2020 era Orion CEV in Venus orbiter mission

gunsandrockets · Feb 4, 2007

In part inspired by talk such as this thread... http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=661246&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart= ...about an Orion mission to a Near Earth Object (NEO) such as an asteroid. I came across this interesting description at astronautix.com of a Venus orbiter mission... http://www.astronautix.com/craft/manssion.htm An Orion mission to a NEO might be possible before the very large Ares V launch vehicle is ready, perhaps by using a larger advanced Centaur Stage placed into LEO by launch of a Delta IV booster. The original Venus orbiter mission was considered possible in 1975 using Apollo technology. Once the Ares V launch vehicle is available for Orion missions to the Moon, the same hardware could enable a Venus orbiter mission! If the astronautix article is accurate it is much easier to mount a Venus orbiter mission than a Mars orbiter mission. I could see two big advantages to such a near term interplanetary mission. First off it's a freakin manned-interplanetary mission! A historic event, much nearer term than a possible mission to Mars and could demonstrate committment to manned expansion into the solar system, generating excitement and momentum towards Mars missions. Hardware for a Venus orbiter mission might be used for a Mars/Ceres flyby mission. The second advantage of a Venus orbiter mission is the manned spacecraft could provide real time control of unmanned aircraft probes dropped into the atmosphere of Venus. So there would be real science value to the mission rather than it being just a stunt. It also demonstrates the synergistic advantages of combining manned and unma

vogon13 · Feb 4, 2007

They really made a poor decision in recycling the Orion name. Maybe we could distinguish between the two by using the terms Classic Orion and New Orion ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

gunsandrockets · Feb 4, 2007

"They really made a poor decision in recycling the Orion name." I agree. If they wanted to recycle names I think Polaris would have been a better choice than Orion. Maybe NASA was too caught up in creating a name relevant to 'Project Constellation' so they choose the name of a constellation of stars? "Maybe we could distinguish between the two by using the terms Classic Orion and New Orion ?" I have a different suggesstion. Since the nuclear pulse-drive Orion concept is really a propulsion method rather than a specific spacecraft such as the project constellation CEV, perhaps it's better to refer to the old Orion as "the Orion drive" and the new Orion as "the Orion CEV"? In that light I will adjust the thread title.

JonClarke · Feb 5, 2007

Wow! Very interesting and exciting. I hadn't thought about this possibility at all It opens up the possibility of teleoperated aircraft as well. Radiation shielding would be an issue though, being so close to the Sun. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

3488 · Feb 5, 2007

I agree. This approach would clearly demonstrate the synergy between uncrewed & crewed space exploration. The Orion CEV once reaching an orbit around Venus after dropping a glider & or balloon & / or lander would be able to control the descent vehicle, whilst carrying out its own observations with onboard multispectral imagers / spectrometers. The Orion CEV appears to able to open up much of the solar system to human exploration. The Mars / 1 Ceres option too sounds exciting. I am sure that the Orion CEV will be directed towards 1 Ceres, 2 Pallas & 4 Vesta amongst others. Other possibilities include 21 Lutetia, a large type M asteroid, to be closely encountered in July 2010, by the comet 67P Churyumov-Gerasimenko bound, Rosetta spacecraft. 21 Lutetia appears to be made of solid iron & nickel according to spectroscopic observations. Dependent on the Rosetta images & data, an Orion CEV could be sent to test the concepts of mining. Another possibility is the large metal asteroid 16 Psyche, at just over 200 km across, is the largest type M asteroid in the solar system!! The Orion CEV would be able to test all kinds of new research & / or mineral extrction technologies on these types of objects!! Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

gunsandrockets · Feb 5, 2007

"Radiation shielding would be an issue though, being so close to the Sun." NASA has to bite that bullet sometime. Better to figure out radiation protection for a more modest Venus orbiter mission first than to stumble over some fatal flaw during an expensive Mars lander mission. On the bright side, a Venus orbiter mission would have gobs of solar power available for photovoltaic electric cells or maybe even a Solar Thermal Propulsion (STP) system. A small STP stage for the return to Earth TEI burn might make the entire manned spacecraft complex launched from Earth much less massive. Even easily storable ammonia would permit a STP system to achieve around 400 s ISP.

JonClarke · Feb 5, 2007

Any ideas on how much larger the solar particle risk would be for a Venus mission? Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

rfoshaug · Feb 5, 2007

Why would anyone want to put humans in Venus orbit? What science could they do there that a robotic mission can't? I mean, a human landing on the surface of Venus won't happen this century anyway... It just sounds like a whole lot of effort and risk for very little reward. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------My minds have many opinions </div>

elguapoguano · Feb 5, 2007

Uhh, guess you didn't read the first proposal. Real time control of robotic probes. Something that cannot be done with robotic spacecraft controlled from the ground... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>) </div>

spacefire · Feb 5, 2007

how about using a solar sail as a shield and also for interplanetary maneuvering to conserve fuel and allow for orbital changes around Venus? It would be an amazing mission...very risky too, but that's why we need explorers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

dragon04 · Feb 5, 2007

I don't see it. If we wish, we can further probe Venus robotically at prodigiously lower cost. A manned mission to simply orbit a planet? No, I think that the public would likely want to see footprints on Mars than loop-the-loops around Venus. There are several other reasons to just probe Venus with robots and send men to Mars... One is that we won't be colonizing Venus. Mars is far more likely the next habitat of Man. Perhaps when and if manned spaceflight isn't so expensive, men may visit Venus. Until then, I wouldn't see that as money best spent. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

spacefire · Feb 5, 2007

There's a lot of value in Orbier manned missions. Try as you might, you will never break the speed of light to allow for real-time control of probes from Earth. Also, a manned orbiting mission is required as a dress rehearsal for any landing missions. Third, space stations around other planets (err Mars) will be an integral part of exploration and establishment of permanent bases. Venus is closer to Earth than Mars, so it would make sense to attempt a manned mission there first. However, that advantage is mitigated by Venus' orbit being in reverse direction as Earth's. I think that increasese the deltaV required , but I'm not sure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

MeteorWayne · Feb 5, 2007

Venus' (and all the planets in fact) orbit is the same direction as ours (called prograde). Only a very few asteroids and quite a few comets orbit retrograde.It's rotation is different, which is not relevant to establishing an orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

willpittenger · Feb 5, 2007

For those that are interested in reading up one the propulsion system Gunsandrockets mentioned,, Wikipedia's article on this is Solar Thermal Rocket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

willpittenger · Feb 5, 2007

I think he was talking about being closer to the Sun and just wasn't clear. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

willpittenger · Feb 5, 2007

Would the Orion CEV provide space for remote controls of robotic spacecraft and landers? Or would a habitat module list ISS's Destiny be required? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

MeteorWayne · Feb 5, 2007

perhaps, but he stated Venus orbits in the opposite direction, so I wanted to clear that up. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

radarredux · Feb 5, 2007

> I hadn't thought about this possibility at all It opens up the possibility of teleoperated aircraft as well./i> I think this concept of operations needs to be fully developed, but it could be a powerful 3rd operational approach (the first being shuttles to permanent stations in LEO, and the 2nd being manned mission to other worlds (Moon, Mars)). This 3rd CONOP seems to be a blend of the first two -- small, short-term space stations sent to other worlds. They would consist of a CEV, Earth Depature Stage, and a Habitat/Laboratory (e.g., a Bigelow inflatable). The primary benefit of this approach over purely robotic missions is that the mission could be dramatically altered based on acquired knowledge. For example, a small robot could return samples of the subject (e.g., an asteroid) to the laboratory, and scientists would study the sample on site. Then, based on these results, the robot could be reconfigured (e.g., mechanical arms swapped out, instruments swapped out, etc.), and then sent back to the subject for additional missions.

spacefire · Feb 5, 2007

must have misread that on the Nasa website today... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

gunsandrockets · Feb 5, 2007

Thanx for the STP link! I don't know if NASA would bother to develop solar thermal propulsion, though failure to develop some kind of improved propulsion whether solar thermal, nuclear thermal or something else would be a very short-sighted policy. The baseline Venus mission described in astronautix.com masses 400 tons! [not correct -- see update] That's using LOX/LH2 for the Earth departure stage and hypergolic storable propellant for the Venus capture and Venus departure stage. I think improved propulsion, even of a minor type, plus other new tricks to reduce mission mass makes the whole mission more sellable. UPDATE After reading the NASA source document, I see I misunderstood the astronautix article. A 400 ton Venus orbiter mission is one that employs nuclear thermal rocket engines for the Earth departure stage. The baseline Venus orbiter mission using Apollo level technology (LOX/LH2 Earth departure stage, hypergolic Venus braking stage and hypergolic Earth return stage) would mass 750 tons.

gunsandrockets · Feb 6, 2007

"A manned mission to simply orbit a planet? No, I think that the public would likely want to see footprints on Mars than loop-the-loops around Venus." "Perhaps when and if manned spaceflight isn't so expensive, men may visit Venus. Until then, I wouldn't see that as money best spent." The whole point of a Venus orbiter mission is that it IS easier and cheaper than a Mars orbiter mission. If anything a Venus manned orbiter mission would accelerate a manned landing on Mars because it would help to develop techniques and technologies needed for a trip to Mars in a smaller and nearer-term program. NASA didn't just blast straight to the Moon with Apollo, the Gemini project was a helpful and neccessary intermediate step. "There are several other reasons to just probe Venus with robots and send men to Mars... One is that we won't be colonizing Venus. Mars is far more likely the next habitat of Man." We will see massive space exploration before any space colonization. And manned exploration missions will combine robotic elements, including any Mars exploration missions. That's NASA policy and it's a good policy. "I don't see it. If we wish, we can further probe Venus robotically at prodigiously lower cost." Manned control would dramatically improve science return from robotic Venus probes. Venus is such a hostile environment that even unmanned probes have short lifetimes. It's not like Mars where a rover can afford to to take months to crawl a single kilometer. Properly designed remote controlled robots could react to information collected on the spot and allow observers to focus probe time on surprising discoveries. A flying probe could quickly cover large areas of Venus, and circle those spots most interesting. The flying probe might even carry one or more landers or 'lawn darts' to drop on a particularly interesting location for direct measurement of the surface. Maybe even a sample return probe co

JonClarke · Feb 7, 2007

To keep the pot boiling... A minimum energy round trip to Venus without landing requires 32 km/s, the same as a round trip to Mars without landing. The 565 day round trip fills in the gap between the 90-120 day NEO missions discussed elsewhere and the 600-700 day Mars flyby missions. They would provide a stepping stone for 1000 day Mars landing missions. Solar radiation flux at Venus is 2.6 kW/m2. Assuming 25% efficiency this means 650 W/m2 of electricity from solar panels (compared with ~250 W/m2 at Earth). Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

mithridates · Feb 7, 2007

I'll help keep the pot boiling too. I'm a big fan of this idea and have had quite a bit of discussion already about why I prefer the idea of going to Venus first after the Moon. I like how the slow rotation and high atmospheric pressure make it ideal for solar flyers that can spend 24 hours a day flying about and making observations, and if we have people there to give real-time commands to them, so much the better. There's also the possibility of creating dummy rovers with the sensitive parts onboard the ship, so that the pressure and heat won't matter quite so much. Yes, in terms of solar power, distance and ease, Venus is definitely the best target to aim for first. I also suspect there's something psychologically comforting about getting closer to the sun instead of away from it. There's also the added factor of helping people remember that the planet Venus still exists and is (in celestial terms) just over there. Perhaps with the large change in awareness of climate change over the past year there can be some tying in of a mission with research into CO2 and its effects on climate change. There's no reason not to get the environmental movement interested as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

tomnackid · Feb 7, 2007

If you are referring the nuclear pulse rocket then "Orion" was never the name of a spacecraft, but rather a research program.

JonClarke · Feb 7, 2007

The slow rotation, high solar radiation flux, and dense atmosphere make aircraft very attractive. A solar powered aircraft could stay aloft indefinitely and would need less than half the array area of an equivalent aircraft on earth. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

2020 era Orion CEV in Venus orbiter mission

gunsandrockets

Guest

vogon13

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

3488

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

rfoshaug

Guest

elguapoguano

Guest

spacefire

Guest

dragon04

Guest

spacefire

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

radarredux

Guest

spacefire

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

gunsandrockets

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

mithridates

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page