• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

NASA Orion crew exploration vehicle (updates)

Recommended Posts

DocM    16,313

Oh, ferchrissake!! ūüė¨ ūüė†

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draggendrop    5,747

Yes...saw that earlier and did a head shake.....next....

 

This whole project is like cramming a square block through a small round hole...and no one cares.

 

No questions of it not being a "jobs" program.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,648

:argh:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,313

This Orion in-flight abort test will be Little Joe-style, with the Abort Test Booster (ATB) using an SR118 Peacekeeper ICBM first stage. 

 

 

Concept

 

Edited by DocM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,648

So they aren't deploying chutes so as to explore the possibility of reuse? [expletive] waste of a billion dollars (or more) ... and these [cactus spines] wonder why everyone gets so fed up with the OldSpace mentality. :argh: :angry: :glare:

 

Seriously, this is complete bull. NASA can't do better, in this day and age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,313

Worse; not deploying chutes eliminates the opportunity to do microscopic, ultrasonic and radiologic analysis of the structure to see how it handled launch and abort loads.

 

Unless - this isn't a real Orion but just a boilerplate mass & outer mold line simulator. 

 

In which case it's still a missed opportunity.

Edited by DocM
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,648

It's worse because that means it's not even a legitimate test of their real-world hardware. Something like that would constitute Scientific fraud, and expose any Astronaut riding on future Orion flights to possible hazards that otherwise could have been prevented (because such hazards were discovered earlier and corrected).

 

/sigh ... 

 

What a waste of time, effort, opportunity, materials and money.

 

Kinda of sums up the whole Orion/SLS fiasco.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draggendrop    5,747

After what Commercial Crew has had to endure....the same policy would ensure that  Orion remain on the assembly floor....but we know that will not happen...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,313

Sounds like they're descoping SLS in preparation for the axe falling,

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,648

True to what they'd been saying on their end after all in Europe ... the three units in various phases of construction would likely be the only ones. At least Version 1, if not outright cancelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,313

An SLS RS-25 engine test didn't go exactly as planned. Looks like a turbopump leaked...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Draggendrop    5,747

Could have been a lot worse.

 

The investigation will take some time to determine cause. My guess is GSE failure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,313
Posted (edited)

Throwing SLS under the bus, they are....

 

 

 

Edited by DocM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beittil    557

Love it ūüėć

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,313

It gets better!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,313

Abhi is SpaceX Director of Commercial Crew

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,313
Posted (edited)

NASA Human Exploratiin Mission Design lead,

 

 

NSF

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,648

We called it. We've been calling it.

 

There's no need for Orion, either, now. Watch and see that it doesn't get cancelled too.

 

OldSpace got their money. They could really care less if it launches or not at this point. Sure, they'll be "sorry" that it won't because that means the multi-billion-dollar contracts for future construction/launches don't happen now; but at this point they should be glad they got away with it at all for this long.

 

Writing's on the wall. SpaceX is where NASA is leaning. They're cheaper, smarter, and better. The technology is such a radical and new way of doing things -- and the right way -- that OldSpace can't compete with it.

 

Yep ... we called this one right down the middle.

While I'm sad that people are gonna lose their jobs, they'll find new ones. There's never BEEN a better time to be an Engineer or Support Labor in Aerospace than now -- even better than the 1960's. (Y) Seriously, it's that good right now.

 

If you want a job in Aerospace, someone will find someplace for you no matter your skill level. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,313

Release the Kraken!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,648

In a square-peg/round-hole sorta way, I suppose ...

 

/shrug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,313
Posted (edited)

Falcon Heavy  with an SLS ICPS upper stage (modded Delta 4) ?!?

 

Franken-Rocket¬†ūüėĶ

 

At the NASA town hall they presented several options, but only two could do the mission: SLS and a Falcon Heavy + ICPS.

 

Which began the question: with Falcon Heavy flying missions 2 & 3 very soon, why continue with SLS?

 

 

 

Edited by DocM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,313
Posted (edited)

Ars article...

Quote

 

"Gerst is going to be so mad at me for saying all of this."

>

"It would require time [and] cost, and there is risk involved," Bridenstine said. "But guess what‚ÄĒif we're going to land boots on the Moon in 2024, we have time, and we have the ability to accept some risk and make some modifications. All of that is on the table. There is nothing sacred here that is off the table. And that is a potential capability that could help us land boots on the Moon in 2024."

 

With this comment, Bridenstine broke a political taboo. For the first time, really, a senior NASA official had opened the door to NASA flying its first crewed missions to the Moon on a Falcon Heavy rocket built by SpaceX. An official with the company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

>

 

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/nasa-chief-says-a-falcon-heavy-rocket-could-fly-humans-to-the-moon/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,313

NASA Admin. Bridenstine talking about Falcon Heavy + Orion, Falcon Heavy + ICPS + Orion, etc. Plays at 29m 54s.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,648

There's a ton of discussion going on whether it's possible with FH or not.

 

Orion is a heavy beast; in my view far heavier than it should be for the tasks it's been built to perform. Crew Dragon should be able to do Orion's job with tweaks to the design -- and it wouldn't be that difficult to mod it for those purposes.

 

- It's already rated for Mars high-speed reentry. No need to change up anything there.

- Needs additional RCS stores for the extended Lunar Mission profile, but not excessively more. Not a big stretch.

- Possibly needs improved thermal regulation systems? (I saw someone mention this on Twitter, dunno how valid this item is.)

- Additional power generation capability. Maybe ... can always fit a pair of Cargo Dragon panels to the SM.

- Additional power storage? They realize that Tesla is part of Elon's portfolio, yes? Power storage is what they're really good at ...

- They are quite capable of finding stowage/utility space on Crew Dragon, including the provision of a Space Toilet (assuming there isn't one already).

- The Apollo CM had 2/3 the interior space (218 cu. ft.) that Crew Dragon does (330 cu. ft.), and fully 1/3 of that 218 cu. ft. was instrumentation or stowage. Crew Dragon's useful interior space does not count the instrumentation or stowage. Far larger vessel at a far lower weight.

- Crew Dragon's "Trunk" ... yeah, it's decent and does some stuff but it's wasn't designed for Lunar flight as such. But with 430 cu. ft. of additional space to play with (as unpressurized storage), I'd bet that a lot could be done to make it an outstanding Service Module. Two Cargo Dragon shrouded solar arrays to start the festivities (and to keep the already-present surface-mount PV + radiator stuff in place), then another, smaller, extended radiative panel like the ISS employs. Extra N + O2 and power storage, etc. See where I'm going with this? It adds weight but not a lot and SpaceX are the MASTERS of efficiency. They'd figure it out.

 

I think it could work -- WITHOUT ORION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,648

Seriously, I'd like to see SpaceX do this before fully transitioning to Starship. Call this chapter "Lessons in Efficiency -- Master and Doctorate Levels." :D 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.