NASA

Orion lives, and other policy developments

There’s some late breaking news about what President Obama will announce Thursday, coming after the end of today’s sessions at the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs. AP reports (and NASA officials here confirmed) that Orion will be revived as a crew return vehicle for the ISS. It will be launched unmanned and remain docked at the ISS as an emergency return vehicle, according to the reports. In addition, NASA will accelerate development of a heavy-lift launcher, selecting a design by 2015 and starting work thereafter.

Reuters is reporting something similar, and adding that NASA’s budget will increase by $6 billion over 5 years. It’s not clear, though, if this an additional $6 billion or simply repeating the $6 billion additional in the original FY11 budget proposal.

92 comments to Orion lives, and other policy developments

  • The fact sheet on Obama’s proposal is on Florida Today at:

    http://www.floridatoday.com/assets/pdf/A9155579413.PDF

    Download and read the tea leaves.

  • There’s also a document on how the proposal affects Florida space workers:

    http://www.floridatoday.com/assets/pdf/A9155578413.PDF

    Compare and contrast.

  • Major Tom

    Per the fact sheet and Borenstein’s article and consistent with concerns about recurring Orion costs in the final report of the Augustine Committee, it’s a version of Orion-lite that will serve as a CRV for ISS, not the old Orion design.

    Not to dredge up old arguments, but a simple capsule — even a duplicate Apollo moldline — is what Goldin should have pursued for an ISS CRV a decade and a half ago.

    FWIW…

  • Actually, a CRV is a waste of money, but at least it will give JSC something to do and help keep them out of commercial’s hair.

  • Major Tom

    “Actually, a CRV is a waste of money…”

    Because it’s cheaper to buy Soyuzes? Or another reason?

    If it provides a basic capsule design for commercial crew providers to iterate on, per the Bigelow studies with LockMart and Boeing, and lowers the cost of entry, it may have uses beyond the CRV function.

    FWIW…

  • Vladislaw

    “Actually, a CRV is a waste of money, but at least it will give JSC something to do and help keep them out of commercial’s hair.”

    Rand, have you heard anything more about the inflatable habitat test, if they add more room at the ISS and it can increase the number that can stay on orbit, wouldn’t they need another escape vehicle if that is the plan? Or would it be be better and less expensive to just add another soyuz?

  • It appears Orion won’t be used as a launch vehicle. That remains the purview of the nascent commercial spaceflight program. “Orion Lite,” as someone described it, gives us another way off ISS than just a Soyuz capsule.

    I always worried about that anyway, that they have 6-7 people on ISS but Soyuz can only carry three people in an emergency. And what if the emergency happens at the Soyuz end?

    It’s a good option.

  • Vladislaw

    From:
    “A Bold Approach for Space Exploration and Discovery
    Fact Sheet on the President’s April 15th Address in Florida”

    http://www.floridatoday.com/assets/pdf/A9155579413.PDF

    “Increases the number of astronaut days in space by 3,500 over the next decade, extends the life of the International Space Station, likely beyond 2020, and enables the launching of astronauts on new vehicles from the Kennedy Space Center 1- 2 years sooner.”

    and…

    “Restructuring the Orion Crew Capsule: Our goal is to take advantage of the best work undertaken in the Constellation program. The President is announcing that NASA will restructure the Orion crew exploration vehicle program to a simpler and more efficient design that will be focused on crew emergency escape from the International Space Station. Under the Constellation program, the Orion crew capsule was intended to house astronauts during their travel to the International Space Station and later missions to the Moon. It also was to be capable of docking at the Space Station for six months and returning crews to the Earth. As part of the President’s new plan for NASA, the development work already performed on this capability will be re-oriented to meet the important safety requirement of providing stand-by emergency escape capabilities for astronauts on the space Station. We will be able to launch this vehicle within the next few years, creating an American crew escape capability that will increase the safety of our crews on the Space Station, reduce our dependence on foreign providers, and simplify requirements for other commercial crew providers.”

    To me it looks like they will be parking an inflatable at the station, increasing the number of astronauts on orbit by 3500 days, and by having a commercial rescue capsule designed for long term on station time it would allow the commercial crew capsules to bypass having to have that capability cutting costs for those vehicles.

  • Aerospace Engineer

    Gee, should I listen to the space cadet wannabees that dominate on this site or the astronauts and flight directors that know better?….. Gee, that’s a tough one…not!

    Listen up, space cadets:

    The United States entered into the challenge of space exploration under President Eisenhower’s first term, however, it was the Soviet Union who excelled in those early years. Under the bold vision of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and with the overwhelming approval of the American people, we rapidly closed the gap in the final third; of the 20th century, and became the world leader in space exploration.

    America’s space accomplishments earned the respect and admiration of the world. Science probes were unlocking the secrets of the cosmos; space technology was providing instantaneous worldwide communication; orbital sentinels were helping man understand the vagaries of nature. Above all else, the people around the world were inspired by the human exploration of space and the expanding of man’s frontier. It suggested that what had been thought to be impossible was now within reach. Students were inspired to prepare themselves to be a part of this new age. No government program in modern history has been so effective in motivating the young to do “what has never been done before.”

    World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the first half-century of the space age, our country made a significant financial investment, thousands of Americans dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives to achieve the dream of a nation. In the latter part of the first half century of the space age, Americans and their international partners focused primarily on exploiting the near frontiers of space with the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.

    As a result of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, it was concluded that our space policy required a new strategic vision. Extensive studies and analysis led to this new mandate: meet our existing commitments, return to our exploration roots, return to the moon, and prepare to venture further outward to the asteroids and to Mars. The program was named “Constellation.” In the ensuing years, this plan was endorsed by two Presidents of different parties and approved by both Democratic and Republican congresses.

    The Columbia Accident Board had given NASA a number of recommendations fundamental to the Constellation architecture which were duly incorporated. The Ares rocket family was patterned after the Von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn 5. A number of components in the Ares 1 rocket would become the foundation of the very large heavy lift Ares V, thus reducing the total development costs substantially. After the Ares 1 becomes operational, the only major new components necessary for the Ares V would be the larger propellant tanks to support the heavy lift requirements.

    The design and the production of the flight components and infrastructure to implement this vision was well underway. Detailed planning of all the major sectors of the program had begun. Enthusiasm within NASA and throughout the country was very high.

    When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit.

    Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.

    America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the President’s proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.

    It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.

    For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. While the President’s plan envisages humans traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years.

    Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a program which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal.

    Neil Armstrong
    Commander, Apollo 11

    James Lovell
    Commander, Apollo 13

    Eugene Cernan
    Commander, Apollo 17

  • Robert G. Oler

    anne spudis wrote @ April 13th, 2010 at 4:52 am

    Quote from John Holdren (Obama Administration Official – Science Advisor), from address to graduate students at conference on “Innovating the Future: Critical Perspectives in Science & Technology American Association for the Advancement of Science (2011 Conference: Science Without Borders) The National Academies and ST Global Consortium on April 9, 2010

    (a lot of stuff cut)

    We can’t expect to be #1 in everything indefinitely. One of the most appropriate responses to this degree of levelization of the playing field is to cooperate more, to exchange more.”..

    I am still trying to figure out what you think is wrong with the statement.

    “American exceptionalism” has become a phrase which the Whittington’s of the world (he does it in a post in the thread I lifted this from) try and claim that people who do not believe in their “unique” point of view are somehow trying to destroy America and as aa function of that the institutions which in the opinion of the folks making the claim “have made us great”.

    All that shows is that 1) these people do not know history and 2) have a stupid political agenda in mind.

    The US was exceptional when it was 13 small colonies huddled on the Eastern Seaboard with almost none of the things that today are claimed make it great….because what made us exceptional was the notion that was defined eventually as all men (people) are created equal and come with certain rights by whatever they define as their creator (to strike a paraphrase).

    We were not a superpower with a great military or a massive space program or so many nukes that we could take the crust off the planet…we were a simple country with a very special notion.

    To claim that a space program that is run by the government for the sole purpose of the government with little or no value for the cost to the rest of the people…other then a lot of video and some good sound bites…is what makes The US exceptional is like Pete Olson claiming we were not a superpower before our space program started.

    Stupid…it is on par with the rest of the right wing whose theory of political debate is that their policies are the only ones that are Constitutional and if you dont agree to that we will call you Hitler (or worse).

    The “save our space program” people are simply out of ideas stuck in some cold war era that is thankfully receeding in history every day…and seems unable to face the new world that came when WE WON the cold war.

    If there is “American exceptionalism” to be defined in human spaceflight it is when we as a country are true to our values…and by the notion of our DOI one of those values is the concept of free enterprise. To say that our current effort 9 billion dollars for a vehicle that is nowhere near flying…is a tribute to exceptional effort is so wrong on so many counts.

    I am sorry Homer H is blown, that the old Apollo astronauts are upset and all the other folks of the status quo are upset over change. That is why the future is for the young.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Because it’s cheaper to buy Soyuzes? Or another reason?

    The requirement itself is absurd (we don’t have a CRV for McMurdo in the winter…), though yes, additional Soyuzes are a better solution if you have to meet it politically. I’m thinking about writing an essay about this and tying it into the Apollo 13 anniversary. But Vladislaw is on the right track as well. The money would be much better spent on a co-orbiting safe haven (that might also be the tourist hotel for visits to ISS to minimize disruption to ISS activities), and the “lifeboat” would be a true lifeboat, taking you to a rescue ship. The lifeboats on the Titanic weren’t designed to get their passengers all the way back to Southampton.

  • Listen up, space cadets:

    Ah, the old argument from authority. When respected (and I do respect them for what they’ve done for our country) astronauts spout nonsense, the fact that they’re respected astronauts doesn’t render their opinion non-nonsense.

  • Brandon

    “I always worried about that anyway, that they have 6-7 people on ISS but Soyuz can only carry three people in an emergency. And what if the emergency happens at the Soyuz end?”

    There are two Soyuzes docked.

  • Bill White

    A co-orbiting Bigelow habitat as a safe haven is a terrific idea.

  • Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan lost me when they described President Nixon as a bold visionary. Nixon inherited Apollo six months before the Apollo 11 landing and cancelled it soon after.

    Nor do they address the fact that the money isn’t there. The Apollo program cost $145 billion in current dollars. The sole justification was to show the world our technology was better than the Soviets’ — that’s directly from JFK’s 1961 Moon speech. In short, it was just a publicity stunt to stroke our egos.

    In an era of trillion-dollar annual deficits, there’s simply no rational justification to spend that kind of money on an Apollo rerun.

    This nation has spend nearly 20 years on ISS and is about to benefit from its potential. The Bush approach was to splash ISS in 2016 and use the money to return to the Moon, where there are no cures for cancer or other medical/biological advancements. ISS is where we need to invest our space dollars now.

    Besides, once ISS was splashed in 2016 Ares I had nowhere to go, so that alone was a waste of taxpayer money. Funny how Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan don’t mention that. They were great test pilots, but they never had to balance a budget.

  • Brandon wrote:

    “There are two Soyuzes docked.”

    Didn’t know that, always saw only one, I’ll have to look closer. Thanks.

  • Aerospace Engineer

    Nixon approved the Shuttle program.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Aerospace Engineer wrote @ April 13th, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    there are three entertainingly wrong things in their missive

    “Students were inspired to prepare themselves to be a part of this new age. No government program in modern history has been so effective in motivating the young to do “what has never been done before.”

    this is just stupid. In the end “youth” are inspired by results that THEY expect that they will be able to achieve in their lifetime. The reason that “youth” feel as though there is no future for them in human spaceflight today as oppossed to say the 60’s is that in the 60’s it was assumed that “the door was opening” to a future like 2001 the movie where the entire society was involved in the effort…not what we have today which is a very very few in space supported by tens of thousands on the ground.

    “It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.”

    so the argument is to throw more money at is?

    “America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves.”

    should have complained about that when Bush set it in motion.

    There is a reason the future is for the young. These folks are wonderful heroes of long ago, but they are unable to adapt to the demands of the present and the future. In the end they are just wrong

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Obama is a joke, isn’t he? Launch the Orion unmanned so rot on the ISS as a lifeboat that isn’t needed? Who advises this tool? This is such a weak, reactionary compromise that it cannot be taken seriously. The good guys need to stick to their guns and go for the full reinstatement of Ares I/Orion. A ‘design’ for heavy lift by 2015? Should be some design. Was the 400000lbs to LEO of the Ares V not enough?
    Deorbit the ISS! It is an albatross!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Brandon wrote @ April 13th, 2010 at 8:40 pm

    in fact other then the “off axis” PMA I think all the docking ports are pretty well filled…Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ April 13th, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    not the last word on this …but I think all the docking ports except the off axis PMA are in use…are there not two SOyuz and Two Progress plus the shuttle…

    I think that they have a full house there.

    BTW saw your post on the other thread I’ll move the answer to here…running a tad behind…lots of doctors appointments today

    Robert G. Oler

  • I think there’s a bit more to the revived Orion concept than meets the eye.

    What Bolden / Garver / Obama are proposing, it seems to me, is that federally-funded development work continue on the Orion capsule to create a spacefaring craft. This is justified as a means of providing the ISS with a lifeboat, but the ulterior motive, it seems to me, is to reduce the development costs for Lockmart, ULA, Boeing etc. for creating a manned spacecraft to ride the Atlas V and/or Delta IV.

    A “lifeboat” is simply a manned spacecraft that can be kept in long term storage. I guess the main advantage to launching it unmanned is that it doesn’t need a launch escape system, but with NASA handling the development costs on the capsule itself, the commercial partners can split the cost of perfecting a LES for it.

    It’ll keep a “skeleton crew” of Orion engineers at work for awhile on the federal tab; once their work is done, the commercial guys will be able to simply buy a space capsule to provide crew access to ISS or the Bigelow space stations of the future.

    Not a bad plan, actually. I’m no fan of Obama’s, but I’m starting to warm up to his space policy…

  • Nixon inherited Apollo six months before the Apollo 11 landing and cancelled it soon after.

    No, Apollo was cancelled by Lyndon Johnson, in 1967. Nixon simply failed to revive it (an expensive proposition, just it would be for the Shuttle today).

  • Aerospace Engineer wrote:

    “Nixon approved the Shuttle program.”

    So, like Obama, he cancelled a Moon program in favor of a LEO program.

    You like what Nixon did but not what Obama did. Curious.

  • Rand Simberg wrote:

    “Apollo was cancelled by Lyndon Johnson, in 1967.”

    The historical record disagrees with you:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Apollo_missions

    Cancelled by the Nixon Administration in 1970.

  • Major Tom

    “Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity.”

    That’s what the ISS, and now an EELV-launched Orion-lite CRV, provide.

    Duh…

  • Major Tom

    “A ‘design’ for heavy lift by 2015? Should be some design. Was the 400000lbs to LEO of the Ares V not enough?”

    No, the problem was that Ares V wasn’t going to show up until 2028, at the earliest.

    Duh…

  • Major Tom

    “The requirement itself is absurd (we don’t have a CRV for McMurdo in the winter… The money would be much better spent on a co-orbiting safe haven (that might also be the tourist hotel for visits to ISS to minimize disruption to ISS activities), and the “lifeboat” would be a true lifeboat, taking you to a rescue ship. The lifeboats on the Titanic weren’t designed to get their passengers all the way back to Southampton.”

    Fair enough. Good arguments and alternatives.

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    D. S. Michaels wrote @ April 13th, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    I think there’s a bit more to the revived Orion concept than meets the eye…

    I think there is more there as well…but I am not so sinister about it.

    My guess is that any federal effort to build a CRV ends the notion of Orion ever being marketed as a crew transfer vehicle…as it would be almost impossible for something that “looked” like Orion to work through the federal procurement rules in terms of developing a commercial product.

    In my “world” where I see this going is 1) developing a CRV 2) pushing the technologies that would be useful in long term human crewed space vehicles…and 3) eventually that technology could evolve into a true on orbit transfer vehicle.

    I agree about the inflatable BTW.

    the political stuff aside (which is important) I agree with Rand on the lack of need of a CRV but we are some distance politically from that…and My guess is that to make Dragon a CRV (ie stays at the station for long periods of time) pushes up the cost.

    So far I am seeing nothing here that was not predictable or is not good…the HLV is going to be off the Delta or Atlas

    Robert G. Oler

  • tps

    Stephen C Smith:

    When Johnson and congress refused to fund the Apollo Applications Program and the follow up missions that killed the program. They had the scheduled missions, until 18-20 were cut, but nothing more. Nixon basically put it out of its misery.

  • Aerospace Engineer

    Major Tom:

    I believe they meant crewed spacecraft ops, not just send up Orion unmanned, bolt it to the ISS and forget about it. I do agree the ISS itself is a good platform for space ops but it would be nice to do crewed ops with Orion in LEO, get a lot of cockpit time with it and leverage that for trips to the Moon or beyond. That’s why some of us got all bent out of shape when Orion was cancelled. I expected Ares 1 & Ares V changes but killing Orion also just seemed like too much. I think Orion has a lot of potential and maybe it will be saved after all – and not just as a lifeboat.
    That’s how this grumpy old aerospace engineer sees it anyway.

  • MrEarl

    A CRV is only necessary if you intend to extend the shuttle until commercial is ready to take over which there is no sign of that happening. This is just a bone to LockMart. HLV has been studied to death. Pick one of the many previous studies and start development. These “compromises” just reinforce my belief that this whole thing is just their way to kill NASA human space flight.
    Opposition to the president’s plan is mounting and becoming better organized. This is just the first of many compromises still to come.

  • Aerospace Engineer

    Stephen Smith:

    Yes, but the Shuttle program kept the Apollo infrastructure and workforce and created a Mach 25 spaceplane with a huge payload bay. OK so we didn’t launch every 2 weeks like it was claimed but the Shuttle was and is a state of art vehicle and now that we don’t launch it foolishly in cold weather and have reduced foam shedding and do an inspection in orbit it is safer than its ever been. With plenty of operational life left. I realize the decision to terminate shuttle was not Obama’s. But that decision assumed there was a NASA replacement program after it.

    In contrast, the Obama plan (until the last few hours apparently) kills Constellation outright, leaves nothing to do for thousands of contractor workers, and replaces NASA expertise with a “LEO program” that is a hope and a prayer that that commercial operators will learn how to do what NASA achieved in 1965.

    Hardly the same thing. Hey, I voted for Obama – I just think he’s getting bum advice about human space exploration.

  • Without shuttle, under what circumstances will there be more people at ISS than seats available on-board the spacecraft that brought them up there?

    What purpose is served by redundant CRV seats?

  • The historical record disagrees with you

    No, it doesn’t. Nixon cancelled a mission or two (but allowed Skylab). Johnson cancelled the program. In 1967. And Wikipedia is not necessarily a reliable source, particularly on political issues.

  • Vladislaw

    Could an Orion crew escape vehicle be launched on an non upgraded atlas V to test the upgrade process? Giving them a couple extra launches a year?

  • Vladislaw

    It could also be deorbited every six months as an extra down cargo vehicle.

  • amightywind, please keep your language civil.

  • It’s a small step for a president but not a giant leap for humankind!

    This looks like a move in the direction that I’ve been predicting (not what I’ve been advocating however). Eventually Orion-minus with an EELV launcher will be NASA spacecraft to LEO. Commercial will be only due unmanned supply missions.

    Developing the Orion as a lifeboat only is a waste of money but it will provide a Plan-B if the Merchants 7 strike out which is likely. I think that Obama is backing down gracefully.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Aerospace Engineer wrote @ April 13th, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    Stephen Smith:

    Yes, but the Shuttle program kept the Apollo infrastructure and workforce and created a Mach 25 spaceplane with a huge payload bay. ..

    all that is accurate, the problem is that at the end…the nation got nothing for all the cost that advanced the nation.

    I dont know what your theories on human spaceflight are…but in the end when the discussion turns to “preserving the workforce” that is a clue that the entire effort has no real justification on its own…just the workforce

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    “Developing the Orion as a lifeboat only is a waste of money but it will provide a Plan-B if the Merchants 7 strike out which is likely”

    I just do not understand what underpins your lack of faith in your fellow america aerospace engineers and workers. Just why do you believe they are so untalented, even though they have built virtually everything NASA has flown. Name an aerospace firm that does not hire ex NASA employees when other cuts have taken place at NASA and they have seen layoffs. From SpaceX to Bigelow, they all have employees that used to work at NASA.
    Why will they fail? Lack of talent and ability?

  • Aerospace Engineer

    @Oler:

    What I mean is more that the expertise of the team was preserved, the capability, the corporate memory, not just the bodies. I think we also got a lot of good human spaceflight experience from the Shuttle, from in orbit hubble repair to space station construction to upper atmospheric flight data – all good practical stuff – so all that money – and it was a lot of money – did not all go for naught. If we are to extend the human species beyond earth, which I believe ultimately what this is all about, this is all stuff we need to be able to do. We gotta keep flying!

  • Ferris Valyn

    Along with what Vlad said – you have 2 traditional NASA providers – why no faith in them either?

  • Bennett

    The shift of the overall tone of the comments (on this topic, anywhere you visit) towards a positive outlook (out of the blue) is thrilling.

    Timing?

    Genius.

    Of course the development and construction efforts on Orion are worth millions and millions, and I’m glad that the folks in Colorado (a beautiful State) will still be contributing to HSF, they are doing great work.

    I disagree that this has any impact whatsoever on SpaceX and Dragon. Elon wants to field a Human Rated capsule, so he will. I’d ride in anything he has confidence in. Ditto in Orion on anything from ULA.

    Damn, I love being alive to see this unfold!

  • red

    “We will be able to launch this vehicle within the next few years, creating an American crew escape capability that will increase the safety of our crews on the Space Station, reduce our dependence on foreign providers, and simplify requirements for other commercial crew providers. This effort will also help establish a technological foundation for future exploration spacecraft needed for human missions beyond low Earth orbit and will preserve some critical high-tech contractor jobs in Colorado, Texas, and Florida.”

    I’m left with a lot of questions. Does “simplify requirements for other commercial crew providers” mean they don’t need to support crew escape? I assume they still need to support crew return. Is this the best way to “help establish a technological foundation for future exploration spacecraft”? What is it going to cost, in terms of development and operations? What is lost to pay for it? What is going to launch it? How does it “reduce our dependence on foreign providers” compared to having commercial crew vehicles handle crew rescue?

  • Vladislaw

    “I’m left with a lot of questions. Does “simplify requirements for other commercial crew providers” mean they don’t need to support crew escape? I assume they still need to support crew return”

    If this can also be used at commercial facilities also it would allow something like dragon to drop off a group of passengers and not stay on orbit for their return, if they are staying for six months. They can come down when the next group arrives but in the meantime they have an escape vehicle if something should happen at that facility. It would allow a faster turn around time for dragon as each one would only have to stay in orbit a few days rather than a few months.

  • Major Tom

    “Does ‘simplify requirements for other commercial crew providers’ mean they don’t need to support crew escape?”

    Yes, specifically the long-duration in-space stay and automated flight requirements usually associated with crew escape vehicles.

    “Is this the best way to ‘help establish a technological foundation for future exploration spacecraft’?”

    That’s the flip side of those crew escape requirements — long-duration in-space stays and automated flight requirements are also usually associated with human deep space missions. Orion-lite in the CRV role simplifies commercial crew and advances deep space exploration capabilities in one step.

    “What is going to launch it?”

    Atlas/Delta, per the Borenstein article:

    news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_sc/us_sci_obama_nasa

    “How does it ‘reduce our dependence on foreign providers'”

    The U.S. is on the hook with the ISS partnership to provide the station’s crew escape function, which currently can only be met via Soyuz purchases.

    FWIW…

  • Vlasdislaw,

    Wouldn’t it be cheaper to simply buy more Dragons?

  • Robert G. Oler

    red wrote @ April 13th, 2010 at 11:48 pm

    I’m left with a lot of questions. Does “simplify requirements for other commercial crew providers” mean they don’t need to support crew escape?

    I will be interested to see how this works out.

    If “I” were trying to do this, I would morph Orion into a “safe haven” combination propulsion module. Someplace where folks could retreat to and try and get some problem under control and then return to the station and fix whatever is wrong…and conversely use it as some sort of reboost module.

    The question is are we looking at the “mold lines” of Orion or are we looking at the systems which in my view are what is near term development.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White

    the only reason I can figure out is if there are going to be more permanent members of the station..which is I suspect a short term goal of the administration

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Aerospace Engineer wrote @ April 13th, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    @Oler:

    What I mean is more that the expertise of the team was preserved, the capability, the corporate memory, not just the bodies..

    I dont think that was worth all that much.

    In my view the “expertise” that was developed from the 80’s to now at NASA is of limited value. I AGREE that the on orbit assembly and on orbit repair of Hubble say are quite valuable but only if somehow they can be done less like NASA does them and more like Shell Oil sends divers down about 400 feet under their Mars and URSA rigs.

    Some years ago I and some others did a study for “a group” which compared what NASA took to do a EVA on the station and what it takes to repair or install some piece of equipment on the MARS/URSA complex out in the gulf. Aside from two great weeks on MARS the comparisons were well eye opening.

    When MARS blew over during Katrina Shell was kind enough to provide somedata on the dives that it took to “fix” Mars. This environment (absent cosmic rays) is as deadly as space EVA’s ever thought of being…and it takes about 1/10th of the people directly involved in the EVA and about 1/10th the man hours of prep to work 400 feet under the water as oppossed to what is being done now in space.

    Thanks to our new daughter I have spent some late nights (she is on the “bottle”) and watching the folks upstairs try and work with that big tank. Shell would have had that done under Mars in under 3 hours.

    I dont think that the shuttle was a good detour for us…and I dont think that the workforce has that much value…
    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bennett wrote @ April 13th, 2010 at 11:25 pm

    Damn, I love being alive to see this unfold!…

    Ditto this is good sausage making

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert, unless Dragon cannot be rated to achieve a 6 month on orbit shelf life, why wouldn’t it be cheaper to simply buy a few more Dragons?

    As I recall with the MER rovers, the first cost 100X while building two cost 125X or 62.5X each. Instead of building six Dragon, for example, build nine.

    This allows speculation that SpaceX is concerned about Dragon meeting the requirement of having a six month on orbit shelf life and the Orion CRV is a sneaky way to toss them a subsidy (via lessened requirements) while tossing pork to the Colorado Congress-critters (as Orion contracts are performed there, if I recall correctly).

  • Mark R. Whittington

    So now the Orion is to be revived as the Crew Return Vehicle, dumped in the late 1990s as I recall. If it were not so pathetic, I would laugh.

    For all of those who think this leads to any exploration, a question. What are the metrics that have to be met for a future President (not Obama) to say, “Alright, now we are ready to go to-” X?

    I suspect no one can give a coherent answer.

    Oler, by the way, should look up what John Holdren, one of the people responsible for this train wreck, actually said about American exceptionalism. It reveals the real reason for Obamaspace, to take the United States down a peg.

  • PS — If Dragon launches on Falcon and Orion on EELV, the cost of getting a spare Dragon to ISS will also be considerably less than the cost of getting an Orion to ISS.

    And if SpaceX fails to come through and deliver Dragon we will need the Orion to carry crew up as well as down, so will potential crew lift capability be designed into Orion, just in case?.

  • […] Space Politics » Orion lives, and other policy developments […]

  • I know this is a ways back in the thread, but this made me laugh:

    “The Ares rocket family was patterned after the Von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn 5. A number of components in the Ares 1 rocket would become the foundation of the very large heavy lift Ares V, thus reducing the total development costs substantially. After the Ares 1 becomes operational, the only major new components necessary for the Ares V would be the larger propellant tanks to support the heavy lift requirements.”

    The level of oversimplification of the differences between the two craft is staggering. Let’s remember, the astronauts are essentially pilots and scientists. Some may even have engineering degrees. But when it comes to rocket science they are no more knowledgeable than many folks here. Driving a car doesn’t make you a mechanic or an automotive engineer. Ares V is not some Ares I sticks with a big tank in the middle.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ April 14th, 2010 at 12:37 am

    In my world I would dump the requirement for a CRV, have Simberg’s (or mine) safe havens and have a “launch quick” device standing by.

    We will get to that I think but in the meantime.

    My guess is that to qualify a Dragon for six months “on orbit” would take some cash and as I noted earlier I think that the on orbit CRV will have some “goals” past just a run home machine.

    See I think that one of the stealth missions of the Obama administration is to use ISS to “do things” in other words make it a technology park…and that means more crew.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Does anyone now have any doubts that they chose Option 5B of the Augustine Report?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ April 14th, 2010 at 12:43 am

    . What are the metrics that have to be met for a future President (not Obama) to say, “Alright, now we are ready to go to-” X? ..

    the first one would be “why”. so far no one can answer that real well.

    As for “American exceptionalism” and the quote “It reveals the real reason for Obamaspace, to take the United States down a peg.”

    the quote reveals no such thing…

    Your theory of American exceptionalism is something next to manifest destiny or perhaps even worse “jingoism”.

    What makes America exceptional is that we are a nation where the people are sovereign, and that every American gets to participate in the great American experiment no matter what their “personal” characteristics, things that they as individuals have no control over.

    The far right (and thats you) think it is all about power and pushing other nations around demanding our way. This is the right wings politics…the “Hitler analogies” the support of programs like Bush’s goofy space policy whose only attribute is some sort of national measuring contest of anatomical parts.

    To believe that the goal of a President who was elected fairly by the people’s effort is to destroy The Republic should require more proof then “He/she doesnt agree with me”.

    I thought the last administration was lead and staffed by the dumbest most egotistical people around, but it was clear (sadly) that they were doing what they thought best for The Country.

    American exceptionalism Mark is in part our free enterprise system. I dont have a clue why you are oppossed to it, and instead continue to support a program whose only goal is some sort of national testosterone effort.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert,

    I am not against Orion (even on EELV) but this “CRV only” business strikes me as a gimmick.

    ISS as an industrial park? Sure, but only if we budget enough to buy the up-mass and down mass needed to adequately service that facility.

  • Curtis Quick

    This modification could be a win-win. From the political side, saving a piece of Constellation makes it look less like another wasted program. It makes Congress and the President appear to be working together (no small feat). And it also keeps some people on the job when many others are without work.

    On the hardware side it lessens the pressure quite a bit on SpaceX and ULA. As others have noted, with Orion-lite SpaceX does not need to keep it’s Dragon spacecraft parked at the ISS for six months as a rescue vehicle. This means that they don’t have to build-in as much long-haul robustness that can add to the development cost and time. This gets Dragon flying sooner. On the ULA side, if Orion-lite launches unmanned, it does not have to man-rate a launch vehicle, nor does it need to carry a LES. This saves years and dollars, and weight. This does not mean that that Atlas or Delta don’t eventually get man-rated, but that they won’t need to be right-way.

    Now, if Bigelow is willing to co-orbit their shiny new inflatable space station with the ISS, this really can help out on the cost side. It may be possible for both Bigelow and the ISS to use multiple Orion-lites as a crew rescue/transfer vehicles. This way, when a problem occurs on either station, Orion-lite can get the crew to the other. Of course, it may be cheaper in the long run for commercial space to develop another vehicle for this purpose, but at the start to have this in place would be valuable insurance and provide great flexibility.

    The only question I have at this point is what is the estimated cost for Orion-lite in the near term and when is it expected to be on-line? What is expected to be the effect on the previously proposed 2011 budget? I mean, the money has to come from somewhere. I am guessing that something gets chopped. Any ideas?

  • Perhaps the Orion CRV is intended to shorten “the Gap” by allowing a simplified Dragon to fly crew (no 6 months on orbit requirement) but then if development of either vessel fails to come through then neither can perform the mission alone.

    Aiming to fly a Dragon capable of 6 months on orbit AND an Orion capable of crew lift and 6 months on orbit would seem to better assure adequate support for ISS.

    Once shuttle is terminated, the clock is ticking for ISS support and if we cannot deploy vehicles fast enough to sustain ISS then everything is lost.

    After Columbia, a two person ISS crew had to go on reduced food rations, as I recall.

  • Vladislaw

    Bill White wrote:

    “Wouldn’t it be cheaper to simply buy more Dragons?”

    I was digging around for capabilities and NASA requirements, I do not know if requirements going up versus coming down are the same and how much has to be added to capability to move from being on orbit days versus months. If dragon doesn’t need 6 months on orbit capability and can be just a pop and drop system, why build that capabilty if you dont need it or will never use it. If the CEscapeV is built as a nich vehicle and can be sold/leased to other in orbit facilities besides NASA I am sure Bigelow could use it also. Bigelow did mention in one interview that a carrier vehicle bringing passengers to his station would need the 6 month on station capability.

    I found this also some statements from Garver:

    “”It allows you to keep the ability to go beyond low Earth orbit with humans,” Garver said, adding “the investment we made in Constellation along those lines is something that will benefit our program as well as allows us to rely on the Russians for a shorter period of time.”

    Garver said NASA has no plans to continue development of Orion for exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

    “We will ask them to focus Orion for the government purposes on our unique requirement of crew escape,” she said, adding that Lockheed Martin would be welcome to use the Orion capsule to bid on the agency’s $6 billion commercial crew program proposed in the president’s 2011 budget.

    “That would be a company decision on bidding for commercial crew technology,” she said. ”

    But like you say, it could just be tossing a bone to lockmark and some members of congress.

    Do you remember what the name was of the last crew escape design NASA worked on?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ April 14th, 2010 at 1:19 am

    I am sure that there is some gimmick going on here…but I can see some method in the madness.

    In my view most if not all of these technology things that NASA is going to do will test out on the space station…that is going to require some modest crew increases and the CRV makes some sense for that…as does testing the long duration avionics etc.

    I can see a lot of technology like fuel transfer and I bet you Bigelows module goes there first. there is a reason all this is going on, the big boys have all signed on it…

    Plus it cuts down the Dragon requirements.

    Politically, what Obama has to show (in my view) both in space and in other programs is “some change” at the end of his term.

    Robert G. Oler

  • X-38? O’Keefe canceled that

  • Flying Bigelow ASAP is something I can support without reservation.

  • Fred Cink

    Mr Oler, congrats on the new addition to your family and I’m glad you got to spend some time in the sunny Gulf of Mexico on the Shell rig. Could it be that the stress/euphoria and sun exposure might have affected things? The Shell rig although expensive is not a multi-tens-of-billions of dollars of international investment that is as close to unreplaceable as it gets, ISS is. The shell rig is not travelling at 18,000mph, ISS is. Spare parts, tools or equipment dropped from the shell rig are just a little less expensive and a lot easier to replace then their counterparts on ISS. The EPA might be upset if those things fall to the floor of the gulf but they dont threaten other billion dollar platforms/vessels/lives as do less things “dropped” from ISS. Comparing the complexities of a 400 ft dive in the gulf to on orbit repair/assembly of ISS COULD be considered a BIT of a stretch.

  • Vladislaw

    I did see one little tidbit from the x38 page:

    “Once CRVs are operational at the International Space Station, modified follow-on versions of the vehicles could be used for brief science missions after being placed in orbit by Space Shuttles or expendable booster rockets such as the American Delta series and the French Ariane.”

    a backdoor method of a dragonlab for nasa?

  • Mike Lorrey

    LOL five years to settle on a design? Positively glacial. There’s already plenty of designs out there, pick one and get to work.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mike – there are some good reasons for the delay.

    In particular, its a chance to give the R&D the chance to develop tech that could reduce the complexity, or even the need for Heavy Lift (Go Prop Depots, Go Prop Depots!!)

  • Robert G. Oler

    Fred Cink wrote @ April 14th, 2010 at 1:46 am

    Mr Oler, congrats on the new addition to your family and I’m glad you got to spend some time in the sunny Gulf of Mexico on the Shell rig. …

    thanks…up with the bottle/burping cycle and saw your post.

    I was on Mars/URSA a few years ago but it was fun…as to the point

    “The shell rig is not travelling at 18,000mph, ISS is”

    I would have to check the exact latitude but for a comparison MARS/URSA are traveling about 800 mph or so in the same manner that ISS is traveling roughly 18000 mph. Having said that to the divers on the Mars and to the astronauts outside of ISS, the relative velocity difference is however quite small. Most of the time it is less then that which you walk up to a door before you open it.

    In fact while it sounds good from the PAO at NASA that “The space shuttle is docking with the space station at 17,500 mph” the reality is that the velocity difference between the two vehicles once they go to prox ops is quite a bit less then the velocity difference between the aircraft my wife routinely lands in all sorts of weather and with cross winds…not to mention the 20ish folks in the family who do it on the CVN.

    here is something to ponder. Imagine there is a diver 400 feet below the MARS and a mythic hero astronaut who is a symbol of Whittington’s American exceptionalism doing an EVA.

    Both get a prick the size of a pin in their gloves. Which one dies soonest if nothing is done?

    Sorry I dont think much of the reasons you mentioned why EVA is so special.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    In fact while it sounds good from the PAO at NASA that “The space shuttle is docking with the space station at 17,500 mph” the reality is that the velocity difference between the two vehicles once they go to prox ops is quite a bit less then the velocity difference between the aircraft my wife routinely lands in all sorts of weather and with cross winds…not to mention the 20ish folks in the family who do it on the CVN.

    should be

    In fact while it sounds good from the PAO at NASA that “The space shuttle is docking with the space station at 17,500 mph” the reality is that the velocity difference between the two vehicles once they go to prox ops is quite a bit less then the velocity difference between the aircraft my wife routinely lands in all sorts of weather with cross winds and the runway…not to mention the 20ish folks in the family who do it on the CVN (ie the velocity difference between the aircraft and the deck)…in fact once both vehicles are in orbit I bet the velocity difference is less in all cases (or close would have to check that)

    I regret the error…bottle/burping as its own demands

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett wrote:

    Damn, I love being alive to see this unfold!…

    Robert G. Oler wrote:

    Ditto this is good sausage making

    My wife and I had intended to move here to Space Coast in 2012 after I reached pension age at my job in California, but we were both laid off in 2008 so we figured we had nothing to wait for. We had lamented we would miss the end of Shuttle, but the layoff gave us the opportunity to be here for everything launched since June 2009.

    I knew Constellation was a disaster and unlikely to fly until 2020, so I had resigned myself to watching only unmanned rockets into my golden years.

    Then the Obama administration’s proposal came along.

    Being a political junkie, I’m in heaven. I have a front row seat for a radical change in how NASA does business.

    I get to see all these new technologies unleashed, get to see SpaceX and all these other commercial companies grow from the ground up, get to watch Space Coast transform into what I hope will be the Silicon Valley of space.

    It sure isn’t boring.

  • While doing some Google research, I stumbled across this page:

    http://history.nasa.gov/stsnixon.htm

    It’s the statement issued by Nixon in 1972 announcing Shuttle. There’s also a neat photo of Nixon with a crude early concept model of Shuttle.

    Nixon said that Shuttle was “to help transform the space frontier of the 1970’s into familiar territory, easily accessible for human endeavor in the 1980’s and ’90’s.”

    “Familiar territory” that’s “easily accessible.”

    Clearly, Nixon cancelled lunar exploration in favor of LEO.

    By the way, former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin also said that Nixon cancelled Apollo:

    http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/local.ssf?/base/news/1264673781201110.xml&coll=1

    Griffin called Nixon’s decision “one of the most significant, yet strategically bankrupt, decisions in human history.”

    I also came across this Space Politics thread from December 9, 2006 which you might enjoy:

    http://www.spacepolitics.com/2006/12/09/griffin-blame-nixon/

    Griffin dancing on the head of a pin, saying the decision to build Shuttle was a mistake but the Shuttle itself is not a mistake. Okayyy …

  • Major Tom

    “X-38? O’Keefe canceled that”

    Actually, IIRC, X-38/CRV and other ISS elements were cancelled when NASA handed the Bush II Administration a $5 billion overrun on ISS in its first year in office. That was before O’Keefe became NASA Administrator. However, O’Keefe was deputy director at OMB at the time, so he may have had a hand in the decision.

    FWIW…

  • MrEarl

    Wow! The train wreck just gets worse and worse.
    This is how Garver was quoted by Space.com:
    “It allows you to keep the ability to go beyond low Earth orbit with humans,” Garver said, adding “the investment we made in Constellation along those lines is something that will benefit our program as well as allows us to rely on the Russians for a shorter period of time.”

    Garver said NASA has no plans to continue development of Orion for exploration beyond low Earth orbit. ”

    How will this allow us to keep the ability to go beyond low Earth orbit with humans, (particularly since we have no such capabilities at this time), while having no plans to continue development for beyond LEO?!
    As Tom would say:
    Goofy….

    We also get a promise to make a decision on the TYPE of HLV in 2015!
    How indecisive can you be? What type of “game changing technologies” are you expecting that would justify such a delay? This is just trying to quite critics. He could be out of office by 2015.

    We have created two HLVs, one using LOX and Kerosene was developed 45 years ago, the other using LOX and LH we use presently. Unless you think we can develop one that uses LOX and bagels it’s time to pick a design and start development.

    On another subject….
    Robert, how is a “safe haven” where a crew has to wait for a launch or two, meaning that a return vehicle has to be kept on a 1 to 2 week stand-by superior to CRV that can bring a crew directly home? The save haven is another redundant development expense.

  • Major Tom

    “So now the Orion is to be revived as the Crew Return Vehicle, dumped in the late 1990s as I recall.”

    CRV development never started. A precursor test vehicle, X-38, was terminated because of ISS overruns.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “For all of those who think this leads to any exploration”

    No one thing leads to exploration. But a crew capsule with a high degree of automation that is capable of long-duration stays in space is key to both crew rescue (at least the way NASA is going about it) and human deep space operations.

    “a question. What are the metrics that have to be met for a future President (not Obama) to say, “Alright, now we are ready to go to-” X?”

    — ISS/LEO crew transport transferred to the private sector
    — Specific targets of interest and/or ISRU demonstrated by precursor robotic missions
    — HLV development well along and costs under control or alternate means of getting large amounts of propellant to space (in-space cryo management, etc.) demonstrated
    — Deep space crew capsule and hab capability demonstrated or within easy reach as a variation on existing vehicles

    Duh…

    “It reveals the real reason for Obamaspace, to take the United States down a peg.”

    Yes, the White House directed an additional $6 billion to NASA’s budget in a time of historic deficits to “take the United States down a peg.”

    [rolls eyes]

    Take you meds, please.

    Lawdy…

  • Clearly, Nixon cancelled lunar exploration in favor of LEO.

    No, lunar exploration was cancelled by Johnson, in 1967. Nixon merely replaced it with the Shuttle. This is not in any way controversial to space historians — just to people who want to rewrite history because of this politically driven mythology about Kennedy and Johnson being big space buffs, and Nixon hating it. Nixon had many sins, but cancelling Apollo was not one of them.

    By the way, former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin also said that Nixon cancelled Apollo

    Since when did Michael Griffin become a space historian? Michael Griffin came up with Constellation.

  • We have created two HLVs, one using LOX and Kerosene was developed 45 years ago, the other using LOX and LH we use presently. Unless you think we can develop one that uses LOX and bagels it’s time to pick a design and start development.

    By 2015, it will be clear that we don’t need an HLV, other than possibly growth versions of Atlas and Delta.

  • If President Johnson kept the Apollo/Saturn production lines open, there would be a lot more ‘lawn ornament’ boosters, Apollo capsules, and lunar modules around after Nixon ‘canceled’ the program.

    President Johnson ended the program at Apollo 20. Apollo 18, 19, and 20 were canceled under Nixon.

  • Major Tom

    “A CRV is only necessary if you intend to extend the shuttle until commercial is ready to take over which there is no sign of that happening.”

    The U.S. has crew rescue commitments to the ISS partnership regardless of Shuttle or commercial crew schedules.

    “These ‘compromises’ just reinforce my belief that this whole thing is just their way to kill NASA human space flight.”

    It’s hard to see a decision to pursue an Orion-lite CRV and to set a date for an HLV decision as “compromises”. Orion-lite (CRV or otherwise) was not an element of Constellation; the Augustine Committee’s final report warned about the costs of the full-scale Orion; and both Orion-lite and a 2015 HLV decision strengthen the use of EELVs and commercial crew over Shuttle-derived vehicles or Shuttle extension. We’re still going to hear complaints from Ares, SDLV, Shuttle extension, and probably even full-up Orion advocates, on top of the whining about the lack of a singular, Apollo-like exploration target and date. None of these factions are going to say that there’s been a compromise — they didn’t get anything they wanted.

    “Opposition to the president’s plan is mounting and becoming better organized.”

    Evidence? They couldn’t even get Shelby’s Constellation langauge from last year’s omnibus appropriations bill inserted into an FAA bill.

    “How will this allow us to keep the ability to go beyond low Earth orbit with humans, (particularly since we have no such capabilities at this time), while having no plans to continue development for beyond LEO?!”

    Regardless of outer mold line, or even whether an Earth reentry vehicle accompanies future human space exploration missions, a CRV has key capabilities in common with crewed deep space systems, especially automation, long-duration stays in space, and highly reliable restart. The subsystems will likely be reapplied. A CRV is a bigger step to a deep space crew vehicle than a LEO Orion.

    “As Tom would say:
    Goofy….”

    I wouldn’t say it in this case.

    “We also get a promise to make a decision on the TYPE of HLV in 2015!
    How indecisive can you be? What type of ‘game changing technologies’ are you expecting that would justify such a delay?”

    In-space cryo management.

    Duh…

  • On the cost of tools for space vs. tools for deep sea repair, I’m remembering Pete Conrad fixing Skylab with tools from the Huntsville Sears. Oversimplification? Perhaps, but things used in space don’t have to cost so much, in some cases they just do so because of artifical coasts placed upon them.

  • “How will this allow us to keep the ability to go beyond low Earth orbit with humans, (particularly since we have no such capabilities at this time), while having no plans to continue development for beyond LEO?!
    As Tom would say:
    Goofy….”

    Earl I couldn’t agree more. I like the idea that Orion was kept in any form as it was and is the one piece of Cx that really had no fundamental issues that weren’t derivative of issues with Ares I. I’m not a fan of it’s limited scope as a CRV. As a result I got pretty excited with her wording on beyond-LEO capability for the Orion. I was equally let down and pretty confused when she said there were no beyond-LEO plans. I guess on a technicality it could be re-tooled for B-LEO later, but I think Dragon stands about as solid a chance of serving in that capacity as a purpose-built CRV.

    I like, to use Mark’s term, Obamaspace and I think it stands a good chance of being more of an actual program than empty rhetoric and dates, but the messaging on this has been absolutely horrible. Bolden and Garver may be adept bureaucrats and politicians, but they are some of the worst PR people I’ve ever seen. Some of that has to do with limited lead time from the administration on FY2011, but time has passed and they still seem incapable of coordinating a message even within the same speech.

  • MrEarl

    MT said (as usual in his on childish way):
    MrEarl: “We also get a promise to make a decision on the TYPE of HLV in 2015!
    How indecisive can you be? What type of ‘game changing technologies’ are you expecting that would justify such a delay?”

    In-space cryo management.

    Duh…”

    To which my response is:
    No that difficult it will take 5 years to develop.

    Duh…..

  • red

    Vladislaw: “It would allow a faster turn around time for dragon as each one would only have to stay in orbit a few days rather than a few months.”

    Sorry for taking so long to reply … busy …

    I could see how that could be attractive to commercial crew vendors. So … they don’t need to support long stays at the ISS or other crew return requirements, and they can get quick turnaround and reuse time if their spacecraft are reusable. Even if NASA doesn’t go for reuse (as in SpaceX cargo), the systems could be reused for other crew missions or things equivalent to DragonLab.

    Augustine was looking for $5B for commercial crew, and the 2011 budget proposal has $5.8. It also has $312M that might be useful for commercial crew, depending on what happens. We have $1.9B at KSC and generally the Florida launch range that might be of use for commercial crew, again depending on what happens. Now we have the potential for easier ISS stay requirements, generally reduced emergency return requirements, and faster turnaround time. It seems like commercial crew is getting more and more solid.

    Major Tom: “long-duration in-space stays and automated flight requirements are also usually associated with human deep space missions. Orion-lite in the CRV role simplifies commercial crew and advances deep space exploration capabilities in one step.”

    Jim Muncy has a take on this where the Orion Lite CRV could be upgraded to be the CRV for an otherwise space-only beyond-LEO spacecraft:

    nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/well-there-seem.html#comment-32024

    Major Tom: “Atlas/Delta” (will launch Orion Lite CRV)

    Oops, I actually did read that (and several other documents on the subject) but obviously it didn’t sink in.

    Major Tom: “The U.S. is on the hook with the ISS partnership to provide the station’s crew escape function, which currently can only be met via Soyuz purchases.”

    I’m still not connecting the dots on how this reduces our dependence on foreign providers. If we had it now in the Shuttle era, I could see that. However, if we’re in the “gap” time, we still need Soyuz to reach the stations, and those vehicles should provide 1-for-1 crew return. If we’re in the U.S. commercial crew era, I would think it just shifts CRV responsibility from 1 U.S. system (commercial crew) to another (Orion Lite CRV) for the crew launched on U.S. commercial crew.

    I wonder what cargo capability this would have (up and down), and what the implications of that will be, assuming it will be replaced/refurbished on the ground periodically.

    As someone said at Transterrestrial Musings, I’m worried about “the nose of the camel”. I’m also concerned with the development and operations costs. It’s hard to judge if it’s worth it without knowing the costs.

  • Major Tom

    “No that difficult it will take 5 years to develop.”

    A flagship-class in-space cryo management mission will take several years to field and test in space. Per the budget materials, NASA is aiming for its first flagship-class technology demonstration mission launch no later than 2014. A follow-on HLV decision in 2015 after at least a year of in-space cryo management experience would be well-timed.

    Duh…

  • Major Tom

    “I’m still not connecting the dots on how this reduces our dependence on foreign providers.”

    Because unless NASA burdens the commerical providers with crew return requirements, NASA would still have to buy Soyuzes to meet its crew escape commitments to the ISS partnership after commercial crew is up and running. NASA has to develop domestic sources of both crew transport and crew rescue to rid itself of Soyuz purchases. They apparently ran the programmatics and numbers and found a commercial crew/Orion-lite combo to be less risky and/or less costly than commercial crew only.

    “I wonder what cargo capability this would have (up and down), and what the implications of that will be, assuming it will be replaced/refurbished on the ground periodically.”

    If two Orion-lites are sent up annually on six-month rotations (the old CRV assumption), it’s not going to contribute a lot to cargo, but every bit helps.

    “As someone said at Transterrestrial Musings, I’m worried about ‘the nose of the camel’.”

    Could happen if there’s a change in leadership. But under the current leadership, I’d argue this accelerates commercial crew by reducing requirements and making it easier to achieve.

    “I’m also concerned with the development and operations costs. It’s hard to judge if it’s worth it without knowing the costs.”

    No doubt, but the ISS partnership commitment/requirement is what it is. It’s going to cost something, and Orion-lite is probably the least costly from among a number of domestic options.

    FWIW…

  • […] @ April 13th, 2010 at 10:30 pm. Could an Orion crew escape vehicle be launched on an non …Read More… eczova 15 April 2010 Uncategorized Verizon Confirms Htc Droid Incredible Specs: Like Nexus […]

  • […] two months ago, the administration revised its plans for Constellation by reversing plans to cancel the Orion spacecraft, instead electing to retain Orion as a crew return vehicle for the ISS. Since then, though, NASA […]

Leave a Reply to amightywind Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>