Orion Slims Down

I listened in on the discussion presented on downsizing ISS Orion crew from 6 to 4 and SE&I wanted to cut the number of analysis they had to perform (had to do twice as many since had to run numbers for 4 person crew and 6 person crew). Will get rid of many tests and analysis runs.

What's next? Reduction to three people? So what we will have instead of "Apollo on steroids" is MAYBE "Apollo on vitamens"! Granted, having two different configurations would entail more development time and costs. But the reasons for all this are two-fold:

First, the original selection of the Ares I for the launch vehicle to the ISS. It is underpowered, and has a LOT of known problems and unknown issues (Thrust Oscillations). The result has been elimnation of the land/water landing capability, and now two crew members. Lacking six seats will mean that the ISS will have to have TWO vehicles docked at any one time to provide escape capability! That will reduce the flexibility of the ISS. And could this justify retirement of the ISS much sooner?

Second, the failure of both the Bush and the Obama administrations to push Congress for the funds necessary to proceed with the Constellation Program in a timely way! Congress also bears more than a share of responsibility to fund a viable program.

I wish I could be optimistic about the result of the downsizing of the Orion capabity, but I see the Constellation Program being "nibbled to death by butterflies"! :( This is NOT GOOD NEWS AT ALL!

So we have money to fly 50% more ISS crew exchange missions now? What a load of bait & switch... (BS)

Paul

Listened in...

If that were the case, then why not set it to Six and be done?

4 people to moon requires a certain amount of extra food, water, clothes, etc. If you take 6, would you leave 2 inside Orion when the other 4 go to lunar surface? Or take them down? Take all 6 to surface, now you have to drastically resize your lander.

Mass savings for ISS missions going from 6 to 4 is only 1100 lbs (compared to what Orion weights, not much). They are reserving volume so they can block upgrade back to 4 when schedule/budget allows.

Sorry, didn't proof read my post. Block upgrade back to 6 when schedule/budget allows.

And not enough space inside Orion to fit 6 people plus food, water and other stuff for Lunar missions.

If Orion never goes to ISS, and it was only 4-crew to the Moon anyway, then...

Let's see NASP -- slowly reduced until death. X-33 reduced to death. SLI killed two engine programs each at PDR. Orion reduced from 6 to 4. This looks like the standard NASA dance "death by a thousand paper cuts" that we've seen so often before. Lack of consistent vision and direction is the end of NASA as we know it. The WH will be happy to turn it into Al Gore's vision of looking at planet earth from LEO and abandoning any exploration beyond. SAD

"failure of both the Bush and the Obama administrations to push Congress for the funds necessary"

Trailrider:

NASA had and has all of the funding it needs to achieve the objectives of the Vision for Space Exploration.

Unfortunately, NASA chose an expensive exploration architecture that requires it to build and operate of brand-new infrequently-launched family of launch vehicles.

It didn't have to do that.

Instead, it could have chosen to right-size Orion to be lofted on a launch trajectory-modified Atlas or Delta EELV.

The White House could and can even engaged international partnerships so that Orion woulf fly on a modified Ariane V or next gen H-II, in the same manner that India has adopted the Soyuz capsule, like China before it.

Why does NASA continue to pursue this closed, insular, NASA labor-intensive architecture instead of the open, market-oriented, affordable alternatives?

I guess it keeps JSC/MSFC and select Congresspeople happy at the expense of achieving real space exploration objectives.

Sorry, this doesn't make much sense to me. If you design for six that means that it will not be qualified for 4!! A Greyhound bus that is qualified to carry 60 passengers can still carry 40, just not 80. And I assume that the amount of consumables for 6 on a 2 day flight up and a 1 day flight back would be equal to or probably less than the amount for 4 astronauts on the 6 day plus months loiter time in lunar orbit. Sorry, this doesn't pass the logic or smell test.

The Apollo capsule was qualified for 5 astronauts on a rescue return(2 up, 5 down) from Skylab. If we are only going to fly 4 astronauts, with the new technology in electronics and materials you can't tell me that it would have been impossible to use the exact mold lines of Apollo to support 4 astronauts up and down instead of "new and improved" Orion design.

Remember, the capsule is only needed for launch and reentry. Not a lot of extra space needed. For the trans lunar flight, the lunar habitat should more than large enough for the transit. This is type of design, separate capsule and orbital module is used by the Russians in the Soyuz design, the Chinese in the Shenzhou design, and the space shuttle in the Spacehab, Space Lab design.

Sorry, this just reinforces my experience with a lot of super intelligent PHds. Not a lot of common sense.

@John Kavanagh:

>>> I guess it keeps JSC/MSFC and select Congresspeople
>>> happy at the expense of achieving real space
>>> exploration objectives.

Pretty sad isn't it? You only forgot the contractors. But you are getting the picture exactly right.

@Doug Booker:

Ph.D.s are not driving the designs. Believe it or not, but politicians/managers essentially are. Remember that the current Constellation architecture was imposed. Unlike what O'Keefe had suggested to do. And it'll most likely be 3 crew to the Moon if they ever get there with Orion. Which will negate all the Ares design... blahblahblah.

Anyway.

Pretty unimpressive state of things 5 years (!!!!) after the "vision" was declared.

Did you mean "weight" or "wait"?

I thought CEV already went through some form of a PDR.

And when has reducing analysis and testing become a meaningful/valid explanation for reducing initial system performance requirements for multi-year, multi-billion dollar programs.

Sounds like LM and NASA should be providing the tax payers a rebate for a less capable system on a "still to be seen" launch vehicle. When I purchase a dozen donuts, I don't settle for eight.

I thought NASA selected LM because the 6-crew system was viable based on a sound technical proposal submittals. Sounds like NASA should re-bid the CEV to get a system/prime capable of assisting NASA in achieving this goal.

@Confused:

Yeah well. Too late isn't it? I posted several times on this site the link to the AvWeek article on the proposal award. Funny that nobody has cared to dig further into it. Look at what was proposed from either team and what the vehicle looks like today. Contract awards are NOT based on technical soundness. They are political awards. Don't take my words for it. Just go get the facts for yourself. But it's not just LMT's problem alone, or ATK's for that matter. Maybe someone would be interested in looking up what NASA Exploration management relations to LMT or ATK may have been?

Anyway...

Just wanted to remind everyone that this is the latest of many capabilities striped from Orion due to both weight and money issues. Wasn't the CEV suppose to be 5.5m originally? Also, the methane engine for the lander, the land landing, ISRU etc. This is ridiculous. It's all due to the insistence of Mike Griffin to use the Ares I, damn the consequences, and now I suppose supporters of the Ares would say that they have done to much work to abandon the project and start over. Who was it that postulated in an article at The Space Review that the problem is that the "best and brightest" always choose the answer before they figure out what the question is, so to speak.

Not a problem, Dragon is still on track to deliver 6 to ISS.

@common sense

You are correct.

I was a member of the NASA team at JSC when the stick was forced down our throats. There was a HUGE bias toward ATK and the stick. For example NASA management kept running around with data showing EELV blackzones well after the EELV engineering teams gave us blackzone free trajectories.

The head of Exploration was a former ATK manager and has gone back to ATK. ATK was emailed realtime in the middle of meetings so they could solve problems with the stick, while we were forbidden to contact EELV engineers so they could solve their problems.

Danny Deger

What John Kavanagh said.



NASA, please stop wasting money on Aries I right f-ing now.

>>Not a problem, Dragon is still on track to deliver 6 to ISS.

And if it looks like this will happen before Ares I/Orion are ready to fly and if it happens while the world is still digging itself out of this financial mess, then you can kiss Ares, Orion and the moon goodbye. Congress won't have the stomach to pay so much for Constellation if private industry can do the immediate job for less than NASA proposes to do the larger lunar program. Once America is back in space, even if it's just in LEO and if the NASA bills are looking to get nothing but larger, I think there is a real risk that Congress will pull the plug on the entire manned exploration program. That's the pit that Ares has dug for the VSE; a pit that may well turn into a grave for the entire concept of exploration.

Paul

The head of Exploration was a former ATK manager and has gone back to ATK. ATK was emailed realtime in the middle of meetings so they could solve problems with the stick, while we were forbidden to contact EELV engineers so they could solve their problems.
Ahhh Yep

This is why the whole program will be reviewed by the WH transition team.

Happy days for the CxP workforce ahead. Science and Technology will be the priority once again.

@Danny Deger:

I wish it'd be more known by all them space fans on this and other sites. Maybe just maybe they'd be cured of their political based-on-nothing bias(es). I am still baffled that not one newsmedia outlet has tried and dug that up. Goes to tell you how important NASA is in the public eye.

I do not relish on the impact of the WH review on CxP. There are a lot of NASA worker bees committed to Space, aware or unaware of how the choices came to be. I'd rather not cancel CxP but redirect it if at all possible. But 5 years and many billions into it, how likely is that? As likely as extending Shuttle? You decide.

As I said earlier, let's hope COTS and possible subsequent COTS-D are successful...

For those interested, here are high level descriptions and pictures of what I was referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_Rescue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skylab_rescue.jpg

I'm sure Encyclopedia Astronautica probably have this as well.

I didn't mean to offend PHDs. I should have phrased that differently. Engineers also have the problem "better-itis" as in "I know I can design it better with a little more..." fill in the blank with time, money, resources, etc. That's when the Program Manager has to reign them in.

I keep telling people, if we just delete Orion Ares 1 can make orbit.

Back in 2007 it was agreed the 1st two Ares V missions would be in the "Ares IV" configuration. That being the Ares V core stage/SRB's but with the Ares I Upper Stage and an unmanned Orion vehicle (no LAS). The only thing stopping Ares IV for being crew rated is the Core Stage main engines.

If Ares IV was adopted in place of Ares 1 you could share a common core stage/SRBs between IV and V. Just change out the upper stage for the Earth Departure stage and you have the Ares V.

Save money, infrastructure, adds lots of lift margin.... ATK gets paid… NASA people save face. We get to the moon…

Nah, better stick with the stick...

Symptomatic of much larger problems, and not just within the Constellation problem. Some hot-shot picks a point solution before the problem or mission are even well defined, then forces that 'answer' down the chain; everyone below knows on which side the bread is buttered, so they salute and begin the epic struggle of trying to make the point solution work. The resultant struggle against sanity and the laws of physics would be comical if done by Abbot and Costello, but it's sad in NASA.

I'm not just talking about Mikey, either. Sure, his 'stick' (or 'Old Wheezy' as some of us call it) is a fine example. But the whole program is rife with others. "Toss all the knowledge of how you communicate - we're going to make the spacecraft just like a node on the Internet". Forget that it's a one-way link sometimes, and asymmetric, and bandwidth is precious. Just make it work. Orion has stuff forced into it that shouldn't be there as a result.

This kind of thinking has set back the real flight date by at least a year. All I can say is "Thank God for Dragon", because I seriously doubt there's any way in hell that Orion will ever fly to ISS - four or six crew.

I was recently asked by a friend to come up with some convincing arguements (for a friend of his' persuasive speech to his Public Speaking college class)why youngsters should consider careers in aerospace and the other STEM disciplines. Twenty years since being laid off by a certain aerospace company (along with 3,499 others!), and unable to find a job in the industry or with NASA...I can't think of anything convincing to say! :( Especially in light of this Bravo Sierra! SAD! REALLY SAD!

Trailrider

When a manned Dragon flies to the ISS the problem changes from "inventing Earth to Moon and back spacecraft" to "inventing spacestation to Moon and back spacecraft". See the film 2001 A Space Odyssey for ideas.

As some people have correctly pointed out, the Orion lunar mission is for 4 persons to/from lunar surface. So Orion is already being designed for that configuration in a multitude of environments (LEO, LLO, skip re-entry, landing, etc.). For the ISS mission, the critical piece of data that nobody has mentioned is that ISS doesn't need Orion to carry 6 persons to/from ISS. The ISS Program never asked for this capability. For today's ISS operations, when you have two Soyuz Spacecraft docked to ISS, or Shuttle/Soyuz docked, or Orion/Soyuz docked, or Orion/Orion docked, each manned spacecraft is obligated to take care of the people it carried into orbit as it's "home vehicle" until after the crews are swapped out. Then post swap out, the vehicles again have a set number of personnel assigned to each "home vehicle" in the event of a contingency (fire, toxic spill, whatever) as well as for nominal undock/return. This is why it is okay to go to 6 person capability so long as two Soyuz spacecraft are docked to ISS at a time. The ISS Program never intends to do a wholesale swap of 6 persons from ISS and bring them all back in Orion or any other vehicle. For a 6 person ISS permanent presence, 3-4 people can be assigned to Orion as it's "Home Vehicle" and the other 2-3 people are assigned to Soyuz or the other Orion. Again, 6 person Orion missions to ISS aren't on the ISS manifest and ISS Program doesn't require the Orion 6-person capability. This is a requirement without a customer. So, since schedule is king and we want to launch the first manned mission as soon as practical, why carry multiple seat/pallet configurations (6 and 4 person configurations are different in a number of ways)? Why analyze crew safety issues associated with the 6 person pallet being close to the edge of capsule IML in the Y-axis direction if that isn't the plan? Why perform seat/pallet vibration analyses in the 6-person configuration? Why drag additional suits/seats to ISS and back? Why not turn those extra two persons into ISS pressurized cargo capability so that ISS gets what they really need which is more upmass into orbit? Why size the Block 1 ECLS for 6 persons when we don't need it? ECLS design can be optimized for operability and common fan designs when sized for 4 persons. 4 person configuration is more robust and safer and allows more robust design solutions and ISS will get more pressurized cargo capability. 6 person capability is still available since Orion didn't change the OML and Orion can always be re-configured to carry 6 persons. But until there is a customer who needs them to carry 6 persons, it doesn't make sense to work multiple issues associated with this configuration. They've elected to go to a common crew module design for ISS and Lunar which makes complete sense (it is simple KISS principle stuff). Common Crew Module designs for both ISS and Lunar help with schedule confidence for sure. It no longer makes sense to design/test/analyze against hypothetical cases that have no customer. Let's get the 4 person capsule right, let's size the ECLS for 4 persons and make the system more robust. Let's learn how to fly to ISS effectively and get there sooner rather than later. Earlier missions to ISS make sense so that we have more runway to learn about Orion design via real flight data and can make the Lunar Block II Crew Module that much better. If/when we decide to carry 6 persons to Mars or beyond, Orion can certainly do so since the 6 person capsule weight (21,400 lbm) is still the design driver for launch aborts and landing impact scenarios (water nominal and contingency land). So this decision was a no brainer to me. CxPO gets a better, more robust design on a schedule friendly path and ISS gets American manned capability sooner. All of this is in the direction of goodness.

Let's go over this logic again.

NASA wants a six-person Orion to go to the ISS.

NASA wants a four-person Orion to go to the Moon.

So, to avoid wasting time and money developing two slightly different configurations, NASA decides on a four-person Orion to go to the ISS because they can use the exact same capsule without modification to go to the Moon sometime in the distant future.

On a program that will likely exceed $100 billion over its lifetime, how expensive can it be to remove a couple of chairs??

Use an Apollo capsule design with modern electronics. Everything else the same. Add ballast if needed to offset the lack of weight from the electronics and instrument panel. Or did some body throw all the documentation and prints away? I have the systems manuals for the Command Module, saved from the trash by the way. The CM systems are very sophisticated, well integrated, and minimalistic. A good combination. These manuals are extremely impressive, the Apollo CM Systems manuals are written and arrange such that an aero engineer, without any prior experience on the Apollo program, can understand these documents perfectly in a short period of time. A very well diagrammed and written document.

But no, I guess the attitude is; it was done in the 60s of the last century, the laws of physics have changes so much since then there is no way it could function today.
- Or - Cutting Edge, Its Not Cutting Edge,it HAS to be CUTTING EDGE!!, we Are NASA, We do Cutting Edge RESEARCH, what is all this nonsense about an Operational Capability!!!!!! Had this yelled at me, as my jaw dropped to the ground, by a manager at Dryden FRC once, I think it captures the spirit of the "" NASA - FAMILY "" as an organization over all. So I hope they are getting all their research done - but an operational capability would be nice about now.

FWIW, I think that the downsizing Orion to a launch crew of four is an early indicator of the abandonment of 'Orion to ISS'. If the design is unlikely to fly before station retirement, then why bother to give it the capability to do the job? Gap until after 2016, ladies and gentlemen? This latest downsizing is NASA's essential admission of that fact.

However, there are far more critical worries that come from this news. You see, this reduction is all about reducing weight for the launch of the ISS-Trimmed Orion on Ares-I. Do you know what that means? It means that Ares-I cannot launch a six-seat Orion with 3-4 days of consumables. That ALSO means that it definately can't launch a four-seat Lunar Orion with 6-8 days of consumables (plus all that extra fuel for ROI).

This means that Lunar Orion will probably have to be launched on Ares-V. Which means that it will get even heavier (when getting it off the pad is a grey area even now). That will mean more money, longer development and more areas of engineering uncertainty. It will also make cancellation that little more likely.

So, the consequences of "The Stick or Nothing" will be:

1) An early end to US involvement with the ISS, possibly early retirement of the station;

2) An LEO launcher with no mission as it will be unable to launch the lunar/deep space exploration variant and there will be no LEO destination to fly to;

3) A heavy launcher that grows ever more expensive and unlikely has just been made a little heavier and more expensive.

Thank you, disciples of ESAS. You have killed US manned spaceflight. The Luddites are in your debt.

@Keith Cowing
"If weight was "not an issue" then I suppose that Steve "the next von Braun" Cook won't need to be using any of the saved weight to solve Ares 1 upmass issues..."

Mr. Cowing you really, really ought to try to understand how the ISS and lunar architectures work before you print statements like that. There are Orion mass targets that must be hit that have nothing to do with the capability of Ares I to get it to orbit.

1) Foremost amongst these is the crew module mass. It is limited by the size of the parachutes that can be packed on the vehicle. A more capable Ares I would do nothing to help meet this challenge (reducing crew size does). It is a "downmass" challenge.

2) In the lunar architecture, the Orion must be propelled to the moon by combination of the Ares V EDS and the Altair lander. Orion wet mass targets at lunar TLI are set to be within the Ares V/EDS capability. A more capable Ares I would do nothing to help meet this challenge.

THESE are the true Orion mass bottlenecks in the system that the Project is working. Ares I has about 25% margin in getting the ISS Orion to orbit. That is pretty good for PDR. Getting more performance out of Ares I is NOT the solution to any of the Orion mass challenges!!!

Let's see - we are now down to one-third more than Apollo to have the ersatz von Braun save goateed face.

So I guess the lunar lander must be 1/3 more than Apollo - 2 astronauts and a golden retriever!

Common Crew Module designs for both ISS and Lunar help with schedule confidence for sure. It no longer makes sense to design/test/analyze against hypothetical cases that have no customer.

The Poking stick has the snake on the move again. The frustum never had room for 6 crew, it was just an illusion put forth so the program would get support,

Now with a system review to take place by independent parties proposed, the $hit rises to the surface.

@ Brit:
"It means that Ares-I cannot launch a six-seat Orion with 3-4 days of consumables."

Untrue.

"That ALSO means that it definately can't launch a four-seat Lunar Orion with 6-8 days of consumables (plus all that extra fuel for ROI)."

ALSO untrue.

"This means that Lunar Orion will probably have to be launched on Ares-V."

Untrue.

Speculate if you wish, but do not state as facts things which you know nothing about. Learn the difference between mass constraints and launch capability.

See my post below (if it is printed - it may not as it takes the blogmeister to task) for explanations.

Ares IV (2x 5seg RSRM, 5x RS-68, 10m core, 1x J-2x [Ares I US) was, at one point, proposed for Apollo 8 class lunar orbital missions. It's now know that the existing RS-68 abalative engine will not work in the base heating environment of the Ares V vehicle. Therefore, either a davelopment program leading to an upgraded RS-68 (probably a regenerative, largely new engine) or reversion to the SSME will be required. Reverting to SSME leads to the deletion of the 10m core, and reversion to the original 8.4m core (which can be built with existing ET tooling at Michoud). It's also known that the J-2X engine can be replace by a cluster of 6 RL-10B engines. While this has some safety concerns based on the "Cluster Last Stand" argument, they are counterbalanced by the fact that the RL-10 is a reliable engine with a 40 year flight history. Deleting the J-2X development program will save money and time. Using the RL-10s leads to the possibility of deteing one SSME on the 8.4m core. Deleting the 5th SSME allows deletion of the 5seg RSRM development program saving money and time. The resulty Ares IV "Lite" vehicle can support a 2-launch lunar architecture with the currently planned Orion and Altair vehicles, and do so in a timely fashion. Ares IV "Lite" can be flying by 2016. That leaves Altair as the "long pole" in the program, and we can land on the Moon whenever it's ready. We can do lunar orbital and NEO missions as soon as Orion and Ares IV are ready. And if we really need to be flying Orion to ISS between now and 2020 (probably because COTS-D wasn't funder, or simply failed), there's always EELV. I'd prefer to hand over ISS to commerical operators as soon as they show up (guaranteeing that as a market by cancelling Orion to ISS may help them raise money) and focusing on Ares IV, Orion, and Altair. We can use the money saved on engine development to speed things along.

Dragon? Who are we kidding? A paper capsule without a launch abort system on a rocket that has NEVER flown? C'mon gang. Let's get a procurement for COTS-D out on the street, properly fund it, let the big boys figure it out, and get out of their way (Sort of what NASA should have done with Orion, but didn't). With that approach, we'd have a system flying by 2013...

Reducing the crew from 6 to 4 to ISS makes sense especially if it saves time and money. Not sure why you would argue against this.

Ares I and V is supposed to get us to the moon. Crew transport to the ISS will only last a few years. The fact that only 4 can get to the ISS is not important.

Because Ares V will never be built (discussion on this site about that recently) Constellation will never go further than LEO. Sending humans into space when they can never go further than LEO is a complete waste of time and money, whether you send 4 or 6 or 1,000,000.

"...can no longer meet even its most basic, high level requirements"...? Say what? The altitude's not getting to you over there is it, Keith?

I met "Doc Rock" Horowitz when he came out to visit us at Bigelow Aerospace. I was trying to explain to him that we had 1 pound vectran paraglider harnesses that could replace the 80 pound space shuttle passenger seats. To my suprise, he agreed with me. But he did mention that the two shuttle pilots would still need rigid seats since they operated foot pedals. I don't think that is the case on Ares 1. So: if you want to save 480 lbs on Ares, consider vectran harnesses instead of aluminum seats.

End of May for a decision on Ares V. Not dead yet.. The USAF/NRO/NSA want that rocket!

@ Dr. Prunesquallor

So, basically, what you are saying is that NASA cannot design a capsule that can carry six crew back down safely? Or, are what you actually saying that Ares-I cannot launch an Orion that can carry six crew back down safely. As I cannot believe that scaling up the lessons of Apollo to a six-seater is that impossible, I have to assume that there is a certain degree of 'spin' at work here.

Excuse my ignorance of such things, but it seems that you are attempting to find away to admit Ares-I Under-performance without actually saying it.

@ yg1968

Six crew capacity was also orginally needed for NEO and Mars (I'm not sure if the actual planned crew for those missions was five or six). Reduced crew means less getting done and less return on investment.

This is beginning to feel a little like Shuttle: slowly cutting away every upgrade & later program until we are left with a bare minimum mission just for the sake of flying SOMETHING.

This is beginning to feel a little like Shuttle: slowly cutting away every upgrade & later program until we are left with a bare minimum mission just for the sake of flying SOMETHING.

BINGO. this is the method that has been followed Since NASA became NASA.

NOT used at NACA centers!

Orion? Who are we kidding? A paper capsule without a launch abort system on a rocket that has NEVER flown? (Yes, I know Orion is supposed to have a LAS, but manned Dragon is supposed to have a LAS too. Neither caspule exists, and Ares I is a LOT farther from its first launch attempt than Falcon 9.)

This is embarrasing. Forty years after Apollo we're incapable to design a capsule we can actually launch into LEO. Maybe we should have simply reverse-engineered Apollo which, at least, was able to get 5 seats into the contigency Skylab Rescue Mission.

The internationals, and on a shoestring budget ($4B/yr billion for ESA vs $20B/yr billion NASA), are kicking our b*ts. Europe already has a Service Module in their ATV, a man-rated and commercially viable launch vehicle (Ariane V), so they're just one capsule design away from replacing the ATV cargo space with a capsule to really embarrass us. I don't know what to say. I guess powerpoint engineering has irreversably taken its toll.

I'm a strong Human Spaceflight proponent, and support a heavy launch vehicle capacity (not really for the Moon, but certainly for 6-12 month deep space asteroid/comet missions in the short term and Mars still in sight for the long term), but this is one pill too hard to swallow. And no, I still think NASA shouldn't just become an extension of the Dept. of Education and limited to giving research grants.

@Lowly Contractor:

Yes very embarassing. Arrogance ALWAYS yields catastrophe. We indeed did it 40 years ago but nobody knows how to do it again. It would have required reverse engineering of the whole Apollo program, including Saturn. May have been more cost efficient...

As for ATV, recall that Griffin himself was encouraging Europe to make a crewed version of it: (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/239405main_french_national_assembly.pdf) "We await with anticipation the many deliveries by the ATV of critically needed cargo and equipment to the ISS. Further, the many technologies developed throughout
Europe for this sophisticated vehicle offer the prospect of even greater European feats in the future, based on the use of this core vehicle. It would be a small step from
today’s Ariane 5 and Jules Verne to an independent European human spaceflight capability." What does it tell you as NASA was struggling to get this capability in the US?

@Brit

"So, basically, what you are saying is that NASA cannot design a capsule that can carry six crew back down safely?"

See my comments to Keith. The active constraints are the Ares V capability to get Orion to the moon AND the capability to safely land this vehicle with parachutes of reasonable size. The constraint that is NOT active (e.g. the system can do this at this time) is the capability for Ares I to get Orions to orbit.

I jokingly said this would happen about two weeks ago. What I didn't expect was that it would be so soon! On the other hand the NASA gobbledegook "explanation" and disclaimer(YEAH! RIGHT!) is EXACTLY as expected! Ho hum!

It's not because Orion is overweight. It is because Ares I is under-powered. If we are reducing crew size because of SE&I analyses costs, we have more serious problems than I thought. I could at least understand payload capacity of the rocket vs. payload weight as an issue. If we can't afford to do the proper analyses on the design, how can we possibly afford to actually operate the system. This thing better be killed before the end of the year while we can still recover.

@Brian Bernhard:
"Use an Apollo capsule design with modern electronics. Everything else the same. Add ballast if needed to offset the lack of weight from the electronics and instrument panel. Or did some body throw all the documentation and prints away? I have the systems manuals for the Command Module, saved from the trash by the way. The CM systems are very sophisticated, well integrated, and minimalistic. A good combination. These manuals are extremely impressive, the Apollo CM Systems manuals are written and arrange such that an aero engineer, without any prior experience on the Apollo program, can understand these documents perfectly in a short period of time. A very well diagrammed and written document."

If true, that's the best plan I've heard so far - a new & improved Apollo capsule! Sure seems like it would've been a cheapier & easier way to go.

And it would give today's engineers a chance to substantially learn & improve on the past instead of just screwing around & running up the tab with all new designs (tab running up being an aerospace & defense contractor specialty).

Also concerned about going to far with a Goldin-esque "lean & mean" approach or scaling back too much.

Hope that the Obama administration remembers that "lean & mean" is very literal - too much cutting back makes the workforce sick & many become meanies too!

Not too skinny, not too fat, but something in moderation is the best approach for both hardware/software & workforce, imho.......

@ Dr. Prunesquallor

You are now trying to blame the Ares V for a weight problem with something that is launched on the Ares I. Unless you are recommending the scrapping of both Ares we are not even going to begin to believe you.

Andrew Swallow

Orion grew about like Mercury grew, Gemini grew, and Apollo's CM and CSM and LM grew.

The difference between Apollo and Orion is that von Braun didn't believe the numbers the Apollo people gave him, predicted large mass increases in the lunar mission requirements, and built Saturn V with sufficient additional capacity (and space for the eventual fifth engine in the center) to grow to handle the load it needed to.

I and many others strongly urged anyone who would listen to rescope CEV's concept design to be 20% less than the EELV payloads (allowing for CEV growth without busting the EELV capacity), whatever crew capacity to Luna and LEO that gave. Preferably scope to 20% less than what the EELV models with no solid boosters could lift, as those models are arguably inherently the safest ones to fly on. Preferably scope to 20% less than the smallest value either Atlas V or Delta IV could lift with no solids - which worked out to about 6.5 tons mass design point, on 8 ton payload capacity on Delta IV (Atlas V was higher but again, design to the lowest common denominator).

The British MRC capsule just happens to just about match that size / weight requirement with 4 crew nominal - it was designed for an Ariane 4L launcher originally.

If you still wanted stick after that sizing, fine, but if stick failed to develop appropriately you could fly on multiple solidless EELV vehicles, or in a pinch with less up payload even on a Delta 7920 or 7920H.

Instead: ...Oops.

Back in the old days we would design the payload (spacecraft) then go look for or design a booster to launch it. Not develop a booster and then make the payload fit. But I'm old....

Back in the old days we would design the payload (spacecraft) then go look for or design a booster to launch it. Not develop a booster and then make the payload fit. But I'm old....

@Dr. Prunesquallor

While you may be correct that the problem is with downmass and the load on the landing parachutes then why did the Constellation program lie and say that the Orion would support 6 person capability to ISS in the first place.

As noted earlier, the Apollo capsule designed forty years ago was certified for 5 person downmass for Skylab rescue missions. Why not use the Apollo design with new electronics and new scaled down service module? If Griffin and the rest of the Constellation were truthful about not reinventing technology that NASA already had (and paid for) they would have thought of this.

@ Andrew Swallow

"You are now trying to blame the Ares V for a weight problem with something that is launched on the Ares I. Unless you are recommending the scrapping of both Ares we are not even going to begin to believe you".

I am not trying to "blame" anything on anyone (and I'm not sure who the "we" you claim to
represent are). I'm trying to convey the how the Constellation architecture works and the multiple constraints it must satisfy.

1) The Orion Crew Module must carry four crewmembers to the moon and back along with their spacesuits and consumables for a significantly longer period of time than Apollo did due to the more ambitious mission objectives. This turns out to be a challenge to the recovery systems. The parachutes are pushing the size limit that can be compressed and packed into the vehicle.

Now, pay attention. No increase in Ares I performance is going to solve this problem. This is a downmass challenge. Orion must find a way to limit the mass of the Crew Module.

2) The Orion is propelled to the moon by the EDS and Altair, both launched by the Ares V. The Ares V is pushing the limit of the infrastructure at the Cape for assembly and launch. It cannot grow much more. Therefore, there is a limit to the Orion wet mass which can be propelled to the moon.

Now, pay attention. No increase in Ares I performance is going to solve this problem. This is an Orion wet mass challenge. Orion must find a way to limit the vehicle wet mass (as must Altair, but they're not at PDR).

3) Ares I must be able to lauch Orion to orbit.

Now, at the current time 1) and 2) are the architecture-level challenges. Ares I has more than enough performance to get Orion to orbit, but paradoxically, we can't take advantage of it.

Dr. Prunesquallor, I have defended NASA on this blog when I thought something was unfairly said about them but this has "mass savings" written all over it. With Orion the diameter has decreased from 5.5 meters to 5 meters, land based retrieval has become a maybe, and it has gone from 6 crew capability to 4 crew capability. All evidence points to Orion being downgraded because of the Ares 1. Also the 6 crew capability was advertised by NASA press releases and for example the "Project Orion Overview And Prime Contractor Announcement" press release stated that "Transport up to 6 crew members on Orion for crew rotation" and "Emergency lifeboat for entire ISS crew".

@ Dr. Prunesquallor

"... The parachutes are pushing the size limit that can be compressed and packed into the vehicle.

Now, pay attention. No increase in Ares I performance is going to solve this problem. This is a downmass challenge. Orion must find a way to limit the mass of the Crew Module."

So basically the Crew Module needs an extra parachute. To fit the parachute in the capsule needs to be bigger. Bigger means heavier so the Ares I will have difficulty lifting the Orion.

"... The Ares V is pushing the limit of the infrastructure at the Cape for assembly and launch. It cannot grow much more. Therefore, there is a limit to the Orion wet mass which can be propelled to the moon."

So the Ares V and the launch pad are unfit for purpose. Like a jacket that is too small send them back.

Alternatively go for a 2.5 architecture.

Andrew Swallow

@Doug Booker
"As noted earlier, the Apollo capsule designed forty years ago was certified for 5 person downmass for Skylab rescue missions".

That was for a fast up and down mission - two up, five down. The Constellation mission is for four crew, their suits and consumables for two weeks. And the recovery system has to bring this full mass back in case of launch abort.

Orion is,,, cancelled for lack of public support.

Great going CxP, the Agency owes you a merit award for excellence.

Dr. Prunesquallor:

A. Those mission requirements roughly match the British MRC design ( http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mulpsule.htm ) from the 90s. It had gross liftoff weight of 7 metric tons, 6.2 metric tons of which was the capsule and about 800 kg the service module. Why is Orion around 12 metric tons again?

B. The Soyuz gets around these problems by using an orbital module with the heavy systems, and a reentry module with the minimal stuff for the ride down, parachutes, heat shield, etc.

1) The Soyuz, the MRC, and the Apollo weren't designed for the 120 day stay at the Moon.
2) The safety environment (post-Challenger/Columbia)NASA works in today will not let us take the same risks Apollo took
3) Anyone who ever thought we would need 6 person capability for the ISS mission doesn't understand the relationship with the Russians
4) The funding profile the Program got forced concurrent development of the Ares and Orion. That means that a lift requirement and a mass allocation were given to each. Neither is meeting their original allocation. Finger-pointing on this particular point, useless.
5) NASA could easily design a cheap, light vehicle for 'access to space' for 4 or 6 people, or for precision land landings. The problem is when you want that and access to not just the Moon, but the total surface of the Moon, and assured emergency return, and unconstrained launch windows, and meet the Station requirements and carry Science, 10 healthy centers, and preserve the jobs/contractors, and...... You armchair quarterbacks are pretty good at one axis of the problem at a time. Come on down to the field and suit up.

@weary

"You armchair quarterbacks are pretty good at one axis of the problem at a time. Come on down to the field and suit up."

I think a lot of engineers would like to have that challenge, but it's still about achieving successful program milestones/results and the ability for the "paid" team to solve the problems; identify the non-closure design issues and solve them without dancing around the issues; quit just cashing the NASA checks without coming close to meeting what was promise (because we know that CEV has paid additional funds to the prime just because the schedule slipped and not for additional valuable achievements; do not build a team around inexperience prime contractor selections and "I hate to say" NASA folks who have never design a successful manned space vehicle in decades; and changing the rules for such items as PDR (seems when NASA is the customer for commercial prime contractor contracts those primes are held at a higher level of accountability than when NASA is it's own customer (who's watching the hen house).

So though you a weary of all the opinions stated, it still seems that the paid quarterbacks are fumbling the ball.

@weary

1. "The Soyuz, the MRC, and the Apollo weren't designed for the 120 day stay at the Moon." Give it a few months and neither will Orion. Just wait.
2. "The safety environment (post-Challenger/Columbia)NASA works in today will not let us take the same risks Apollo took." Did Safety remove two seats from Orion?
3. "Anyone who ever thought we would need 6 person capability for the ISS mission doesn't understand the relationship with the Russians." Wasn't NASA the one who originally asked for that? Oh. That explains it.
4. "Finger-pointing on this particular point, useless." No, it's not useless. It lets us know who is incapable of managing and meeting critical commitments.
5. "NASA could easily design a cheap, light vehicle for 'access to space' for 4 or 6 people" No, they couldn't. Look at their track record.

@ Andrew Swallow

"So basically the Crew Module needs an extra parachute. To fit the parachute in the capsule needs to be bigger. Bigger means heavier so the Ares I will have difficulty lifting the Orion".

No. That is a non-convergent growth spiral.

"So the Ares V and the launch pad are unfit for purpose. Like a jacket that is too small send them back".

And the VAB and the crawler and the crawlerway and the mobile launcher and the Michoud Assembly facility and the barge, etc., etc. Nope, we can't afford a bigger jacket.

@Drake

"All evidence points to Orion being downgraded because of the Ares 1".

That is your interpretation, not evidence. The facts are as I stated. The size of the parachutes cannot grow and still be packed in the existing moldline. Ares I could lift an Orion heavier than the current mass estimates, but the parachutes could not land it on land during a launch abort safely.

@Gonzo
1)"Give it a few months and neither will Orion." When the criteria does change, we'll talk again.
2)"Did Safety remove two seats from Orion?" It was certainly a factor. The seat pallet has to be designed to meet the contraints of the Brinkley model. Designing a system to meet that for all of the landing criteria, particularly for wedging 6 people in that space (and allowing for seat stroke) was a design challenge.
3)"Wasn't NASA the one who originally asked for that? Oh. That explains it." It's fair to say that there were management elements within the agency that thought 6 was important. To that extent, it was a NASA requirement. Doesn't mean they were right.
4)"It lets us know who is incapable of managing and meeting critical commitments." At some level yes. The point is that trying to pin this particular difficulty soley on Ares isn't completely fair. Its one of the penalties of trying to develop a payload and a launch vehicle at the same time. It would be fair to say that wan't particularly clever, but that's a different arguement.
5)""NASA could easily design a cheap, light vehicle for 'access to space' for 4 or 6 people" No, they couldn't. Look at their track record." Could so...ugh. You miss the point. Track record included, the problem is that the design always winds up being a compromise of much more complex issues than just the technical. The politics and fractious infighting (within and with help from Congress) make the problem overconstrained. Rutan, Musk, et al, are only solving a part of the problem Cx is working and they have the luxury of not working in the same fishbowl.

The design approach for the Orion CEV was flawed from the start. They wanted a walled in bathroom, so it needed to go into the CEV which drove sizing considerations for the escape/return capsule. They wanted extra volume for the crew to live in during extended periods returning from the moon or from Mars, so they designed it into the escape/return capsule. The Russian and Chinese approach of sizing your return capsule for the return, and of housing other accomodations in a special purpose module makes much more sense. We could do one better than the Russians and Chinese by leaving the bathroom and the living volume behind during launch aborts. This would have had the further benefit of reducing the mass of the escape system. This would require either a hatch in the heatshield which was proven on MOL and Merkur, or a transposition and docking once reaching space, with the added weight of a docking system.

To compound this problem, the SRB based Ares could only carry an Apollo sized vehicle, if it were stripped down to get rid of heavy systems like fuel cells, and going for some higher tech approaches for things like electronics. Clearing the crew cabin of the large Apollo display and control console alone opened up considerable volume in the module, adequate to house 6 crew. Because the Orion had to be so stripped down, the problem caused further issues when it came to the Altair lander which now had to carry propulsion capabilities for purposes other than the critical moon landing phase - which means that dead weight now has to be carried to the surface in the form of excess tankage. You want to be able to use every ounce of our landing capability to land critical hardware and consumables, and excess fuel is useful for things like landing aborts.

Yes, those other capsules weren't designed for 120 days on the Moon.

But they could be in space for 120 days, easily, with some hotel power.

The CAPSULE - up to station, down; and earth launch/return for the Moon / Mars / Asteroid missions - doesn't have to hold people for 120 days. It's never going on those missions without extensive additional equipment, which can easily include the life support equipment and supplies and living space in another module.

Trying to make it an all-up module capable of all of it, in one go, pushes mass to an unacceptable level.

Attempting to merge the vehicles leads to a LEO capsule that's overburdened and too big - ultimately, too big to fly, apparently, as it's now bigger than all the existing launchers AND THE ONE DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO LOFT IT...

The sooner the plan is revised the better.

This is nothing more then a trade study funded to the tune of billons that will never meet any form of budget constrant or imposed schedule.

altair, orion, ares are just a bunch of legos in the puzzle that will never be built.
Ho humm it has been heard before many times

How We'll Get Back To The Moon
ScienceDaily (Sep. 20, 2005) — Before the end of the next decade, NASA astronauts will again explore the surface of the moon. And this time, we're going to stay, building outposts and paving the way for eventual journeys to Mars and beyond. There are echoes of the iconic images of the past, but it won't be your grandfather's moon shot.

Safe and reliable

The launch system that will get the crew off the ground builds on powerful, reliable shuttle propulsion elements. Astronauts will launch on a rocket made up of a single shuttle solid rocket booster, with a second stage powered by a shuttle main engine.

A second, heavy-lift system uses a pair of longer solid rocket boosters and five shuttle main engines to put up to 125 metric tons in orbit -- about one and a half times the weight of a shuttle orbiter. This versatile system will be used to carry cargo and to put the components needed to go to the moon and Mars into orbit. The heavy-lift rocket can be modified to carry crew as well.

Best of all, these launch systems are 10 times safer than the shuttle because of an escape rocket on top of the capsule that can quickly blast the crew away if launch problems develop. There's also little chance of damage from launch vehicle debris, since the capsule sits on top of the rocket.

The Flight Plan

In just five years, the new ship will begin to ferry crew and supplies to the International Space Station. Plans call for as many as six trips to the outpost a year. In the meantime, robotic missions will lay the groundwork for lunar exploration. In 2018, humans will return to the moon. Here's how a mission would unfold:

A heavy-lift rocket blasts off, carrying a lunar lander and a "departure stage" needed to leave Earth's orbit. The crew launches separately, then docks their capsule with the lander and departure stage and heads for the moon.

Three days later, the crew goes into lunar orbit. The four astronauts climb into the lander, leaving the capsule to wait for them in orbit. After landing and exploring the surface for seven days, the crew blasts off in a portion of the lander, docks with the capsule and travels back to Earth. After a de-orbit burn, the service module is jettisoned, exposing the heat shield for the first time in the mission. The parachutes deploy, the heat shield is dropped and the capsule sets down on dry land.

'Into the Cosmos'

With a minimum of two lunar missions per year, momentum will build quickly toward a permanent outpost. Crews will stay longer and learn to exploit the moon's resources, while landers make one way trips to deliver cargo. Eventually, the new system could rotate crews to and from a lunar outpost every six months.

Planners are already looking at the lunar south pole as a candidate for an outpost because of concentrations of hydrogen thought to be in the form of water ice, and an abundance of sunlight to provide power.

These plans give NASA a huge head start in getting to Mars. We will already have the heavy-lift system needed to get there, as well as a versatile crew capsule and propulsion systems that can make use of Martian resources. A lunar outpost just three days away from Earth will give us needed practice of "living off the land" away from our home planet, before making the longer trek to Mars.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adapted from materials provided by National Aeronautics And Space Administration.

Keith......please don't compare Steve Cook to Dr. Von Braun even in a sarcastic way. There is NO comparison.

It's all about the rocket. Orion had to give up a lot and slip schedule over a year (back in 2007), start over (the great parking lot disaster) and add about $1,000,000,000 to the development cost. Ares 1 in it's current configuration is ending the CxP program.

Just change the rockets configuration, add one more SRB (side mounted SRBs), give it more lift and NASA and the US taxpayer wins!

We are going fast from "I think it can" to "I thought it could...."