Orion ZBV - back to basics

[MeteorWayne]

I'm sure the one astronaut will enjoy his flight....in 8 years long after the Shuttle is gone. <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>

 

[larper]

Ah, but what about the 7 shuttle crewmen that are onboard to help deploy the Orion?<br /><br />Hmmm. Maybe send the Orion up in pieces and assemble it in orbit? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[larper]

Besides, the Shuttle may be retired, but the Shuttle derived Orion launcher won't be. This launcher uses 2 4 segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs and a payload bay that are recovered using an horizontal landing reentry vehicle. This vehicle is manned by 2 to 7 crewmen. The only part that is not reusable is the fuel tank.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"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 />Resizing the Orion to fit in the shuttle would make it light enough for Ares I

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Besides, the Shuttle may be retired, but the Shuttle derived Orion launcher won't be. This launcher uses 2 4 segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs and a payload bay that are recovered using an horizontal landing reentry vehicle. This vehicle is manned by 2 to 7 crewmen. The only part that is not reusable is the fuel tank. "<br /><br />Plain nonsense

 

[usn_skwerl]

so we cant make the SRB more powerful, we cant add on to it, we cant lighten the orbital payload without sacrificing the orion size...<br /><br />so we go full on with Ares V and abaondon Ares 1. screw it. <br /><br />sure, its like pushing a mini-cooper with a Kenworth, but hey, at least itll get up there. we want to shy away from mixing cargo and crew, but hey, with this option, theres a LOT of space and/or capacity left unused. so, we put that towards maybe using a different LM/CSM engine, and taking more crap to the moon or ISS with us. <br /><br />otherwise, Ares 1 is--in an average joe perspective--hosed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[usn_skwerl]

an idea from the wife...shes a little more creative, and in some cases, more intelligent than i am....<br /><br />if 5 segments is barely enough, and 4 is certainly not enough.......<long pause />.......what about four and a half segments? is it a major task for ATK to do 4.5 seg's? or would the slack have to be taken up with the 2nd stage?<br /><br />now, i know if it has to be picked up by 2-stage, they'll probably have to build 2-stage with more prop. capacity, which im assuming will just cancel the compromise of the first stage. <br /><br />just some printed thinking.......feedback? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<.feedback?><br /><br />One of the main drivers for choosing 5 segments for the Ares I first stage is commonality with the SRB stages of the large Ares V unmanned cargo rocket. In fact much of the high cost of the Ares 1 program is so to disguise development costs of the Ares V.

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Plain nonsense <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />"Humor. It is a difficult concept." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>