Updates Orion (MPCV) Updates and Discussion

apollo13

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
135
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Spaceship Mockup

11.05.07

NASA's Orion spacecraft now in development is America's first new manned spacecraft since development of the space shuttle 30 years ago.

It's the centerpiece of NASA's Constellation program, which aims to take the next generation of human explorers to the moon and beyond.

Orion's launch abort system, a "rocket on top of the rocket," is designed to ensure the safety of its astronaut crew by pulling the crew module away from it's booster rocket in the event of a booster malfunction, either while on the launch pad or during ascent to orbit.

NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in Southern California is leading the Orion launch abort system flight testing.

As part of this effort, NASA Dryden's Fabrication Branch constructed a mockup of the Orion crew module. More simplified than the actual spacecraft, the Orion mockup is the actual size of the real thing, inside and out.

Dryden is using the mockup to develop and verify integration and installation procedures for things like avionics, instrumentation, and wire harness routing in advance of the arrival of the first abort flight test article, called "Boilerplate 1."


Boilerplates, in this sense of the term, are flying simulators used in early tests designed to mimic the flight characteristics of the actual vehicle. They have the exact dimensions, aerodynamic and mass properties of the operational vehicle they will simulate in flight, in this case the Orion crew module.

The mockup has no attached forward bay on it's top, but Dryden technicians are building one that will remain separate for parachute integration procedure development.

Two pad abort and four ascent abort flight tests of the launch abort system are planned, all unmanned, with the first scheduled for 2008 and continuing through 2011.

196137main_mockup1_546.jpg

Image above: A mockup Orion crew module built by NASA Dryden Flight Research Center's Fabrication Branch gets a lift to its new home in the center's former Shuttle hangar. NASA photo by Tom Tschida
196138main_mockup2_546.jpg

Image above: NASA Dryden's mockup Orion crew module is located in Dryden's former Shuttle hangar. NASA photo by Tom Tschida.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tex

apollo13

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
135
Reaction score
10
Points
0
America will send a new generation of explorers to the moon aboard NASA’s Orion crew exploration vehicle. Making its first flights early in the next decade, Orion is part of the Constellation Program to send human explorers back to the moon, and then onward to Mars and other destinations in the solar system.

167093main_orion_lunar_orbit_small.jpg
Orion orbits the moon with disc-shaped solar arrays tracking the sun to generate electricity. Image Credit: Lockheed Martin Corp.
A component of the Vision for Space Exploration, Orion’s development is taking place in parallel with missions to complete the International Space Station using the space shuttle before the shuttle is retired in 2010.

Orion will be capable of carrying crew and cargo to the space station. It will be able to rendezvous with a lunar landing module and an Earth departure stage in low-Earth orbit to carry crews to the moon and, one day, to Mars-bound vehicles assembled in low-Earth orbit. Orion will be the Earth entry vehicle for lunar and Mars returns. Orion’s design will borrow its shape from the capsules of the past, but takes advantage of 21st century technology in computers, electronics, life support, propulsion and heat protection systems.

Lockheed Martin Corp was awarded the contract to build Orion on Aug. 31, 2006.

> Read Press Release
> Read Feature Story

Briefing Materials: > Slides (700 Kb PDF) | > Handout (712 Kb PDF)

Veteran Shape, State-of-the Art Technology
Orion will be similar in shape to the Apollo spacecraft, but significantly larger. The Apollo-style heat shield is the best understood shape for re-entering Earth’s atmosphere, especially when returning directly from the moon. Orion will be 5 meters (16.5 feet) in diameter and have a mass of about 22.7 metric tons (25 tons). Inside, it will have more than two-and-a-half times the volume of an Apollo capsule.

166938main_explode_cev_226-170.jpg
Exploded view of Orion. Image Credit: Lockheed Martin Corp.
The larger size will allow Orion to accommodate four crew members on missions to the moon, and six on missions to the International Space Station or Mars-bound spacecraft. Orion is scheduled to fly its first missions to the space station by 2014 and carry out its first sortie to the moon by 2020.

A launch abort system atop the Orion capsule will be capable of pulling the spacecraft and its crew to safety in the event of an emergency on the launch pad or at any time during ascent.

Journey to the Moon
For missions to the moon, NASA will use two separate launch vehicles, each derived from a mixture of systems with heritage rooted in Apollo, space shuttle and commercial launch vehicle technology.

An Ares V cargo launch vehicle will precede the launch of the crew vehicle, delivering to low-Earth orbit the Earth departure stage and the lunar module that will carry explorers on the last leg of the journey to the moon’s surface. Orion will dock with the lunar module in Earth orbit, and the Earth departure stage will propel both on their journey to the moon. Once in lunar orbit, all four astronauts will use the lunar landing craft to travel to the moon’s surface, while the Orion spacecraft stays in lunar orbit. Once the astronauts’ lunar mission is complete, they will return to the orbiting Orion vehicle using a lunar ascent module. The crew will use the service module main engine to break out of lunar orbit and head to Earth.

Orion and its crew will reenter Earth’s atmosphere using a newly developed thermal protection system. Parachutes will further slow Orion’s descent through the atmosphere.

More Information:

> Fact Sheet (PDF 1.5 Mb)
> Full Resolution Images
 

apollo13

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
135
Reaction score
10
Points
0
Artist Impression of Altair docked to Orion

206410main_jsc2007e113283_lo.jpg
 

Chupacabra

New member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
146
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Question: Why does Orion have that weirdly shaped service module? It seems kind of odd.
 

Cale

New member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Bowmanville, Ontario
Weight saving measures, I think.

Yep, that's exactly the reason..most current mod of the Orion is 606.

Basically, due to low performance issues of the Ares I stack, NASA has asked Lockheed Martin to reduce the weight of the CEV to fit safety parameters. At this point, the CEV wouldn't have enough propellant for an "Apollo 8" style mission...not enough delta V for LOI and TEI. :mad:

Of course, if NASA and Dr. Griffin pulled their heads out of their backsides, they'd start giving the Direct proposal some serious thought. The Jupiter 120 stack has a far better LEO capability than Ares I (~50mT to LEO). In fact, all Ares I does is suck up needed funds when current EELV's (Delta 4H or Atlas V) could do the job of getting the CEV to the ISS.
 
Last edited:

MajorTom

Ker-splash!
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
354
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Puget Sound
Orion's Size

The Orion CEV does look odd, compared to Apollo...CM seems "too large" while SM seems "too small." But its design seems well suited to at least two missions: Ferrying stuff to and from ISS, and heading to the moon with a manned Altair lander.

And when it goes to the moon, the current Orion would rely on the EDS to get it and Altair there, and Altair to slow it to lunar orbit velocity. So its small quantity of fuel (and hence smaller SM) is needed only to get home.

The Direct proposal would give you larger lift capacity, which is great. I suppose a "Lone Orion" mission, to a hypothetical lunar orbiter or space station, would be doable in that case. Maybe too, a lunar lander with extra mass (hence all its fuel would be needed just for the landing) would be possible with a larger Orion. Any other ideas?

MT
 

Messierhunter

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
488
Reaction score
2
Points
0
I'm no Obama fan, but I think cancelling the Ares program is the best thing that can be done right now. It's nothing more than glorified Apollo, regurgitating 30-year old technology for no practical purpose.
And that leaves us with what manned space vehicle? I think it's an insult to call Ares "glorified Apollo" with "no practical purpose." The shapes are similar, but that's because it's the most efficient way to do a lunar mission. The technology under the hood will be completely different. We've never had a spacecraft that uses solar power, and I think that's a vast improvement over fuel cells. I'm not a fan of a dual launch system for a single lunar mission, I think the Ares V should have been a man rated launcher capable of lifting the whole thing while the stick would be used for LEO missions, but the idea of canceling the whole thing altogether seems foolish to me.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Of course NASA is getting another budget cut! Anyone could have seen that coming from a mile away. Even if NASA was on top of their game, they would still be getting budget cuts. There is no political reason to fund an agency that is not going to give back. Personally, I think NASA's budget is going to continue to be cut until we need to beat more communists to the Moon.

I think that is a misconception: There is sure no reason to give NASA a budget cut automatically. NASA is a very good way, to inject money into the economy, by government contracts.

But that does not mean, that programs have to be accepted unchallenged. Important is now, to get a "big bang" for the economy, if the government is investing money at all. Not slow, lot's of money in a short time, and that as effective as possible (don't worry, the economy experts Obama hired, had been suggesting such measures for 30 years). The problem is just, to find effective investments. Giving the car industry money, for building more economic cars, which are available for the market in minimal three years is not good. Takes too long and causes not enough demand of other goods.

But NASA could for example order a number of Delta IV rockets in the next year, increase the number of satellites in already planned projects.

Things are currently bad for astronautics, that is true. Astronautics is a long term investment and can take some funding cuts and delays, if this rescues the economy. No, don't hope for "The economy does not look as bad as all people say", the bad news just started and will have their peak with some months delay.
 

eveningsky339

Resident Orbiter Slave
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
May 3, 2008
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Western Maine
And that leaves us with what manned space vehicle?
We could have a wonderful single-stage to orbit spaceplane right now if NASA hadn't screwed that up, either. (The X-33 was quite fixable.)

I think it's an insult to call Ares "glorified Apollo" with "no practical purpose." The shapes are similar, but that's because it's the most efficient way to do a lunar mission. The technology under the hood will be completely different. We've never had a spacecraft that uses solar power, and I think that's a vast improvement over fuel cells.
Other than different equipment, this is more or less identical to the Apollo program. We are launching a capsule to accomplish goals that were accomplished 30 years ago, leaving behind an expensive lander as we did 30 years ago, jettisoning an expensive resource module into the atmosphere, and then re-entering and splashing down. It worked great when we had a big budget and speed was of the essence, but now we have much more efficient ways of doing things.

I'm not a fan of a dual launch system for a single lunar mission, I think the Ares V should have been a man rated launcher capable of lifting the whole thing while the stick would be used for LEO missions, but the idea of canceling the whole thing altogether seems foolish to me.
NASA just needs to start working on a new and improved VSE all around the table.
 

ryan

That guy
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
1,605
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Location
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Other than different equipment, this is more or less identical to the Apollo program. We are launching a capsule to accomplish goals that were accomplished 30 years ago, leaving behind an expensive lander as we did 30 years ago, jettisoning an expensive resource module into the atmosphere, and then re-entering and splashing down. It worked great when we had a big budget and speed was of the essence, but now we have much more efficient ways of doing things.

We are building a perniment base, looking at the surface in more detail than the Apollo program ever did, the re-entry capsule is going to land at EAFB and be re-used. The descent stage will be re-used on the surface as a possible supporting platform for habitats. You should really study things before you disagree with them.
 

tblaxland

O-F Administrator
Administrator
Addon Developer
Webmaster
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
7,320
Reaction score
25
Points
113
Location
Sydney, Australia

HiPotOk1978

ReFuel L.L.C CEO
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
373
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Tucson
I think I understand why NASA is doing thing the way they are well doing things. At the end of the Apollo missions NASA had loads of Apollo hardware left over. All this equipment was designed for one purpose. The Shuttle itself was designed to be a reusable craft with all sorts of ideas including lifting a booster and payload in the cargo bay. The shuttle is a very useful craft capable of performing ALL sorts of missions at a great cost. What it seems to me is that they are trying to take from what they learned with both projects. equipment that can be attached to various modules both disposable like Apollo and reusable like shuttle and designing the minimum specialty equipment that they have to. The big ??? for me is it seems like they are trying to darn hard to limit the specialty equipment design and construction phases of space missions

This is of course just my opinion, I do admit that I haven't dug too deep into the shuttle replacement program(s) at this time
 

Andy44

owner: Oil Creek Astronautix
Addon Developer
Joined
Nov 22, 2007
Messages
7,620
Reaction score
6
Points
113
Location
In the Mid-Atlantic states
The question is, did Griffin really say such abrasive remarks? If so he's hurting not only his own future but that of Constellation as well. Like it or not, his face will be what Obama sees in his mind whenever somebody says "Orion".
 

RichWall

Sage Brush
Addon Developer
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
465
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
S.A.Tejas
The Lunar landers are going to be much bigger this time around, so there should be room for landing the whole craft on the Moon. It would save at least one engine. You can use the ascent engine for the Earth Injection burn. This would eliminate the LOR.

I agree. More mass could be delivered at the base building site.

31secondspiderlaunchhy8.jpg
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think politics has ruined one NASA program too many already.

I see it a different way. A glass can be half-full or half-empty. Without any politics ever involved in space flight, almost everything we talk about would only exist on paper, if at all. Politics of course always has its aftertaste. But better to have an aftertaste instead of no taste at all.

Using solid fuel liftoff boosters and solid fuel 1'st stage are two very different things. If STS proved one thing, it is the need for an abort option during EVERY stage of a manned launch.

I don't see how STS proved the need of a launch abort system. It wouldn't have rescued the STS-51L crew noway, and it also wouldn't have influenced the STS-107 mission at all. As far as I know, there was no manned launch abort and no launch escape until today. The only case I know which possibly proved the need of such a system is the SCE to AUX event.

I know the difference between Ares I and Ares V. The problem is that Ares I is designed to launch Orion, which IS a lunar craft. It's huge DV is not required for LEO. And the heat shield is for direct re-entry from the Moon, or even Mars. Ares I/Orion was having weight problems even before the pogo issue, and the planned capabilities are shrinking fast.

Orion is not basically a lunar craft, it's a spacecraft designed to operate in almost any kind of space environment between Earth, Moon and possibly Mars too, while its first missions are going to be LEO mission to the ISS. On the first place it's even just a crew carrier for various types of missions. And the DV of Orion does not contradict the need to carry it up into LEO anyway before it can become operational. But to me the most important fact is, that after Apollo, it's the first spacecraft which is not bounded to LEO anymore.

The following might be shocking for Shutte fans, but IMHO the Space Shuttle actually is not really a spacecraft. It's a heavy earth bounded orbiter, not designed to go any further beyond the Earth's thermosphere. In my humble viewpoint of what real space exploration is like: it does not happen in LEO/earth atmosphere, and not happen within high-maintenance Earth orbiting laboratories. It happens far beyond. With such a system like the Space Shuttle, we'll never go anywhere else. Which is the most disappointing fact to me about the whole STS era and the justification of Constellation.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,588
Reaction score
2,312
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
I don't see how STS proved the need of a launch abort system. It wouldn't have rescued the STS-51L crew noway

That is for example wrong. STS-51L could have been saved pretty easy by a launch abort system, even a shuttle style one - the time from first red line to disintegration was long enough for abort indications, the situation was just never monitored as it was just lazy to watch such values if you can't deal with them on the Challenger.

It wouldn't have helped on STS-107 - but a damaged heatshield would also hit Orion. Without the launch abort system helping it.

Does not change the fact that the STS has no abort options during one of the two most dangerous phases of the mission.

PS: Unless Orion never lifts off, or it really does lunar missions, it will also never be a spacecraft according to your flawed logic... so stay true to the real definition of a spacecraft - which is defined by the subsystems.
 

Moonwalker

New member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,199
Reaction score
0
Points
0
That is for example wrong. STS-51L could have been saved pretty easy by a launch abort system, even a shuttle style one - the time from first red line to disintegration was long enough for abort indications, the situation was just never monitored as it was just lazy to watch such values if you can't deal with them on the Challenger.

That's interesting. Because we actually know the rather small margins (aerodynamics/loads) which would allow STS abort scenarios. We already had such STS first stage and STS-51L abort discussion some time ago somewhere in the old forums. I remember very well ;) A STS-51L abort scenario still is anything but realistical.

It wouldn't have helped on STS-107 - but a damaged heatshield would also hit Orion. Without the launch abort system helping it.

I did not say the contrary. But a damaged heat shield during ascent is not that much probable for Orion than for STS, for which it is very likely on each ascent (just four letters: OBSS, and one mission assignment: STS-400).

PS: Unless Orion never lifts off, or it really does lunar missions, it will also never be a spacecraft according to your flawed logic... so stay true to the real definition of a spacecraft - which is defined by the subsystems.

I know the common definition of spacecraft, and that the Space Shuttle of course is on the list. But Orion has the capability to be carried out of LEO. This already makes it a real exploration vehicle in my humble point of view.
 
Top