Orion vs. Federation

[DerekL1963]

3 hours ago, DDE said:

Was it, though? I have serious doubts. In a way it seems to be an offshoot of the MOL-style expendable space stations; and it's called "heavy" for a reason. The Soviets in general seemed to seek two transport ships to be used simultaneously - Soyuz/Progress and TKS, and later Zarya (passenger, cargo or mixed) and Buran.

Yes, VA was meant to be manned , not just as part of a space station.  One version (Almaz APOS) would have been used on the initial launch of a station, a different one (TKS) would have been used for re-supply and crew exchange.

So the pairs would have been Soyuz/Progress, Almaz APOS/TKS, and Zarya (in various modes).  Buran AFAIK never figured in any serious or significant operational planning.

[wumpus]

On 6/30/2017 at 8:29 PM, _Augustus_ said:

What about Elon's Moon tourism?

According to the infallible Scott Manley, Dragon[2] would make a fairly good Orion replacement, but since it doesn't have a service module (nor any plans yet for one), it would be fairly limited in lunar missions (basically taking the free return back to Earth).  That said, the video includes a lot of schedules that are full of "Elon Time".  I can see dragon[2]s being used to lift crews to the ISS, and I can see Falcon Heavy launching soon.  I just can't see Falcon Heavy launching astrotourists around the Moon right after Falcon 9 is crew rated.

Considering it is a standard government program, I'd assume that CST-100 can lift a crew to the ISS and possibly one bell and whistle per congressional staffer involved, but no real capability beyond ISS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_LLNuLhEXc

[kerbiloid]

(You also forgot LKS, Clipper and early Buran versions).

6 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

One version (Almaz APOS) would have been used on the initial launch of a station, a different one (TKS) would have been used for re-supply and crew exchange.

TKS is a combination of a passenger ship (crew of 3) and a cargo container (2 x Progress, like IRL), 3-in-1, a battery of heavy film capsules,
and (and that's very important) a temporary, expendable part of the station.
While OPS contains permanent components, like telescopes, a mega-gyrodyne ring, bedroom+kitchen, etc, the FGB of TKS is what's being intensively used and getting depleted, deorbits, saving lifetime of OPS itself.
They were to spend FGB engines, tanks, solar panels, RCS, toilet, etc, keeping OPS systems intact. 
TKS was intended to live fast, die young, to allow the brain with eyes live for years.
Also TKS was a cannibal's food for OPS as they were more or less the same and it was a ready-to-use pack of spare parts.

TKS lifetime in orbit was about 6-9 months iirc (210 or 270).
Now let's see lifetime of existing/being designed ships: 1-2 years in one flight or up to 10 two-week flights, or so.
As we can see, lifetime is same.

6 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

VA was meant to be manned , not just as part of a space station.

Originally was (like in MOL), but they found it too heavy and removed.
Later they were going to return expanded VA back, but that required a 35-t rocket, but they had no money for it.

Edited July 7, 2017 by kerbiloid

[DDE]

8 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

Yes, VA was meant to be manned , not just as part of a space station.  One version (Almaz APOS) would have been used on the initial launch of a station, a different one (TKS) would have been used for re-supply and crew exchange.

So the pairs would have been Soyuz/Progress, Almaz APOS/TKS, and Zarya (in various modes).  Buran AFAIK never figured in any serious or significant operational planning.

Spoiler

Manned Mars landing mission

Mir 2 early configuration

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

TKS lifetime in orbit was about 6-9 months iirc (210 or 270).

Arguably it could be stretched; Soyuz is constrained by the peroxide reentry RCS.

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Later they were going to return expanded VA back, but that required a 35-t rocket, but they had no money for it.

Expanded VA? All TKSs flew with standard-sized V, either capable of return or converted into instrument bays.

[kerbiloid]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

Expanded VA? All TKSs flew with standard-sized V, either capable of return or converted into instrument bays.

 

Spoiler

И.Б. Афанасьев "Неизвестные корабли"

В.Н.Челомей вышел с предложением о разработке тяжелой усовершенствованной ОПС с двумя стыковочными агрегатами. Наиболее важной отличительной чертой этого проекта было то, что экипаж из 4-5 человек должен был выводиться совместно с ОПС в возвращаемом аппарате больших размеров, установленном в передней части станции. Дальнейшая работа ОПС должна была обеспечиваться запусками ТКС, которые могли причаливать к двум стыковочным агрегатам станции. Для запуска такой ОПС предполагалось разработать специальную РН грузоподъемностью свыше 35 т. Однако средств для финансирования проекта нового носителя и ОПС не нашлось, и работы по пилотируемым станциям «Алмаз» к 1978 г. были закрыты

Translation:

Quote

V.N. Chelomei suggested to develop the heavy modified Orbital Piloted Station with two docking ports. The most important feature of the project was its crew of 4-5 (in other sources - 5..6), who would be launched with the orbital station in VA (Return Vehicle) of extended size, attached to the front end of the station. 
Further work of the station would be supported by TKS ships docking to the two docking ports of the station. 
Such station required a >35 t capable launche vehicle.
But this project was not funded, and in 1978 Almaz project was closed.

 

Spoiler

http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum10/topic2018/message811843/#message811843

Цитата
Расчеты показали возможность создания такого ВА путем непринципиальных усовершенствований*** штатного трехместного аппарата. При частичном или полном отказе от многоразовости (введение отделяемого лобового теплозащитного экрана) можно было нарастить стандартный отсек экипажа ВА «поддоном»**** в его нижней части, в котором размещались еще 2–3 космонавта в креслах. Дополнительная масса при этом равнялась массе сбрасываемого экрана. Шестиместный аппарат мог приземляться на штатной ПРСП, а остальные системы (в т.ч. дополнительное электропитание, жизнеобеспечение и терморегулирование) находились в заново спроектированном навесном агрегате, сбрасываемом перед включением ТДУ и входом в атмосферу. 

*** Используется 90% бортовых систем трехместного ВА. 
**** Глубиной 800 мм и диаметром основания 3100 мм.

Translation:

Quote

Calculations proved the possibility of such VA creation with minor modifications*** of standard VA (with crew of 3).
Making it partially or totally not reusable (making its heatshield detachable), it could be possible to add a ["поддон" — "pan" (?) "pallet" (?), so that additional bowl under the cabin with the second layer of seats] to the cabin bottom, for 2-3 crew seats more.
Additional mass caused by such modification was equal to the mass of the detachable heatshield.
[This extended] VA with crew of 6 could land using standard landing systems, while other systems (such as additional power supply, life support and thermal conditioner (?) ) **** were to be placed in a surface mounted aggregate (which would be fully redesigned), being detached before the deorbit engine ignition.

*** Using 90% of standard VA systems
**** 800 mm deep and 3100 mm in diameter

 

Just to explain how I understand all this history.

That picture from the link

Spoiler

is from time to time mentioned in internet as "VA" scheme. But as we can see, it's indeed that unimplemented "extended VA".
Compare it to the "historical VA"

Spoiler

As we can see, they were going to remove the cabin bottom, add a cone-shaped bowl below and make it the new bottom.
(Do not confuse the "cabin" and the 'hull" here. Cabin is that egg-shaped thing inside the huge outer cone of hull.
The upper half of the egg is the original VA cabin, while the lower egg half is that "bowl", "pan" or "pallet" they are talking about)

VA heat protection is integrated into the hull, it's not a separate part like in other ships. It's a cover steeped with a heat protecting mess.
So, as the cabin gets hignher, they were going to cut off the lower half of the hull, too, and replace it with a larger one. It stays conical, with the same angle, but gets higher and wider, to place the egg-shaped extended cabin. And also cover it all with the heat protector.

Of course, this increases the total mass for several tonnes. Of course, this would make to use larger parachutes, larger RCS, larger all that things on top.
And this would cause to redesign from scratch all the return vehicle.

But as we can see on the first picture, the expanded hull has an structure on equator, and its inner trusses (triangles in the bottom hollow part of the hull) end right under the equator, as if they are on their own.
As if the lower part of the outer hull (not cabin!) is an attached part which could be detached.

Rather than in Apollo-style capsules, VA has its RCS engines on top, in a detachable cone.
So, this lower part of the hull is hollow and unused. (While Apollo-way fills the bottom with stuff).

As I can understand, in this project they were going to drop not a flat heatshield from beneath of the hull (which would weight just several hundred kilograms and didn't help much),
but (as I can understand) they were going to detach and drop all lower half of the outer hull (where the triangle truss touch the equator).

As we can see, in this case the extended VA gets egg-shaped and of the same size (and mass) as the original VA was. Just it lands not on a hull bottom, but right on the cabin bottom.
Not a problem again, as all RCS and other fragile stuff was decoupled minutes before.

Of course, the egg would fall on its side, but as we can see, it's normal for Soyuz crew, just the Soyuz crew know that the capsule can lay on its side, while the Ext-VA crew would know the capsule will do that.
Again, not a problem, as VA has three rescue hatches: top, side, bottom.
Of course, this is a 6-seat capsule, like Orion and so, but it's cabin is more compact, its turn radius is small, and such acrobatics would not shake their brains out.

The part of phrase about "single-use detachable heatshield" is, as I think, formally correct because the lower part hull is the heatshield.
But it makes a mess as "heatshield" associates with something flat under bottom.

The part of phrase about "additional mass caused by such modification was equal to the mass of the detachable heatshield." , as I can understand, sounds not very correct.
That doesn't mean that they would add an additional heatshield below, and all this huge capsule would weight just 100 kg more that the original, much smaller, one.
Formally it's correct, but if under "heatshield" understand a detachable lower half of the outer hull.

Part of phrase "making VA partially or fully not reusable", as I can understand, would mean "if the cabin will stay intact after landing, we'll attach the new lower half of the outer hull, but if not - then not".

As we can see, the landing part of the capsule has the same mass as the original one, and can use the same parachutes and landing engines, without redesign.

The upper RCS cone can also stay the same as the capsule is higher and the arm is longer, so probably it could spend the same amount of fuel.
So, in RCS module also no changes

The instrumental unit on top of the deorbit engine stays the same by definition.

Deorbit engine and LES are unclear for me: would they stay the same or be redesigned.
Maybe the same, if we still presume that the lower part of the hull can be detached on the flight abort, so abort system will evacuate only the inner egg. (As they don't need heat protecteion at low altitudes).
While on near-orbit speeds the launcher burst is less probable, and they could decide that the abort system still has enough T/W to decouple the whole capsule, with its lower heat-protected part.

The part of phrase about "power supply and life-support detachable aggregate" is about that bag under the bottom of the original VA (on the second picture), inside the conical interstage between VA and FGB.
It contains what is listed above, allowing the crew stay for hours on orbit after decoupling from the ship. And decouples when deorbit engine works.
Of course, for the crew of 5-6 they woul create an extended version of this container.

Don't know, if they were going to include such extended VA in new versions of TKS (though, it's possible, as FGB could weight less because film capsules were no more needed).
Have no idea why need 5-6 crewmen on a station right after launch. But probably, they were going to do this.

Upd.
The idea of such capsule may look strange if compare it with fancy modern capsules, but remember that they were burning all used stuff in the deorbiting FGB, and the capsule is what it should be - a return-or-rescue capsule.
While the modern projects are going to bring the used stuff back to the Earth, throw a half of it into trash can and pray for the rest second-hand will survive again.
While TKS VA brings back only the most strong and brutal thing - the hull. It lands intact, why not reuse it.

Edited July 7, 2017 by kerbiloid

[Ithirahad]

I would much prefer the Federatsiya capsule, which at least has some kind of goal. The Orion/DSG plan is really a capsule to nowhere, without larger habitation/landing plans and infrastructure. If they manage to send humans to swing around Mars and come back, so what? They will not be able to do anything of value that robotic missions can't do. The images of Orion capsule docked to huge nuclear ships and the like are inspiring, at least in theory, but we all know that nobody in the US government is any more committed to building such a deep-space vehicle than anyone in the Russian government or Roscosmos is to similar plans.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Ithirahad