Updates Orion (MPCV) Updates and Discussion

[C3PO]

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.

It sounds like you think that the choice is between Ares I and no manned flights. The fact that politics is required for space travel shouldn't prevent people to disagree with political decisions in a space programme.

As far as I know, there was no manned launch abort and no launch escape until today.

Soyuz T-10-1

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.

I do think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I believe that Orion will not be economically competitive in LEO ops, compared to craft like Soyuz. Orion's lunar capabilities is going to make it un-economic in LEO, just like Saturn(V and 1b). Any lunar hardware has to be tested in LEO before it can go into operation. This doesn't make it suited for regular LEO operation.
This is not a fact. It's my personal opinion. But no bucks = no Buck Rogers.

STS was a fantastic technological experimental programme, that IMHO will not be topped for a long time. But it was never ready for operational status.
Suggesting that Ares I is going to replace STS is not really relevant. The objectives of those programmes are completely different, and the only thing they have in common is manned space flight.
NASA doesn't have a craft that can provide relatively cheap regular access to LEO and back again. Without such a craft, LEO operations are going to eat up NASA's budget.

 

[Urwumpe]

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.

But not for a STS with a crew escape system - that is the point. And of course it is not realistic, we are talking about past events. Challenger never had it.

But the pressure vessel of Challenger was still mostly intact from analysis of the film material. Would it had been equipped with separation and landing systems, chances would have been good the crew might have at least survived lightly injured (by the acceleration during break up or the similar high accelerations during launch abort).

It would not have been dangerously high mass compared to the vessel dry weight (a bit more than 5%) - but it would have reduced the payload capability of the shuttle by 30%. That was the political reason which canceled all plans.

Soyuz T-10-1

Also don't forget mentioning the April 5 anomaly, which was a high altitude launch abort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_18a

 

[HiPotOk1978]

If NASA's main concern is cost of their manned LEO space program, all they need to do is lottery off a seat on any of their craft... I would in a heartbeat send in 5 USD to NASA for a seat, and I am sure 3 or 4 million more people think the same way as I do, and even if only 1 million people have the nerve to do it.. that is still 5million bucks right there.... and that kind of money I am sure would help offset the cost and get America and the rest of the world excited about spaceflight again, might even help push private industry going into the manned space program...

 

[Eagle]

If NASA's main concern is cost of their manned LEO space program, all they need to do is lottery off a seat on any of their craft... I would in a heartbeat send in 5 USD to NASA for a seat, and I am sure 3 or 4 million more people think the same way as I do, and even if only 1 million people have the nerve to do it.. that is still 5million bucks right there.... and that kind of money I am sure would help offset the cost and get America and the rest of the world excited about spaceflight again, might even help push private industry going into the manned space program...

The Russians are booked solid for spare seats in their Soyuz. They sell'em at 20 mill a pop, and the ride isn't anywhere as nice as the shuttle. Asking 20 million or more would still be reasonable for the shuttle.

 

[Moonwalker]

I did not know about Soyuz T-10-1. There were just so many Russian incidents

Suggesting that Ares I is going to replace STS is not really relevant. The objectives of those programmes are completely different, and the only thing they have in common is manned space flight.

That's what I'm glad about.

NASA doesn't have a craft that can provide relatively cheap regular access to LEO and back again. Without such a craft, LEO operations are going to eat up NASA's budget.

I doubt that manned space flight will be ever what can be called "cheap".

 

[C3PO]

I doubt that manned space flight will be ever what can be called "cheap".

That's why I wrote "relatively cheap".

 

[SiberianTiger]

NASA has cut the crew size for its new Orion spacecraft down from six seats to four in order to keep the space shuttle replacement on track for a March 2015 debut.

http://www.space.com/news/090429-orion-crew-slashed.html

 

[tblaxland]

NASA has cut the crew size for its new Orion spacecraft down from six seats to four in order to keep the space shuttle replacement on track for a March 2015 debut.

http://www.space.com/news/090429-orion-crew-slashed.html

Some additional context: My understanding is that it will still be designed for an ultimate capacity of six but they have indefinitely postponed the six crew flight qualification procedure to save time and money (they had to do the four crew qualification anyway since that was always the plan for the lunar missions). Weight savings were apparently not a significant driver in this decision (approx 500kg out of 20,000kg payload mass), although I can't convince myself that it did not play on their minds.

I heard someone on another web site comment that "Apollo on steroids" was now starting to look more like "Apollo on vitamins"

 

[DLR]

Meanwhile NASA is backing off from its Lunar Base plans:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17052-nasa-may-abandon-plans-for-moon-base.html

... perhaps in favour of putting Mars on the fast track ... :speakcool:




... although I somehow doubt that.

 

[Moonwalker]

Meanwhile NASA is backing off from its Lunar Base plans:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17052-nasa-may-abandon-plans-for-moon-base.html

... perhaps in favour of putting Mars on the fast track ... :speakcool:




... although I somehow doubt that.

NASA actually has (or had to) backed off its initial Lunar Base intentions/ideas already more than 3 decades ago.

I'm against a Lunar Base and I'm glad that NASA is not going to spend time and money for it. The STS and ISS has eaten up enough time already. If we really want to go to Mars, we should start doing so instead of planning another Earth/Moon projects for decades.

What Chris Scolese is talking about doesn't make sense only, it is also realisitcal and more forward to Mars than anything else. The Moon missions should only be a short interstation for training. Mars should be the real goal. We've already been successfully on the Moon 4 decades ago, to discover that it's an unpleasant and almost useless place. Anything else is fiction. But Mars is something that could become interesting.

NASA is going to enter a proper path.

 

[Urwumpe]

NASA is going to enter a proper path.

I have doubts.

 

[eveningsky339]

This program just seems to be getting worse and worse...

 

[Sky Captain]

The whole Constellation program looks more and more like Apollo on vitamins. What`s the point of going to to the Moon without the goal of establishing a permanent base. Even the Mars mission without the long term goal of building permanent science base is nothing more than show of a flag.

 

[tblaxland]

What I see worse is the thinking, that NASA will solve all technical problems on the way to Mars just so and suddenly be able to have reduced the technological risk by work on Earth or in LEO. Reality does not work like that. All the unknown problems (UNK-UNKs) which you will encounter on the way to Mars, will not be found by Apollo 2.0 - otherwise, we would be going to Mars easily.

Flags and footprints are simple - staying on the moon for more than 2 days is hard.

I agree. Mars500 and Haughton-Mars type projects will reveal some unknowns but a prolonged lunar presence will reveal a lot more (experience with surface EVA and dust management being the most significant, IMHO).

 

[DLR]

What I see worse is the thinking, that NASA will solve all technical problems on the way to Mars just so and suddenly be able to have reduced the technological risk by work on Earth or in LEO. Reality does not work like that. All the unknown problems (UNK-UNKs) which you will encounter on the way to Mars, will not be found by Apollo 2.0 - otherwise, we would be going to Mars easily.

Flags and footprints are simple - staying on the moon for more than 2 days is hard.

A Lunar Base would have been a terrible money sinkhole.

Technologies relevant for Mars are better tested on Earth or in Space, rather than on the Moon. The Lunar environment is very dissimilar from Mars. Just because it's "in space" doesn't mean its the optimal testing ground for Mars operations.

What critical technology is tested on the Moon? Atmospheric resource utilisation? No. Mars EDL, the big unknown? No.

The only thing I can think about is dust migitation. But what the heck, Mars dust isn't as toxic as Lunar dust and you might as well test equipment on Earth is Mars simulation chambers or on actual sample-return missions from Mars.

I think it's a good idea to move away from the Moon-centric Bush vision, if missions to the asteroids and Mars receive more attention.

 

[Urwumpe]

A Lunar Base would have been a terrible money sinkhole.

Have you ever heard about the rule "Money invested into spaceflight is spent on Earth"? It is no money sinkhole, and it is not terrible.

Do you know what a money sink hole is? Mars Missions, that never be. Or failed missions. While you learn a lot out of your errors, you learn more from successful missions.

Technologies relevant for Mars are better tested on Earth or in Space, rather than on the Moon. The Lunar environment is very dissimilar from Mars. Just because it's "in space" doesn't mean its the optimal testing ground for Mars operations.

Wrong, because you focus only on the target of the mission. Mars is not the moon, but you need to get to mars first.

Imagine building a ship for crossing the Atlantic. All you can learn on the Atlantic is useless, if your ship already sinks in the port. Or if you find out that your food selection gives people illnesses halfway over the Atlantic, because you did not test such medical issues by first learning sea travel close to the coast.

What critical technology is tested on the Moon? Atmospheric resource utilisation? No. Mars EDL, the big unknown? No.

Deep space operations and logistics, medical safety, in-flight maintenance, etc.

Why did Apollo 9 test the LM in LEO? They could have done it already in Lunar Orbit like Apollo 10 later. The decision was made to reduce the amount of unknown problems for each mission. That is engineering.

If you want to build the first manned mars spacecraft, you can't just start with right that. You need to split your big problem into small problems and solve the small, remaining, still unsolved problems in smaller steps.

Many small steps are faster than few big jumps.

The only thing I can think about is dust migitation. But what the heck, Mars dust isn't as toxic as Lunar dust and you might as well test equipment on Earth is Mars simulation chambers or on actual sample-return missions from Mars.

You forget the small problems of astronautics. Astronauts are human beings, with human requirements. You have psychological aspects, which you can only vaguely simulate on Earth (As the test persons will always know that Earth is only on the other side of the wall), you have to deal with waste, you have to get enough food. You need a spacecraft, which does not kill your astronauts when a leak occurs. In the ISS this is no problem - if the station is crippled, you return to Earth. Even on the moon, you have it harder - if your return vehicle is damaged, you can't return as well. If it happens on Mars, you will need to find a new solution for the next harder problem, but you can build on what you learned in LEO and on the moon.

I think it's a good idea to move away from the Moon-centric Bush vision, if missions to the asteroids and Mars receive more attention.

That is just dreaming. Not making the dream true. The idea of going to Mars is only good, if you can also make it true. Not like the European spaceflight planners and decision makers, who decide every time, that moon is boring and we want to go to Mars first. They don't decide like this for going to Mars. They decide like that for avoiding having to come up with concrete results. Nobody can complain if the situation changes so much in the 25 years, that the Mars landing became impossible and had to be delayed for the next 25 years...

If you go to the moon, you have a concrete, testable goal. People can estimate your success.

 

[DLR]

Have you ever heard about the rule "Money invested into spaceflight is spent on Earth"? It is no money sinkhole, and it is not terrible.

Do you know what a money sink hole is? Mars Missions, that never be. Or failed missions. While you learn a lot out of your errors, you learn more from successful missions.

The Lunar base would become a second ISS, taking significant funds away from other projects. And in the end it has to be abandonend when it's time to move on to Mars because it would be too expensive to maintain it.

Wrong, because you focus only on the target of the mission. Mars is not the moon, but you need to get to mars first.

Yes. That's why we should work towards getting to Mars. But going to the Moon is not necessary to do that. Technologies relevant for deep space travel can be tested and proven much more cheaply in High Earth Orbit and later on missions to Near-Earth Asteroids, which are, by the way, scientifically more valuable than a return to the Moon. Excursions into deep space would do far more to validate the technology used for Mars Transit Vehicles than any stay on the Lunar surface, simply because deep space is the environment the MTV is going to operate in.

Thankfully NASA is slowly realising that.

A Mars programme would progress incrementally from testing on Earth, to high orbit to deep space missions. EDL technology would be tested in Earth's Upper Atmosphere and later on Martian sample-return missions. Atmospheric ISRU would be tested on robotic sample-return missions as well.

 

[Urwumpe]

The Lunar base would become a second ISS, taking significant funds away from other projects. And in the end it has to be abandonend when it's time to move on to Mars because it would be too expensive to maintain it.

Sorry, but I can promise you, in 2020, you will pray for the ISS to "do just another year, as we need it".

Where had been the naysayers when the Shuttle-Mir program started? The Mir station was pretty incapable compared to what we can do with the ISS for years, the only difference then was: The USSR paid the bill for the space station program. The USSR/Russia had spent approximately the same money for their space stations until 1994 as NASA for the lunar landing.

Still, nobody complained about Mir being "just a money sink". People had been happy then about the outpost in space, and the ISS is already ten or twenty times better than Mir was in it's best times. It gave us knowledge, like the ISS does.

I tell you: Like you want things to be done (Mars now, axe ISS and lunar programs, we don't need it) will result in Mars being still only explored unmanned until 2100.

Like Newton already explained it "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants", it is not different with other advancements. You need people to pave your roads, give you something to start with. Columbus was not the inventor of ocean capable ships or navigation, he was the first to use them for crossing the Atlantic. His ships had been developed in the mediterrean and the Red Sea, his exploration stretegy came from other explorers before him.

What made Columbus special was the will to use the existing technology for going where nobody went before.

Any mars mission will not have it easier. Even for just reaching Mars, you need technologies, which we currently don't have. Just imagine a spacecraft which has enough MTBF to reach Earth in one piece, after about 3.5 years of mission. You will need to find technologies for repairs in space, which are currently impossible. Or operations which allow you to have two manned spacecraft travel to Mars as convoy, so one has a chance to return.

 

[Brad]

What made Columbus special was the will to use the existing technology for going where nobody went before.

Prophetic and true! We could do it right now, if we wanted too, the point is, we don't have the will. Something significate will need to happen in order to push us away from Earth, and I suspect that when that happens, things will be so bad that no one will go anyway.

Unfortantly I believe, Mars will never see a human on it in our life time.

 

[movieman]

I tell you: Like you want things to be done (Mars now, axe ISS and lunar programs, we don't need it) will result in Mars being still only explored unmanned until 2100.

The only way NASA astronauts will get to Mars by 2100 is if they buy tickets on a commercial tourist flight...