Inside Orion

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know how many&nbsp;of you have seen this, but I thought I would share it anyway. Enjoy&nbsp;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlzytubpMiE <br />Posted by puett16</DIV><br /><br />It would be good if you added a small description of what it's about so we can decide if it's worth the time to view it, IMHO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
E

elguapoguano

Guest
I watched the video and yes it does seem cramped in there, granted not as bad as Apollo, but it's hardly Shuttle roomy-like. But one of the questions posed seemed very valid. Does Orion have a crapper? It will be a two day trip to the ISS and a 3-4 day trip to the moon. I'd feel a lot more confident dropping a deuce in a space crapper than I would dropping one in a bag while the rest of the possible co-ed crew laughs at me... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>
 
E

earth_bound_misfit

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I watched the video and yes it does seem cramped in there, granted not as bad as Apollo, but it's hardly Shuttle roomy-like. But one of the questions posed seemed very valid. Does Orion have a crapper? It will be a two day trip to the ISS and a 3-4 day trip to the moon. I'd feel a lot more confident dropping a deuce in a space crapper than I would dropping one in a bag while the rest of the possible co-ed crew laughs at me... <br /> Posted by elguapoguano</DIV></p><p>Lol, good question.&nbsp;</p><p>Is this the vehicle&nbsp; they're planning to taking to Mars? Surely not, as the crew would go claustrophobic after a week I reckon.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>
 
T

tanstaafl76

Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Yeah that would be some trip...do you feel clausterphobic due to the cramped capsule or agoraphobic due to the vast expanse of space you're floating in?&nbsp; Maybe both.&nbsp; Makes me cringe just thinking about it!</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

steve82

Guest
I've been in that mockup.&nbsp; I'm about 6'-3" and it was a little cozy, although I think the seat I was in must have been adjusted for the 5% japanese female model.&nbsp; There was a crapper in it that day, under my elbow, but they are always moving stuff in and out there as they evaluate various configurations.&nbsp; Don't know how they will kit it for ISS flights.&nbsp; With six passengers it would be cramped but for the short duration trip to and from leo it would be livable.&nbsp; Roomier with 4.&nbsp; I got a little vertigo when my head was all the way back on the headrest and i looked up the docking tunnel, but I think the head wouldn't be tilted back so much with a helmet on in the launch position.&nbsp; I'd take a ride in it if I could-the worst scenario I can think of would be&nbsp;getting stuck inside in high seas for a couple days after an off-nominal water landing.
 
T

trailrider

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know how many&nbsp;of you have seen this, but I thought I would share it anyway. Enjoy&nbsp;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlzytubpMiE <br />Posted by puett16</DIV><br /><br />Interesting, IF we can find a booster that will really have the lift margins.&nbsp; "I told Wilbur, and I told Orville, and I told Uncle Wernher, and I'm telling you...it'll never get off the ground!"
 
V

vattas

Guest
<p> <BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is this the vehicle&nbsp; they're planning to taking to Mars? Surely not, as the crew would go claustrophobic after a week I reckon. <br /> Posted by earth_bound_misfit</DIV></p><p>Orion is not supposed to be used as living quarters during trip to Mars. Only as reentry vehicle.</p><p>Hm, so it seems that we don't need it to be carried all the way to Mars and back. But is it possible to rendezvous with spacecraft returning from Mars for direct reentry? Such scenario would be too risky, because there will be possibility to abort if spacecrafts fail to dock, I quess, </p>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;........ But is it possible to rendezvous with spacecraft returning from Mars for direct reentry? ..................Posted by vattas</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Certainly that is possible but very very&nbsp;expensive to do so. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

samkent

Guest
<p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">I don&rsquo;t believe they would have the Mars return craft brake into Earth orbit. I suspect they would take the Apollo return method. Orion would separate from the return craft while approaching Earth. Then it would hit the atmosphere at a high rate of speed and burn it&rsquo;s way on in. The return craft would pass by the Earth into a solar orbit.</font></p><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'TimesNewRoman'">Otherwise you would have to brake the entire Mars return craft into orbit. Very costly on the propellant scale. Or you would have to sent an empty Orion out to meet the return craft only to have it reverse direction and then speed up to the same speed as the return craft, just to dock with it. Also very costly.</span>
 
T

tanstaafl76

Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>Would they be able to gracefully drop the Mars return craft into a high Earth orbit and thus save on propellant?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Would they be able to gracefully drop the Mars return craft into a high Earth orbit and thus save on propellant?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV><br />According to <font color="#333399"><u>this article:</u></font></p><p><font color="#800000">"When the Apollo modules reached Earth&rsquo;s atmosphere after a three-day trip from the moon, they were moving at about 30,000 fps. Orion&rsquo;s velocity will match this on its own lunar return. <br />But returning from Mars, it will be moving close to 35,000 fps. That speed, about 6.6 miles per second, would take you from Washington, D.C., to New York City in less than 30 seconds."</font></p><p>I think it would take an enormous amount of propellant to slow a craft returning from Mars enough to go into Earth orbit (of any height). </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vulture4

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>According to this article:"When the Apollo modules reached Earth&rsquo;s atmosphere after a three-day trip from the moon, they were moving at about 30,000 fps. Orion&rsquo;s velocity will match this on its own lunar return. But returning from Mars, it will be moving close to 35,000 fps. That speed, about 6.6 miles per second, would take you from Washington, D.C., to New York City in less than 30 seconds."I think it would take an enormous amount of propellant to slow a craft returning from Mars enough to go into Earth orbit (of any height). <br /> Posted by centsworth_II</DIV><br /><br /><BR/><BR/>"Skip-return" trajectories are being considered to allow some flexibility in landing zone, and a return to Earth orbit could be achieved with minimal fuel by using an aerocapture maneuver. However human flight to Mars with this technology would be impractical.
 
V

vattas

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> a return to Earth orbit could be achieved with minimal fuel by using an aerocapture maneuver. However human flight to Mars with this technology would be impractical. <br /> Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>Why it is impractical? It seems like <strong>aerocapture </strong>is perfect for such purpose execpt that it was not used in any mission as far as I know so there are a lot of uncertainties in using it. <strong>Aerobraking</strong> is not very practical method with human spaceflight since it takes long time to achieve desired orbit. </p>
 
V

vattas

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Certainly that is possible but very very&nbsp;expensive to do so. <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV><br />Of course. I should have formulated my question with "practical", not "possible".
 
M

MarkStanaway

Guest
<p><strong>Aerobraking</strong> is not very practical method with human spaceflight since it takes long time to achieve desired orbit.</p><p>Given that you have probably already spent several months on the return leg from Mars it might be feasable to add another month or so entering into a highly elliptical earth orbit and gradually reduce the apogee with a series of aerobraking moves. This could be greatly enhanced if you added an inflatable section to the return craft to aid with the braking. You would need to do the maths to see if what you save in propellant would be offset by the extra consumables you would need for the crew. Does anyone have any idea of how much -ve delta V you would need to slow down from a Mars return trajectory to enter low Earth orbit?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given that you have probably already spent several months on the return leg from Mars it might be feasable to add another month or...<br /> Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV><br /></font>Try telling that to the guys who have spent several months on the return leg from Mars! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

job1207

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Try telling that to the guys who have spent several months on the return leg from Mars! <br /> Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p>People have lived in extremely close quarters on ships, not the space kind, for thousands of years. It requires military discipline, but it is done all of the time.&nbsp;</p><p>In the private world, Folks sail around the world, 24 people on a 90 foot boat for the better part of a year.&nbsp; </p>
 
V

vulture4

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why it is impractical? It seems like aerocapture is perfect for such purpose execpt that it was not used in any mission as far as I know so there are a lot of uncertainties in using it. Aerobraking is not very practical method with human spaceflight since it takes long time to achieve desired orbit. <br /> Posted by vattas</DIV></p><p>Perhaps I misspoke. There doesn't seem to be any overriding reason for going into earth orbit from an interplanetary trajectory rather than entering directly, except to give greater flexibility in selecting a landing zone. If the vehicle lands at sea, there is a pretty wide range of spots to choose, so little need to enter orbit prior to landing. The situation at Mars is quite different; probably one wants to leave part of the spacecraft in orbit for the trip back, so an aerocapture approach into low orbit prior to entry might be desirable.&nbsp; </p><p>However I personally doubt there will be human flights to Mars until a substantially less expensive and more capable approach to human spaceflight is available. It's true the crew could put up with the confinement, but I feel it is unlikely that the taxpayers would put up with the cost.</p>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p>"except to give greater flexibility in selecting a landing zone."</p><p>That is not a vaild reason. The landing zone can be very accurately adjusted for a inbound&nbsp;trajectory. Remember the Star Dust recovery.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MarkStanaway

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"except to give greater flexibility in selecting a landing zone."That is not a vaild reason. The landing zone can be very accurately adjusted for a inbound&nbsp;trajectory. Remember the Star Dust recovery. <br /> Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV><br />&nbsp;</p><p>The main advantage I see in using a re-entry from low earth orbit is that you could dispense with the need to to take a dedicated re-entry module some, 8.5 tonnes in the case of Orion, all the way out to Mars and back when it is only really needed for the final phase of the mission. If you rendesvoused with the ISS or its replacement in low earth orbit the crew could return on a regular ferry.</p><p>Mark </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts