ATV/MPCV hybrid?

On Jul 27, 11:28*am, Pat Flannery 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

Pat

If they want to get involved, the more, the merrier.

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

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

On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:28:11 -0800, Pat Flannery
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

ESA's proposal doesn't include the pressurized volume, only the
Service Module. Orion/MPCV would replaced the pressurized cargo
carrier of ATV. This is basically the same path toward a manned
spacecraft if ESA goes solo.

Brian

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.

On 7/30/2011 4:12 PM, Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:47:50 -0800, Pat
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.

It actually might; has any work been done on the Orion service module at
all? At least it's built and operational.

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.

I still think the idea of sticking the core stage of the Ariane V atop
the Ares I SRB-derived booster as the "Liberty" is one of the oddest
things I've ever seen.
But, you know...if you could shoot a ATV into orbit with an Ariane V
that, had extra fuel and supplies in it, then launch an MPCV into orbit
with whatever is chosen to carry it...you could stick a spacecraft
together that would use the ATV to leave orbit and head towards the
asteroid target, and use the MPCV SM engine to return it to Earth after
leaving the asteroid and ditching the ATV. That might be fairly cheap
and possible. One problem is reentry velocity, which from an asteroid
will be pretty high (at least as high as from the Moon in the Apollo
program) which means a very heavy heatshield using the present
Orion/MPCV RV aerodynamics that are based on the Apollo CM.
Unless you want to make two separate heatshields that can be fitted to
the MPCV, the one for LEO use will be far heavier than it needs to be,
which was one of the main problems with using the Apollo CSM for the
Skylab flights; the CM's heatshield was unnecessarily robust and heavy
for LEO use, and the SM had way too much internal fuel capacity and
giant engine also for LEO use.
Put on a thinner heatshield and a far smaller SM engine (you could use
the LM ascent engine as a retro motor) and you could have cut down total
spacecraft weight by at least 1/3, maybe as much as 1/2.
The Orion CM design reminded me of the X-24 clone for the ISS lifeboat;
both showed a terrible lack of imagination and innovation on the part of
their designers, who seemed to be more interested in cloning the past
than moving onto using new designs with 40+ years of experience to learn
from.
Went to "Captain America" last night and saw scenes from the new
"Spiderman" movie...same old story, being redone again pretty quickly
after the original...but seriously reimagined - this time Mary Jane has
blond hair.
Same lack of original imagination being demonstrated.

Pat

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?