Orion vehicle

[jimfromnsf]

"1. 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.<br /><br />2. 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! <br /><br />3. 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? <br /><br />4. 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! <br /><br />5. You can't fly to the moon in a vehicle robust enough to go to Mars? Bulloney! "<br /><br />read a little before posting<br /><br />1. The deadline to retire the shuttle IS set in stone. vendors and suppliers have been shutdown. long term maintenance on the orbiters has been deferred since they won't be used anymore. Budget has been removed<br /><br />2. The russians do have a "shortage" of Soyuz. They barely can meet the schedule. Also one can't just produce another company's spacecraft. They don't have the same processes and procedures and drawing systems (USA vs Russian). And there are ITAR issues.<br /><br />3. Orion has back up thrusters. And you test and minimize parts count to reduce risk<br /><br />4. It can't be used. It is the wrong shape, the systems are not the same. Too big. You can't put a camper shell in a station wagon<br /><br />5. Orion is made to go to Mars but not as living quarters.<br /><br />Again read something before pos

 

[bbrence]

Like I said, you are all about this can't be done and that can't be done. All the reasons you mentioned can be overcome. Whether they should be or not is another issue........but, they should be explored....carefully.....and independantly of NASA.<br /><br />Should our goal be the moon? I don't think so! And there are plenty of highly skilled engineers and scientists who agree with me.........ESAS not withstanding.<br /><br />I think we should be designing systems to get us to Mars. It's the only goal worth risking lives......in my humble opinion. <br /><br />This is an opinion forum. My opinion is as valid as yours! The ESAS is your be all and end all? It's a NASA study.......for NASA and by NASA. I am sure there were similar very comprehensive studies discussing the reasons why we "needed" to build the shuttle and the ISS. I remember the sales pitch for building the shuttle......little of which worked out as planned. The same can be said for the ISS.<br /><br />By the way......I have seen several design studies by highly respected people that does incorporate the shuttle nose section into other vehicles!!! IT CAN BE DONE!!!!! Again, whether it should be done or not is another issue. I don't know....and either do you!<br /><br />I suggest you read something other than the ESAS! There are other ideas out there.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[bbrence]

"Read something before posting", isn't a personal insult? What would you call it?<br /><br />I started the thread. The heading is "missions and launches". I think we stuck to that quite well, actually. You can't question the limitations of the Orion vehicle without discussing the broader issues. Thank you for your opinion.

 

[MeteorWayne]

You're certainly making a fine first impression here <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />Perhaps if you'd read around here a little bit, you'd realize that we been discussing these issues for a long time here at SDC.<br /><br />You could learn a lot be reading a bit of it before telling us that everyone here doesn't know what they are talking about <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

eYup.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"By the way......I have seen several design studies by highly respected people that does incorporate the shuttle nose section into other vehicles!!! IT CAN BE DONE!!!!! "<br /><br /> Read very carefully, IT CAN 'T BE DONE, and I do know <br /><br />It is too big. It was not made for nominal g-loads higher than 3. It is the wrong shape. <br /><br />Production capability for it is gone. It uses outdated hardware<br /><br />need I go on?

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Obviously, I am no expert.....nor trained scientist or engineer."<br /><br />You got that right

 

[bbrence]

Multiple ad hominems deleted

 

[radarredux]

We interrupt this "discussion" for a little news:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b><font color="yellow">NASA to test-fly 'Orion' spacecraft next fall</font>/b><br /><br />MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--NASA officials said Wednesday that the space agency is on track to launch its first flight test in September 2008 of the Orion spacecraft, the successor to the space shuttle that's expected to take astronauts back to the moon by 2020.<br />...<p><hr /></p></b></p></blockquote><br />http://news.com.com/NASA+to+test-fly+Orion+spacecraft+next+fall/2100-11397_3-6200278.html?tag=nefd.top

 

[telfrow]

[moderator hat on]<br /><br />Let's keep this civil, folks. I'd hate to have to lock the thread.<br /><br />[moderator hat off] <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>

 

[j05h]

<i>> 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.</i><br /><br />Untenable argument - we'd never build anything, anywhere if that were the case. Business and government account for inflation during their long-term projects. <br /><br /><i>> 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. </i><br /><br />Yup, you have not read the ESAS report. At least go read the executive summary - you're not going to get anywhere with Uplink regulars otherwise. <br /><br /><i>> 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?</i><br /><br />You assume there will be Only One Space Station? Even now there are multiple space stations flying - the ISS and the two Bigelow Genesis test articles. In the same sense that Shuttle is being replaced with several to many different vehicles, the new way in space will likely see many stations from many providers, doing many things. There is a vast difference between ISS's LEO freefall environment and a Moon base (or Mars, Ceres, etc). They all have different potential uses. <br /><br /><i>> 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!... MARS should be the goal! </i><br /><br />The Lunar environment is just different enough from Mars to make this largely a side-step. Lunar missions of any kind (NASA, media, tourism, etc) have to happen for their own, legit, reasons. Mars' surface has enough pressure to negate Apollo/EMU/Orlan type insulation and the dust/chemistry is very different. Almost all Mars equipment testing can be done on Earth and perfected through several iterations at Mars. This may also be true for the Lunar Poles vs a more equatorial locale. One interesting thing to watch will be what <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> "Read something before posting", isn't a personal insult? What would you call it? </i><br /><br />"Read something before posting" is a common suggestion. Welcome to our community of geeks, "reading" is a pretty common activity here. <br /><br />Prediction, once you've read up on CEV and ESAS: the next thread you start will end with someone telling you to read up on orbital mechanics. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"And you Sir, are a bellicose know it all.....who doesn't know a tenth of what he thinks he knows!"<br /><br />When it comes to space, my friends say I know more than I think I know.<br /><br />Nobody is out there is using the shuttle cabin for other spacecraft or even thinking about it.<br /><br />I am not poo pooing a new concept or invention. I am discrediting a undoable idea from an uninformed source.

 

[holmec]

well, like Scottb50 said you need a lot of propellant to slow down your craft to enter low earth orbit. So you either directly go into the Earth's atmosphere with a capsule while in transit from the moon or you do aerobraking.<br /><br />The problem with aerobraking is that it takes too long...months. Well it did with Mars, probably less with Earth's atmosphere.<br /><br />But your idea of a larger craft....I have contemplated this over a couple of months (I had the same idea myself).<br /><br />What I came up with is a reusable system for multiple lunar voyages. <br /><br />The macro components you would need is:<br />1. Two refuelable large tugs, along with expendable tanks<br />2. One refuelable and reusable lunar lander<br />3. Lunar rated capsules.<br /><br />Initial mission, The Setup:<br />First launch a tug, then a couple of expendable fuel tanks. Each tug should be equipped with a mobile "inch worming" robotic arm. As the first fuel tank approaches, the arm grabs it and docks it with the front of the tug. Then the arm "inch worms" its way to the front of the tank. Next tank comes along, the arm does the same.<br /><br />Next launch your refuelable lunar lander. The arm places the lander at the front of the stack and then the tug launches for TLI. The tug also breaks for Lunar orbit and drops off the lander in orbit via the robotic arm. Then the tug heads back to earth orbit. During transition, the arm jettisons the expendable fuel tanks and gets stowed. Then the tug sets up for aerobraking in Earth's atmosphere.<br /><br />Next, First Mission:<br />While that first tug is aerobraking, launch your second tug, and expendable fuel tanks, configured the same as before. Then launch your crew in the capsule and dock that to the front of the tug's stack. The tug launches for TLI and enters Lunar orbit, catching up to the lander. Now here the front expendable tank should have some small module that allows for docking of another module. So the arm can grab the lander an <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think my hypothetical system answers your inquiry. Since NASA is re-embaking on the modular route for space craft, you should look at module with specific functions. The Shuttle Orbiter had the function of being multi functional for its time and is not modular on a macro scale.<br /><br />In my system the capsule only require a small service module. It also has the potential to allow for smaller launchers.<br /><br />The reality is that we are going to need rockets of the Ares V class and bigger. So we better start thinking of reusable space modules and systems that comprise a space ship that way we can manage our need for extremely large launchers while maintaining an infrastructure in space. <br /><br />So when you think about interplanetary space ships, I encourage you to think about tugs. Why? Because tugs are the key component. They have propulsion and electricity generators and navigation. You just need to add a habitation <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

After blowing up images the Bigelow "Power Bus" it looks very much like it could be used as the basis of a tug. Wonder if using it with the hub attached could be advantageous? Tankage, remote controls etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bbrence]

Let's cut to the chase:<br /><br />For your information, I have done a ton of reading....enough to know that there are a large number of knowledgeable, respected experts in these fields who disagree with many of your statements and conclusions. <br /><br />You have a bad habit of stating your "opinions" as fact!!! While I agree with many of the technical issues you raised, I [and many others] disagree strongly with your conclusions based on those issues. <br /><br />You rudely told me to "read before posting". I am telling you to stop passing off your opinions as unarguable fact!!!!<br /><br />I would also be interested in your credentials. You have clearly done some reading, but you make black and white statements of certainty that most scientists and engineers are reluctant to make. Leads me to wonder what connection if any you have with these discilpines.<br /><br />You seem to believe that NASA can't make a poor decision. They can and have!!! Should I go ahead and list them.<br /><br />The purpose of my thread was to ask question and state "Opinions". I suggest that in the future you do the same......and stop making absolute yes and no statements that are clearly your opinions and only your opinions. They are a long way from fact. That you say them does not make them correct! And, please.....don't quote from some NASA study to support your opinions. For every one you can find, I can find another that takes a different approach! THERE ARE ALWAYS ALTERNATIVES!!!!! <br /><br />It would also be helpful and more polite not to insult other posters here......by insinuating they don't read. You have no idea what they have or have not read!<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I am telling you to stop passing off your opinions as unarguable fact!!"<br /><br />Not opinions. FACT, the shuttle crew cabin can not be use for other vehicles. Just a 747 cockpit can't be used for an Airbus 320. The shuttle design is a one only design<br /><br />And please provide a study to support your claim. <br />1. It has to be in this decade (old studies assumed the shuttle was still in production)<br />2. Just because a study has a cockpit doesn't mean it could be a shuttle cockpit.<br /><br /><br />I was in the USAF shuttle program office. I have worked on over 30 space shuttle missions. I supported the USAF's efforts in the Challenger investigation. I have worked on 20 ELV launches. 15 Spacehab missions. I have worked for the USAF, NASA and Boeing/McDonnell-Douglas. <br /><br />Attached is a diagram of the shuttle crew cabin.<br />As you can see'<br />1. It is unsymmetrical, making it unusable for a capsule<br />2. There isn't a hatch on the nose, making it unusable for docking. <br />3. it is supported by only 4 attach points in fuslage. this makes unusable in other vehicles

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The problem with aerobraking is that it takes too long...months. Well it did with Mars, probably less with Earth's atmosphere.</font>/i><br /><br />I don't think it is so much Mars' atmosphere versus Earth's atmosphere as it is the fact that the Mars orbiters use delicate solar panels and very thin arms to the solar panel for their drag. With some more aggressive heat shielding you could cut the time quite a bit.<br /><br />Right now, however, NASA wants a direct abort to Earth capability, so aerobraking isn't even on the table for the manned flights.<br /><br />For unmanned flights where time isn't a factor, solar electric ion propulsion would make an interesting alternative. You have really high ISP and virtually no boil-off problems with xenon like you do with hydrogen. Should NASA choose to build up a substantial presense on the Moon (currently they have no mandate or funds for this), then this approach might be useful for continuous support of a colony.</i>

 

[jschaef5]

"And, please.....don't quote from some NASA study to support your opinions."<br /><br />haha, what does NASA know about space travel anyways.... <br /><br />This thread is as good as dead after that comment.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bbrence]

Right!!!! NOBODY....no other agency of any government....no scientific organization.....no think tank......NOBODY......has the ability to do a thorough, exacting, scientific study of anything related to space......ONLY NASA!!!! Give me a break!!!!! It would be funny if it wasn't so ignorant!!!!

 

[jschaef5]

"Right!!!! NOBODY....no other agency of any government....no scientific organization.....no think tank......NOBODY......has the ability to do a thorough, exacting, scientific study of anything related to space"<br /><br />When has anyone said this in this thread. You are the one who told us not to listen to anything NASA says. Talk about ignorance... You are the one who came here asking about how NASA chose Orion's design without even reading the ESAS. And you still seem to have failed to do so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bbrence]

I am impressed with your credentials, but I am NOT impressed with your flat, black and white, yes or no, "can't be done" statements! You should know better. I have run across people like you all my life, and while you are saying it can't be done, someone else is out doing it. Seen it time and time again.<br /><br />Nobody would deny that NASA has accomplished some terrific feats, but there is another side as well. NASA decision making has directly or indirectly caused the deaths of what, 17 astronauts......and damn near a few others. Nobody that I know of has much praise for the NASA bureaucratic "culture".......to wit the current flap over astronaut personal issues, drinking, etc. So, don't hold NASA up as the ONLY authority on space flight!!! Many, including insiders, would like some major changes at NASA. By the way, there are a few others out there with some expertise.....the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, etc. Not to mention the privateers becoming involved. Tell Burt Rutan it can't be done!<br /><br />And lastly, I never said you could just cut the nose off the shuttle and glue it on another spacecraft. OBVIOUSLY, it would require incorporating it into the design of the new vehicle. IT CERTAINLY COULD BE DONE......whether it would make sense or not is up to the engineers, and the bean counters. "It's the wrong shape"??? What is the wrong shape in space? It all depends on what you intend to use it for. <br /><br />Get off your high horse, you might learn something......about people, if not about space.<br /><br />

 

[bbrence]

I didn't say or even implay that NASA knows nothing about space. I simply said that a NASA study is not the be all and end all of what we should do relative to the US future in space. It's one study.....and if NASA is anything like other government agencies, [and it is] I'm sure the study supports it's decisons. [Please don't call me anti-government]. <br /><br />I have read through it [not every word], and I have read other explanations of what NASA has decided to do. Considering that NASA was the chief proponent of the ISS [aka Space Station Freedom] and one of their arguments was we need a platform for flights to the moon and beyond. Now, when those flights are in the planning stages, they ignore the ISS. Suddenly that is a bad idea. <br /><br />Only time will tell if they are making the right decisions now. We shall see! Reusing old technology [Apollo on steroids] may save time and money, but will it be the right decision for the long haul. I question that!! Going back to the moon is going to cost a fortune.....although this administration can come up with 500 BILLION for Iraq......I would prefer they spend their money getting to Mars.<br /><br />My OPINION!

 

[JonClarke]

[Mod hat on]<br /><br />It may be your opinion, but we expect your opinion to be backed up by evidence and argued in a reasoned manner<br /><br />If you do this, you can and should expect fact based and reasoned analysis from the many people here who have put a lots of thought into these issues and in some cases, work on them on a daily basis.<br /><br />We then expect you to discuss these replies in a smilar manner.<br /><br />Lastly, we require you to do this in a polite and respectful manner. This is a requirement of the Terms of Service and the Users Guide. You have already has posts edited because of improper language, please do not push the line further.<br /><br />You have been warned.<br /><br />[Mod hat off]<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>