4.5 meter Orion?

[jimfromnsf]

they is also a crew member in the orbital module looking out the window

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Meanwhile NASA is cutting foam core boards and putting un-suited, un-helmeted people on platforms instead of real seats"<br /><br />Because un-suited, un-helmeted people will do the docking. Just like the shuttle<br /><br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"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 />the F-35 still has a window view out the front with a HUD. No different than the CEV

 

[jimfromnsf]

"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? "<br /><br />1. structure<br />2. Because there will be an optical site needing to be viewed while at the pilot' position.<br /><br />"<br />As for CCD camera failures; JEEZZZZ...they weigh ounces, so mount separately wired spares & a switch. "<br />Monitor can fail<br /><br />"What's to understand and when were you last in a modern car interior design studio? I was in one just a couple weeks ago and didn't see any foam core boards, but tons of computers. "<br /><br />How many modern car interior design studios exist and how many car designs do they put out? There is no need for a equivalent for the CEV, since it is a one only design. I would find it hard to believe you would want the goverment to set one up and then use it only once. This is just like reusable launch vehicles. No sense in buying one, setting it up, learning to use it and then dumping after a few months of use. <br /><br />

 

[docm]

Yes it does; a big enough one to do the job properly...not 2 portholes the pilots have to crane their necks to see the docking interface out of as in the Orion special. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Monitor can fail </font><br /><br />According to the NASA guy in the special the monitors in Orion use an adaptive/customizable interface, meaning if one failed you could just call up that function to another one. <br /><br />This is not unlike one 5 monitor rig I use to edit video in that if one did go down the data on it could be redirected to any of the others. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Meanwhile NASA is cutting foam core boards "<br /><br />this happens alot. Not everyone has access, the time to set on up or time to learn CAM/CAD<br /><br />Can't make every one happy. Some people complain NASA is too big and beaurcatic and wastes money.<br /><br />Here is a cheap and easy way to solve a problem without spending alot of money.<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Yes, a big enough one to do the job properly...not 2 portholes the pilots have to crane their necks to see the docking interface out of as in the Orion special."<br /><br />It can't be done by one. See the shuttle and Apollo. It would be too big. There would be thermal, structural issues

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">this happens alot. Not everyone has access, the time to set on up or time to learn CAM/CAD<br /><br />Can't make every one happy. Some people complain NASA is too big and beaurcatic and wastes money. </font><br /><br />It's not that expensive when you consider the man-hours saved. Penny wise & pound foolish. Not only that but the VR interfaces aren't that hard to use since they're intended for end-user evaluation, in this case the astronauts.<br /><br />CAD is pretty much the same as before, just with the ability to include power, plumbing etc. with auto-detection of conflicts when they arise. Shipbuilders & automakers love that. I hear Boeing used something similar on the 787.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It can't be done by one. See the shuttle and Apollo. It would be too big. There would be thermal, structural issues</font><br /><br />Then all the more reason for the nose cam(s). Can't understand the resistance to such things other than NIH or NUHB4 (never used here before).<br /><br />Just out of curiosity what <i><b>are</b></i> the max window dimensions without "structural difficulties" and what are they? Spars or weakness of the basic structure? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"It's not that expensive when you consider the man-hours saved. Penny wise & pound foolish. Not only that but the VR interfaces aren't that hard to use since they're intended for end-user evaluation, in this case the astronauts.<br /><br />CAD is pretty much the same as before, just with the ability to include power, plumbing etc. with auto-detection of conflicts when they arise. Shipbuilders & automakers love that. I hear Boeing used something similar on the 787. "<br /><br />This is a perfect example of avoiding Penny wise & pound foolish.<br /><br />More manpower would have been invested setting up the VR system and loading the data for a use that lasted a few months. It would be not used anymore<br /><br />NASA was just evaluating a few things. LM does the actual design. Again CEV is a one only program. It is not as big as a ship or plane nor is it going to be used over and over like a car<br /><br />The window size is mainly driven by thermal issues during entry which end up being structural<br /><br />The CEV will have several nose cams. Long distance ones, one in the middle of the hatch,<br /><br />It is the crew (astronaut office) that wants the windows for SA and backup

 

[thereiwas]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It is the crew (astronaut office) that wants the windows for SA and backup.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> Of course. Anything to justify their existence.<br /><br />How about this - <i>no</i> windows and let the computer do the docking? Progress manages it with no astronauts at all, and Dragon will be using computer guidance for the last-mile approach to get within grappling range. MacDonald Dettwiler, the same people who designed Canadarm, are building the laser-based system.<br /><br />The hole required for a periscope is a lot smaller than a window.

 

[tomnackid]

How about this - no windows and let the computer do the docking? Progress manages it with no astronauts at all,...<br />------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Yes, and I'm sure the trunk of your car does quite well without airbags or seatbelts. Does that eman you want to eliminate these safety devices from the passenger compartment?<br /><br />Automatic docking systems only work when both the spacecraft and the dock are designed to work together. What if Orion wants or needs to dock with something that doesn't have a compatible docking taget? What if the automatic system fails? What if the system is damaged in a docking incident. What if the astronauts lives are on the line? Do YOU want to be the one to tell them "Gee guys, we wanted to save a few bucks and a little time so I guess you are SOL. Sorry."<br /><br />Why not let the people who actually know what they are doing make the decisions? You know, the people who have done this stuff before<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Progress manages it with no astronauts at all, and Dragon will be using computer guidance for the last-mile approach to get within grappling range."<br /><br />Progress has a manual backup on board the ISS. Lack of visibility was one of the reasons for the MIR accident.<br /><br />Dragon will be handson

 

[j05h]

<i>> Automatic docking systems only work when both the spacecraft and the dock are designed to work together. What if Orion wants or needs to dock with something that doesn't have a compatible docking taget? What if the automatic system fails? What if the system is damaged in a docking incident. </i><br /><br />Your list of what-ifs applies to any docking system. APAS, CBM, probe-and-drogue, LIDS, you name it and any of those problems can happen. Automatic/remote systems have a fairly good history for docking. Emergency docking needs, without appropriate adapters, will mean crew EVA, regardless of your choice of docking system. <br /><br />A good solution for upcoming space stations is to have a node that includes several types of adapter. <br /><br /><i>> Why not let the people who actually know what they are doing make the decisions? You know, the people who have done this stuff before</i><br /><br />A common criticism is that both the civil servant and corporate ends of this project haven't developed this kind of spacecraft (crewed) in 30+ years. The organizations did a generation or two ago, but not the current people there. They haven't done it before. They've been managers & engineers on other projects. Worthwhile stuff, but legacy knowledge only goes so far. OSP was a good start. The only positive angle I see on current Orion/Ares development is that the capsule is now small enough diameter to fly on Atlas. <br /><br />The hilarious thing about the situation is that Dragon is manifested to fly NEXT YEAR. <br /><br />http://spacex.com/dragon.php<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">A common criticism is that both the civil servant and corporate ends of this project haven't developed this kind of spacecraft (crewed) in 30+ years. The organizations did a generation or two ago, but not the current people there. ><br /> /><br /> /><br />The hilarious thing about the situation is that Dragon is manifested to fly NEXT YEAR.</font><br /><br />Some of those old designers are probably working for NewSpace companies.<br /><br />Yup...3 demo flights scheduled between Q3 2008 and Q3 2009, and NASA won't be flying anything comparable until the first full Orion goes up on Ares 3...originally set for late 2013 but who knows now? Until then it's boilerplates. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"> Automatic docking systems only work when both the spacecraft and the dock are designed to work together. What if Orion wants or needs to dock with something that doesn't have a compatible docking taget? What if the automatic system fails? What if the system is damaged in a docking incident.<br /><br />Your list of what-ifs applies to any docking system. APAS, CBM, probe-and-drogue, LIDS, you name it and any of those problems can happen. Automatic/remote systems have a fairly good history for docking. Emergency docking needs, without appropriate adapters, will mean crew EVA, regardless of your choice of docking system. "<br /><br />He was really referring to the rendezvous sensors vs the docking adapter. The astronaut is in the loop as a backup to the automated systems

 

[jimfromnsf]

"The hilarious thing about the situation is that Dragon is manifested to fly NEXT YEAR." <br /><br />What's funnier is that you believe it and even using it to prove a point. The same manifest had how many launches by now?<br /><br />Spacex has yet to orbit a hunk of metal, even on the "most reliable type" of rocket there is. And they are going to develop EELV class vehicle and a spacecraft by 18 more months?<br /><br />Talk about willful suspension of disbelief.<br />

 

[docm]

Jim,<br /><br />If they pull it off it's going to be fun as hell to watch you eat a whole barnyard full of crow <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />Oh...more about those old Apollo engineers; NASA wants them to help the new kids<br /><br />Link....<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>On Friday, the 38th anniversary of the first manned Moon landing, NASA called in a group of retired engineers who had worked on the Apollo lunar programme in the 1960s and 70s. They were there to share their "lessons learned" with those now engaged in NASA's effort to return Americans to the Moon by 2020.<br /> /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I have to agree with Jim. I wish them all the best but they have a long way to go before they are in the position to actually launch Dragon.<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>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"If they pull it off it's going to be fun as hell to watch you eat a whole barnyard full of crow"<br /><br />I know I won't be eating any

 

[j05h]

<i>> He was really referring to the rendezvous sensors vs the docking adapter. The astronaut is in the loop as a backup to the automated systems</i><br /><br />He presented a laundry list of failures/emergencies that went beyond just automatic docking. The same issues arise if the carefully designed targets were somehow obscured. He was just kvetching. His complaint seems to be about saving-money-vs-safety, but he is only pointing out common issues with any kind of multi-craft spaceflight. <br /><br />I'm all for pilot-in-loop for docking, for the record. I just don't think his fear of automated systems is warranted. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> What's funnier is that you believe it and even using it to prove a point. The same manifest had how many launches by now? </i><br /><br />I wont "believe" it until I see it fly. It was a point of comparison to the rapidly slipping Orion schedule. Even if SpaceX is off by 2 years, Dragon will still fly 3-4 years before Orion. <br /><br />I predict that if they are successful, Dragon will be lunar-capable before CEV. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

And what will it fly on. It doesn't matter what Dragon can do, this is the real challenge<br /><br />F1 to F9 to F9 heavy

 

[thereiwas]

According to a book I just finished, Too Far From Home: A Story of Life and Death in Space by Chris Jones, the Mir collision and an earlier near miss were both caused by attempting to do a Progress docking controlled from on board Mir rather than automatically. The Russian planners were trying to see if they could leave out the expensive self-docking electronics since it got burned up on each flight. <br /><br />The first attempt got a stuck thruster, sending the Progress shooting past Mir, missing by a hundred meters or so. Nevertheless the Russian controllers wanted to try it again on the next Progress launch, and that one is the one that rammed the station, and would have resulted in total decompression if the people on Mir had not chopped through some cables in time to get the hatch shut.<br /><br />The Dragon docking system, using the arm for final maneuvering, seems to me a reasonable compromise. Future vehicles visiting ISS will not be as large as the shuttle orbiter. <br /><br />Really excellent book. The central thread is the stories of Don Pettit, Ken Bowersox, and Nikolai Budarinthe, the three men who were on ISS when the loss of Columbia left them stranded up there for longer than they had planned.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Yup...3 demo flights scheduled between Q3 2008 and Q3 2009</font>/i><br /><br />Scheduling is easy, meeting schedules is hard.<br /><br />One thing I have noticed about the Ares/Orion schedule is that there are an awful lot of tests scheduled (starting next year) between now and operational status, including, I believe, full orbital unmanned tests and hundreds of engine tests.<br /><br />To be honest, I feel more comfortable with the relatively conservative schedule and substantial numbers of tests.</i>

 

[j05h]

<i>> And what will it fly on. It doesn't matter what Dragon can do, this is the real challenge</i><br /><br />Dragon will fly on Atlas and Falcon, in that order. IMHO, of course.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>