|
Author
|
Topic: [Discuss] NASA's Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 26145
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-24-2011 12:09 PM
   
Editor's note: In an effort to keep the topic NASA's Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle focused on status updates, readers' feedback and opinions have been moved to this thread. Please use this topic to discuss the MPCV as NASA develops its next generation crewed spacecraft. |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1458
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 05-24-2011 12:45 PM
Timelines?I find it interesting that this chart on the NASA MPCV site doesn't show anything beyond FY2011. |
cspg
Member Posts: 3800
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-24-2011 01:35 PM
And what about the launcher? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 2935
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-24-2011 02:47 PM
What's really new with this announcement beyond a retraction of the dubious proposition that Orion was only going to serve as a CRV? Rather then stick with Constellation and working to secure an appropriate level of funding, the previous 2.5 years have been underpinned by disjointed and poorly articulated policy that has done nothing but further delay America's inevitable return to the lunar surface. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2162
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 05-24-2011 03:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
And what about the launcher?
Why would the launcher be announced? There is still that mess which has to be sorted out as Congressional laws have tied up what NASA supposedly can and can't do when it comes to hardware for selecting a new launcher. At least one thing that will potentially provide a benefit is that while the spacecraft formerly known as Orion is further along in development, the weight issues should be more well known and as such, a new launch vehicle design may not have to deal with the inevitable weight growths of spacecraft design as much. This may help cut down development time (or just allow that time to be used on other issues). |
cspg
Member Posts: 3800
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-25-2011 09:28 AM
The spacecraft will carry four astronauts for 21-day missions and be able to land in the Pacific Ocean off the California coast. The Atlantic is "no-go"? |
cspg
Member Posts: 3800
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-25-2011 09:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
Why would the launcher be announced?
Because the launcher is part of a space exploration policy (or lack thereof as pointed out by SpaceAholic). MPCV is good for Moon missions but there's no lander; a Heavy Lift launcher is to be developed but no one seems to know what would it be used for... |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1458
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 05-25-2011 12:28 PM
Another question is, what kind of meaningful deep space mission could you do in the 21-day design life of the vehicle? You'd need a pretty hefty boost out of Earth's gravity well, and a way to decelerate quickly (you can't use an asteroid's gravity to capture the spacecraft) for a mission to the closest asteroids. Or, without a lander, what could a manned vehicle do in lunar orbit that an unmanned orbiter can't do?I'm afraid we've got a vehicle without a launcher or a destination at present. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2162
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 05-25-2011 03:37 PM
I imagine 21 days would be the maximum time the spacecraft could be activated. If shut down (such as docked to the ISS) it could be kept in hybernation much longer. Plus, this likely would be the first production version. Once the sheet metal gets bent and the thing is far along in development, work can continue on a longer duration version of the craft.One also can consider that if the craft were docked with a longer duration habitation module of some sort that the astronauts can live in during a flight to an asteroid, the CM itself can be saved for when it is needed (undocking, reentry and landing). The biggest limiting factor in any spacecraft design is how many consumables it can carry for its size of crew. Oxygen tanks lose pressure overtime and if fuel cells are used, their consumables get used up as well. That was one of the reasons why NASA went with more storage batteries and less fuel cells in the Skylab versions of the Apollo CSMs. The booster question will be sorted out eventually, but some hard decisions have to be made. Does NASA go with one common booster for crew and cargo or do they go with two like Constellation. Do they try and develop a fully capable booster now or do they go with an interim one? Do they go with solids, liquids or a combination? By comparison, the spacecraft is a somewhat easy choice to make as it keeps things moving (albeit slowly, but still moving). |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 2935
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-25-2011 03:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
One also can consider that if the craft were docked with a longer duration habitation module of some sort that the astronauts can live in during a flight to an asteroid, the CM itself can be saved for when it is needed (undocking, reentry and landing).
Very few NEO's (and certainly not Mars) fall within the envelope of the CEV's 210 day endurance. Maybe something that will be addressed in subsequent iterations of the MPCV but not the case with existing design. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 1941
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 05-25-2011 06:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
MPCV is good for Moon missions but there's no lander
Seems like a perfect time for Europe, or Japan, or even Russia, to say: "Hey, NASA, what if we build a lunar lander?" |
cspg
Member Posts: 3800
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 06-14-2011 01:23 AM
We're all broke, remember?Would Moody's and Standard & Poor approve such expenditures?  |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 970
From: Maspeth, NY
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 06-14-2011 08:17 AM
If we are broke there are many places to cut before NASA (less than 1% of the Fed Budget). |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 1467
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 06-14-2011 10:17 AM
I gather that the proposed Orion (MPCV) crew vehicle would only be used once each time, like Apollo.Why couldn't it be re-coated with ablative heat material, etc. and put back into service for another launch? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 26145
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-14-2011 10:21 AM
The Orion CEV was originally proposed as reusable, in large part because it would land on land. For weight and other considerations, the MPCV is now being designed to splashdown.Still NASA/Lockheed plans to reuse about 40 percent of the individual capsules' components between flights. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 970
From: Maspeth, NY
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-08-2011 09:12 AM
Giving this vehicle program name would make it a bit more interesting from a P.R. standard. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 26145
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-08-2011 10:17 AM
NASA has said they will focus on the name after the budget questions and remaining technical details are worked out. For now, it is known as MPCV Orion.(The introduction of MPCV as a title was the result of congressional action, not something that NASA initiated.) |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 970
From: Maspeth, NY
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-27-2011 07:28 AM
This is nice to see! A little bit reminiscent of the Apollo tests. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 654
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 08-16-2011 11:04 AM
How does the MPCV Orion compare in size to the Apollo Command Module? Has anyone seen a side-by-side diagram of both vehicles for comparison? |
DJS
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 09-05-2011 03:36 PM
Does anybody know the latest news on the MPCV? Is there any idea of when it will be operational? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 26145
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-09-2011 05:22 PM
Construction began today on the first Orion MPCV to be used for an orbital flight test (OFT). The test is currently targeted for mid-2013. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 654
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 07-11-2012 10:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LM-12:
How does the MPCV Orion compare in size to the Apollo Command Module?
This NASASpaceflight.com article has a diagram comparing both capsules. |
apolloprojeckt
Member Posts: 686
From: arnhem netherlands
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 07-22-2012 04:35 AM
I saw today that drop test out of a plane, it looks of the shape of the capsule has change or I have it wrong? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 26145
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-22-2012 11:07 AM
The parachute drop-test that you saw, uses an Orion boilerplate that is designed to mimic the size, weight and flight characteristics of the real spacecraft, but the differences between it and the production Orion capsules is not indicative of a change to the spacecraft. |
Paul78zephyr
Member Posts: 335
From: Hudson, MA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 11-27-2012 08:59 AM
Is the Orion crew module hatch design similar to the Apollo Block II unified design or some different design? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 2935
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-12-2013 06:39 PM
Orion's parachutes will perform in ways no landing system for a spacecraft carrying humans has been required to do before. Given that Orion's ELS is essentially a scaled up analog of that used onboard the Apollo CM, the statement is a bit of an embellishment. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 935
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 02-12-2013 06:41 PM
I have to agree. It's going to float in mode I or mode II. The third option is going to float on the bottom of the ocean. |
328KF
Member Posts: 758
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 02-12-2013 08:49 PM
Too funny... so Liberty bell 7 was the first "Mode 3" landing, huh? |
advertisement