Jump to content

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads


_Augustus_

Recommended Posts

What are some good websites to keep up with the status of testing?  I'm primarily interested in the "Orion" vehicle.  I was under the impression that they were going to do an Ascent Abort test this fall but I can't find anything on whether it happened, was canceled, was delayed, etc.; and, confusingly, I see references to an AA-2 second ascent abort test scheduled for next year.

What resources have you found useful to follow along?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MaxwellsDemon said:

What are some good websites to keep up with the status of testing?  I'm primarily interested in the "Orion" vehicle.  I was under the impression that they were going to do an Ascent Abort test this fall but I can't find anything on whether it happened, was canceled, was delayed, etc.; and, confusingly, I see references to an AA-2 second ascent abort test scheduled for next year.

What resources have you found useful to follow along?

The Ascent Abort is going to use the returned EM-1 capsule I think. So it won't happen until after EM-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

The Ascent Abort is going to use the returned EM-1 capsule I think. So it won't happen until after EM-1.

I think they will use the Capsule flown on EFT-1 for the ascent abort. 

Correction: It seems the plan was to use EFT-1 Orion but is now to use A „boilerplate“ stand in without parachutes and will take place after EM-1.

Edited by Canopus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

The design hasn't changed lately. It's silver now.

Here is a list of what we know has changed from Orion EFT-1 to Orion EM-1

1) The pressure vessel will be made from 7 welded parts instead of 18 welded parts. 

2) The pressure vessel is lighter in Orion EM-1 than Orion EFT-1, 1497 kg (3300 lb)  to 1225 kg (2700 lb).

3) The heat shield has changed from a monolithic ablative heat shield to a block ablative heat shield. 

4) A metallic-based thermal control coating will be bonded to the crew module’s thermal protection system back shell tiles, which will reduce heat loss during phases when Orion is pointed to space and therefore experiencing cold temperatures, as well as limit the high temperatures the crew module will be subjected to when the spacecraft faces the sun. The coating will also help Orion’s back shell maintain a temperature range from approximately -101 degrees C to 288 degrees C (-150 to 550 degrees Fahrenheit) prior to entry and also will protect against electrical surface charges in space and during re-entry.  

More details on Orion EFT-1 and Orion EM-1 here:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/07/orion-processing-em-1-planning-missions/ 

More details on metallic-based thermal control coating here: 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/engineers-refine-thermal-protection-system-for-orion-s-next-mission 

 

Anything else to add to the list? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RAJ JAR said:

I am surprised Bigelow Aerospace is not on the list. 

Since this is about the Propulsion module i can see why they weren‘t considered. For a Habitat module though, that would be more in their area of expertise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Since this is about the Propulsion module i can see why they weren‘t considered. For a Habitat module though, that would be more in their area of expertise.

For habitats, I hope Bigelow will be mentioned. I was meant to say, for propulsion I am surprised Ad Astra is not mentioned. They are working on plasma electric propulsion, V.A.S.I.M.R. Also NASA's X3 hall effect thruster is not shown.   

Edited by RAJ JAR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, RAJ JAR said:

For habitats, I hope Bigelow will be mentioned. I was meant to say, for propulsion I am surprised Ad Astra is not mentioned. They are working on plasma electric propulsion, V.A.S.I.M.R. Also NASA's X3 hall effect thruster is not shown.   

VASIMR's upsides have been repeatedly put into doubt (especially without a nuclear reactor), I wouldn't be surprised if NASA has already chosen its own Hall effect propulsion and will have private contractors working around that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/5/2017 at 3:45 PM, DAL59 said:

VASIMR's disadvantages quite literally outweighs its advantages, as the weight of the reactor is so much.  

Perhaps that's why NASA is looking at using solar power arrays to power VASIMR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, _Augustus_ said:

Please, Congress, put SLS out of its misery.......

Getting delayed happens all the time. Apollo was delayed two years or so, they originally planned for a landing in 67 or thereabouts. Sure, it's not a perfect rocket, but its purpose is to spend money, not be an amazing rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

Please, Congress, put SLS out of its misery.......

SLS is the creature of Congress, why would they kill it? The longer it takes, the longer the voters in districts that work on it get paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...