Quantcast

Successful Orion launch

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

DangerZone

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,110
Location
Zagreb HR
Some minutes ago Orion was successfully launched after yesterday's 24h delay. This is worth congratulating and is indeed a great accomplishment. However, it seems the media report about a mission to Mars even though this module has no such capability, it can hold people inside for three weeks max. Thus it could only be a 'lifeboat' if anything happens to the real spaceship, which isn't even designed yet. What's going on with the media, are there resoruces which would report realistically without exaggerating which we could follow or has this become a global phenomena..?

All the best to those who participated in the Orion project, may they have even better success in the future.
 

Autodidact

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
4,513
Location
Oklahoma
What's going on with the media,
Same thing as always; they only work with small pieces of info - all they've ever worked with - you have to dig a little to see what is more accurate.

are there resources which would report realistically without exaggerating which we could follow or has this become a global phenomena..?
NASA.gov. And a google search will show that Orion as it is now is just an incremental step towards the ultimate goal; it's more than just a capsule, it's an entire program of development. They're talking about going to Mars in the 2030s; that's a good 20-25 years off and there's a lot of development to be done - think Starship Enterprise in the 60s, and how it looks now...
 

DangerZone

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,110
Location
Zagreb HR
NASA.gov. And a google search will show that Orion as it is now is just an incremental step towards the ultimate goal; it's more than just a capsule, it's an entire program of development. They're talking about going to Mars in the 2030s; that's a good 20-25 years off and there's a lot of development to be done - think Starship Enterprise in the 60s, and how it looks now...
Well, if math still applies and 2+2=4, then with this same propulsion there would not be enough money in the whole world to have a spaceship to go to Mars. Orion is like a lifeboat for a TransAtlantic cruiser, it might have enough resources only for three weeks flight. If they intend to use the same propulsion system there is not enough money to build the Mars spaceship/cruiser by 2030, and flying over there and getting back would mean even more cost.

Common sense tells us that a spacecraft intended for three weeks life support can't spend six months plus two years needed to fly to Mars and return back safely. It has no capacity, means, resources, fuels and fesiblity to achieve that. In a program of development, the Orion could be a great lifeboat system for distances up to the Moon and back. But anything beyond that is fantasy, the same as inflating a rubber boat and hoping to paddle/row from Venice (Italy) to New York (USA).

However, it's a great achievement, I specially like the ablation shield and simplicity of design.
 

billyvray

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
788
Location
Newnan, GA
From what I have read I don't believe this actual system is for the Mars voyage. This is for NASA to reclaim orbital capability. Then, this will allow personnel to go up and use a different craft for the actual Mars voyage - presumably one assembled in orbit?

Bill
 

Autodidact

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
4,513
Location
Oklahoma
From what I have read I don't believe this actual system is for the Mars voyage. This is for NASA to reclaim orbital capability. Then, this will allow personnel to go up and use a different craft for the actual Mars voyage - presumably one assembled in orbit?

Bill
That's what I understood also. This is just a first step toward that capability. The rocket used yesterday is not the rocket that will be used for the Mars flight and even then, it is only going to be a very heavy lift rocket to get the interplanetary craft into orbit. The Orion capsule might be used, but it will be attached to something larger and with a different type of propulsion. In the meantime, NASA is back in the saddle (or will be soon) in terms of space station and satellite delivery, etc. The commercial stuff will only ever be an adjunct IMO.
 

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
2,009
Location
Savannah, Georgia
From what I have read I don't believe this actual system is for the Mars voyage. This is for NASA to reclaim orbital capability. Then, this will allow personnel to go up and use a different craft for the actual Mars voyage - presumably one assembled in orbit?

Bill
Yep. It's not the spacecraft the crew is going to live in on the way to Mars (though it'll most likely go along for the ride). But they still need a way to get up into space and back down.

And yes, the crew module this spacecraft is larger than Apollo. I think the service module and propulsive capabilities are smaller, due both to better technology and lower delta-V requirements.
 

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
Well, if math still applies and 2+2=4...
Government math rarely does.


From what I have read I don't believe this actual system is for the Mars voyage. This is for NASA to reclaim orbital capability. Then, this will allow personnel to go up and use a different craft for the actual Mars voyage - presumably one assembled in orbit?
No, it is a system to allow BEYOND LEO manned capacity, to the Moon and other near Earth objects (asteroids). For Mars, it would be part of a much larger craft, either as a "lifeboat" and landing craft or simply as a way to get crew up and down from Earth. There are lots of plans but little funding for them.

It is a slightly enlarged Apollo with a diameter of around 5m but with a different ablation shield allowing higher re-entry temperatures.
Other than basic configuration, Orion shares nothing with Apollo. Its a completely new design.
 

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
Everything. Structure, TPS, Avionics, even the RCS is totally different. The only thing they have in common is that they are both conical reentry bodies. The equivalent argument would be that a Cessna and a Piper were the same just because they both had an engine, wings and a tail.
 

Apollo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
301
Location
Southern California, USA
...If they intend to use the same propulsion system there is not enough money to build the Mars spaceship/cruiser by 2030, and flying over there and getting back would mean even more cost...Common sense tells us that a spacecraft intended for three weeks life support can't spend six months plus two years needed to fly to Mars and return back safely. It has no capacity, means, resources, fuels and fesiblity to achieve that.
DangerZone, it seems like you really want to talk about manned missions to Mars. But if that's what this thread turns into, it's probably gonna get shut down like the other one. Don't get me wrong, I work in the space industry and would love to talk about Orion and trips to Mars. But this is just the wrong forum. Just sayin'.
 

DangerZone

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,110
Location
Zagreb HR
Everything. Structure, TPS, Avionics, even the RCS is totally different. The only thing they have in common is that they are both conical reentry bodies. The equivalent argument would be that a Cessna and a Piper were the same just because they both had an engine, wings and a tail.
Oh, I thought these were technical specifications, wouldn't a different design mean to include a different structure, cosmic rays and HF/LF radiation protection, micrometeorite protection, greater autonomy and additional design improvement which would enable safe flying in space outside the safety of Earth/Moon magnetosfere and gravity influence..?

DangerZone, it seems like you really want to talk about manned missions to Mars. But if that's what this thread turns into, it's probably gonna get shut down like the other one. Don't get me wrong, I work in the space industry and would love to talk about Orion and trips to Mars. But this is just the wrong forum. Just sayin'.
Thanks, I was mostly interested in the ablation shield details/density and which new composite materials were used in Orion that were not used in Apollo, sort of a comparison to see what's new besides cosmetics/avionics/electronics. I've seen they filled the TPS honeycomb matrix by hand, which lead to a higher temperature resistance of the Orion bottom. There are changes as using some technology that proved good in Soyuz aircraft so it did not seem much of a novelty. The rebreather and recycler system is used for some time so all in all it looked like a good system with known technology piled up in a good module. What am I missing, what would be technologically new and never done before? I was really hoping for a good shield protection of other vital module parts.
 

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
Oh, I thought these were technical specifications, wouldn't a different design mean to include a different structure, cosmic rays and HF/LF radiation protection, micrometeorite protection, greater autonomy and additional design improvement which would enable safe flying in space outside the safety of Earth/Moon magnetosfere and gravity influence..?
Yes. You suggested that Orion was just "a slightly enlarged Apollo", which is not the case.
 

DangerZone

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,110
Location
Zagreb HR
Yes. You suggested that Orion was just "a slightly enlarged Apollo", which is not the case.
Brandy Dean, NASA spokesman for Orion said it is based and modelled on the Apollo capsule design. I somehow believed this person and claims that the heat shield of Orion is improved and allows higher re-entry velocities.

If there are some means of protection for deep space flight from cosmic rays, HF/LF radiation, micrometeorites and improved autonomy which would enable this module to serve as a lifeboat, please let me know. I am curious about such changes and all details that would allow Orion to be a deep space lifeboat.

[video=youtube;dM87u5eIfGw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM87u5eIfGw[/video]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
Brandy Dean, NASA spokesman for Orion said it is based and modelled on the Apollo capsule design. I somehow believed this person and claims that the heat shield of Orion is improved and allows higher re-entry velocities.
Never believe what "spokespeople" say. They only know enough to be dangerous and the "message" higher ups want to send.

I am curious about such changes and all details that would allow Orion to be a deep space lifeboat.
Orion possesses independence life-support, propulsion, and reentry capacity that would allow a crew to theoretically return to Earth in the event of a mission abort.
 

DangerZone

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,110
Location
Zagreb HR
Never believe what "spokespeople" say. They only know enough to be dangerous and the "message" higher ups want to send.

Orion possesses independence life-support, propulsion, and reentry capacity that would allow a crew to theoretically return to Earth in the event of a mission abort.
Well that's exactly my point. Given it's life-support capacity of three weeks, it's propulsion autonomy and re-entry Vne, have you calculated the PSR radius..? It is quite limited, wouldn't you say..?
 

JamesG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2011
Messages
2,408
Location
Columbus, GA and Albuquerque, NM
It is what NASA specified. Orion was designed and speced out during the Constellation program as the basic crew module for the initial phases of the project, trips to the Moon and back. It has largely emerged exactly as designed (the only piece of Constellation to do so). For further out, it was supposed to only be a piece of a bigger vehicle. For that, it is... fine. Much like everything else Constellation/SLS it is bloated and "Swiss army knifed", but it should be fine IF the US is able to keep shoveling money at it.
 

DangerZone

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,110
Location
Zagreb HR
For further out, it was supposed to only be a piece of a bigger vehicle. For that, it is... fine.
Well, this 'fine' might seem limited to anyone who has knowledge of flight planning and PSR calculation. It is a great module for Moon-and-back operations but the stories about it being a lifeboat of a bigger vehicle just don't add up for anything further like Mars. Unless 2+2 ain't 4 anymore or I'm missing something crucial.
 
Top