Orion and Falcon 9

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

spacer01

Guest
Maybe someone can answer me this, can the Orion crew module be lifted with a falcon 9 booster or maybe the falcon 9 heavy lift booster? This seems like a great way to incorporate the public and private sector and also solve the shaking problem with the current booster.
 
D

docm

Guest
The Falcons are moving targets, but here's the latest I can find;<br /><br />Falcon 9 to LEO: 9,900 kg<br />Falcon 9 Heavy to LEO: 27,500 kg<br /><br />Both of which should go up significantly when the Merlin 1C engine upgrade arrives (better turbopumps).<br /><br />Orion is also a moving target, but in the downward direction due to the problems with Ares I. IIRC the target is/was 29,200 kg<br /><br />If anyone cares to adjust that go ahead.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
I believe the Orion CEV is supposed to mass no more than 23 tonnes (not including the launch escape system).
 
D

docm

Guest
<font color="yellow">I believe the Orion CEV is supposed to mass no more than 23 tonnes</font><br /><br />As of 7/15/2007;<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5167<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>><br />Constrained by the Ares I launch vehicle, the SRD lift-off weight target for Orion is set at 64,450 lbs, or 29.2 MT (Metric Tons), which information showing Orion has cut into nearly all of its reserves and weight growth allowance.<br /><br />The latest schedule remains optimistic, if not slightly unrealistic due to budgetary pressures, with the launch of Orion 3 - the first full stack, unmanned orbital flight - scheduled for Sept 2012 with a splashdown off Australia, and the first manned orbital flight, Orion 4, is scheduled for a launch date of Oct 2013, with landing at Edwards AFB.<br /> /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />unless they found a way to shed 6 mt in a few months. IIRC it was originally around 32 mt. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
Yeah, 23 mT would already dangerously make it fit on EELV heavies, which is a big no-no.<br />
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> I'm shocked to see Orion is so heavy.......</i><br /><br />Especially in it's LEO crew-taxi role. At nearly 30t it seats the same number of crew as Dragon at 10t. Oh, wait, no, Orion has one less seat for 3x the mass. Say what?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> Come on now Josh...compare apples to apples...... at least be fair.</i><br /><br />I am being fair. I wrote that "in the LEO crew-taxi role" not "for going to the Moon". What exactly does Orion offer as a LEO crew taxi that Dragon does not offer? Maybe, maybe a little more pressurized cargo, but that would be it. This is definitely Cortland vs McIntosh.<br /><br />J <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
s_g, would you care to provide some apples to compare ? all the other existing LEO capsule data that i am able to dig up scale nowhere near as big as CEV, even just taking a capsule weight and multiplying it directly to get to six person crew.<br />Mercury, Soyuz, Shenzou, Dragon, Gemini, Big Gemini proposals etc.
 
D

docm

Guest
And in that mode the major mass differences are a thick TPS and a big service module with extra consumables to make it lunar capable, which it has to lug to LEO regardless of destination. That might make up a few mt, but not 3x the whole shebang. With a lunar modified (a SM and thicker TPS) Dragon could do it, and you wouldn't <i>have</i> to use 'em in LEO. <br /><br />What I want to know is WTF makes that thing so heavy for its occupied volume vs. Dragon other than a laundry list of options akin to a loaded 1978 Eldorado <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />Orion is starting to sound less like an LEO/lunar taxi and more like an RV with a VW engine. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">The design point for the Orion is for a lunar mission not a LEO mission.</font>/i><br /><br />Which is good, because the ISS won't be around long by the the time Orion is operational.<br /><br />It would have been nice to have a LEO-only version of Orion that they could have gotten to fly earlier and flyable on multiple launchers.</i>
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The design point for the Orion is for a lunar mission not a LEO mission.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yes, thats why i did not list LEO-only capsules. So i repeat my question ?
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
Well, if certain candidates have their way all of this discussion will be moot as the Orion SM (which has been what's driving up the weight of the spacecraft) will, by presidential mandate, be whittled down to fit on an EELV to save money (and conveniently exclude the possibility of any missions outside of LEO).<br /><br /><br />Incidentally, the Orion CSM is actually <i>lighter</i> than the Apollo CSM. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>(and conveniently exclude the possibility of any missions outside of LEO).<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Duh .. no, this does not follow.<br />
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
<unless they found a way to shed 6 mt in a few months. IIRC it was originally around 32 mt.><br /><br /><What I want to know is WTF makes that thing so heavy for its occupied volume vs. Dragon other than a laundry list of options akin to a loaded 1978 Eldorado /> <br /><br /><br /><br />The in orbit mass of the Orion CEV is not 32 MT. It isn't even 29 MT. Let me explain it to you.<br /><br />You have made two errors. First off 32 MT is not equal to 64,450 lbs. In fact the link you refer too handily gives the correct coversion as 29.2 MT.<br /><br />Secondly you missed the key point of the link you provided, 64,450 lbs was the "lift-off weight target for Orion". Lift-off weight includes the weight of the Launch Abort System (LAS), a beast with a weight exceeding 13,000 lbs! If you exclude the mass of the LAS from the figure of 64,450 lbs provided, the result is a nominal in orbit wet mass of 23 MT for the Orion CEV, just as I originally said.<br /><br />I made the same mistake you did back in July when I first read the article you linked. My jaw hit the floor when I saw that 29.2 MT number. Until I reread the article more closely and noted the key qualifier of 'take-off weight'.<br /><br />
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
Ok, let me explain my logic to you: Obama and many other candidates want to cut manned spaceflight to the bone, disbursing the money to Earth environmental observation satellites (and, of course, their own pet social projects), and essentially killing VSE in the process and trapping NASA in LEO with the ISS. One way such a President could covertly kill VSE (although he would hardly need to be covert about it) would be to say "Ares I is costing too much. Cancel it and fit the Orion onto one of the existing EELVs." This would force NASA to make Orion smaller, perhaps to such a degree that it would no longer be capable of doing Lunar missions.<br /><br />"We'll put that capability back in later, right now we need to service the ISS." NASA will most undoubtedly say. But once NASA has some means, any means of replacing the Shuttle, it becomes all that much easier for Congress and/or the President to say "We really can't afford VSE right now, you know, the war and all. We'll get back to it later."<br /><br />You and I, however, know that once something is removed from NASA's budget, it usually stays gone forever.<br /><br />All Congress is really is concerned about with NASA is fulfilling our international obligation to the ISS, because, for some reason, Congress is concerned about pissing off France.<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> Outside of that, all Congress sees in NASA is money that could be spent on their pork barrel projects. The only reason that Republicans in Congress support VSE is because it's Bush's idea.<br /><br />I hate Ares I just as much as the next man around here, but many of the most expensive main components for Ares V will be developed with Ares I. Once NASA has finally gotten Ares I to work after going several billion over budget, it will be all too easy for them to say to Congress "Well, for just a few dollars more you can have this big fancy rocket." And who can't resist a cheap, huge rocket.<br /><br />I know it doesn't make sense, but when <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
OK, I C now....<br /><br />Then if the Orion is indeed 23 mt then F9H should be able to handle it, yes? Not that NASA would ever go in that direction <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
<I hate Ares I just as much as the next man around here, but many of the most expensive main components for Ares V will be developed with Ares I. Once NASA has finally gotten Ares I to work after going several billion over budget, it will be all too easy for them to say to Congress "Well, for just a few dollars more you can have this big fancy rocket." And who can't resist a cheap, huge rocket.><br /><br />Yes, you have hit on a key truth here. I believe the Ares I crew launch vehicle was always intended as a stalking horse for the Ares V heavy cargo launch vehicle. By lumping development costs of the Ares V inside the Ares I program, an illusion of a lower development cost for the Ares V is created.<br /><br />What I find so tragic is that in an effort to push the performance limits of a shuttle-derived heavy launch vehicle, NASA has ballooned development cost and time beyond reason. If NASA could have instead settled for 85% of the performance of Ares V then the manned spaceflight program wouldn't find itself in the trap it does today. NASA just had to have an ultima-maximus booster, it couldn't be happy with using mature 4 segment SRB and existing infrastructure.<br />
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
<OK, I C now....><br /><br />No problemo. <br /><br /><Then if the Orion is indeed 23 mt then F9H should be able to handle it, yes? /><br /><br />If the F9H actually works as advertised, yes indeedy. <br /><br /><Not that NASA would ever go in that direction /><br /><br />Sadly, most likely that is true.<br /><br />But if we were to go so far as using SpaceX boosters as an integral part of the lunar transportation system, then better solutions than sticking an Orion CEV on top of the Falcon 9 Heavy could be used. We could keep the basic outline of the NASA plan of using an unmanned heavy cargo launch vehicle plus a small reliable launch vehicle for a crew launcher and still reduce development costs drasticly.<br /><br />Most of the mass of the Orion are from the oversized 9 tonne capsule plus a large service module containing all the Trans Earth Injection propellant. That forces the crew launch vehicle into absurdly large proportions, just to put a manned capsule into space. Similar sized boosters are used for launching complete space station modules into orbit -- ridiculous! I would scale the Orion to launch on a booster Falcon 9 size instead of Ares I size. And yes, I realize that essentially describes the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft.<br /><br />For a shuttle derived heavy cargo launcher I would use the existing sidemount configuration, because that way existing pad infrastructure could still be used. Current 4 segment SRB and current super-lightweight external tank would be used. The shuttle orbiter would be replaced with an expendable two-stage pod. <br /><br />The bottom of the pod would use dual RS-68 and fire just as the SSME do but instead of providing propulsion all the way into orbit, as the shuttle orbiter does, the 14 tonne mass of the engines would jettison along with the 25 tonne mass of the external tank a little shy of full orbital velocity. The final propulsion into orbit would be provided by the dual RL-10b engines of the pods upper stage.
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"We'll put that capability back in later, right now we need to service the ISS." NASA will most undoubtedly say. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />This scenario may or may not happen, but ... I was pointing out that once you have a LEO-capable capsule, like Soyuz or Shenzou, you can organize more ambitious missions by LEO staging.<br />That is exactly the plan for the 100-million Soyuz lunar flyby idea, and the concept has been demonstrated before. It also scales.
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>One way such a President could covertly kill VSE (although he would hardly need to be covert about it) would be to say "Ares I is costing too much. Cancel it and fit the Orion onto one of the existing EELVs." This would force NASA to make Orion smaller, perhaps to such a degree that it would no longer be capable of doing Lunar missions. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />There's a problem with this scenario, Congress not the president would do that. Not to say that the President wouldn't chime in. Congress would tell NASA to find a different solution and wouldn't dictate to NASA what that solution would be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA just had to have an ultima-maximus booster, it couldn't be happy with using mature 4 segment SRB and existing infrastructure. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well maybe Ares V was a BIG selling point to the Texan President. You know how Texans like everything BIG!<br /><br />Aside from that, yeah, why is NASA making such a big booster? Are they putting most of their eggs into one basket? Well, I can see that Ares V needs to replace the lifting capabilities of STS and go beyond. If were going to expand into space, we need bigger launchers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
Yup. A 30 mt booster would replace the cargo capability of the STS. Beyond lunar and Mars a biggie like Ares V would make heavier satellites, asteroid and Lagrange missions possible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
What individual component in a Lunar or Mars stack is going to be larger than 30T? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
Last I read the Earth Departure Stage (dry) and Altair, the lunar lander, total ~60+ mt;<br /><br />EDS: 18+ mt<br />Altair descent module: 35 mt<br />Altair asscent module: 10.8 mt <br /><br />Now add the EDS's fuel..... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts