Discussion
In today’s Times:
This is behind the paywall.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/space/articl...
This one is on the beeb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/18690498
In a nutshell, both cover NASA’s Orion space capsule. Apparently they are planning a mission to Mars in “2030."
This is behind the paywall.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/space/articl...
This one is on the beeb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/18690498
In a nutshell, both cover NASA’s Orion space capsule. Apparently they are planning a mission to Mars in “2030."
Simpo Two said:
Isn't the width going to cause an issue? Why not have it narrower but two storeys?
Because it might come down like a "f
king dart!" 
I suppose with the thinner atmosphere, you need a wider section to create enough drag to slow you down enough for the drones, and chutes to be used? A thinner craft would not have that? I am awaiting to be shot in the face by Eric for being wrong now...
The CST-100 is undergoing tests: This is the orbital manoeuvring system,
"Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne has successfully completed a series of tests on a thruster destined for Boeing's Commercial Space Transportation spacecraft, designated CST-100.
Boeing is one of several companies working to develop crew transportation capabilities under the Commercial Crew Development Round 2 agreement with NASA's Commercial Crew Program. The goal of the program is to help spur innovation and development of safe, reliable and cost-effective spacecraft and launch vehicles capable of transporting astronauts to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station.
Twenty-four thrusters will be part of the spacecraft's orbital maneuvering and attitude control system (OMAC), giving the CST-100 the ability to maneuver in space and during re-entry. The thrusters also will allow the spacecraft to separate from its launch vehicle if an abort becomes necessary during launch or ascent.
"Boeing and Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne know what it takes to develop safe systems and subsystems," said NASA Commercial Crew Program Manager Ed Mango. "They're building on the successes of their past, while pushing the envelope with next-generation ideas to create a spacecraft for low Earth orbit transportation."
During tests conducted at NASA's White Sands Test Facility in Las Cruces, N.M., an OMAC thruster was fired in a vacuum chamber that simulated a space-like environment of 100,000 feet. The tests verified the durability of the thrusters in extreme heat, evaluated the opening and closing of its valves and confirmed continuous combustion and performance.
"We're excited about the performance of the engine during the testing and confident the OMAC thrusters will affordably meet operational needs for safe, reliable human spaceflight," said Terry Lorier, Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne's Commercial Crew Development program manager.
All of NASA's industry partners, including Boeing, continue to meet their established milestones in developing commercial crew transportation capabilities.”
In terms of launch capability, NASA report this:
Orion is being designed for rides uphill on the Space Launch System (SLS) – a Shuttle Derived (SD) Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) which utilizes elements from the Constellation and Shuttle programs."
"Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne has successfully completed a series of tests on a thruster destined for Boeing's Commercial Space Transportation spacecraft, designated CST-100.
Boeing is one of several companies working to develop crew transportation capabilities under the Commercial Crew Development Round 2 agreement with NASA's Commercial Crew Program. The goal of the program is to help spur innovation and development of safe, reliable and cost-effective spacecraft and launch vehicles capable of transporting astronauts to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station.
Twenty-four thrusters will be part of the spacecraft's orbital maneuvering and attitude control system (OMAC), giving the CST-100 the ability to maneuver in space and during re-entry. The thrusters also will allow the spacecraft to separate from its launch vehicle if an abort becomes necessary during launch or ascent.
"Boeing and Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne know what it takes to develop safe systems and subsystems," said NASA Commercial Crew Program Manager Ed Mango. "They're building on the successes of their past, while pushing the envelope with next-generation ideas to create a spacecraft for low Earth orbit transportation."
During tests conducted at NASA's White Sands Test Facility in Las Cruces, N.M., an OMAC thruster was fired in a vacuum chamber that simulated a space-like environment of 100,000 feet. The tests verified the durability of the thrusters in extreme heat, evaluated the opening and closing of its valves and confirmed continuous combustion and performance.
"We're excited about the performance of the engine during the testing and confident the OMAC thrusters will affordably meet operational needs for safe, reliable human spaceflight," said Terry Lorier, Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne's Commercial Crew Development program manager.
All of NASA's industry partners, including Boeing, continue to meet their established milestones in developing commercial crew transportation capabilities.”
In terms of launch capability, NASA report this:
Orion is being designed for rides uphill on the Space Launch System (SLS) – a Shuttle Derived (SD) Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV) which utilizes elements from the Constellation and Shuttle programs."
NailedOn said:
In today’s Times:
This is behind the paywall.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/space/articl...
This one is on the beeb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/18690498
In a nutshell, both cover NASA’s Orion space capsule. Apparently they are planning a mission to Mars in “2030."
Could this be one of the reasons they are using the rocket sky crane to lower the latest rover thing onto the surface of mars?This is behind the paywall.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/space/articl...
This one is on the beeb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/18690498
In a nutshell, both cover NASA’s Orion space capsule. Apparently they are planning a mission to Mars in “2030."
TheHeretic said:
Simpo Two said:
Isn't the width going to cause an issue? Why not have it narrower but two storeys?
Because it might come down like a "fking dart!" I suppose with the thinner atmosphere, you need a wider section to create enough drag to slow you down enough for the drones, and chutes to be used? A thinner craft would not have that? In blunt body re-entry dynamics, thin and pointy is bad, fat and squat is good.
If you look at all the manned re-entry capsules, you will see that they all, up to a point, follow a similar shape. The only real exceptions to this were the original Soviet Vostok and Voshkod re-entry spheres.
The early American capsules (Mercury and Gemini) were a bit taller than they were wide - but the Apollo capsule was pretty much the optimal shape - especially when you consider that it re-entered the earth's atmosphere at 25,000 mph. Orion is designed to withstand similar re-entry speeds so that is why its proprtions match that of the Apollo Command Module.
It is bigger though and can accomodate up to seven crew.
If you look at all the manned re-entry capsules, you will see that they all, up to a point, follow a similar shape. The only real exceptions to this were the original Soviet Vostok and Voshkod re-entry spheres.
The early American capsules (Mercury and Gemini) were a bit taller than they were wide - but the Apollo capsule was pretty much the optimal shape - especially when you consider that it re-entered the earth's atmosphere at 25,000 mph. Orion is designed to withstand similar re-entry speeds so that is why its proprtions match that of the Apollo Command Module.
It is bigger though and can accomodate up to seven crew.
Simpo Two said:
I thought this was going to land on Mars, where alternative braking is needed anyway as the atmosphere is too thin.
Anyway, if it hangs off the side of the booster they will just have to bodge it with gaffer tape
Nope - the Orion capsule won't be landing on Mars. It's job will be akin to the Apollo Command Module - only bigger and more capable. Separate lunar and Mars landers will need to be devloped.Anyway, if it hangs off the side of the booster they will just have to bodge it with gaffer tape
Engineer1 said:
I like the idea of a oneway trip provided it is the start of a colonization rather than a publicity stunt more a founding fathers get there, get it habitable, work towards being able to build their economy and a transport system back to earth.
All they need to do is start the alien reactor And "free Mars" 
aw51 121565 said:
This reminds me, for some reason, of Douglas Adams' writing regarding a space ship full of telephone sanitizers . The B Ark, if I recall? (Could be wrong, it's been a long time since I read his books 
.
Subsequent posts on this thread have just reaffirmed my thoughts that Mr Adams had some damn good ideas & insight!
Wasnt it a ship full lawyers? or am I thinking of something else. . The B Ark, if I recall? (Could be wrong, it's been a long time since I read his books .Subsequent posts on this thread have just reaffirmed my thoughts that Mr Adams had some damn good ideas & insight!
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff