Orion Capsule - 2 months to Mars?

[Danzi]

I am having a major problem with Orion! Its not very big, and considering an Astronaut going to Mars will be in there for months, it is a major design floor, and bad for the astronauts health and fitness. Its fine for the Moon as its just a few days away, but months in a small cramped box is to much to ask anyone to do, or are NASA seriously going to do it?

p.s sorry if this has been previously discussed.

 

[docm]

I don't think anyone is considering an Apollo-style stack (CEV and lander) for a mission to Mars.

A Mars mission would very likely need a habitat/stores module, a lander (of course), a return vehicle for going up and re-entry (Orion), a power/propulsion module (my favorite is nuclear + VASIMR) and connecting bits.

 

[Danzi]

They could make it like a small space station, Build it out of Earth Orbit, then when fully stocked up on supplys, turn on the boosters for a bit and push it to Mars. COuld they do that, assemble a mini space station to be pushed to and from Mars? Once in space it would be reusable for years and years.

 

[docm]

A space station is just that; a space station and not an interplanetary vehicle. We're talking about the difference between a house and a Winnebago here.

Build it to the purpose, add a lot of fudge factor for the stores and hopefully you have a 12 MW reactor so a cluster of VASIMR plasma rockets can get you to Mars in the 2 months in the thread title.

 

[JonClarke]

I am having a major problem with Orion! Its not very big, and considering an Astronaut going to Mars will be in there for months, it is a major design floor, and bad for the astronauts health and fitness. Its fine for the Moon as its just a few days away, but months in a small cramped box is to much to ask anyone to do, or are NASA seriously going to do it?

Nobody has seriously suggested going to Mars in Orion. In the NASA Mars DRM 5.0 Orion fulfills two, possibly three roles:

1) Ferrying the crew from Earth to LEO where it docks with a Mars transfer Vehicle

2) Returning the crew from the MTV to Earth at the end of the mission

3) Provide the basis for a Mars ascentr vehicle crew capsule to take the crew from the Mars surface to the MTV.

1) and 2) would probably be the same spacecraft.

Jon

 

[gunsandrockets]

greetings Danzi!

I can understand your dismay, considering the way NASA has advertised the Orion spacecraft to the public. Fear not, NASA isn't that crazy and has never intended to use the Orion spacecraft as the primary element of a manned mission to Mars.

The Orion spacecraft masses less than 25 tonnes, while the mass budget for most proposals for a mission to Mars exceeds 400 tonnes! :shock: Apollo shaped capsules have been proposed in the past for inclusion in Mars mission designs, but they would only be used in very limited ways, and not as the primary living quarters during the mission. Keep in mind most Mars missions don't last just a couple of months, more like a couple of years. :geek:

 

[samkent]

My understanding is that on the return journey, when they get close to Earth they will board Orion and burn to a safe re entry into the atmosphere. The habitat section will be discarded. Either it will pass by the Earth or be directed to one of the oceans. But it will not be returned to Earth orbit.

 

[tanstaafl76]

My understanding is that on the return journey, when they get close to Earth they will board Orion and burn to a safe re entry into the atmosphere. The habitat section will be discarded. Either it will pass by the Earth or be directed to one of the oceans. But it will not be returned to Earth orbit.

It would be nice if they could get it to settle in an orbit, either around the earth, the moon, or even the sun so that we could pick it up a few years later for the next Mars trip. I don't know how feasible that is from a fuel standpoint (probably not).

 

[TC_sc]

My understanding is that on the return journey, when they get close to Earth they will board Orion and burn to a safe re entry into the atmosphere. The habitat section will be discarded. Either it will pass by the Earth or be directed to one of the oceans. But it will not be returned to Earth orbit.

The current plan means that only Orion will return to Earth orbit. Thats the reason for the Apollo style capsule. The reentry speeds will be about 35,000 mph.

As for this thread, Mars in 2 months. There is only one way can reach those speeds and that is with the nuclear options. That would most likely be the VASIMIR plasma engine since thats the only thing currently close to flight ready. With that, there is no need for the Orion since we can slow and orbit the entire spacecraft in LEO. We could dock with ISS,and use it for quarantine. From there we could use some reusable glider return vehicle. With this process we save the habitat modules and engines for a return flight to Mars. The VASIMIR can be reused for a possible 20 or more years, with only the hydrogen, or other fuel, to be replaced.

With this application the Orion, if it's still build, could be left docked to ISS. Look at the mass that would be available for fuel or other supplies. Mars in 2 months is the way to go. A 2 year mission to Mars at this point is fool hearty. That just begging for Murphy's Law to grab you by the...

 

[lowrieder]

I would also agree that Orion will not be sent to Mars alone. I think creating an interplanetary ship that included a few Orions, lots of storage, and refillable engines is the way to go. The Nuclear option would also be pretty good. We might also try docking it to the ISS when not in use then it will be there when we need it, and can be used for additional room on the ISS when not making its trek between planets. Also if it were docked to the ISS then it would make building it and maintaining it between tips easier. Buzz Aldrin also mentioned support for a similar plan.
One more thing: if it were reuseable then it would make trips to Ceres and any NEOs possible as well.
If it works well when can even build a second one so we have one mission out while the other mission is being preped. With a good storage system in place would could even send suppliees one way and harvested resources back on the same ship. I know it is a bit of a dream, but I think it is a possible one.

 

[Bill_Wright]

If they used nuclear power as envisioned by the original Project Orion of the 1960's they could get there in one day. VASIMIR is for wimps.
;-)
-- Bill

 

[AirSpaceMan]

I read an interesting article in the current version of Air and Space Magazine about getting to Mars in 30-days. We would need a nuclear rocket to provide the needed impulse. Chemical rockets just don't have the energy required. I think a shorter trip, coupled with a rotating section to provide some gyroscopic stablization plus a location for artificial gravity is what we need to do to get there. Now the question is - will a private group develop a ship or will NASA get the backbone from the Administration and funding from Congress to do it? If we don't tell Congress to do it, they'll continue to find ways to toss out our tax dollars on silly ideas like "cash for clunkers."

 

[kravjar666]

Wouldn't a reusable interplanetary craft such as you describe be amazing. I'm jazzed just thinking about it. Let's get the navy on it - they have nuke subs all over the place.

 

[MarkWaldron]

Orion On Steroids

Perhaps I'm being naive here, but assuming that the performance envelope for the VASIMR as explained by Franklin Chang-Diaz holds true (he has claimed that VASIMR can get a spacecraft from LEO to Mars in 39 days) I don't see why a VASIMR unit comparable to the one that is slated for deployment on the ISS, or a cluster of such, cannot be mounted on the Orion service module and powered by its considerable solar panels. If this assumption is correct, Orion missions to the Martian moons or to Ceres should be practical. Having four astronauts cramped into that area for even a matter of weeks would still not be desirable, so an inflatable habitat module a la Bigelow Aerospace could be docked to the Orion's nose, with an airlock at the opposite end of the module. The habitat module would be launched with the Orion, inflated once the Orion reaches LEO, and jettisoned on the return trip. If this is all doable, and I think it probably is, then the US could launch manned deepspace missions with nothing more than a single Ares I and the upgraded Orion.

 

[Delphinus100]

If they used nuclear power as envisioned by the original Project Orion of the 1960's they could get there in one day. VASIMIR is for wimps.
;-)
-- Bill

Um, somewhat more than a day, Bill. Maybe a couple weeks (which *still* ain't bad)

If we had some sort of propulsion (Fusion rocket? Antimatter energized NTR?) that could provide a continuous 1g acceleration halfway to its destination, and 1g deceleration for the other half, it would take about 50 hours to reach Mars at its *closest.* (about 35 million miles)

The same performance, BTW, would get you to the Moon in 3.5 hours, Pluto in 15 days...

 

[neutrino78x]

but months in a small cramped box is to much to ask anyone to do, or are NASA seriously going to do it?

I've done it before. as a sonar tech (operator) on the nuclear powered ballistic missile submarine USS Florida, I was once underwater for 87 days without coming to the surface or going into port.

9 men sleep in these bunkrooms:

Trident bunkroom

this is sonar, where I worked; the guy standing can only take one step back and then he is already as far back as he can go. The whole sonar shack is about 10 feet long, in a tactical situation, there are 12-14 people in there.

Sonar

This is where the boat is commanded, the picture is taken from where the periscopes are, looking forward. from where the camera is to the other side of the room is about 5 steps. If you see the brown circle in the lower right, behind the ladder, that is where the helm was (actually "helm/planes" = 3 dimensional movement), I stood that watch too.

Control

But anyway, you don't need Battlestar Galactica to go to Mars. You just need a small, Apollo moon lander size capsule. Chemical rockets are sufficient, since you are only taking the fuel you need to go one way; the fuel for the return trip can be made by an automated lander landing months prior. See Mars Direct.

btw, Orion is the launch capsule, not the lander. The lander is called Altair.

--Brian

 

[Pretzer]

I propose we strap larger vasimir rockets to ISS after it gets decommissioned and send it to Mars. It's biggest artifact in space and we've already invested energy in boosting it into orbit. Add to it and off we go. Take a test run to Moon first. Only difference between space station and space ship is a propulsion system.

Keith Pretzer

 

[goldjedi]

So what we are talking about is building mankinds 1st true space ship. Design and building a 'ferry craft ' to take crew and landers back and froward to Mars and latter to other targets , yes ...

Has to be the way to go.

 

[EarthlingX]

A ship like this ? :
- landing module (Orion + Altair in one ship)
- habitation module
- power module
- interplanetary propulsion module.

Did i miss anything ?

 

[TC_sc]

A ship like this ? :
- landing module (Orion + Altair in one ship)
- habitation module
- power module
- interplanetary propulsion module.

Did i miss anything ?

Forget Orion. Its going to be used only for lunar or LEO missions.

The great thing about the VASIMIR engine is that it is its own power module. The VASIMIR engine can even idol to do nothing but produce electricity. It provides constant thrust so that you don't need anything to simulate gravity.

I would throw in some solar panels just for emergencies. I have even imagines installing Ion drive engines just as a back up. How much weight could that and the needed solar panels add? I would abandon the fuel making ship that would be sent to Mars ahead of time. If more fuel is needed, I'd just send it to Mars orbit ahead of time. Heh, imagine sending the fuel tanker to Mars my chemical rocket 6 months before launch of the manned ship. They might reach Mars at the exact same time.

 

[Stuyoung38]

TC_sc:
I believe VASIMR only accelerates at a fraction of a gee. Either some sort of artificial gravity would be required - OR, since ISS astronauts routinely stay aloft for 6 months at a time, it doesn't seem like astronauts would be incapacitated on the surface of Mars (at only 1/3 G) after only a 49 day flight. Depending on their stay time on Mars, they may need to be reconditioned before returning to Earth, but this may be able to be done in a centrifuge (in a space station?) in Earth orbit.
Also, VASIMR refers only to the plasma-generating and acceleration system; it does require a power source (in the Ad Astra lab on Earth, it uses the Houston municipal electrical grid). A NTR reactor would be a perfect power source, and (as you wrote), with bimodal design, could produce electrical power when the plasma drive was off.
The Russians have designed solar-ion propelled Mars ships with truly immense solar panels. I honestly have no idea how the power demands of VASIMR compare with ion propulsion, so I don't know if solar power is even an option for VASIMR. Does anyone know?
Let's not forget radiation shielding. I think that a double-walled module, with water filling the space between the walls, might work. The astronauts need water anyway, for drinking, washing, cooking and cooling. It would be ironic, though, if something happened to the inside wall; the first astronauts to drown in space?...Maybe some sort of hydrogen-rich foam would be better, and lighter.

 

[tnjen]

Ahhh the 1960's. "We will send men to the moon and bring them back safely before the end of the decade." A time when NASA was the envy of the world having won the space race over the USSR to the moon,then........ Since the end of the Apollo program NASA has floundered, sad to say. The Space Shuttle hasn't lived up to it's expectations, the ISS went over budget, and construction was much longer than was hoped. Here we are now in the first decade of the 21st century without Pan Am shuttles ferrying us to giant spinning space stations a la Stanley Kubrick. We have become a society of listless spectators in the infancy of our race's space faring first baby steps. The sad part is we are anxiously awaiting the wisdom of national leaders to direct us in our destiny to tame the solar system as was done in the west during the early days of American history. I regret to conclude that our leaders have forgoten that the pioneering spirit of the "Great Migration", which resulted in untold riches for some that were ready to take chances. Ahh, but in the spirit of capitalism, our industries haven't forgotten. This means that there will eventually be consortiums created to tame the solar system as was done in the old west. Though our challenges are much greater than cholera and Indian attacks, I believe with agressive research and development of industries (VASIMR/space based nuclear power), we could be establishing a solar system wide human presence within our life time

 

[TC_sc]

TC_sc:
I believe VASIMR only accelerates at a fraction of a gee. Either some sort of artificial gravity would be required - OR, since ISS astronauts routinely stay aloft for 6 months at a time, it doesn't seem like astronauts would be incapacitated on the surface of Mars (at only 1/3 G) after only a 49 day flight. Depending on their stay time on Mars, they may need to be reconditioned before returning to Earth, but this may be able to be done in a centrifuge (in a space station?) in Earth orbit.
Also, VASIMR refers only to the plasma-generating and acceleration system; it does require a power source (in the Ad Astra lab on Earth, it uses the Houston municipal electrical grid). A NTR reactor would be a perfect power source, and (as you wrote), with bimodal design, could produce electrical power when the plasma drive was off.
The Russians have designed solar-ion propelled Mars ships with truly immense solar panels. I honestly have no idea how the power demands of VASIMR compare with ion propulsion, so I don't know if solar power is even an option for VASIMR. Does anyone know?
Let's not forget radiation shielding. I think that a double-walled module, with water filling the space between the walls, might work. The astronauts need water anyway, for drinking, washing, cooking and cooling. It would be ironic, though, if something happened to the inside wall; the first astronauts to drown in space?...Maybe some sort of hydrogen-rich foam would be better, and lighter.

I do stand corrected. My mind was confusing the VASIMR with the nuclear engine. LOL just replace everywhere I said VASIMR with with nuclear engines. The VASIMR would give some simulated gravity as you stated. Astronauts would of course require lots of workouts.

So as I said, X the VASIMR and replace it with a nuclear core engine that is, some say, ten years away. That will get us there in 2 months and provide the Gforce we need to ensure healthy astronauts. The nuclear core engine will do all the things I stated above.

That's my one mistake for the year :lol:

 

[jerrycobbs]

Lots of folks suggest doing things with the ISS, like making it into a ship to go to the Moon or Mars. I used to have the same ideas, but eventually I realized it's impossible for at least a couple of reasons: One, it has nowhere near enough radiation shielding to leave the safety of the Van Allen belts; and two, it has nowhere near the structural rigidity needed for acceleration. Even the small orbital corrections needed to keep its altitude up require careful coordination and very gentle nudging. Attempting to move it out of Earth orbit would simply leave behind a collection of loose pieces while the empty booster continued on toward Mars.

 

[Larry_1]

The need to get there in 2 months is a solution to the need to go to Mars. The engine sounds complicated but if they are successful which we all hope, they will try it first in a series of unmanned missions. Sounds like a perfect opportunity to send a wagon trail of robots there to conduct science while testing out the engine design.

Another way to go to Mars is to go in a covered wagon like people did back in the pioneer days. Simply use existing chemical rockets and space modules that have 50 years of proven reliability and solve the two problems of long duration space travel:

1) Radiation and
2) Bone loss.

No one has done any space experiements to solve these two problems even though they are staring us right in the face. They only study the problem and measure how bad these things are on humans. Time to step up to the plate and solve these two problems.

What if space radiation causes bone loss?

What if 5 minutes of short radius intermittent artificial gravity per day stops bone loss?

If it turns out that simple, we would have wasted a lot of time and money trying to get there in 2 months.

Most people, however, are only interested in one thing, i.e., finding a way to make a lot of money sending people to Mars.