Order of Kilopi
CLV with an extra booster will be more likely in this situation.Originally Posted by gaetanomarano
By the time all that is in place, new technologies will have produced a new generation of spacecraft.
We need a LEO craft now. Lunar missions already have other equipment including the booster for the equipment. Orion is only a means to get them up and down.
Established Member
as already said, the larger tanks don't affects the LEO missions
.
Order of Kilopi
Yes; I agree they don't. They may be useful but they are not needed.
Established Member
build two SM (orbital/lunar standard-SM and swissknife-SM) with two different tanks' size costs TWICE for research, development, testing, production line, etc. (of this specific part) while a SINGLE (large tanks) version, costs $0.oo
also, a swissknife-SM may be useful also for LEO operations, like... move the ISS to a much higher orbit, move big or multiple cargo (from a low orbit to ISS or another place) with a single Orion, move a big cargo launched with the Ares-V (like a giant telescope or the modules for a bigger ISS) work in LEO as a rescue vehicle ALSO from/to different orbital planes, fly in LEO moving the additional mass of a space-lab/assembly-tool/robot-arm/airlock-habitat/fuel-depot (etc.) move/reboost the Hubble, go to/from different places/stations, etc. (with these examples the list of "good reasons to build a SwissKnife-Orion" in my article reaches 16 points!!!)
.
Order of Kilopi
But if you use the second tank research as part of the "lunar package" which will be needed anyway, then the version still costs $0.
Established Member
no, if you change "something" in the lunar version that needs extra time and extra costs (and two production lines)
.
Order of Kilopi
There is no lunar version. There is lunar equipment used on a lunar mission which also needs a booster, because all that equipment needs to be boosted. The Orion just goes along for the ride.
Established Member
if that's true, it's better with larger tanks (to be ready for ALL the missions' options explained in my article and in my post #574)
.
Last edited by gaetanomarano; 2007-Mar-06 at 03:03 PM. Reason: grammar
Order of Kilopi
And what missions are those? It is either headed for a destination in LEO, or it is part of a larger package and along for the ride. What's left?
Established Member
read my article and my post #574
.
Order of Kilopi
Again; how often are these missions? Percentages?
And, if we need to design an alternative booster for lunar missions then why not use that alternative for these missions also?
Like I said, the Orion is used to get astronauts up and down. Most of the missions you mention in that post require more than just getting men from one place to another. And station to station? Which two are you speaking of? And where in orbit are they.
Established Member
ZERO with a CorkScrew-Orion... as high as we want with a SwissKnife-Orion... without larger tanks the 16 points I suggest are IMPOSSIBLE while the larger tanks ALLOW every option... the LEO and lunar missions that use the extra-propellent may be many, but, most important, a change in the lunar missions' architecture needs an high percentage of Apollo-8 missions... I think that the advantages of larger tanks worth hundreds times the small amount of mass
NASA will build two boosters for lunar missions (Ares-IV and Ares-V) ...there is no need of an "alternative booster" (or just if they want to save money)...design an alternative booster for lunar missions...
why waste the time and money of an Orion launch for a single function if each Orion can accomplish many jobs?...the Orion is used to get astronauts up and down...
not to-day, of course, but in future we can imagine to have many space stations (the Orion is planned to fly 30+ years)And station to station?
.
Order of Kilopi
First: I asked how many. That is assuming any design.
Second: I described how they can be accomplished without the large tanks.
Explain; What does a lunar "package" lack for an A-8 mission.
I was speaking TLI booster not Launch booster.
Why waste the time and money for a single launch to do a single function when you can launch a manned craft and an equipment craft and perform several functions?
Order of Kilopi
Oh; by the way. Apollo 8 is a perfect example of what I am trying to explain.
We had the same apollo capsule/SM for LEO on Sat-1 launches as we did for lunar missions. The A-8 package was the full SatV equipment used for the entire landing mission, but the CM/SM was the same.
Established Member
.
we talk of two different architectures for moon missions that can't be merged
the standard ESAS architecture doesn't need any special Orion, then, it's useless to talk of it here
MY architecture needs a Lunar Space Station and some reusable-LSAMs
if ESAS will shift to MY architecture, ALL lunar-Orion will need a bigSM (to perform LOI and TEI) a small-EDS and a smaller Ares
the smaller Ares can be used to launch one LSS module OR one reusable-LSAM OR a SwissKnifeOrion OR the LSAM refuels OR a cargo-LSAM, etc.
of course, a better Orion can perform many additional tasks also in LEO (as explained in my latest posts)
.
Order of Kilopi
My point exactly. The standard Orion is just fine.
Why add "Need" when it's not "Needed". Eventually we may get to the point of a lunar station. But we need something until then, and that can be developed as the Need develops. As Orion gives us experience with this kind of architecture, then the next generation will be even better.
Again; your concept will work, but it is not what NASA needs or wants right now.
So what?
Yes they can, so can the shuttle and other designs, but they are not needed as explained in my post.
There are a lot more ways to get things done. You have shown us many alternatives, over and over again.
NASA can only choose one way, so they consider all the ways, and determine what suits thier needs best. Naturally; that leaves a lot more ways that NASA doesn't choose. It's a fact, and there's no possible way to change that.
Established Member
tha ESAS architecture and Orion are "standard" but not "fine" (that's why many suggests to change them)
since the "first (poor and bad) generation" will fly from 2021 for 5-10 years, the "next (better and cheaper) generation" will be "made in China"As Orion gives us experience with this kind of architecture, then the next generation will be even better.
they have made MANY changes in less than a year, then, many other will/may happe...your concept will work, but it is not what NASA needs...
need or non needed (no) add these options cost $0.oo (if ALL Orions will born with the large tanks built-in)...but they are not needed...
true, but ALL other ways (than simple tanks) needs extra R&D time and money, extra-hardware, extra risks and EXTRA-FUNDSThere are a lot more ways to get things done.
not "many alternatives" but "many parts" of an altarnative architectureYou have shown us many alternatives.
.
Established Member
Orion is fine for what NASA is planning to do with it. Your problem isn't really with Orion, it is with the architecture. You want to change the architecture; therefore you require a different vehicle to perform the tasks demanded by the new architecture. You are saying NASA needs a different Orion because their version won't do what you want to do with it, but what NASA needs is an Orion that will do what they want it to do. The debate should therefore be over architecture. Once that is decided, Orion will have to include whatever features are necessary for the required tasks.
Established Member
that's not completly true ...some suggestions are good also for the standard architecture since they need a smaller Ares-I with standard-SRBs, less R&D time and money, more launches (and sooner) with the same funds, etc.
.
Established Member
I'm refering only to the sizing of the service module, i.e. your SwissKnife-Orion concept. The size of the SM is dictated by how much delta-v it must provide, and the delta-v is a function of the mission architecture. Thus the debate of standard vs. SwissKnife is really a debate about architecture.
Established Member
not completely true... (e.g.) build a SwissKnife-Orion, fill its tanks with the (70% less) LEO mission's propellent and launch it with a standard Ares-I ...it will performs the SAME (or better) mission of the standard-Orion/standard-architecture with the ONLY (sligtly) difference of larger SM tanks
.
Established Member
The only reason it has larger tanks is because you are advocating an architecture that requires it. If, for example, all you are ever going to do is fly LEO missions, then it is foolish to build it bigger than it needs to be for a mission it will never fly. What you plan to use the vehicle for drives the design. The only reason you are advocating a bigger SM is because you are a proponent of missions that will make use of it. The question of whether or not the big SM is a wise investment comes down to how Orion will be used. Define the use and you've defined how big the SM needs to be. The debate it therefore all about architecture and vehicle use, which is what we should be talking about.
Established Member
my architecture is surely the best use of the hardware I suggest, but a standard-SM with larger tanks is the best choice ALSO for the standard ESAS plan/hardware since it allows the STANDARD missions' architecture AND a long list of possible advantages/alternatives (about 16 from my article and my posts here)
I try to explain my opinion with a furher example: just imagine that NASA is a underground railway industry that must design the trains for a little city's subway... the small city has some old non-standard rails and trains, so, NASA develops all new wagons to run on these old rails, also, they design/build the new subway's lines with the same specs (for a total investment of $100M)
if the subway hardware will be used ONLY in this small city, there is non need to change the trains and the rails specs and everything will work fine, but, changing the full design to match the national/international subway and railroads trains and specs, the SAME hardware (developed/built with the SAME funds) will have MANY other options:
use low cost standard rails, run on existing railroads to save on tracks, build lines to connect bigger and/or closer cities that use standard hardware, sell the same (standard) hardware to other cities and countries, repair trains and rails with standard parts instead of spend money to have many spare-parts ready to use, etc. etc. etc.
of course, the trains/rails/specs can be changed in future, but spending TWICE the money and the time!
the same for Orion... NASA can build the planned (small tanks) SM designed for a SINGLE kind of mission (and spend further time and money in future when they need better version) OR build the BEST version NOW saving very much time and money to have a vehicle READY for MANY different kind of missions and purposes (no matter if these will happen soon or later)
the SwissKnife-Orion with its larger SM tanks is mainly a choice of LOGIC and COMMON SENSE rather than engineering and economics
.
Order of Kilopi
What existing hardware do we need to be compatible with?
This is new designs with new missions, and they are being designed and planned together.
NASA has predefined missions to accomplish. They are designing a ship to meet these missions. Anything more than that, and they run the risk of the public to pull the plug.
Established Member
I disagree. I don't think we should design a spacecraft for some unknown future contingency that may or may not happen. I think we should develop and long-term plan of exactly what we want to do and design a total system capable of performing the required tasks and no more. Until we have a plan, we can't know what capabilities the spacecraft requires.
I think you're going about your argument all wrong by putting the cart before the horse. You're trying to sell the idea of the SwissKnife-Orion before you've sold the reasons for requiring it. You shouldn't care what Orion looks like because that will take care of itself. You need to sell the plan. If you can get people to buy into your plan for the future, the spacecraft required to implement that plan will emerge as a consequence.
For instance, you've said many times that your SwissKnife-Orion can perform Apollo 8-like missions. Okay, I agree. I also don't care. Why should I care about flying Apollo 8-like missions? Where does that fit into the grand plan? Why should I support a plan to build a spacecraft capable of flying Apollo 8-like missions when I don't see the value of or need for such missions? You see, you have to develop and sell a plan and the architecture to implement that plan. Without that you look directionless. You are going to have a hard time selling a spacecraft design before you sell a well structured plan for its use.
Established Member
unfortunately as the vannette as pictured showed
the reduced costs/weights`in comparison' with the basic `striped down economy model' arent...
campers as shown are notorious in the auto trade- perfect paint and body-clapped out mechanically because the bits that fold out add up to a fully loaded van at all times....so its worn out
(this i know as i work on kombi campers for a living lol)
i still cant see how this foldout `space camper' can be either cheaper or lighter than a purpose built craft- every camper ive worked on leaks like a sieve-not something id really like in a spacecraft...
and nothing ive seen so far in the links shows how protection against micrometeors etc would work?
R.I.P. Bad Astronomy
Established Member
the point i was trying to make was that having an `all in one' is rarely anywhere as effective as a `specially designed for the job'
ie the bigger tanks that (from what ive read so far in the link) may or may not be used depending on the job
will still be used every time
bigger tanks ie more weight(even empty tanks still have weight(or mass))
ie more fuel to get into orbit in the first place
ie more $$ per launch
(which is why (imho) the shuttle went wrong in the first place)
too expensive as it tried to do everything for everyone
again (purely imho) simple cheap robust designs that do their own job are the way to do things
R.I.P. Bad Astronomy
Established Member
I refer to the use of teh standard (ESAS) hardware to accomplish other kind of missions not planned to-day.
.
Established Member
the puropose of my articles and posts is ONLY to suggest alternative vehicles and architectures NOT to dictate anything to anyone
I doubt that (or, simply, I don't know if) ideas and proposals published on internet may have any influence on the official plans since (I believe) space agencies have no time to surf the web
however, you are wrong about the fact that my SwissKnife-Orion is unnecessary in the "grand plan" since you've missed that NASA has already changed very much the early plan
the main differences between the early ESAS plan and "my plan" are in three little steps (two of them ALREADY adopted by NASA in the latest months!):
1. change from lunar sortie-missions to "base first" (in december 2006)
2. new rocket (Ares-IV with Ares-I 2nd stage as small-EDS) for Apollo-8 flights (in january 2007)
3. reusable-LSAMs
now a SwissKnife-Orion can be used only for a few Apollo-8 missions with the AresIV but, IF and WHEN a reusable-LSAM will be adopted by NASA, 100% of the crew missions will be like the Apollo-8, so, the Ares-V will be deleted and ALL crewed flights will use the Ares-IV/small-EDS/SwissKnife-Orion trio
.
Order of Kilopi
I was pointing out that your analogy doesn't make sense.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote