-
#220
by
Raj2014
on 09 Dec, 2014 10:45
-
The Orion spacecraft's forward bay cover, drogue chutes and pilot chutes -- which were expected to be retrieved from the ocean -- were not able to be recovered.
Any word on why these were not able to be recovered - they had practiced recovery of them.
They were to recover them if they could, but they were likely to sink.
Are they going to leave the parachutes where they are? They need to be collected if NASA is going to leave them there, they maybe not good for the environment and the life down there. Unless the parachutes are designed to dissolve after some time or do something else.
-
#221
by
CuddlyRocket
on 09 Dec, 2014 10:48
-
Please forgive my ignorance, but I have seen numerous reports stating Orion is the capsule that will go to Mars and Back. The latest launch was to test the heat shield for very high speed re-entry?
Why?
How is it more efficient to take an Earth re-entry vehicle to Mars and Back?
Because while NASA envisages Orion as the capsule that will go to Mars and back and that will engage in very high-speed re-entry the two are not necessarily on the same mission!
NASA has thought up a number of scenarios that they could use Orion for and some of those have such re-entries; so they designed it to handle same and tested it to prove so; but it might never use all of that capability. This is actually similar to Dragon which has a heat shield designed to withstand re-entry velocities much higher than those it faces deorbiting from LEO.
-
#222
by
okan170
on 10 Dec, 2014 04:04
-
During the launch, I noticed the plume looked significantly brighter than I've seen in other Delta IV Heavy launches. While other launches show the standard reddish flame with occasional flashes, I've never seen either the plume or flashes as bright as this time!
I wonder if it could be the result of camera exposure, after all it was dawn and many launch replays seem to show a somewhat over-exposed image. I did hear that this was the heaviest load Delta IV has ever launched, so could it be simply a different setting on the engines?
-
#223
by
sghill
on 10 Dec, 2014 14:14
-
During the launch, I noticed the plume looked significantly brighter than I've seen in other Delta IV Heavy launches. While other launches show the standard reddish flame with occasional flashes, I've never seen either the plume or flashes as bright as this time!
I wonder if it could be the result of camera exposure, after all it was dawn and many launch replays seem to show a somewhat over-exposed image. I did hear that this was the heaviest load Delta IV has ever launched, so could it be simply a different setting on the engines?
I'm voting for camera exposure against a dark sky giving the flame that perceived brightness. I was there, and the launch didn't look any brighter than Delta 4 launches I've seen. Though, obviously, there were three main plumes this time. I too noticed the difference in perceived brightness on replays I saw later that day.
-
#224
by
okan170
on 10 Dec, 2014 15:51
-
Thanks! I wonder if the cameras were still set partially for a lower sun from earlier and the rising sun required some adjustment to get right? Some of ULA's photographs also show the more fiery plume, but there are probably lots of causes for variation there.
-
#225
by
Hauerg
on 16 Dec, 2014 06:04
-
Was it me or were the 3 boosters less burnt than usual for a DIV-Heavy?
If so, due to the quite strong winds?
-
#226
by
Jim
on 16 Dec, 2014 15:32
-
Was it me or were the 3 boosters less burnt than usual for a DIV-Heavy?
If so, due to the quite strong winds?
No, new startup sequence.
-
#227
by
Mark McCombs
on 16 Dec, 2014 16:13
-
Looking at the excellent images that Helodriver has provided and specifically the photo showing the damage caused by the towing harness/line, I can't help but wonder if that specific recovery method will be used again or at least significantly modified.
Looking at the small boats (made to displace water) surrounding the capsule, I found it counter intuitive that Orion would be made to plow through the water for that distance.
Perhaps this is a non issue as Orion is a "one and done" vehicle. <shrug> I would think the retrieval distance should be shortened considerably. Perhaps an inflatable could be used (installed by the recovery team) that would lift Orion up and would have anchor points for tow line attachment.
In any case, if they are considering change they have a couple years to figure it out.
-
#228
by
rcoppola
on 16 Dec, 2014 16:23
-
Looking at the excellent images that Helodriver has provided and specifically the photo showing the damage caused by the towing harness/line, I can't help but wonder if that specific recovery method will be used again or at least significantly modified.
Looking at the small boats (made to displace water) surrounding the capsule, I found it counter intuitive that Orion would be made to plow through the water for that distance.
Perhaps this is a non issue as Orion is a "one and done" vehicle. <shrug> I would think the retrieval distance should be shortened considerably. Perhaps an inflatable could be used (installed by the recovery team) that would lift Orion up and would have anchor points for tow line attachment.
In any case, if they are considering change they have a couple years to figure it out.
Is Orion actually going to be a "one and done" vehicle? I thought they were being designed like a fleet of Shuttles? To be continuously refurbished, modified and re-flown?
-
#229
by
treddie
on 16 Dec, 2014 17:39
-
I believe this vehicle will be used for the upcoming launch abort test. Which is kind of neat in a way as this one has already seen launch and entry, and now they can test it as a veteran structure undergoing abort stresses. Also a neat way to further verify that those repaired structural cracks worked really good. Seeing as how future structures will no doubt have their share of repairs. Not sure those little aspects are a big deal to them, though, in their big scheme of "test things".
-
#230
by
Coastal Ron
on 16 Dec, 2014 17:57
-
Is Orion actually going to be a "one and done" vehicle? I thought they were being designed like a fleet of Shuttles? To be continuously refurbished, modified and re-flown?
Even though I think there is a plan where they could be refurbished in the future, I think that is dependent on how many future flights that Congress funds. However if you look at the percentage of the Shuttle system that was refurbished versus what the SLS/Orion would be, especially since the entire Orion SM is thrown away, I'm not sure it makes a lot of economic sense.
Not that economic sense stops Congress from mandating things, but for such a low flight-rate vehicle it may cost more to refurbish and re-certify than it would to build new.
-
#231
by
treddie
on 16 Dec, 2014 18:14
-
True...The cost effectiveness curve. Where will Orion land on it?
-
#232
by
robertross
on 16 Dec, 2014 23:14
-
The plan is for one-of's
The parties involved would not be making near enough money if the capsules were refurbished, plus obsolescence would quickly creep in, requiring continual product updates to keep up. Remember, we're talking YEARS between flights, extending into DECADES before ending (hopefully).
The only issue for the TPS damage is how it will look on display in the many museums in the ridings of the politicos helping to fund NASA.
-
#233
by
newpylong
on 17 Dec, 2014 12:19
-
Considering Lockmart has said the design is re-usable it is too early to make a call either way. Will need to see damage and wear/tear on EFT-1 article.
Current "plan" is a year between flights, not years. There may be a case to re-use them, there may not be.
-
#234
by
Rocket Science
on 17 Dec, 2014 12:34
-
The original concept for re-usability goes back to the early days when Orion was to perform air bag landings on "terra ferma"... Us "oldsters" here on NSF will recall that...
-
#235
by
treddie
on 17 Dec, 2014 19:42
-
It is ultimately going to boil down to a cost trade.
-
#236
by
enzo
on 19 Dec, 2014 22:56
-
Regarding the reentry video, could someone explain the appearance of the plasma. Why does it come to a point just outside the window—isn't this the side of the vehicle? And the color changes, does this have to do with the gas composition, velocity, etc?
-
#237
by
wjbarnett
on 21 Dec, 2014 20:09
-
No, its the upward facing window (toward the chutes). So what we're seeing (I think) is the point along the rim where the plasma is most streaming past (ie offset CG for lift). The color changes are the due to the ablative material and thermal buildup.
-
#238
by
SkipMorrow
on 05 Jan, 2015 10:01
-
Was there ever an answer or explanation regarding the flotation balls that did not inflate after spashdown? From what I can tell, that was the only thing that went less than nominally, and the lack of inflation certainly did not affect anything for this mission.
Also, with regards to the three parachutes "breathing" in and out. And at one point, one parachute crossed between the other two. I was wondering if that behavior is OK, or does that need to be looked at some more?
-
#239
by
newpylong
on 05 Jan, 2015 14:50
-
Hasn't been 90 days yet...
