-
Orion to ISS without SLS proposal due today?
by
speedevil
on 22 May, 2017 14:24
-
The 2017 budget request for NASA required several reports to be prepared.
Amongst these was 'Subsec. 421(e) Enactment + 60 days On Orion to ISS without SLS'.
I've had a quick look, and found no discussion on this. Or is it just not quite yet public?
-
#1
by
Starlab90
on 22 May, 2017 18:10
-
-
#2
by
Proponent
on 22 May, 2017 18:53
-
-
#3
by
yg1968
on 22 May, 2017 23:48
-
Unfortunately, many of these reports aren't public, as far as I know.
-
#4
by
woods170
on 23 May, 2017 06:40
-
Unfortunately, many of these reports aren't public, as far as I know.
Correct. This one will not be public either. Eventually one may get hold of a copy via a FOIA request.
-
#5
by
Patchouli
on 26 May, 2017 04:31
-
So what LV do they propose to use?
-
#6
by
sevenperforce
on 26 May, 2017 17:50
-
So what LV do they propose to use?
Delta IV Heavy, launching from the Cape, can send 23.7 tonnes to 400x409 km at 52 degrees. That's enough to send the Orion and its SM, albeit not fully-fueled.
-
#7
by
clongton
on 26 May, 2017 20:17
-
So what LV do they propose to use?
Delta IV Heavy, launching from the Cape, can send 23.7 tonnes to 400x409 km at 52 degrees. That's enough to send the Orion and its SM, albeit not fully-fueled.
The Air Force does not want and will not fund it's RS-68 engine to be changed for human rating.
They own it. They control it.
-
#8
by
Coastal Ron
on 26 May, 2017 21:08
-
So what LV do they propose to use?
Delta IV Heavy, launching from the Cape, can send 23.7 tonnes to 400x409 km at 52 degrees. That's enough to send the Orion and its SM, albeit not fully-fueled.
The Air Force does not want and will not fund it's RS-68 engine to be changed for human rating.
They own it. They control it.
Nothing like throwing cold water on an idea Chuck...
But an important point that needs to be remembered, because the normal assumption would be that ULA would be in complete control of their own launch vehicles.
So would this make it likely that Falcon Heavy could have been considered?
-
#9
by
Jim
on 26 May, 2017 21:22
-
They own it. They control it.
No and no
-
#10
by
ncb1397
on 27 May, 2017 00:39
-
Well, I think the LAS, an empty Orion and an empty service module together weigh ~21 mT. According to Rocketbuilder.com, the heaviest Atlas can send 18856 to LEO, but that isn't including the 5 meter fairing which the LAS replaces. I think it would just be a matter of stripping some parts out of the service module to get enough fuel load to do an ISS mission. Strip out 2 out of 4 propellant tanks, some of the O2 and N2 tanks, 3 out of 6 of the H20 tanks and use 2 panel solar panels vs 3 panel. Rocketbuilder website doesn't include a dual-centaur upper stage, so that might boost things even farther.
If we are considering a Delta-IV Heavy, why not just use a SLS without an upper stage? 4 SSMEs cost ~$50 million each and the SRBs are what? $50 million each? That is $300 million in rocket hardware not counting the rest of the core stage. It would be in the same ballpark as what NASA pays for a Delta-IV heavy.
Another option would be Orbital's NGL if that gets off the ground. Think it will use the VAB so resources for Orion would be close by.
-
#11
by
Robotbeat
on 27 May, 2017 02:14
-
So what LV do they propose to use?
Delta IV Heavy, launching from the Cape, can send 23.7 tonnes to 400x409 km at 52 degrees. That's enough to send the Orion and its SM, albeit not fully-fueled.
The Air Force does not want and will not fund it's RS-68 engine to be changed for human rating.
They own it. They control it.
Same argument could be made for Atlas V. But Atlas V is being crew-rated, so...
-
#12
by
Patchouli
on 27 May, 2017 02:45
-
So what LV do they propose to use?
Delta IV Heavy, launching from the Cape, can send 23.7 tonnes to 400x409 km at 52 degrees. That's enough to send the Orion and its SM, albeit not fully-fueled.
The Air Force does not want and will not fund it's RS-68 engine to be changed for human rating.
They own it. They control it.
The human rated changes do not need to be applied to the NRO/USAF LVs much like the changes needed for the Gemini Titian II's didn't have to be applied to the USAF ones.
You just set aside some RS-68s and CBCs to be built to slightly different specs along the same assembly line.
Much like how Soyuz U and Soyuz FG come off the same assembly line.
-
#13
by
sevenperforce
on 27 May, 2017 15:56
-
So what LV do they propose to use?
Delta IV Heavy, launching from the Cape, can send 23.7 tonnes to 400x409 km at 52 degrees. That's enough to send the Orion and its SM, albeit not fully-fueled.
The Air Force does not want and will not fund it's RS-68 engine to be changed for human rating.
They own it. They control it.
In theory, it doesn't even need to be man-rated. Send the Orion up on its own and send the crew separately, or run through the testing with ISS crew.
-
#14
by
MATTBLAK
on 28 May, 2017 00:58
-
EDIT: Send up a couple Orion trained Astronauts as part of a regular ISS crew launch. Launch an Orion on D-IVH with two out of four Service Module propellant tanks deleted or all four only half full. Orion flies automated to ISS and docks. Crew of two test Astros get aboard then fly a week long shakedown flight in orbit before entering and splashing down in the Pacific.
Avoids having to man-rate the Delta IV-Heavy and will accomplish half of the goals or more of EM-2. So: fly EM-1 as planned, fly the first crew-rated Orion to ISS as stated above - they could still call it EM-2. EM-3 could be crew on Orion/SLS out to high lunar orbit; taking a 10 ton Habitation 'Gateway' module out there with them. This means only 1x ICPS needed. With a bit of extra funding (yeah, right), EM-3 could fly with the Exploration Upper Stage in 2022. But they would have to make the revised EM-2 & EM-3 plans soon and start official development of the EUS soonish as well.
-
#15
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 28 May, 2017 07:04
-
Send up a couple Orion trained Astronauts as part of a regular ISS crew launch. Launch an Orion on D-IVH with two out of four Service Module propellant tanks deleted. Orion flies automated to ISS and docks. Crew of two test Astros get aboard then fly a week long shakedown flight in orbit before entering and splashing down in the Pacific.
No need to delete the tanks, that creates extra design complexity as well as of centre of gravity offsets. Just fly with the tanks half full. The crew could return to ISS and the Orion does a high apogee burn to test the new heat shield without risking the astronauts. I would expect this flight to be called EFT-2.
-
#16
by
Brovane
on 29 May, 2017 22:38
-
Well, I think the LAS, an empty Orion and an empty service module together weigh ~21 mT. According to Rocketbuilder.com, the heaviest Atlas can send 18856 to LEO, but that isn't including the 5 meter fairing which the LAS replaces. I think it would just be a matter of stripping some parts out of the service module to get enough fuel load to do an ISS mission. Strip out 2 out of 4 propellant tanks, some of the O2 and N2 tanks, 3 out of 6 of the H20 tanks and use 2 panel solar panels vs 3 panel. Rocketbuilder website doesn't include a dual-centaur upper stage, so that might boost things even farther.
If we are considering a Delta-IV Heavy, why not just use a SLS without an upper stage? 4 SSMEs cost ~$50 million each and the SRBs are what? $50 million each? That is $300 million in rocket hardware not counting the rest of the core stage. It would be in the same ballpark as what NASA pays for a Delta-IV heavy.
Another option would be Orbital's NGL if that gets off the ground. Think it will use the VAB so resources for Orion would be close by.
Why not just use a block-V F9? The Block-V F9 flying expendable should be able to do 22,800kg to LEO. The Block-V version will be the one that will be human rated for crew.
-
#17
by
Robotbeat
on 29 May, 2017 23:37
-
Crazy to think Falcon 9 could probably send an underfueled Orion to LEO. Crazy how close it is to Delta IV Heavy to LEO.
-
#18
by
woods170
on 30 May, 2017 06:41
-
Crazy to think Falcon 9 could probably send an underfueled Orion to LEO. Crazy how close it is to Delta IV Heavy to LEO.
Saturn IB basically was the same. What began as a potent launcher (Saturn I) became a really potent launcher thanks to first stage upgrades and an improved upper stage (S-IVB). It lifted underfueled Apollo CSM's on suborbital missions (AS-201, AS202) and 4 orbital missions (Apollo 7, Skylab 2, Skylab 3 and Skylab 4).
I would not be surprised at all it it turned out that F9 Block V could indeed lift an underfueled Orion all the way to LEO.
-
#19
by
oldAtlas_Eguy
on 30 May, 2017 15:00
-
The last values published for the DIVH with upgrades is 28,370kg to LEO. It could take a fully fueled Orion to orbit and then let its SM do the orbital maneuvering to dock with ISS. The configuration used on EFT-1 no longer exists.
As far as F9 the current "Block 3" has the 22,500kg to orbit as max expendable capability. But we do not know just how much more than that the Block 5 is capable of. My estimate is 25,000+kg to LEO.
It is just to show that there are many options. Plus an F9 or FH would have HR status and could lift off with astronauts aboard on an EFT-3 flight (after having done an EFT-2 flight unmanned with same Orion and LV configuration) that would fully qualify Orion ready for operations without using SLS at all.
Would it take a lot of engineering work to validate the configuration to fly on a different vehicle: YES. But that cost is bound to be a lot less than a single SLS flight cost let alone 2: <$1B[per SLS flight cost without Orion].
But this proposition ignores the PTBs (Powers That Be) that control the SLS and Orion program, Congress. Without authrization and appropriations NASA can not do anything other than what they are doing now.
-
#20
by
hkultala
on 30 May, 2017 15:08
-
The last values published for the DIVH with upgrades is 28,370kg to LEO. It could take a fully fueled Orion to orbit and then let its SM do the orbital maneuvering to dock with ISS. The configuration used on EFT-1 no longer exists.
As far as F9 the current "Block 3" has the 22,500kg to orbit as max expendable capability. But we do not know just how much more than that the Block 5 is capable of. My estimate is 25,000+kg to LEO.
The 22800 kg number in SpaceX web page is for the version of F9 they are SELLING launches for. (block 5)
Not the one they are currently FLYING. (block 3).
-
#21
by
oldAtlas_Eguy
on 30 May, 2017 16:03
-
The last values published for the DIVH with upgrades is 28,370kg to LEO. It could take a fully fueled Orion to orbit and then let its SM do the orbital maneuvering to dock with ISS. The configuration used on EFT-1 no longer exists.
As far as F9 the current "Block 3" has the 22,500kg to orbit as max expendable capability. But we do not know just how much more than that the Block 5 is capable of. My estimate is 25,000+kg to LEO.
The 22800 kg number in SpaceX web page is for the version of F9 they are SELLING launches for. (block 5)
Not the one they are currently FLYING. (block 3).
Even though the thrust levels have been updated on the F9 page to show Block 5 capabilities the payload amounts have not changed from the earlier page that showed just the Block 3 thrust levels.
Block 5 is the M1DFT+++ thrust levels
Block 3 is the M1DFT++ thrust levels
The page was updated to 22,800kg to LEO almost 2 years ago. The FH page max LEO payload was updated when the thrust levels were updated ~6 months ago from 58mt to 64mt. The F9 page payload values were not updated when the thrust levels were updated. So we do not know if the payload values are still the max or not, Indications from the update of the max LEO for FH suggests that there is more capability than what is posted.
-
#22
by
envy887
on 30 May, 2017 16:11
-
The last values published for the DIVH with upgrades is 28,370kg to LEO. It could take a fully fueled Orion to orbit and then let its SM do the orbital maneuvering to dock with ISS. The configuration used on EFT-1 no longer exists.
As far as F9 the current "Block 3" has the 22,500kg to orbit as max expendable capability. But we do not know just how much more than that the Block 5 is capable of. My estimate is 25,000+kg to LEO.
The 22800 kg number in SpaceX web page is for the version of F9 they are SELLING launches for. (block 5)
Not the one they are currently FLYING. (block 3).
Even though the thrust levels have been updated on the F9 page to show Block 5 capabilities the payload amounts have not changed from the earlier page that showed just the Block 3 thrust levels.
Block 5 is the M1DFT+++ thrust levels
Block 3 is the M1DFT++ thrust levels
The page was updated to 22,800kg to LEO almost 2 years ago. The FH page max LEO payload was updated when the thrust levels were updated ~6 months ago from 58mt to 64mt. The F9 page payload values were not updated when the thrust levels were updated. So we do not know if the payload values are still the max or not, Indications from the update of the max LEO for FH suggests that there is more capability than what is posted.
SpaceX changed it from 13t directly to 23t, but did so after announcing the thrust upgrades for block 5. So it's not clear where the current vehicle fits in.
F9 is probably capable enough to lift a partly-fueled Orion in either case, however.
-
#23
by
Zed_Noir
on 31 May, 2017 01:29
-
Will the Orion riding up hill with either a F9 or a FH become the OrionX?
-
#24
by
RobW
on 31 May, 2017 05:26
-
Will the Orion riding up hill with either a F9 or a FH become the OrionX?
Or the Ex-Orion? 
Ba-dum-TISH
But, the only way an Orion is going to fly on *anything* other than a certain senate-specified, shuttle-derived launcher is if someone can convince Mr Shelby and the guys at Marshall that doing so is good for said SLS. Orion is most of the most of the justification for SLS - SLS can launch Orion into 'Deep Spaaaaaaace'
Even showing that something else could throw Orion into LEO weakens that argument, so I don't see Shelby et al buying it.
-
#25
by
Brovane
on 31 May, 2017 18:40
-
-
#26
by
oldAtlas_Eguy
on 31 May, 2017 19:06
-
Some of the problem is this: Requirements revisions.
Orion was first to be a cis-Lunar operations vehicle.
But then it was upgrade to be a Mars transport vehicle.
But now in use it is back to being a cis-Lunar vehicle but still built to Mars transport specs.
This has made it too heavy: added radiation shielding for months and years of operation to and from Mars, much more redundancy and backups than needed for a 2 week trip, and other items that also add to its weight needed for a Mars trip but not for a cis-Lunar trip.
-
#27
by
Dante80
on 31 May, 2017 19:56
-
On the other hand, being very overbuilt for the Moon is not such a bad thing...more shielding, backups and redundancy are always nice to have.
-
#28
by
woods170
on 01 Jun, 2017 06:37
-
On the other hand, being very overbuilt for the Moon is not such a bad thing...more shielding, backups and redundancy are always nice to have.
The level of backups and redundancy is the same for both Lunar and Mars missions. So is the shielding.
Orion is NOT a Mars Transport Vehicle. En route to Mars the crew will live in a habitation vehicle, which is not the same as Orion. The crew will use Orion as their primary transport vehicle only during launch to LEO and subsequent Trans-Mars Injection and during Trans-Earth injection and re-entry on Earth. Everywhere in-between Orion is just along for the ride.
-
#29
by
Dante80
on 01 Jun, 2017 07:06
-
On the other hand, being very overbuilt for the Moon is not such a bad thing...more shielding, backups and redundancy are always nice to have.
The level of backups and redundancy is the same for both Lunar and Mars missions. So is the shielding.
Orion is NOT a Mars Transport Vehicle. En route to Mars the crew will live in a habitation vehicle, which is not the same as Orion. The crew will use Orion as their primary transport vehicle only during launch to LEO and subsequent Trans-Mars Injection and during Trans-Earth injection and re-entry on Earth. Everywhere in-between Orion is just along for the ride.
I don't think that anyone said that Orion was intended as a Mars Transport Vehicle. Neither was it ever intended to be.
-
#30
by
Nibb31
on 01 Jun, 2017 08:10
-
Orion is the dinghy of a Mars transfer vehicle. Framing Orion as part of a "Journey to Mars" is like spending 20 years designing the row boat to use to get to the Pinta, Niņa, and Santa Maria.
-
#31
by
woods170
on 01 Jun, 2017 08:50
-
The level of backups and redundancy is the same for both Lunar and Mars missions. So is the shielding.
Orion is NOT a Mars Transport Vehicle. En route to Mars the crew will live in a habitation vehicle, which is not the same as Orion. The crew will use Orion as their primary transport vehicle only during launch to LEO and subsequent Trans-Mars Injection and during Trans-Earth injection and re-entry on Earth. Everywhere in-between Orion is just along for the ride.
I don't think that anyone said that Orion was intended as a Mars Transport Vehicle. Neither was it ever intended to be.
Just a handfull of posts above this was:
Some of the problem is this: Requirements revisions.
Orion was first to be a cis-Lunar operations vehicle.
But then it was upgrade to be a Mars transport vehicle.
But now in use it is back to being a cis-Lunar vehicle but still built to Mars transport specs.
This has made it too heavy: added radiation shielding for months and years of operation to and from Mars, much more redundancy and backups than needed for a 2 week trip, and other items that also add to its weight needed for a Mars trip but not for a cis-Lunar trip.
So yeah, someone here in fact did say Orion was a Mars Transport vehicle.
Your original post, about the over-built Orion was directly under that one.
-
#32
by
Dante80
on 01 Jun, 2017 10:19
-
Point taken (although I don't think that oldAtlas_Eguy was suggesting it would do what you said), let me re-phrase.
My argument was that having a BLEO general purpose vehicle be overbuilt (from the safety standpoint), is not necessarily such a bad thing. It simply is as safe as you can make it.
And with some capabilities that commercial vehicles don't have, and cannot have (without a serious additional development program that does not even exist anyway).
-
#33
by
UltraViolet9
on 01 Jun, 2017 14:01
-
Some of the problem is this: Requirements revisions.
Orion was first to be a cis-Lunar operations vehicle.
But then it was upgrade to be a Mars transport vehicle.
But now in use it is back to being a cis-Lunar vehicle but still built to Mars transport specs.
I'd add the time Orion was scaled back to ISS crew return/rescue vehicle at the start of Bolden's tenure.
This has made it too heavy: added radiation shielding for months and years of operation to and from Mars,
I don't think there's much, if any, dedicated radiation shielding for the crew on Orion. According to slide 3 in this presentation, Orion had 216kg of crew shielding in 2006, but that amount went to and is still zero as of last year. They appear to be relying entirely on reconfiguring stowed items to create an SPE shelter (slides 4-6) and on personal vests to protect against SPEs (slide 8 ). I can't find references to polyethylene or other Orion shielding for GCRs.
http://wrmiss.org/workshops/twentyfirst/Gaza.pdfSimilarly, the electronics are hardened against radiation, but there does not appear to be much shielding. See slide 9.
These measures -- reconfiguring stowed cargo, personal vests, and rad-hardened electronics -- could be applied to any capsule. Not sure what the Orion capsule itself brings to the table regarding radiation shielding/protection.
-
#34
by
woods170
on 01 Jun, 2017 17:12
-
Some of the problem is this: Requirements revisions.
Orion was first to be a cis-Lunar operations vehicle.
But then it was upgrade to be a Mars transport vehicle.
But now in use it is back to being a cis-Lunar vehicle but still built to Mars transport specs.
I'd add the time Orion was scaled back to ISS crew return/rescue vehicle at the start of Bolden's tenure.
This has made it too heavy: added radiation shielding for months and years of operation to and from Mars,
I don't think there's much, if any, dedicated radiation shielding for the crew on Orion. According to slide 3 in this presentation, Orion had 216kg of crew shielding in 2006, but that amount went to and is still zero as of last year. They appear to be relying entirely on reconfiguring stowed items to create an SPE shelter (slides 4-6) and on personal vests to protect against SPEs (slide 8 ). I can't find references to polyethylene or other Orion shielding for GCRs.
http://wrmiss.org/workshops/twentyfirst/Gaza.pdf
Similarly, the electronics are hardened against radiation, but there does not appear to be much shielding. See slide 9.
These measures -- reconfiguring stowed cargo, personal vests, and rad-hardened electronics -- could be applied to any capsule. Not sure what the Orion capsule itself brings to the table regarding radiation shielding/protection.
Substantial shielding on Orion is not required. The crews will only be inside Orion for relatively short amounts of time (days in stead of months or years). But the habitation modules of Cislunar outposts and Mars transfer vehicles will have substantial shielding. Because those will be home to the crews for months, if not years.
-
#35
by
woods170
on 01 Jun, 2017 17:13
-
Orion is the dinghy of a Mars transfer vehicle. Framing Orion as part of a "Journey to Mars" is like spending 20 years designing the row boat to use to get to the Pinta, Niņa, and Santa Maria.
This. And that is why I'm highly skeptical of any plans by NASA to have the actual Mars Transfer Vehicles ready by 2030. If those go the Orion way, they should be designing them right now. But they aren't. They are all stuck in the R&D phase.
-
#36
by
ncb1397
on 02 Jun, 2017 20:19
-
On the other hand, being very overbuilt for the Moon is not such a bad thing...more shielding, backups and redundancy are always nice to have.
The level of backups and redundancy is the same for both Lunar and Mars missions. So is the shielding.
Orion is NOT a Mars Transport Vehicle. En route to Mars the crew will live in a habitation vehicle, which is not the same as Orion. The crew will use Orion as their primary transport vehicle only during launch to LEO and subsequent Trans-Mars Injection and during Trans-Earth injection and re-entry on Earth. Everywhere in-between Orion is just along for the ride.
Well, Orion has 84 man-days of life support. With a 6 km/s TMI burn, you can get to Mars in 80 days in 2035 as Musk pointed out at IAC. Burning almost all of the service module propellant and a SLS Block II would be right about there. Only question mark is if you can boost the life support system enough for a 2 person crew without adding much weight and what do you do when you get there? I presume you would carry a small lander with you or aerobrake into orbit to be picked up by robotic infrastructure pre-staged in orbit. So, with the right launch vehicle and infrastructure on Mars, it is possible.
-
#37
by
llanitedave
on 05 Jun, 2017 19:25
-
What does Orion to the ISS give us that Dragon 2 and CST 100 don't?
-
#38
by
whitelancer64
on 05 Jun, 2017 19:54
-
On the other hand, being very overbuilt for the Moon is not such a bad thing...more shielding, backups and redundancy are always nice to have.
The level of backups and redundancy is the same for both Lunar and Mars missions. So is the shielding.
Orion is NOT a Mars Transport Vehicle. En route to Mars the crew will live in a habitation vehicle, which is not the same as Orion. The crew will use Orion as their primary transport vehicle only during launch to LEO and subsequent Trans-Mars Injection and during Trans-Earth injection and re-entry on Earth. Everywhere in-between Orion is just along for the ride.
Well, Orion has 84 man-days of life support. With a 6 km/s TMI burn, you can get to Mars in 80 days in 2035 as Musk pointed out at IAC. Burning almost all of the service module propellant and a SLS Block II would be right about there. Only question mark is if you can boost the life support system enough for a 2 person crew without adding much weight and what do you do when you get there? I presume you would carry a small lander with you or aerobrake into orbit to be picked up by robotic infrastructure pre-staged in orbit. So, with the right launch vehicle and infrastructure on Mars, it is possible.
Yeah, the issue then becomes deceleration at Mars.
-
#39
by
Mark S
on 05 Jun, 2017 20:09
-
What does Orion to the ISS give us that Dragon 2 and CST 100 don't?
It fulfills the section of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that requires MPCV be able to go to ISS?
Section 2:
(9) While commercial transportation systems have the
promise to contribute valuable services, it is in the United
States national interest to maintain a government operated
space transportation system for crew and cargo delivery to
space.
and
Sec 302
(c) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS
(1) IN GENERAL
The Space Launch System developed
pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a
minimum, the following:
(A) The initial capability of the core elements, without
an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70
tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for
transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth
departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the
Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.
(C) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle.
(D) The capability to serve as a backup system for
supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew
delivery requirements not otherwise met by available
commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.
You may disagree with the policy, but the requirement is there, and it has not been superseded by subsequent legislation.
-
#40
by
A_M_Swallow
on 06 Jun, 2017 00:22
-
What does Orion to the ISS give us that Dragon 2 and CST 100 don't?
This is using the ISS to test the docking facilities of the Orion. A later Orion with TRL 9 docking facilities can then dock with the Deep Space Gateway.
-
#41
by
Coastal Ron
on 06 Jun, 2017 01:01
-
Well, Orion has 84 man-days of life support. With a 6 km/s TMI burn, you can get to Mars in 80 days in 2035 as Musk pointed out at IAC.
It doesn't matter what the vehicle is, no one is going to go to Mars in such a small confined space.
NASA released a study in 2015 that recommended a minimum of 25 m3 (883 ft3) per person based on Mars DRM 5.0. As a reminder, the habitable volume of the Orion spacecraft is only 8.95 m3, or 316 ft3 - barely a third the space one person would need.
-
#42
by
ncb1397
on 06 Jun, 2017 02:14
-
Well, Orion has 84 man-days of life support. With a 6 km/s TMI burn, you can get to Mars in 80 days in 2035 as Musk pointed out at IAC.
It doesn't matter what the vehicle is, no one is going to go to Mars in such a small confined space.
NASA released a study in 2015 that recommended a minimum of 25 m3 (883 ft3) per person based on Mars DRM 5.0. As a reminder, the habitable volume of the Orion spacecraft is only 8.95 m3, or 316 ft3 - barely a third the space one person would need.
Obviously something has to be attached to Orion. If it aerobrakes into Mars orbit, you need a miniature service module attached to the docking port for manuevering and power after you eject the service module to expose the heat shield. If you go directly down to the surface, you need a lander with its own habitable volume included. SLS Block II only likely has a few metric tonnes left over on these fast transits lifting Orion, and so co-manifesting is limited. Going directly down to the surface would need a dual-launch architecture or something not currently in the cards for SLS like the triple-core NLS concept(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Launch_System), which would leave enough for a pretty spacious lander.
Anyways, this is not the first proposal for ~8 cubic meters/person. 100 people in ITS is also ~8 cubic meters/person. Dragon v2 probably has about 6 cubic meters(out of 10 cubic meters pressurized) and two people will spend a week in 3-4 cubic meters/person? What is really the psychological difference between being cramped for 168 hours vs 1680 hours?
-
#43
by
Coastal Ron
on 06 Jun, 2017 03:18
-
Obviously something has to be attached to Orion. If it aerobrakes into Mars orbit, you need a miniature service module attached to the docking port for manuevering and power after you eject the service module to expose the heat shield. If you go directly down to the surface...
You're not seriously suggesting that the Orion could safely land on Mars, are you? It can barely land on Earth safely if it loses a parachute, and the atmosphere on Mars is only about 1% that of Earth.
Maybe imagining ways the Orion could be used on a trip to Mars is a fun thought experiment, but otherwise it makes no sense to drag a small capsule all the way to Mars and back. The Orion is a Earth-local vehicle only.
What is really the psychological difference between being cramped for 168 hours vs 1680 hours?
Math suggests that it would be 10X harder, don't you think?
-
#44
by
woods170
on 06 Jun, 2017 06:09
-
What does Orion to the ISS give us that Dragon 2 and CST 100 don't?
Excessive mass (mostly).
-
#45
by
UltraViolet9
on 06 Jun, 2017 21:41
-
What is really the psychological difference between being cramped for 168 hours vs 1680 hours?
(gallows humor on)
Homicide.
(gallows humor off)
-
#46
by
Patchouli
on 07 Jun, 2017 17:30
-
It doesn't matter what the vehicle is, no one is going to go to Mars in such a small confined space.
NASA released a study in 2015 that recommended a minimum of 25 m3 (883 ft3) per person based on Mars DRM 5.0. As a reminder, the habitable volume of the Orion spacecraft is only 8.95 m3, or 316 ft3 - barely a third the space one person would need.
You'd pretty much need to have something along the lines of Bigelow's Sundancer module concept along for the ride as a bare minimum.
The good news it's only about 8,618kg which is fairly light compared to Orion itself.
The other option would be something along the lines of a Russian DOS module but this is almost as heavy as Orion but it includes it's own propulsion and it's proven hardware.
Maybe imagining ways the Orion could be used on a trip to Mars is a fun thought experiment, but otherwise it makes no sense to drag a small capsule all the way to Mars and back. The Orion is a Earth-local vehicle onl
Orion would be mostly dead weight though it could in theory act as a command module for the stack and the SM could be used for back up control and propulsion.
Math suggests that it would be 10X harder, don't you think?
I'd say it would be much more than 10x harder.
-
#47
by
brickmack
on 07 Jul, 2017 17:22
-
This turned up today from a FOIA request a while ago. Obviously not the full internal report, but a letter distributed to relevant Congresspeople summarizing it. Pretty light on detail, short version is that its technically feasible, but will take 3-4 years to develop, a lot of money, and needs mission-specific hardware, and NASA thinks its a bad option when Commercial Crew exists.
-
#48
by
brickmack
on 07 Jul, 2017 18:03
-
Oops, yeah. Forgot that bit, its from FOIA.
-
#49
by
Proponent
on 07 Jul, 2017 23:52
-
Oops, yeah. Forgot that bit, its from FOIA.
Do you mean that you filed the FOIA request yourself?
-
#50
by
Propylox
on 29 Jul, 2017 15:07
-
The 2017 budget request for NASA required several reports to be prepared.
Amongst these was 'Subsec. 421(e) Enactment + 60 days On Orion to ISS without SLS'.
... short version is that its technically feasible, but will take 3-4 years to develop, a lot of money, and needs mission-specific hardware, and NASA thinks its a bad option when Commercial Crew exists.
Perhaps new leadership wouldn't be as tied to the PoR and provide viable options rather than disregard.
-
#51
by
woods170
on 29 Jul, 2017 19:39
-
The 2017 budget request for NASA required several reports to be prepared.
Amongst these was 'Subsec. 421(e) Enactment + 60 days On Orion to ISS without SLS'.
... short version is that its technically feasible, but will take 3-4 years to develop, a lot of money, and needs mission-specific hardware, and NASA thinks its a bad option when Commercial Crew exists.
Perhaps new leadership wouldn't be as tied to the PoR and provide viable options rather than disregard.
Unlikely. Unless you also completely replace the entire US Congress. They pull the pursestrings and ultimately decide where the money goes to. As such there will always be a PoR.
-
#52
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 29 Jul, 2017 21:31
-
This suggests that Orion's basic mission is under justified, and political support to broaden its role is underway to address this before commercial crew undercuts it.
This might also explain why Musk wouldn't want to do Dragon 2 land landings - because it would only put more effort into something that Congress may be determined to ignore. They wouldn't see the benefits of Dragon, only the loss of justification to Orion, which likely has no purpose except in the vicinity of Earth/Moon.
Also, this might indicate a shift in govt primes vehicle strategy, to take into account FH/NG/Vulcan/ITSy/SLS.
You'd have a commercial launched Orion, with the "jobs" protected for Orion, launching more frequently than 1-2 per year, and a govt or commercial "cargo only" mission that flies on need.
In this case, you could advance SLS to Block II enhanced, and it would beat all other SHLV to the pad, allowing a "win", with commercial back filling/supplanting eventually this need (NA/ITSy) - a "long goodbye" strategy for the primes (Boeing's payoff).
Commercial gets the benefit of increased flight rate at the cost of leaving the capsule business to Orion (LM's payoff). FH/Vulcan/NG battle for HSF payloads as they would unmanned.
Makes sense for SX - Dragon doesn't get them a HSF Mars vehicle, so why take it beyond a crew Dragon.
Also, SLS as a LV is locked to Orion's schedule and proving as a HSF vehicle - if you break this dependence, Boeing might find a way to up payload and drop costs.
Weird logic, but perhaps it works.
