I would have to imagine that the rocket that would launch this would look something like a Saturn V. Also, I'm not sure, but doesn't 5 years from announcement to flight seem EXTREMELY ambitious nowadays? I mean I'm a huge supporter of NASA...I think some of my posts on this forum should illustrate that, but is this doable?
rwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1991 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (2 years 20 hours ago) and read 4218 times:
Quoting Cadet985 (Thread starter): I would have to imagine that the rocket that would launch this would look something like a Saturn V.
No more like what the DIRECT guys were proposing. The "Space Launch System" is envisioned to be more-or-less a modified shuttle main tank with two or three SSMEs underneath, and a pair of (four-segment - aka what the Shuttle uses) SRBs on the sides, and the payload stacked on top. 70-100t to LEO in that form, up to 130t with an upper stage.
Quoting Cadet985 (Thread starter): Also, I'm not sure, but doesn't 5 years from announcement to flight seem EXTREMELY ambitious nowadays? I
I think it's actually doable, although it obviously depends on adequate funding (probably the most likely failure), and a bit of luck avoiding major screw-ups. Booster configurations of that sort have been studied basically since the Shuttle became operational, and basically all they need to build new or extensively modify is the external tank, and a mount (and recovery system, assuming they decide to do that) for the SSMEs. And assuming they manage to avoid the temptation to gold-plate the first iteration of the MPCV.
AustrianZRH From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1265 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 12 months 17 hours ago) and read 3687 times:
So what about this whole Constellation cxl stunt? Why cancel and write off the program only to bring it back through the back door, probably less capable but more expensive? Was that a typical politician act by Obama or did it actually do any good to NASA other than delaying the human launch capability after shuttle retirement?
WARNING! The post above should be taken with a grain of salt! Furthermore, it may be slightly biased towards A.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 4, posted (1 year 12 months 12 hours ago) and read 3623 times:
Quoting AustrianZRH (Reply 3): So what about this whole Constellation cxl stunt? Why cancel and write off the program only to bring it back through the back door, probably less capable but more expensive? Was that a typical politician act by Obama or did it actually do any good to NASA other than delaying the human launch capability after shuttle retirement?
It actually makes sense. The program was badly underfunded, and now it comes back in a refined version, taking the work so far and bringing it to an ambitious end.
TheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, RR: 30 Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3404 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 5): Don't let this announcement put you off. The "new capsule" is Orion.
Indeed. It is just a political stunt to sell it without actually changing much. I suppose we will turn back to the moon much earlier than many people think, once the new rockets are available.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5050 posts, RR: 29 Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3279 times:
Never should have left the moon...it seems that the holders of the purse strings may finally be coming to their senses. Wisely, it's being done with a minimum of fanfare.
I also think the reality of the last Shuttle flights is hitting home. It doesn't make any sense on any level to be dependent on the other guys for ALL of the space lift capability. That's the fastest route to get bent over in the shower.
Bureaucromancer From Canada, joined Feb 2010, 163 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3177 times:
I doubt five years will happen myself, but I don't think it will be missed by all that much. What a lot of people seem to be missing in this is that THERE IS NO NEW CAPSULE. This IS Orion by an apparently new name, this is only confirmation that Orion is going ahead, as many had expected.
At this point Orion is a pretty low risk program really, doubly so now that they don't have to hit the mass target for Ares I, and don't have a potentially under performing booster hanging over their heads. At this point my guess is that any delays will come from delays man rating whatever they decide to stick this on top of pending the SLS.
To my mind, the capsule is the important part...that's the bit that's unique to a manned program. It seems like Orion will be a good unit, (it should be following the KISS principle). Heavy lift capable of putting Orion in orbit or even rigging up boost to send it to the moon shouldn't be that big of an issue. The modular shuttle SRB's are just the ticket for a lot of it.
After all, essentially, the space program is going back 40 years with the main difference being that the capsule will be reusable.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3052 times:
As long as Orion is in fact being built to be mounted on a variety of launch vehicles, and there's no reason to believe it isn't, then we should be golden, at least for LEO and NEO missions.
The vehicle itself is quite far along in its development - it was the boosters that were really the problem. SpaceX will have the Falcon 9 Heavy produced long before the Congressional mandate of 2015/2016 SLS readiness.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5050 posts, RR: 29 Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2988 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 10): it was the boosters that were really the problem.
I almost think the boosters are a red herring. Just with Titan and Delta and the bunch, along with current Shuttle rockets and SRB's, there is a lot of very well tested and reliable boost to choose from.
For instance, one idea, (which I believe will definitely happen if for no other reason than to save jobs), will be using extra sections on the SRB's to extend their boost capability. Need more burn duration? Add more sections.
The trickiest bit is always how to keep humans alive during the round trip. Orion is a step in the right direction by being relatively simple and very robust. Capsules just work and having a reusable one is icing on the cake.
Using well tested and reliable parts off the shelf will also cut costs and development time. Wiki says, (yes...I know), that Orion will use the Space Launch System, comprising mostly shuttle bits. I believe the capsule will fit onto the top, (though possibly piggyback like the shuttle, depending on the mission), of the existing main tank.
Except for the Challenger, nothing much has gone wrong with the shuttle launch system.
DiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1294 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2970 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11): For instance, one idea, (which I believe will definitely happen if for no other reason than to save jobs), will be using extra sections on the SRB's to extend their boost capability. Need more burn duration? Add more sections.
The SRB's were and remain the worst idea in my opinion. The fact that they aren't throttleable doesn't help them one bit. AFAIK, there were serious vibration issues with the Ares-I design, to the point that they were in the range of 3G, IIRC.
The best idea is a clean sheet booster or something that is proven in its current, unmodified form. No need to throw a bunch of money at modifying something, when you could have just built something new.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2916 times:
Yeah from my understanding the addition of the extra segments actually created a huge amount of issue from a rating and certification perspective. I sadly am not sure what the actual technical issue was.
I am actually all for the construction of Orion. SpaceX is going to build usable medium-heavy and heavy boosters that it will fit on, and I believe the Delta IV and Titan V are both perfectly acceptable vehicles for the near term. In the longer term, someone is liable to build a rocket large enough to send it to Mars.
On a more conversational note: how do people actually feel about sending it to Mars? Its a capsule, not that large all things told. The shuttle's crew cabin is almost 80 cubic meters. Orion's is a little more than 11. If its going to tug/tow/be attached to a larger vessel that seems ok, then only used for re-entry on the Earth side. Otherwise, that's quite a crush for anything further than the Moon.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2910 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 13): Yeah from my understanding the addition of the extra segments actually created a huge amount of issue from a rating and certification perspective. I sadly am not sure what the actual technical issue was.
Resonant burning, resulting in a thrust oscillation. The mitigation comes at a substantial weight penalty (and engineering headache)
joecanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5050 posts, RR: 29 Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2898 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 13):
Yeah from my understanding the addition of the extra segments actually created a huge amount of issue from a rating and certification perspective. I sadly am not sure what the actual technical issue was.
I didn't think that was an issue until one started adding major numbers of segments. Going from 3 to 4.5 isn't supposed to be that big of an issue. Except for Challenger, the SRB's haven't been a negative issue for the shuttle. Even Challenger wasn't so much an SRB issue as an operations issue. They have been a pretty reliable boost system on the shuttle for almost 35 years.
Throttling hasn't been an issue with the Shuttle either. Basically, you know within a range how much total boost you'll get from the SRB's and you make adjustment with the mains once the SRB's are discarded.
Quoting gigneil (Reply 13): On a more conversational note: how do people actually feel about sending it to Mars? Its a capsule, not that large all things told.
The Orion capsule will be connected to living quarters for long distance space travel. Basically, out of the atmosphere, they will undock, spin the capsule and redock allowing access from the quarters to Orion.
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2763 times:
Quoting joecanuck (Reply 15): Going from 3 to 4.5 isn't supposed to be that big of an issue.
No but there have been 5.5 segment boosters bandied about and that was a big part of what would ultimately make the Ares family work.
Even the ones for the SLS are a little larger.
Quoting joecanuck (Reply 15): The Orion capsule will be connected to living quarters for long distance space travel. Basically, out of the atmosphere, they will undock, spin the capsule and redock allowing access from the quarters to Orion.
I assumed as much. Well, I hoped as much, for the sanity of the world's astronauts.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, RR: 80 Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2551 times:
It did seem rather perverse to abandon Orion when a lot of $ had been spent, when cancellation costs meant spending even more, also when whatever the merits of something like Space X's Dragon for LEO operations, if NASA were serious about beyond LEO manned flight, something more than Dragon was needed.
So why start again and re-invent the wheel?
Hence retaining, in effect, Orion.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1408 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2007, 1265 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3347 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5050 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12715 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
