|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is SLS about Michoud ?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Is SLS about Michoud ?
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
... In article , says... Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... It would (at the least) require a special payload adapter. They 'cleverly' made Orion 0.02 meters bigger than the largest payload adapter for a Delta IV. This is what I was referring to when I said they deliberately designed it to NOT fit on existing launchers. True, but they somehow made it fit on a Delta IV Heavy for its first (unmanned) test flight. It's not a lightweight. Except that wasn't a real system. Fake service module hard bolted to the booster with a partial payload adaptor and separation system custom built. Incomplete testing of the capsule, since it didn't separate from the dummy service module (and the booster) until just before reentry and never deployed its power system. Yes, it wasn't a full-up capsule. But isn't it still amazing that both SpaceX and Boeing have been able to design crewed capsules for ISS that somehow manage to fit on launch vehicles far smaller than Delta IV Heavy? For "deep space" missions, Orion needs a HAB anyway, so mission duration isn't really something that needs to be all that long. I'm sure they'll *make* it do more, but it really ought to be just a "taxi" to get to whatever set of hardware is needed for the actual "deep space" mission. Yeah. I mean there's a few things "Orion" needs over CST-100 or Dragon (like a heftier heat shield) but I'd trust Boeing or SpaceX to be able to upgrade their craft far cheaper than building an Orion. Call me cynical but I'd argue Boeing and SpaceX focused on designing the craft for the mission, and Orion is based on designing the mission for the craft. Jeff -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Is SLS about Michoud ?
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ... In article , says... Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... It would (at the least) require a special payload adapter. They 'cleverly' made Orion 0.02 meters bigger than the largest payload adapter for a Delta IV. This is what I was referring to when I said they deliberately designed it to NOT fit on existing launchers. True, but they somehow made it fit on a Delta IV Heavy for its first (unmanned) test flight. It's not a lightweight. Except that wasn't a real system. Fake service module hard bolted to the booster with a partial payload adaptor and separation system custom built. Incomplete testing of the capsule, since it didn't separate from the dummy service module (and the booster) until just before reentry and never deployed its power system. Yes, it wasn't a full-up capsule. But isn't it still amazing that both SpaceX and Boeing have been able to design crewed capsules for ISS that somehow manage to fit on launch vehicles far smaller than Delta IV Heavy? For "deep space" missions, Orion needs a HAB anyway, so mission duration isn't really something that needs to be all that long. I'm sure they'll *make* it do more, but it really ought to be just a "taxi" to get to whatever set of hardware is needed for the actual "deep space" mission. Yeah. I mean there's a few things "Orion" needs over CST-100 or Dragon (like a heftier heat shield) but I'd trust Boeing or SpaceX to be able to upgrade their craft far cheaper than building an Orion. I'm not sure SpaceX needs to 'upgrade' anything. I think their heat shield is probably at least as capable as Orion's. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Is SLS about Michoud ?
JF Mezei wrote:
Question: Say you have an expedition ship to Mars. That ship can't de-orbit and land at Mars or Earth. So you obviously need landing crafts at both ends (and a laucher on mars to return to expedition ship). Since the return to earth craft will be needed only at the very end and be useless for rest of the journey, is there a point in carrying it all the way from Earth to Mars and from Mars back to earth ? Considering with experiemces with LEM/Apollo, and will ISS with many ships going there, would it be sufficiently technically and politically acceptable to send a Mars expedition out without an earth landing capsule, and only have it rendez-vous upon their return to earth orbit (elliptical or circular). This would save on having to carry otherwise useless mass for 99% of mission, and get a "fresh" re-entry ship upon return that would be undamaged from possible micro meteorite strikes, sun's radiation and aging. The old saying is that Earth Orbit is halfway to anywhere, so it's probably a wash whether you take it with you to Mars and back or whether you send it back down to Earth and get a new one when you get back. If earth rendez-vous on the return trip is possible, then design of re-entry capsule become much closer to that of Dragon/Shuttle than of Orion in terms of heat shields etc. Why? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Michoud quetion | bob haller | Space Shuttle | 8 | September 18th 12 03:35 PM |
Michoud/Katrina | Derek Lyons | Space Shuttle | 12 | September 18th 12 07:07 AM |
News Michoud / New Orleans | Justa Lurker | Space Shuttle | 1 | August 28th 05 07:54 PM |
Astronaut crew to visit Michoud for a look at their ET | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | May 31st 05 09:42 PM |
Astronaut crew to visit Michoud for a look at their ET | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | May 31st 05 09:41 PM |