Orion ZBV - back to basics

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

docm

Guest
NSF article....<br /><br />So, NASA has completed creating an Orion "zero base vehicle", basically one stripped to its basics to get control of the weight issues. Starting at that base they say the goal is to make every kilogram justify itself. It also sounds like safety margins are on the chopping block.<br /><br />With all the time and money spent over the last year or more cutting Orion apart & stitching it back together again you would think <i><b>someone</b></i> would grow a brain and realize the root cause: Ares I is inadequate to the task.<br /><br />If this doesn't prove that a booster change is necessary I don't know what does.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

larper

Guest
As I have said before: When designing a spacecraft, you size it to the mission, and then you size the booster to the spacecraft. Orion is being done bass-ackwards. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
NASA sure has made life harder for itself with basic design choices made for the CEV.<br /><br />If the capsule was properly sized, between 4.3m to 4.5m diameter, most of the weight issues would vanish. It would make everything easier, not just for the CLV, but for the CaLV and Lander as well.<br /><br />And if NASA had chosen Lagrange Point Rendezvous instead of Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, I think NASA could avoid having to use skip-reentry.<br /><br />
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">So, NASA has completed creating an Orion "zero base vehicle"</font>/i><br /><br />ctrl-alt-delete<br /><br />... rebooting ... Jupiter anyone? ...</i>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
<Jupiter anyone?><br /><br />Shouldn't that vehicle really be named the Jupiter II? Heh, I think that was the same name as the old 'Lost in Space' flying saucer!
 
D

docm

Guest
Jupiter, Atlas, Delta...whatever just break this %&*$#@* logjam!!<br /><br />Sizing: all they needed to do is load the file into AutoCAD & scale -10%. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

christine16

Guest
lol if it was so simple <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
D

docm

Guest
I know, but the Ares/Orion follies is not exactly confidence inspiring <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />Let' just suspend some peoples disbelief for a minute and presume Dragon flies and well.<br /><br />At some point an industrious reporter will ask Musk how many people Dragon holds and how much it and F9 cost to develop, and in all likelihood these answers will make NASA's answers look very bad to taxpayers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
If your scenario holds true the more telling factor will be the timeline more than the cost, I believe. How embarrising for NASA stuck buying rides from Russia while in Ares I limbo, when some pipsqueak private U.S. company can put people into space before NASA can.
 
D

docm

Guest
That too, and it may be more than one though SpX will be using their own rockets.<br /><br />Also embarrassing would be if Bigelow could build and man a large space station in 5 years or less. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
<Also embarrassing would be if Bigelow could build and man a large space station in 5 years or less.><br /><br />Seems to me BA and SpaceX have an interesting symbiotic relationship developing. BA needs rides and SpaceX needs a destination.<br /><br />I guess the real question for BA is if the sidelined wannabe space powers will cough up the money to buy a station? I think it would be really cool to see a timeshared station with countries like India, Taiwan and Israel sharing the costs!
 
G

grdja

Guest
Why are people obsessed with Bigelow stations. They are empty balloons. Suiteable for habitation, and for billionaire space tourists to finaly conquer the domain of zero G sex. Useless for anything else.<br /><br />And when will everyone reazlie that as long NASA has to employ 50,000 Shuttle workers, and is obliged to buy SRBs , nothing can be achieved.<br /><br />RD-180 is suitable for top priority national security payloads, but its not good for NASA. If a 5 billion NRO sat can ride improved Energia engines, so can a new Moon capsule. License the damn thing and make a all American RD-180. Buy right for entire Energia system. Its perfect. It can be scaled from 20 tons to 150. Its engines have been used by Zenith and Atlas over 15 years or what...
 
H

holmec

Guest
"Work the problem, people!"<br /><br />Well, I'm glad they have the gall to reevaluate. I can't imagine what requirements different offices have tacked on to it....gov't red tape. <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
<font color="yellow">Why are people obsessed with Bigelow stations. They are empty balloons. Suiteable for habitation, and for billionaire space tourists to finaly conquer the domain of zero G sex. Useless for anything else.</font><br /><br />Maybe because the ones that count, Sundancer and BA-330, won't be balloons but "expandables" with a very rigid core and more than capable of being outfitted as a proper space station. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
gov't red tape has nothing to do with it and different offices tacking on requirements
 
C

comga

Guest
Can we assume you meant "expandables" instead of "expendables"? The former is the term preferred by Bigelow, in place of "inflatables". These are definitely not expendable.
 
D

docm

Guest
Sorry, corrected. I was being bugged by my son, who at that moment was close to becoming "expendable" <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
so...if weight is the issue, correct me if i'm wrong, but why not add on another pair of SRB's or even an additional segment on the original 5, just to put it over the top? (no pun intended) <br /><br />edit: thats too simple to work, according to some of NASA's logic....though im probably wrong about the whole idea. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
My guess is that extra SRB's would increase the G's the crew has to endure and add failure modes. Remember; you can't shut those pups down once the fire. <br /><br />6 segments? From the sounds of it they're tripping over themselves getting 5 to work. Besides, if it gets any longer we'll have to stop calling it 'the stick' and start calling it 'the spaghetti' <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
Adding another segment only increases the thrust. It would need to be wider to increase duration, which would make all the existing hardware unusable. The whole reason the stick was sold was that it was "simpler and safer" than other vehicles due to the existing SRB *with its safety record since Challenger and recoverability and asingle engine upperstage. <br /><br />Deviate from this and it is no longer what it was sold as and other LV's would better<br /><br />* and there is the ATK connection and shuttle workforce retention
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
thanks jim. that clears it up significant ly. it also brings up a follow up question.<br /><br />is there a way to alter the burn chamber from a star to maybe a smaller diameter circular pattern for longer duration, and if so, could this lead to too high pressure in the chamber? obviously, i'm just trying to offer some ideas, without causing catastrophic failure.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

thereiwas

Guest
Then you would have less thrust. I think the exposed surface area directly relates to the rate at which gas is generated.
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
well, hmm.....Adding a pair of single segment boosters directly to the sides of the 2nd stage, and having them fire once the first booster separates is out of the question i assume? <br /><br />maybe widening the burn pattern for less thrust on the twins, allowing for still tolerable G's? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

larper

Guest
Or, simply use the Shuttle SRBs as is, use the Ares 5 core, and use the Orion as originally designed.<br /><br />Ares 1B. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts