Nasa going back to apollo tech?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Apollo_Heat_Shield_Uncrated_After_35_Years_Helps_New_Crew_Vehicle_Design_999.htmlNASA has uncrated an Apollo heat shield for help in designing the heat shield for orion. What do&nbsp;you think&nbsp;that tells about curent nasa technology? <br />Posted by azorean5000</DIV><br /><br />It's proven technology that is well understood and works well? <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>
 
T

trailrider

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Apollo_Heat_Shield_Uncrated_After_35_Years_Helps_New_Crew_Vehicle_Design_999.htmlNASA has uncrated an Apollo heat shield for help in designing the heat shield for orion. What do&nbsp;you think&nbsp;that tells about curent nasa technology? <br />Posted by azorean5000</DIV></p><p>I think it tells us that we've forgotten a lot we knew in the past!&nbsp; The company that manufactured the heat shield material has long been out of business.&nbsp; In these economically-strapped times, it may save a LOT of money and time to try to reproduce something that WORKED!&nbsp; In point of fact, I think this tells us more about NASA's economic situation!&nbsp; Hopefully, Congress and the next President will see fit to allow VSE to continue... or we will become the Portugal of the space age!</p><p>Ad LEO! As Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!<br /></p>
 
V

vattas

Guest
I think that NASA engineers are clever enough to gather all data they can on effects of reentry from experiments and missions that were performed long time ago rather than performing new experiments to get the same information...
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it tells us that we've forgotten a lot we knew in the past!&nbsp; The company that manufactured the heat shield material has long been out of business.&nbsp; In these economically-strapped times, it may save a LOT of money and time to try to reproduce something that WORKED!&nbsp; In point of fact, I think this tells us more about NASA's economic situation!&nbsp; Hopefully, Congress and the next President will see fit to allow VSE to continue... or we will become the Portugal of the space age!Ad LEO! As Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra! Posted by trailrider</DIV></p><p>If you have a nail, you hit it with a hammer.&nbsp; You don't have to reinvent a new hammer every time you want to hit the nail. </p><p>Sure, it saves money. But, that's a good thing, isn't it?&nbsp; Isn't it a good thing that NASA doesn't have to dedicate funds to research when they already have a historically workable and tested solution?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you have a nail, you hit it with a hammer.&nbsp; You don't have to reinvent a new hammer every time you want to hit the nail. Sure, it saves money. But, that's a good thing, isn't it?&nbsp; Isn't it a good thing that NASA doesn't have to dedicate funds to research when they already have a historically workable and tested solution? <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /><br />If that is the case why don't we just dust off the plans from the Apollo spacecraft update the electronics and certain subsystems to bring them up to date and call Ares a big waste of money? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If that is the case why don't we just dust off the plans from the Apollo spacecraft update the electronics and certain subsystems to bring them up to date and call Ares a big waste of money? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />Well... If you "forget" the shuttle, Ares 1 consept is pretty direct derivate from earlier programs:</p><ul><li>Gemini, 1 person capsule</li><li>Mercury, 2 person capsule</li><li>Apollo, 3 person capsule</li><li>Orion, 4 person capsule</li></ul><p>Got the picture? All of the programs have used the information from the earlier program. This is the case also with Ares. The only difference for Ares is that they have "proven shuttle hardware" which they are utilizing as booster stages (of course that heavily modified so it might not be so proven).</p><p>Orion&nbsp;is a scaled up version of Apollo, like Apollo was scaled up version of Mercury.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If that is the case why don't we just dust off the plans from the Apollo spacecraft update the electronics and certain subsystems to bring them up to date and call Ares a big waste of money? <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />Because there are no plans to dust off. <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>
 
T

trailrider

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well... If you "forget" the shuttle, Ares 1 consept is pretty direct derivate from earlier programs:Gemini, 1 person capsuleMercury, 2 person capsuleApollo, 3 person capsuleOrion, 4 person capsuleGot the picture? All of the programs have used the information from the earlier program. This is the case also with Ares. The only difference for Ares is that they have "proven shuttle hardware" which they are utilizing as booster stages (of course that heavily modified so it might not be so proven).Orion&nbsp;is a scaled up version of Apollo, like Apollo was scaled up version of Mercury. <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV></p><p>The problem with "utilizing proven shuttle hardware" is that they ARE NOT!&nbsp; Adding a fifth segment to the Shuttle SRB changes the whole design!&nbsp; The objective is to increase the thrust so the first stage (SRB) will lift the second stage and the Orion spacecraft.&nbsp; But when you add a fifth segment (or 5-1/2 in the case of the Ares V boosters), you increase the burning area of the propellant grain.&nbsp; This increases the pressure, so you must compensate by increasing the diameter of the nozzle throat.&nbsp; The increased throat diameter decreases the pressure, which is necessary to prevent bursting the case of the SRB.&nbsp; It also allows an increased mass rate of flow of the burning gases, which increases thrust.</p><p>An increased diameter throat also means an increase in the diameter of the diverging portion of the nozzle, which is going to increase the weight.&nbsp; It also means that the thrust vector control push rods that deflect the nozzle in the direction needed to steer the stack.&nbsp; This most likely means larger hydraulics packages and pushrods.&nbsp; Even if they go to some sort of electrical motors, the likelihood is increased mass.</p><p>The Shuttle stack, during the first 70 seconds of flight changes direction, especially roll, by moving the SRB nozzles differentially.&nbsp; But with a single SRB as the first stage, you have no differential roll control.&nbsp; So you have to add a roll thruster(s) to the first stage (SRB).&nbsp; That adds mass.</p><p>Then there is the Thrust Oscillation problem that is fairly common to all solid rocket motors, but is especially worrisome with the 5-segment rocket.&nbsp; NASA <em>thinks</em> it has a handle on that problem...by adding mass dampers, another 1200-1400 lbs (545.5 kg - 636 kg).</p><p>Then there is the second stage... The J-2X does build on Saturn V design. But, it uses a different turbopump setup, and is undergoing development as we "speak."&nbsp; It is NOT Shuttle derrived, of course.</p><p>So far as Orion is concerned, you seldom can "just scale up" a design like that.&nbsp; As I posted earlier, the original heat shield material is no longer made.&nbsp; Was its composition proprietary?&nbsp; I don't know, but as MeteorWayne posted the plans and specifications no longer exist (or if they do, NASA hasn't been able to find them!!!).</p><p>Hopefully, America's space program will continue dispite the economic crisis in America.&nbsp; In the worst case, the whole question of keeping ISS accessible to U.S. astronauts, manned explanation of the Moon and then on to Mars, could be cancelled by a vote in Congress, or by the next President, whoever he may be.&nbsp; Most likely, it will limp along.&nbsp; Hopefully, Congress and the President will see the light, that a vigorous space program (including manned space beyond LEO) provides jobs, accelerated technological development and maintains America's leadership in the space program.</p><p>Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
D

docm

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><strong>4 person capsule</strong></p><p><strong>Got the picture? </strong></p><p><strong>Posted by Zipi</strong></DIV></p><p>Yeah,&nbsp; but the&nbsp;picture I'm getting is that the&nbsp;"4 person capsule" spec&nbsp;will last only until the next Ares I fiasco that mandates yet another reduction in mass. It's barely hanging on by its fingernails as it is....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yeah,&nbsp; but the&nbsp;picture I'm getting is that the&nbsp;"4 person capsule" spec&nbsp;will last only until the next Ares I fiasco that mandates yet another reduction in mass. It's barely hanging on by its fingernails as it is.... <br />Posted by docm</DIV><br /><br />Most probably this is true.</p><p>And answer also to: <font color="#ff0000">trailrider</font> <br />I tried not to provocate discussion to this bashing direction of Ares 1 rocket, even I agree completely with your points. But now when this discussion has been directed to this way I'd like to mention that when Ares 1 plans were published&nbsp;I was really wondering why this kind of booster had to be developed... After thinking a bit I come to conclusion that Ares V is the most probably reason (and of course the need to "feed" the SRB company(government contracts)). In my mind the most logical choise would be using Delta IV to propel Orion to the orbit and keep the Ares V consept as its own separated cargo carrying vessel.</p><p>I don't believe that NASA can downsize the Orion to 3 person, because then it would be real Apollo remake with modern technology and that would be major hit to NASA's public imago. They have also said that four person crew is needed to accomplish planned science missions. And yes, I know the plans can be changed but I don't believe downsizing the crew to 3.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

trailrider

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Most probably this is true.And answer also to: trailrider I tried not to provocate discussion to this bashing direction of Ares 1 rocket, even I agree completely with your points. But now when this discussion has been directed to this way I'd like to mention that when Ares 1 plans were published&nbsp;I was really wondering why this kind of booster had to be developed... After thinking a bit I come to conclusion that Ares V is the most probably reason (and of course the need to "feed" the SRB company(government contracts)). In my mind the most logical choise would be using Delta IV to propel Orion to the orbit and keep the Ares V consept as its own separated cargo carrying vessel.I don't believe that NASA can downsize the Orion to 3 person, because then it would be real Apollo remake with modern technology and that would be major hit to NASA's public imago. They have also said that four person crew is needed to accomplish planned science missions. And yes, I know the plans can be changed but I don't believe downsizing the crew to 3. <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV></p><p>I agree, I don't think reducing the lunar payload to a crew of 3 would be politically prudent.&nbsp; I am NO appologist for any aerospace company, as I have been retired from my last one for nearly 20 years now, so they can't fire me or anything. (I keep up with things as best I can through these forums and Aviation Week magazine.)</p><p>I am mainly of the opinion that the Ares I design was an attempt to do things "faster, better and cheaper" by utilizing the Shuttle tooling and infrastructure. Unfortunately,&nbsp;the devil is in the details, and by the time some of these pitfalls were recognized,&nbsp;too much money had been invested in the Ares I and V concepts so that cancellation by this administration would have looked pretty bad!&nbsp; What will happen after the election and the new&nbsp;president and Congress take office on January 21, 2009, is anybody's guess. In my opinion (and that is all it is...an opinion), if the entire program is not cancelled, then the Orion spacecraft will be allowed to dictate the&nbsp;launch vehicle, so that if Ares I is not viable, then something else will be utilized to lift it to LEO.&nbsp; If that proves to be the Jupiter 120 (or whatever they call it by then&nbsp;to save embarrassment), then that is fine.&nbsp; If an EELV is man-rated instead, then that is&nbsp;okay, too.&nbsp; &nbsp;What happens to Ares V, I don't know, but the current design seems to get more "klugier" as it goes along!</p><p>We'll just have to wait and see...<br /></p>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p>The fact that it employs lunar orbit rendezvous, as a service module and a conical descent module.&nbsp; There are extremely good reasons for these choices driven by physics and engineering.</p><p>In every other respect&nbsp;it is a&nbsp;different spacecraft.&nbsp;&nbsp;Different size, different mass, different systems, larger payload, greater dV, longer mission time, more advanced control systems, more capable life support, different booster, different landing system,</p><p>I am looking forward to the naysayers getting egg all over their faces by successful Ares 1 and Orion missions.&nbsp; And I really hope that Ares V gets built, as it is our best hope for going back to the Moon and on to Mars.</p><p>Jon</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <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>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact that it employs lunar orbit rendezvous, as a service module and a conical descent module.&nbsp; There are extremely good reasons for these choices driven by physics and engineering.In every other respect&nbsp;it is a&nbsp;different spacecraft.&nbsp;&nbsp;Different size, different mass, different systems, larger payload, greater dV, longer mission time, more advanced control systems, more capable life support, different booster, different landing system,I am looking forward to the naysayers getting egg all over their faces by successful Ares 1 and Orion missions.&nbsp; And I really hope that Ares V gets built, as it is our best hope for going back to the Moon and on to Mars.Jon&nbsp; <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>For what it is worth I agree !!&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

js117

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well... If you "forget" the shuttle, Ares 1 consept is pretty direct derivate from earlier programs:Gemini, 1 person capsuleMercury, 2 person capsuleApollo, 3 person capsuleOrion, 4 person capsuleGot the picture? All of the programs have used the information from the earlier program. This is the case also with Ares. The only difference for Ares is that they have "proven shuttle hardware" which they are utilizing as booster stages (of course that heavily modified so it might not be so proven).Orion&nbsp;is a scaled up version of Apollo, like Apollo was scaled up version of Mercury. <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV></p><p>Mercury was a 1 person Capsule<br />Gemini was a 2 person Capsule</p>
 
J

job1207

Guest
<p>NASA does good work, and that will continue. Ares I and V will work. It remains to be seen if they will fly because of the cost of competing vehicles, namely the COTS vehicles. </p><p>If the COTS vehicles are not less expensive and do not work, then Ares I will fly along with ARES V. Since COTS is not very expensive to fund, it is worth the money to see if it will work. </p><p>May the best teams win. &nbsp; </p><p>Oh, and I would like two capsules in there somewhere so that a crew of 8 can go and return from Mars or the Moon. Seriously, what are you going to do with four people after traveling all that way. Best send 8. Let's see, a carpenter, baker, cabinet maker, isn't there a song along these lines. You get the idea.&nbsp;</p><p>Let's stack one capsule on top of the other. The second one in a shroud of course for launch and what not. Also, in a pinch, each capsule could hold 8. Therefore, you have a backup!!!!&nbsp;</p><p>Great, now let's get to work and build that one, or something like it. We need more backups for really long duration flight.&nbsp; </p>
 
E

elguapoguano

Guest
The Orion capsule can accomodate 6 astronauts, not just 4. For the moon missions a 4 person crew is what they are planning for, I'm sure for logistical purposes . For ISS duty and later a link with a Mars bound craft, Orion will seat 6. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Orion capsule can accomodate 6 astronauts, not just 4. For the moon missions a 4 person crew is what they are planning for, I'm sure for logistical purposes . For ISS duty and later a link with a Mars bound craft, Orion will seat 6. <br />Posted by elguapoguano</DIV></p><p><strong>That's true.&nbsp; But for a lunar mission, what's wrong with 3 astronauts on the moon at one time, compared to Apollo's 2?&nbsp; How does one justify&nbsp; a 4th astronaut on the moon, other than Nasa's Ego?</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
B

brandbll

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Orion capsule can accomodate 6 astronauts, not just 4. For the moon missions a 4 person crew is what they are planning for, I'm sure for logistical purposes . For ISS duty and later a link with a Mars bound craft, Orion will seat 6. <br />Posted by elguapoguano</DIV><br /><br />Question: Why not send 5 then and keep one up in the Orion CM just to play it safe?&nbsp; Life support for the long journey? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's true.&nbsp; But for a lunar mission, what's wrong with 3 astronauts on the moon at one time, compared to Apollo's 2?&nbsp; How does one justify&nbsp; a 4th astronaut on the moon, other than Nasa's Ego? <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Why&nbsp;do some people allways assume the worst about NASA?&nbsp; Ego has not nothing to do with.&nbsp; Productive work has.&nbsp; </p><p>Going to the Moon is about exploration, right?&nbsp; That means EVAs.</p><p>Apollo experience indicated that lunar EVAs are very demanding.&nbsp; For extended periods the most that could be expected was an EVA every other day. </p><p>With three on the surface that still&nbsp;means only one EVA every other day, no improvement on two.&nbsp; With four people you have two EVA pairs, and could do an EVA every day and still allow the off duty pair to do light duties inside the Altair.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <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>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Question: Why not send 5 then and keep one up in the Orion CM just to play it safe?&nbsp; Life support for the long journey? <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV></p><p>Autonomous and remote control of spacecraft has greatly improved since Apollo.&nbsp; There is no need for someone on board.</p><p>Leaving one peson on board for a long period (1-2 weeks) would not be desirable for health and safety reasons.&nbsp; It would be better to keep all your people together.</p><p>And lunar missions are 4, not 6.</p><p>Jon</p> <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>
 
B

brandbll

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Autonomous and remote control of spacecraft has greatly improved since Apollo.&nbsp; There is no need for someone on board.Leaving one peson on board for a long period (102 weeks would not be desirable for health and safety reasons.&nbsp; It would be better to keep all your people together.And lunar missions are 4, not 6.Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV><br /><br />When i said '5' i meant sending 5 altogether with 4 landing and one staying in the command module.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When i said '5' i meant sending 5 altogether with 4 landing and one staying in the command module.&nbsp; <br />Posted by brandbll</DIV></p><p>Again, why?&nbsp; The fifth person is not needed in orbit and it is not desirable ofr safety reaons to leave a person by themselves for that length of time.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <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>
 
T

tanstaafl76

Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why&nbsp;do some people allways assume the worst about NASA?</DIV></p><p>Well, they are part of the federal government afterall! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why&nbsp;do some people allways assume the worst about NASA?&nbsp; Ego has not nothing to do with.&nbsp; Productive work has.&nbsp; Going to the Moon is about exploration, right?&nbsp; That means EVAs.Apollo experience indicated that lunar EVAs are very demanding.&nbsp; For extended periods the most that could be expected was an EVA every other day. With three on the surface that still&nbsp;means only one EVA every other day, no improvement on two.&nbsp; With four people you have two EVA pairs, and could do an EVA every day and still allow the off duty pair to do light duties inside the Altair.Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p><strong>Excellent response, thank you.&nbsp; And the reason that astronauts work in pairs, is for safety?&nbsp; If one gets in trouble, the other is there to help?</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts