Orion on a Delta IV?

[Spicer]

I'm always in favor of NASA moving forward with its designs, but why is the Delta IV heavy not able to carry an Orion into orbit. I believe the LEO capacity of the Delta IV is enough to launch the weight of Orion, and it is wide enough (5 m) to fit the Orion capsule.

It seems that NASA would benefit from having a new spacecraft along with a proven launch system. Does anyone know why this idea with Delta IV wouldn't work?

 

[Kyle]

To heavy the Orion is.

 

[SlyCoopersButt]

You can read about the Delta IV's payload capacity at the ULA website. The Atlas V is capable of lifting even more Mass than the Delta IV if I read the documents right. If they were able to use one of those rockets, They would!
http://www.ulalaunch.com/index_products_services.html (Rocket fact sheets by ULA)

 

[Zatnikitelman]

They are more than capable of modifying the Delta IV to be able to life the Orion. The problem is they don't want to they want to create this new fangled thing that is different from everything else launched today. All the Delta IV Heavy would need is perhaps an enlarged second stage, or adding one or more CBC's. Atlas V's peak capacity is only achieved through 5 strap on solids with the Heavy variant only being speculated about at this point.
Even if the DIVH couldn't lift the Orion in its native configuration, strap-ons could still be considered. Plus, if the launch capacity of the DIVH is such that the rocket could lift the first version of the Orion with the 5m width SM then the Orion's own engine could perhaps perform a final insertion, this might be better so the second stage can be dumped in some ocean while Orion does all the rest.

 

[Spicer]

I guess that's true. They want to be able to still do a "Shuttle Derived" rocket from LC-39

Much of the infrastructure is at the Cape for a DIVH-Orion launch, though. It would take off from LC-37(or is it 41...I forget) It would need crew elevator and escape systems.

Does anyone know, has the DIVH/Orion been studied seriously by NASA?

 

[teago]

Basically the politicians in congress that fund NASA are concerned about their sponsors (the aerospace companies) receiving bloated contracts for developing a completely new, yet immediately obsolete launcher, the Ares I. The reason they don't use an EELV to launch the Orion capsule is basically the same reason the Direct proposal was scrapped: why only develop one new vehicle when you can get two and make even more big money contractors happy!

 

[Spicer]

I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories. There has to be another reason.

Is the DIVH extraordinarily expensive to launch? It must be cheaper than the titan...we know that was used for launching a capsule...but that was different times.

 

[tblaxland]

Teago is correct - it was a political decision. El Prez's "Vision for Space Exploration" mandates that NASA use "Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles". Why Shuttle-derived? That was not explicity spelt out but the impression I get was that it was to protect jobs/investment in the industry. Mike Griffin has said before that options such as the Delta 4 Heavy could not be considered because they did not comply with the directions of the Administration. As a government agency, NASA is somewhat bound to do what it is told. Whether or not Shuttle-derived is the "right way" is a different question all together.

That is probably one of the biggest differences between Bush's vision and Kennedy's vision. Bush set the goal and the method, Kennedy set the goal and was smart enough to let the engineers decide how to acheive it.

 

[SlyCoopersButt]

Just how much is Orion supposed to weigh in kg anyway? I'd like to see that figure. I was assuming it would be way over any normal heavy class ELV capacity. But why would there be an advantage to using a Delta IV instead of an Atlas V? Were Delta IV's designed to be a cheaper/easier alternative for medium to heavy payloads where an equal strength Atlas would be more expensive?

 

[tblaxland]

The Delta IV Heavy is listed as 25,800kg to LEO. Ares I is listed as 25,000kg, so it is in the same ball park. Atlas V Heavy is also rated 25000kg to LEO. AFAIK, both the Delta IV and Atlas V were built to compete for EELV business so I guess cost would be similar? I'm out of my depth here though...

 

[sputnik]

Teago is correct - it was a political decision. El Prez's "Vision for Space Exploration" mandates that NASA use "Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles". Why Shuttle-derived? That was not explicity spelt out but the impression I get was that it was to protect jobs/investment in the industry. Mike Griffin has said before that options such as the Delta 4 Heavy could not be considered because they did not comply with the directions of the Administration. As a government agency, NASA is somewhat bound to do what it is told. Whether or not Shuttle-derived is the "right way" is a different question all together.

That is probably one of the biggest differences between Bush's vision and Kennedy's vision. Bush set the goal and the method, Kennedy set the goal and was smart enough to let the engineers decide how to acheive it.

No, this is completely incorrect.
The Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) set the goal, and left the method undefined. Although, by implication, the idea was for NASA to avoid operating a launch vehicle altogether, as that was the only way a new initiative could be afforded (see, the "sand chart").
And, indeed, under O'Keefe, NASA set about studying architectures using lightweight capsules launched on EELV's. NOT EELV-heavies, mind you; a 9-ton capsule launches just fine on a single-booster EELV light.

When Mike Griffin walked in as NASA administrator, he'd spent decades studying big moon missions on shuttle-derived hardware, and that's exactly what he set out to build. The new capsule grew instantly from 9 tons to 27 tons, which -- aw, darn the luck -- was just a little too big for an EELV, so a new launch vehicle had to be built. Man, what are the odds?
Exactly why Mike Griffin and therefore NASA decided to go this route is not known, and might never be known. But I highly doubt the Administration pushed him that way, when they'd pushed O'Keefe, hard, the opposite way earlier. Nor do I think that NASA-center Congresscritters are what drove him, though I'm sure they applied plenty of pressure. I think Griffin showed up with preconceived notions, and set about executing them.

But CEV of about 9 tons grew to Orion at 27 tons; that didn't happen by accident. It bould have happened only because being too big for an EELV was an unstated design requirement.

Read http://www.astronautix.com/craft/cev.htm for a more detailed accounting of the sordid story.

 

[Andy44]

One of the things I love about astronautix is that the author isn't afraid to speak his mind on sacred cows regarding NASA's questionable decision-making. He thinks Apollo was too heavy and that a lighter-weight 2-man mission based on Gemini could have done a simpler direct-ascent mission using a Saturn V and wouldn't have required a complex lunar orbit rendezvous. He also explains how Apollo could've been a Soyuz-style vehicle with seperate mission and crew modules and would've had more internal living space and for less mass.

I don't know if he's right, but it's good to make you think and not buy the official line all the time.

 

[sputnik]

I don't think there's any question that offloading everything you can from the re-entry vehicle is an important design principle, since it drastically reduces overall mass and increases flexibility in the bargain by letting you tailor the orbital module for various missions. It's a principle the Soyuz demonstrated 40 years ago, and which NASA has still managed to avoid absorbing.

A 27-ton Orion versus a 7-ton Soyuz...gee, which would you rather launch? Okay, the Soyuz seats less, and I'd rather design from a cleaner sheet, but wow. You could launch FOUR Soyuzes on an Ares I. If you could get Ares I to work. I know which payload would be more useful....

 

[Kodiak]

I'm not a believer in conspiracy theories. There has to be another reason.

Is the DIVH extraordinarily expensive to launch? It must be cheaper than the titan...we know that was used for launching a capsule...but that was different times.

Well just to add fuel to the fire, In the original ESAS study that ruled out EELV's as a suitable launcher for Orion. NASA ignored the findings of the OSP program, and claimed that the EELV could not be safely man rated due to "black zones" in the high lofting trajectory that delta and atlas use to obtain orbit. NASA was caught cooking the books, when EELV program officials proved that in the OSP study (that happed just prior to the ESAS study) both atlas and delta could fly a depressed trajectory that eliminates black zones and meets nasa's safety requirements.

Personally I think the phrase "Putting lipstick on a Pig" defines the current Ares and Orion program pretty good. NASA has a big problem redesigning Orion to conform to an EELV, But amazingly they have no problems redesigning orion when Ares 1 has a performance shortfall. I suspect the EELV will have a second chance at being the Orion launcher when the new administration comes to power

 

[Zatnikitelman]

I highly doubt the new administration will affect much of anything on how ares goes. About the best we can expect is the new administration to push for a better/higher/slightly redirect (for the better) NASA budget. President doesn't control space directly like he/she could the military...for 60 days any ways.

 

[spcefrk]

Maybe I'm recalling my engineering history incorrectly but last time around, weren't the vehicles (at least Apollo) designed outside of NASA, just with NASA dollars? For instance, NASA set the requirements for the LM and was responsible for training the astronauts and all that jazz, but Grumman designed and built the LM. Why is NASA designing and building anything as opposed to opening a competition like the USAF Tanker (or the new bomber) program?

I suppose I'd still complain as the last time they held a competition (for the CEV design) NASA stepped over Lockheed's lifting body and forced a capsule design...

 

[Andy44]

No, Apollo and Saturn were both designed in-house and contractor were chosen to build them, not design them. The LM may have had more contractor input, but the architecture of the Apollo LOR system was set in stone by NASA. Saturn was designed by von Braun's team, while he was working for NASA.

 

[Kodiak]

I highly doubt the new administration will affect much of anything on how ares goes. About the best we can expect is the new administration to push for a better/higher/slightly redirect (for the better) NASA budget. President doesn't control space directly like he/she could the military...for 60 days any ways.

More or less I think Congress will make the first move. The new presidential helicopter is following the same path as Ares, almost double the budget, and not meeting performance goals. Congress recently zeroed out the budget on the helicopter, forcing the new administration to deal with it. I suspect something similar could happen to Ares, when its review comes up

 

[sputnik]

Well, not exactly. For the Apollo contract, for example, each contractor was asked to design their own solution, from basic approach to detailed design. Meanwhile, NASA had also sketched out their own design.
And they picked the contractor whose design most closely matched theirs. Entirely for that reason.

Unstated requirements, again. The Air Force is (quite rightly) in hot water because they didn't perfectly follow their own stated grading rules. What's it mean when there ARE no rules, except to flatter the buyer by mirroring their own preconceptions back at them?