Alternative Orion Missions Proposed

skywatcher2501 writes "Lockheed Martin, the company producing NASA's new Orion spacecraft, published three videos (news article in German) showing alternative Orion missions. Great efforts are made to show Orion's flexibility as a space transportation system beyond the goals of the Constellation program." The three videos, respectively, illustrate ISS missions with cargo in low-Earth orbit; autonomous use of the service module; and maintenance missions from low-earth orbit to geosynchronous orbit.

Comments

Welcome to the Moon!

[pjt48108]

As much of a fan of NASA as I am (and have been, since the mid-70s), I am seriously beginning to doubt the agency's ability to get back into the business of taking big trips. Even if NASA gets us back to the moon, we're likely to be greeted by the Chinese, or some commercial operation's management (welcome to Bigelow at Tranquility!).

It seems almost silly to be developing a return to space program, when commercial space is doing the same thing, for less money, and is closer to actually ACHIEVING it.

Re:Welcome to the Moon!

[Darkness404]

The problem is NASA has a ton of data that is of course funded by -our- tax dollars but is locked away, lost (remember the moon tapes?), forgotten, or otherwise not allowed for everyone to see. Because of this either A) All info NASA has researched should be released to all US citizens (unlikely due to the similarities between ICBMs and spacecraft, though philosophically ideal) B) NASA releases most of its information to US contractors (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Virgin US, etc) to get commercial spacecraft off the ground than fades in the background or C) NASA continues to do its thing and private companies continue to do their thing.

Commercial space travel has made great strides in recent year but ends up having to deal with all the problems that plagued even government spaceflight, only with a lot less funding and must be a lot more safe than government spaceflight because they have to make a profit and people are more apt to sue.

Re:Welcome to the Moon!

[WindBourne]

Even if NASA gets us back to the moon, we're likely to be greeted by the Chinese, or some commercial operation's management (welcome to Bigelow at Tranquility!).

We had 5 long years in which W and 3 years of neo-cons, as well as 2 years of both parties elected to underfund NASA. Now that we are in SERIOUS economic jepordy, we need to decide WHO we want to meet on the moon; The Chinese OR one of our companies. With Chinese military putting multiple space stations up there (and 1 civilian spacecraft), I think I would rather meet western companies. I have been saying for a long time that we must provide more funding for these companies ESP. Bigelow as well as Armadillo and blue origin. Bigelow is able to provide not just a local space station, but also a living quarters to move between here and the moon. All that it needs it a tug. Likewise, it can provide living quarters on the moon. Importantly, Bigelow WANTS to do this and is funding it. Armadillo and Blue origin have the PERFECT crafts for working on the moon. If we really want to get there SOONER, rather than latter, we will have to have the gov work with private enterprise to build these. That means that we need 1-2 billion to flow to these companies NOW. Fortunately, Augustine sees this and will be pushing it.
So, what do we need?

1. First, spend some more money on getting launchers into space. We need it for cargo AND humans.
2. Once started, they need a place to go in addition, to NASA to make money. That means that we need to get another space station or two up there. Buy a bigelow sundancer and attach it to the ISS, followed by a BA-330. Use the Sundancer for storage. This will allow Bigelow to start the production line.
3. To get to the moon as well as GEO cheaply and constantly, we need a tug and fuel depot. Come up with specs for tugs that can work our orbit and another for lunar work (perhaps the same, but I do not think so). The orbital tugs can clean up OUR junk in orbit. Ideally, other nations and companies will pay to clean up their junk.
4. Pay Armadillo and Blue origin to get working systems to land and take off from the moon. That should be far less than what we paid for COTs.

Basically, with 1-2 Billion NOW, we can be back on the moon BEFORE 2015.

Re:Welcome to the Moon!

[Nyeerrmm]

I don't think you can count on corporations to do pure scientific exploration, as there is little profit in it initially. I think you'll always need the government there to perform the "Lewis and Clark" role.

NASA's problem is that it isn't trying to just do the exploration, they're trying to do every single part of it. Space launch is well-enough developed at this point that they should be using commercial offerings at fixed contract prices to get to orbit, and then doing the high-risk exploration thing from there. Anything else is like asking Lewis and Clark to design their own canoe before heading off down the river.

The inefficient cost-plus contracts made sense in Apollo: it was a high-risk, low-reward game at the time. But now that we now its possible to get to orbit, and that there are many profitable reasons to do so, it makes no sense for NASA to develop its own LV... especially after its proven that its so inept at it without much larger budgets.

Re:Welcome to the Moon!

[serviscope_minor]

I am seriously beginning to doubt the agency's ability to get back into the business of taking big trips.

Spirit? Oppertunity? There have been NASA build robots trundling around on Mars for several years! Their ability of the people and teams at NASA is not the problem. The problem is inteference from higher managment and the legislature wanting their pound of flesh. This problem is shared among many of the national labs (especially Los Alamos). The people doing the good work are generally there for the love of science and engineering. The people running in it for themselves.

Re:Welcome to the Moon!

[johannesg]

As much of a fan of NASA as I am (and have been, since the mid-70s), I am seriously beginning to doubt the agency's ability to get back into the business of taking big trips. Even if NASA gets us back to the moon, we're likely to be greeted by the Chinese, or some commercial operation's management (welcome to Bigelow at Tranquility!).

It seems almost silly to be developing a return to space program, when commercial space is doing the same thing, for less money, and is closer to actually ACHIEVING it.

How can commercial entities, who have so far demonstrated only toy rockets, possibly be closer to achieving space flight than NASA, who demonstrated that capability decades ago and has since done it countless times? If it were so easy for commercial entities to do this, why aren't the skies bustling with commercial space stations and commercial flights?

You are arguing to stop investing _before_ there is a credible alternative. The only result of that will be the total loss of access to space for your country.

Re:Maintenance in GEO would be a game changer...

[mikelieman]

If you can maintain satellites in GEO, you can BUILD satellites in GEO. Hello Space Based Solar/Beamed Microwave, and We Win The Game! Pournelle has written extensively on this, e.g.:

Prizes reduce market uncertainties by providing a floor. If the US were to offer a $1 billion prize for the first American company to fly a ship to orbit and bring it home 6 times in one year, we would probably have reusable space ships within five years, possibly sooner: a billion is a pretty good market incentive. And if the US were to offer $10 billion prize for the first American company to put 31 Americans on the surface of the Moon and keep them there alive and well for 3 years and a day, we would have a Lunar Colony within 7 years and probably sooner.

The neat thing about prizes is that we spend no money unless someone wins.

Re:Pick a new name assholes

[Kratisto]

Ion engines would be impractical for a launch system, since they don't function in an atmosphere. I imagine that the vast majority of fuel used by a rocket is used escaping from Earth's gravity, rather than outside of the atmosphere where ion drives are viable.

Recycled Rocketry

[DynaSoar]

A relevant piece of a recently submitted and rejected article on lessons from post-Apollo to Orion/Constellation. There were many suggestions on Apollo derivatives and follow ups, but only Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz made the cut. Many more could have flown. That fact in itself is a valuable lesson -- build for adaptability.

"With the Apollo 11 lunar landing nostalgia wave over, and the ongoing discussions about keeping, changing or abandoning designs and plans for Constellation, the new Ares rocket and the very Apollo-looking Orion crew vehicle, it is interesting to examine the development, evolution (including evolutionary dead ends) and the many never-were projected possibilities for the Apollo and Saturn components. Encyclopedia Astronautica offers a feast of details about Apollo developments, both successes and failure, in The Apollo Development Diaries http://www.astronautix.com/articles/apoaries.htm . Plans for the vehicles were later not so much lost as is claimed now, but were abandoned as unfeasible, unnecessary, and in the cases of some such as the high jumping Lunar Leaper and slithering Lunar Worm vehicles, just too weird http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/apollo.htm .

As for the actual Lockheed Martin piece referenced in TFA, it's pure PR. But since they feel the need to waive their flag, perhaps there are rumbles from within NASA that they might consider alternatives.

Shuttle Derived Vehicles are much more interesting

[Pvt_Waldo]

The idea of a SDV (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Derived_Launch_Vehicle) seems a lot better idea to me than this massive new launcher. Builds on known technology, a lot less up-front cost, fewer unknowns, etc.

To me, these "other uses" are simply PR that's trying to salvage a program concept that's in deep trouble.

Re:The only Orion I care about

[camperdave]

What you really want is a gas core nuclear rocket. Because the core is gas, as opposed to solid or liquid, it cannot melt down. It can also reach higher operating temperatures, meaning more energy into the propellant.

Re:The only Orion I care about

[Rakishi]

Actually, Orion is downright sane compared to something like a nuclear salt-water rocket.

It's like Orion with a single continuous nuclear explosion. Inside the ship.

Re:Pick a new name assholes

[Nyeerrmm]

Treaties aren't natural law, they can be changed. I'd imagine you could get it amended to allow nuclear tests beyond a given distance (say GEO), particularly if you made it an international mission with Russia as a partner.

And you're absolutely correct, a fission powered spacecraft would have no trouble with the atmospheric test ban treaty, since you're not detonating weapons above ground. The similarity between a fission reactor and a fusion bomb is about the same as the comparison between a gasoline engine and napalm.

Mission planning-wise, I wouldn't say that the two are very comparable either. An ion drive has a specific impulse of around 4000s, and something like VASMIR will give you 15000s (if I remember correctly, haven't looked in a long time). However, something like Orion, where you're detonating explosives against a big plate, has an estimated specific impulse around a millions seconds, again if I remember correctly. The scales are so different you're talking about the difference between 10-person missions and 1,000-person colonies.