I read that Orion would carry up to 6 astronauts, I wonder how NASA intends to achieve this?

[Pawelk198604]

Orion is basically the same as Apollo, it look cramped i wonder how they put 6 man in this.
I think it would not be as comfortable as the Space Shuttle.

[RainDreamer]

I think its because they manage to not use all the computers and instruments from the 60s that take so much space. Now its much more compact.

[Elthy]

Orion is 5m diameter, Apollo was 4m.

[prophet_01]

Orion is a lot bigger. 8.95 vs 5.9 cubic meters of habitable space (numbers vary slightly on different sources).
Also, 6 is the maximum crew. Regular crew is 4 and with a life support of 21 days any long duration mission (most asteroids or eventually mars) would require an additional habitat module. If I'm not mistaken that 'deep space habitat' module which gets mentioned once in a while isn't much more than a conceptual design right now.

I'm pretty sure that a full crew of 6 would only be considered for transfer flights, reentry or in combination with a habitat module of some sort anyway. Anything else would seem 'uncomfortably crowded' to me :P
With a crew of 4 it actually offers slightly more space per person if I'm not mistaken. Edited November 24, 2015 by prophet_01

[Nibb31]

Orion is much bigger. A small increase in diameter results in a much larger volume. And it will carry 4 crew members most of the time.

[AeroGav]

It's bizarre to me that they're building and testing a command module style thing for Mars missions when we are still so far from being in a position to launch a Mars mission and have no idea what the overall mission architecture is going to look like.

IMHO they should be developing space infrastructure if Mars is still so far off. Something like the Skylon or based off the Lockheed SR72 mach 6 spyplane to bring stuff up to LEO, an IRSU base on the Mun to make LOX, orbital tugs, ION station keeping boosters for the ISS etc.

[Nibb31]

[quote name='AeroGav']It's bizarre to me that they're building and testing a command module style thing for Mars missions when we are still so far from being in a position to launch a Mars mission and have no idea what the overall mission architecture is going to look like.[/quote]

It's not designed for Mars missions. It's the only thing that was salvaged from the Constellation debacle, which was a lunar architecture. Orion MPCV was repurposed as a "multi-purpose exploration vehicle", which was later shoehorned into a Mars expedition architecture. But as it is, it is still only capable of 21-day missions in cislunar space.

It doesn't make much sense in a Mars architecture other than as a ferry between Earth and an EML-1 parking area for the Mars Transfer Vehicle. I doubt it will actually go to Mars.

[quote]
IMHO they should be developing space infrastructure if Mars is still so far off. Something like the Skylon or based off the Lockheed SR72 mach 6 spyplane to bring stuff up to LEO, an IRSU base on the Mun to make LOX, orbital tugs, ION station keeping boosters for the ISS etc.[/QUOTE]

Spaceplaces don't make any sense, especially for heavy lifting. Skylon is a paper rocket and there is no such think as an SR-72 mach 6 spyplane.

And the Moon is spelled with two Os.

[AeroGav]

[quote name='Nibb31']



Spaceplaces don't make any sense, especially for heavy lifting. Skylon is a paper rocket and there is no such think as an SR-72 mach 6 spyplane.

And the Moon is spelled with two Os.[/QUOTE]

The SR72 is rumoured but the fact its even on the table makes it about as plausible as a mars mission.

The spaceplane thing, i guess it depends if you believe in SSTO or not. If you think they will never work, or will prove so high tech as to negate any savings, and we should just mass produce proven designs of disposable rockets to get the cost down, that's fine. When you say "don't make sense for heavy loads", what do they make sense for ? Either the launch cost per kg is lower or it isn't. TBH I was thinking more of using skylon to bring fuel up from earth for an orbital fuel depot, the LOX can come from the moonbase. Since the spaceplane would be unproven tech at first i'd rather not use it for crew until it has a track record, and i presume rockets are better suited to delivering awkardly shaped, unaerodynamic loads like mars transfer vehicle parts?

[Nibb31]

[quote name='AeroGav']The SR72 is rumoured but the fact its even on the table makes it about as plausible as a mars mission.[/quote]

It's only rumored on conspiracy websites. There is no evidence at all of an SR-72 program being on any table.

[quote]
The spaceplane thing, i guess it depends if you believe in SSTO or not.
[/quote]

It's not a matter of belief. SSTO is (relatively) easy. The Titan first stage or the S-IC could reach orbit in one stage if they wanted to. The problem with SSTO is the payload fraction. SSTO will always have a tiny payload fraction compared to MSTO, so multiple stages will always be more efficient. And if you want a reusable SSTO, then most of that payload fraction will by used by the additional recovery hardware and fuel.

There is absolutely no point in SSTO other than bragging points about using a single stage. If the goal is to bring costs down, you don't want SSTO, you want either reusability or mass production, none of which needs SSTO or horizontal landing.

[fredinno]

[quote name='prophet_01']Orion is a lot bigger. 8.95 vs 5.9 cubic meters of habitable space (numbers vary slightly on different sources).
Also, 6 is the maximum crew. Regular crew is 4 and with a life support of 21 days any long duration mission (most asteroids or eventually mars) would require an additional habitat module. If I'm not mistaken that 'deep space habitat' module which gets mentioned once in a while isn't much more than a conceptual design right now.

I'm pretty sure that a full crew of 6 would only be considered for transfer flights, reentry or in combination with a habitat module of some sort anyway. Anything else would seem 'uncomfortably crowded' to me :P
With a crew of 4 it actually offers slightly more space per person if I'm not mistaken.[/QUOTE]

They are serious about the concept though- [url]http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/nasa-progress-habitat-development-deep-space-exploration/[/url]

[AeroGav]

[quote name='Nibb31']

It's not a matter of belief.

[/code]

translation - shut up, i am right, you are wrong, all other opinions are invalid

can we just agree to differ? you seem very knowledgeable but there are intelligent people working on space planes they can't all be crazy.
even experts hold differing views on this subject. your view clearly differs to mine and you are clearly well informed.
i made allowances for differences of opinion on this but you seem to be going for the kill.

[quote name='Nibb31']


SSTO is (relatively) easy. The Titan first stage or the S-IC could reach orbit in one stage if they wanted to. The problem with SSTO is the payload fraction [/quote]

I hope this wasn't an attempt to patronise..

[quote name='Nibb31']
[COLOR=#333333]And the Moon is spelled with two Os.
[/quote]

I don't want to put you on ignore because your posts are informative. I'll rephrase my first post in this thread if it helps.


[/COLOR]

[Nibb31]

[quote name='AeroGav']
translation - shut up, i am right, you are wrong, all other opinions are invalid
[/quote]

Absolutely not, we are all free to have an opinion, but it's not about belief, it's about engineering.

[quote]
can we just agree to differ? you seem very knowledgeable but there are intelligent people working on space planes they can't all be crazy.
even experts hold differing views on this subject. your view clearly differs to mine and you are clearly well informed.
i made allowances for differences of opinion on this but you seem to be going for the kill.
[/quote]

Actually, there used to be a lot of work around SSTO spaceplanes in the 80's and 90's, but most of industry has realized that it's pretty much a dead end with current technology. Skylon is the exception. REL might be right, but they are the only ones still working on the idea after 20 years. Skylon is only feasible on paper, with several new technologies, new materials, and new industrialization processes that are yet to be developed. It's overly optimistic and could really only be pulled off with a massive industrial effort and a huge investment. Even if it is possible technically, I can't foresee Skylon ever being economically viable.

[quote]
I hope this wasn't an attempt to patronise..
[/quote]

I hope it wasn't perceived as such. My intention is just to correct some misinformation, and I get suspicious when people ride on hype topics like Skylon or "SR-72". Edited November 24, 2015 by Nibb31

[AeroGav]

I do hope the problem is solved some day, preferably in my lifetime.

Us visiting Mars in 20 years time then not visiting another celestial body for a century because of the costs doesn't do us much good.

What about air launched rockets? Given the aircraft that have already been built - in the early 70s, like the XB70 Valkrie and SR71, something that launches the rocket stage at mach 3 , 75 ,000 ft wouldn't be beyond us. I understand that supersonic separation is risky though, a Blackbird was lost that way... only do it for unmanned flights, and remotely operate the aircraft. The original plan was for the space shuttle to be air launched, but at the time it was a small crew transporter, when the requirement to hold 4 satellites, robotic arm etc. were added on it became infeasible.

It has the advantage of not dragging airframe, engines, jet fuel , landing gear and the other trappings of re-usability any higher than necessary, but i suspect even a very large launch plane would only be sending up small satellites.

The aircraft is saving you the cost of the lower stage, but not a very capable one perhaps. And what will it cost to operate? It's not an Airbus. Supersonic aircraft do have much higher operating costs. Then the cost to develop etc.

The devil is probably in the economics. If your servicing, maintenance and development costs are reasonable, it can work. Not like the STS, in other words.

[Nibb31]

[quote name='AeroGav']I do hope the problem is solved some day, preferably in my lifetime.[/QUOTE]

I'm quite sure the problem will be solved as soon as an actual need arises to solve it. The problems aren't technical, they are economical. There simply isn't a big enough market to make the investment worthwhile.

Air launch is another dead end. Stratolaunch Roc is quickly becoming the 21st Century "Spruce Goose".

My hunch is that VTOL rockets are going to remain the most efficient way to reach orbit. Wings just get in the way when it comes to spaceflight. SpaceX and BO are in the process of proving that rockets can be recovered. In the near future they are both likely to prove reusability. The step beyond that, proving economical viability, will be the hardest.

Again, we are going off topic. We have had this discussions hundreds of times already and this thread was supposed to be about Orion, so let's stay on track.

[Stone Blue]

[quote name='Nibb31']The problems aren't technical, they are economical.[/QUOTE]

Dont forget political... AND a tough sell to the American people...

I think Jan 2017 will be a critical time for the future of American space flight/exploration. If we get a Republican POTUS, with a Republican controlled House AND Senate, you'll see NASA funding cut possibly as far as to a tiny drip, and the Agency all but gutted... Also, with a Republican controlled government, you'll see American spaceflight left in the dust by the up and coming Chinese (With possible collaboration from the Russians and ESA...Maybe even CSA...)

I'm with Zubrin... Taking two, three, or four decades to accomplish specific space program milestones is just way too long, with Presidential Administrations coming and going every 4/8 years... All it takes is one 4yr term for a major flip, to flop the whole program...

Also, there is a strong sentiment in the US that space is just a waste of money... Publicly, space is a hard sell in the US...We pretty much shot ourselves in the foot when we ended the Apollo Lunar program...

[More Boosters]

[quote name='Stone Blue']
Also, there is a strong sentiment in the US that space is just a waste of money... Publicly, space is a hard sell in the US...We pretty much shot ourselves in the foot when we ended the Apollo Lunar program...[/QUOTE]

Not that much to be gained from repeatedly going to the Moon is there? I'd say a bigger problem arose when they replaced a moon and possibly beyond capable LV (Saturn V) with one that wasn't (the shuttle).

I can't blame them though it's a frickin spaceplane! /s

[Kryten]

It's only a problem (leaving aside the problems with the specific shuttle we actually got) if you assume NASA's goal should be 'moon and beyond' stuff. At least 'reduced cost of access to space' is a clear defined goal, it's pretty hard to come up with clear reasons for missions to Mars et.c.

[More Boosters]

[quote name='Kryten']It's only a problem (leaving aside the problems with the specific shuttle we actually got) if you assume NASA's goal should be 'moon and beyond' stuff. At least 'reduced cost of access to space' is a clear defined goal, it's pretty hard to come up with clear reasons for missions to Mars et.c.[/QUOTE]

Really? I see the opposite. "Moon and beyond" is a clear goal, "reduced cost of access to space" is a means to an end. I'm not saying NASA shouldn't do anything in Earth orbit like launching satellites and stuff; but they have contractors for that. I do think that anything "big" they themselves build should have more ambitious goals than a means to an end.

Maybe trying to cut corners on Saturn or trying to make it partially recoverable would have been a better idea is what I am saying, but then again hindsight is 20/20 and the shuttle probably wasn't expected to cause as much trouble as it did.

[Kryten]

[quote name='More Boosters']Really? I see the opposite. "Moon and beyond" is a clear goal,[/QUOTE]
To do what? And why?

[More Boosters]

[quote name='Kryten']To do what? And why?[/QUOTE]

Similar reasons to why we send out scientific missions all across the solar system.

[Kryten]

[quote name='More Boosters']Similar reasons to why we send out scientific missions all across the solar system.[/QUOTE]
Non sequitor. Requiring humans on a mission has nothing to do with science goals.

[More Boosters]

[quote name='Kryten']Non sequitur. Requiring humans on a mission has nothing to do with science goals.[/QUOTE]

It's not strictly about sending humans out on a mission, it's the ability to move large payloads within and without Earth's SoI. It's meaningless for me to talk about stuff like building bases on the Moon/Mars or orbital construction when there is clearly not enough interest in it, but there are valid reasons to do those things not dissimilar to why we send out science missions. The only difference is scope.

[Kryten]

If there are valid reasons, then give them. This kind of mealy-mouthed vagueness is exactly what I'm talking about.

[More Boosters]

[quote name='Kryten']If there are valid reasons, then give them. This kind of mealy-mouthed vagueness is exactly what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]

There is no economic gain to sending out a science mission. There are scientific gains. There is no envisionable economic gain to build a moon base, or a Mars mission or even a Mars base, but there are scientific gains. Yes, sure, you can do most things with rovers or probes and what have you, but there is still a lot to learn from boots on the ground. We're still at a time where it is commonly accepted that theory can only go so far and at some point, you need to get your hands dirty. Eventually we will have to expand beyond our planet, but there is a lot to be learned before that can be done. We still don't know how people would fare with 1g, and microgravity itself has shown itself to be troublesome. We still don't know a bunch of things I don't even know that we didn't know. I sincerely believe that we need people to go to these places and find out what it is like.

"[COLOR=#333333]Requiring humans on a mission has nothing to do with science goals." itself is flat out wrong and I think it's time that you start clarifying your point and making your case. Just opposting makes for one sided discussion.[/COLOR]

[Nibb31]

The only science that we can get from sending humans into space is to learn more about sending humans into space. Anything else can be done much more efficiently by robotic missions.

Given the cost of sending humans into space, what we need is an actual reason to send humans into space that justifies learning more about sending humans into space. There simply isn't a good enough reason at this point, which is why human spaceflight is stagnating.