Comments on: Upcoming hearings

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:11:10 +0000

“The Nautilus-X design is not quite right-there are several basic engineering and physics issues, but the modular, reconfigurable, sustainable architecture is the appropriate one.”

How would you change Nautilus-X? (I’m genuinely asking.)

Thx.

By: guest

guest — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 21:41:33 +0000

The Double Orion concept is not much of a concept. It was a try by the Lockheed company to rationalize why ‘their’ Orion is needed for a future deep space mission, like an asteroid rendezvous or a Mars orbit. There are a number of issues with this concept:
For missions of this class, crew size will probably need to be larger. Five is probably a likely number based on specialization. The double Orion only provides capability for 2.
For missions that used a reasonably priced mission architecture, the spacecraft won’t be thrown away and instead will be maintained in space, most likely in earth orbit. So an Orion is not required for such an architecture.
People talk about needing an Orion for use as an escape capsule from the type of spacecraft described in the prior point. Escape during a deep space/planetary class mission is only possible in the first hours after earth departure or in the last hours prior to earth arrival. This means the deep space spacecraft has to have the reliability, redundancy, and capabilities to support its crew for months, leaving the vicinity of earth, in deep space, and returning to the vicinity of earth. An escape capsule is of such little value for such a short time, that its not worth the mass penalty.
Except possibly for high earth orbits (L-points or geo-synch) or possibly moon missions, an Orion really has no identified need. Do you really want to be throwing your $$billion+ spacecraft away after each high earth orbit or lunar mission? This is why Apollo could not be supported and was not sustainable.
My prediction is that Dragon will be in use by 2016 and the need for Orion MPCV will go away before it flies.
The Nautilus-X design is not quite right-there are several basic engineering and physics issues, but the modular, reconfigurable, sustainable architecture is the appropriate one.
Dr. Griffin, in all of his imperial wisdom, committed NASA and the nation to spending pork in an unsustainable manner, and a few Congress people do not understand/do not want to understand the technical issues and only want to spend money in their districts. General Bolden is making more sense now than anyone has since Sean O’Keefe’s Vision was first established. NASA needs to tell the story and it needs to do so in a better way than General Bolden’s somewhat lame attempts at verbal explanations.

By: Major Tom

Major Tom — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 02:36:52 +0000

“First, people are saying Orion isnt for deep space, yet I see some early plans utilizing two Orion spacecraft, as what would carry people to the asteroid. If that isnt deep space,w hat is?”

It’s a needlessly expensive kludge that only provides prison-like crew space for multi-month journeys.

Two Orions alone are going to cost about $2 billion, per the Augustine Committee. Remaining development on Orion is in the neighborhood of $5 billion. Or about $7 billion total.

The advertised price for a reusable, inflatable, in-space exploration vehicle like Nautilus-X is under $4 billion.

So you can spend $7 billion to send astronauts to an asteroid — only once — in something resembling general booking or county lockup.

Or you can spend $4 billion to send astronauts to an asteroid — and multiple other asteroids and targets — in something resembling a house and save $3 billion for other NASA activities (or the taxpayer).

“I do understand that Orion is built for high speed returns to Earth”

Orion is only built for lunar return (and maybe return from some asteroids) using Apollo-era Avcoat thermal protection. Dragon, in contrast, uses modern PICA-X thermal protection, enabling it to return from the Moon, practically any near-Earth asteroid, and Mars.

FWIW…

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:49:09 +0000

Dennis Berube wrote @ March 26th, 2011 at 12:09 pm

“…yet I see some early plans utilizing two Orion spacecraft…”

Dennis, you have to separate proposals from funded realities.

Could you use two MPCV’s mated together to venture out and rendezvous with an asteroid? I’ll buy into Lockheed Martins proposal and say yes, but that doesn’t mean that the Plymouth Rock proposal is how NASA will proceed, or that it could get funded. Capsules by themselves are not exploration vehicles, so I would expect something more like Nautilus, which would have capsules for lifeboat and CRV duty, but not living space.

Like spaghetti in your kitchen, these are just ideas that are being thrown around to see which ones “stick to the wall”. Don’t get excited until Congress allocates money, and NASA wants RFP’s.

By: Dennis Berube

Dennis Berube — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 16:09:32 +0000

First, people are saying Orion isnt for deep space, yet I see some early plans utilizing two Orion spacecraft, as what would carry people to the asteroid. If that isnt deep space,w hat is? I do understand that Orion is built for high speed returns to Earth, so in that guise it is not meant as a place to harbor crew members on Mars flights. They certainly need much bigger living spaces. I guess it is figured that a twin Orion hook up could take two astronauts out to the asteroid in enough comfort.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:25:49 +0000

Dennis Berube wrote @ March 26th, 2011 at 6:42 am

“I thought the asteroid mission is in the works even as we type here.”

Congress has appropriated $0 for the MPCV to leave LEO, so all you’re hearing is desires, but not actual work.

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:46:14 +0000

I keep hearing no mission. I thought the asteroid mission is in the works even as we type here..

Right now its a hoped for, but its not funded.

And if you mean for the HLV – its unneeded for a mission

By: Dennis Berube

Dennis Berube — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:42:09 +0000

I keep hearing no mission. I thought the asteroid mission is in the works even as we type here..

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 07:55:27 +0000

SpaceX are scheduled to complete their COTS work later this year. All that’s left to do is COTS2 flight to test out rendevous and manouvering. and COTS 3 flight to test out actual docking. To speed things up a bit Spacex may merge these two missions. Actual cargo deliveries to ISS are due to start late this year.
Orbital is on track to complete their COTS work next year, and start deliveries to ISS next year.
CCdev is just about all complete. All work was to be completed by Dec 2010. This was to work on technologies needed for commercial crew. Not develop actual craft.
Contracts for the next round of CCdev are being competed at the moment.

By: Bennett

Bennett — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:48:34 +0000

After 3 years of COTS program how many percent of work have been achieved ?

Mucho

After 1 year of CCDev program how many percent of work for two full-end-to-end-service have been achieved ?

Mucho

What is the successor of the Shuttle program ?

ULA/Boeing/SpaceX

When will fly the first full-end-to-end-service ?

As soon as Congress decides to get off its ass.