Updates Orion (MPCV) Updates and Discussion

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Yeah, yeah, you're right, as always

When did I say this? :huh:

If you think I am incorrect, please show me. Don't moan about what I say instead.

There is nothing rhetorical about it, it is just assertions and questions. Generally questions are best answered and assertions are best challenged.
 

Wood

New member
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I noticed the MPCV capsule in this video was painted white, but in the recent video of the Delta IV Heavy test one could clearly see the black carbon fibre structure. Are they planning to not paint the orbital test article, but paint the later ones, or is the difference in color scheme just as meaningless as the video SLS still being painted like a Saturn V?

That's not paint, that's the colour of the thermal protection tiles on the backshell. They're based off of the tiles used on the Space Shuttle. The plan was to use the white lower temperature tiles on flights to LEO, and black higher temperature tiles on flights to the Moon. Since Orion will only be flying beyond LEO (in theory) I would expect only the black tiles will be used to withstand the higher speed re-entries.
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
and this has been said to you already

Where? By whom?

is that you seem to see things in binary fashion, true or false. They are shades of grey between white and black, and it is how the world affairs are constantly running.

Yes, and I am sure this magically makes everything potentially disagreeable about actions within the US space program, totally acceptable and something to support, as always.

:facepalm:

This is even more true with spaceflight, because rockets and aerospace systems are bind to weaponery technology (missles, etc...).

Which has very little to do with the problems that spaceflight is experiencing, which are mainly caused by corporate and political interests rather than military ones.

Unless there is some reason why launching EFT-1 on a DIVH benefits the USAF in some way, considering that they are its only user.

Why Gagarin was sent into space ? Khrutschev didn't gave its authorization because he was curious about science, but because he wanted to say to the USA : "Look, I can put a 4-tons spacecraft into orbit and bring it back to Earth safely, so I can easily do the same with a nuclear bomb. You are defenseless against that, I own the world so show me respect !".

Two nations trying to out-compete eachother with impressive actions is not the same thing as politicians benefitting their "campaign benefactors" or compromising an administration's purpose for their own gain.

It is a really annoying analogy.

(Also, I don't know where the "Vostok as demonstration of ICBM technology" theory comes from, as this stuff was being tested for years before Vostok 1. Sputnik and Vostok relied on missile technology, not the other way around.)

So are you hoping that some kind of "saint" suddenly rises and leads the US space program ?

No, I am hoping to not just say "lulz, this thing is so awesome!!!" just because I like it so much, like you do.

Everything has to do with interests and struggle for power.

Just because something happens, does not mean it should be deemed acceptable!

I mean, really. Just because I don't want to sit around and say "Orion is awesome! NASA is awesome!" without questioning their actions and motives (which does not mean automatically "I think this is bad"), you effectively endorse shady politics, and now the whole thread derails into off-topic.

Maybe we need a new mega-thread: "Are shady corporate actions and politics acceptable"...
 
Last edited:

Orbinaut Pete

ISSU Project Manager
News Reporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
4,264
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Also, why an "Interim cryogenic propulsion stage"? So that NASA can pay an aerospace contractor to develop another upper stage that it'll end up not needing at all, before the 'proper' upper stage that keeps on getting spoken about? Why?

Or is it just a politically-correct stand-in for a supposed Delta IV or Atlas V upper stage proposed for the SLS/Orion Apollo 8 reconstruction?

This quote just shows how little you actually know about SLS. No development will be required for the iCPS. I'm not going to tell you why. Please stop looking for political scandal and money-making conspiracy everywhere.
 

N_Molson

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
9,271
Reaction score
3,244
Points
203
Location
Toulouse
(Also, I don't know where the "Vostok as demonstration of ICBM technology" theory comes from, as this stuff was being tested for years before Vostok 1. Sputnik and Vostok relied on missile technology, not the other way around.)

No, sorry but you are plain wrong. I read books about this, if it can really calm you down I can get the titles & authors, that discussed with former soviet engineers that were there, and made an extensive research of documents all over Russia.

Vostok was a technology demonstrator. Sputnik was a small probe, but this was different, a real 4-5 tons spacecraft able to carry a payload (Gagarin) and to deliver it safely anywhere on the world.

Korolev had to fight for years to get Krutschev's authorization, and he had to trick him that way, pleading that it would be an uncontestable proof to the face of the world of Soviet mastery of missle technology. Before Sputnik & Vostok, R-7 trials were as secret as possible, and there were a lot of catastrophic failures.

Edit : two possibilities

a) you are too proud to admit you don't always are right (saying you don't search to be right doesn't change anything to this).
b) you really don't get it.
c) a 50/50 mix of a) & b), my best guess.

Anyway I'm finished with this.

:threadjacked: That's nothing else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This quote just shows how little you actually know about SLS. No development will be required for the iCPS. I'm not going to tell you why. Please stop looking for political scandal and money-making conspiracy everywhere.

Why do certain people always get so defensive about this stuff? :huh:

The idea that "no development" will be required is surely nonsense; the DIVCUS would still need to be integrated to the launch vehicle and the Orion, etc.

There isn't any reason to get snarky about it.

No, sorry but you are plain wrong. I read books about this, if it can really calm you down I can get the titles & authors, that discussed with former soviet engineers that were there, and made an extensive research of documents all over Russia.

I am not interested in titles, authors, or how many books you have read, but rather the logic behind such a nonsensical-sounding idea.

Vostok was a technology demonstrator. Sputnik was a small probe, but this was different, a real 4-5 tons spacecraft able to carry a payload (Gagarin) and to deliver it safely anywhere on the world.

I would really like to understand the similarities between a manned spacecraft and an ICBM entry vehicle here...

Korolev had to fight for years to get Krutschev's authorization, and he had to trick him that way, pleading that it would be an uncontestable proof to the face of the world of Soviet mastery of missle technology. Before Sputnik & Vostok, R-7 trials were as secret as possible, and there were a lot of catastrophic failures.

That does not necessarily mean that R-7 was developed as a human spaceflight launch vehicle and then adapted into an ICBM, and the Russians didn't need manned spaceflight to demonstrate their ICBM technology. If they thought they did, they must have had an odd train of thought.
 
Last edited:

Orbinaut Pete

ISSU Project Manager
News Reporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
4,264
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Why do you people always get so defensive about this stuff? :huh:

The idea that "no development" will be required is surely nonsense; the DIVCUS would still need to be integrated to the launch vehicle and the Orion, etc.

There isn't any reason to get snarky about this.

I'm not getting defensive - I just think that if you're going to argue against SLS, you should make sure you know all the facts. If you don't, it just makes your arguments seem like clueless rants.

The iCPS will be a modified Delta-V upper stage, thus no development will be needed (just modification). It will be used on the initial SLS flights until an upper stage is developed (an upper stage will not be developed from the outset due to lack of funding). So, if anything, using iCPS is an attempt to save money, not line the pockets of contractors as you suggested.
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I'm not getting defensive - I just think that if you're going to argue against SLS, you should make sure you know all the facts. If you don't, it just makes your arguments seem like clueless rants.

If my arguments seem like clueless rants, then please explain the matter to me so as to better the amount of understanding in the situation. :tiphat:

The iCPS will be a modified Delta-V upper stage, thus no development will be needed (just modification).

But modification is development, is it not? To modify something, you have to develop the modification. It isn't like stuff can just be bolted on or off a spacecraft at a total whim. It costs money.

Obviously not as much as building an entirely new stage, with a new engine, new tanking, new avionics, new systems, etc...

So, if anything, using iCPS is an attempt to save money, not line the pockets of contractors as you suggested.

Yes. My comment about lining the pockets of aerospace contractors was about a hypothetical interim "clean sheet" upper stage, which would really seem like a redundant development (considering existing stage candidates and developments).

The animation posted showed the iCPS, but did not make clear its nature as a DIVCUS (which is what confused me). Is it supposed to be encompassed in a fairing or interstage of some sort?

(I don't even dislike the idea of mounting a DIVCUS on top of an SLS, it sounds like an innovative way to meet mission requirements. The mission requirements on the other hand are a different story...)
 
Last edited:

Tychonaut

Underexpanded
Donator
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
96
Reaction score
1
Points
0
That's not paint, that's the colour of the thermal protection tiles on the backshell. They're based off of the tiles used on the Space Shuttle. The plan was to use the white lower temperature tiles on flights to LEO, and black higher temperature tiles on flights to the Moon. Since Orion will only be flying beyond LEO (in theory) I would expect only the black tiles will be used to withstand the higher speed re-entries.
According to the article quoted by N_Molson and excerpted below, the test flight(s) will be black and later flights will be white.
Pity, the black capsule was growing on me. ;)

Lockheed Martin to select Delta 4 rocket for Orion test[/SIZE]
...
It will lift off with a launch abort system tower and its backshell heat-resistant tiles will be black because that color's heat properties are better known, according to Bill Johns, Lockheed Martin's chief engineer for the Orion program.

Future long-duration flights will use an all-white Orion spacecraft.
...
 

Capt_hensley

Captain, USS Pabilli
Donator
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
841
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Alamogordo
Website
www.h-10-k.com
But modification is development, is it not? To modify something, you have to develop the modification. It isn't like stuff can just be bolted on or off a spacecraft at a total whim. It costs money.

Making an adapter ring is not developement, it's proven science, and it's simple. Yes an adapter ring CAN just be bolted on, that's why it's called an "adapter ring" Everything costs money, including breathing! Especially on this planet.

I think we all should stop bickering and act like the adults were supposed to be.

Less talk and more add-ons I say! This is supposed to be fun!

Soap box, dismounted, moving forward.
 

T.Neo

SA 2010 Soccermaniac
Addon Developer
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Making an adapter ring is not developement, it's proven science, and it's simple. Yes an adapter ring CAN just be bolted on, that's why it's called an "adapter ring" Everything costs money, including breathing! Especially on this planet.

Er, yes... but...

The stage is a 'proven science', and so is the concept, at least, of the mounts intended to integrate it to the launch vehicle and payload.

What isn't a 'proven science' is integrating the adapter onto the stage, and integrating the stage onto the vehicle, and integrating the payload onto the stage.

The notion that it wouldn't require development feels, to me, that it implies this hardware is sitting on a shelf somewhere, it'll only take a few hours for Paul and Bob to bolt it to the stage, and that the DIVHUS was originally designed for this task, and that just isn't the case.

Maybe there is just an aversion to calling it "development", because "development" is a word that gets thrown around for entire projects with gigantic sums of money to get them from the idea stage to actual flight... :hmm:

Less talk and more add-ons I say!

Yes indeed, I feel an urge to develop something. :p

:cheers:
 

N_Molson

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
9,271
Reaction score
3,244
Points
203
Location
Toulouse
NASASpaceflight: EFT-1 Orion receives hatch door – Denver Orion ready for Modal Testing

That's a good idea, a hatch door can always be useful :lol:
 

Codz

NEA Scout Wrencher
Donator
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
3,586
Reaction score
1
Points
61
Location
Huntsville, AL
Preferred Pronouns
He/Him
Orion is really starting to shape up!
 

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
You just have to know, when not to open it. :facepalm:

If you can't sleep with closed windows, astronaut is the wrong job for you.

---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 PM ----------

Making an adapter ring is not developement, it's proven science, and it's simple. Yes an adapter ring CAN just be bolted on, that's why it's called an "adapter ring" Everything costs money, including breathing! Especially on this planet.

Sorry, but that is wrong. You can't just go from "we know how to make adapter rings" to "we know that this adapter ring will work flawlessly". That is the big difference between theory and application.

Even for a simple carbon fiber monocoque adapter, you have a few hundred thousand USD of engineer costs only for designing a fitting one. And a few more for testing the first prototypes, doing quality assurance of the flight articles, etc. It is not really a big item in a program that costs a few billion USD eventually, but many such small items sum up. A wrong electric property of the adapter ring, and you can enjoy a few departments further down the corridor shout your name in conjunction with very unfriendly descriptors, before you burn the next batch of taxes.

You also can't bolt it on. you need to do it properly, or the fact that rockets have only small margins in their design will doom you. A wrong selection of the points where you bolt it on, a bit of torque too much or not enough, and the vibrations during launch will leave your adapter intact but rip the stage or the payload into halves.

Don't underestimate the tiny details. In a presentation, all looks easy, but when you need to know the properties of your adapter ring down to the Micronewtonmeter, you will have a lot of work ahead you. And even if you do it all right, maybe your adapter ring will be selected as the part where saving mass is more easily possible and you have to redesign it completely to get just 50 kg saved there, simply because saving the 50 kg somewhere else would be way more expensive.
 

Capt_hensley

Captain, USS Pabilli
Donator
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
841
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Alamogordo
Website
www.h-10-k.com
^ My point was that adapter rings are very common, like sand on a beach, enough developement has gone into the adapter ring, that it's now a common science to make one, and that the effort to do so is less than 2% of the total makeup of a vehicle. Yes it's expensive, but not hard, and is a fairly common occurance. Thats all I meant to imply.

It really isn't that big of a deal. Every part of a vehicle has critical points, and adapter rings is just one of thousands, and a very small one at that.

Yes even a small item can have a large catestrophic failure, but were talking about developement, not distruction. The developement of adapter rings is complete, application of adapter rings are now commonplace, and as such are an integration problem on new vehicles, as you point out above, not a developement problem as I'm trying to quell. That's all. End of discussion, lets move on.
 

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
^ My point was that adapter rings are very common, like sand on a beach

Not really, if you look at the manuals. you have only a few adapter rings for supporting also spacecraft designed for other rockets, or adapter rings for payloads that have the CoG further apart from the longitudinal axis. or for especially massive payloads. Or for supporting one standard type of upper stage.

If you can't fit your payload to an existing adapter, you pay deadly amounts of money for a new one that can be flight certified.


Jet aircraft are also very common, still it costs billions to design a new one.
 
Top