Orion Under Siege

Orion technology should not be simply discarded. Much of its internals should be usable in a crew vehicle of a different sort, including a lifting body--perhaps as a life-support module for an X-37B, or larger derivative thereof.

So why are we canceling Orion when NONE of the Augustine options called for it to be canceled?

Read the chart that has the "elements" of each option - it has Orion is every single one.

People question the cancellation of Orion.

But don't ALL of Augustine's review scenarios have Orion stuck in LEO until after 2020?

"Much of its internals should be usable in a crew vehicle of a different sort, including a lifting body"

First of all, if you want a manned lifting body vehicle you are going to have to wait a long time. Lifting bodies were out there with OSP and the early CEV proposals. Unfortunately safety and certain requirements make that really tough. Lifting body vehicles are much more susceptible to orbital debris damage than capsules with a service module covering the heat shield. Entry at beyond LEO entry speeds becomes much harder and there is no option for a pseudo ballistic entry like Soyuz.

This is the type of bloggerism that makes me furous. The current path, apparently is to dump on everyone that had a stake in the previous program regardless of whether it is founded in reality. People can say that "word has it" and we are supposed to take it as truth.

The other annoying thing about this budget is that there are contractors out there, like LM, that bid and fairly won contracts to perform to requirements. They did everything their customer requested including maintaining budget at the cost of schedule and succeeded at their work.

Then the customer turns around and says thanks but you can go home now, and oh by the way we are going to open the door to those you competed against and won so that they can now make money at what you were doing. Thanks for your support.

Then the bloggers say, I can't believe these fool Cx contractors think they can do anything, SpaceX is the God of LEO HSF, I don't know why this large contractor that won a fair competition thinks that they could succeed.

Come on, someone has to show fairness to contractors in this discussion, they were just doing their job and now the rug is pulled out from under them. And don't give me this, "they can just compete in the commercial market" talk. There is no market. The only market is government contracts and these contractors had one.

A space plane like the Dreamchaser (a clone of NASA's HL-20) or a man-rated X-37 would be cheaper than developing the Orion, IMO. You could just use a MAX LAS for launch abort.

And for beyond LEO missions, just place a simple lightweight habitat module on top of an EDS vehicle designed to operate between LEO and the Lagrange Points.

Marcel F. Williams

"A space plane like the Dreamchaser"

Wake me when they get to orbit... in about 2030.

The new plan swaps the Orion from the Augustine plan to add more R&D, which is also called for in by the Augustine report.

It may or may not be a good idea to do Orion now but what's the point of doing Orion now if your HLV and BEO program won't begin until the middle of the 2020s. It will be sitting on a shelf for 10-15 years.

And if you do Orion now, you'll need to pay for it somehow. Likely by cutting R&D.

The problem with Aries/Orion is that it makes NO attempt to lower the cost or increase frequency of access to space, LEO or otherwise. That's why I personally objected to the Constellation project and left ATK in 2006 (which looks like a damned good decision right around now).

It is my firm belief that just like the European exploration of the New World and far East, any colonization of space will be done mostly for reasons of turning a profit or acquiring land. There is no real future for space as anything to us other than military high ground, communications, or a great place to planet-watch from until the cost of access is reasonable. The only way to ever do this, absent a space elevator or somesuch, is to use cheap, simple rockets and launch very frequently. That's what it looks like SpaceX is aiming for as well, and is exactly what Aries was NOT.

"no one at ESMD PAO ever released information about the recent parachute test failure."

I'm still waiting to find out what SpaceX's Dragon parachute test schedule is. To my knowledge, no one has released information about that.

"what's the point of doing Orion now if your HLV and BEO program won't begin until the middle of the 2020s"

Well for one thing, it would be needed to get to the ISS when the commercial spacecraft is behind schedule.

"The new plan swaps the Orion from the Augustine plan to add more R&D"

R&D with what goal. R&D doesn't get people to space.

"what's the point of doing Orion now"

Hmm, mitigating the risk of depending on the commercial crew line to succeed when one contractor (Kistler) has already failed to meet the constraints of their commercial cargo award and another has not flown the launch vehicle that they are to use and have slipped their target date for commercial cargo by over a year?

I find it hard to muster much sympathy for Orion. What was supposed to be Apollo on steroids is now some sort of "American Soyuz". Orion has now lost half its crew and how much cargo carrying capacity does it have left?

Waste, who said we are canceling Orion? Note that all options in the Augustine Report effectivelly cancel Ares I and none of the Augustine options actually uses Orion before 2021. Why would you need to use Orion before you had BEO capability?

The administration clearly chose Option 5B.

I would like someone to actually cite where Orion is being canceled under the new direction.

"I would like someone to actually cite where Orion is being canceled under the new direction."

2011 Budget Lines:
Critical Technology Demonstrations
Heavy Lift Propulsion R&D
Robotic Precursor Missions
21st Century Launch Complex
Space Technology
Commercial Crew and Cargo

The last line includes the statement "NASA will allocate these funds through competitive solicitations"

No Orion in any of those lines or in the details published.

"The Administration clearly chose Option 5B"

The Administration actually chose the "I don't know what I am doing" option.

Is this a new defense of the budget? Don't worry Orion is really there but we won't fund it until 2020 and then we will look for all of the designers and engineers that worked on it and hope that they can come back?

Bolden announced it himself on the telecon when the budget was released.

@ 9:04

http://www.nasa.gov/mp3/421316main_2010-02-01_FY2011_Budget_teleconference.mp3

The HL-20 space plane would have been in orbit a decade ago if Congress had approved the $2 billion in funds for its development ($3 billion in today's dollars).

Marcel F. Williams

Crewed lunar orbit in five years.

Americans return to moon. Will be the headlines around the world!
The impact of that will be huge. It's doable. It's logical.

This is an extremely good goal.
Sounds exactly like the kind of thing congress is looking for.

www.supportconstellation.com

> I'm still waiting to find out what SpaceX's Dragon parachute test schedule is.

They performed their initial drop tests back in 2007.

"R&D with what goal. R&D doesn't get people to space."

The budget discussed some of the areas and the Augustine report also covered some of the needed technologies and stressed the lack of R&D in recent years. It's not like I just made it up.

Of course, you already know all this..

Is there any technical reason - as opposed to commercial - why the Orion or Constellation teams could not do a management buy out and compete for COTS funding?

Why does the Orion/Delta IV Heavy option never get mentioned? ULA just got money to start designing and implementing what they need to man rate teh Atlas V and Delta IV. They released a white paper stating they could carry Orion and could be man rated in three years. It doesn't get us beyond LEO yet, but it gets an American spacecraft flying faster than anybody else does.

Seems like this should have been the choice from the beginning and we'd be flying now. I think Orion gets an unfair shake, it's suffered because of the constantly changing Ares I requirements. If they could have designed to an established launch vehicle from the start I'd bet things might be a lot further along.

So the contractor tries to better there efforts and adapt to the "NEW" NASA direction of station only and that's a bad thing?

"then we will look for all of the designers and engineers that worked on it and hope that they can come back"

This is probably one reason for some delays in Orion. A lot of time was required to recreate re-entry and other technology required for Orion and lost since Apollo and Shuttle design phases.

"They performed their initial drop tests back in 2007."

Could you provide a link? The previous tests I've seen were water drop tests, not parachute deploy tests. Water drop tests are much more benign than parachute tests.

> Crewed lunar orbit in five years.

You're only hurting yourself and others with these fictions.

C'mon, Keith - why the continuing use of innuendo about the chute test? It was a failure of an Army-supplied pallet-drop extraction chute system (as shown when you were finally so kind as to link to a rival site), and had absolutely nothing to do with what NASA developed for the test itself (except for completely screwing it up). What's your point? How does this mishap reflect on Constellation's design or NASA's integrity in any way?

Editor's note: Excuse me? the "rival site" claimed it was an Orion module that crashed. It was my website that got the actual story and posted it. Get your facts straight next time.

Folks:

The "www.supportconstellation.com" is actually just a placeholder for "web.me.com", a kind of "myspace" clone run by Apple. Michael Okuda is a graphic artist who has done mission patches for NASA... including the constellation program.

It's a lame site for a lame program.

tinker

...there are contractors out there, like LM, that bid and fairly won contracts to perform to requirements. They did everything their customer requested including maintaining budget at the cost of schedule and succeeded at their work.
Then the customer turns around and says thanks but you can go home now...
It sucks, but that's just business. I personally have had the privilege of working on two such programs -- won fair and square, then lost when overtaken by events. That doesn't count the many proposals that we lost for factually incorrect reasons. But the world still spins...

How 'bout answering my question?

"Reduce the crew from 4 to three" Four is already down from the original SIX! A Three-man Apollo CM weighed approx'

Check with the USAF. They'll be lofting their own X-37 later this year. Don't forget, that without the USAF, there would have been no F-1 engine ready for the Saturn V when it was needed! On the other hand it was the USAF that wanted the STS as large as it was because of their requirements that became the basis for EELV's...

If LM believes in their product, they should dig into their own pockets and build it.

I believe Bigelow already encouraged LM to go down this road.

Did I miss where they mentioned the launch vehicle they would use and when it could be ready? And weren't there rumors that LM was criticizing NASA for going with the Ares I instead of the Atlas 5?

You might also have pointed out that all the government contracted hardware is being produced by the people that said bloggers say can't do HSF. Newsflash: they've been doing it since Mercury contracts were let in 1958-9...

As for SpaceX, anybody who takes what comes out of Musk's mouth with more than a pinch of salt(after paying him first!) needs a brain transplant.

If that company gets going they'll be charging as much as the big boys, but making FAR more profit. But I doubt if their output or performance will be one whit better...innovation hardly characterizes SPACE X...

Space X may have given the impression that that is what they were aiming for, but basic ignorance has forced them to change their tune and emulate the Big Boys methodology, making their own efforts far more expensive than envisaged. Were it not for COTS, Space X would have joined Kistler and Co on the scrap heap.

If Orion is go great than Lockheed Martin can use it as the basis of their (presumed) commercial crew access bid. However, due to to all the trade-offs in it's design I don't think it'll be competitive. The latest Orion iterations are poor vehicles for station crew access and severe compromises for BEO missions. In a a realistic, sustainable architecture, BEO spacecraft should never reenter or land anyway.

FYI -- Alternatives historically and today:
http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/cev.htm
http://www.spacedev.com/spacedev_advanced_systems.php
http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

According to the first site above, Lockheed was the only concern to propose a lifting body as Shuttle replacement.

Just noting the two current privately proposed crew vehicles, Dragon advertises to carry a crew of four, and Dream Chaser claims up to six.
It looks like either one, if materialized, could make the Orion a costly embarrassment, especially if Orion is shifted to a crew limit of three; then add to that Dream Chaser's runway landing capability.

The lifting body designs are fine for LEO if the shield protection questions can be taken care of. The main problem with the EELV and a lifting body combo is the same one X-20 and other paper craft had, you need a shroud. That is why the USAF is shrouding the X-37b.

I agree that the vehicle to do the moon missions should never be designed to re-enter. That would solve a great many of the problems of design and free up the minds of the engineers to be a little more creative as they did on the Apollo LM.

We need to get something done and not keep back-stepping. If the current designs are not in favor then change the architecture and get back on our bike.

I wish Space X and all the others luck and God-Speed, but I do not want to seed the high ground with no proven system to hang a hat on.

Fly the shuttle in limited (2) man missions until we have a replacement. Yes I know it has some fixed cost. Yes I know it is unsafe in many ways. We have to take risk to keep our crown.

Have a great day,

Carl (Surfduke) Hewlett

"As beautiful as simplicity is, it can become a tradition that stands in the way of exploration."
Laura Nyro

It's irrelevant whether LM "believes in their product" technically. It has little or nothing to do with their passion and enthusiasm. It comes down to a cold and nearly bloodless calculation of return on investment -- a market analysis comparing likely income to likely development cost. This is the only thing that matters to the business folk who decide.

NASA has impacted this calculation in two ways:
* paying for much of the development through CxP
* proposing (not yet promising) to buy rides on a suitable vehicle.

> The main problem with the EELV and a lifting body combo is the same one X-20 and other paper craft had, you need a shroud.

The engineers who disagree with you have more credibility because they actually worked on those paper craft projects.

> That is why the USAF is shrouding the X-37b.

Or they just don't want to deal with the aerodynamics of the scale prototype for an orbital test. Either way you don't know.

Yes, aerodynamics plays a very import roll. In addition to the obvious loading issues, the wake coming from it can do nasty things. Can you point me to any in depth studies which shows the feasibility of launching an unshrouded HL20 on an EELV? I am aware of one paper which shows the feasibility of launching an unmanned HL-20 prototype, but the analysis was based on scaling values from the Dyna-Soar and ignores interference effects to a certain degree. Not something I would hang my hat on. And that report does say more investigation needs to be done. I'm not aware of any WT tests of the HL20 on a launch vehicle. If you are, please point them out to me.

myself: "Dragon advertises to carry a crew of four..."
Correction: Dragon advertises crew of seven. Sorry for the misinformation.

Carl, as far a I know the X-20 (Dyna Soar) was not going to have a shroud. I also just googled it and could not find any reference to it having a shroud. Can you please point me to a reference which supports your claim. Thank you.

The main reason for the fins on the first X-20 Titan 1 combo rendering was the aerodynamic control issues that they later planned to mitigate with flight test data from Titan II & III configurations. There was also a weight issue that pushed it to the bigger boosters.

X-20 on a Atlas was also considered. The problem there was structural and aerodynamic control.

There was never anything done beyond scale wind tunnel testing to work out flight control. I did in-depth research on X-20, Blue Gemini, and MOL for model projects.

During this research I came across the "We will have to drive this thing to orbit" comment several times. Air flow is/was a major problem in these early concepts.

Today we maybe better equipped to model and control but it is still a major design and construction matter which excludes the plug it on top and fly pictures that have been published of the HL-20 on EELV.

A little web research will enlighten those in the group who need further detail on why this would make for some major weight and control additions to the off the shelf hardware.

One more EELV item is the need to get the vibrations down, Not a show stopper, (i.e. Gemini-Titan II), but not off the shelf also.

Have a nice night,

Carl (Surfduke) Hewlett

Well, they *wanted* to make it too heavy for anything but Ares to lift. How's that workin' out now?

And when did they steal the Great Seal of Remulak for their logo?

"We have to take risk to keep our crown."

As in the emperor has no clothes? Even if you could, continuing to launch minimally crewed shuttles would be an incredible waste of resources - and IMHO so pathetic as to be more embarrassing than the gap you're trying to cover.

Orion crew requirements were dropped from 6 to 4 because that is all it would be required to carry to EO was always 4). 2 of the 6 ISS crewmembers will always be coming up on a Soyuz or whatever Russian replacement vehicle they come up. Russia is never going to give up flying their vehicle and have their crew members be dependent on a US vehicle to get to their part of the station. With no need to fly 6 crew, making the crew requirement the same as that for BEO missions simplified the design, lowering costs.

"You might also have pointed out that all the government contracted hardware is being produced by the people that said bloggers say can't do HSF. Newsflash: they've been doing it since Mercury contracts were let in 1958-9..."

Yes they have built hardware but they haven't independently operated any of it. That's the hard part.

Word has it that one possible option under consideration is to reduce the Orion crew from 4 to 3 - just like Apollo.

Why not take an Apollo capsule from a museum and refit it with contemporary avionics and electrical systems?

Maybe it could be done as hobby project, similar to the way old boys restore WWII warplanes to flying condition.

Keep the dollar amounts in mind in this discussion about Orion, as well as what you get for the dollars.

Orion is already a Billion dollar a year expense even at this stage, years before first flight. It is to be a Billion dollar a year expense as well as far as the eye can see, spelled out in contracts that projected out to 2019. Google both “NASA Orion Contract Value” as well as those Constellation sand charts for further detail. You'll find values of $750M a year, but realize that the Lockheed Martin contract excludes other Orion costs (heatshield, etc). Again - Orion "total project yearly costs” as far as the eye can see - be it development or operations - of apx. $1 Billion a year.

Then realize that if you place Orion on a Shuttle stack and the ET and SRB/SRM and engine elements are Shuttle equivalent costs, including integration, management, etc, that you are displacing only a $500M a year "Orbiter project” cost and about another $175M related Orbiter costs (Orbiter logistics principally) for a total of $675M a year.

Yes, the Orion on a Shuttle derived heavy costs $1 Billion a year and displaces a $675M orbiter cost. So immediately, placing the Orion a couple of times a year on to a Shuttle derived heavy stack with the remaining elements assuming current costs means turning a $3.000 Billion a year Shuttle/Orbiter/ET/SRB/SRM operation of 5 flights a year into a $3.375 Billion a year Shuttle-derived/Orion/ET-core/SRB/SRM operation of two flights a year - to the same orbit, ISS.

Another way to look at this is we pay an extra $375M a year for these "cons" - (1) three flights less to the same ISS orbit, (2) no 25Klb cargo capacity alongside each flight to ISS, (3) one (maybe two?) less crew members each flight, (4) no flexibility for any other uses (i.e., Hubble, no Remote Arm, no airlock, etc) alongside these "pros", (1) a launch abort system, covering a portion of the risk in the mission, and (2) a crew escape system sitting at the ISS longer (months) (the latter, un-doing most of the gain in mission safety gained from the abort system).

Take it to numbers and things get clearer no?

Just reflecting on the issue of an un-shrouded lifting body topping off a rocket:
Although this image seems to be a favorite of artists, I'm not aware of any actual implementation of this "arrowhead" rocket configuration, anywhere, ever. In the entire history of aviation/aeronautics, since the Wright brothers, there may be no experience with the standing arrowhead. The only thing vaguely (very vaguely) similar that I can recall is the venerable "Convair XFY Pogo" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY

My gut feeling is there is potential instability from unpredictable winds having a kind of lever-effect or weathervane-effect on the vertical rocket column.
I can't imagine not playing it safe and shrouding any such wind-tempting profile with a neutralizing cylinder.

The X-43 is probably not in the context of this discussion, but it is an example of a lifting configuration on a rocket. And it is an excellent example of some wild aerodynamics.

Yes, winds may be an issue, but I think I would worry about Max Q and unsteady aerodynamics first.

First, it was "Apollo on steroids".

Then it was "Apollo on vitamins".

Now they are looking at "Apollo on Geritol".

What's next?