Updates Orion (MPCV) Updates and Discussion

[T.Neo]

This seemed to work well back in the day.

That is a lunar lander. MMSEV, is no lunar lander. The cabin is supposedly derived from the cabin of a lunar rover, but it's a pure space vehicle, so it doesn't have to submit to a lot of the constraints placed on a lunar and/or surface vehicle.

Which more-or-less applies to landing on an NEO as well.

 

[N_Molson]

Yes, landing on NEO is a challenge on it's own. It's very easy to "bounce". Sure, the landing gear has to be able to absorb all the touchdown energy, and has to be very sensitive. So the "1 leg with a lot of articulations" concept seems not that silly.

Depending of the nature of the soil of the asteroid, maybe I'd try to fire a grapple at it, then pull on the rope... :lol:

 

[T.Neo]

So the "1 leg with a lot of articulations" concept seems not that silly.

But it could still lead to problems with keeping the spacecraft stable in that position. Remember, that an asteroid still has gravity, even if it is very low gravity. I fail to see why they didn't use two legs, or three legs.

Depending of the nature of the soil of the asteroid, maybe I'd try to fire a grapple at it, then pull on the rope...

That sounds too "Armageddon" to me. I just have this feeling that you would pull on the rope, and the harpoon would come floating out of the regolith...

Maybe one solution is to sink a number of mini-caissons into the regolith, which could hold it in place somewhat.

 

[Star Voyager]

That is a lunar lander. MMSEV, is no lunar lander. The cabin is supposedly derived from the cabin of a lunar rover, but it's a pure space vehicle, so it doesn't have to submit to a lot of the constraints placed on a lunar and/or surface vehicle.

Which more-or-less applies to landing on an NEO as well.

The point was that it may not look ideal, but it'll still get the job done. I'd be interested to see how far NASA takes it. My guess is that they could test it underwater if they wanted to make sure the concept is suitable.

 

[T.Neo]

It may not look ideal, because it isn't ideal. If you were to make a space vehicle with those specifications, you would have no reason to build it like that- see a plethora of other, similar proposals, from the 1950s onwards.

The only thing that makes it make sense is the fact that it has commonality with other hardware (the surface SEV).

I doubt it will go very far, mainly because it likely won't see use. The whole MPCV, SLS program is intended to feed Big Aerospace, not to actually explore space.

Testing something in a pool, really makes no sense, for example you can't really simulate the conditions within the vehicle and crew positioning, or do pressurisation tests that you couldn't do on the ground. And of course it is totally worthless for surmising the efficacy of the thermal control system.

 

[FADEC]

When they announced Constellation, they had the shuttle. They still had a transportation vehicle so they were not in some kind of hurry to develop the new program.

And most importantly they had to spend a lot of money on STS.

Testing something in a pool, really makes no sense, for example you can't really simulate the conditions within the vehicle and crew positioning, or do pressurisation tests that you couldn't do on the ground. And of course it is totally worthless for surmising the efficacy of the thermal control system.

In the pool they are just taking a look at how the capsule reacts on splashdown. No more, no less. The pool test is not made for pressurisation or thermal control system tests etc.

And I think you don't really need to repeat yourself over and over again. We all understood how much you love to bash the MPCV. It's getting really boring (almost annoying actually).

 

[T.Neo]

And most importantly they had to spend a lot of money on STS.

You do realise, that they wanted the manned vehicle as soon as possible, right? They didn't want a capability gap, they don't want a capability gap... but they're getting it anyway.

In the pool they are just taking a look at how the capsule reacts on splashdown. No more, no less. The pool test is not made for pressurisation or thermal control system tests etc.

Does this really look like a capsule, built for a splashdown, to you? :lol:

And I think you don't really need to repeat yourself over and over again. We all understood how much you love to bash the MPCV. It's getting really boring (almost annoying actually).

No. Of course I'm going to keep on bashing MPCV. MPCV is just that bad of an idea... :uhh:

 

[orb]

NASA:

July 22, 2011​

RELEASE : 11-242
NASA Tests Future Deep Space Vehicle For Water Landings

HAMPTON, Va. -- As NASA closes the chapter on the Space Shuttle Program, a new era of exploration vehicles is beginning to take off.

Testing began this month at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., in the new Hydro Impact Basin to certify the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) for water landings. The Orion MPCV will carry astronauts into space, provide emergency abort capability, sustain the crew during space travel and ensure safe re-entry and landing.

Engineers have dropped a 22,000-pound MPCV mockup into the basin. The test item is similar in size and shape to MPCV, but is more rigid so it can withstand multiple drops. Each test has a different drop velocity to represent the MPCV's possible entry conditions during water landings.

The last of three drop tests to verify the new facility is scheduled for the end of this month.

Testing will resume in September with a slightly modified test article that is more representative of the actual MPCV.

The new Hydro Impact Basin is 115 long, 90 feet wide and 20 feet deep. It is located at the west end of Langley's historic Landing and Impact Research Facility, or Gantry, where Apollo astronauts trained for moon walks.

For images and video of the tests, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/exploration/hib.html​

To follow the progress of the Orion MPCV on social networking sites, visit:

http://www.facebook.com/nasampcv

http://twitter.com/nasampcv

http://www.youtube.com/user/nasampcv

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasampcv​

NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston manages the Orion MPCV program for the agency. For more information about the program, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/mpcv​

 

[FADEC]

Does this really look like a capsule, built for a splashdown, to you? :lol:

NASA does test the MPCV for splashdown.

 

[Urwumpe]

NASA does test the MPCV for splashdown.

But not the MMSEV! :facepalm:

 

[Codz]

You do realise, that they wanted the manned vehicle as soon as possible, right? They didn't want a capability gap, they don't want a capability gap... but they're getting it anyway.

Does this really look like a capsule, built for a splashdown, to you? :lol:



No. Of course I'm going to keep on bashing MPCV. MPCV is just that bad of an idea... :uhh:

The fact that he is repeating himself just means he has run out of arguements.

 

[T.Neo]

The fact that he is repeating himself just means he has run out of arguements.

I wouldn't have problems running out of arguments if people would actually listen to them, instead of closing their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears, and going "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala"...

 

[FADEC]

I wouldn't have problems running out of arguments if people would actually listen to them, instead of closing their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears, and going "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala"...

At some point people just become tired to listen. Your opinions are not universally valid. And they won't become by constantly repeating them for the sake to disagree on the MPCV

 

[Ark]

But not the MMSEV! :facepalm:

Wait, why would they? That's as silly as testing the LEM in a splashdown.

Besides, it's kind of a moot point, that MMSEV is probably never going to exist as anything but a fancy animation. If you're doing an MPCV mission to an asteroid, you would probably just EVA over to it. Gravity is too weak to "land", so you might as well treat it as a rendezvous with a big grey wall in space.

 

[T.Neo]

At some point people just become tired to listen. Your opinions are not universally valid. And they won't become by constantly repeating them for the sake to disagree on the MPCV

Of course they are universally valid, it's just that people don't listen, and instead close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and go "lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala".

People defend MPCV just for some sort of nonsensical loyalty to the idea. It doesn't make sense in the real world- but I agree, that it makes sense in the silly political world... :dry:

 

[Ark]

So, I've been wondering. With NASA's "official" spacecraft going back to a conventional capsule design, does that mean they're going back to Apollo-era toilet tech? Have the Shuttle people been spoiled by their built-in toilet, and are future MPCV crews (assuming it doesn't get cancelled) going to be sticking bags to their backsides again?

Have NASA's promo animations gotten to that detail yet?

 

[DanM]

So, I've been wondering. With NASA's "official" spacecraft going back to a conventional capsule design, does that mean they're going back to Apollo-era toilet tech? Have the Shuttle people been spoiled by their built-in toilet, and are future MPCV crews (assuming it doesn't get cancelled) going to be sticking bags to their backsides again?

Have NASA's promo animations gotten to that detail yet?

IIRC Orion was supposed to have a shuttle style toilet, so I'd guess that MPCV will too.

 

[Ark]

IIRC Orion was supposed to have a shuttle style toilet, so I'd guess that MPCV will too.

Well, good news for them I suppose.

Dragon and CST could probably do without since they're mainly supposed to be ISS shuttles that won't spend more than a day or two in free flight, but I had been wondering about MPCV.

 

[SandroSalgueiro]

Capsules are still the best design option for lower mass crafts.

 

[T.Neo]

Spaceplanes actually have a number of advantages over capsules- such as a lower-g reentry and a potentially more convenient recovery.