NASA Orion crew exploration vehicle (updates)


Recommended Posts

bguy_1986    369
On 4/1/2019 at 10:08 PM, DocM said:

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

 

 

 

Are they still ignoring Starship?  lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,967
3 hours ago, bguy_1986 said:

Are they still ignoring Starship?  lol

Yes, for now. Once Starship stats high altitude tests that gets a LOT harder.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
IsItPluggedIn    1,687

Hey Guys,

 

What functionality does the Orion provide over Dragon/Starliner?

 

I know dragon is half the weight, I just dont know what the Orion does that is worth the extra weight.

 

 

 

 

If they used dragon and the ESA service module, would the falcon heavy have enough thrust, with the extra 10% with the block 5.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,967
2 hours ago, IsItPluggedIn said:

Hey Guys,

 

What functionality does the Orion provide over Dragon/Starliner?

 

A full service module (propulsion, consumables stores, more batteries etc.) Not that SpaceX couldn't build one on a pallet to fit inside the Trunk and add lines to the Dragon Claw umbilical. That and some high density polyethylene radiation shielding. Yes, HDPE is a rather good shield. Extra points if you add about 5% elemental boron to shield neutrons.

 

Essentially enough to take the mission life with a crew from a few days to Orion's 21.1 days

 

Quote

 

I know dragon is half the weight, I just dont know what the Orion does that is worth the extra weight.

 

Mission life with a crew aboard and a bit more radiation shielding. See above.

 

Quote

If they used dragon and the ESA service module, would the falcon heavy have enough thrust, with the extra 10% with the block 5.

 

FH could launch a Crew Dragon and crew on a lunar free return trajectory, a loop-around, and not have mission life issues. Maybe add some HDPE for shielding, but it's not that heavy.  This would have been the Grey Moon mission which was replaced by #blueMoon using Starship.

 

Add the aforementioned service module pallet to the Trunk and who needs Orion - or SLS? (but that's politically incorrect in Florida, Alabama, Colorado or Chicago [Boeing's home base])

Edited by DocM
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,692

All of the above, which SpaceX won't need to bother with at all since Starship is able to carry 100 people + a modest 100 metric tonnes of cargo to Mars ... so figure another 50 metric tonnes of mass saved for the moon (since they won't have to carry all of the extra consumables for the long Martian mission).

 

More than doable for a Lunar mission on Starship. That's why Crew Dragon won't need to do it. It's a mission slated for Starship; in fact, already paid for. One of the first ones will be doing a once-around.

 

Orion is not needed in any context. At the time it was ordered, yes. Now, no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,967

Crew/Cargo Dragon may end up being used for the Gateway station under CLPS etc., But Starship would be insane for that mission.

 

First, it's several times larger than the Gateway, making the optics look bad for NASA. 

 

Second, who would be docked to who? Again, way too large for the mission.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
bguy_1986    369
On 4/4/2019 at 8:27 AM, bguy_1986 said:

Are they still ignoring Starship?  lol

On 4/4/2019 at 12:12 PM, DocM said:

Yes, for now. Once Starship stats high altitude tests that gets a LOT harder.

NASA has finally acknowledged Starship!  lol

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,967

Potential mission managers and line engineers see the handwriting on the wall long before upper management suits, and with the pics & hops at Boca Chica Twitter has cranked up the volume to 11.

Edited by DocM
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,967

 

The Office of Management and Budget is prepping a budget amendment for submission to Congress  - appropriations for "Moon 2024."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
DocM    16,967

 

Commercial rocket = Falcon Heavy

 

AA = Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate - aka HEOMD

Link to post
Share on other sites
IsItPluggedIn    1,687

Wasnt the issue that Orion was too heavy for FH/DIVH to send direct, it would need to dock with a second stage in orbit and the Orion doesnt have the ability to do the docking?

 

Do we have any more information about how they would get around the issue, are they bringing the docking functionality forward?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,967
2 hours ago, IsItPluggedIn said:

Wasnt the issue that Orion was too heavy for FH/DIVH to send direct, it would need to dock with a second stage in orbit and the Orion doesnt have the ability to do the docking?

 

Dock in orbit with an SLS ICPS upper stage, separately launched.

 

AKA: Distributed Launch

 

Quote

 

Do we have any more information about how they would get around the issue, are they bringing the docking functionality forward?

 

NASA Admin. Bridenstine said flat out the only vehicle-side docking system the US has with a flight history is SpaceX's version of the International Docking Adapter, so ICPS would need to use "IDA-X" to dock with Orion.  "IDA-X" is also simpler and cheaper than Boeing's unit.

 

Boeing developed IDA, it is used on ISS and Orion, and SpaceX's version has docked with it (Crew Dragon DM-1).

Edited by DocM
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
DocM    16,967

I hardly know where to begin... 😵😈

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beittil    584

And in the mean time they happily keep shoveling load upon load of money towards Boeing and its partners for this abomination... Gah

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
+xrobwx71    860
On 4/25/2015 at 5:34 AM, FloatingFatMan said:

 

Blithering idiots.

 

Use 1 or the other, NEVER mix them!

I so wish, growing up, we were taught the metric system in the US. I have "learned" it but still am not used to it like I would be if I had grown up using it. Why anyone would use both in a car is beyond me but in space?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,967
51 minutes ago, xrobwx said:

I so wish, growing up, we were taught the metric system in the US. I have "learned" it but still am not used to it like I would be if I had grown up using it. Why anyone would use both in a car is beyond me but in space?

 

I was taught the metric system in the 1960's, in a farm community (one-room schoolhouse for grades 1-5).

 

The issue has been implementation at the govt, industrial and supplier levels. This results in generations of legacy products & regulatory pages specifying Imperial. Not to mention road signs etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
DocM    16,967

😵

 

Ars Technica...

 


NASA does not deny the over $2 billion cost of a single SLS launch

"NASA is working to bring down the cost of a single SLS launch."

For the first time, a government cost estimate of building and flying a single Space Launch System rocket in a given year has been released. This estimate of "over $2 billion" came in the form of a letter from the White House to the Senate Appropriations Committee first reported by Ars this week.
>
Dont forget development costs
>
What the White House cost estimate did not include, however, was development costs. Since 2011, Congress has appropriated approximately $2 billion per year for the "development" of the SLS rocket (this does not include hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually on ground systems "development" for the rocket at Kennedy Space Center). 
>
Adding all of this up, the true cost of a Space Launch System mission with Orion on top in the 2020s, including the rocket's development but excluding ground systems and Orion development costs, appears to be in the ballpark of $5 billion per flight.

Let's hope the astronauts are served more than just pretzels after takeoff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
DocM    16,967

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
DocM    16,967
Posted (edited)

Cost of Orion

 

NASA IG: Twenty. Nine. Point. Five. Billion. Dollars. 😱

 

NASA: $11.3 billion 😲

 

https://spacenews.com/nasas-inspector-general-criticizes-orion-cost-accounting/

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — NASA’s inspector general criticized the agency for its accounting of Orion program costs in a new report, arguing it has “hindered the overall transparency” of the program amid growing costs and schedule slips.


In a July 16 report, NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) raised several issues with costs of the Orion program, including the agency’s decision to exclude many costs from a formal cost estimate for the program as well as “overly generous” award fees paid to the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, over the life of the program.

Through January of 2020, the latest financial data was available, NASA spent $16.7 billion on Orion, dating back to the Constellation program. NASA estimates spending $12.8 billion on Orion through 2030, primarily on production of future spacecraft.

While that suggests a total of Orion through 2030 of $29.5 billion, NASA’s formal estimate for life cycle costs for the program is $11.3 billion,
>

Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingskippy    169
4 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

I wonder how many SpaceX's that much money would get you...

 

A fully certified Starship......

Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,967
13 hours ago, flyingskippy said:

A fully certified Starship......

A whole friggin' fleet of them. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
DocM    16,967

Today's SLS booster test

Starts at 20:16

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unobscured Vision    2,692

Seems like it's several steps backwards to me now, the whole SLS concept.

 

Throw away most of the rocket at launch ... it's so ... crude. Brute force is all well and good, but ... blech. It smacks of yesterday's technology. :no: 

 

I dislike it immensely.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
slear    37
2 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

Seems like it's several steps backwards to me now, the whole SLS concept.

 

Throw away most of the rocket at launch ... it's so ... crude. Brute force is all well and good, but ... blech. It smacks of yesterday's technology. :no: 

 

I dislike it immensely.

They have been tasked with a semi-impossible goal. Go back to the moon and stay there before 2024. No time to do proper research and development of new ideas and technologies. Luckily you (we) have SpaceX. 

  • Like 2
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.