Interesting thought about Orion competing with Dragon, but is there an early market demand for two private capsules? This certainly isn’t clear.
Something I’m curious about is what the difference in cost is to develop the Orion for LEO if Lockheed Martin were to continue alone versus what the cost would be under NASA sponsorship? I realize NASA is imposing many additional requirements, but it seems such a comparison could be made and would prove enlightening.
It would be nice to have at least two different spacecraft just so we don’t completely lose access to space if Orion is grounded for months or years after a failure.
In addition to the Dragon and/or Orion capsules, I’d like to see a lifting body spaceplane like the HL-20/Dream Chaser/Kliper/Corvair that could be launched by the same booster(s) as the capsule(s).
is there an early market demand for two private capsules? This certainly isn’t clear.
You mean three capsules, since Soyuz is unlikely to go away.
It’s also possible China might try to market its Shenzhou capsules. ESA and India are also talking about capsules, although it’s unknown if they’ll ever be built.
I question the author’s assumption that “the Orion spacecraft is a generally sound idea [because] it’s rooted in mature technologies.” Apollo was not all that mature. In fact, the astronauts considered it something of a lemon compared to Gemini.
He states, “A commercial Orion would need to keep its mass low, to fit on existing commercial launchers. Even if the capsule was scaled back to Apollo’s 3.9 meter diameter, this may still be a tough order.” Perhaps, but Apollo was a cement truck compared to Gemini.
If you were going to redesign Orion as radically as he imagines, why not go with a scaled-up Gemini instead of a scaled-back Apollo?
The 9-person Big Gemini would have been about 15.5 metric tons. That compares quite favorably with his hypothetical “5-passenger capsule with lunar-capable heat shield [that] would weigh in just under 15 tonnes when configured for missions to the space station.”
All of this is hypothetical, of course, because I don’t expect Lockheed to do such a thing.
Interesting, I never heard of the Big Gemini concept before. Here is a link for others that might be interested.
Mr. X mentioned one thing that I’ve never heard before:
Orion could also move to two rows of seating and add more paying passengers (something currently banned under NASA’s human-rating requirements, although it’s featured in commercial capsule designs like Dragon.)
Is it really true that two rows of seats violate the current “human-rating requirements”?
Is it really true that two rows of seats violate the current “human-rating requirements”?
I don’t know. It’s been a long time since I read the doc, and it could have evolved. But I wouldn’t be surprised. HR requirements are very malleable things with NASA…
If it’s a fairly new requirement that would make me very suspicious…
The five man version of the Apollo CSM that would be employed to rescue astronauts from Skylab used two rows of seats — the standard three up top and two tucked behind. A picture is here. Not sure why two rows in the Orion would be difficult to pull off.
Not sure why two rows in the Orion would be difficult to pull off.
It’s because there is a large piece of primary structure behind the crew couch frame, called the “backbone”. The storage you see behind the crew is built into and around this structure, so unlike Apollo apparently could do with the Skylab rescue vehicle, it’s not as straightforward as removing storage lockers and adding some more couches.
Interesting thought about Orion competing with Dragon, but is there an early market demand for two private capsules? This certainly isn’t clear.
Something I’m curious about is what the difference in cost is to develop the Orion for LEO if Lockheed Martin were to continue alone versus what the cost would be under NASA sponsorship? I realize NASA is imposing many additional requirements, but it seems such a comparison could be made and would prove enlightening.
It would be nice to have at least two different spacecraft just so we don’t completely lose access to space if Orion is grounded for months or years after a failure.
In addition to the Dragon and/or Orion capsules, I’d like to see a lifting body spaceplane like the HL-20/Dream Chaser/Kliper/Corvair that could be launched by the same booster(s) as the capsule(s).
is there an early market demand for two private capsules? This certainly isn’t clear.
You mean three capsules, since Soyuz is unlikely to go away.
It’s also possible China might try to market its Shenzhou capsules. ESA and India are also talking about capsules, although it’s unknown if they’ll ever be built.
I question the author’s assumption that “the Orion spacecraft is a generally sound idea [because] it’s rooted in mature technologies.” Apollo was not all that mature. In fact, the astronauts considered it something of a lemon compared to Gemini.
He states, “A commercial Orion would need to keep its mass low, to fit on existing commercial launchers. Even if the capsule was scaled back to Apollo’s 3.9 meter diameter, this may still be a tough order.” Perhaps, but Apollo was a cement truck compared to Gemini.
If you were going to redesign Orion as radically as he imagines, why not go with a scaled-up Gemini instead of a scaled-back Apollo?
The 9-person Big Gemini would have been about 15.5 metric tons. That compares quite favorably with his hypothetical “5-passenger capsule with lunar-capable heat shield [that] would weigh in just under 15 tonnes when configured for missions to the space station.”
All of this is hypothetical, of course, because I don’t expect Lockheed to do such a thing.
Interesting, I never heard of the Big Gemini concept before. Here is a link for others that might be interested.
Mr. X mentioned one thing that I’ve never heard before:
Orion could also move to two rows of seating and add more paying passengers (something currently banned under NASA’s human-rating requirements, although it’s featured in commercial capsule designs like Dragon.)
Is it really true that two rows of seats violate the current “human-rating requirements”?
Is it really true that two rows of seats violate the current “human-rating requirements”?
I don’t know. It’s been a long time since I read the doc, and it could have evolved. But I wouldn’t be surprised. HR requirements are very malleable things with NASA…
If it’s a fairly new requirement that would make me very suspicious…
The five man version of the Apollo CSM that would be employed to rescue astronauts from Skylab used two rows of seats — the standard three up top and two tucked behind. A picture is here. Not sure why two rows in the Orion would be difficult to pull off.
Not sure why two rows in the Orion would be difficult to pull off.
It’s because there is a large piece of primary structure behind the crew couch frame, called the “backbone”. The storage you see behind the crew is built into and around this structure, so unlike Apollo apparently could do with the Skylab rescue vehicle, it’s not as straightforward as removing storage lockers and adding some more couches.