The troubled Orion capsule

[adsii1970]

Which is why we get stuck with crappy projects!

[kerbiloid]

16 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if the next administration actually comes to its senses and realizes that the purpose of the SLS/Orion infrastructure that it has built is to return to the Moon. We still have plenty of work to do there.

Say, they have built a small moon base.
What's next? Just to keep it as a guard of honor (like ISS began to look like)? Unlikely,
To expand it and start a lunar industry? Afaik, the first thermonuke reactor (and just with D+T, not 3He) is planned to be tested near 2040. (Even if lunar 3He would not be a fantasy. 1 g/ 100 t, heh.)
So, any moon base founded now will be finished due to lack of reasons to throw billions for its keeping.

[cryogen]

4 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Really not getting the point of Orion at all. It is way too expensive and overpowered to be a crew ferry to the ISS, while being utterly inadequate for Mars journeys. The only use I can see is an Apollo style Moon mission which isn't planned.

So why are we building it?

You got it. The reason Orion exists is there was a project to go the moon and so they designed this capsule, an analogue to the Apollo CM. Around 2010, the moon project was cancelled, but there was a political rift, some politicians tenaciously held their grip on Orion's budget. So we keep building it. There's no reason any more, only rationalizations and inertia.

[wumpus]

2 hours ago, cryogen said:

You got it. The reason Orion exists is there was a project to go the moon and so they designed this capsule, an analogue to the Apollo CM. Around 2010, the moon project was cancelled, but there was a political rift, some politicians tenaciously held their grip on Orion's budget. So we keep building it. There's no reason any more, only rationalizations and inertia.

Isn't it NASA's only planned manned space transport?  Right now they can only hitch a ride on Soyuz, and they have a plan to buy tickets on Spacex (and ULA?).  I'm sure Orion has a few friends in NASA as well as on Capitol Hill.

On the other hand, every time I see the widely popular suggesting of reviving the Saturn, I can't help but wonder how that could possibly work better than the current scheme to revive the Shuttle (or at least build a "lego rocket" out of shuttle parts).  Impressive rocket, but nowhere to go.

[Nibb31]

10 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Isn't it NASA's only planned manned space transport?  Right now they can only hitch a ride on Soyuz, and they have a plan to buy tickets on Spacex (and ULA?).  I'm sure Orion has a few friends in NASA as well as on Capitol Hill.

You need to follow the news a bit more. NASA will actually have 3 spacecraft: Dragon, CST-100 (which is Boeing, not ULA), and Orion. The CCDev spacecraft are specifically designed as LEO taxis for ISS operations only. Orion is specifically designed as a BEO exploration vehicle and will never go to the ISS.

Think minivan and Land Rover. You don't use a minivan for a trek across the Sahara, and it's not economical to use the Land Rover for dropping off the kids at school.

Orion and SLS are supported by Congress, because the money is spent in various powerful constituencies. CCDev has less support.

Quote

On the other hand, every time I see the widely popular suggesting of reviving the Saturn, I can't help but wonder how that could possibly work better than the current scheme to revive the Shuttle (or at least build a "lego rocket" out of shuttle parts).  Impressive rocket, but nowhere to go.

Widely popular? The only place I've ever seen people suggesting reviving the Saturn V was from a couple of kids on this forum and it was debunked immediately.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Nibb31

[Nothalogh]

56 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

You need to follow the news a bit more. NASA will actually have 3 spacecraft: Dragon, CST-100 (which is Boeing, not ULA), and Orion. The CCDev spacecraft are specifically designed as LEO taxis for ISS operations only. Orion is specifically designed as a BEO exploration vehicle and will never go to the ISS.

Think minivan and Land Rover. You don't use a minivan for a trek across the Sahara, and it's not economical to use the Land Rover for dropping off the kids at school.

Orion and SLS are supported by Congress, because the money is spent in various powerful constituencies. CCDev has less support.

Widely popular? The only place I've ever seen people suggesting reviving the Saturn V was from a couple of kids on this forum and it was debunked immediately.

The way it's looking, orion is not vaporware, but rather porkware

[wumpus]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

You need to follow the news a bit more. NASA will actually have 3 spacecraft: Dragon, CST-100 (which is Boeing, not ULA), and Orion. The CCDev spacecraft are specifically designed as LEO taxis for ISS operations only. Orion is specifically designed as a BEO exploration vehicle and will never go to the ISS.

Think minivan and Land Rover. You don't use a minivan for a trek across the Sahara, and it's not economical to use the Land Rover for dropping off the kids at school.

Orion and SLS are supported by Congress, because the money is spent in various powerful constituencies. CCDev has less support.

Widely popular? The only place I've ever seen people suggesting reviving the Saturn V was from a couple of kids on this forum and it was debunked immediately.

Care to be how many more Congressmen have owned Land Rovers (presumably buying Hummers instead if an election is coming up, but just as uneconomical)?  Also Dragon and CST-100 "weren't invented here".

I keep seeing suggestions about Saturns in this forum.  Oddly enough, I think SLS includes most of the favorite tech (F-1 engines and the Apollo capsule).

[Nibb31]

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

Care to be how many more Congressmen have owned Land Rovers (presumably buying Hummers instead if an election is coming up, but just as uneconomical)?  Also Dragon and CST-100 "weren't invented here".

I keep seeing suggestions about Saturns in this forum.  Oddly enough, I think SLS includes most of the favorite tech (F-1 engines and the Apollo capsule).

SLS doesn't use F-1 engines, and Orion has as much in common with the Apollo CSM as a Boeing 787 has with a DC-3.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Nibb31

[cryogen]

13 hours ago, wumpus said:

I keep seeing suggestions about Saturns in this forum.  Oddly enough, I think SLS includes most of the favorite tech (F-1 engines and the Apollo capsule).

I think you're thinking of the upper stage engines. NASA planned on using (an update of) the J-2 engine, the one from the 2nd and 3rd stages of Saturn V, as the upper stage engine for SLS. (And prior that, Ares I and Ares V). They ended up dropping it in favor of RL10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-2X

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by cryogen

[Bill Phil]

3 hours ago, cryogen said:

I think you're thinking of the upper stage engines. NASA planned on using (an update of) the J-2 engine, the one from the 2nd and 3rd stages of Saturn V, as the upper stage engine for SLS. (And prior that, Ares I and Ares V). They ended up dropping it in favor of RL10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-2X

 

As far as I recall they still plan on using J-2 derivatives eventually. Maybe in ten years or more, idk.

[RCgothic]

The F1-B engine is part of one proposal for advanced kerolox boosters to replace the shuttle derived ones as part of... Block 2? There are other options as well.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

The F1-B engine is part of one proposal for advanced kerolox boosters to replace the shuttle derived ones as part of... Block 2? There are other options as well.

It was abandoned a while ago. They are sticking with SRBs.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Nibb31

[wumpus]

Just now, Nibb31 said:

It was abandoned a while ago.

Looks like sometime after 2014.  Stuff that *should* be current:http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sls0.html

It looks like the main issue is that the F-1 would replace the SS-ME/RD-25 engines which are half the point of the SLS (the other being the SRBs), so that went nowhere.

So we have a rocket over for designed  LEO, that can't make it to Mars and that NASA isn't taking to the Moon.  Although I suppose in the end it doesn't matter if Orion is ready or not.  The first Saturn launched without an Apollo capsule (it was late as well), and will allow NASA to push around budgets for several more years without needing to launch anything.

[tater]

21 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Think minivan and Land Rover. You don't use a minivan for a trek across the Sahara, and it's not economical to use the Land Rover for dropping off the kids at school.

That explains exactly why I spend so very much money on gasoline.