Orion vehicle

bbrence · Jul 31, 2007

Why did NASA decide to configure the Orion to be able to launch from Earth, carry astronauts to the moon and beyond and then land back on Earth? We had to do it this way with Apollo, but we don't have to do it that way now. Why not launch a much larger transport vehicle in sections on the shuttle.....and complete it at the ISS? Use the Orion capsule as a rentry vehicle only......ala Soyuz. Why not use the larger transport vehicle for trips to the moon and Mars [with a lunar/Mars lander in tow] and have it return to the ISS.....where the crew would transfer to the Orion for rentry? Seems to me that launching the whole thing from Earth for every flight, makes no sense. Launching from Earth orbit would seem to be the better solution. Once in Earth orbit, the transport vehicle could be refueled and used again and again. Why build a new service module for the Orion for every flight? Why launch all that weight [fuel] from Earth every time?

larper · Jul 31, 2007

How does this large vehicle get from ISS to the Moon and back? Oh, I see, you are refueling it. But, you complain about launching all of that fuel for the CM/SM each time. You would have to launch MORE fuel your way. What you want instead is an Earth/Moon cycler, or an Earth/Mars cycler. The cycler contains all of the equipment needed for longterm occupation. Now you just launch a small capsule that catches and docks with the cycler. You have to launch all of your consumables, but no support equipment. If the cycler also carries the lunar lander, you need to also launch fuel for that lander, but not the lander itself. You save launching lifesupport equipment, living space, power generation (solar arrays), etc. In other words, you don't dock to ISS and launch to the moon from there, you have something akin to ISS that is constantly cycling between Earth and the Moon. The big problem with this scheme is building and launching and maintaining the cycler. It has to be robust enough to actually provide the savings listed above. If it doesn't, then the Apollo approach is still the best. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

jschaef5 · Jul 31, 2007

ESAS... Why do you need a large transport vehicle to go to the moon? Seems wasteful to send Orion up and only use it for reentry when it can be used as the crew transport vehicle also... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

jimfromnsf · Jul 31, 2007

" 1, Why not launch a much larger transport vehicle in sections on the shuttle.....and complete it at the ISS? 2. Use the Orion capsule as a rentry vehicle only......ala Soyuz. Why not use the larger transport vehicle for trips to the moon and Mars [with a lunar/Mars lander in tow] and have it return to the ISS.....where the crew would transfer to the Orion for rentry?" 1. The shuttle is going away. No ifs ands or buts about it 2. Braking into LEO uses a lot more fuel

Boris_Badenov · Jul 31, 2007

Seems to me that launching the whole thing from Earth for every flight, makes no sense. Launching from Earth orbit would seem to be the better solution. Once in Earth orbit, the transport vehicle could be refueled and used again and again. If you build a ship in orbit, fly it to the moon & return to Earth you have to slow the ship down in one of 2 ways. #1 - Aerocapture, which requires a heat shield that is a significant fraction of the mass of your spacecraft. Or #2 - Propulsive Braking, which is using your engines to slow you down. This would require almost the same amount of fuel as was needed to get into orbit in the first place. If your ship was using a nuclear engine, you would need less fuel, but still a significant fraction of the total vehicle, very likely at least 50%. It would be more possible if there was a refueling capability on the Moon. But until that time the best way to go is the way that was designed for Apollo & now for Orion. edit, a couple of links to help understand. Aerobraking vs Propulsive Braking "New" CEV pictures <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <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> </div>

wubblie · Jul 31, 2007

Then why make the Orion at all? Couldn't you just have Ares V or the shuttle launch the lunar vehicle to the ISS and have specially trained ISS astronauts and cosmonauts man the lunar vehicle? Once they go up to 6 crew on the ISS, shouldn't this work? Seems like it would save money- no Ares I or Orion necessary. It seems like sending up additional fuel for orbital breaking would be cheaper than designing and producing a new capsule and lift vehicle (not to mention having to build and launch a new EDS/LSAM for every mission).

scottb50 · Jul 31, 2007

While braking directly into LEO from either the moon, Mars, NEO's or other places would require large amounts of propellant it might be possible to aerobrake into an initial orbit and refine it using far less propellants. A combination of aerobraking and engines in the initial capture could allow a much lower orbit and require even less propulsion to refine the resulting orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bbrence · Aug 1, 2007

I guess you answered my question! Obviously, I am no expert.....nor trained scientist or engineer. It just seemed to me that having the ISS for a platform should allow some fresh thinking on how to get to the moon and Mars...and back. The Orion system appears to totally ignore the ISS. I thought one of the selling points for building it was as a platform for launching missions to the moon and beyond. If not.......what is the point of having it? Research? Everything I read seems to say we can do the majority of that research on Earth. We already have a proven, reliable way to get to and from Earth orbit.........the Soyuz. So buy a few of them. We know they work! Why spend billions reinventing the wheel? Why not put our time and money into developing a crew transport vehicle that does not have to re-enter the atmosphere......and a lander capable of landing on the moon or Mars? Couldn't the crew transport vehicle be larger and lighter and more accomodating of long term voyages? The Orion is certainly larger than Apollo but it is still relatively small. It will work just fine for trips to the moon, but Mars is a hell of a lot farther away. Six months is a long, long time to be crammed into a space as small as Orion.

bbrence · Aug 1, 2007

I guess you answered my question! Obviously, I am no expert.....nor trained scientist or engineer. It just seemed to me that having the ISS for a platform should allow some fresh thinking on how to get to the moon and Mars...and back. The Orion system appears to totally ignore the ISS. I thought one of the selling points for building it was as a platform for launching missions to the moon and beyond. If not.......what is the point of having it? Research? Everything I read seems to say we can do the majority of that research on Earth. We already have a proven, reliable way to get to and from Earth orbit.........the Soyuz. So buy a few of them. We know they work! Why spend billions reinventing the wheel? Why not put our time and money into developing a crew transport vehicle that does not have to re-enter the atmosphere......and a lander capable of landing on the moon or Mars? Couldn't the crew transport vehicle be larger and lighter and more accomodating of long term voyages? The Orion is certainly larger than Apollo but it is still relatively small. It will work just fine for trips to the moon, but Mars is a hell of a lot farther away. Six months is a long, long time to be crammed into a space as small as Orion.

qso1 · Aug 1, 2007

No bucks...no Buck Rogers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

jimfromnsf · Aug 1, 2007

The shuttle is going away. Soyuz is not US The Mars crews are not living in Orion. They will live in the MTV The US needs a vehicle for crew transport

wubblie · Aug 1, 2007

If the US needs a crew transport capability, then why not just go with a 4 segment SRB and smaller Orion capsule and call it a day. This whole "Apollo on steroids" mentality is going to leave us in the same situation as the space shuttle- with hardware that was designed for gee-whiz pr value, rather than just fulfilling the requirements of the mission. Do you really need a 4 person crew on the moon? Is it because they ran out of time on the Apollo missions and needed more manpower- it didn't look like it, I seem to remember them playing around and hitting golf balls most of the time. The part that should be "on steroids" is the habitat hardware and automated rovers/ scientific payloads. I have a feeling that we are going to end up with the opposite- a shuttle-ballpark expensive manned component, and no money left over for any sort of research and progress towards eventual Lunar/Martian habitation.

acid_frost · Aug 1, 2007

The person who started this thread makes a very good point, why are making it so difficult and i would say that we still have old thinking those that have been around too long and NASA needs new blood. This not using the ISS as a platform of some type of another and instead wasting money like it is water. Many of you make good points in using the ISS as a platform to launch to the moon or mars from, people wonder why NASA has lost its appeal well their you have it.

bbrence · Aug 1, 2007

No reason the shuttle couldn't be used to launch a crew transport vehicle into orbit, in sections if necessary.....BEFORE it is retired. It's only going away because NASA wants it to go away. And, those missions could be flown with 2 astronauts....not 7. Not sure why we were risking 7 astronauts in the first place!!! Why not use the shuttle crew cabin as part of a new vehicle. It was the best part of the shuttle. The reusable concept was a good one........it was just too large and heavy. Surely that cabin could be built into a smaller 'lifting body' that wouldn't be much heavier than Orion......and reusable......and large enough to accomodate astronauts on a Mars mission. The Soyuz is Russion? So??? They would sell as many as we would want to buy. I'm sure they could be americanized for less money than designing a new one from scratch! So, what part does the Orion capsule play in a mission to Mars??? Will it even go to Mars? Are we building a vehicle only to go back and forth from Earth orbit and to the moon? Why not build a vehicle capable of transporting men to the moon AND BEYOND? And what part will the ISS play? None? That would be a monumental waste! Seems to me we are going to need a whole new set of hardware for a Mars trip. Why not build those vehicles now? Yes, they would be 'over-built' for a moon trip, but better than building two complete systems. I still think NASA needs some fresh thinking.....to figure out how to build on what we have, not go backwards to Apollo! Apollo accomplished the goal, but it was a super high-risk venture and we damn near bought the farm many times. Turns out it was far riskier than we were lead to believe at the time. Some would say it was near fool-hardy. Looks to me like we are using the same basic designs this time......with upgraded computers and more consumables......but with most of the same inherent risks.

jimfromnsf · Aug 1, 2007

"Why not use the shuttle crew cabin as part of a new vehicle" it is not useable in another vehicle. It is too big and it would make the new spacecraft heavier The shuttle has only 15 more flights before it is retired, no more room for other payloads. A new "transport spacecraft" wouldn't even be ready by the 2010. The "crew transport spacecraft " would be a waste since it would require a lot of fuel to brake into earth orbit after returning from the moon vs parachutes and TPS. Orion does go to Mars as part of the MTV. Read the internet there is alot of info that answers your questions. Read the ESAS

MeteorWayne · Aug 1, 2007

Whoa, lets try a reality check here. Yes there is a reason the shuttle can't be used as a crew transport. It won't exist in 3 years and 2 months. The crew cabin is part of an integrated system. It can't survive on it's own without the rest of the Orbiter. Which won't exist in 3 years and 2 months. Reality check. Soyuz? Have you heard Energia is bankrupt? Everything you've suggested kind of makes sense, except where is the money going to come from? Yeah, great we can all wish for what we want. What will Congress pay for? Reality check. What NASA needs more than anything is a stable budget that will allow the futiue machines to be developed. So far, the bucks ain't there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

bbrence · Aug 1, 2007

Won't Orion have only one engine to leave moon orbit and return to Earth? Won't the Lunar lander have only one ascent engine? Those were potential killer systems on Apollo. What is being done to eliminate those risks? If we sent a Mars capable vehicle to the moon, it would have enough consumables to support the crew until a rescue mission could be launched. Other wise, Orion is virtually as risky as Apollo. Of course, if we are willing to sacrifice several thousand lives for a political goal in Iraq, why not risk sacrificing and handful of astronauts for a political return to the moon? It's all for science.......yeh right!

jschaef5 · Aug 1, 2007

"Why not build a vehicle capable of transporting men to the moon AND BEYOND?" Traveling to the Moon and traveling to Mars are 2 completely different missions and would require completely different crew vehicles. Going to the moon there is no need to recycle your urine and waste, and no need to grow plants for food and such, no need to create drastic measures to combat the effects of long duration micro gravity. Completely different vehicles. NASA's task at hand is going to the Moon right now and funding for the studying all the things I just listed has nearly been cut. "And what part will the ISS play? None? That would be a monumental waste! " I would say it would be a monumental waste to try to design something to use the ISS when its not needed. "Seems to me we are going to need a whole new set of hardware for a Mars trip. Why not build those vehicles now? Yes, they would be 'over-built' for a moon trip, but better than building two complete systems. " Do you honestly think NASA has the money for this, or are you just joking? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bbrence · Aug 1, 2007

I didn't say we should use the shuttle as a transport vehicle, I said it could be used to launch as transport vehicle into orbit......and then retired. You act like the deadline to retire the shuttle is set in stone. WE set the deadline. It could just as easily be un-set! Helloooo. Hmmmmmm, the Russions appear to have no shortage of Soyuz vehicles. You don't think they could be built by Lockeed......or a Japanese or European company for that matter. You are raising issues that don't exist. Reality indeed! The Money? Where is it coming from now? You think what they are doing is going to save money??? I guarantee you it will cost more money in the long run. Always has......always will! What's new? You are correct Sir! NASA needs a stable, and larger budget. No question about it. BUT, they also need new leadership and new thinking.......someone with the expertise to attract the best and the brightest....and the ability to go to Congress and move them to action. Not some hack political appointee. Hell, we could have gone to Mars for less than they have spent on this stupid ill-conceived venture in Iraq!!! The whole thing needs to be a joint American, European, Russion, Japanese venture!

bbrence · Aug 1, 2007

You didn't read what I said. OBVIOUSLY going to the moon and going to Mars are different missions with different requirements!!! BUT.....if you built a system capable of going to Mars, why couldn't you use it to go to the moon. Of course it would have excess capability. So??? Wouldn't the moon be a great shakedown run? Secondly, we have spent billions on the ISS. Why not use it??? Sure some engineering minds could figure out how to save time and money by incorporating the ISS into our future plans. It's cheaper to design systems that ignore it? Bulloney!

jschaef5 · Aug 1, 2007

"Of course it would have excess capability" which costs money... "we have spent billions on the ISS. Why not use it???" because we don't need to...? Go read the ESAS. You might find it quite informative. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bbrence · Aug 1, 2007

Bottom line: Some of you are so sure this can't be done or that can't be done. That kind of thinking would have kept us from getting to the moon in the first place. Any one of the things I suggested could be done......no question. It's a discussion of "should they be done". not can they be done. The shuttle crew cabin certainly could be incorporated into another vehicle! If I am not mistaken, in the first shuttle accident, it hit the water as an in-tact unit. Sure it needs to be intergrated into a new vehicle.....but can't be done? Bulloeny! You can't fly to the moon in a vehicle robust enough to go to Mars? Bulloney! Open your minds a little. All sorts of things can be done.......doesn't mean they should be, but at least they should be considered. I am just saying that I don't have a lot of faith in the current NASA leadership to fully consider a wealth of alternatives. Their track record has not been very good in many ways. Again and again, upper management has ignored good advice from their own people! What is going to change now?

bbrence · Aug 1, 2007

"Which costs money". It's got to be built to get to Mars, why not build it now and use it for the moon as well. You think building two complete systems won't cost MORE money??? Ever heard of modular design? "Becaue we don't have to" Maybe using it would make a lot of sense.....and SAVE money. We don't "have" to do anything. That is not a valid reason for not doing it. Why don't you enlighten us about ESAS?

bbrence · Aug 1, 2007

There is also the untidy matter of inflation. The longer we wait to build a Mars capable system, the more it is going to cost. Building a moon landing system, and then starting over to build yet another system to get to Mars has got to cost 3 or 4 times as much. And all this talk about a moon "Base"? For what? We have a "base" in space now......the ISS. What do we gain by moving the base to the moon? Mining mineral deposits? When......200 years from now? I see nothing in the works to land that kind of equipment on the moon anytime in the forseeable future. As far as I am concerned there is scant reason to go back to the moon UNLESS you are testing equipment and systems needed to get to Mars! Been there, done that!!! Any science can be done by robots. MARS should be the goal! It is the only goal that will capture the publics imagination and the purse-strings in Congress. NASA needs a dynamic leader who can articulate the goal and gather the needed support [Money]! And, again, it should be a joint effort.......not a USA flag-planting exercise as was Apollo.

jschaef5 · Aug 1, 2007

" Ever heard of modular design? " As jim has said, CEV was designed to be able to dock with an MTV. "Why don't you enlighten us about ESAS? " Ummmm, its available online in full text, ESAS = Exploration Systems Architecture Study. I suggest you go read it. Some thing you should have done before making judgements on the CEV decisions. It gives good insight into the requirements and the approach that was taken. I however think Direct v2.0 is much better than the current stick but thats a whole different discussion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Orion vehicle

bbrence

Guest

larper

Guest

jschaef5

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

wubblie

Guest

scottb50

Guest

bbrence

Guest

bbrence

Guest

qso1

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

wubblie

Guest

acid_frost

Guest

bbrence

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

bbrence

Guest

jschaef5

Guest

bbrence

Guest

bbrence

Guest

jschaef5

Guest

bbrence

Guest

bbrence

Guest

bbrence

Guest

jschaef5

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page