Space Launch System - Orion

[annodomini2]

MartG said:

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.

The Saturn V and the rest of it's systems were killed off as the Air Force saw it as a threat to their Heavy Launch systems (Delta, Titan etc).

The rules were basically scrap the S5 and we'll pay for the Space Shuttle.

[Eric Mc]

I've not read that before.

Where did you find that information?

[Globs]

Eric Mc said:

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.

I was reading this Orion page:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Constellation-pro...

where I noticed two interesting things. The first is the Altair Lunar Lander that looks even less stable than the LEM but I guess modern gyros and computers are fast enough to keep it upright.



The Second is the use of the ISS in the project

Britannia said:

Originally, Orion was designed to carry six people to the ISS and four to the Moon, but, to save money in designing Orion, NASA decided to concentrate initially on the four-person model and leave the six-person Orion as a possibility for later in the Constellation program

And then

Britannia said:

in April 2010, Obama announced that work would proceed on the Orion capsule but as a vehicle designed solely for astronauts to escape the ISS in an emergency.

So regardless of orbits and politics the ISS was always part of the plan, but not explicitly mentioned for assembly of the long range rockets. My question still remains however, in a cash strapped NASA why are they reinventing the wheel as we already have a perfectly good Russian system to ISS access? Back then Russia wasn't the 'bad country' either, they only became the 'Designated Enemy' in 2008 so what was NASA doing reinventing the wheel in 2003 or 2005?

MartG said:

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... )

Not being considered, not bringing back to life, not being re-used, no. They only tested the gas generator, a tiny part you've have a job even spotting on the F-1.

the F-1 had an inefficient (dirty, sooty) combustion from a poorly designed injector plate in a weak combustion chamber fed by a wasteful open cycle turbine pump. They were not only expensive and complicated to build but used obsolete brazed pipes that were subject to both pressure and thermal failure as power increased above the rated, designed and tested 1,000,000 lbs. The high nickel content pipes used also have issues of brittleness and failure with extra heat (power) especially with the sulphur in the RP-1 fuel. Pipe wall thickness is a balance between cooling ability OR strength, diameter a balance between pumping losses and strength: but ALL are needed at higher powers. Pumping loss was so high that 1/3rd of the flow (and hence cooling ability) was diverted (via a restrictor!) straight to the crude injector plate and it's rather poor choice of injectors.

The F-1B is a TOTALLY different engine design and I doubt shares anything from the old one apart from the name.

Apart from the Orion not really needing a new heavy lift (unless for rocket segments to be plugged together in orbit) I think NASA hasn't looked at the F-1 because no sane rocket engineer would ever use it again. It's use in Apollo - overdriven to 150% of design - was accompanied by a serious weight saving program and I suspect a lot of crossed fingers. When Apollo 17 left they were probably already sighing with relief and Skylab would have been much lighter - and could be run with the F-1 within it's design and safety envelope.

The F-1 problems are a clear reason for dumping them and quickly moving on. I also doubt NASA want too many questions about them as it would expose how much risk they subjected the astronauts to, I wouldn't be surprised if after the 165 seconds they were quite damaged and S-IC separation 38 miles up was the source of much rejoicing.

With the obsolescence of the F-1 now firmly established perhaps we can avoid this thread pollution, back to Orion!

[Eric Mc]

Who brought up the subject of the F-1 in the first place?

Do you think it would be better policy for the US to continue to rely on the Russians to get to the ISS?

[MartG]

Globs said:

...stuff

And again you have managed to put your own superficial and generally incorrect interpretation on the facts

As Eric said, the ISS was never considered for the assembly of spacecraft in orbit - you have inflated the use of Orion as a crew vehicle for the ISS into something that was never considered, and would not be practical given the ISS' orbital inclination. It was never 'part of the plan'.

You didn't even manage to get the F-1's thrust rating correct when you were slagging it off - it was rated at a nominal 1,500,000 lbf thrust but was reliably tested at up to 1,800,000 lbf. The 1,000,000 lbf figure you quote was a very early iteration of the requirement dating back to the mid-1950s, when it was first being considered by the US Army's ABMA group. The design which made it into production wasn't a 1,000,000lbf engine run at 150%, it was a 1,800,000lbf one run at 80%

You keep calling its design and construction obsolete, but when these engines were designed and used 50 years ago they were cutting edge technology. Even the brazed pipe construction you call obsolete is still in use in the RL-10 to this day !

And yes, they only got as far as testing the gas generator before the Pyrios booster project was canned ( thanks to ATK's political clout favouring the solid booster ), but the F-1B was basically the same engine simplified and updated to use modern manufacturing methods in a way that reflected it's changed intended role.

As for "I wouldn't be surprised if after the 165 seconds they were quite damaged" - you do know every F-1 engine was test fired several times prior to being fitted to the Saturn V, including full duration test firings, and no damage was caused to them during these tests. All your blather about about 'crossed fingers' etc. is pure bullst.

The only place that F-1 obsolesence is 'firmly established' is in your head, which usually seems to be at odds with the real world as seen by people who actually know about this stuff.

[Globs]

MartG said:

As Eric said

Fascinating.

Eric Mc said:

Do you think it would be better policy for the US to continue to rely on the Russians to get to the ISS?

In 2005 it was the better policy yes, of course. You are always saying NASA has limited resources so why bother fixing a problem that was already solved?

Analogy:
If you have a route that needs a bridge and then a tunnel, but there is already a perfectly good bridge, NASA starts straight away building their own bridge next to the old one. Then it runs out of time and money for the tunnel. Again. I'm starting to wonder why NASA is so creative at avoiding the tunnel.

I'm also puzzled why they are now going for Mars but avoiding the Moon. Previously they said here:
http://www.space.com/1553-nasa-unveil-plans-send-4...

Space said:

One of NASA's reasons for going back to the Moon is to demonstrate that astronauts can essentially "live off the land" by using lunar resources to produce potable water, fuel and other valuable commodities. Such capabilities are considered extremely important to human expeditions to Mars which, because of the distances involved, would be much longer missions entailing a minimum of 500 days spent on the planet's surface.

Sounds reasonable no? If they can't camp successfully on the moon what chance have they on mars? Mars is a LOT further away.
Then they decide to skip the moon altogether, suddenly they don't need to prove anything there, so why was it 'extremely important' before? What changed? Orion's is the project that never goes anywhere, a cul-de-sac so they can look like they're doing lots of exciting space stuff without actually having to do any. Every time it looks like they may have to [i]actually travel in space[\i] they veer away to some irrelevant nonsense like re-inventing the wheel.

When the respectable nazi Von Braun showed us in in 1953 how to get to the moon and mars he clearly stated that we ferry the parts up to orbit first, to be assembled and launched from there. Some of Orion's ever changing plans actually followed that idea, but here we are - working on how to get to LEO and the ISS. Again. Except we're only scheduled to get there in 2023. And we already have a Russian solution, proven over many years. WTF?

And all the talk of another giant rocket - the SLS - also not required for this method, so this is another distraction.

https://www.amazon.com/Conquest-Moon-Wernher-Von-B...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Project-Mars-Tech...

In the intervening 64 years our rocket technology has improved a bit using soviet techniques, we already have the research from 7 Apollo trips to the moon (complete with golf and driving), computers and we have solar power so no heavy Exide batteries or fuel cells are required.
Today in 2017 project Orion is still working out how to put a man into orbit and get him back again, a problem they solved on May 5 1961.

Is it just me that can see what's wrong with this picture?

[MartG]

No matter how carefully people try and explain things to you, you seem determined to misconstrue and skew facts in order to try and make them fit some weird kind of conspiracy theory you have come up with.

[Eric Mc]

May 5 1961 - no orbit attempted or achieved.

Your grasp of the facts is very poor.

[Globs]

Eric Mc said:

May 5 1961 - no orbit attempted or achieved.

Your grasp of the facts is very poor.

I meant the first american in space of course, you are correct: he didn't orbit. Well done. He still achieved more than ETF-1 that didn't orbit either - which was the point you would have grasped had your reading comprehension been higher. Orion hasn't even reached 1961 standards yet, 65 years later...

Additionally you and your sidekick 'Conspiracy Marty's grasp of Orion is very poor if you think they are aiming for mars, the CM they are spending all their time and money on is a simple earth re-entry capsule. Do you seriously think they are going to haul a cramped cone to mars and back just because it's useful for earth re-entry? What use is the heat shield they spend 6 months making on mars exactly? The obvious craft would be shaped like a gad cylinder or fire extinguisher: a useful, structural shape of a pressure vessel, perhaps with a method for artificial gravity by spinning.

Can you point to a single Orion project that they are actually spending money on - that is useful for moon or mars travel? Apart from an irrelevant ISS taxi service that's already solved Orion has no discernible deep space application at all.

BTW Eric, Orion is not a history of cutbacks like you always imply, sometimes they are funded very well:
https://spaceflightnow.com/2014/12/16/despite-budg...

Marty: please stop clogging up the Orion thread with Apollo conspiracy st and your flat earther thinking.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-we-did-not-go-to-...

How about you actually post something about Orion for a change instead of being Eric's echo?

[Eric Mc]

Globs - you obviously have your mind set on negativity when it comes to the future space exploration matters. It is pointless discussing things with you as all you can do is throw back at us all the things you think are wrong..

Life is too short for me to be involved with such pessimistic individuals.

I'm excited by what is happening now and what I expect to happen in the near future.

If you want to be miserable about these matters - that is your choice.

Enjoy your misery - you obviously revel in it.

[MartG]

Globs said:

I meant the first american in space of course, you are correct: he didn't orbit. Well done. He still achieved more than ETF-1 that didn't orbit either - which was the point you would have grasped had your reading comprehension been higher. Orion hasn't even reached 1961 standards yet, 65 years later...

It may help if you attempted to compare like with like - EFT-1 was the first unmanned test flight of Orion atop a booster which wasn't designed for it, on a mission designed to validate the design of the capsule and several of its subsystems including testing the heatshield during a high-apogee return. Nothing at all like the manned sub-orbital flight of MR-3, the mission objectives of EFT-1 have no equivalent in the Mercury programme, and were more akin to Apollo 4.

You also totally fail to grasp the concept of testing and validating new technology - EFT-1 was never intended to beat 'standards' set by any earlier programme.

Globs said:

Additionally you and your sidekick 'Conspiracy Marty's grasp of Orion is very poor if you think they are aiming for mars, the CM they are spending all their time and money on is a simple earth re-entry capsule. Do you seriously think they are going to haul a cramped cone to mars and back just because it's useful for earth re-entry? What use is the heat shield they spend 6 months making on mars exactly? The obvious craft would be shaped like a gad cylinder or fire extinguisher: a useful, structural shape of a pressure vessel, perhaps with a method for artificial gravity by spinning.

Can you point to a single Orion project that they are actually spending money on - that is useful for moon or mars travel? Apart from an irrelevant ISS taxi service that's already solved Orion has no discernible deep space application at all.

Once again you are demonstrating your poor knowledge and superficial understanding of NASA's Mars architecture. I'm guessing you've not heard of the Mars Transfer spacecraft or Deep Space Habitats ?

Globs said:

BTW Eric, Orion is not a history of cutbacks like you always imply, sometimes they are funded very well:
https://spaceflightnow.com/2014/12/16/despite-budg...

Try looking a bit deeper - a 'budget boost' in one year does not make up for several years of chronic underfunding, especially when that boost did not reach the funding level in the original project plan.

Globs said:

Marty: please stop clogging up the Orion thread with Apollo conspiracy st and your flat earther thinking.
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-we-did-not-go-to-...

At no point have I posted anything which could be construed by anyone except yourself as 'Apollo conspiracy' or 'flat earther' - on the contrary I find your comment in this regard, along with your other ad hominem attacks personally insulting !

Globs said:

How about you actually post something about Orion for a change instead of being Eric's echo?

May I point out that it was you who dragged comparisons with earlier programmes into the discussion in the first place !

As I have said before, you appear to be determined to skew facts to fit into some strange worldview of your own, while denigrating the attempts of others who have tried to explain things to you, and as you have already started to make personal attacks on me I will have little difficulty in ignoring your deluded ravings in the future.

And do not fking call me 'Marty' !

[Sylvaforever]

[rxe]

OK, riddle me this.

Why do we need to shift huge loads off the planet in one go? As you scale something up, it all becomes exponentially harder, more thrust is needed, heavier structures to contain that thrust etc.

A poster on the first page claimed we can do ~50 tonnes today for about $200 million and this beast will do 70 - 100 tonnes for $4 billion.

I get that if we are going to Mars we need a big ship. But surely we can build it in chunks, and have a mission that carries the fuel as well? They've managed to build the space station out of parts ferried up, why could they not build a Mars mission out of chunks in the same way?

[MartG]

Efficiency.

Yes, you can make a large vessel by docking several modules together, but the mass of the docking systems and the structure around them to give them sufficient strength results in a heavier vehicle - exactly what you don't need on a mission to Mars where every kg matters.

[Eric Mc]

Well, we built the ISS using multiple launches because we didn't have true heavy lift capability. It took about 15 years to build the thing.

How quick could we have built a similar sized station if we had the use of upgraded Saturn V launch vehicles?

I would argue that it could have launched most of the components of the ISS using maybe ten Saturn V launches. I would also argue that it would have been cheaper to launch major components in one go rather than having to assemble lots and lots of smaller bits using multiple launches.

The other factor is that a heavy lift launcher allows loads which are bigger in volume and diameter. The maximum size of the habitable modules of the ISS were limited by the limits of the Shuttle cargo bay and by aerodynamic and lift capabilities of the Russian Proton rocket.

These constraints are far less severe if you have a big booster in the 7 to 10 million pound thrust range.

I've posted these pictures before.

The top image shows the internal size of one of the largest ISS modules.

The bottom picture shows the internal volume of the Skylab workshop - which was actually an entire SIVB stage of a Saturn V converted.

Bear in mind that the SIVB was the SMALLEST of the three Saturn V stages.

SLS or rockets with a similar thrust rating MIGHT allow us to regain this lost lift capability.

[annodomini2]

The bulk of the cost in a non-reusable rocket, is the rocket itself.

Yes a bigger rocket costs more, but not as much as you would think.

So the cost/kg of payload to orbit is cheaper.

Re-usable theoretically changes this, but it depends on how much that re-use costs.

I.e. if it's land-check-refuel-relaunch then great.

if it's land-dismantle-replace half the components-put back together-refuel-relaunch then not so much.

[AW111]

annodomini2 said:

The bulk of the cost in a non-reusable rocket, is the rocket itself.

Yes a bigger rocket costs more, but not as much as you would think.

So the cost/kg of payload to orbit is cheaper.

Re-usable theoretically changes this, but it depends on how much that re-use costs.

I.e. if it's land-check-refuel-relaunch then great.

if it's land-dismantle-replace half the components-put back together-refuel-relaunch then not so much.

I would love to see Orion come back to land tail-first a la SpaceX.

[Sylvaforever]

So Eric, what one do you think had the "bigger" chance of flying?

[Eric Mc]

It's all down to time and money. I expect the Blue Origin project is more likely to fly first. They are already constructing elements of the first booster.

However, anything can happen - and neither may ever get to fly.

[Sylvaforever]

It was YOU who dithered on about rebuilt S5, how does BH suddenly enter your argument, apart from your incessant anti Musk dithering.