Updates Orion (MPCV) Updates and Discussion

[Urwumpe]

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.

It is not just the lack of will to go to Mars, it is also the lack of technology. We don't have solved all technical problems yet. And we won't have them solved by just saying "Now we fly to mars". They are always waiting for us.

When the USA decided to fly to the moon, nobody really knew if this was possible at all. The goal was catchy it was selected. But nobody then came and said: We should cancel Mercury and Gemini and go directly to the moon.

It was understood that each Mercury and Gemini mission following the decision to go to the moon, was one important step forward towards the goal. NASA could not have done without them.

You also had only very few people really suggesting "We don't need Rendezvous & docking, we can do Direct Ascent." Most engineers quickly realized that LOR was the only way to go, and that mastering rendezvous and docking are important, critical steps towards the moon.

And so, you have to think for going to Mars. You can't just make one big jump and hope you can solve all occurring problems on the fly. Sci-fi authors have never had any clue on how many problems astronauts will really face.

 

[Brad]

It is not just the lack of will to go to Mars, it is also the lack of technology. We don't have solved all technical problems yet.

I disagree that we don't have the technology to go to Mars. We have it, at least in a crude but useful form. With "will" and "technology" alone won't slove it thought. Even Columbus needed finanical backing, and didn't get it until he could promise some finanical gain. It all spins around all three of theses.... 1) Will 2) Technology and 3) Money.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah, the three pillars are perfectly correct.

I would maybe also add a forth pillar "luck". Without a good deal of luck, even the best program will be doomed.

But still, how do you think, could we get the food for 3.5 years Mars mission together? Greenhouses in space do work in small scales, but we have never even tested greenhouses large enough to support a crew, at least partially.

 

[Pquardzvaark]

Maybe instead of, or with luck, flexibility would help too? The managers of a program can't control luck, but one than can adapt to what else is going on, like cut-backs won't suffer so badly.

Practically skipping the Moon and going to Mars could mean that after some cut-backs we have nothing. Establishing a lunar base first might be more resilient since it could establish some usefulness sooner.

Anyway, I'm not sure the technological gap for a Mars expedition is so big. Like greenhouses as basically necessary for a permanent settlement but food can be just consumed and thrown away, although water recycling is a must. Though how long humans can stand freeze-dried food seems like a good thing to test too.

Hm, can't the stored food be used to provide radiation shielding and then the human waste products be stored too for that purpose?

 

[Moonwalker]

In my point of view luck was even a major factor which made Apollo that much a success, including Apollo 13 which was just pure luck. But beside that, related to the 1960's, it was also amazing what the engineers did with what was available at those days.

I think that we temporarily have to reduce the mission duration anyway for the first missions to Mars (this will at least offer the use of canned food). A stay on Mars of several month is a little bit too optimisitic. It will also be a lot of physical stress for the crew. Remember how sick astronauts get when they return from the ISS after "only" about 6 month. Landing on Mars after 6 month of zero-g can become a problem, not to mention another month in zero-g and the return to Earth with full or usual gravitation our bodies are actually used to.

A mission to Mars would be possible, more or less only just. But it would be as risky as nothing else ever before in manned space flight. And I think that the crew might potentially never fully recover from the physical and psychological stress, which by the way can't be studied by any kind of Big Brother-like experiment down on Earth.

 

[Urwumpe]

A stay on Mars of several month is a little bit too optimisitic.

Can't be solved well. You not only have launch windows for Earth-Mars, but also for Mars-Earth. Once you are on Mars, you are stuck there until the next window opens. By using conjunction transfers, you can launch a bit earlier, but then need much more fuel and have an annoying long transfer back home, including a flyby at Venus.

The window for the first return by using a conjunction transfer closes after only two days on Mars.

Remember how sick astronauts get when they return from the ISS after "only" about 6 month. Landing on Mars after 6 month of zero-g can become a problem, not to mention another month in zero-g and the return to Earth with full or usual gravitation our bodies are actually used to.

Is still one reason to use space stations - finding ways to mitigate such adaption problems.

Simulated gravity is one good way, but we can't research this on the way to Mars. We need already earlier work on that. Also we can't afford having the mars astronauts space sick every time the centrifuge system has to be shutdown (or spacecraft rotation terminated) for doing maneuvers. Space Motion Sickness is the dangerous side of the centrifuge idea.

 

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Urwumpe:

But still, how do you think, could we get the food for 3.5 years Mars mission together? Greenhouses in space do work in small scales, but we have never even tested greenhouses large enough to support a crew, at least partially.

That is a really good question. I suspect the only really known solution is to store it. I know that if I was going to Mars, I'd like to at least have some fallback once I got there (just in case). So enough for the whole trip, and then some more once I got there to get me back with still some left over.

Orginally Posted by Moonwalker:

In my point of view luck was even a major factor which made Apollo that much a success, including Apollo 13 which was just pure luck.

I think luck is the wrong word here. I think skill and training are a better fit. You make your own luck IMHO. Lovell and crew knew the Apollo systems in and out and some very smart and "out of the box" thinking in Houston went a long way as well.

 

[Moonwalker]

I think luck is the wrong word here. I think skill and training are a better fit. You make your own luck IMHO. Lovell and crew knew the Apollo systems in and out and some very smart and "out of the box" thinking in Houston went a long way as well.

Even Jim Lovell says that they've had a lot of luck. Not only that the explosion could have easly caused a total loss of Apollo 13, but also that the heat shield did not get affected by the explosion was just pure luck. Without luck, no skills and training in the world could have resuced Apollo 13. Apollo 1 had no luck at all...

And not to mention STS-107. They got effected by a major design flaw of the Shuttle system which already could have easily happened on an earlier mission, or which even can happen today. STS-400 is the backup...

 

[movieman]

I think luck is the wrong word here. I think skill and training are a better fit. You make your own luck IMHO. Lovell and crew knew the Apollo systems in and out and some very smart and "out of the box" thinking in Houston went a long way as well.

Yes and no. Apollo was very lucky not to lose a crew, primarily because the program was pushed so fast that there simply weren't enough test flights to develop a truly safe system... by Apollo 17 most of the big safety risks had been worked out and resolved, but by then the program was basically over.

You're right that it was skill, training and improvisation that got the Apollo 13 crew back to Earth, but it was luck that allowed them to get back; from what I remember one of the reasons the O2 tank stir occurred when it did was that some of the sensors on the tanks malfunctioned so the ground controllers added extra stirs to ensure that the parameters they couldn't monitor would stay within safe limits. Had that failure not occurred, then the stir which caused the explosion would have happened while the LEM was on the lunar surface, and they'd all have been doomed.

There were a number of places in the program where, had luck gone the other way, no amount of skill or improvisation could have saved the crews.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

[EDIT BY AUTHOR - POST MOVED TO SEPARATE TOPIC]

http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=95066#post95066

 

[SiberianTiger]

NASA Tests The Max Launch Abort System (MLAS) at Wallops

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Here's some useful websites with info on MLAS:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/features/mlas.html

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

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=31486


And here's some photos of the MLAS test:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/multimedia/galleries/mlas-gallery.html

 

[tblaxland]

USAF 45th Space Wing Study: Capsule~100%-Fratricide Environments

[FONT=geneva, arial][SIZE=+1][/SIZE][/FONT]USAF 45th Space Wing Study: Capsule~100%-Fratricide Environment:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=31792

[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]CAPSULE ~100% FRATRICIDE by SECONDARY RADIATIVE WILTING of NYLON CHUTES The capsule will not survive an abort between MET's of ~30 and 60 seconds - as the capsule is engulfed until water-impact by solid propellant fragments radiating heat from 4,000F toward the nylon parachute material (with a melt-temperature of ~400F).[/SIZE][/FONT]
...
[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Ares-1 capsule, with an LAS, will 25 not survive an abort between MET's of ~30-60 seconds.[/SIZE][/FONT]

:blink: I wonder how that 1 in 1000 (or was it 1 in 2000?) LoC figure looks now?

 

[Brad]

Nice article at nasaspacefligt.com about the aerodynamic tests on Orion: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/constellation-reviews-cev-aero-science-project-status/

 

[AirSimming]

Unlucky Orion crashing out of the space program as drop test fails:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/02/unlucky-orion-crashing-space-program-drop-test-fails/

 

[AirSimming]

Pad Abort-1 Set for May 6 Launch

With hundreds of tests and verifications officially complete, members of the Flight Test Readiness Review board unanimously agreed that Pad Abort 1 (PA-1) is ready for launch May 6 at White Sands Missile Range, N.M

Call to stations is at 6 a.m. NASA TV coverage begins at 8:30 a.m.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/index.html

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/pa1-countdown-profile.html

---------- Post added at 01:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:00 AM ----------

Pad Abort 1 Test Successful
Thu, 06 May 2010 03:03:00 PM GMT+0200

NASA successfully tested the pad abort system for the Launch Abort System developed for the Orion crew exploration vehicle at 9 a.m. EDT. The 97-second flight test is called the Pad Abort 1 test, or PA1. It is the first fully integrated test of the Launch Abort System developed for Orion. The test took place at the U.S. Army’s White Sands Missile Range near Las Cruces, N.M.

The Launch Abort System is being designed to offer a safe, reliable and robust method of removing the astronaut crew from danger should an emergency occur on the launch pad or during the vehicle’s climb to orbit.

 

[anemazoso]

Video of the Pad Abort 1 launch conducted this morning at White Sands missle range.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVHcuxiTis0"]YouTube- Orion Pad Abort 1 Launch[/nomedia]

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Spaceflight Now: "NASA tests launch abort system for space capsules".

 

[Urwumpe]

Looks like a complete success...a bit late for one, but there it is.

 

[N_Molson]

Well they have a nice abort system for capsules. :thumbup:

But no capsules.