{"id":39342,"date":"2015-05-05T00:24:41","date_gmt":"2015-05-04T16:24:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/eft-1-orion-inspections-provide-vital-mmod-information\/"},"modified":"2015-05-05T00:24:41","modified_gmt":"2015-05-04T16:24:41","slug":"eft-1-orion-inspections-provide-vital-mmod-information","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/eft-1-orion-inspections-provide-vital-mmod-information\/","title":{"rendered":"EFT-1 Orion inspections provide vital MMOD information"},"content":{"rendered":"

A forensic level investigation into the condition of the Thermal Protection System (TPS) on the Exploration Flight Test -1 (EFT-1) Orion has evaluated the level of MicroMeteoroid and Orbital Debris (MMOD) damage on the vehicle. Orion\u2019s MMOD impacts were evaluated by the Hypervelocity Impact Technology (HVIT) Group, showing the vehicle suffered more MMOD damage than the computation models had predicted.<\/p>\n

MMOD:<\/p>\n

MMOD is the unseen threat that all spacecraft need to be protected from, not least because they are impossible to track and thus avoid.<\/p>\n

This is in contrast to the larger debris threats that the ISS can dodge via a Debris Avoidance Maneuver (DAM).<\/p>\n

\"\"Impacts from MMOD strikes are usually noticed when they strike areas such as windows of the spacecraft.<\/p>\n

Such strikes were observed on a large amount of Space Shuttle missions, especially late into the mission when the orbiter had undocked from the protection of the ISS and was preparing to head home.<\/p>\n

Although spacecraft are designed with a level of protection from such impacts, MMOD was the third biggest threat to losing an orbiter during her mission \u2013 second only to launch and re-entry.<\/p>\n

\"\"During the Space Shuttle era, all of the orbiters would receive flesh wounds from MMOD strikes.<\/p>\n

The most serious event was during STS-109 when a small piece of debris was lodged in Columbia\u2019s coolant loop 2 and restricted the flow of Freon-22 in that coolant loop. While the option for an immediate return to Earth was discussed, mission managers opted to press on with what was a successful flight.<\/p>\n

Space Shuttle models<\/path>SpaceX launch tickets<\/path>Spaceflight news subscription<\/path>\n

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});<\/p>\n

Atlantis and Endeavour both suffered \u201cbullet hole\u201d impacts to their radiators, with Atlantis\u2019 damage was sustained when she was hit by a tiny piece of circuit board on orbit \u2013 likely from a destroyed satellite. The damage held no mission impact and was only noticed once she had returned home and was in post-flight processing inside her Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF)<\/p>\n

\"\"Extensive evaluations took place ahead of each shuttle mission, not least Atlantis\u2019 STS-125 flight into space, a mission that provided one final servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope.<\/p>\n

This mission held the largest risk to the orbiter, given it was the only post Return To Flight mission that did not have the \u201csafe haven\u201d option of docking with the ISS, ahead of a rescue orbiter being flown to pick up the crew.<\/p>\n

STS-125 would also see an increase in the concentration of MMOD, due to the region of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Atlantis flew in for the majority of her mission.<\/p>\n

The Program Requirements Control Board (PRCB) results \u2013 which took into account satellite breakups and a variety of other components evaluated to be in Atlantis\u2019 orbital neighborhood \u2013 showed that the overall risk of a Loss Of Crew and Vehicle (LOC\/V) scenario due to MMOD impact(s) to the Thermal Protect System (TPS) was 1 in 185, with an error factor of 1.35 based on MMOD distribution, velocity, and density uncertainties.<\/p>\n

As noted, most of the risk was associated with impacts on the TPS, as opposed to the windows. In the end, Atlantis completed her mission successfully and without any major MMOD concerns.<\/p>\n

\"2014-12-05EFT-1 Orion\u2019s maiden flight raised the bar on the altitude, rising high above the ISS\u2019 orbit and beyond that of Hubble. The first orbit had an apogee altitude of 890 km and a perigee of 200 km. The second orbit reached an apogee of 5,808 km.<\/p>\n

Last year\u2019s launch atop United Launch Alliance\u2019s Delta IV-Heavy marked the beginning of a flawless mission that tested numerous critical systems, allowing for a huge collection of data that will fed into the Critical Design Review (CDR) for Orion.<\/p>\n

The data is already being fed into the next Orion \u2013 for Exploration Mission -1 (EM-1) \u2013 which is already undergoing construction at the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF).<\/p>\n

\"2014-12-10After being successfully recovered in the Pacific Ocean off of San Diego. NASA civil servants and contractors conducted an extensive evaluation of the vehicle\u2019s condition at the Naval Base San Diego Mole Pier.<\/p>\n

Visually, Orion appeared to be in great shape, with no obvious damage to the Thermal Protection System (TPS).<\/p>\n

These inspections were carried out by the Johnson Space Center\u2019s HVIT Group as well as Lockheed Martin personnel from Denver.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Orion capsule was recovered in good shape, but the forward bay cover (jettisoned during the main parachute deployment) sank before it could be recovered,\u201d noted the HVIT outline.<\/p>\n

See Also<\/h4>\n