Orion EFT1 uncrewed martian flybye.

[Cloakedwand72]

Could EF1 achieve unscrewed fly bye of mars in its planned inaugural first SLS flight configuration w/o crew or cargo? If not why Falcon Heavy proves a Mars Flybye with a car.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Cloakedwand72

[YNM]

1. Orion != A Car, unless you were talking of Ford Orion or the Car Constellation. (there's also this Car constellation though.)

2. Don't leave your rockets and spacecraft unscrewed, that'd screw everyone up.

3. "Flybye" is probably a British-European airline that missed a landing on Mars. I won't trust them.

 

 

Spoiler

Jokes aside, most still holds true :

- FH Car-stunt 'Starman' was just a stunt. A spacecraft weighs waaay more than a car, no matter how large. Would equal a fully laden truck though.

- No, because it's not in the manifest. Unless people in the white buildings think differently you won't see Major Tom smuggling a car on his first launch.

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by YNM

[Hannu2]

25 minutes ago, Cloakedwand72 said:

Could EF1 achieve unscrewed fly bye of mars in its planned inaugural first SLS flight configuration w/o crew or cargo? If not why Falcon Heavy proves a Mars Flybye with a car.

I do not know but car's weight is about 1.5 t but Orion and service module have 25 t. Orion is also not intended to last long enough. If they made a flyby it would be as dead piece of space scrap as Musk's car at Martian orbit. In addition to these problems I am sure that they want to have their expensive test craft back to intensive inspection.

[MinimumSky5]

2 hours ago, Cloakedwand72 said:

Could EF1 achieve unscrewed fly bye of mars in its planned inaugural first SLS flight configuration w/o crew or cargo? If not why Falcon Heavy proves a Mars Flybye with a car.

If NASA used the propellant in the service module, then yes, it could probably reach a martian flyby safely, but the real question is why would they do this? Orion was never designed to do this, and can't comfortably take astronauts that far for that long. SpaceX sent the car there as a pure PR stunt, because they got a heck of a lot more coverage than if they'd just used a big block of concrete as a mass simulator.

[NSEP]

Yes, they probably can do it with SLS.

You need around 4.3km/s to transfer to Mars. Im assuming the transfer stage of the SLS block 1 has a Delta-V of around 3.2km/s of Delta-V with 25 tons (the mass of Orion) on top. That may not seem like enough, but luckily, the Orion Sevice module has a Delta-V of 1.8km/s, enough with to finish the transfer burn and even capture Mars orbit.

They can't put humans on there unfortunately, but they can replace the Orion capsule with some other cool payload. Maybe a sample return mission lander.

But its going to end up costing 10 bazillion dollars and being delayed 20 years, because, you know, SLS.

 

[Bill Phil]

EFT-1 was on a Delta-IV, not enough energy for a Mars mission with a payload that large.

EM-1 could likely do it, but there wouldn't be a good reason to.

[tater]

Part of the rationale for EM-1 will be to test the heat shield, which is different than the EFT-1 heat shield. So no.

[Nibb31]

It would be hard to hold everything together for an unscrewed flyby.

What would be the purpose ? Wouldn't it be a waste of an SLS launch ?

[StarStreak2109]

What the others said. What would that accomplish?! Orion is basically an overengineered orbital ferry. If we ever went to Mars, we'd use a different interplanetary ship, which would support astronauts for the 500 or so days of travel to and from Mars.

So nothing to be learned from such a stunt.

[kerbiloid]

NASA was going to use Orions as a Martian ship return vehicle afaik.

So, they would probably anyway first test it for 500 days in the space.

Edited August 31, 2018 by kerbiloid

[MinimumSky5]

Oh, you mean the Copernicus mission concept? Yes, they considered using Orion for that, but while docked to a much larger mothership that could support the Orions for that long. They never intended for the astronauts to be  in just an Orion capsule for the entire journey back. 

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, MinimumSky5 said:

you mean the Copernicus mission concept?

Probably so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Design_Reference_Mission

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373665main_NASA-SP-2009-566.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/373667main_NASA-SP-2009-566-ADD.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA-SP-2009-566-ADD2.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/473074main_2009-11-06_Mars_DRA5_Proposed_International.pdf

7 hours ago, MinimumSky5 said:

Yes, they considered using Orion for that, but while docked to a much larger mothership that could support the Orions for that long. They never intended for the astronauts to be  in just an Orion capsule for the entire journey back. 

Yes, it was considered as a return vehicle. But probably they anyway should test it in real conditions to be sure it will stay intact after 3 years of flight in real conditions.

Edited September 2, 2018 by kerbiloid

[MinimumSky5]

But the ship won't just fall apart after a few years of flight, because most of the systems will be offline to preserve them, in case the crew need a backup. If the ship was so poorly built that failure over that time line was likely, then NASA would never launch it even to low earth orbit.

Cars are designed to be used almost daily, for commuting to work and back, but leave it sitting in your driveway for a month, and it will run just as well as if you'd used it the day before when you start it up. Space is basically the same, in low orbit, interplanetary space, or Martian orbit, so sending the ship out on a solo mission to Mars won't teach us anything, aside from a spectacular way to waste a billion dollars. 

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, MinimumSky5 said:

But the ship won't just fall apart after a few years of flight, because most of the systems will be offline to preserve them, in case the crew need a backup. If the ship was so poorly built that failure over that time line was likely, then NASA would never launch it even to low earth orbit.

The ship will spend 3 years in vacuum, under temperature gradient +/- 100°C,  in radiation outside of the magnetosphere  (metals welding, organics sublimation and embrittlement, semiconductors degradation).

Edited September 2, 2018 by kerbiloid

[MinimumSky5]

Vacuum conditions aren't that difficult to deal with, it just requires a good pressure vessel, and submarines have to deal with higher pressure differences routinely. The temperature would never change during the cruise phase of the mission, you only get those changes in low orbit as objects pass behind and in front of the earth. Radiation probably is the biggest issue, but we've characterized the radiation of interplanetary space quite well with so many probes being sent to other planets, and the electronics are the only vulnerable part of the spaceship. There is no natural place in the solar system that has radiation so high that you have to be worried about it causing structural damage. All of these problems have been solved in low orbit, so they shouldn't be a major concern when going to mars. 

[Nibb31]

5 hours ago, MinimumSky5 said:

But the ship won't just fall apart after a few years of flight, because most of the systems will be offline to preserve them, in case the crew need a backup. If the ship was so poorly built that failure over that time line was likely, then NASA would never launch it even to low earth orbit.

Cars are designed to be used almost daily, for commuting to work and back, but leave it sitting in your driveway for a month, and it will run just as well as if you'd used it the day before when you start it up. Space is basically the same, in low orbit, interplanetary space, or Martian orbit, so sending the ship out on a solo mission to Mars won't teach us anything, aside from a spectacular way to waste a billion dollars.  

That is simply wrong. Leave your car in your driveway for a few months, then chances are when you start it up, the battery will be dead and the tires will need inflating. Leave it longer and you will probably need an oil change and AC will need recharging. Leave it longer and the gas will have gone bad, rubber pipes will have degraded, brake caliper seals will need changing, and so on...

 

1 hour ago, MinimumSky5 said:

Vacuum conditions aren't that difficult to deal with, it just requires a good pressure vessel, and submarines have to deal with higher pressure differences routinely.

There is no such thing as "a good pressure vessel" over an infinite amount of time. Everything is porous down at the molecular level and materials do degrade.

[MinimumSky5]

True, leave the car too long and it will have issues, same as anything, the point that I'm trying to make is the the systems in the Orion will not be taxed any more during a voyage to Mars than they would be during a voyage to low orbit. 

Maybe the car was a bad analogy, though in fairness my dad's work often left out of the country for weeks or months at a time, and we only ever had to turn the engine over a few times while he was away to keep the battery charged, tyres and oil were never a problem. 

[kerbiloid]

39 minutes ago, MinimumSky5 said:

for weeks or months at a time, and we only ever had to turn the engine over a few times while he was away to keep the battery charged, tyres and oil were never a problem. 

Do you keep the car in a vacuum chamber, varying temperature in 200 degree wide range, from time to time irradiating it with fast ionizing particles?

 

Spoiler

There are anomalous areas right here, on the Earth, which speed up the car decay process several times.

Leave there a car, and less than in hour its DVD player disappears, then tyres decay, gas tank gets empty due to fast evaporation.
One or two weeks later even the engine has gone, just a bare hull remains.

Nobody knows why this happens, and where those things have gone to.
Probably some quantum physical effect, kind of fluctuation.

But the most strange thing is that presence of an Observer (such term from the quantum physics) significantly slows down the process.
Especially if the Observer has a gun.

So, we can clearly postulate the great role of an Armed Observer in quantum physics.

 

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, MinimumSky5 said:

True, leave the car too long and it will have issues, same as anything, the point that I'm trying to make is the the systems in the Orion will not be taxed any more during a voyage to Mars than they would be during a voyage to low orbit.

No, but it has a shelf life like everything else. It will suffer wear and decay after several months, whether it's in orbit, en route to Mars, or in a warehouse at Cape Canaveral. It is designed to support long-duration deep space missions, with up to 21 days active crew time plus 6 months quiescent. That's it. Beyond that, you are outside of the manufacturer's warranty and if it breaks down, you're on your own to get a tow, but more importantly, those are the specs each individual material and component(tank, seal, filter, pipe, fluid, etc...) is designed for.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Nibb31

[MinimumSky5]

So, I've just read back along the thread, and I've somehow ended up arguing against my original point! I'm sorry for the frustration I caused, ill leave you all to continue discussing. 

[Cassel]

18 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

That is simply wrong. Leave your car in your driveway for a few months, then chances are when you start it up, the battery will be dead and the tires will need inflating. Leave it longer and you will probably need an oil change and AC will need recharging. Leave it longer and the gas will have gone bad, rubber pipes will have degraded, brake caliper seals will need changing, and so on...

 

There is no such thing as "a good pressure vessel" over an infinite amount of time. Everything is porous down at the molecular level and materials do degrade.

But if you would leave this car in vacuum half of those things wouldn't happen?

[Kerbinchaser]

All I hear in this post is FlyBe.

aheueueueueue

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, Cassel said:

But if you would leave this car in vacuum half of those things wouldn't happen?

Yes. Even faster actually.

Anything normal rubber or plastic will outgas and go bad nearly instantly. Unless you have active attitude control, your car will end up tumbling, which will cause thermal expansion and retraction cycles, which in turn will eventually cause material fatigue and leakage. Batteries will go flat regardless of the atmosphere.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Nibb31

[Cassel]

35 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

Yes. Even faster actually.

Anything normal rubber or plastic will outgas and go bad nearly instantly. Unless you have active attitude control, your car will end up tumbling, which will cause thermal expansion and retraction cycles, which in turn will eventually cause material fatigue and leakage. Batteries will go flat regardless of the atmosphere.

What are you talking about?

[kerbiloid]

The "day" side of the car freely rotating in the space is getting heated up to ~+100°C (and expanding), while its "night" side is getting cooled down to ~-100°C (and shrinknig).

This means a costant loop of geometrical deformation, a constantly acting oscillating mechanicall stress _{(English term ?)}.

If you take a piece of wire and start bending here and back, it will get ripped. The same with the car.

You can use some active heat management system to keep the temperature constant and redistribute it more uniformly, then the process runs much slower.

If your car doesn't rotate, then its organic parts are sublimating on its "day" side and are embrittling on its "night" side.
And then it anyway starts rotating at least because of this organics sublimation.

Also let's not forget about different fluids stored onboard, They like to freeze or boil. So, their lifespan is also limited.

Edited September 3, 2018 by kerbiloid