Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
NASA WANTS to put humans in space. It's why it was set up in the first place.
It had a gap between 1975 and 1981. It returned to flying humans after that gap. It will do so again after the current gap period.
At the moment, no other manned programme has the capability of lifting humans out of earth's gravity well. That's what SLS is for. All the other manned programmes are low earth orbit craft only. NASA wants to move on from that rather limited capability.
It had a gap between 1975 and 1981. It returned to flying humans after that gap. It will do so again after the current gap period.
At the moment, no other manned programme has the capability of lifting humans out of earth's gravity well. That's what SLS is for. All the other manned programmes are low earth orbit craft only. NASA wants to move on from that rather limited capability.
NASA needs a big booster to send their manned craft away from the earth. That is not something determined on a whim. It is determined by Newton's laws.
If they ONLY intended to use Orion for earth orbit missions, then they could very well have made use of a lower energy and lower thrust rocket. In the Apollo era, that is what they did - Saturn IB for simple low earth orbit missions, Saturn V for missions to the moon.
In the current set up, Orion will be used mainly, if not exclusively, for non earth orbit missions. The low earth orbit realm has been handed over to the commercial companies Boeing, SpaceX and possible a couple of others. I am sure NASA would love to have been able to develop their own family of boosters themselves for all the missions they might envisage for Orion - but they weren't allowed to go down that route by their political masters.
As it is, the SLS is fairly well down the development and construction path now and it would be utterly stupid to cancel it at this late stage. Unfortunately, we do seem to have an utterly stupid administration ion the White House at the moment so it could very well get the axe.
If they ONLY intended to use Orion for earth orbit missions, then they could very well have made use of a lower energy and lower thrust rocket. In the Apollo era, that is what they did - Saturn IB for simple low earth orbit missions, Saturn V for missions to the moon.
In the current set up, Orion will be used mainly, if not exclusively, for non earth orbit missions. The low earth orbit realm has been handed over to the commercial companies Boeing, SpaceX and possible a couple of others. I am sure NASA would love to have been able to develop their own family of boosters themselves for all the missions they might envisage for Orion - but they weren't allowed to go down that route by their political masters.
As it is, the SLS is fairly well down the development and construction path now and it would be utterly stupid to cancel it at this late stage. Unfortunately, we do seem to have an utterly stupid administration ion the White House at the moment so it could very well get the axe.
Which is feasible - but developing two or multiple launcher systems for one mission may not be cost effective or practical and also increases the technical risks. I'm sure you know that Werner Von Braun favoured a twin launch method for his Apollo missions but was won around eventually to accept that a single launcher made more sense.
I know other organisations - such as SpaceX and Blue Origin have plans for mega boosters and I hope thy do get around to building them. But they are a way off at the moment. The SLS is actually being built right now. My only beef is that the funding is so low that everything is taking far too long. The main risk associated with SLS is political.
I know other organisations - such as SpaceX and Blue Origin have plans for mega boosters and I hope thy do get around to building them. But they are a way off at the moment. The SLS is actually being built right now. My only beef is that the funding is so low that everything is taking far too long. The main risk associated with SLS is political.
Any link?
It was always an option but only if the private sector failed or were slow to deliver.
Although I am very supportive of SpaceX and Dragon, I think they are finding that putting humans on top of their rockets creates a whole order of magnitude of difficulty.
And there have been delays and revisions to the Boeing Starliner/Atlas combination as well due to aerodynamic and structural issues where the capsule mates with the booster.
This stuff is not easy, even after 60 years.
It was always an option but only if the private sector failed or were slow to deliver.
Although I am very supportive of SpaceX and Dragon, I think they are finding that putting humans on top of their rockets creates a whole order of magnitude of difficulty.
And there have been delays and revisions to the Boeing Starliner/Atlas combination as well due to aerodynamic and structural issues where the capsule mates with the booster.
This stuff is not easy, even after 60 years.
What's the alternative - not test it all all?
There are lots of factors regarding the engine itself that needs to be checked. Obviously, they can't replicate G-Loading in a static test but there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other criteria that can be measured.
The only way to test an engine under full launch conditions is to actually launch it.
Back in the 50s and early 1960s when there were pretty much unlimited budgets for rocket testing, dozens of rockets such as the Atlas were test fired in various configurations before actual operational use as a satellite launcher or ballistic missile.
By the time the Saturn V arrived, because of its sheer size and cost only limited all up tests could be carried out. Two were launched unmanned before committing to manned launches. However, lots of static test firings were made of the F1 engines which revealsed serious problems that needed sorting.
The same went for the Shuttle main engines. The engines they are test firing now are previously used Shuttle engines which are being upgraded so that they will be able to fire them at higher thrust settings for SLS launches.
There are lots of factors regarding the engine itself that needs to be checked. Obviously, they can't replicate G-Loading in a static test but there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other criteria that can be measured.
The only way to test an engine under full launch conditions is to actually launch it.
Back in the 50s and early 1960s when there were pretty much unlimited budgets for rocket testing, dozens of rockets such as the Atlas were test fired in various configurations before actual operational use as a satellite launcher or ballistic missile.
By the time the Saturn V arrived, because of its sheer size and cost only limited all up tests could be carried out. Two were launched unmanned before committing to manned launches. However, lots of static test firings were made of the F1 engines which revealsed serious problems that needed sorting.
The same went for the Shuttle main engines. The engines they are test firing now are previously used Shuttle engines which are being upgraded so that they will be able to fire them at higher thrust settings for SLS launches.
It's amazing what you can do with unlimited budgets i.e. the Apollo era.
And it shows what you CANNOT do when operating under extremely restricted budgets (i.e. Orion and SLS).
If Orion and SLS had been funded in the same way as Apollo was, then progress would have been much more rapid.
Also, there is no way they would easily reuse the engineering in Apollo.
Would you be happy flying the Atlantic in an Avro Lancastrian compared to a Boeing 777?
Technology and computing has moved on by a factor of multi-generations since the original specifications for Apollo were laid down (much of it dates from the mid 1950s).
You cannot rewind the clock and try to restart technology that is over half a century old. For a start, much of what was used and what was done back then just can't be done today - for all sorts of reasons.
The basic materials may not be available
The people with the knowledge to use and work with those materials and techniques are now retired, old and/or dead
The companies that made the items and materials no longer exist
The "plans" no longer exist(if there ever were plans - in the simple sense).
The knowledge networks and lore of that era no longer exists
You have to go with the knowledge, materials and people you have available now, not yesterday.
OK, you can consult the old plans and the old techniques and talk to the surviving veterans of the previous era and make as much use of their knowledge and experience as you can - but you cannot just lift ancient technology out of its time zone and try to revive it for use today.
And it shows what you CANNOT do when operating under extremely restricted budgets (i.e. Orion and SLS).
If Orion and SLS had been funded in the same way as Apollo was, then progress would have been much more rapid.
Also, there is no way they would easily reuse the engineering in Apollo.
Would you be happy flying the Atlantic in an Avro Lancastrian compared to a Boeing 777?
Technology and computing has moved on by a factor of multi-generations since the original specifications for Apollo were laid down (much of it dates from the mid 1950s).
You cannot rewind the clock and try to restart technology that is over half a century old. For a start, much of what was used and what was done back then just can't be done today - for all sorts of reasons.
The basic materials may not be available
The people with the knowledge to use and work with those materials and techniques are now retired, old and/or dead
The companies that made the items and materials no longer exist
The "plans" no longer exist(if there ever were plans - in the simple sense).
The knowledge networks and lore of that era no longer exists
You have to go with the knowledge, materials and people you have available now, not yesterday.
OK, you can consult the old plans and the old techniques and talk to the surviving veterans of the previous era and make as much use of their knowledge and experience as you can - but you cannot just lift ancient technology out of its time zone and try to revive it for use today.
Beati Dogu said:
Even Rockwell, who built all the Space Shuttle orbiters as well as the Apollo Command/Service Modules is no longer in existence.
They didn't just build the Command/Service Module either. They also built the SII stage of the Saturn V.What should have happened, of course, is that Saturn V production should never have been closed down. Production could have been scaled back so that one or two were available each year for specific heavy lift requirements. If the production had continued, then the V would have evolved over time with new materials and technologies being ontroduced over the decades - much as has happened with the Russian R7 rocket and the American Delta and Atlas family.
But, that didn't happen and the last components for Saturn Vs were more or less completed before the end of 1970 - almost half a century ago,.
You just can't put something of that scale back into production after such a long gap in time.
Why back engineer the Titanic when you can have the Queen Mary II?
NASA already doesn't deploy satellites for anybody now. They gave up trying to be a commercial satellite trucking service during the Shuttle era.
NASA is fundamentally a research and development organisation and it will have a role in that area for decades, if the US government deems that they need it.
NASA is fundamentally a research and development organisation and it will have a role in that area for decades, if the US government deems that they need it.
Perhaps. SpaceX certainly has big ambitions and I wish them well in what they intend to do.
BUT, they have yet to even fly a manned craft in earth orbital flight (or even sub-orbital flight for that matter) let alone send a craft 250,000 miles out to the moon and back, with people.
We know at least that NASA has done that, multiple times. And we do know that the first SLS rockets are being built right now - so progress is being made, even if it is painfully slow.
There is the possibility that the slowness of SLS/Orion (due to the restricted budgets mentioned above) could result in SpaceX and perhaps Blue Origin overtaking NASA in its manned spaceflight capabilities.
Time will tell.
BUT, they have yet to even fly a manned craft in earth orbital flight (or even sub-orbital flight for that matter) let alone send a craft 250,000 miles out to the moon and back, with people.
We know at least that NASA has done that, multiple times. And we do know that the first SLS rockets are being built right now - so progress is being made, even if it is painfully slow.
There is the possibility that the slowness of SLS/Orion (due to the restricted budgets mentioned above) could result in SpaceX and perhaps Blue Origin overtaking NASA in its manned spaceflight capabilities.
Time will tell.
Globs said:
Eric Mc said:
Perhaps. SpaceX certainly has big ambitions and I wish them well in what they intend to do.
BUT, they have yet to even fly a manned craft in earth orbital flight (or even sub-orbital flight for that matter) let alone send a craft 250,000 miles out to the moon and back, with people.
We know at least that NASA has done that, multiple times. And we do know that the first SLS rockets are being built right now - so progress is being made, even if it is painfully slow.
This seems to be a case of 'past performance may not guarantee future results'.BUT, they have yet to even fly a manned craft in earth orbital flight (or even sub-orbital flight for that matter) let alone send a craft 250,000 miles out to the moon and back, with people.
We know at least that NASA has done that, multiple times. And we do know that the first SLS rockets are being built right now - so progress is being made, even if it is painfully slow.
NASA says it can't get a man into Orion until 2023, which gives SpaceX 7 years. Remember it only took 1960s NASA 2 years to go from a wrecked, late, disaster prone situation with the death of three astronauts and the quality manager: to a error free series of moon trips including jumping about, golfing and driving buggies around. So if SpaceX is anywhere near as competent as Apollo's NASA they'll take the lead.
I was looking up a bit about Orion and found this:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/orion/2014/11/
It seems their last flight was for:
NASA blog said:
Orion will not carry any people on its flight test, it’s designed for astronauts, and engineers want to find out what conditions will be like inside the cabin as Orion travels through high radiation and extreme temperatures during this flight test.
In other words a complete waste of time and money, a) Apollo never bothered with this and
b) We already know the numbers from Apollo, and we know it's safe so we can measure pointless stuff during a moon mission.
I could understand if they were going straight Mars, but they plan to return to the Moon first.
I'm finding a very schizophrenic NASA here, like two different organisations.
NASA of Yesteryear:
The 1960s one actually did stuff, proved that deep space flight was not only possible but almost routine. This proved that thermal issues were easily solved and radiation was a non issue. In fact it got so routine everyone got bored and then eventually stopped, had a go at Skylab (not sure why exactly, the moon is better), and then set down to re-inventing a crappy version of the wheel they'd just used.
I'd say the character change came around 1972-1975.
Timid NASA of today's millenials:
The modern NASA appears to be doing far too much testing and research to solve a non-problem. Even here:
https://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/SpaceRadiation/What/What...
NASA today said:
Except for the Apollo missions to the Moon, NASA's manned spaceflight missions have taken place within the cocoon of the Earth's magnetosphere. Between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions, one of the largest solar proton events ever recorded occurred, and it produced radiation levels of sufficient energy for the astronauts outside of the Earth's magnetosphere to absorb lethal doses within 10 hours after the start of the event. It is indeed fortunate that the timing of this event did not coincide with one of the Apollo missions.
As NASA ponders the feasibility of sending manned spaceflight missions back to the Moon or to other planets, radiation protection for crew members remains one of the key technological issues which must be resolved.
so here they are again, bleating about pointless testing when they should be going already.As NASA ponders the feasibility of sending manned spaceflight missions back to the Moon or to other planets, radiation protection for crew members remains one of the key technological issues which must be resolved.
Radiation protection is NOT something that needs to be resolved, WTF are they on? Seven perfect flights, days standing around on the moon, 48 years to prove there were no ill effects on the astronauts and _now_ they want to go all Health and Safety?!?!
HELLO NASA, remember Apollo? I understand that some f
kwit has lost all the Apollo 11 tapes, some retards shredded the SaturnV plans and the millenials running NASA are too spastic to go look at Apollo CM and LM sitting the fking museum down the road, but you've got the journals right in front of you.E.g. : https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/02earth-orbit-...
No radiation hazard AT ALL. NADA.
I do despair, I really do. It's almost like they don't want to go.
You seem to think that the first flight of Apollo (Apollo 7) was a manned flight. That could not be farther from the truth. There were a number of unmanned Saturn and Apollo flights flown unmanned dating as far back as 1961.
There were TWEN unmaned Saturn I launches
There were FOUR unanned Saturn IB launches
There were TWO unmanned Saturn V launches.
A number of the above launches carried unmanned versions of the Apollo Command and Service Modules and Lunar Modules.
And as for the Apollo 1 fire, most of the changes needed to upgrade the Apollo Command Service Module to make it a better and lunar capable craft had already been made years before the fire.
Orion/SLS is following, to a large extent teh testing schedule carried out with Apollo - although some of the flights that were needed for Apollo are not needed for SLS/Orion - and the other flights which are necessary are spread out because of budget limitations.
Globs is right about the change coming about in that 1972-75 time frame.
However, it was entirely down to Congress completely throwing out virtually every manned parogramme NASA had announced in 1969/70 - further manned trips to the moon, a permanent manned lunar base, a permanent earth orbiting space station, a space tug to transfer people and equipment from the station to the moon, a manned mission to Mars and finally, tucked away amongst all that, a reusable Shuttle vehicle to carry people to and from the space station.
Out of all that, only the Shuttle survived - although the eventual vehicle was a far cry from what NASA had envisaged in 1970.
However, it was entirely down to Congress completely throwing out virtually every manned parogramme NASA had announced in 1969/70 - further manned trips to the moon, a permanent manned lunar base, a permanent earth orbiting space station, a space tug to transfer people and equipment from the station to the moon, a manned mission to Mars and finally, tucked away amongst all that, a reusable Shuttle vehicle to carry people to and from the space station.
Out of all that, only the Shuttle survived - although the eventual vehicle was a far cry from what NASA had envisaged in 1970.
Globs said:
Eric Mc said:
You seem to think that the first flight of Apollo (Apollo 7) was a manned flight.
Oh, I can't find any reference to that - did I say that?I recall the LM was late in production so IIRC some missions that should have tested it didn't, in fact the first time it was tested was in Apollo 11. Didn't seem to bother Buzz and Neil mind, risk-wise Michael was the lucky one!
The Lunar Module made quite a few flights before Apollo 11 one of them definitely unmanned.
The first Lunar Module tested in space was LM1 which was tested in unmanned earth orbit flight on the Apollo 5 mission in January 1968. Apollo 5 was launched using a modified Saturn IB
Next up was Apollo 9, which was a manned mission and tested the LM in earth orbit in March 1969 -
Third flight was Apollo 10 which took the LM down to 50,000 feet above the lunar surface, but didn't land -
So, three LM flights before one was used to land men on the surface.
Globs said:
Indeed, sorry I gave that impression.
I may have mentioned Apollo 7 was the first manned Saturn V flight but I couldn't find it on the page so maybe I didn't.
Anyway, only an organisation with serious suicidal tendencies would scrap the V in favour of the dangerous, expensive and less powerful shuttle launcher.
http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-ro...
As I said, either it didn't work very well or they were insane. No government made them abandon it, when the shuttle money came along they could have used the lower stages and for ISS if would have made perfect sense. Since when does an organisation abandon a successful rocket? Is there any other example in history - apart from Saturn V - where this has happened?
And still, 48 years later while the Orion team discuss (and do test flights about) the non-existent radiation problem it's still the best rocket.
As a kid I had a model of the Saturn V, but never bothered with the shuttle.
I had an action man lunar rover too, took Boeing 17 months flat to create that. I'm still puzzled about the rover deployment mind, there were a series of straps, pins and ropes to lower it to the lunar surface. Why? It only weighed 36kg. Shame kitcar firms had no imagination, that would have been a fun kit
.
At the time construction of the Saturn V ceased (1968) , NASA had not given a lot of thought to what their future Shuttle would look like. I may have mentioned Apollo 7 was the first manned Saturn V flight but I couldn't find it on the page so maybe I didn't.
Anyway, only an organisation with serious suicidal tendencies would scrap the V in favour of the dangerous, expensive and less powerful shuttle launcher.
http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-ro...
As I said, either it didn't work very well or they were insane. No government made them abandon it, when the shuttle money came along they could have used the lower stages and for ISS if would have made perfect sense. Since when does an organisation abandon a successful rocket? Is there any other example in history - apart from Saturn V - where this has happened?
And still, 48 years later while the Orion team discuss (and do test flights about) the non-existent radiation problem it's still the best rocket.
As a kid I had a model of the Saturn V, but never bothered with the shuttle.
I had an action man lunar rover too, took Boeing 17 months flat to create that. I'm still puzzled about the rover deployment mind, there were a series of straps, pins and ropes to lower it to the lunar surface. Why? It only weighed 36kg. Shame kitcar firms had no imagination, that would have been a fun kit
.So, you can't accuse them of abandoning a "safe" Saturn V for a "dangerous" Shuttle. In 1968, NASA would have loved to have had funding for more Saturn Vs, but their budgets were already declining and Congress wouldn't give them any more funding beyond the construction of 15 actual "stacks".
NASA loved their Saturn Vs. Congress didn't love their cost.
The definition of what a Shuttle might look like was very much in its earliest phase and at the time the plan would have been for a fully reusable system using liquid rocket engines only. The "dangerous" configuration finally adopted in 1972 was nowhere in sight in 1968.
As for the car, the reason it had to be stored folded and flat was not due to weight but due to space. It had to fit inside the already limited space available inside the adaptor section of the Saturn V.
Apollos 4 and 6 boosted the Command/Service Modules to altitudes up to around 10,000 nautical miles altitude - well into the Van Allen belts.
In other words, Apollos 4 and 6 had the same objectives of the Orion Experimental Flight Test One (EFT-1) which pushed the Orion to high altitude so it could
a) be tested in the radiation environment of the Van Allen belts
b) re-enter the earth's atmosphere at a speed close to those experienced by craft returning from lunar or deeper space missions
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. All the astronauts was plug in some additional equipment without having to bend down much, once the rover was sitting on its wheels.
I'm pretty sure Boeing knew exactly what they were doing when they designed it.
In other words, Apollos 4 and 6 had the same objectives of the Orion Experimental Flight Test One (EFT-1) which pushed the Orion to high altitude so it could
a) be tested in the radiation environment of the Van Allen belts
b) re-enter the earth's atmosphere at a speed close to those experienced by craft returning from lunar or deeper space missions
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. All the astronauts was plug in some additional equipment without having to bend down much, once the rover was sitting on its wheels.
I'm pretty sure Boeing knew exactly what they were doing when they designed it.
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.
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...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff