News NASA's Future: The News and Updates Thread

[N_Molson]

Well, I never liked the Ares-I. A single SRB as a first stage doesn't convince me. Especially when the Atlas-V or Delta-IV rockets were perfectly fitted for the task. That one was a bad idea, and I also am sceptical about the ATK "Liberty" rocket. Not the best concept ever.

Orion is a young project. Hopefully the live tests are going to be conducted in the upcoming years.

NASA is working with SpaceX anyways. The Dragon might become an handy space taxi ; the Orion is designed for scientific exploration of space purposes, with - I hope - leading edge technology in everything to justify the costs. Innovation and in-situ testing will be required to go to Mars or beyond.

And you know very well that they are not going to launch the SLS with a 10 tons payload . Again, hardware is in developpement, when you dig the jungle NASA site, you find information about that. For sure they are bad at PR, thats not new. But after all, they are not supposed to sell something.

So again NASA is going to work with SpaceX if they continue to achieve their milestones. But the focus of SpaceX should be to offer the safest access to LEO (currently the ISS is the only destination) at the lower costs possible. And let NASA work on the exploration of space, that requires leading-edge technologies.

 

[FADEC]

The Dragon might become an handy space taxi ; the Orion is designed for scientific exploration of space purposes, with - I hope - leading edge technology in everything to justify the costs. Innovation and in-situ testing will be required to go to Mars or beyond.

Dragon can do what Orion can do: carry astronauts and equipment. And both are designed to reenter atmosphere after returning from deep space with high velocity. So I don't really see how Orion is significantly superior, except that it is bigger (but supposed to carry less astronauts than Dragon) and not developed by a small company but by a huge agency.

Dragon is launched on a working launch vehicle while NASA's new capsule did only see water instead of space and no launcher for now. And it won't for years while Dragon might be manned in the meantime and the CST might become alive as well. Orion + a giant rocket makes little sense to me when there are already equal capabilities offered by SpaceX, especially once Falcon Heavy might be tested.

 

[T.Neo]

Dragon can do what Orion can do: carry astronauts and equipment.

But it isn't designed for long-term habitation! And astronauts can't perform an EVA from it! And it lacks forward-looking docking windows!

(Why living in your capsule for weeks on end, using it as an airlock, or requiring forward-looking docking windows (Soyuz lacks them, after all) is so essential, I have no clue).

And both are designed to reenter atmosphere after returning from deep space with high velocity.

That is one plus, but the requirements for operating in BEO extend beyond being able to make a high velocity reentry. You have to cope with the thermal, EM and ionising radiation conditions as well.

Dragon's adaptability for this role is a mystery, but there are indications that it or a derivative could be suitable for flights beyond LEO (at least in some applications; see Red Dragon).

except that it is bigger (but supposed to carry less astronauts than Dragon)

Fun fact: Orion's habitable volume (volume not taken up by hardware inside the pressurised volume) is less than the pressurised volume stated for Dragon. The figure for a crewed Dragon's habitable volume has not yet been released.

no launcher for now.

It has SLS...

already equal capabilities offered by SpaceX, especially once Falcon Heavy might be tested.

Be careful- people will complain if you suggest that Dragon has the same capabilities as Orion. And they might be right: they are two different vehicles with different sets of strengths and weaknesses. It is more important to look at what either vehicle can achieve, and how they can achieve it.

 

[orb]

NASA's new capsule did only see water instead of space and no launcher for now.

It has SLS...

...and Delta IV Heavy for the test launch.

 

[N_Molson]

Be careful- people will complain if you suggest that Dragon has the same capabilities as Orion. And they might be right: they are two different vehicles with different sets of strengths and weaknesses. It is more important to look at what either vehicle can achieve, and how they can achieve it.

Exactly. If even T-Neo and me agree on that... And unless the proof of the contrary, I'm certain that the current form of the Dragon has not the adequate radiation shielding for deep-space (out of Earth magnetosphere). Thats a lot of dead mass that would make trips to the ISS less profitable.

I don't see the point of that all-SpaceX fanatism. If SpaceX focus on LEO, they are more likely to offer better prices anyway. Space exploration doesn't bring money in. Its a very-long term investment. NEO asteroid missions are costly projects for now, but they will allow to field test new space technologies (like Gemini did), bring scientific results, and, the day the technology will make it affordable, it will be time for commercial companies to get benefits from it (mining...). Same for Mars. The day there will be a well-established outpost there (I hope it will happen), it will be time to think to open a steady Earth-Mars passengers/cargo line.

Thats the aim of the COTS plan : let NASA be the leading edge (and authority), and delegate known aspects of spaceflights to commercial companies. Also, COTS will make all its sense when there will be more than 1 company. Because, if SpaceX has the monopoly, I don't see the point.

 

[FADEC]

But it isn't designed for long-term habitation!

Orion isn't either, from what I read. It's 21 days. Dragon specs say: up to 2 years; whatever this means.

And astronauts can't perform an EVA from it! And it lacks forward-looking docking windows!

(Why living in your capsule for weeks on end, using it as an airlock, or requiring forward-looking docking windows (Soyuz lacks them, after all) is so essential, I have no clue).

I think you aim at my initial attitude regarding Dragon

Yes, Dragon sadly hasn't got rendezvous windows and can't be used for EVA's. But it does not prevent it from being used for space travel properly as demonstrated by SpaceX recently. Now I start to worry what the role of Orion will be in years from now, and if the budget for Orion and SLS should be spend on deep space hardware, which can also be carried into space commercially instead on top of another giant and budget hungry NASA rocket.

...and Delta IV Heavy for the test launch.

Yes, unmanned. And only that

And where is the SLS except in animations?

 

[T.Neo]

Thats a lot of dead mass that would make trips to the ISS less profitable.

It is simply unecessary for the task, so why include it?

Such a lack of shielding doesn't spell 'doom' for Dragon if it is possible that such shielding it could be added at a later date. Or the plan could simply be more pragmatic: have the crew stay in a deep space habitat (or other spacecraft that is adequately shielded) for most of the mission, and make shielding in the launch/return capsule less of an issue.

Space exploration doesn't bring money in.

One could say the same of flying to the ISS. There is no profit in just hauling stuff up to LEO, but because there's a demand for it from governments (who are obviously not doing it for profit, but nontheless need hardware and supplies shipped to and from the station), there is an oppurtunity for a market to develop.

After all, as Apollo, STS and Constellation can attest, exploration can and does rake in a lot of money for aerospace contractors.

Thats the aim of the COTS plan : let NASA be the leading edge (and authority), and delegate known aspects of spaceflights to commercial companies.

We do agree on this point: leave the important stuff to NASA, and delegate the 'mundane' work to commercial companies. The difference is that we disagree on the definition of "important" and "mundane".

Orion isn't either, from what I read. It's 21 days. Dragon specs say: up to 2 years; whatever this means.

That's only currently- Orion's endurance could be extended to much longer than that (in the range of months or years). It was originally intended to spend such long durations in space, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Yes, unmanned. And only that

Well... there is always the possibility (if remote) that someone could catch on to the idea of mounting Orion on top of a human-rated Atlas V.

And where is the SLS except in animations?

I wanted to make a snarky comment about Elon Musk's nightmares, but I'll rather say that you could say the same of Falcon Heavy. :lol:

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

(Why living in your capsule for weeks on end, using it as an airlock, or requiring forward-looking docking windows (Soyuz lacks them, after all) is so essential, I have no clue).

The requirement for two weeks habitation is because NASA determined this to be the time that it would take to reach certain destinations, using only Orion to get there.

The requirement for Orion to work depressurised isn't necessarily to do with EVAs - Orion is designed to be able to return a crew to Earth even when depressurised (a useful capability). Requiring things to work when depressurised affects certain designs - for instance, air cooling with fans is no good.

And as for forward-looking docking windows, that is a requirement that the crew Dragon will conform to anyway. And Soyuz does have one - in the Orbital Module.

 

[FADEC]

I wanted to make a snarky comment about Elon Musk's nightmares, but I'll rather say that you could say the same of Falcon Heavy. :lol:

SpaceX is quite fast, cheap and successful so far (compared to NASA these days). Dragon already is in orbit and docked to the ISS now, and Falcon 9 is operational. Falcon Heavy consists of Falcon 9 derived boosters. So it's not very hard to guess which would be first in orbit: Falcon Heavy or SLS. Falcon Heavy likely will be in orbit before any unmanned Orion test flight takes place even on top of a Delta IV Heavy.

 

[T.Neo]

The requirement for two weeks habitation is because NASA determined this to be the time that it would take to reach certain destinations, using only Orion to get there.

That is a sound rationale for the endurance capability in question, but it is not necessarily a good idea to limit the crew to living in the capsule- especially not if a major intent is to develop a more capable architecture in the long-run.

Placing needed shielding, life support equipment and supplies inside the crew capsule necessitate that it must be larger and heavier than it would be simply to perform its basic purpose- to transport the crew to and from the rest of the spacecraft safely. Other parts of the vehicle do not need systems such as parachutes or heatshields, and can tolerate mass growth with fewer ripple effects throughout the system.

Orion is designed to be able to return a crew to Earth even when depressurised (a useful capability).

That is indeed a useful capability, but its usefulness must be put in relative terms to that of other vehicles.

And as for forward-looking docking windows, that is a requirement that the crew Dragon will conform to anyway.

I assume this window will be locked in the middle of the docking hatch?

So it's not very hard to guess which would be first in orbit: Falcon Heavy or SLS.

The official schedules for both clearly show that unless FH encounters a significant setback, it will likely launch years ahead of SLS. Not that SpaceX is particularly special for it- they have a simpler task at hand.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

I assume this window will be locked in the middle of the docking hatch?

No - instead the docking system/hatch will be moved off-center, and the window placed above it.

You can just about see it in this image (window visible just below the docking system):

 

[N_Molson]

(Soyuz lacks them, after all)

Thats not true. A tiny "turret" in the BO with a small visor was one of the modifications that the TMA included. (actually, it was the TM upgrade).

You can see it on this pic (opposite to the docking radar).

Dragon specs say: up to 2 years; whatever this means.

That means it should be able to be docked 2 years to the ISS before having to deorbit. But I'm not sure this takes the N2O4/MMH propellant decay into account (its the reason why the Soyuz has a limited lifetime in orbit).

One could say the same of flying to the ISS. There is no profit in just hauling stuff up to LEO, but because there's a demand for it from governments (who are obviously not doing it for profit, but nontheless need hardware and supplies shipped to and from the station), there is an oppurtunity for a market to develop.

But who said the ISS was designed for profit ??? You made that one on purpose ? Its a scientific and technological outpost, it was never designed to bring money in.

And yes, there's only a "market" because the governements need hardware and supplies. Its more a public call for tender.

 

[Codz]

It has SLS...

And possibly the Delta IV.

 

[FADEC]

And possibly the Delta IV.

Was mentioned already a few posts earlier

In fact Orion hasn't any launch vehicle yet. The SLS is a drawing board concept. And the Delta IV is supposed to carry Orion in two years from now at the earliest.

 

[MattBaker]

That means it should be able to be docked 2 years to the ISS before having to deorbit. But I'm not sure this takes the N2O4/MMH propellant decay into account (its the reason why the Soyuz has a limited lifetime in orbit).

How complicated would it be to make a fuel transfer from the ISS to a spacecraft? It's possible from Progress to the ISS, so would it work the otherway round, too (Since Progress is derived from Soyuz)?

 

[T.Neo]

And possibly the Delta IV.

For the unmanned test flight, yes. But for manned flights, it'd have to be lofted on another EELV due to the Delta IV's lack of man-rating.

The manned Dragon or the Falcon Heavy does not exist yet, just as most other planned projects.

Yes, but to be fair, they're considerably closer to launching than SLS/Orion is.

SLS consists of hardware that already is in production: ATK 5-segment boosters (already fire-tested) and engines (there is a sufficient supply of RS-25 (flight-tested on real missions), and plans for expendable versions once depleted (RS-25E)).

I don't know if "already fire tested" could be called "in production"... it should also be useful to point out that Merlin 1D hasn't been flight-tested. And while more of Falcon exists (like the propellant tanks and fairing), the fairing still hasn't been flight tested either.

Yes, and its payload is also limited to 53 tons (if I can rely on
those figures
those figures ). "Basic" SLS will have a LEO capacity of 70 tons, with later versions increasing that capacity to 130 tons.

The usefulness of that advantage is highly contested though (more so than Falcon Heavy's true payload capacity, but anything over 30 tons would make for a highly capable launch vehicle regardless).

 

[Urwumpe]

The SLS is effectively not in production or even designed. There are milestones to meet and a lot more effort to be prepared. Senators are stupid on this turf, I don't blame them for not knowing proper engineering. But I blame them for ignoring engineers and other experts, who all explain that the SLS will bring more problems than it solves.

You think videos of the same quality as an orbiter add-on mean it is realistic? You should all know better by now.

Until senators keep SLS alive, the US space program will badly need SpaceX and others to provide cheap services for NASA, which will have its big money locked in place for a SLS that will likely never launch. Why should it?

PS: I like the Ares I and I like the Liberty. I don't see much reason for hate there, the concept is pretty sound and the stabilizing effect of the SSMEs on the thrust fluctuations of the SRBs can be considered marginal (The SRBs provided 94% of the lift-off thrust). The technology really needs innovations for the new configuration. Sure. No question. But innovation is not bad. If the pointy stick is finally better than any traditional rocket configuration, it will sure be worth the effort, if it is not, well, you have to try it first and research the configuration properly to know.

I personally think that it will work just fine, but could be still a pretty rough ride for the first 2 minutes.

 

[N_Molson]

To stay on the topic, this time, here's another illustrated document that sums up NASA program for the 25 next years (September 2011) :

The Global Exploration Roadmap (pdf)

And a flash version for kids :

http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/globalexplorationroadmap/


I also wanted to fix an error I made in post #452 :

Thats not true. A tiny "turret" in the BO with a small visor was one of the modifications that the TMA included.

I had a doubt and checked :

The Orbital Module (OM)

[...] Initially, two windows were provided - one forward of the side hatch for Earthward observations, and the second on opposite side for celestial observations. From Soyuz-TM, a forward-looking window was installed for the Flight Engineer to use during docking with a space station. [...]

Soyuz, A Universal Spacecraft, by Rex D. Hall & David J. Shayler, pp. 44-45, Springer-Praxis, 2003, ISBN 1-85233-657-9.

So the change occured on the Soyuz-TM, before the TMA upgrade.

 

[orb]

O-F Staff Note: Several posts have been moved per request to "NASA's Future: The War Continues - The political and off-topic discussion" thread in The Basement.

 

[orb]

NASA:

• RELEASE : 12-181 - NASA Begins Development of Space Launch System Flight Software
  
  
• NASA Begins Development of Space Launch System Flight Software