RCgothic Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 FUS, Plus EUS, Plus ICPS? That sounds even less plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 17 minutes ago, RCgothic said: FUS, Plus EUS, Plus ICPS? That sounds even less plausible. Yah know, sounds like those roclets i build in the first days of ksp. A rocket with 11 stages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 48 minutes ago, RCgothic said: FUS, Plus EUS, Plus ICPS? That sounds even less plausible. The rocket equation is a harsh master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 EUS is never going on a FH. FH's maximum fairing size is 5.2m. EUS is 8.4m. ICPS would at least fit within the fairing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Val Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 Moved the April's fool to it's own thread, now that it and the following discussion have become too many and too off-topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 56 minutes ago, RCgothic said: EUS is never going on a FH. FH's maximum fairing size is 5.2m. EUS is 8.4m. ICPS would at least fit within the fairing. This would require an custom fairing anyway because orion abort option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, RCgothic said: EUS is never going on a FH. FH's maximum fairing size is 5.2m. EUS is 8.4m. ICPS would at least fit within the fairing. That's what Wikipedia says, but it's got to be a typo. Orion is only 5m around, and the EUS is it's service module. None of the renderings I've seen have a massively outsized service module. Edit: Looks like 5.x meters to me. Edited April 3, 2019 by Rakaydos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 There's a difference between a custom fairing to cover Orion and its LES at about 5m diameter at around Falcon's normal fairing size, and flaring out an interstage to cover EUS at 8.4m. The EUS is the same diameter as the SLS core. The Orion service module (built by ESA) is narrower than Orion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 EUS is full diameter (8.4m). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying dutchman Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 we have had a hopper test fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Flying dutchman said: we have had a hopper test fire. What? When? I don' t think anything happened last night and I don't think the window has opened yet today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 1 hour ago, Rakaydos said: That's what Wikipedia says, but it's got to be a typo. Orion is only 5m around, and the EUS is it's service module. None of the renderings I've seen have a massively outsized service module. Edit: Looks like 5.x meters to me. The EUS is the exploration upper stage for SLS Block 1B which is intended to push both Orion+SM and any comanifested payload to TLI. The EUS is not Orion's SM. Orion's SM is smaller than Orion, but Orion is still just over 5 meters. The internal envelope of a FH fairing is 4.7 meters. You cannot fit Orion on FH without a custom fairing. If Orion+SM was launched on FH without ICPS, you could create a custom fairing that is the same diameter as the current version but truncates at the top of the service module, just as was done with EFT-1: Spoiler DIV usually flies with a 5-meter fairing; here it was truncated into three sections enshrouding the (dummy) SM but terminating at the top of the SM. You would see the same custom adapter on Falcon Heavy. This is possible because the SM will fit within the 4.7-meter internal envelope of the existing Falcon family fairing. However, the ICPS (which is literally a DCSS from the Delta IV family) is 5.2 meters and would not be able to fit inside this envelope. Either Falcon Heavy would need a new 5.5-meter fairing to wrap the ICPS + SM + Orion, or the entire upper stack from ET-1 would have to be dropped on top of a custom truncated 5-meter fairing stretching from the top of FHS2 to the base of the DCSS/ICPS's hydrogen tank. Another significant issue raised by Bridenstine is the integration and erection of the FH in either configuration. FH is horizontally-integrated, rolled to the pad, erected, and then prop-loaded. However, Orion and the SM were intended to be vertically-integrated. Not only would that need to change, but they would also have to contend with a much more top-heavy FH, meaning the TEL might struggle to get it vertical. 9 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said: we have had a hopper test fire. I've seen detanking flares but no test fires yet...where are you getting this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 Yeah, no hopper test fire yet as far as I can tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 5 hours ago, RCgothic said: FUS, Plus EUS, Plus ICPS? That sounds even less plausible. Here's what could actually work, right now, with no modifications to anything other than software: Repeat EFT-1, leaving Orion and its fully-fueled ESM in an elliptical earth orbit. Launch a reused Dragon 2 on FHB5e into the same elliptical earth orbit; do not separate Dragon 2 from FHUS. Use Dragon 2's autonomous docking capabilities to mate Orion and Dragon 2. Software updates required for Dragon 2 to compensate for the added mass and altered CoM with the FHUS still attached. Use residuals in FHUS to push Crew Dragon + Orion + ESM into TLI. Orion and Crew Dragon separate after TLI. FHUS is ejected into heliocentric orbit; Crew Dragon completes a mid-course correction and performs a free-return; Orion performs DRO or NRHO injection for EM-1. Crew Dragon tests heat shield on entry from cislunar space. Orion performs cislunar mission, then burns EOI for completion. No new vehicles, no new adapters, nothing. FH has same US configuration as in the Tesla test flight (modifications for extended restart). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 I may have mixed up the European Service Module and the Exploration Upper Stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying dutchman Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 (edited) @sevenperforce @tater Edited April 3, 2019 by Flying dutchman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 11 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Here's what could actually work, right now, with no modifications to anything other than software: Repeat EFT-1, leaving Orion and its fully-fueled ESM in an elliptical earth orbit. Launch a reused Dragon 2 on FHB5e into the same elliptical earth orbit; do not separate Dragon 2 from FHUS. Use Dragon 2's autonomous docking capabilities to mate Orion and Dragon 2. Software updates required for Dragon 2 to compensate for the added mass and altered CoM with the FHUS still attached. Use residuals in FHUS to push Crew Dragon + Orion + ESM into TLI. Orion and Crew Dragon separate after TLI. FHUS is ejected into heliocentric orbit; Crew Dragon completes a mid-course correction and performs a free-return; Orion performs DRO or NRHO injection for EM-1. Crew Dragon tests heat shield on entry from cislunar space. Orion performs cislunar mission, then burns EOI for completion. No new vehicles, no new adapters, nothing. FH has same US configuration as in the Tesla test flight (modifications for extended restart). I'm pretty sure that without added RCS on the Falcon second stage, that the spacecraft cannot translate sideways, as the RCS thrusters are all on one side of the COM. It can translate forward and backwards, but nothing else. Docking like that (especially without KSP's magic reaction wheels) would be really difficult, probably too difficult to be considered by NASA. @Flying dutchman I believe that is the flare stack. If you look closely you can see the hopper to the left of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying dutchman Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 (edited) @Ultimate Steve it was in the title and when i saw fire i got exited Edited April 3, 2019 by Flying dutchman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: I'm pretty sure that without added RCS on the Falcon second stage, that the spacecraft cannot translate sideways, as the RCS thrusters are all on one side of the COM. It can translate forward and backwards, but nothing else. Docking like that (especially without KSP's magic reaction wheels) would be really difficult, probably too difficult to be considered by NASA. Dragon 2 has 18 Draco thrusters. It can translate sideways while mated to the FHUS by using off-axis thrusters to compensate for pitch control. Software problem. Would use more props than nominal docking, but again, totally doable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 That was burning off methane, not Raptor firing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serpens Solidus Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 11 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Dragon 2 has 18 Draco thrusters. It can translate sideways while mated to the FHUS by using off-axis thrusters to compensate for pitch control. Software problem. Would use more props than nominal docking, but again, totally doable. So cancelling the rotation wouldn't lead to a loss of translation because of the angles of off-axis thrusters? Can you explain that better to me? That doesn't seem like it should work in my head, but I may be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 17 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: So cancelling the rotation wouldn't lead to a loss of translation because of the angles of off-axis thrusters? Can you explain that better to me? That doesn't seem like it should work in my head, but I may be wrong. Like holding the end of a broom in 2 hands. You need to push down on the broomhandle at the end to keep it from falling out of your hands, but can lift closer to the middle to keep it in the air even though it's off balance. You spend more effort than if you were holding it in the middle. in this analogy, the second stage is the broom, and different RCS thrusters are your hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 Right, I get it now. I had it earlier and commented to say so, but it looks like the forum ate my reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted April 3, 2019 Share Posted April 3, 2019 Also Orion has full mobility. All Dragon needs to do is hold orientation, which is easy, even connected to a FUS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.