Interesting Orion capsule pics.

Interesting Orion capsule pics. (Not full scale ;-) )

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/mul...rionmodel.html

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:12:19 -0600, sferrin
wrote:

Interesting Orion capsule pics. (Not full scale ;-) )

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/mul...rionmodel.html

....Orion tested for two different Sleep Numbers:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/ima...odel-004hr.jpg


OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

sferrin wrote:
Interesting Orion capsule pics. (Not full scale ;-) )

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/mul...rionmodel.html


A enlarged Apollo CM clone is a very dumb idea to use as a weight vs.
internal volume concept.
The huge diameter of the Apollo CM heatshield added significantly to its
weight, and the Soyuz type "gumdrop" shaped reentry module meant greater
volume per given weight.
This got so severe in Apollo that the CM weighed approximately as much
as the entire three module Soyuz spacecraft, and between its reentry and
orbital modules Soyuz had more cubic feet of crew living volume than the
Apollo CM.
GE tried to point that out to NASA in their Apollo design, but NASA was
only willing to accept designs that used the truncated cone approach:
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/wastolen.htm
The GE Apollo would have allowed mission-specific orbital modules to be
added to the spacecraft as was done in Soyuz, vastly expanding its
utility at low modification cost by allowing it to do varying missions
with the same basic design architecture.

Pat

OM wrote:

...Orion tested for two different Sleep Numbers:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/ima...odel-004hr.jpg


BY GOD!
They weren't lying... that's the damn NASA-designed super-mattress as
shown on TV, and available for the next 15 minutes at only $99.95 rather
than its regular retail price of $ 2,387,878,281.99!
And don't forget that Swedish Snowball Ring....

Pat

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:14:16 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

The GE Apollo would have allowed mission-specific orbital modules to be
added to the spacecraft as was done in Soyuz, vastly expanding its
utility at low modification cost by allowing it to do varying missions
with the same basic design architecture.

....A classic case where GE could not bring a good thing to life.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Pat Flannery wrote:

The GE Apollo would have allowed mission-specific orbital modules to be
added to the spacecraft as was done in Soyuz, vastly expanding its
utility at low modification cost by allowing it to do varying missions
with the same basic design architecture.

As well as adding significant failure modes WRT seperation of the
orbital module. Not to mention, how many different missions are worth
doing - especially once you have a station to do them from?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL