ATV/MPCV hybrid?

Basically stick the MPCV onto a ATV cargo module that then serves as a
equipment-service module and crew living area:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1107...ope/index.html

Pat

In article
tatelephone,
says...

Basically stick the MPCV onto a ATV cargo module that then serves as a
equipment-service module and crew living area:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1107...ope/index.html

I think this is a good idea, except that NASA would "need" to structure
the mission such that complete failure of the ATV would not leave the
Orion, excuse me MPCV, crew stranded.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On Jul 27, 10:33*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article
tatelephone,
says...



Basically stick the MPCV onto a ATV cargo module that then serves as a
equipment-service module and crew living area:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1107...ope/index.html

I think this is a good idea, except that NASA would "need" to structure
the mission such that complete failure of the ATV would not leave the
Orion, excuse me MPCV, crew stranded.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

Concur with the idea. And it means an equipment/hab module is
available sooner for BEO operations. And if that involves ESA
astronauts flying on these missions, so be it.

The first BEO mission, though, will in all likelihood, be a repeat of
Apollo 8.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Matt Wiser
wrote:


Basically stick the MPCV onto a ATV cargo module that then serves as a
equipment-service module and crew living area:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1107...ope/index.html

I think this is a good idea, except that NASA would "need" to structure
the mission such that complete failure of the ATV would not leave the
Orion, excuse me MPCV, crew stranded.

Concur with the idea. And it means an equipment/hab module is
available sooner for BEO operations. And if that involves ESA
astronauts flying on these missions, so be it.

The first BEO mission, though, will in all likelihood, be a repeat of
Apollo 8.

Note again, that Pat's description is not the same as ESA's proposal.
ESA only wants to marry Orion/MPCV with the ATV's service module. The
pressurized MPLM-like module is not included. There is no way to get
from the MPCV to the pressurized module even if it were, without
cutting a hatch through the heat shield like Gemini 1, and that starts
making the whole idea more expensive than just using Lockheed's
service module (and since the MPCV contract includes the service
module, we're probably not going to save any money by splitting it
between Lockheed and EADS anyway, once contract termination fees and
renegotiation kicks in.)

Much easier to launch an MPLM-like vessel along with the MPCV the same
way the LM and Docking Module were carried by Apollo/Saturn. That's
something we should seriously be negotiating with Europe or Japan to
provide for the first BEO missions.

This works perfectly fine for Dragon on Falcon-Heavy as well.

Brian

On 7/29/2011 4:34 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:


Note again, that Pat's description is not the same as ESA's proposal.
ESA only wants to marry Orion/MPCV with the ATV's service module. The
pressurized MPLM-like module is not included. There is no way to get
from the MPCV to the pressurized module even if it were, without
cutting a hatch through the heat shield like Gemini 1,

Or docking to it nose-first, and have accelerations be eyeballs-out.
Note that the painting shows the MPCV in orbit with an attached service
module as it approaches the ATV, so I assume that's the idea.
Considering that the ATV wouldn't have that great of acceleration
forces, that's a completely workable scenario, and in fact was how the
Orion was to get boosted out of Earth orbit to the Moon in the original
Constellation concept.
In fact, the ides goes way back - there was a canceled plan for a lunar
loop flight like the Soviet Zond spacecraft did using a Gemini docked to
a Centaur stage in orbit:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemntaur.htm
And what the Gemini-Agena flights were laying the groundwork for.
If they have any hope of getting MPCV to an asteroid, much less Mars,
they are going to have to carry far more food and water for the crew
than a single MPCV can carry, which is why the asteroid mission showed
two Orions docked nose-to-nose to give more interior volume for crew and
supplies:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0908/17orion/
That concept may give you enough supplies for a NEO asteroid mission,
but forget it for a flight to Mars and back, even if you put the ISS
water reclaiming toilet aboard...and pray it doesn't break down on the
way there or back.

Pat

On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:47:50 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Note again, that Pat's description is not the same as ESA's proposal.
ESA only wants to marry Orion/MPCV with the ATV's service module. The
pressurized MPLM-like module is not included. There is no way to get
from the MPCV to the pressurized module even if it were, without
cutting a hatch through the heat shield like Gemini 1,

Or docking to it nose-first, and have accelerations be eyeballs-out.
Note that the painting shows the MPCV in orbit with an attached service
module as it approaches the ATV, so I assume that's the idea.

Wait. What... huh? The painting on SpaceflightNow in your original
message is a NASA rendition of Orion at Mars, nothing about it is ESA.
It even predates the cancellation of Constellation and the advent of
MPCV. Note the solar panels are Lockheed's pizza pan type, not the
X-wing type of ATV. It appears to be Orion transferring between two
Mars transit ships (I know not why.)

ESA's proposal is to replace the Orion Service Module (with its
engines and pizza pan solar panels) with the Service Module from ATV
(with its engines and four "x-wing" solar panels.) Since it is
existing, they say this will save time. But I suspect the long pole in
the MPCV tent is the Command Module, not the Service Module, so I
don't think it would really make much difference. And integrating
ESA's ATV SM into Orion/MPCV would probably cost about as much as
paying Lockheed to finish its own SM.

Considering that the ATV wouldn't have that great of acceleration
forces, that's a completely workable scenario, and in fact was how the
Orion was to get boosted out of Earth orbit to the Moon in the original
Constellation concept.

But ESA's idea is for the Orion/ATV-SM to be married before launch and
stacked on the rocket (whatever that will be.) I don't think launch
escape or launch acceleration are workable for an upside-down Orion or
for an Orion with a big SM/Pressurized Module upside-down on its nose.

In fact, the ides goes way back - there was a canceled plan for a lunar
loop flight like the Soviet Zond spacecraft did using a Gemini docked to
a Centaur stage in orbit:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemntaur.htm
And what the Gemini-Agena flights were laying the groundwork for.
If they have any hope of getting MPCV to an asteroid, much less Mars,
they are going to have to carry far more food and water for the crew
than a single MPCV can carry, which is why the asteroid mission showed
two Orions docked nose-to-nose to give more interior volume for crew and
supplies:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0908/17orion/
That concept may give you enough supplies for a NEO asteroid mission,
but forget it for a flight to Mars and back, even if you put the ISS
water reclaiming toilet aboard...and pray it doesn't break down on the
way there or back.

Yes, but none of this resembles ESA's proposal.

I think it is a good idea for a modified MPLM, ATV, HTV, or Cygnus to
be the "habitat module" for early deep space missions, though.

Matt Wiser wrote:

Concur with the idea. And it means an equipment/hab module is
available sooner for BEO operations. And if that involves ESA
astronauts flying on these missions, so be it.

God forbid. You might end up with a Frenchman or Spaniard
stinking the place out with garlic and demanding wine with
breakfast.

Yes, I have seen sober Spanish people take half an inch of
red wine with their breakfast.

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article
tatelephone,
says...

Basically stick the MPCV onto a ATV cargo module that then serves as a
equipment-service module and crew living area:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1107...ope/index.html

I think this is a good idea, except that NASA would "need" to structure
the mission such that complete failure of the ATV would not leave the
Orion, excuse me MPCV, crew stranded.

And vice-versa. Or is the ATV inherently less trust-worthy because
it doesn't have "made in the USA" written on it?

In article , lid says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

In article
tatelephone,
says...

Basically stick the MPCV onto a ATV cargo module that then serves as a
equipment-service module and crew living area:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1107...ope/index.html

I think this is a good idea, except that NASA would "need" to structure
the mission such that complete failure of the ATV would not leave the
Orion, excuse me MPCV, crew stranded.

And vice-versa. Or is the ATV inherently less trust-worthy because
it doesn't have "made in the USA" written on it?

The Not Invented Here syndrome is huge at NASA.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On 8/1/2011 7:26 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
And vice-versa. Or is the ATV inherently less trust-worthy because
it doesn't have "made in the USA" written on it?

The Not Invented Here syndrome is huge at NASA.

Remember the air circulation fans on the Russian built module for the
ISS that could permanently damage your hearing, and needed to be
replaced as soon as it inhabited? They probably remember that and the
vibrating HST solar arrays that the ESA made them. ;-)

Pat