Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
Re Rover. There is a manual for it.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvhand.html
Including the deployment.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/lrvhand.html
Including the deployment.
Eric Mc said:
Regarding the Rover, do you realise how difficult it was to actually move in an Apollo moon suit? Tasks that you could easily do in your garage in a shirt sleeve environment would be virtually impossible to do in a moon suit. The torso was very stiff as were the gloves - and of course, you wouldn't have the fingertip dexterity required for normal mechanical assembly. They simply could not have bent down to the level the chassis sat to do any work on it.
The system derived for the Rover meant it virtually assembled itself.
Here's Apollo 15 where they waste over 10 minutes grappling with the weird and unnecessary rover deployment. You can see them simply bend down to the level of the chassis to untangle it from the LM.The system derived for the Rover meant it virtually assembled itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4t2k0BI72U
With difficult suits you need two big handles. Then the two astronauts would release it (like they had to do anyway in the video), then simply pick it up and walk away from the lander, dump it on the ground and let it unfold away from obstructions.
MartG said:
You also seem to be confusing an acceptable dosage rate with ‘no radiation’. Astronauts on the Apollo flights did receive a radiation dosage greater than if they had remained on earth, but the dosage was acceptable as it was for a relatively short duration – the area of greatest risk being as they passed through the Van Allen belts. However very little time was spent in this region as they passed through the belts in only a few hours. The Apollo flights also took place during a time of minimum solar activity, and had a solar storm occurred prior to launch the mission would have been delayed, or aborted if one occurred during a flight.
Odd, I thought the late 1960s was a period of sunspots and solar maxima. Are you sure solar activity was a minimum? What about the big CME between 16 and 17? It doesn't matter anyway, with a less active sun we get higher cosmic ray incidence, it's a choice between the two, there really is no minima for space radiation.Apollo 11's journal gives a time from 2:44 to 8:30 and 189:28 to 194:53 in the known region of the belts. A total of 11.25 hours. The journal is interesting in the total absence of any radiation readings as they travelled there, if NASA did try to minimise them with the trajectory they didn't seem to bother checking on the way up or down - regular readings would have been extremely useful in mapping the belts - like ETF-1 did. Where are the charts from Apollo 8 on?
Then by definition they spent over 180 hours in open space, some of it just in their suits, all the time being hit by direct and secondary radiation.
The ultimate test of space radiation is how ill it makes astronauts. Looking at the health and ages of all the Apollo crews it's clear that it's not a big deal and you have to look really hard to find any issues (there was a recent report about that). External radiation is not actually that harmful, internal alpha is what does the damage. Apollo basically started a 50 year long term test of the effects of space radiation with all the astronauts being the test subjects. The test passed.
So why is Orion wasting it's time faffing about with Polyethylene and an entire test flight measuring radiation?
Remember Apollo took 1 year from Apollo 1's fire and Grissom condemning the whole program to the legendary Apollo 8 moon shot, so far half a century later we have from 2007 to today with Orion and all they've managed is one pointless test flight.
Hell, with Apollo they didn't even test the LM until Neil landed it and they took off again, Orion have failed to learn from that and are over testing and over worrying with irrelevant PC crap that has put the first manned flight back to 2023. If Apollo had done that we'd have had an elderly Neil and Buzz tottering about on the moon in the late 1980s. Or possibly the Russian N1 getting there first...
NASA lost the plot when they scrapped the world's best launch ever: Saturn V. Even the modern Russian engines can't compete with that!
Oh and putting them in museums counts as scrapping: they are not operational.
Today they are obsessing about radiation and making Orion the worlds slowest space programme ever.
As much as you say it's down to money I didn't notice Bush or Obama telling them to worry about radiation. Indeed they were busy filling the middle east with depleted uranium dust and getting american soldiers killed and maimed so I doubt they'd care. Look at the shiny Orion videos with the fresh faced millennials explaining how dangerous radiation is and how they need to solve these challenges before manned flight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBxPSjHzr_w
I mean - how old is she - 17? Take a look at Buzz, he's 87. Look at Neil, reached 82. She'll be lucky to live that long on the ground.
Orion seems to be failing at everything, no progress, no manned flights, no exploration, slowly bit by bit being an inferior copy of Apollo at every step.
I'm mystified by Orion, there's nothing on the moon to see and we can see Mars from the rovers. At this rate a moon shot won't be until 2050, something Apollo did without incident back in 1968. Makes you think - something's seriously wrong at NASA today.
Globs said:
Remember Apollo took 1 year from Apollo 1's fire and Grissom condemning the whole program to the legendary Apollo 8 moon shot, so far half a century later we have from 2007 to today with Orion and all they've managed is one pointless test flight.
Hell, with Apollo they didn't even test the LM until Neil landed it and they took off again,
Did you read ANY of what MartG or I wrote.Hell, with Apollo they didn't even test the LM until Neil landed it and they took off again,
You seem to be trying to rewrite the entire Apollo history.
They tested the Lunar Module THREE TIMES in space before Apollo 11 (not including hundreds of tests on the ground).
At no point did Grissom condemn the who Apollo programme. He made a specific complaint about the readiness of the Command Module SIMULATOR (note - not the actual Command Module).
And there is nothing wrong with NASA today that a decent budget wouldn't fix.
It is very frustrating trying to educate people who refuse to listen.
Globs said:
...more stuff...
You seem determined to fabricate a conspiracy theory about Orion and radiation 
Orion isn't just meant for quick trips to the Moon, it is intended as a deep space vehicle to be used for extended missions such as asteroid rendezvous, so requires better shielding than Apollo had for it's quick trips to the Moon and back. Of course they are going to want to test it ! But testing the radiation shielding is only a small part of the tests carried out during the flight - it isn't NASA 'obsessing' about radiation, it is you !
And to address another point you raise - while the Apollo astronauts all carried dosimeters to monitor their personal radiation dosage, there was no need for the spacecraft to carry one too - plenty of unmanned spacecraft have travelled the same path before and since Apollo, carrying much more sensitive instruments than could have been fitted into Apollo.
Eric Mc said:
They tested the Lunar Module THREE TIMES in space before Apollo 11 (not including hundreds of tests on the ground).
Yes, as I said - untested. f
k all use testing it in space. The LM's primary mission to land on the moon and to take off again, it would be rather inconvenient for Neil and Buzz for it to fail either the landing or the descent. Not like they can catch the bus or call triple A.The first time any LM completed a lunar landing was in Apollo 11
Then it sat in the sun for 2 days
The first time any LM completed a lunar ascent was in Apollo 11
These had not been tested, Apollo 11 was the first time EVER.
Firing the ascent motor from a flat platform in lunar gravity is very different from their 'test'.
You seem to be re-writing history, not me. Apollo proved that not much can really go wrong in space, and if it does it's not a big problem (Apollo 13). So why are Orion so paranoid? It's a rocket on a tin can with life support. As long as the rocket's fired in the right direction for the right duration it works. Done already.
Grissom is used as a point of progress in Apollo history to highlight that it took only 1 year to progress to a moonshot and only 2 to walk on the moon.
Additionally it only took 4 years from that point to being able to drive around the moon in a rover. When they finally wrestled it free that it.
The speed of progress is useful to compare to Orion as they are effectively trying to achieve the same (or lesser) result. The puzzle is why Orion progress is so slow - I'd say Orion's ETF-1 was around the point of Apollo in 1967, so in 2014 + 4 = 2018 Orion should be allowing people to drive on the moon if its only the same speed of progress. Given todays's tech we should be able to get their faster but given the odd paranoia of Orion perhaps it should take a bit longer.
MartG said:
You seem determined to fabricate a conspiracy theory about Orion and radiation rolleyes
Orion isn't just meant for quick trips to the Moon
And to address another point you raise - while the Apollo astronauts all carried dosimeters to monitor their personal radiation dosage, there was no need for the spacecraft to carry one too
Lets put a lid on your conspiracy theories right now. Apollo has proven space travel to be safe and the radiation to be a non problem. It's Orion that is the problem - not Apollo. Apollo is done and dusted, they went there 7-8 times, got the T-shirt and lived long and happy lives. They rarely sent the same astronauts twice - I guess to lower exposure - but fundamentally for a short moon trip it's proven comprehensively to be safe. What don't you understand about that proof? Orion isn't just meant for quick trips to the Moon
And to address another point you raise - while the Apollo astronauts all carried dosimeters to monitor their personal radiation dosage, there was no need for the spacecraft to carry one too
If you are an Apollo denier then you should consider 400,000 people were involved in Apollo and we have the evidence, hardware, photos and videos to prove it, and we also have the astronauts. Do you seriously think there's been a cover up of that magnitude for half a century?? FFS. There's even photos of the landing sites and the modules and flags. Seriously - do us all a favour. It was real, even if you don't think so. They went. They came back. Healthy. Live with it.
Here they are, healthy, happy and not a single sign of radiation sickness, no hair loss, no lesions. Nada. Probably quite relieved too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI
So please don't start any of that denier crap with me, I thought better of you. There is clear evidence that space travel is SAFE. Period. FACT. We have the ISS and thousands of satellites that prove it too. And 50 years of astronauts not getting cancer etc. Fact.
The Orion team - that this thread is about - however IS obsessed with radiation and I'm curious as to WHY. It's a reasonable question. Orion drops a capsule in water and on land - hurrah. Welcome to the early 1960s. They attach parachutes. Whoopeedo. They fly an empty tin can about. Whoopee. Seen it all before. Boring. Pointless.
BTW Orion IS going to the moon:
http://www.space.com/19289-new-nasa-capsule-to-fly...
They can use the moon missions to gather data for Mars flights, no need to add radiation shielding for several more years, it's simply not an urgent problem.
Note their planned moon-shot in the link is unmanned - again. Great. Apollo 8 did it in 1968 but better, with astronauts on board. Yawn.
As for your dosimeters - that's a different measurement - do you read any of what I write?
A single number for the trip is meaningless - we know the exposure was low because the astronauts were healthy. The point was that IF NASA was concerned so much with dodging the Van Allen belts (they weren't BTW), they would have used the VERY expensive Apollo missions to map them as a function of position vs level, and t confirm they were avoiding them.
As you state that there's no need to map them can you explain why Orion did an entire test flight to gather that exact information?
Which is where we started.. deja vue all over again....
Orion's weird obsession:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/orion/2014/12/05/entering-f...
Edited by Globs on Saturday 25th March 23:03
Globs said:
...more stuff....
What the hell are you on about ?At no point have Eric or I said anything about denying the moon landings happened - quite the opposite, yet somewhere in your brain you have managed to twist our attempts to explain things to you into us being conspiracy nuts
We have tried to explain to you that Orion is intended for much longer missions than Apollo, where cumulative dosage will be higher requiring improved shielding to mitigate exposure. Sensibly they are looking to include this shielding in the basic Orion design, not rip it apart and clag it on later as you would prefer them to do. Other aspects of Orion's design are also aimed at the intended long duration missions ( ECS, thermal control, etc. ) - yet you seem to be totally unable to see anything other than the part about radiation.
"we know the exposure was low because the astronauts were healthy." - no, we know the dosage was acceptable over the duration of the mission because the dosimeters carried by the astronauts told us.
Orion did not do an entire flight to map the van Allen belts. It made a single pass in a high orbit to study how the vehicle and its systems reacted to a higher radiation environment than that found in low orbit.
As for testing the LM, all three test flights carried out simulated landing profiles - the only thing missing was the footpads touching something solid. Oddly you seem rather hung up on saying the LM was untested until the actual landing, yet whine on about Orion being tested in the environment it is intended for
Overall you appear to have a very simplistic view of spacecraft development, and an unwillingness to see beyond your prejudices. You don't even seem to understand that the rate of progress of Apollo compared to Orion/SLS was down to a combination of political support and budget - Apollo had a lot more of both than SLS and Orion have. Spacecraft development is expensive, and without proper funding then progress will be slow.
Interesting...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/for-the-fi...
Though I have my doubts about much of it actually happening before it all gets cancelled again
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/for-the-fi...
Though I have my doubts about much of it actually happening before it all gets cancelled again
I don't think there is a great reawakening of NASA space exploration coming in all honestly just more soak for the $$$$$$$$$$'s.
It will be the commercial enterprises (if they escape NASA "oversight") that will lead the way.
NASA is like the EU, a bureaucracy, inwards looking and morbidity bound...
It will be the commercial enterprises (if they escape NASA "oversight") that will lead the way.
NASA is like the EU, a bureaucracy, inwards looking and morbidity bound...
Sylvaforever said:
I don't think there is a great reawakening of NASA space exploration coming in all honestly just more soak for the $$$$$$$$$$'s.
It will be the commercial enterprises (if they escape NASA "oversight") that will lead the way.
NASA is like the EU, a bureaucracy, inwards looking and morbidity bound...
M<ore like "hamstrung by inadequate politicians who lack vision and consistency".It will be the commercial enterprises (if they escape NASA "oversight") that will lead the way.
NASA is like the EU, a bureaucracy, inwards looking and morbidity bound...
RobDickinson said:
See the report on them spending 72% on admin :/
Eric Mc said:
More like "hamstrung by inadequate politicians who lack vision and consistency".
So which is it, external politicians or internal waste?With 72% wasted they could triple their engineering spend from 28% to 84% without asking for another cent; no?
Timescales are against any mars trip, here's the score so far:
2003 Orion started
2014 (Dec) Launch an empty CM with a $5 mickey mouse camera
https://blogs.nasa.gov/orion/2014/12/05/entering-f...
2023 Projected man in orbit.
That's two decades to do what the ISS trips do on a regular basis.... what am I missing here?
The original plan was to visit the lunar surface in 2018: Next Year!
http://www.space.com/1567-nasa-moon-plans-apollo-s...
Then they changed their mind and just wanted to orbit the moon, not step onto it.
Now they want to actually go to mars, despite some epic project slippage.
So we could say manned moon orbits by 2040?
Mars by 2070?
Are we going to be alive to see this happen? It's not looking likely from the evidence.
Looking at where that 20 years has evaporated to I don't see why they even need the Orion CM at all - what's the point of it? They can stack up the ships and plug them together next to the ISS and use that as an existing base of operations, then the CM is totally redundant - at least as an awkward re-entry vehicle with weird heat shielding instead of the tried and tested phenolic.. Someone posted a wonderful picture of Orion's parachutes showing just how far we'd come in 2014 - almost to levels we achieved in 1967 - but why bother when we already have an orbiting space station with routine trips up and down.
I realise now why NASA abandoned the F-1 engine, I researched it and it was essentially crap and obsolete even as it was built, but the puzzling question is why they are even looking at heavy lifters when the original Von Braun option of assembling in orbit would be hugely facilitated by the ISS.
From 1955 complete with space station and shuttle, before JFK turned it into a race:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY
Personally I'm hoping they start using the ISS as a tool - a B&B in space - and stop blowing their available 28% budget on being able to blast past it as if it wasn't there. Is there some international law that prevents the ISS being used like the 1955 idea to assemble ships for exploration of the moon and mars? Is the orbit all wrong for them or something?
BTW: I'm not trying to derail your thread, I'm really curious why they are doing Orion the way they are.
The ISS is far from ideal as a launch platform. It's orbital inclination is not ideal. The inclination it has was to favour earth resource uses - rather than spaceflight further out. Also, politically, the ISS inclination was angled to make sure it passed overhead those countries that had funded it.
After all, those who have paid for the most expensive engineering project in history deserve to be able to get to see it every now and then.
I'm not knocking the ISS in any way - but it was not envisaged as a future launch pad for solar system exploration - so it has limitations if it was to be repurposed for something along those lines.
After all, those who have paid for the most expensive engineering project in history deserve to be able to get to see it every now and then.
I'm not knocking the ISS in any way - but it was not envisaged as a future launch pad for solar system exploration - so it has limitations if it was to be repurposed for something along those lines.
Globs said:
I realise now why NASA abandoned the F-1 engine, I researched it and it was essentially crap and obsolete even as it was built,
Seems your 'research' is up to your usual standard The F-1 was so 'crap and obsolete' that it is being considered for use in the next generation of liquid fuel boosters for SLS
( https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-b... )And NASA didn't 'abandon' it - Nixon killed off the only booster at the time big enough to need it.
Tenuous SLS link - the RL-10 will be used in SLS' upper stage...
"Full-Scale RL10 3-D Printed Copper Thrust Chamber Achieves Successful Testing Milestone.
Aerojet Rocketdyne has actively been working over the last decade to incorporate 3-D printing technology into the RL10 and other propulsion systems to make them more affordable while taking advantage of the inherent design and performance capabilities made possible by 3-D printing.
They successfully hot-fire tested a full-scale, additively manufactured thrust chamber assembly for the RL10 rocket engine that was built from a copper alloy using selective laser melting (SLM) technology, which is often referred to as 3-D printing.
The 3-D printed RL10 copper thrust chamber would replace the current RL10C-1 model design that uses a very complex array of drawn, hydroformed stainless steel tubes that are brazed together to form a thrust chamber. The new chamber design is made up of only two primary copper parts and takes just under a month to print using SLM technology; reducing overall lead time by several months. The part count reduction of greater than 90 percent is significant as it reduces complexity and cost when compared with RL10 thrust chambers that are built today using traditional manufacturing techniques.
Another key benefit provided by 3-D printing is the ability to design and build advanced features that allow for improved heat transfer. For many rocket engine applications, this enhanced heat transfer capability enables a more compact and lighter engine, which is highly desirable in space launch applications to deliver high performance, and reliability while substantially reducing component production costs.
Aerojet Rocketdyne is applying 3-D printing technology to many of its other products, including the RS-25 engines that will help explore deep space, and the company’s new AR1 booster engine that is being developed to replace Russian-built RD-180 engines by the congressionally-mandated deadline of 2019."
"Full-Scale RL10 3-D Printed Copper Thrust Chamber Achieves Successful Testing Milestone.
Aerojet Rocketdyne has actively been working over the last decade to incorporate 3-D printing technology into the RL10 and other propulsion systems to make them more affordable while taking advantage of the inherent design and performance capabilities made possible by 3-D printing.
They successfully hot-fire tested a full-scale, additively manufactured thrust chamber assembly for the RL10 rocket engine that was built from a copper alloy using selective laser melting (SLM) technology, which is often referred to as 3-D printing.
The 3-D printed RL10 copper thrust chamber would replace the current RL10C-1 model design that uses a very complex array of drawn, hydroformed stainless steel tubes that are brazed together to form a thrust chamber. The new chamber design is made up of only two primary copper parts and takes just under a month to print using SLM technology; reducing overall lead time by several months. The part count reduction of greater than 90 percent is significant as it reduces complexity and cost when compared with RL10 thrust chambers that are built today using traditional manufacturing techniques.
Another key benefit provided by 3-D printing is the ability to design and build advanced features that allow for improved heat transfer. For many rocket engine applications, this enhanced heat transfer capability enables a more compact and lighter engine, which is highly desirable in space launch applications to deliver high performance, and reliability while substantially reducing component production costs.
Aerojet Rocketdyne is applying 3-D printing technology to many of its other products, including the RS-25 engines that will help explore deep space, and the company’s new AR1 booster engine that is being developed to replace Russian-built RD-180 engines by the congressionally-mandated deadline of 2019."
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff