Odd shape of the evolving Service Module (SM) for Orion CEV

[gunsandrockets]

[Delta II second stage engine is being used.]<br /><br />Evidence please.

 

[gunsandrockets]

[There always have been 4 tanks. Four tanks are used to help maintain the CG. The changes to the tanks have been from spherical to cylindrical]<br /><br />Evidence please.<br /><br />[The CEV propellant requirement are only 20k]<br /><br />Evidence please. <br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

[The OMS tanks are long out of production ... The tanks will be a new design.]<br /><br />Evidence please.

 

[gunsandrockets]

[... Also the orginal SM is too squat for tandem tanks] non sequitur<br /><br />I specifically stated that I thought two tanks are a good idea for the newer narrow-tail SM, not for the original SM.<br /><br />[It isn't a launch vehicle rocket stage. It is a spacecraft...]<br /><br />I mentioned launch vehicle rocket stages as a handy illustration of the kind of tank arrangement I meant. In the interest of clear communication.<br /><br />[...Most spacecraft (with large amounts of propellants) don't have tandem tanks...]<br /><br />Using two tandem tanks is a perfectly acceptable solution.<br /><br />Examples<br /><br />From the NASA Lunar Lander Project Office<br /><br />1)JPL proposal -- Mobilander LOIDS (Lunar Orbit Insertion/Descent Stage)<br /><br />2)Langley proposal -- DASH Lander retro module<br /><br />3)GRC proposal -- GRC Lander LCADS (Lunar Capture And Descent Stage)<br /><br />From Russia<br /><br />4)Soyuz 7K-LOK<br /><br />5)Block D lunar crasher stage<br /><br /><br />Could you explain why using 4 original design side by side tanks is vastly superior to using 2 tandem tanks in the narrow tail Orion SM?<br /><br /><br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Could you explain why using 4 original design side by side tanks is vastly superior to using 2 tandem tanks in the narrow tail Orion SM?"<br /><br />1. Evidence please of "vastly superior" You haven't established yourself as a spacecraft design expert<br /><br />2. Narrow is a relative term, the SM isn't that narrow for a spacecraft or compared to Apollo<br /><br />3. Again, alll your examples are mostly larger landers with bigger tanks or LV. Not spacecraft<br /><br />4. There is slosh issues with fewer tanks

 

[jimfromnsf]

"<br />[There always have been 4 tanks. Four tanks are used to help maintain the CG. The changes to the tanks have been from spherical to cylindrical]<br /><br />Evidence please.<br /><br />[The CEV propellant requirement are only 20k]<br /><br />Evidence please. "<br /><br />There is this document called the ESAS. Lots of good info. Try reading once. There are pics of the SM in it. The SM has always been squat since then<br /><br />CEV DAC's have the info. Get a job where you can see them or pay to see them on NSF.com

 

[telfrow]

No, it wouldn't. Let's keep it civil, shall we? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

[There is this document called the ESAS. Lots of good info. Try reading once. There are pics of the SM in it. The SM has always been squat since then]<br /><br />I have already read the ESAS report. The only ESAS information on the SM engine is related to a methane engine and tanks for that methane engine. Everyone knows that NASA dropped the methane engine requirement for the SM after the ESAS report came out.<br /><br />I am asking for you to supply evidence that supports the multiple claims you have made about the current Orion SM.<br /><br />1) That the Delta II engine is the current choice for the SM engine<br /><br />2) That the propellant requirement is 20,000 lb<br /><br />3) That the tanks for that propellant are an original design, that those tanks were always four in number, and that those tanks at first were spherical and then changed to a cylindrical shape<br /><br />This is the third time I have asked you to supply that evidence. <br /><br />

 

[SpaceKiwi]

I'm seconding this request, jimfromnsf. <br /><br />If you have the supporting documentary evidence, stop being stubborn and simply provide it for us to have a look at. I, for one, would be greatly appreciative of this additional insight you have access to. <br /><br /><br />Thanks <br /><br />SpaceKiwi - MCT <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Like I said:<br />CEV DAC's have the info. Get a job where you can see them or pay to see them on NSF.com

 

[jimfromnsf]

" Everyone knows that NASA dropped the methane engine requirement for the SM after the ESAS report came out."<br /><br />The SM has maintained the same relative shape, until lately<br />

 

[j05h]

<i>>>"...or pay to see them on NSF.com...."<br /> /> Suggesting a membership to another commercial site is closing on the border of spamming. </i><br /><br />As a long time poster, I can see where you are coming from, News. However, this is also as close to an actual cite as Jim has provided. Some posters react like gas and matches when combined.<br /><br />SBU my eye.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>