Author Topic: Orion Discussion Thread 2  (Read 111397 times)

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6115
  • Likes Given: 1283
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #280 on: 07/14/2017 10:29 PM »
So to wrap up, it's fair to say that most/all LM employees that i work with don't have good things to say about SpaceX or new-space in general (while also being extremely uninformed to have such a bias). While on the flipside I can image that SpaceX employees/fans might also not have good things to say about LM or old-space.

To put it lightly.  Lately it seems like its gone full-cult on one side of this.  Arguably they both exaggerate the capabilities of their spacecraft, though one gets a pass on that from the community.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2783
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2903
  • Likes Given: 2249
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #281 on: 07/14/2017 10:42 PM »
So to wrap up, it's fair to say that most/all LM employees that i work with don't have good things to say about SpaceX or new-space in general (while also being extremely uninformed to have such a bias).

This extends to NASA mission PI's who work with LM SC/employees - they re-radiate the same bias. One told me about all the people that would die flying Dragon and BFS over the next decade, without any informed basis. Confronted him with the fact that there's been a Dragon flying for years w/no Orion, and just about the same amount of work going into Boeing/LM/SX ECLSS/avionics/flight test as objective measures ... and you couldn't shake that religious belief, articles of faith. Like a maroon. A PHd maroon no less. And his science has some gaping holes waiting to be fixed, but that's another matter for when sense is recovered. Plenty to do.

Quote
While on the flipside I can image that SpaceX employees/fans might also not have good things to say about LM or old-space.

Yes, they have an "allergy" to such. Easy to trigger, just use some common terms of art from systems engineering and a film forms over the eyes, and the walls go up. Sometimes takes an intervention to get things going again.

Yet you can get them to go at it with each other, and they have more in common than they'd like to admit. True of any who do this for a while, hard to shake it off.

Back to Orion - what is its true "utility" as currently scoped? Believable contingencies? Cislunar? Further?

Where's the boundaries?

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 328
  • Likes Given: 386
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #282 on: 07/14/2017 11:24 PM »
"as currently scoped"

What a bulls eye.

Offline AS-503

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • Orion Fab Team
  • Colorado USA
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #283 on: 07/15/2017 03:53 AM »
With respect to SpaceGhost's question about Orion's utility, it's no as much about what Orion can do but unfortunately what Orion can't do.****

Orion can't get anywhere/do anything without a ride.*

Orion can't do long duration missions without other significant/expensive hardware. Most of which is not even on paper much less funded.**

Orion can't go very far deltaV wise without the exploration-class upper stage and possibly a different service module (Realistic timeline/funding?)***



*I am not going to bash SLS here....but really? The flight rate, the SSME production, the vertical weld tool mishap, the hydrogen dome drop, the flight software delays, etc.. It's 2017, remember the justification to use Shuttle derived hardware dating back to ESAS from 2005 and then also the very valid reasoning that team DIRECT proposed with respect to Shuttle derived. The clock is still ticking and 2020 is still not looking good.

**Yes, there have been some new developments with respect to the required hab-module. But how long are missions projected to last with the re-purposed ISS module as the new in-the-works hab-module? The Orion program has touted BEO from the very beginning but how much "B" are we really talking about with the ISS module? Hab-module aside there is no lander of any sort for lunar or other "exploration". With Apollo as an historic example the lander is a serious/monumental funding/engineering challenge. Mars anyone?

***Yes, there have been some new developments with respect to the exploration upper stage coming online sooner than expected (EM2-ish). But, if that's the case have all of the long-poles in that tent been fully charted with expected budgets and technical slides to the right? EM2 really? Even then what are we going to do/where are we going to go with just an Orion and it's current service module with all of the delta V of the exploration class upper stage and no lander?


****It's somewhat ironic that 13 years post Columbia we are still in a "no, because" mode, rather than a "yes, if" mode.
 

Offline WylieC

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #284 on: 07/15/2017 04:09 AM »
All of these points have been stated over and over and over. How many different ways can the same things be said? This is getting old.

Offline AS-503

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • Orion Fab Team
  • Colorado USA
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #285 on: 07/15/2017 04:19 AM »
All of these points have been stated over and over and over. How many different ways can the same things be said? This is getting old.

My apologies, i completely agree with you it is all old and stale.
So stale in fact, people in-the-know have been saying we'll "be on Mars in 20 years" since the 1960s.
So add 20 years to 2017 and that's about where we are right now (at least with NASA).

Yes, I know it's stale but here we are in the summer of 2017 having a "discussion" in the Orion Discussion Thread 2

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8396
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 135
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #286 on: 07/16/2017 09:36 AM »
{snip}
(By the way, I've proposed the ability to rescue Orion missions with a LON FH/Dragon, as well as a cost recovery means with lunar "free return" adventurers to use the unused capability post Orion mission - there's a way to retrieve astros not unlike what Jim was suggesting, in the case of Orion lunar missions in the near future. Perhaps the need for a second craft is peculiar only to govt HSF SC, and only in those cases?)
....

That is the equivalent of sending a car to rescue people from a damaged camper van. Both vehicles can cover the miles but only the camper van lets you stay for a month.

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
  • Long Beach, California
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 570
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #287 on: 07/27/2017 05:25 PM »
Any spacecraft that is designed to return to the surface of the earth will have limitations on its size.  The fact that Orion will need a habitation module for long duration stays is not some mistake by NASA.

Perhaps many of you have ITS etched into your brains, which hasn't been proven, any long duration mission would require a habitation module, be it Orion or any other spacecraft.

Orion is perfectly suited and robust for the cis-lunar missions and DSG construction. 

Offline GWH

Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #288 on: 07/27/2017 07:31 PM »
From the rumor mill:
https://twitter.com/Capoglou/status/890648329628954624

Orion out - commercial lunar lander in.  How anyone GETS to the lander though is anyone's guess.

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 246
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #289 on: 07/27/2017 07:55 PM »
How anyone GETS to the lander though is anyone's guess.

Some Dragon or CST-100 type vehicle?
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Offline GWH

Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #290 on: 07/27/2017 08:16 PM »
How anyone GETS to the lander though is anyone's guess.

Some Dragon or CST-100 type vehicle?

Yeah one would probably be better off discussing that in more detail here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35787.100

Probably wouldn't be quick and easy. Starliner is limited to 60 hour free flight, Dragon at least lacks the dV, and is a tight ride.  Would need to see how/if that shakes out.  As the rumor goes it seems like trading one hole in capability for another.

Although if the lander could act as a service module and transit hab that would make a Dragon at least much more feasible, and possibly being a lighter vehicle fit within SLS mass contraints.
« Last Edit: 07/27/2017 08:21 PM by GWH »

Online whitelancer64

Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #291 on: 07/27/2017 08:29 PM »
From the rumor mill:
https://twitter.com/Capoglou/status/890648329628954624

Orion out - commercial lunar lander in.  How anyone GETS to the lander though is anyone's guess.

Yeah, a lunar lander would not necessitate the cancellation of Orion.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 2608
  • Likes Given: 3344
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #292 on: 07/27/2017 08:36 PM »
Any spacecraft that is designed to return to the surface of the earth will have limitations on its size.

Sure, but that limitation is based on the mode used to return to the surface of Earth.

For instance, the Shuttle Orbiter empty weight was about 65mT, yet even though the Orion only weighs 8.5mT it is recognized that it's capsule design has reached the upper mass limit to safely return to Earth. The difference? The Shuttle used wings to land on Earth whereas the Orion depends on parachutes.

What Elon Musk is planning for the ITS is propulsive landings, which we've seen is possible with sub-orbital vehicles, and SpaceX feels is possible with far larger vehicles coming to Earth beyond LEO. And I think it's too early to know for sure what the upper end is for size until such a vehicle is actually successfully tested.

Quote
The fact that Orion will need a habitation module for long duration stays is not some mistake by NASA.

Certainly not a mistake by NASA, since "NASA" did not really design the Orion in the first place. It was a design mandated by Michael Griffin which he called "Apollo on steroids", and it was not a very well thought out design.

NASA acknowledging that the only way to make the Orion truly usable is to add a habitation module is not surprising.

Quote
Perhaps many of you have ITS etched into your brains, which hasn't been proven, any long duration mission would require a habitation module, be it Orion or any other spacecraft.

No, I'd say you are assuming that everything we do in space has to use the single-launch Apollo model - or at least the "go it alone" model.

The 450mT ISS has shown that we can build and operate "large" vehicles in space that have a constant stream of supply & service vehicles visiting. Plus, as we expand out into space we should not assume that we'll only do it in independent sorties. Which means that the future of space is many vehicles going on expeditions, and many vehicles visiting in-space destinations. Meaning the future of human activity in space is not to be constrained to small "habitation" modules, but to live in space stations and travel in significantly-sized spaceships.

Oh, and notice I'm only referencing stuff that NASA has been doing - I wish SpaceX good luck with the ITS, but NASA is not stuck with only one option for it's future in space.

Quote
Orion is perfectly suited and robust for the cis-lunar missions and DSG construction.

What we also learned with the ISS is that reusable vehicles in space do work, and we don't need to throw away perfectly good hardware after one use. Unfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposable, which means in no way is it "perfect" for doing anything in space, nor is it "robust" since it can't stay in space very long - the ISS has been continuously occupied in space for over 16 years, but the Orion is limited to 21 days of occupancy with 4 (very cramped) crew.

The Orion is a transportation element. If the mission/program needs fits within it's capabilities then the Orion can do the job, and I'm sure do it safely. But it has pretty limited capabilities compared to other alternatives...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
  • Long Beach, California
  • Liked: 188
  • Likes Given: 570
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #293 on: 07/27/2017 11:17 PM »
Quote
What we also learned with the ISS is that reusable vehicles in space do work, and we don't need to throw away perfectly good hardware after one use. Unfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposable, which means in no way is it "perfect" for doing anything in space, nor is it "robust" since it can't stay in space very long - the ISS has been continuously occupied in space for over 16 years, but the Orion is limited to 21 days of occupancy with 4 (very cramped) crew.

The Orion is a transportation element. If the mission/program needs fits within it's capabilities then the Orion can do the job, and I'm sure do it safely. But it has pretty limited capabilities compared to other alternatives...

ISS has been continuously occupied for 16 years because it is continuously re-supplied with fuel, food, supplies and spare parts. It also receives boosts from other spacecraft to increase orbital altitude and would not be occupied without this.

Orion can stay active for at least 21 days, but can stay in quiescence for 6 months or more completely on its own.  This is a very different problem of not just existing in space for long periods of time, but being completely self sufficient and outside of earths aid.  This has never been proven by anyone, period.  No matter what else may be in a pdf or paper.  Orion is set to test this, along with other modules, in cis-lunar space.  For this, it is well suited.
« Last Edit: 07/27/2017 11:18 PM by Khadgars »

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #294 on: 07/28/2017 02:51 AM »
Unfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposable

There actually is no conclusive answer on this either way.

Quote
Larry Price, Lockheed Martin's Orion deputy program manager, explained that Orion's design locates the majority of these electronics not only in the crew module, but within the pressurized section of the crew module in which the astronauts ride. This chamber is able to withstand the vacuum of space, and will also serve to keep out salty ocean water upon returning to Earth.
https://www.space.com/21541-nasa-orion-spacecraft-reusable.html

I guess we will see how well their efforts turn out.

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • USA
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #295 on: 07/28/2017 01:54 PM »
Dragon at least lacks the dV, and is a tight ride.

Dragon was borderline on delta v for a LDRO or NRHO mission before. Now that propulsive landing is off the table (which should itself add 200+ m/s budget to work with, plus whatever mass reductions are possible from eliminating the legs and ballast sled), it should quite easily be able to visit either of those plus maybe a couple other types of cislunar orbits. It can't go to LLO, but neither can Orion (even with no comanifested payload), so thats not a point against Dragon. And Dragon 2 has like 50% more internal volume than Apollo did (and modern tech means less of that volume is needed for equipment), given that Apollo could support 3 astronauts for ~11 days (Apollo 7) without an LM or anything, Dragon should be able to do the same at minimum.

Unfortunately the Orion MPCV is 100% disposable

There actually is no conclusive answer on this either way.

Quote
Larry Price, Lockheed Martin's Orion deputy program manager, explained that Orion's design locates the majority of these electronics not only in the crew module, but within the pressurized section of the crew module in which the astronauts ride. This chamber is able to withstand the vacuum of space, and will also serve to keep out salty ocean water upon returning to Earth.
https://www.space.com/21541-nasa-orion-spacecraft-reusable.html

I guess we will see how well their efforts turn out.

As far as I'm aware, Orion's CM is disposable only because of the low flightrate making it not worth it, not any hardware constraints. Most of the CM hardware was specified to be reusable, and that was NASAs public claim up until Orion planning went from 1 launch every couple months to 1 launch every couple years

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32241
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10896
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #296 on: 07/28/2017 02:23 PM »

Certainly not a mistake by NASA, since "NASA" did not really design the Orion in the first place. It was a design mandated by Michael Griffin which he called "Apollo on steroids", and it was not a very well thought out design.

NASA acknowledging that the only way to make the Orion truly usable is to add a habitation module is not surprising.


Wrong takeaway and spreading misinformation again.

Orion was alway designed to work with a "mission module".

This has been discussed many times before.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30877.msg1001537#msg1001537
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31570.msg1036611#msg1036611
« Last Edit: 07/28/2017 02:26 PM by Jim »

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #297 on: 07/28/2017 02:23 PM »
Come on, you guys should know better than to discuss random twitter rumors.

Orion isn't a lander. Altair was the lander, but billions. Perfect sense to do a RFI for commercial lander. Zero documentation on Orion end.

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
  • Liked: 339
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #298 on: 07/28/2017 04:06 PM »
Dragon at least lacks the dV, and is a tight ride.
And Dragon 2 has like 50% more internal volume than Apollo did (and modern tech means less of that volume is needed for equipment).

Wikipedia lists Dragon 2 pressurized volume at 10 cubic meters while the Apollo CSM is listed at 10.4 cubic meters pressurized. There really is no good technical information on Dragon 2 though simply because SpaceX doesn't publish much. Information on dV is calculated from old dragon rider information and mass information. Dragon rider may have been a stripped down variant with different mass numbers and so derived dV numbers aren't reliable. Not to mention a BEO variant would likely add non-propellant mass on top of that. The only mission that we know the Dragon v2 can do is a lunar flyby.

The propulsion system of Dragon v2 wouldn't be very good at efficient insertion into NRHO because the efficient trajectories include powered lunar flybys. The draco thruster has 2 orders of magnitude less thrust than then the OMS engine on Orion and the super-draco thrusters have poor vacuum isp and off axial thrust.

All of this can be fixed by beefing up the trunk into a service module for dragon v2. But it is no where near ready to go as it was designed for LEO crew transportation.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2017 04:26 PM by ncb1397 »

Offline GWH

Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #299 on: 07/28/2017 04:40 PM »
Sorry for the tangent I've sent this thread on Chris!

Back to a more Orion specific focus:
 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/890972613706690560
Quote from: Eric Berger
Summary: Crew on EM-1 would have accelerated NASA exploration. Unfortunately, they weren't sure the heat shield would work. Also, money.

This is the first I've heard on the heat shield, I know they wanted to redesign for lowered cost.  Anyone that can summarize why the heat shield wouldn't be up to the task?

Tags: