Recommended Posts

Orion (aka Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle) has had a slow, expensive gestation costing several $billion so far, and its first crewed mission won't happen until at least 2021.

How long? Its develioment stated the same year as SpaceX's Dragon.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/nasa-puts-orion-spaceships-parachute-its-toughest-test-n141296
 

NASA Puts Orion Spaceship's Parachute to Its Toughest Test

NASA says the parachute designed for its Orion interplanetary spaceship passed its most complex test to date on Wednesday ? but an even bigger test is still to come.

At the start of Wednesday's run-through, a test version of the Orion craft was pulled out of a C-17 aircraft, 35,000 feet above the U.S Army's Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. The craft went into a 10-second free fall, and then the parachute system was triggered to slow its descent. Engineers rigged the system with a built-in malfunction to see if it could tolerate failure. It could. The Orion test craft touched down safely in the desert, NASA reported.

The big test comes in December. That's when an uncrewed Orion spaceship will be launched atop a Delta 4 Heavy rocket, soar as far as 3,600 miles (5,800 kilometers) into space during a four-orbit journey, and then come screaming back to Earth at a speed of almost 20,000 mph (32,000 kilometers per hour).

The Orion's heat shield will have to weather temperatures near 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,200 degrees Celsius). At the proper time, two drogue chutes and three main parachutes will have to pop out to slow down the Orion's fall to a manageable 20 mph for a Pacific Ocean splashdown.

That trial is called Exploration Flight Test 1, or EFT-1, and it's meant to blaze a trail for an uncrewed round-the-moon flight test that pairs Orion with NASA's heavy-lift Space Launch System in 2017. The first crewed Orion-SLS flight could come as early as 2021. NASA plans to use the spacecraft to send astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid, and then to Mars and its moons in the 2030s.

140625-orion2_7da710bc5f288ee25f8ad66198

Orion_Service_Module.jpg

Comparison (crew size)

Orion (4) v Apollo (3) v Dragon V2 (7 - 2 decks)
Z38.jpg
bp3jw2kieaakmfv-jpg-large.jpeg

I'd had a quick look but can anyone give the dimensions of the Dragon v2 for comparison?

The specs haven't been shared yet, but a lot of people have been using cues to calculate estimates. It uses the same pressure vessel as Dragon V1 with a minor change to the lower compartment housing the life support system. This makes things a bit easier, giving us minimums.

We know the mass of a fueled Dragon V1 was about 5.5 tonnes (empty) and that the Dragon V2 used for the DragonFly propulsive landing tests will mass about 7 tonnes.

The best estimates are that Dragon V2's heat shield diameter is 3.7 to 3.8 meters, with a height of about 6.3 meters to the top of the docking port (landing legs retracted.)

This is not counting the nose cone, which opens for docking then closes for reentry. Figure ~1 meter for that.

Of course Dragon V2 is much wider than the heat shield because of the 4 SuperDraco pods, and they aren't put at 90? intervals around its circumference. This pic should give.you an idea

anl0jlwxzlqyznte41mg.jpg.

Hey Doc, Have they done any launch abort tests yet? will Orion be up to spec?

They are a bit excited believing that SLS will be ready for 2017. I havent heard much news about it recently.

Pad abort test video at bottom. Orion's tower mounted abort solid is nearly the size of a theater ballistic missile. If unused all that mass is discarded.

Dragon V2's 8 SuperDraco abort thrusters are far smaller and lighter, each being about the size of a coffee can and a max of 16,400 lbf, and it keeps them as orbital maneuvering and landing engines. Powerful little SOB's.

Planned Orion missions

EFT-1: December 2014, Delta IV Heavy, high apogee loop, heat shield test.

EM-1: 2017-2018, SLS Block 1, circumlunar & return (unmanned)

EM-2: 2021-2022, SLS Block 1, crewed (2) visit of a retrieved asteroid in lunar orbit

EM-3: 2022++, SLS Block 1A. unknown

No firm plans or budget after these.

SpaceX may well be flying their Raptor engined, methane fueled, BFR super-heavy launcher before Orion/SLS flies its first crew.

With the pending December launch of an unmanned NASA Orion on a Delta IV Heavy to test the heat shield and systems, here's a rundown what needs to go right.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/29/learn-orions-flight-test/#more-52722

WASHINGTON (NASA PR) ? All the superlatives associated with Orion?s first mission this year ? farthest a spacecraft for humans has gone in 40 years, largest heat shield, safest vehicle ever built ? can be dazzling, no doubt. But the reason engineers are chomping at the bit for Orion?s first mission is the promise of crucial flight test data that can be applied to the design for future missions. Orion only has two flight test opportunities before astronauts climb aboard for the first crewed mission in 2021 ? so gleaning the maximum information possible from Exploration Flight Test (EFT)-1 in December (and later, Exploration Mission-1 in 2017) is of the highest priority. Here are the top five things the engineers will be paying attention to:

1. Launch Abort System Separation ? The launch abort system (LAS) is a key reason that Orion is intended to become the safest spacecraft ever built. In an emergency it could activate to pull the crew module and the astronauts it will carry away from the launch pad and the rocket in milliseconds. Hopefully it?s never needed, and since no crew will fly on EFT-1 the rescue system won?t be active.

But even when a launch goes perfectly, the 904-pound LAS jettison motor has to perform flawlessly. If it doesn?t get rid of the LAS 6 minutes and 20 seconds into the mission, there will be no landing ? the LAS protects the crew module during ascent, but to do so, it blocks the parachutes that allow Orion to safely splashdown.

The Launch Abort System separation is just the first of 17 separations or jettisons that have to happen exactly as planned for the mission to be successful.

2. Parachute Deployment ? For EFT-1, Orion will travel 3,600 miles above the Earth so that when it performs its deorbit burn, it will come screaming back into the Earth?s atmosphere at almost 20,000 miles per hour. Before it splashes down in the Pacific Ocean, it needs to slow down to 1/1000th of its entry speed ? a relatively gentle 20 miles per hour.

Earth?s atmosphere does its part to put on the brakes, but to make landing survivable, Orion relies on its parachute system ? primarily two drogue parachutes and three massive mains that together would cover almost an entire football field. They?ve been tested on Earth; test versions of Orion have been dropped from airplanes with a multitude of failure scenarios programmed into the parachute deployment sequence in an effort to make sure that every possibly problem is accounted for.

But the sheer number of possible problems to be tested indicates how complicated the system is ? each parachute must deploy at the exact right time, open to the exact right percentages in the exact right stages, and be cut away exactly as planned. And no test on Earth can exactly simulate what the spacecraft will really experience on its return from space.

3. Heat Shield Protection ? Before the parachutes even get a chance to deploy, Orion has to make it safely through Earth?s atmosphere. The reason that Orion is traveling so far and coming back in so fast is to give the heat shield a good workout ? the idea is to get as close as possible to the temperatures Orion would experience during a return from Mars. At the speed it will be traveling, the temperature should reach almost 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit. At that same temperature, a nuclear reactor would melt down.

Standing between the crew module and all that heat is no more than 1.6 inches of Avcoat, a material that?s designed to burn away rather than transfer the temperatures back to Orion. Some 20 percent of the Avcoat will erode during the spacecraft?s journey back to Earth, and although it?s not the first time the materials has been used for this purpose, at 16.5 feet wide, Orion?s heat shield is the largest ever built. Technicians filled with Avcoat each of the 320,000 honeycomb cells that make up the shield?s structure by hand, then machined them to the precise fractions of inches called for by the design. Getting it exactly right is all that will get Orion through one of the most dynamic periods of its mission.

4. Radiation Levels ? Traveling 15 times farther into space than the International Space Station will take Orion beyond the radiation protection offered by Earth?s atmosphere and magnetic field. In fact, the majority of EFT-1 will take place inside the Van Allen Belts, clouds of heavy radiation that surround Earth. No spacecraft built for humans has passed through the Van Allen Belts since the Apollo missions, and even those only passed through the belts ? they didn?t linger.

Future crews don?t plan to spend more time than necessary inside the Van Allen Belts, either, but long missions to deep space will expose them to more radiation than astronauts have ever dealt with before. EFT-1?s extended stay in the Van Allen Belts offers a unique opportunity to see how Orion?s shielding will hold up to it. Sensors will record the peak radiation seen during the flight, as well as radiation levels throughout the flight, which can be mapped back to geographic hot spots.

5. Computer Function ? Orion?s computer is the first of its kind to be flown in space. It can process 480 million instructions per second. That?s 25 times faster than the International Space Station?s computers, 400 times faster than the space shuttle?s computers and 4,000 times faster than Apollo?s.

But to operate in space, it has to be able to handle extreme heat and cold, heavy radiation and the intense vibrations of launches, aborts and landings. And it has to operate through all of that without a single mistake. Just restarting the computer would take 15 seconds; and while that might sound lightning fast compared to your PC, you can cover a lot of ground in 15 seconds when you?re strapped to a rocket.

Check out all the tons stuff that gets tossed <7 min. after launch.

The conical cover attached to the launch escape systems "tractor" rocket prevents it from melting the Orion, and cooking the crew inside.

The commercial spacecraft have done away with with the tractor LES, using smaller rockets at the sides or bottom of the spacecraft in a "pusher" arrangement. This saves several tons of launch mass and several jettison events. It also retires the issue of the LES blocking parachute deployment if it fails to separate.

Picture11.png

  • 4 months later...

 

Hey Doc,

 

Any update on this bad boy.

 

Are they still going to meet the December time frame?

 

 

 

 

From NASA

"NASA?s new Orion spacecraft received finishing touches Thursday, marking the conclusion of construction on the first spacecraft designed to send humans into deep space beyond the moon, including a journey to Mars that begins with its first test flight Dec. 4."

https://blogs.nasa.gov/orion/2014/10/30/nasas-orion-spacecraft-complete/

On track for Dec. 4, but be aware EFT-1 isn't a full-up Orion. Its a stripped down test article with just enough gear on it to do this flight. Guidance, thrusters, heat shield, parachutes etc.

A "real" Orion won't fly until at least 2018, and that'll also be unmanned. That date is paced by the SLS launcher and it's behind schedule. No crews until 2021 to 2022, and that'll be a rehash of Apollo 8's loop around the Moon.

Assuming the SLS program isn't cancelled by then, which is quite possible.

October 8, 2014

NASA Premieres ?Trial By Fire? Video on Orion?s Flight Test

As the flight test of NASA?s Orion spacecraft nears, the agency released Wednesday a video -- called "Trial By Fire" -- detailing the spacecraft?s test and the critical systems engineers will evaluate during the Dec. 4 flight.

Orion is in the final stages of preparation for the uncrewed flight test that will take it 3,600 miles above Earth on a 4.5-hour mission to test many of the systems necessary for future human missions into deep space. After two orbits, Orion will reenter Earth?s atmosphere at almost 20,000 miles per hour, and reach temperatures near 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit before its parachute system deploys to slow the spacecraft for a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean.

On future missions, Orion will carry astronauts farther into the solar system than ever before, including to an asteroid and Mars.

View the Trial By Fire video at:

http://bit.ly/1pMQUkx

For more information about Orion and its first space flight, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/orion

Orion: Trial By Fire:

http://youtu.be/KyZqSWWKmHQ

  • 4 weeks later...

Orion Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1)

Launcher: Delta IV Heavy (SLS is still years off)

Mission: similar to the 1967 Apollo 4 mission, an Orion instrumented test article (incomplete systems) will go into low Earth orbit then loop out to an altitude of 3,600 miles (5,800 km) and do a high speed re-entry at 20,000 mph (32,000 kph). This will test its heat shield at a temperature of 4,000 ?F (2,200 ?C), 80% of what it would experience returning from the Moon.

Launch location: Cape Canaveral LC-37B

Launch Date: December 4, 2014

Launch Window: 0705-0944 Local (Eastern)

NASA TV: 0430 Local (ET)

Orion Teams on Track

https://blogs.nasa.gov/orion/

Flight Readiness Review passed

https://blogs.nasa.gov/orion/2014/11/25/launch-and-mission-operations-teams-run-through-mission-practice/

news-111214b-lg.jpg

1280px-Rendering_of_Orion_Exploration_Fl

EFT-1_mission_diagram.jpg

It's possible. Unlikely.

Lots of things can go wrong at cryogenic temps, and liquid hydrogen boils at ?252.87?C (?423.17?F). Could be some moisture got in the system and froze, dissimilar contraction or whatever. I'm betting on moisture.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!