was capable of returning five to earth in a pinch and since there was a North American proposal in 1966 squeeze six astros in for LEO taxi missions (with touch-down on dry land, no less -- see David Shayler's book Apollo: Lost and Forgotten Missions), I couldn't see why Orion would require so much more volume. But if the requirement is to carry six on longer voyages (though surely not all the way to Mars without a hab module!), the much greater volume makes more sense.
-
#26
by
pathfinder_01
on 19 Dec, 2013 22:03
-
I couldn't see why Orion would require so much more volume. But if the requirement is to carry six on longer voyages (though surely not all the way to Mars without a hab module!), the much greater volume makes more sense.
The reason for the increased volume is to support 4 people for 21 days. Apollo only had to support 3 people for 14 days. Orion needs to support a crew 7 days longer and with one extra person than Apollo. This increases the amount of supplies needed. In fact the volume of the capsule is too small for current life support systems (ones that use lioh) and too small for ISS style regenerative systems and so they had to develop smaller life support systems for it(something they were not planning to do.).
Basically taking the same shape, scaling it up and stuffing an extra person in and expecting it to keep a crew longer may have been too much to do. They didn’t want to put the extra supplies in another module(like Soyuz) because they thought having everything in one module would be safer than separating from an orbital module or docking/undocking. Basically this decision is biting them in the rear at the moment(too heavy for the chutes, and too small for life support tech. to bear this load, causing unexpected spending.)
-
#27
by
Raj2014
on 24 Jul, 2014 20:46
-
What is the length of the Orion and apollo spacecrafts?
-
#28
by
MATTBLAK
on 24 Jul, 2014 21:03
-
With it's huge engine bell and long, propellant laden service module, Apollo would be a bit longer than the Orion CM & SM combo I should think. Incidentally, I've always thought the Orion CM is too large - it should have been no wider than 4.5 meters (like CST-100) or better yet, just 4 meters like Apollo. And if NASA and it's contractor had been brave enough; a composite main structure to save weight. A 4 meter, composite Orion should have no issues with high mass at all and be able to be launched on a variety of boosters. It would not matter if Orion was smaller than 5 meters; as it should always be/have only been a launch, control cockpit and re-entry vehicle (Soyuz?), not a jack-of-all trades that it seems to be portrayed as right now.
-
#29
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 25 Jul, 2014 07:54
-
The Apollo CSM length is 11.03 m. I couldn't find a source for the Orion length, but using an Orion heat shield diameter of 5.03 m and the attached image, I get a length of about 7.84 m. Thus, Orion is about 3.19 m or 29% shorter than the Apollo CSM.
I agree about Orion being too wide. However, I believe that a Soyuz type system would have provided a lower total mass with substantially increased internal volume. This is especially useful for Lunar missions. For Mars or asteroid missions, the orbital module is replaced with a larger habitat, again saving mass. A nominal design with a 3.3 m diameter is given below. Attached is the program I used. I get an 8.76 t or 38% reduction in total mass while total internal volume increases by 108%.
Soyuz Shenzhou Orion Orion2
mass capsule (t) 2.95 3.24 9.82 3.90
mass orbital module (t) 1.30 1.50 - 1.97
mass service module (t) 2.10 2.10 3.80 2.52
mass space craft (t) 6.35 6.84 13.62 8.39
mass propellant (t) 0.80 1.00 9.20 5.67
mass total (t) 7.15 7.84 22.82 14.06
volume capsule (m^3} 3.5 6.0 9.0 8.2
volume orbital module (m^3) 5.0 8.0 - 10.5
volume total (m^3) 8.5 14.0 9.0 18.7
diameter (m) 2.17 2.52 5.03 3.31
Crew 3 3 4 4
-
#30
by
TomH
on 27 Jul, 2014 04:11
-
... I believe that a Soyuz type system would have provided a lower total mass with substantially increased internal volume. This is especially useful for Lunar missions. For Mars or asteroid missions, the orbital module is replaced with a larger habitat, again saving mass....
Completely agreed. Orion was designed to serve as both reentry capsule and habitat for lunar missions. Soyuz design has minimal mass and volume in the reentry capsule, just big enough for 3 persons to survive reentry and just enough consumables for the short duration of reentry. The extra volume in the hab section is used at other times. Orion designers had in mind one vehicle that would serve both purposes. It can still serve both purposes on a lunar mission, but it is not well designed for a Mars mission because another hab is required anyway. Steven is right. The reentry capsule should be just big enough for that purpose. A small hab should go along on lunar missions and a big hab on Deep space missions.
To answer the questions about what makes Orion over mass: parachutes. Orion is too heavy for its parachutes. It is pushing the boundaries for parachutes to safely function. I don't remember all the technical details, but ISTR that making the chutes bigger doesn't solve the problem. Apparently there is a limit to how much weight 3 chutes can safely bring down and adding or enlarging chutes doesn't help the problem. The original big Orion would have been eventually cancelled no matter what because it had far too much mass for the chutes to handle.
Going to a Soyuz type design would lower mission mass as well as solve the parachute problem.
-
#31
by
M_Puckett
on 27 Jul, 2014 04:29
-
Why not add a fourth chute?
-
#32
by
TomH
on 27 Jul, 2014 04:45
-
Why not add a fourth chute?
I wondered the same thing. I don't know for certain, but it may have to do with the likelihood that the chutes would tangle with each other or the angular number of degrees the chutes divert from the vertical axis. Hopefully someone with more knowledge will chip in.
-
#33
by
RonM
on 27 Jul, 2014 04:53
-
Why not add a fourth chute?
I wondered the same thing. I don't know for certain, but it may have to do with the likelihood that the chutes would tangle with each other or the angular number of degrees the chutes divert from the vertical axis. Hopefully someone with more knowledge will chip in.
Not only that, but where would you put a fourth chute? It's already a tight fit for three chutes.
-
#34
by
Burninate
on 27 Jul, 2014 05:33
-
What is the actual issue with scaling up chutes to higher loading? What is the failure mode associated with the present chutes being too small, or with doubling the size of the existing chutes?
-
#35
by
Lars_J
on 27 Jul, 2014 05:47
-
Why not add a fourth chute?
I wondered the same thing. I don't know for certain, but it may have to do with the likelihood that the chutes would tangle with each other or the angular number of degrees the chutes divert from the vertical axis. Hopefully someone with more knowledge will chip in.
Not only that, but where would you put a fourth chute? It's already a tight fit for three chutes.
Indeed... It might require them to build something a bit more different than Apollo. If only we didn't have to build new capsules just like Apollo.
-
#36
by
TomH
on 27 Jul, 2014 05:56
-
What is the actual issue with scaling up chutes to higher loading? What is the failure mode associated with the present chutes being too small, or with doubling the size of the existing chutes?
Indeed, although apparently problems with doing those things do exist. Sounds like this might make an interesting article for Chris or one of his proteges to address. Any possibility of a short article that could explain why these solutions won't work for the mass/parachute problem, Chris?
-
#37
by
Raj2014
on 27 Jul, 2014 09:51
-
Are there any pictures of what the Original Orion capsule would have looked liked?
I found these websites,
website 1,
website 2,
website 3 and
website 4. Is this the original spacecraft?
-
#38
by
A_M_Swallow
on 27 Jul, 2014 16:50
-
Indeed... It might require them to build something a bit more different than Apollo. If only we didn't have to build new capsules just like Apollo.
Unless we make it exactly the same shape and size as the Apollo Command Module.
-
#39
by
Rocket Science
on 27 Jul, 2014 22:10
-
Perhaps they could revisit the original parafoil proposal vs the chutes...
-
#40
by
Zed_Noir
on 28 Jul, 2014 03:10
-
Perhaps they could revisit the original parafoil proposal vs the chutes...
Won't the volume of the parachutes and parafoil be more or less the same?
-
#41
by
TomH
on 30 Jul, 2014 04:45
-
Are there any pictures of what the Original Orion capsule would have looked liked?
I believe that the Orion here is 5.5m, though I could be wrong. Note the SM dia. = CM dia. (From Astronautix)
This gives a good comparison of the Apollo CM with the 5.0m Orion CM
-
#42
by
Raj2014
on 31 Jul, 2014 22:31
-
Thank you, I know about the diameter of the Orion being built now compared to Apollo but do you or anyone else know what the height of the Orion will be? Will the Orion be taller, same height or smaller than the Apollo capsule?
-
#43
by
Jim
on 01 Aug, 2014 02:25
-
Thank you, I know about the diameter of the Orion being built now compared to Apollo but do you or anyone else know what the height of the Orion will be? Will the Orion be taller, same height or smaller than the Apollo capsule?
It has the same ratio as Apollo. That is why the shape was chosen. It didn't need any wind tunnel testing because it uses the Apollo shape.
-
#44
by
TomH
on 01 Aug, 2014 06:00
-
Thank you, I know about the diameter of the Orion being built now compared to Apollo but do you or anyone else know what the height of the Orion will be? Will the Orion be taller, same height or smaller than the Apollo capsule?
It has the same ratio as Apollo. That is why the shape was chosen. It didn't need any wind tunnel testing because it uses the Apollo shape.
I remember a news interview on television right after the Orion shape was announced. I do not remember whether it was with Griffin or one of the Orion designers. I am 99% sure I remember this correctly. The person being interviewed indicated they had run aerodynamic tests (and I thought that included wind tunnel testing-but perhaps it was only computer modeling) for the Orion shape and determined it to be the safest. The interviewee concluded by saying they were all amazed that the Apollo designers had come to the exact same conclusion and had chosen the same shape all those decades before.
Edit: In this picture from Marshall, the capsule does not seem to have the same proportions. It even seems triconical:
My guess is the capsule itself had to have this design tweak to accommodate the aerodynamic shroud placed on the bottom of the LAS? Nevertheless, reentry aerodynamics would differ, correct?
As I look at the Orion and Apollo above, if the cones continued to their vertices, the Apollo vertex would be slightly more acute. The vertex in the parachute drop Orion here seems that it would be almost slightly obtuse.
-
#45
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 01 Aug, 2014 07:45
-
The person being interviewed indicated they had run aerodynamic tests (and I thought that included wind tunnel testing-but perhaps it was only computer modeling) for the Orion shape and determined it to be the safest. The interviewee concluded by saying they were all amazed that the Apollo designers had come to the exact same conclusion and had chosen the same shape all those decades before.
I'd like to know why it is the "safest". The Soyuz shape was safe enough to go around the Moon and back, and has much better volumetric efficiency due to the higher side walls. The Chinese will also be using the same Soyuz shape for their Lunar missions, if that program ever gets the go ahead.
Edit: In this picture from Marshall, the capsule does not seem to have the same proportions. It even seems triconical:
Yes, the capsule shape in these parachute tests was "squashed" so that it would fit inside the C-17 carrier aircraft.
-
#46
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 01 Aug, 2014 07:50
-
Thank you, I know about the diameter of the Orion being built now compared to Apollo but do you or anyone else know what the height of the Orion will be? Will the Orion be taller, same height or smaller than the Apollo capsule?
The Orion capsule is taller than the Apollo Command Module, as you can see in the image on the previous page. I estimate the Orion capsule height to be 3.45 m.
-
#47
by
Jim
on 01 Aug, 2014 11:22
-
Edit: In this picture from Marshall, the capsule does not seem to have the same proportions. It even seems triconical:
That is a parachute test vehicle and not Orion
-
#48
by
Oli
on 01 Aug, 2014 12:25
-
I'd like to know why it is the "safest". The Soyuz shape was safe enough to go around the Moon and back, and has much better volumetric efficiency due to the higher side walls. The Chinese will also be using the same Soyuz shape for their Lunar missions, if that program ever gets the go ahead.
But there must be some advantage to the Apollo/Orion shape. Lower g-forces, increased landing accuracy?
Yes, the capsule shape in these parachute tests was "squashed" so that it would fit inside the C-17 carrier aircraft.
That's a shame, because it looks kind of cool
-
#49
by
Jim
on 01 Aug, 2014 12:32
-
But there must be some advantage to the Apollo/Orion shape. Lower g-forces, increased landing accuracy?
Because little research was needed to use it, they leveraged Apollo data
-
#50
by
Oli
on 01 Aug, 2014 12:59
-
But there must be some advantage to the Apollo/Orion shape. Lower g-forces, increased landing accuracy?
Because little research was needed to use it, they leveraged Apollo data
I have a hard time believing that making the side walls steeper/higher would have had a big impact on development costs. I mean, its not exactly the most complex reentry shape out there...
-
#51
by
Jim
on 01 Aug, 2014 13:13
-
I have a hard time believing that making the side walls steeper/higher would have had a big impact on development costs. I mean, its not exactly the most complex reentry shape out there...
There is no entry test data other shapes at lunar or Mars return velocities.
-
#52
by
pippin
on 01 Aug, 2014 13:22
-
I have a hard time believing that making the side walls steeper/higher would have had a big impact on development costs. I mean, its not exactly the most complex reentry shape out there...
There is no entry test data other shapes at lunar or Mars return velocities.
Shouldn't the Russians have Zond data?
-
#53
by
Oli
on 01 Aug, 2014 15:05
-
All right, I've done some reading.
So it basically went like this (at least according to that ESAS report I found).
-> They started with 5.5m diameter and 20° aft-body sidewall angle.
-> Volume not needed, too heavy (aft-body TPS, radiation shielding etc.), aft-body flow impingment (whatever that is), desired L/D and monostability at the same time not achieved.
-> Next proposal was 5.2m diameter and 30° sidewall angle.
-> Packaging and mass issues (among other things they did not want to stack crew members).
-> Final proposal 5.5m diameter and 32.5° sidewall angle. Benefit of aerodynamics and aerothermodynamics well known from Apollo.
The relevant sections of the report (attached).
5.3.1.3.3 Initial Axisymmetric Capsule Shape Downselect
In order to balance the effects of the changing parameters, a baseline vehicle was selected with
a shallower cone angle of 20 deg (since this had the least effect on other parameters), with the
same base and corner radius as Apollo. This new vehicle trended toward the family of vehicles
represented by the Soyuz capsule, which has an even shallower sidewall angle. This vehicle
is shown in Figure 5-30 below. It was estimated that an achievable X-axis center of gravity
(Xcg ) position would lie at or around the 45 percent volume level. In that case, the Zcg offset
required for 0.4 L/D would be roughly 0.053 times the diameter. For this shape, the monostable
CG position could be as high as the 48.6 percent volume level, which would therefore leave
some margin for assured monostability.
5.3.1.3.5 Initial Capsule Shape Trade Conclusions
For the initial capsule shape trade study, detailed and extensive analysis of parametric effects
and trends of various capsule shapes and features indicated that achieving the desired characteristics
was indeed a formidable task. A compromise was made to achieve all of the desired
characteristics as closely as possible while minimizing the detrimental effects. The resultant
axisymmetric shape (shown in Figures 5-30 and 5-32) was a 5.5-m diameter capsule with
Apollo heat shield and 20-deg aft-body sidewall angle. The capsule offered large volume
(i.e., large enough for surface-direct missions), easily developed axisymmetric shape, the best
chance for monostability, L/D = 0.4 with attainable CG, adequate static stability, and low L/D
sensitivity to CG dispersions. Nonaxisymmetric shape optimization had shown that this technique
could indeed reduce CG offset requirements if needed in the future. Further detailed
analysis was then required to further define the performance characteristics of the axisymmetric
shape.
5.3.1.3.11 Alternate Proposed CM Shapes
Near the end of the ESAS, it was decided that the direct-to-surface lunar mission architecture
would not be prudent. This eliminated the need for a high-volume CEV CM such as the
baseline axisymmetric CM shape. In addition, a 1.5-launch solution was selected in which the
CEV CM would always be launched on a Shuttle-derived CLV configuration for both LEO
and lunar missions. This LV was limited in performance, particularly for the lunar mission
and lunar CEV, which created a need to decrease the baseline CEV mass. Because significant
mass was created by the extremely large aft-body due to TPS, radiation shielding, and
structure, it was desirable to increase the aft-body sidewall angle. In addition, the aft-body
flow impingement of the baseline axisymmetric CM shape was not desirable. Finally, the
systems packaging at this point had still not achieved the desired CG location for the baseline
shape. Although the CG location was low enough to provide monostability, it was not
offset far enough to produce the desired 0.4 L/D ratio. All of these factors weighed in against
the remaining benefit of the shallow-walled, large aft-body baseline design—the potential
monostability. Eventually, the desire for aerodynamic monostability was outweighed by other
factors; however, other propulsive or mechanical methods are available to ensure stable ballistic
entry, such as employing a flap or RCS jets.
The baseline axisymmetric shape was modified to have a 30-deg back-shell sidewall angle
and reduced diameter to 5.2 m. This provided a 2- to 3-deg buffer from the flow direction at a
26–27 trim degree angle-of-attack. The alternative AFE-type vehicle with its 28-deg sidewall
angle was already suitable, except for the fact that it was scaled down to a 5.2-m diameter. In
addition, its length was decreased to allow for the docking ring diameter and a tighter corner
radius was employed to help decrease the Zcg offset requirement. Both changes to the AFEtype
shape significantly decreased monostability. These vehicles are shown in Figure 5-42.
The Cm curves for these vehicles are shown in Figure 5-43 at the representative CG locations and
monostable limits. The Cm curves are similar, although there is a slight reduction in static stability
at the desired trim angle-of-attack of the AFE-type shape compared to Apollo. Figure 5-44
provides the 0.4 L/D CG trim lines for these configurations. (Note: the significantly reduced Zcg
offset requirements of the AFE-type shape.) Both trim lines have roughly equal distance from
a representative CG to the monostable CG limit. Table 5-18 presents some performance specifications
for the two vehicles. The overwhelming benefit of the AFE-type configuration is the
reduced Zcg offset required for 0.4 L/D, though there is a slight TPS mass cost.
5.3.1.3.12 Final ESAS CM Shape
Based primarily on packaging and mass issues, the final proposed baseline CEV CM shape
was a 5.5-m diameter Apollo (with the original Apollo 32.5-deg sidewall). Thus, the aerodynamics
and aerothermodynamics are well known. TPS estimates were made based on the
results presented previously using the heat shield data for the axisymmetric baseline shape and
the back-shell data for the AFE-type shape. The trimline for this shape was found to be nearly
identical to that shown previously for the 30-deg sidewall Apollo. Also, the ballistic entry
analyses provided above is still applicable for the most part.
Concern is warranted, however, over the ability to achieve the Zcg offset that will be required
to achieve a 0.4 L/D using this shape. However, the alternative AFE-type shape as shown
previously would alleviate this concern. The shape working group is continuing to evolve an
AFE-type shape that is directly comparable to the proposed 5.5-m diameter Apollo with a
32.5-deg back-shell, with the only difference being in the heat shield shape. Further risk and
performance analyses in the areas of landing (land versus water) may ultimately determine
which CEV CM shape is selected.
-
#54
by
mike robel
on 02 Aug, 2014 00:52
-
Here are some photos of my 1/72 Apollo 7 (Dragon pre-built model) and two Fantastic Plastic Orions, 1 early and 1 Late (but before the ESA Delivered SM concept.)
First some Apollo - "Big Orion Comparisons
-
#55
by
mike robel
on 02 Aug, 2014 00:53
-
Apollo Vs Little Orion (with old style Solar Panels. 1 has broken off and I couldn't find where I stored it to make sure I could repair it.)
-
#56
by
mike robel
on 02 Aug, 2014 00:55
-
Old and New Orion (note the warping on the long solar cells. One day I will get around to replacing them.)
-
#57
by
mike robel
on 02 Aug, 2014 00:57
-
Then all three together. Note the Big Orion has a smaller nozzle than the Small Orion. That was, I think, from when it would have a methane-oxygen engine.
-
#58
by
mike robel
on 02 Aug, 2014 01:02
-
And then, for fun, Orion with the Japanese Resupply Vehicle and Dream Chaser. The Resupply vehicle is said to be a little underscale.
-
#59
by
TomH
on 02 Aug, 2014 06:42
-
O.K. Mike, you just put me into a really nostalgic mood for the room full of model rockets and planes I had as a kid. I'm having flashbacks and increased heart rate! You also made me realize what I might spend a lot of time doing when I retire in 3 years too!
Sorry for being OT, just got so space geek excited. Hope the mods can understand and forgive a guy for that..
(BTW, where did you find the kits for those?)
-
#60
by
mike robel
on 02 Aug, 2014 11:51
-
You can get 1/72 Apollo CSM models from Realspacemodels.com and a whole bunch of other cool ones, too.
You can get 1/72 Apollo CSM/LMs in collectable and buildable versions (including a 1/72 Saturn V) from Dragon Models, places like Squadron.com or sometimes a local hobby shop. Dragon models are not known for their accuracy, especially on them LM.
Airfix makes a 1/72 LM.
Revell and Airfix have various other space models.
There are other garage kit model makers as well.
The Orions come from fantastic-plastic.com, but they are out of production. no one makes an Oron now that I know of.
-
#61
by
Raj2014
on 10 Nov, 2014 12:21
-
Will they change the design of the Orion, adding newer technologies and increase the volume? Has Lockheed Martin already designed other versions of the Orion spacecraft?
-
#62
by
Jim
on 10 Nov, 2014 12:34
-
Will they change the design of the Orion, adding newer technologies and increase the volume? Has Lockheed Martin already designed other versions of the Orion spacecraft?
No, it will retain the same basic design. And what new technologies are there?
-
#63
by
Raj2014
on 10 Nov, 2014 17:17
-
Will they change the design of the Orion, adding newer technologies and increase the volume? Has Lockheed Martin already designed other versions of the Orion spacecraft?
No, it will retain the same basic design. And what new technologies are there?
Newer technologies being developed, added into and on the Orion, e.g. improved computers, improved radiation shielding, electric propulsion, improved solor technology and batteries.
-
#64
by
Jim
on 10 Nov, 2014 19:08
-
Newer technologies being developed, added into and on the Orion, e.g. improved computers, improved radiation shielding, electric propulsion, improved solor technology and batteries.
Electric propulsion is not useful on a manned vehicle. How has radiation shielding improved in the last few years? The vehicle was already using lithium batteries and the SM is being designed by ESA as we type. Computers will not really make a difference at this time and the avionics suite has been already designed and in integration.
So, no there are "new" technologies available to be incorporated.
-
#65
by
Raj2014
on 10 Nov, 2014 19:51
-
Newer technologies being developed, added into and on the Orion, e.g. improved computers, improved radiation shielding, electric propulsion, improved solor technology and batteries.
Electric propulsion is not useful on a manned vehicle. How has radiation shielding improved in the last few years? The vehicle was already using lithium batteries and the SM is being designed by ESA as we type. Computers will not really make a difference at this time and the avionics suite has been already designed and in integration.
So, no there are "new" technologies available to be incorporated.
Electric propulsions such as the Ion drive with high specific impulse and low thrust will not be useful for manned missions but thrusters such plasma, which offers high thrust and high specific impulse for example VASIMR, that has a option to change for more thrust or fuel efficiency would be a good addition also it can provide protection from some if not all know radiations. Also I have read of new materials being made which could increase and protect the Orion capsule and crew. Solar technology is improving at a fast rate, efficiently has increased and made from lighter materials. Also Lockheed Martin has announced that they are working on a Compact Fusion Reactor, which hopefully it will work and be out as soon as possible, add this to Orion plus an expendable habitat.
I hope they also build the Nautilus-X, with international assistance.
-
#66
by
Jim
on 10 Nov, 2014 21:26
-
Newer technologies being developed, added into and on the Orion, e.g. improved computers, improved radiation shielding, electric propulsion, improved solor technology and batteries.
Electric propulsion is not useful on a manned vehicle. How has radiation shielding improved in the last few years? The vehicle was already using lithium batteries and the SM is being designed by ESA as we type. Computers will not really make a difference at this time and the avionics suite has been already designed and in integration.
So, no there are "new" technologies available to be incorporated.
1. but thrusters such plasma, which offers high thrust and high specific impulse for example VASIMR, that has a option to change for more thrust or fuel efficiency would be a good addition also it can provide protection from some if not all know radiations.
2. Also I have read of new materials being made which could increase and protect the Orion capsule and crew.
3. Solar technology is improving at a fast rate, efficiently has increased and made from lighter materials.
4.Also Lockheed Martin has announced that they are working on a Compact Fusion Reactor, which hopefully it will work and be out as soon as possible,
5. add this to Orion plus an expendable habitat.
I hope they also build the Nautilus-X, with international assistance.
1. Unproven that this time.
2. Again unproven
3. The latest is not always proven for flight
4. That likely will not be available at anytime during the Orion program. Working on does not mean it "works"
5. Lockheed nor NASA is working any habitat for Orion at this time.
-
#67
by
Raj2014
on 10 Nov, 2014 22:08
-
Newer technologies being developed, added into and on the Orion, e.g. improved computers, improved radiation shielding, electric propulsion, improved solor technology and batteries.
Electric propulsion is not useful on a manned vehicle. How has radiation shielding improved in the last few years? The vehicle was already using lithium batteries and the SM is being designed by ESA as we type. Computers will not really make a difference at this time and the avionics suite has been already designed and in integration.
So, no there are "new" technologies available to be incorporated.
1. but thrusters such plasma, which offers high thrust and high specific impulse for example VASIMR, that has a option to change for more thrust or fuel efficiency would be a good addition also it can provide protection from some if not all know radiations.
2. Also I have read of new materials being made which could increase and protect the Orion capsule and crew.
3. Solar technology is improving at a fast rate, efficiently has increased and made from lighter materials.
4.Also Lockheed Martin has announced that they are working on a Compact Fusion Reactor, which hopefully it will work and be out as soon as possible,
5. add this to Orion plus an expendable habitat.
I hope they also build the Nautilus-X, with international assistance.
1. Unproven that this time.
2. Again unproven
3. The latest is not always proven for flight
4. That likely will not be available at anytime during the Orion program. Working on does not mean it "works"
5. Lockheed nor NASA is working any habitat for Orion at this time.
1. Vasimr will be tested on ISS next year
2. Currently still being tested
3. That does not make any sense, if they develop the latest solar panels for space flight after testing, it will most likely work.
4. They are planning to have a test done every year, a working prototype in 5 years, complete version 10 years. Orion program is expected to last for more than 10 years, if they stay with the Orion spacecraft.
5. NASA has worked on expendable habitats, decades ago. They sold the technology to Bigelow Aerospace, which they have been continually developing the technology, have launched 2 versions and will launch another habitat next year called BEAM to the ISS.
-
#68
by
Jim
on 10 Nov, 2014 22:31
-
1. Vasimr will be tested on ISS next year
2. Currently still being tested
3. That does not make any sense, if they develop the latest solar panels for space flight after testing, it will most likely work.
4. They are planning to have a test done every year, a working prototype in 5 years, complete version 10 years. Orion program is expected to last for more than 10 years, if they stay with the Orion spacecraft.
5. NASA has worked on expendable habitats, decades ago. They sold the technology to Bigelow Aerospace, which they have been continually developing the technology, have launched 2 versions and will launch another habitat next year called BEAM to the ISS.
1. That doesn't mean it is proven, qualified or available for other spacecraft. It is flying on ISS as a test. Anyways, it is a poor choice for Orion, it still doesn't have enough thrust. Orion needs to be able to abort off the launch vehicle with its OME (after the LAS is gone).
2. And hence unproven.
3. No, your whole point doesn't make sense. A spacecraft has to use what is available at the time of its design, which is many years before the spacecraft flies. So if a technology wasn't available a few years ago, it is not going to fly on Orion.
4. a. That doesn't mean it is going to work. Many have tried fusion and failed.
b. Even if it is going to work, the schedule will likely be a lot longer.
c. It will be even a lot longer before it is going to fly
d. Orion isn't going to last that long and at any rate, it is not going to use a fusion device.
5. So what? That doesn't mean NASA is actively working on a operational expandable habitat. It is not in NASA's budget for such a module.
You have to understand spacecraft design process before making such pronouncements. Just stop, there isn't anything you can add to this discussion to change the facts. Orion design is fixed at this time and there are no new technologies available for it, especially the ones you have selected.
-
#69
by
Burninate
on 16 Nov, 2014 13:00
-
Newer technologies being developed, added into and on the Orion, e.g. improved computers, improved radiation shielding, electric propulsion, improved solor technology and batteries.
Electric propulsion is not useful on a manned vehicle. How has radiation shielding improved in the last few years? The vehicle was already using lithium batteries and the SM is being designed by ESA as we type. Computers will not really make a difference at this time and the avionics suite has been already designed and in integration.
So, no there are "new" technologies available to be incorporated.
Electric propulsions such as the Ion drive with high specific impulse and low thrust will not be useful for manned missions but thrusters such plasma, which offers high thrust and high specific impulse for example VASIMR, that has a option to change for more thrust or fuel efficiency would be a good addition also it can provide protection from some if not all know radiations. Also I have read of new materials being made which could increase and protect the Orion capsule and crew. Solar technology is improving at a fast rate, efficiently has increased and made from lighter materials. Also Lockheed Martin has announced that they are working on a Compact Fusion Reactor, which hopefully it will work and be out as soon as possible, add this to Orion plus an expendable habitat.
I hope they also build the Nautilus-X, with international assistance.
High-impulse electric propulsion (including traditional gridded ion thrusters and VASIMR) is not useful for short-duration human missions, and this vehicle does not have a significant solar panel capability. The proportion of weight dedicated to solar panels and thrusters is what limits electric propulsion thrust*, and for that thrust to be meaningful over a mission only three weeks long, you would require the SEP module to be heavier than Orion itself. If such a module were designed, it would be a separate enterprise, and Orion would dock with it in orbit. There are no plans at present to build such a module. Separately, to minimize radiation dose, one really doesn't want to rely on SEP to get through the Van Allen belts: The result is SEP in a human vehicle is really only useful for station-keeping in LEO, and for long missions beyond LEO.
*Though I do think that propellant-limited electric propulsion options at 500s-1500s are underexplored for use in the Earth-Luna system
-
#70
by
TrevorMonty
on 13 Jul, 2015 01:50
-
The Vulcan does start to make this paper by ULA more relative as they are proposing in orbit refuelling.
The question I have, is LM allowed to build and fly their own Orion capsules and use them commercial flight?
Using a ACES as service module (see paper) would allow LM to offer commercial BLEO HSF. Two Vulcan launches should enable a fully fuelled 41t ACES + Orion in LEO.
-
#71
by
Darren_Hensley
on 14 Jul, 2015 01:29
-
Jim, On technology improvements post initial design...
Just look at modern aviation history, many improvements have and continue to be made on passenger aircraft(all man rated), in real time, and during production. A great example is the 737. it's still in production, and only the basic airplane shape is a common part of the design. Everything else has evolved through technology improvements over the years.
STS has two great examples, Heat shield improvements and the radical change from analogue to glass crew deck.
If one is to throw bricks at glass houses, ones own house should not be made of glass.
Personally I like the idea of having improved solar arrays, 47% efficiency at the time of design(2010) is still a poor rate, and yes we are making leaps and bounds in the lab right now. I think better than 70% is possible before Orion flies it's test missions.
-
#72
by
Jim
on 14 Jul, 2015 02:06
-
Jim, On technology improvements post initial design...
Just look at modern aviation history, many improvements have and continue to be made on passenger aircraft(all man rated), in real time, and during production. A great example is the 737. it's still in production, and only the basic airplane shape is a common part of the design. Everything else has evolved through technology improvements over the years.
STS has two great examples, Heat shield improvements and the radical change from analogue to glass crew deck.
If one is to throw bricks at glass houses, ones own house should not be made of glass.
Personally I like the idea of having improved solar arrays, 47% efficiency at the time of design(2010) is still a poor rate, and yes we are making leaps and bounds in the lab right now. I think better than 70% is possible before Orion flies it's test missions.
Both analogies fail.
A. Orion is not a production aircraft. It will be lucky if there are more than 5
b. Orion is not going to have a service life like the shuttle. It be lucky to be in use past ten years and even more doubtful past 2030.
Solar arrays are not going to be at 70% in the next few years much less be used by Orion.
And what does glass houses have anything to do with it?
-
#73
by
newpylong
on 14 Jul, 2015 18:16
-
b. Orion is not going to have a service life like the shuttle. It be lucky to be in use past ten years and even more doubtful past 2030.
Conjecture. You're on another plant (no pun intended) if you think they will not make incremental improvements throughout Orion's life like STS.
-
#74
by
Jim
on 14 Jul, 2015 18:43
-
Pure conjecture.
You're on another plant (no pun intended) if you think they will not make incremental improvements throughout Orion's life like STS.
Quite the opposite, there is a lucidity available only to those that have boots on the ground that is not available to those whose view is only through internet.
Orion performing incremental improvements also pure conjecture and actually less likely to happen. It is hard to do improvements, when there are only 2-3 missions scheduled. Hint, every other program had 10 or more missions planned and scheduled very early in development. NASA doesn't even know what to do with Orion after the test missions. First crewed mission is more than 5 years away. NASA funding isn't going to improve and likely will decrease.
-
#75
by
newpylong
on 14 Jul, 2015 18:50
-
Pure conjecture.
You're on another plant (no pun intended) if you think they will not make incremental improvements throughout Orion's life like STS.
Quite the opposite, there is a lucidity available only to those that have boots on the ground that is not available to those whose view is only through internet.
Orion performing incremental improvements also pure conjecture and actually less likely to happen. It is hard to do improvements, when there are only 2-3 missions scheduled. Hint, every other program had 10 or more missions planned and scheduled very early in development. NASA doesn't even know what to do with Orion after the test missions. First crewed mission is more than 5 years away. NASA funding isn't going to improve and likely will decrease.
I worked on Orion, did you? Last I checked the Nightgator's didn't...
Having experience in one section of an industry does not give one intrinsic knowledge of the entire field. You're opinion is just that, an opinion, just like everyone else's.
-
#76
by
daveklingler
on 14 Jul, 2015 19:10
-
b. Orion is not going to have a service life like the shuttle. It be lucky to be in use past ten years and even more doubtful past 2030.
Conjecture. You're on another plant (no pun intended) if you think they will not make incremental improvements throughout Orion's life like STS.
That would require Orion to be in use, and for those incremental improvements to be actually necessary, and for Orion to be an important part of US space operations. Orion is far more important to Congress than it is to NASA.
It's unlikely that Orion will see that much operational use. It's expensive, somewhat inferior and it's not a crucial part of anything. There are at least two capsules that can serve the same purpose, with a possible third appearing in the next few years. Orion's utility lies in whatever service modules get appended to it. If the capsule itself requires more than a few incremental fixes, it will probably just go away that much more quickly.
Don't confuse Orion with the Space Shuttle. It's a capsule, it's a capsule, it's a capsule.
-
#77
by
Jim
on 14 Jul, 2015 19:10
-
I worked on Orion, did you? Last I checked the Nightgator's didn't...
Yes, I did. I even got an award from the LM program manager.
Having experience in one section of an industry does not give one intrinsic knowledge of the entire field.
Define the "section"? Having a job that touches all aspects of the agency and industry provides unique insight.
-
#78
by
daveklingler
on 14 Jul, 2015 19:12
-
I worked on Orion, did you? Last I checked the Nightgator's didn't...
Whether or not you worked on some portion of Orion, that's irrelevant to Orion's chances of enjoying a long service life and 30 years of incremental improvements.
-
#79
by
TrevorMonty
on 14 Jul, 2015 19:44
-
Can (legally) LM build their own Orion capsules and fly them commercially? Would most likely need to develop their own service module.
-
#80
by
JasonAW3
on 14 Jul, 2015 20:29
-
Sorry to put it this way but...
While the Orion seems like a good idea, with it's reusability and all, without a reusable launch vehicle, or one that costs only a few thousand dollars to build and set up, (not especially likely) the Orion will never really be a truely economicly viable spacecraft.
Jim, I think you can back me up on this one.
-
#81
by
newpylong
on 14 Jul, 2015 22:03
-
I worked on Orion, did you? Last I checked the Nightgator's didn't...
Whether or not you worked on some portion of Orion, that's irrelevant to Orion's chances of enjoying a long service life and 30 years of incremental improvements.
Correct, and that's exactly the point I was making, thank you. People need to stop tossing opinion around as fact, no matter the experience. Jim is a consistant culprit.
-
#82
by
newpylong
on 14 Jul, 2015 22:06
-
I worked on Orion, did you? Last I checked the Nightgator's didn't...
Yes, I did. I even got an award from the LM program manager.
Having experience in one section of an industry does not give one intrinsic knowledge of the entire field.
Define the "section"? Having a job that touches all aspects of the agency and industry provides unique insight.
It provides insight, not ESP. Sorry bud.
-
#83
by
Jim
on 14 Jul, 2015 22:11
-
It provides insight, not ESP.
When that insight shows rot and waste, it doesn't require ESP to know the outcome. I wouldn't buy a house if were working on Orion or SLS.
Don't know which side of Orion you are on but how many people would it have taken LM to load ammonia onto Orion and how many did NASA use?
-
#84
by
A_M_Swallow
on 15 Jul, 2015 00:21
-
Can (legally) LM build their own Orion capsules and fly them commercially? Would most likely need to develop their own service module.
To be viable the Orion has to either be price compatible with the SpaceX Dragon or able to do something the Dragon cannot do.
The cargo Dragon V1 is operational.
The manned Dragon V2's manned test flight is due within 3 years.
The Orion's manned test flight is 6 or so years away.
-
#85
by
TrevorMonty
on 15 Jul, 2015 01:17
-
Can (legally) LM build their own Orion capsules and fly them commercially? Would most likely need to develop their own service module.
To be viable the Orion has to either be price compatible with the SpaceX Dragon or able to do something the Dragon cannot do.
The cargo Dragon V1 is operational.
The manned Dragon V2's manned test flight is due within 3 years.
The Orion's manned test flight is 6 or so years away.
I was thinking of BLEO missions to a DSH and hopefully onto moon in a lander.
-
#86
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 15 Jul, 2015 10:18
-
-
#87
by
notsorandom
on 15 Jul, 2015 14:03
-
Sorry to put it this way but...
While the Orion seems like a good idea, with it's reusability and all, without a reusable launch vehicle, or one that costs only a few thousand dollars to build and set up, (not especially likely) the Orion will never really be a truely economicly viable spacecraft.
Jim, I think you can back me up on this one.
Not being specific to Orion here but they payload is almost always as or more expensive than the rocket that launches it. An example is Dragon costing roughly the same as Falcon. If reusing stages and or engines from a rocket makes sense than reusing the spacecraft or components of it does too. However there is a case to be made for not reusing Orion in particular. That is because reuse added weight. Every pound taken by reuse means one less pound for sample returns or supplies for the crew.
-
#88
by
TrevorMonty
on 15 Jul, 2015 19:08
-
According to project manager who was on Spaceshow a while back, the Orion is designed to be reusable up to 5 times.
There is no reason Orion can't be launched on a RLV or lower cost ELV, it is not dependent on SLS.
-
#89
by
the_other_Doug
on 16 Jul, 2015 00:32
-
According to project manager who was on Spaceshow a while back, the Orion is designed to be reusable up to 5 times.
There is no reason Orion can't be launched on a RLV or lower cost ELV, it is not dependent on SLS.
True -- but if you're going to put people in it, NASA (at any rate) won't launch it on a launcher that isn't man-rated. That's going to limit it to SLS, Atlas V, and Falcon 9. (I'm assuming that the Falcon Heavy, which is likely what would be needed as far as SpaceX launchers go to launch an Orion, will eventually be man-rated, but don't assume that just because the Falcon 9 is man-rated that NASA would fly a crew on an FH without additional man-rating qualifications. Same holds true for man-rating the Vulcan, even once the Atlas V is man-rated.)
That does beg the question as to whether or not LM could launch an Orion, complete with crew, on whatever launcher they cared to use -- as long as it's not an Orion that has been built for, and paid for by, NASA.
-
#90
by
Coastal Ron
on 16 Jul, 2015 02:19
-
According to project manager who was on Spaceshow a while back, the Orion is designed to be reusable up to 5 times.
Good to have a more current quote on reusability, however we have to remember that what would be reused is not the whole Orion, just the Command Module. The Service Module is thrown away every time.
-
#91
by
Patchouli
on 16 Jul, 2015 05:53
-
Good to have a more current quote on reusability, however we have to remember that what would be reused is not the whole Orion, just the Command Module. The Service Module is thrown away every time.
Same issue as with the CST-100 but how much hardware is inside the service module?
Is it nearly a spacecraft in it's own right or is it more akin to a glorified upper stage?
As for question could LM decide to market a commercial version of Orion they probably could so long as doing so did not impact NASA production.
-
#92
by
A_M_Swallow
on 16 Jul, 2015 12:13
-
Can (legally) LM build their own Orion capsules and fly them commercially? Would most likely need to develop their own service module.
To be viable the Orion has to either be price compatible with the SpaceX Dragon or able to do something the Dragon cannot do.
The cargo Dragon V1 is operational.
The manned Dragon V2's manned test flight is due within 3 years.
The Orion's manned test flight is 6 or so years away.
I was thinking of BLEO missions to a DSH and hopefully onto moon in a lander.
Have a look at the Dragon's heat shield.
-
#93
by
notsorandom
on 16 Jul, 2015 13:10
-
Good to have a more current quote on reusability, however we have to remember that what would be reused is not the whole Orion, just the Command Module. The Service Module is thrown away every time.
Same issue as with the CST-100 but how much hardware is inside the service module?
Is it nearly a spacecraft in it's own right or is it more akin to a glorified upper stage?
As for question could LM decide to market a commercial version of Orion they probably could so long as doing so did not impact NASA production.
I think it is a question of how valuable is the hardware inside. The service module may have a good deal of mass but the command module may have more expensive hardware. The avionics are one thing that comes to mind. They are pretty expensive yet not as heavy as other pieces of hardware on the craft. The Russians were pretty keen on returning and reusing the Kurs boxes from the Soyuz and Progress via the shuttle.
-
#94
by
Nibb31
on 16 Jul, 2015 19:42
-
There is no point in reusability when you fly only once every two years. There are only two manifested flights and only two service modules commissioned.
-
#95
by
jtrame
on 16 Jul, 2015 20:00
-
Why bother to build a new one when you have two years to refurbish that one.
-
#96
by
Coastal Ron
on 16 Jul, 2015 20:20
-
Good to have a more current quote on reusability, however we have to remember that what would be reused is not the whole Orion, just the Command Module. The Service Module is thrown away every time.
Same issue as with the CST-100 but how much hardware is inside the service module?
Is it nearly a spacecraft in it's own right or is it more akin to a glorified upper stage?
As for question could LM decide to market a commercial version of Orion they probably could so long as doing so did not impact NASA production.
I think it is a question of how valuable is the hardware inside. The service module may have a good deal of mass but the command module may have more expensive hardware. The avionics are one thing that comes to mind. They are pretty expensive yet not as heavy as other pieces of hardware on the craft. The Russians were pretty keen on returning and reusing the Kurs boxes from the Soyuz and Progress via the shuttle.
No way for us to know what the cost split is, since ESA is trading the SM work for ISS support payments.
From this Airbus page describing their work:
http://www.space-airbusds.com/en/programmes/mpcv-esm-v15.html"
A cylinder of around four metres in height and diameter, and featuring the ATV’s distinctive four-wing solar array (19 metres across unfurled), the European service module MPCV-ESM, is attached below the crew capsule. In addition to the propulsion capability for the Orion spacecraft, it will perform orbit manoeuvring and attitude control functions, and also supply water and oxygen to the crew and provide power and thermal control while it is docked to the crew module. The unpressurised service module can also be used to carry additional cargo."
Since the "European" Service Module (ESM) is built on the ATV platform, and the ATV is an autonomous spacecraft in it's own right, the ESM is pretty substantial.
For the Boeing CST-100, since it is an LEO-only vehicle the Service Module has less mass, equipment and capability to it.
-
#97
by
Nibb31
on 16 Jul, 2015 20:24
-
Why bother to build a new one when you have two years to refurbish that one.
Why bother to refurbish one when you have two years to build a new one.
-
#98
by
notsorandom
on 16 Jul, 2015 20:57
-
Good to have a more current quote on reusability, however we have to remember that what would be reused is not the whole Orion, just the Command Module. The Service Module is thrown away every time.
Same issue as with the CST-100 but how much hardware is inside the service module?
Is it nearly a spacecraft in it's own right or is it more akin to a glorified upper stage?
As for question could LM decide to market a commercial version of Orion they probably could so long as doing so did not impact NASA production.
I think it is a question of how valuable is the hardware inside. The service module may have a good deal of mass but the command module may have more expensive hardware. The avionics are one thing that comes to mind. They are pretty expensive yet not as heavy as other pieces of hardware on the craft. The Russians were pretty keen on returning and reusing the Kurs boxes from the Soyuz and Progress via the shuttle.
No way for us to know what the cost split is, since ESA is trading the SM work for ISS support payments.
From this Airbus page describing their work:
http://www.space-airbusds.com/en/programmes/mpcv-esm-v15.html
"A cylinder of around four metres in height and diameter, and featuring the ATV’s distinctive four-wing solar array (19 metres across unfurled), the European service module MPCV-ESM, is attached below the crew capsule. In addition to the propulsion capability for the Orion spacecraft, it will perform orbit manoeuvring and attitude control functions, and also supply water and oxygen to the crew and provide power and thermal control while it is docked to the crew module. The unpressurised service module can also be used to carry additional cargo."
Since the "European" Service Module (ESM) is built on the ATV platform, and the ATV is an autonomous spacecraft in it's own right, the ESM is pretty substantial.
For the Boeing CST-100, since it is an LEO-only vehicle the Service Module has less mass, equipment and capability to it.
The service module will be quite stupid compared to the ATV. Its just a collection of hardware that receives commands from the CM. Hardware that happens to be derived from some of the systems on the ATV.
-
#99
by
Coastal Ron
on 17 Jul, 2015 03:58
-
No way for us to know what the cost split is, since ESA is trading the SM work for ISS support payments.
From this Airbus page describing their work:
http://www.space-airbusds.com/en/programmes/mpcv-esm-v15.html
"A cylinder of around four metres in height and diameter, and featuring the ATV’s distinctive four-wing solar array (19 metres across unfurled), the European service module MPCV-ESM, is attached below the crew capsule. In addition to the propulsion capability for the Orion spacecraft, it will perform orbit manoeuvring and attitude control functions, and also supply water and oxygen to the crew and provide power and thermal control while it is docked to the crew module. The unpressurised service module can also be used to carry additional cargo."
Since the "European" Service Module (ESM) is built on the ATV platform, and the ATV is an autonomous spacecraft in it's own right, the ESM is pretty substantial.
For the Boeing CST-100, since it is an LEO-only vehicle the Service Module has less mass, equipment and capability to it.
The service module will be quite stupid compared to the ATV. Its just a collection of hardware that receives commands from the CM. Hardware that happens to be derived from some of the systems on the ATV.
The term "stupid" more relates to the control systems, which if so don't make up much of the complexity of the Orion either. Maybe you mean simple?
Regardless, the Command Module doesn't go anywhere far, doesn't get any power, and doesn't have enough water and oxygen for the crew to survive without the Service Module. Plus the Command Module can't carry external cargo. You don't think that's much. Fine. The facts speak for themselves.
-
#100
by
Jim
on 17 Jul, 2015 11:03
-
Since the "European" Service Module (ESM) is built on the ATV platform, and the ATV is an autonomous spacecraft in it's own right, the ESM is pretty substantial.
For the Boeing CST-100, since it is an LEO-only vehicle the Service Module has less mass, equipment and capability to it.
Other than the amounts of consumables, the service modules are basically the same. Just tanks, thrusters and solar arrays/batteries. Neither is capable of autonomous operation. The capsules have all the main avionics, sensors, ECLSS, etc. The capsules are capable of independent flight (an hour or so), where as the SM are dead hulks.
-
#101
by
notsorandom
on 17 Jul, 2015 14:01
-
No way for us to know what the cost split is, since ESA is trading the SM work for ISS support payments.
From this Airbus page describing their work:
http://www.space-airbusds.com/en/programmes/mpcv-esm-v15.html
"A cylinder of around four metres in height and diameter, and featuring the ATV’s distinctive four-wing solar array (19 metres across unfurled), the European service module MPCV-ESM, is attached below the crew capsule. In addition to the propulsion capability for the Orion spacecraft, it will perform orbit manoeuvring and attitude control functions, and also supply water and oxygen to the crew and provide power and thermal control while it is docked to the crew module. The unpressurised service module can also be used to carry additional cargo."
Since the "European" Service Module (ESM) is built on the ATV platform, and the ATV is an autonomous spacecraft in it's own right, the ESM is pretty substantial.
For the Boeing CST-100, since it is an LEO-only vehicle the Service Module has less mass, equipment and capability to it.
The service module will be quite stupid compared to the ATV. Its just a collection of hardware that receives commands from the CM. Hardware that happens to be derived from some of the systems on the ATV.
The term "stupid" more relates to the control systems, which if so don't make up much of the complexity of the Orion either. Maybe you mean simple?
Regardless, the Command Module doesn't go anywhere far, doesn't get any power, and doesn't have enough water and oxygen for the crew to survive without the Service Module. Plus the Command Module can't carry external cargo. You don't think that's much. Fine. The facts speak for themselves.
No I meant stupid as not having the sensors, control systems, and avionics that the ATV has. See Jim's response, he concisely explained the break down of equipment between the SM and CM. Those things in the CM are, contrary to your assertion, responsible for a good amount of the complexity and cost of the craft. Those things also return with the crew. The quote about Orion's CM being reused up to 5 times was what started this chain of discussion. CST-100's CM can be reused up to ten missions. In both cases the reused hardware would represent the bulk of the expense of the craft.
-
#102
by
TrevorMonty
on 17 Jul, 2015 18:18
-
The ESA SM gives Orion around 1700m/s DV which is required to get it from TLI to its destination and back.
Using ULA idea of flying Orion on a ACES, in theory the SM is only required to provide consumables and power. ACES will provide all the DV for trip.
(A capsule more spacious than the Shuttle, with an EVA airlock and a massive cargo/science space)
