Project Orion: NASA's Next Spaceship Takes Shape

[gunsandrockets]

"Are you sure about this? What is the plan to go to Mars with it then? It is defenitely going to the Moon and that alone is minimum of 6 days with 4 people. I beg the differ. It is a camper as well as a van....ITS AN RV!!! LOL. "<br /><br />As per the ESAS plan, the purpose of the Orion for a Mars mission is to take the astronauts from Earth and rendezvous with the large Mars ship which is in a 800-1200 km orbit around Earth. This rendezvous takes two days. After docking with the Mars ship the Orion is put to sleep for the Mars mission. Within one week of returning to Earth the crew transfers back to the Orion, detaches from the Mars ship and returns to Eath via direct reentry. So the Orion will be occupied by the crew for about 1 week out of a 2-1/2 years long Mars mission.<br /><br />For lunar missions the Orion will be occupied by itself only for the short time before EOR with the LSAM and during the 3 day trip back from the moon. Lunar surface stays are one week long using the LSAM life support and up to six months long at the hoped for lunar basecamp with extra supplies.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Anyone who has flown in a Soyuz will tell you that the Ascent/Descent module is ridiculously cramped. And, anyone approaching 6 feet in height cannot fly on it."<br /><br />The Soyuz TMA supposedly improves on that. More importantly the Soyuz reentry module is part of a system which includes the orbital module. Overall the Soyuz is roomier than the Apollo yet still masses less than the Apollo capsule, largely because the reentry capsule is made as small and cramped as possible.<br /><br />Recall that the Gemini spacecraft was just as cramped as the Soyuz reentry capsule yet astrounauts stayed in it for as long as two weeks! I'm not suggesting anything like that be done today but it points out the practicality of a reentry capsule which is occupied for just short periods of time.<br /><br />"4.5 meters for the Orion would be the practical minimum and 5 meters the practical maximum. For what its worth; I thought from the start that the 5.5 meter design was a bit ridiculous, truly a 'winnebago'."<br /><br />There our opinions are off by about 0.5m. I think a 4m capsule is the practical minimum. Interestingly enough some of the private venture space capsule designs are much smaller than the Orion. The t/Space CXV capsule which holds 4 or more people is only 18 feet across despite all the propellant also stored inside the capsule (combined capsule and service module) and the SpaceX Dragon capsule will hold 7 people despite it being a combined crew and service module and sized similarly to the Apollo capsule. <br /><br />"Anyway, this is all a bit academic -- the size IS to be 5 meters.<br /><br /> Let's get on with it..."<br /><br />True.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"AFAIK there has been no specific details on the volume of the LSAM so far..."<br /><br />I've seen some figures for the LSAM ascent module. The cylindrical shaped pressure vessel is 3m (round end) by 5m long. That's a pressurized volume of about 1,270 cubic feet compared to the Orion capsule pressurized volume of 692 cubic feet.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"That is a bad assumption. The NASA specification for the CEV to the contractors for their proposals is 6 to the ISS."<br /><br />That's news to me. Other than the change to a 5m diameter capsule I haven't seen any other change in the specifications reported since the ESAS plan details came out. And I've been rather obsessively following the news about the CEV ever since the VSE was reported in 2004.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I believe you, you just can't fault me for my caution in assuming what is true vs. what is rumor.<br /><br />I find your news particularly interesting because it might presage a change in expected ISS operations. Is the switch to a 6 crew block 1 Orion for the purpose of 6 man crew rotations? Or are crew rotations still going to be 3 and the extra Orion seats are just for lifeboat purposes?

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Doesn't the docking ring at the nose somewhat dictate a minimum size? I assume the docking ring is sized to match up with the ports that the Shuttle docks to at the ISS. Taking that ring diameter and expanding the diameter into a cone shape similar to Apollo puts constraints on where you limit the capsule diameter. In other words, if they limited it to 4 meters in diameter, those astronauts pictured would have to stoop and obviously fewer of them could be in there."<br /><br />The BAE study for a Multi-Role-Capsule I mentioned earlier used the ISS/Shuttle docking ring yet was a 4m diameter Apollo shaped capsule. It's not a problem.

 

[gunsandrockets]

" NASA is in a position of choosing, given its booster options, so why not go bigger?"<br /><br />Why not go bigger? Because bigger just cost NASA an extra $5+ billion dollars for the brand new booster rocket large enough to safely launch the bigger CEV. It's a case of a bigger CEV restricting NASA's booster options so badly NASA has to invent a whole new booster, the Ares I.<br /><br />" I also would observe that Nasa might be stuck with the CEV for a few decades, its easier to be bigger now than after 10 years of flights."<br /><br />That is an excuse NASA has ponied up. At best it's a case of pennywise and pound foolish. True NASA saves on the development cost of a lightweight Mission Module should NASA require a bigger vehicle within the lifespan of the Orion. But in the meantime NASA is saddled with the cost of flying the super-sized Orion with the huge extra development and operational costs of a custom launch vehicle, the Ares I, and the reduction of manned payloads that can be landed on the moon using the Ares V because of the excess mass of the Orion.<br /><br />In my opinion what Really went on in the NASA planning process was the Orion was deliberately designed too large so as to require a brand new shuttle derived booster. Why? Because what NASA really pines for the the Ares V heavy lift vehicle cargo rocket. And if the Orion booster rocket can be tied in with the Ares V, the Ares V then gets subsidized by the Ares I.

 

[nyarlathotep]

>"The t/Space CXV capsule which holds 4 or more people is only 18 feet across despite all the propellant also stored inside the capsule"<br /><br />The CXV is 4.1m in diameter.

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">Are you sure about this? What is the plan to go to Mars with it then? It is defenitely going to the Moon and that alone is minimum of 6 days with 4 people. I beg the differ. It is a camper as well as a van....ITS AN RV!!! LOL.</font><br /><br />Naw, man... the capsule is just a capsule. It's attached to a big-ass service module, which will function as a habitation/life support area. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The CXV is 4.1m in diameter. "<br /><br />I misremembered. I should have said the CXV is 14 feet in diameter instead of 18 feet. Which actually makes the point I was trying to make even stronger.

 

[paul_bacon]

I know its early but have Nasa said where the landing sites will be. Are they going to be near KSC?

 

[scipt]

Nah, no way. They are oing for a solid landing, so they need a bigger target with low pop density. I think the nevada is a popular choice. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

This newscientist article relates budgetary concerns about the CEV raised during a congressional hearing.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Still, the agency is having some trouble with its plans for the J-2X engine on the second stage of the Ares I rocket that will lift Orion into orbit. Some engine components, such as cryogenic valves, may not be ready until 2012 – making the schedule tight before the first crewed flights, which are planned for 2014.</font><br /><br />Can someone explain what is the big deal with a valve? I just don't get it.<br /><br />1. Is this some exotic new type of valve which requires new materials development?<br />2. Is there a backlog at the valve manufacturer?<br />3. Is the funding in the budget deferred until five years from now? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scipt]

It sounds like the first of many excuses that will culminate in the mothballing of the design so that it will get a total overhaul in 6-12 months time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mah_fl]

For 2014 read 2018............

 

[green_meklar]

Then for 2018 read 2023...<br /><br />;P<br /><br />More seriously, they probably will have some delay from their expected timeframe (NASA tends to be too optimistic), but I don't think it'll be more than one or two years unless something drastic happens. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[geminivi]

G&R, I think you're missing a constraint on the equation that NASA had to satisfy as they solved their various problems to implement VSE. NASA is a political animal while at the same time being an engineering, scientific animal. No where did the VSE specify the launcher, NASA came up with Ares I on its own. To date, NASA's direction has garnered deep support in Congress and from the WH. As an old sage once said "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers" or something like that. <br /><br />Yes you are right, NASA could have engineered things differently. Ares 1 and V aren't about the cheapest option, if you want that, it will come from private companies responsible to investors. NASA isn't nor has it ever been about lowest cost. They follow an age old practice, spread the contracts around to varied states so as to maximize Senate support. Ares I and V do that very well.<br /><br />At this point I think arguing over the booster is idle as that ship has sailed. If NASA did change directions and ditch Ares I, the entire VSE would come under assualt in Congress(from Senators not benefitting enough from VSE), not good if you want to do great stuff on the ISS, Moon and Mars.

 

[rocketjock]

What about Siberia as long as we are going backwards and stealing the Russian System. They have the experience.

 

[mattblack]

>>"Stealing the Russian system"<<<br /><br />Yeah. Right... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

"Can someone explain what is the big deal with a valve? I just don't get it."<br /><br />According to Scott Horowitz at the Congressional hearing, the problem is manufacturing the metal slugs out of which the valves are made. Apparently there's a three-year lead time on ordering such items.

 

[bobw]

<font color="yellow">the problem is manufacturing the metal slugs</font><br /><br />LOL. I have seen lots of modern CNC machine tools and it seemed incredible to me that, if the blueprints existed, it could take a long time to carve anything out of a chunk of metal. Not having the chunk of metal explains it very well. Thanks a lot. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Hmmmm.....<br /><br />Our high school has 2 CNC machines if NASA needs 'em on a short schedule. If they can't handle it I'm sure the guys at Orange County Choppers would be glad to help out <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Plutonium is <i>not</i> a simple metal to machine by any means. It requires specific and controlled environments and methods to safely machine it.<br /><br />Look up Plutonium, Allotropes, and Machining same for weapons. I think you'll find it's a very wiggy affair. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I hope the valve isn't made out of Plutonium. Exactly what is it valving, so to speak? Better not be the coffee maker. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vonster]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Exactly what is it valving, so to speak? Better not be the coffee maker<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />yes, but its a 3.7 million $ coffee maker, with $370 filters only purchased in lots of 10,000<br /><br />.

 

[scottb50]

Outsourced to Starbucks, a subsiderary of Hallibuton. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>