4.5 meter Orion?

[docm]

This post on NSF.com,<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Scotty<br /><br />Orion elements are going through reviews at this time.<br />The SM just went through a big review that resulted in many changes.<br />At this time the SM is about as small as it can get.<br /><br />The LAS has either finished a big review, or the review is nearly completed.<br />There were are changes to the LAS.<br /><br />The CM will be under going a big review starting next month.<br />When the CM review is completed, Orion will be at version 607.<br />We expect 607 to be released about the end of September or early October.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">Rumors are that the CM might be reduced to 4.75 or even 4.5 meters in diameter.</font></b><br /><br />But even those changes will only drop the CM weight by 1000 and 1500 pounds.<br />Even if the CM gets smaller, you still have to put all the stuff into it.<br />All that would be saved is some structure.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

I read the same thread. Shrinking the CM down to 4.5 meters diameter is a choice which is way overdue. <br /><br />What I find hard to understand is the review sequence of the components of the CEV. Service Module first, Launch Abort System second and Crew Module third? That seems bass ackwards to me.

 

[jimfromnsf]

It is not the review sequence. The CEV is review as one system. That is the weight saving sequence. Change the easiest thing first and leaving the harder or last thing you want change for last.

 

[gunsandrockets]

Because of the cascade effect the CM should be the first thing squeezed for weight savings.

 

[docm]

If after all of this it ends up heavier & with a smaller crew complement than Dragon what makes it a "big deal" if Dragon succeeds?<br /><br />Orion seats 4-6 vs. up to 7 for Dragon (variable)<br />Orion has 1 deck vs. 1.5 or 2 decks, depending on your definition<br />Orion has no cargo-only option (canceled, of course) but it's integral to Dragon<br />Both remote capable<br />Dragon defined as lunar flyby capable<br /><br />Is there any real reason why given a proper SM & other bits Dragon couldn't do lunar missions other than NIH (not invented here)?<br /> <br />As a space fan & taxpayer I find it frustrating that an outfit like SpaceX can be cutting metal in preparation for 3 flights in 2008/2009 while NASA seems to have difficulty getting off the mark. Any frigging mark.<br /><br />SpaceX successes in their demo flights would do nothing but enforce those feelings.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

I wouldn't call what Dragon has 2 decks, I would call it a sardine can.<br /><br />Actually I am beginning to doubt that Dragon can carry 7 people. Maybe in an emergency with no luggage, but not for operations. <br /><br />Docm where is it stated that Dragon is Lunar flyby capable? I fail to locate it on SpaceX website. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Flight Global....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>SpaceX unveils new Dragon capsule details</b><br /><br />By Rob Coppinger<br /><br />(14/03/07)<br /><br />Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) has released new detail about its cargo and crew carrying Dragon capsule following its internal preliminary design review (PDR) completed earlier this month.<br /><br />After SpaceX’s capsule's PDR, and NASA's approval in February of the PDR for Dragon's 2008 maiden flight, the capsule's latest design can now support up to seven passengers, or carry up to 2,500kg (5,500lb) of cargo; it will use 18 SpaceX designed and manufactured Monomethylhydrazine, Nitrogen Textroxide reaction control, orbital manoeuvring system thrusters; <b><font color="yellow">be lunar fly-by capable</font></b> have an outer mould design for a lifting re-entry; and be water recoverable for an ocean landing.<br /> /><br /> /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Because of the cascade effect the CM should be the first thing squeezed for weight savings."<br /><br />No, just the opposite because changes to the SM don't affect the other components, therefore cheaper. Shave a pound on the SM and you are finished. Shave a pound on the CM and you have to adjust the LAS and CM.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Orion has no cargo-only option (canceled, of course)"<br /><br />Not canceled, just the production of such a vehicle. Design work will continue. Anyways, it isn't that hard to change a manned vehicle into an unmanned. <br /><br />"is there any real reason why given a proper SM & other bits Dragon couldn't do lunar missions "<br /><br />Yes, it is made to berth vs dock. Also, Gemini could go to the moon with a proper SM and other bits, doesn't mean you want it to. Can the Dragon operate with its cabin depressurized? Dragon and Orion are being designed for different missions.<br /><br />Also, it is a still big if, not a given<br /><br />And Elon could pull a SC and get out also <br /><br />

 

[docm]

Which mission?<br /><br />LEO looks to be a plus for Dragon with its larger potential crew complement to ISS, Bigelow or where ever. For the next 10+ years these are the <i>only</i> missions.<br /><br />Lunar? Why, other than the lack of a SM?? If it's true it can do flyby and an SM is fitted why exclude lunar orbit? From what I've read the mission calls for hibernation once the lander leaves anyhow. At least 10 years off anyhow.<br /><br />Mars? I would presume its "duties" for that mission would be limited to RV on return and possible lifeboat duty, but in that Orion too would be extremely limited as well. I can't see any scenario where it the RV would be the crew hab. 15-20 years off if a day at the rate NASA's going.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[larper]

All of this is utterly rediculous. They are sizing the vehicle to the booster. Why in the world can't they size the booster to the vehicle? Once again, politics has trumped NASAs goals.<br /><br />Remember my prediction: We will see shuttles flying in 2012. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Dragon can not perform the CEV mission.</font>/i><br /><br />If Dragon can perform a Lunar fly-by mission, it might be able to eventually perform Lunar orbital insertion and docking. At that point it could provide a LOR capability.<br /><br />While it might not be able to take as much mass to Lunar orbit or stick around for six months, those requirements are somewhat artificial.</i>

 

[thereiwas]

Dragon can not perform the CEV mission as the CEV mission is presently defined. Part of the goals of that definition is to lock out competition from the "wrong" vendors. That is how government procurement works.<br /><br />A Dragon going to the moon wouldn't be carrying 7 people, leaving more room for living and consumables. And it would not be going all by itself (neither would CEV).

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Remember my prediction: We will see shuttles flying in 2012."<br /><br />It is already wrong. Last ET is being built. Many other suppliers are already shutdown. The chain has be cut

 

[jimfromnsf]

"f Dragon can perform a Lunar fly-by mission, it might be able to eventually perform Lunar orbital insertion and docking. At that point it could provide a LOR capability."<br /><br />A lunar flyby doesn't need to do a TEI and so the dragon can't do LOR

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">A Dragon going to the moon wouldn't be carrying 7 people, leaving more room for living and consumables. And it would not be going all by itself (neither would CEV).</font><br /><br />Agreed. 7 is an ISS crew mission. Take out those 3 'back seats' and suddenly there is a lot more room for other things, mainly thanks to the 15 deg design.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Dragon can not perform the CEV mission <font color="orange">as the CEV mission is presently defined.</font>/font color=yellow><br /><br />Sadly true. NASA is <i><b>so</b></i> bass ackwards on this. How much wasted time and money will have gone down the rat-hole downsizing from the Orion 'Escalade' until we get to the Orion 'Voyager'? Probably enough to fund & finish dev on half of NewSpace, THEN THERE'S THAT ABOMINABLE STICK <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br /></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">A Dragon going to the moon wouldn't be carrying 7 people, leaving more room for living and consumables. And it would not be going all by itself (neither would CEV).</font><br /><br />Agreed. 7 is an ISS crew mission. Take out those 3 'back seats' and suddenly there is a lot more room for other things, mainly thanks to the 15 deg design.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Dragon can not perform the CEV mission <font color="orange">as the CEV mission is presently defined.</font>/font color=yellow><br /><br />Sadly true. NASA is <i><b>so</b></i> bass ackwards on this. How much wasted time and money will have gone down the rat-hole downsizing from the Orion 'Escalade' until we get to the Orion 'Voyager'? Probably enough to fund & finish dev on half of NewSpace, THEN THERE'S THAT ABOMINABLE STICK <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />Watching that special on Orion had me screaming at he TV, mainly over the mental ma$#@!ion involved in designing the windows. <br /><br />Jeezzz guys; decide on a seat, give them a bubble helmet and start sitting people down <i><b>in the suit</b></i>, not in street clothes. Even SCCA pit crews know better than that when laying out a cars interior.<br /><br />If you still have visibility issues for docking mount a couple of CCD cams in the nose as a stereo "periscope" with goggles inside. 2.5 lbs well used and I could probably build a functional on in my shop from spare parts <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />BTW: our 9 year old came up with that one. <br /><br />Use the right CCD's and some LED's and you might get a bit of night vision.</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"If you have visibility issues for docking mount a couple of CCD cams in the nose as a digital stereo "periscope" with goggles inside. 1.5 lbs well used. "<br /><br />Not viable. There will be cameras, but they can fail. Eyeballs on the target is a requirement. It isn't any different that for vehicles on earth. <br /><br />"Watching that special on Orion had me screaming at he TV, mainly over the mental ma$#@!ion involved in designing the windows. "<br /><br />Don't understand. The design process is not that simple. The same thing is done with aircraft and cars.

 

[thereiwas]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Eyeballs on the target is a requirement.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Soyuz manages fine without this. They do it with cameras and a computer overlay of the numbers. The cosmonauts are way back in the middle of the vehicle, with the entire habitation module in front of them during docking, with the intervening hatch closed.<br /><br />NASA requires eyeballs so they can say you need an astronaut to do a docking.

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">Don't understand. The design process is not that simple. The same thing is done with aircraft and cars.</font><br /><br />What's to understand and when were you last in a <b>modern</b> car interior design studio? I was in one just a couple weeks ago and didn't see any foam core boards, but <i>tons</i> of computers. <br /><br />What was shown in the Orion special was 2 windows separated by blank wall with the displays under it. Much effort was being spent on the views from their inside edge so they could (marginally) see the docking interface.<br /><br />What's wrong with a centrally located, slightly wider window with the displays on either side (one for each flight crew member) or below it? If you need a view for docking that seems the most logical location, not what they have. That and/or a Soyuz (analog) or Erik's CCD periscope. Some CCD's even have night vision as with PixelVision's NV652 Night Video, which I would think is a plus. Odd that this page about it is on NASA's site.<br /><br />As for CCD camera failures; JEEZZZZ...they weigh ounces, so mount separately wired spares & a switch.<br /><br />I also find your attitude towards cams dated. One of the F-35's strengths is that its DAS (Distributed Aperture System) bristles with IR cams for 360 deg detecting/viewing of threats. Why not a plain-Jane optical system for increasing spacecraft situational awareness? <br /><br />Bottom line: Orion looks like a horse designed by committee, desperately in need of a private sector style decision maker <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />Back to cars; it's done two ways and both are faster than what was shown in the mockup. <br /><br />One way is what we did building a race car: get the driver to pick a seat, put him in 'the suit' and start cutting metal....building the car interior around him. You'd be surprised at how fast that goes with expe <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Soyuz has a periscope as well.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[docm]

So does Shenzhou. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> So does Shenzhou.</i><br /><br />As it should, being a clone/update of Soyuz. <br /><br />Moving to a 4.5m Orion brings up a painful question. Why was OSP cancelled? This is almost the same as some of those proposals. If the OSP's modest, achievable time-table had been followed, we would already have a crew capsule of this size. <br /><br />Interesting comments above on prototyping, thanks. It must be quite a thrill to be the driver that gets a car built around you!<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

I stand corrected. But I don't see why a TV camera would not work as well. With the taper on a Dragon a small periscope might work as well.<br /><br />Here is a photo of the view thru a Soyuz periscope.

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">It must be quite a thrill to be the driver that gets a car built around you!</font><br /><br />Just the interior setups; steering wheel & attachment (they're removable so you can get in easier), pedal rack, shifter box, instruments, mirror mounts etc. etc.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>