Orion Launches!

[SteveDaPirate]

Nasa’s Orion deep space capsule launches
By Jonathan Amos

A rocket has launched from Florida carrying an unmanned version of the US space agency's new crew capsule - Orion.

The ship is designed eventually to take humans beyond the space station, to destinations such as the Moon and Mars.

Orion's brief flight today will be used to test critical technologies, like its heat shield and parachutes.
The Delta IV-Heavy rocket roared off the pad at Cape Canaveral at 07:05 local time (12:05 GMT).

It will throw the conical ship to 6,000km above the planet, to set up a fast re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

This will generate temperatures in the region of 2,000C, allowing engineers to check that Orion's thermal protection systems meet their specifications.

The mission teams will also get to watch how the parachutes deploy as they gently lower the capsule into Pacific waters off the coast of Mexico's Baja Peninsula.

That splashdown is expected to occur at about 11:30 EST (16:30 GMT).

Nasa has a drone in the area hoping to relay video of the final moments of descent.

US Navy divers in speedboats will move in to capture Orion when it hits the water. The floating ship will then be towed into the well deck of a support vessel.

Orion is reminiscent of the Apollo command ships that took men to the Moon in the 60s and 70s, only bigger and with cutting-edge systems.

It is being developed alongside a powerful new rocket that will have its own debut in 2017 or 2018.
Together, they will form the core capabilities needed to send humans beyond the International Space Station.

Thursday's mission is but one small step in a very long development programme.
Unable to call upon the financial resources of the Apollo era, Nasa is instead having to take a patient path.

Even if today it had a fully functioning Orion, with its dedicated rocket, the US space agency would not be able to mount a mission to another planetary body because the technologies to carry out surface operations have not been produced yet, and it could be the 2030s before we see them all - certainly, to do a Mars mission.

To go to the Red Planet would require transfer vehicles, habitation modules, and effective supply and communication chains. And fundamental to the outcome of the whole venture would be a descent/ascent solution that enabled people to get down safely to the surface and then get back up again to make the journey home.

Nasa's chief scientist Ellen Stofan told the BBC: "We have all these technologies mapped out and we're asking, 'what is the most sustainable path we can get on (to achieve them)?' And when I say 'we', I don't just mean the United States because it's not just Nasa that's thinking about this; it's all the space agencies around the world."

To that end, the Europe Space Agency has been asked to provide the "back end" for all future Orion capsules.

This service module is principally the propulsion unit that drives Orion through space.
Nasa says it is open to similar contributions from other partners as well.

Nonetheless, some commentators, like the respected historian John Logsdon, are worried that the policy as laid out cannot continue in its current guise.

"The first Orion launch with a crew aboard is 2020/21, and then nothing very firmly is defined after that, although of course Nasa has plans. That's too slow-paced to keep the launch teams sharp, to keep everyone engaged. It's driven by the lack of money, not the technical barriers," he said.
But there is no doubting the enthusiasm within Nasa for the Orion project.

Rex Waldheim flew on the very last shuttle mission in 2011, and is now assisting the design of the capsule's interior systems.

He told BBC News: "The people that are actually going to fly in Orion - I just can't imagine the thrill they're going to have when they sit here at the Kennedy Space Centre atop the rocket, ready to go to the Moon or to Mars or an asteroid - these incredible destinations. It's just going to be spectacular."

Lets hope this program puts the first man on another planet!

[Stitch]

I was surprised to hear on NPR that a large portion of the public is unaware of this space program; I've been following it off and on for a couple of years now, and I can't help but notice that both the proposed launch vehicle and the crew capsule look like the Saturn V and the Apollo on steroids, respectively. I guess the best designs are the original designs!

Images courtesy of NASA (NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) | NASA)

[SteveDaPirate]

I was surprised to hear on NPR that a large portion of the public is unaware of this space program; I've been following it off and on for a couple of years now, and I can't help but notice that both the proposed launch vehicle and the crew capsule look like the Saturn V and the Apollo on steroids, respectively. I guess the best designs are the original designs!

I think the fact that NASA already has so much data and and experience from the Apollo missions was certainly a big factor. Combine that with serious funding pressure, and I can see why they might opt for a modern take on a classic design rather than trying for something completely new and different.

Congress has also played a part by mandating that NASA uses Space Shuttle components in the SLS. No doubt to maintain jobs making the large fuel tanks and solid rocket boosters etc.

That being said, I think something like the "Propellant Crossfeed" that SpaceX's Falcon Heavy plans to utilize would make lifting heavy loads both safer and more economical.

[kato]

I was surprised to hear on NPR that a large portion of the public is unaware of this space program

That would be because there is no real solid aim to this space program. Orion won't be the capsule that brings humans back to the moon; it won't be the capsule that brings humans to Mars; even ARM is entirely nebulous, not really funded and without a clear goal. They can't even push it as the new advanced technology thing really - because it could have been built pretty much the same thirty years ago, and back then people would have been just as unimpressed with it either.

That being said, I think something like the "Propellant Crossfeed" that SpaceX's Falcon Heavy plans to utilize would make lifting heavy loads both safer and more economical.

"Propellant Crossfeed" is just another of the rather blatant obfuscations surrounding the Falcon Heavy*. The only thing propellant crossfeed does is allow you to - like the D4H - bootstrap three identical rocket stages together and - unlike the D4H - turn "convert" the two outer rockets into "boosters" by transferring fuel from them to the inner rocket. There's nothing inherently safer about it, and it only becomes economical if the system is dedicated built to such specific operations at such specific payloads.

There's other obfuscations, such as stating a GTO and "to Mars" payload. The system ain't built for GTO or beyond, it needs an extra stage for that. That's why the stated GTO payload is only 40% of the LEO payload (as opposed to e.g. Ariane where it's 60%). And it's GTO where the real money is today.

[SteveDaPirate]

The inherently safer part is that you get to start and check the status of all the engines before the rocket ever leaves the ground. The more engines you have to light in flight, the greater the chance of a failure that costs you the payload. I think this is a big reason you see more modern rockets utilizing ever larger boosters rather than the single tall stack seen on things like the Saturn V.

I do think that propellant crossfeed has the potential to be more efficient than the D4H design of throttling down the central rocket. It allows all the engines to run at full power (for maximum efficiency and TWR), and still leaves the central rocket with topped off fuel tanks at booster separation. There is also something to be said for utilizing a common core design for both the central rocket and boosters when in comes to economics of scale in manufacturing.

That being said, the Falcon Heavy has yet to fly, and it remains to be seen if propellant crossfeed will be implemented in a manner that achieves the performance gains SpaceX seems to imply. I would think pumping that much cryogenic fuel that quickly would present some interesting engineering challenges and the implementation may be too expensive to justify the increased performance. We will have to wait and see I suppose.

[kato]

I think this is a big reason you see more modern rockets utilizing ever larger boosters rather than the single tall stack seen on things like the Saturn V.

The two big reasons you see boosters are:
a) they make the rocket scalable with the payload, thus saving money.
b) boosters are usually (considerably) cheaper.

The Falcon Heavy doesn't apply either of those two.

It will be interesting how payload requirements develop on the market. The current primary commercial market is in 4.5 to 6.5 ton payloads to GTO, which is definitely not what Falcon Heavy is designed for. Of course that's likely to get bigger, but it's unlikely to surpass twice the current sizes in the next two decades either. On a pure commercial basis, I could see a Falcon Heavy become viable in the late 2030s or so. That's why they're trying to push it onto NASA instead of the commercial market.