Orion ZBV - back to basics

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"Adding a pair of single segment boosters directly to the sides of the 2nd stage"<br /><br />Negates the simple and safe.<br /><br />Best thing is to do is a clean sheet start and not require the SRB
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />This scenario has made me think of another one.<br /><br />NASA is not stupid, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. I'm sure somebody in the upper levels of NASA has thought of this scenario. My worst fear is that someone in NASA is going to get the bright idea to cancel COTS preemptive to prevent this embarrassment from happening.<br /><br />I seem to recall Michael Griffin in a Congressional hearing a few months ago trying to get more money for NASA. Most everyone here noticed that he failed to mention COTS. At first I thought it might be to protect COTS. I can see the Congressmen asking "So, Mr. Griffin why are you coming to us to ask for more money when you're running two identical programs? Cancel COTS Mr. Griffin."<br /><br />Now, though, I'm wondering if he wasn't trying to hide the program because he knew that as the Constellation program was having troubles (like no one here saw that one coming), he might need to cancel it to protect Orion. If the purse-string holders got wind of the fact that there was a cheaper alternative to the billion-dollar baby that is Constellation, then Constellation itself might end up on the chopping block instead. It's easier to cancel a program that Congress isn't explicitly aware of. <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>
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
Works for me. My brain's just not 100% here today. i forgot all about that concept. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

thereiwas

Guest
Somebody should make sure Congress <font color="yellow">is</font>explicitly aware of COTS and particularly the (possible) long term cost savings if it is allowed to continue.
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
COTS was never intended to replace Orion or to service the ISS. COTS is a technology demonstration. ISS resupply will be done by another contract. It may be called COTS II, CSTS, or another etc.
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
But canceling Constellation would take jobs away from those Congressmen and womens' constituencies. That will never happen. COTS would get canceled first, It doesn't matter how many billions Constellation may overun. <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>
 
L

larper

Guest
Too big? Too big for what? How can a launcher be too big? Oh, to have such a problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"Too big? Too big for what? How can a launcher be too big? "<br /><br />Cost. Just like flying Pegasus payloads on a Delta IV Heavy.
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
i love the idea of ares as a fruitful effort, but the fundamental attributes, especially with the red tape, mods that omly hurt it, and inside-the-box thinking are really turning my thoughts away from it. <br /><br />(not to be facetous, but) with the way this is progressing towards the bad, im tempted to swipe a saturn V stack, duct tape, a gemini capsule, some construction scaffolding, and send people up myself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

larper

Guest
How much more costly than a Stick with an Orion that has been scaled back so much as to be useless? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
Orion has yet to be scaled back<br /><br />The core of the Ares Ia is going to be much more than the A1 upperstage. <br />the upperstage on the Ares I is just a scaled down EDS, so its development is not wasted.<br /><br />2 SRB's are more than one. The 5 segment still has to be developed. <br /><br />If you are saying that Direct is the Ares1A then the core is different. It is a modified ET vs an Ares V core. Which saves money by eliminating facility mods at KSC
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
so what exactly is the challenge of building a 5 segment booster? necessary hardware is already there, but i could see the issue with weight and balance...please enlighten? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
The composition, density and configuration of the propellant grain may have to be adjusted depending on the thrust curve they'll need. <br /><br />Interesting page on SRM core design vs. thrust curve: pic <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
the challenge is that it is not sized properly as a true first stage. The staging velocity of the first stage is too low. The upperstage is trying to make up for it. <br /><br />It is like designing a supersonic jet but you can only use transport turbofans
 
J

j05h

Guest
<i>> The composition, density and configuration of the propellant grain may have to be adjusted depending on the thrust curve they'll need.</i><br /><br />The change from 4 to 5 segment is essentially a new rocket. A lot of engineering has to be done. The propellant may have to be modified in several ways. <br /><br />The ZBV seems like a good engineering exercise, as long as it leads to the redundant systems it needs for human safety. Single point failure should not be an option.<br /><br />What doesn't make sense, except in the political way, is why Orion isn't also flying on EELV. Lockheed is part of ULA and building the Orion. They already designed it, but ARES I couldn't lift it. Why not fly it on something they already are associated with? Does Lockheed have any possibility of turning the Orion design into a more general-purpose and commercial vehicle? That is the way to assure human access. <br /><br />It looks to me like ULA/Lockheed are positioning for this, especially in light of ATK's troubles. Where would this leave the development of the out-sized upper stage (a Boeing contract)? Comments?<br /><br />Doc- thanks for the link on solids<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"Lockheed is part of ULA and building the Orion. "<br />ULA is completely separate from the rest of Lockheed, there is no intermixing. LM and Boeing just own ULA and supply the bigwigs but it ends there. ULA is a separate company as far as LM is concerned and therefore LM information, outside of what is needed for Atlas, is not allowed at ULA.<br /><br />"Does Lockheed have any possibility of turning the Orion design into a more general-purpose and commercial vehicle"<br /><br />Not really. It isn't really LM's design to play with. Also NASA supplies some of the components for Orion. NASA will be doing the processing of Orion.
 
J

j05h

Guest
It's to bad that LM and ULA can't make a commercial Orion derivative. You are saying that the design and some components are actually NASA, so that limits what the contractor can do with it. What's to prevent LM or ULA from licensing the Orion tech, ala Bigelow and TransHab?<br /><br />J <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
ok...i know im not the only one thinking abut this, or posting about it, but basically what this all boils down to is that the Ares 1 can just barely get off the pad, correct?<br /><br />are we integrating any composites into the system? without downsizing the orbital components, is there a way to shave off weight with the rest of the stack? <br />can we not add a couple of strap-on boosters from the delta program? <br /><br />the Ares can work with the safe, simple, soon concept. i want it to, i really do, but as it is right now.....it wont, without compromising the boilerplate setup. <br /><br />what are some viable simple options to get this thing off the ground with little sacrifice to orion? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
Add strap-on's* and you add failure modes, reducing safety.<br /><br />AFAIK the only way to significantly lighten the booster itself would be to nix the existing metal segments and go with a composite wound casings. That would take a lot of time to design, test & certify at considerable expense. <br /><br />*Is there a better term? After typing that I feel like washing my hands <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
L

larper

Guest
I am wondering when someone in NASA will semi-seriously suggest launching the Orion inside the Shuttle Orbiter payload bay. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
No one will suggest that. Shuttle will be gone. Also it doesn't fit.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
For months now we have heard a steady drumbeat of disappointment and frustration regarding Ares I. Has there been any indication (e.g., a sentence mentioned during a speech) that the people at the highest levels of NASA are having second thoughts on Ares I?
 
L

larper

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Also it doesn't fit. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yeah, but if you simply resize the Orion vehicle to fit inside the Orbiter payload bay, then you don't have to redesign the Orion to be light enough to be launched on Ares I. <br /><br />You know..... it just might work. <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

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts