Orion Reusability

[ruff_house]

So, when Orion was first announced, each capsule was to have a life of 5-10 missions. I like this because it makes the Capsules reusable, reducing the number that must be produced, but still allows for incrimental upgrades with each new set to enter service. Looked like we'd be getting the best of both worlds here as long as they kept the cost of reusability down (namely by not reusing the heat sheilds).<br /><br />However, now with the drive to reduce weight in order to accomidate Ares I, and the announcement of possibly making water landings standard, Is reusability in jepordy?

 

[jimfromnsf]

"but still allows for incrimental upgrades with each new set to enter service. "<br /><br />Not really part of the plan<br /><br />

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> Not really part of the plan </font><br /><br />Could you expand on that a little bit? What is the plan? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[mattblack]

They will have a series of 'Block' upgrades per vehicle set manufactured. But I'm not sure how standardised they will be or how much thought Nasa and LockMart have put into this subject yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[holmec]

I haven't come across anything. It might be too soon in development to consider it right now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

The shuttles have had many upgrades over the years, it's silly to suggest that the Orion capsules won't have similar upgrades applied over the program life. Limited re-usability will be useful for phasing in new technologies that can't easily be done with the shuttle, such as changing the alloy of the frame or switching to a lighter TPS.

 

[jimfromnsf]

The frame will be the part that is reused more than the rest. Upgrades is one thing, block changes another

 

[cdr6]

The biggest problem with water landings is going to be salt water ingestion. Once salt water touches anything on the space craft...its toast. (If we are talking ocean landings that is.) An once that happens, reuseability starts to become a nonissue.

 

[elguapoguano]

From what I've read so far, Orion is only going to fly two missions a year. Doesn't seem like it would be very useful to have the capsule be reusable. Having an assembly line like a Soyuz seems like it would be the way to go. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[vulture2]

It depends on the labor required to refurbish the capsule. One Gemini capsule was flown twice, albeit unmanned. If disassembly is not required it may well be practical. But if everything has to be taken apart, checked out, and reassembled there is little to be gained. Of course, the capsule has to be shipped back from wherever it lands. Ironically one of the justifications that was given for doing final assembly at KSC was that there was no way to ship the fully assembled capsule. (laugh)

 

[willpittenger]

Aim for Lake Michigan. Unlike the ocean, it is fresh water. Unlike Lake Superior, it is not very cold. (If the crew ends up swimming, you would appreciate the temperature.) Unlike the Everglades, it provides a large target with no alligators or crocodiles. (The Everglades do have islands you would need to miss.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Ironically one of the justifications that was given for doing final assembly at KSC was that there was no way to ship the fully assembled capsule.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Let me get this straight. In the 1960's, they could ship a Saturn V 1st stage that was as wide as an 8 lane freeway. They can also ship a STS ET. Yet we have no way to ship the Orion capsule? Not even with a C-5? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">Aim for Lake Michigan. Unlike the ocean, it is fresh water. </font><br /><br />Or Lake Huron. Shallower in case they have a Liberty Bell 7 moment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

C-5 Galaxy cargo hold demensions: height , 13.5 feet (4.11 meters); width, 19 feet (5.79 meters); length, 143 feet, 9 in (43.8 meters) <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>

 

[willpittenger]

Well, I suppose the Russians would be happy to send one of their planes. If nothing else, we could put it on the back of one of them. It was built to carry their version of the STS orbiter there. Or send it via ship. NASA ships a lot that way now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[lampblack]

Wouldn't they have to incline the orbits somewhat to hit the Great Lakes?<br /><br />And there's the matter of the service module coming in for an uncontrolled landing somewhat west of where the capsule lands -- wherever that might be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

What I meant by my post is that an Orion spacecraft, disasembled into the CM, SM, and SM main engine, could easily fit into a C-5 with room to spare. <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>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"SM to the Capsule and the launch abort system to the capsule."<br /><br />That is integration.<br />Final assembly (production) is in the O&C. Major components since structure, avionics, propulsion systems, wiring, etc will be done at KSC <br />