tater Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 The language is all conditional. ULA/Bigelow want a hand-out to launch this. I'll be impressed when they just do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 The Bigelow YT vid shows a shakedown in LEO, with a dragon arriving. Which is fine. They then refuel and ACES (cool), and send it to LLO. Also cool. The problem is it shows Orion bringing crew. Orion cannot do LLO, right? The EUS is expended on the trans lunar burn, right? The ESM has to to the insertion burn, and it lacks the dv to do that and still come home, as it has about 1km/s less dv than the Apollo CSM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insert_name Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, tater said: The Bigelow YT vid shows a shakedown in LEO, with a dragon arriving. Which is fine. They then refuel and ACES (cool), and send it to LLO. Also cool. The problem is it shows Orion bringing crew. Orion cannot do LLO, right? The EUS is expended on the trans lunar burn, right? The ESM has to to the insertion burn, and it lacks the dv to do that and still come home, as it has about 1km/s less dv than the Apollo CSM. according to the ULA release, the station will function as a depot, maybe they mean a propellant depot? Edited October 17, 2017 by insert_name Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 B330 isn't a prop tank, that would have to be added. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 2 hours ago, tater said: The Bigelow YT vid shows a shakedown in LEO, with a dragon arriving. Which is fine. They then refuel and ACES (cool), and send it to LLO. Also cool. The problem is it shows Orion bringing crew. Orion cannot do LLO, right? The EUS is expended on the trans lunar burn, right? The ESM has to to the insertion burn, and it lacks the dv to do that and still come home, as it has about 1km/s less dv than the Apollo CSM. I think Orion can do LLO. Not sure, however. The Apollo CSM was likely over engineered for its ultimate purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 I had thought that part of the orbit choice for Orion was the fact that it could not do LLO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racescort666 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 13 minutes ago, Bill Phil said: I think Orion can do LLO. Not sure, however. The Apollo CSM was likely over engineered for its ultimate purpose. I could be wrong about this but I though Apollo CSM was originally envisioned as a direct ascent vehicle right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten Key Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Racescort666 said: I could be wrong about this but I though Apollo CSM was originally envisioned as a direct ascent vehicle right? It was, but the only part of that concept that survived was the SPS engine. So the Apollo CSM ended up with a lot more thrust than it needed, but the overall mass and propellant loads were appropriate for missions to lunar orbit, not direct ascent. A cursory search of the internet shows that the Apollo CSM had a total delta v of around 2,800 m/s. A similar search suggests Orion's total delta v is around 1,850 m/s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 Yeah, short of instantly dismissing Orion, I don't know if the quoted dv for Apollo is as flown, or just the CSM... It had to do the orbital insertion with the full LEM attached, is what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 17 minutes ago, Racescort666 said: I could be wrong about this but I though Apollo CSM was originally envisioned as a direct ascent vehicle right? I could be wrong too, but the direct mission was (i think) an earlier idea that did not really go far into the designing phase, i think the CSM wouldn't be very different if the direct idea never came to be. Just a geuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ten Key Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, tater said: Yeah, short of instantly dismissing Orion, I don't know if the quoted dv for Apollo is as flown, or just the CSM... It had to do the orbital insertion with the full LEM attached, is what I mean. That's a good point. That 2,800 m/s was from Apollo 7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racescort666 Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 22 minutes ago, Ten Key said: It was, but the only part of that concept that survived was the SPS engine. So the Apollo CSM ended up with a lot more thrust than it needed, but the overall mass and propellant loads were appropriate for missions to lunar orbit, not direct ascent. A cursory search of the internet shows that the Apollo CSM had a total delta v of around 2,800 m/s. A similar search suggests Orion's total delta v is around 1,850 m/s. That makes sense. The engine was probably one of the more complex parts of the system and the engine supplier (Rocketdyne I think) presumably made the case for sticking with their design and moving forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 A NASA PDF I looked at said the dv was closer to 1200, and another page says 1338. I have no idea where the 1800 is coming from, or which is correct. From what I can tell, the bare minimum dv budget for LOI and TEI from the trajectory the EUS leaves it in is ~1800 m/s. PDF for ref: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019648.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Phil Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 1 hour ago, tater said: I had thought that part of the orbit choice for Orion was the fact that it could not do LLO. You mean L-2? As far as I can tell, that has more to do with launch vehicle limitations than Orion's limits. SLS can't throw as much mass to TLI as the Saturn V, but it can throw a decent amount to L-2. The biggest Delta-V cost for LLO is the initial transfer from LEO, which EUS should handle. Braking and returning don't take nearly as much. Although the margins may be a bit small. The Apollo CSM alone had more Delta V, but with an LM it was much less. About 1500 m/s. Of course, it only had to brake into LLO with the LM and make course corrections, so it had more on its way back. Maybe they plan on refueling Orion? Or potentially using a larger vehicle? 2 minutes ago, tater said: A NASA PDF I looked at said the dv was closer to 1200, and another page says 1338. I have no idea where the 1800 is coming from, or which is correct. From what I can tell, the bare minimum dv budget for LOI and TEI from the trajectory the EUS leaves it in is ~1800 m/s. PDF for ref: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019648.pdf The astronautix article on Orion is where the 1800 number is coming from, I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 17, 2017 Author Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) LLO = Low Lunar Orbit. 100km or lower. Like Apollo, or some of the "frozen" orbits possible at the right inclinations. It is my understanding that Orion when originally designed with lunar landings in mind used the Altair lander to provide the orbital insertion burn. FWIW, wiki says 1340 m/s for the Orion CSM. Edited October 17, 2017 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted October 18, 2017 Author Share Posted October 18, 2017 Ok, so they are saying that this station can be NASA's in 2022 for the low, low price of 2.3 B$. Vulcan doesn't exist yet.0 This is entirely within the realms of BFR flying at some level without any expense by NASA at all. How would we rate the chances of BFR being operational in 2022 if the government wrote spacex a check for 2 billion $? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/10/27/polar-orbiting-weather-satellite-joined-up-with-delta-2-rocket-in-california/ The second to last Delta II to fly is being assembled for launch. I read somewhere that there's a third one sitting around without a launch contract. I'm hoping that they're considering sending it to a museum (KSC rocket garden or something). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikegarrison Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said: https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/10/27/polar-orbiting-weather-satellite-joined-up-with-delta-2-rocket-in-california/ The second to last Delta II to fly is being assembled for launch. I read somewhere that there's a third one sitting around without a launch contract. I'm hoping that they're considering sending it to a museum (KSC rocket garden or something). https://mobile.twitter.com/torybruno/status/920249741082062853 ULA CEO said on Twitter that there is "less than 1" Delta II rocket left over. Just some parts that make up "most of" a rocket. Edited October 27, 2017 by mikegarrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultimate Steve Posted October 27, 2017 Share Posted October 27, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, mikegarrison said: https://mobile.twitter.com/torybruno/status/920249741082062853 ULA CEO said on Twitter that there is "<1" Delta II rocket left over. Just some parts that don't make up a full rocket. Thanks. It says "most of a third DII" so hopefully that means a substantial portion (hoping that the stages are there with some parts removed). If the core, S2, boosters, and fairing are there to at least some extent (or even 3 of those) I could still see replica parts being made if necessary to complete the rocket for display. If there's no customers for the display (unlikely) I'll take it... EDIT: Placing the booster in front of my high school would make it the tallest building for dozens of miles around, excluding various radio antennas. Edited October 27, 2017 by Ultimate Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 7, 2017 Author Share Posted November 7, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted November 7, 2017 Share Posted November 7, 2017 No surprise to have dead batteries after that Delta2 sat in storage for however long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightfury Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 13, 2017 Author Share Posted November 13, 2017 Yeah, I'll be asleep for that one, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Augustus_ Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Nightfury said: I kind of want to wake up early because it's probably one of the last Delta II launches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightfury Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 (edited) 50 minutes ago, tater said: I'll be asleep for that one I'm in the middle of a school lesson. Probably won't watch it too 5 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said: I kind of want to wake up early because it's probably one of the last Delta II launches. Yeah, the last one is scheduled in 2018 Edited November 13, 2017 by Nightfury 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.