What do you think about Orion?

[mahboi818]

I wanted to know what other people think about NASA's New Orion spacecraft and SLS. For me, It's a step back from the Space Shuttle. NASA is going back to basics instead of pushing into the future. Although I do like the Orion and SLS, NASA should be designing new types of manned spacecraft for future space travel. Will the Orion Make it to the Moon? Yes. Would the Space Shuttle? No. So for now it seems Capsules are the Way to go for now, but we have the capability of designing something better than The Orion. I want to know what you guys think.

[DisarmingBaton5]

We learned from the Space Shuttle not to put wings in space. I like Orion, personally.

[TerLoki]

Orion seems to be a big part of what's needed to get space exploration kicked back into gear and out of LEO, and that seems a worthy goal in and of itself to me.

[Javster]

We learned from the Space Shuttle not to put wings in space. I like Orion, personally.

Yeah, but it was pretty much a world-wide symbol of space exploration. Capsules can't quite do that.

[Duxwing]

I think we should go from Orion to Orion--a.k.a. "Ol' Boom-Boom".

We could put more tonnage around further planets than ever before and even refuel via ISRU. We need only calm the anti-nuclear hysteria enough for a successful launch to create a launch-conducive environment. I would love to watch an Orion boom for Neptune: the gigantic flashes in the starry black, the quiet rumble of atomic thunder, the quiet ticking of the geiger counter.

-Duxwing

Edited April 19, 2014 by Duxwing

[Kryten]

I think we should go from Orion to Orion--a.k.a. "Ol' Boom-Boom".

We could put more tonnage around further planets than ever before and even refuel via ISRU. We need only calm the anti-nuclear hysteria enough for a successful launch to create a launch-conducive environment. I would love to watch an Orion boom for Neptune: the gigantic flashes in the starry black, the quiet rumble of atomic thunder, the quiet ticking of the geiger counter.

-Duxwing

Leaving aside the engineering issues, NASA's budget can barely stretch to SLS and Orion. The idea they could produce an Orion-powered craft without the president and both houses being replaced by space-obsessed pod people is completely nuts.

[Canopus]

Yeah, but it was pretty much a world-wide symbol of space exploration. Capsules can't quite do that.

What about the Apollo CM/LM?

[Comrade Jenkens]

I think that NASA should be trying to make as much of the rocket reusable as possible. Similar to what Space X is doing.

[SuperWeegee4000]

I'm jumping up and down for it, but I hope the SLS gets a fair amount of reusability and ends up a staple for at least a decade. I'm not sure how far the capsule can go, but it has the potential to do a lot.

[StrandedonEarth]

Orion's service module looks so puny. That said, anything that gets us out of LEO is a good thing

[Duxwing]

Leaving aside the engineering issues, NASA's budget can barely stretch to SLS and Orion. The idea they could produce an Orion-powered craft without the president and both houses being replaced by space-obsessed pod people is completely nuts.

We could free some money by shuttering those two programs because launching Ol' Boom-Boom from the ground via mass driver would obsolete both. At the very least, the project could be Kerbal enough to justify its cost.

-Duxwing

[Virtualgenius]

I heard they are recycling the shuttle engines for the main booster

[Rokker]

We learned from the Space Shuttle not to put wings in space. I like Orion, personally.

We did? Somebody better tell Sierra Nevada Corporation that their well-trained, well-learned engineers are wrong and that they should give up, despite being one of the 4 main NASA CCDev finalists... We also had better go tell India's space program... and the USAF... and Reaction Engines Ltd. All the shuttle proved was that having far too many people working on a single project is costly. The $1 billion dollars a year in labor costs is one of the major factors behind the excessive launch cost of the shuttle. The program was run inefficiently, the vehicle itself could have been much more efficient.

I think that NASA should be trying to make as much of the rocket reusable as possible. Similar to what Space X is doing.

No, the size increase that would be needed for landing things such as the SLS stages are way too large, it would cut back far too much on the SLS's capabilities.

Orion's service module looks so puny. That said, anything that gets us out of LEO is a good thing

I mean its larger than the Apollo CM, but ok...

I heard they are recycling the shuttle engines for the main booster

Nope, that was Ares I portion of the now cancelled Constellation program, this is about the Orion, the only part that carried over from the Constellation program to the SLS/Orion program and the SLS.

Now that that is out of the way, what I think is that we need to keep in mind that Orion will do much more than go to the moon, it will dock to giant inflatable space stations and giant inflatable Mars transfer vehicles. And those stations and vehicles will be launched by the SLS. The SLS and Orion are NOT, I repeat NOT just another Saturn V and set of Apollo modules. These are the future of NASA based non-LEO space travel. The SLS has much more potential and many more pre-existing plans than most of you seem to realize.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Rokker

[etspets]

@DisarmingBaton5

Remind me what we learned from that? (I'm quite young)

Edited April 20, 2014 by etspets
clicked reply instead of reply with quote

[Vaporized Steel]

I think Orion is a very promising project and I will follow it with all my spirit when it lifts off the launch pad. Assuming it will ever lift off the ground let alone in the mentioned time estimate with all the many space enthusiasts around the globe (sarcasm)

No there are not many space enthusiasts around the globe. Mainly because they are assumingly ignorant about it. What you don't know you cannot yet like! If they weren't ignorant they'd probably love spaceflight to.

The budget is as small enough just to make the mission. Meaning the GOV that funds the aeronautic and aerospace institutions don't give a... (word I'm not going to say)

I think the aim to spaceflight is all wrong.

Still there are more people around the world that rather abuse their neighbours not to mention the mass practitioners of that called politicians all to gain maximum power before any steps are taken into marketing spaceflight industry, marketing itself and re-educate the masses into what it's all about.

In the meanwhile (probably still the couple next centuries) we are left with sending man with puny ice scoops every so many decades to the moon to keep up the pretends that it is just barely possible to do what we do now. And then fill the minds of the stumbled behind their TV for a decade or 3 before attempting another spaceflight military operation.

No offence but NASA and her suppliers boeing, lockheed, jpl etc are also the companies that finances the weapons for wars which has more aim in todays world then rockets.

As long as that remains the system of manned spaceflight it actually is a wonder there might ever gonna be a Orion space mission.

^^My thoughts.

[Rokker]

No offence but NASA and her suppliers boeing, lockheed, jpl etc are also the companies that finances the weapons for wars which has more aim in todays world then rockets..

Lets get some things straight. Firstly, NASA does not finance weapons and if you actually think that, then you are a moron. Also, JPL isnt a company, it is a NASA center, meaning it is literally a complex that is owned and operated by NASA. Thirdly, so what? Sure Boeing and Lockheed and many other contractors make and design weapons (way to ignore literally everything else they do, such as commercial transportation and investing in and improving the sciences) but is that honestly that awful? Especailly considering most of those weapons never really see use. By saying that companies designing and building weapons are bad, you quite literally are saying that my hometown and its 800,000 residents dont deserve a stable strong economy. You are saying my family's income, the whole reason I am able to attend college to study being an aerospace engineer, is wrong and that me and my family deserve to wallow in poverty because there is nowhere to work. My father works for a contractor of the United States Air Force and I am proud of him. One day I too will work for a company (hopefully SpaceX) that occasionally provides services to the military, that will be my life and livelihood. Your "no offence" does nothing to prevent the offence I have felt from your comment. You obviously don't know much, hell, you don't even know what JPL is, so I highly doubt you understand what is being said when you condemn military contractors, namely the loss of jobs for millions. Judging by everything you said, you have an extremely limited, narrow-minded, overly-negative view of the world, to the point that it causes you to be extremely ignorant and foolish.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Rokker

[Vaporized Steel]

-I didn't say nasa finances weapons. I said that other companies make weapons where the same technology proves usefull for spaceflight and is contracted to them.

So if I would think what you thought I was saying I am indeed a moron. But I wasn't saying it so there.

-I do know what JPL is and I know more suborbital (near orbital) rockets are created (thousands) to deliver warheads then to getting probes or humans into space.

Perhaps JPL was a bit of a bad example but more of the propulsion innovations are sold for production in the military then into spaceflight and I think YOU are ignorant or atleast narrow visioned to possibilities if you think all that research goes towards putting sattelites into space rather then cheap lightweight ballistic missiles etc etc.

The pros about these companies you mentioned I share like you said in areas of commercy and transportation. I also don't think the companies should stop what they're doing in terms of research. Ensuring your famlies and neighbourhoods commerce and job occupancy. I'm merely stating that it would be ideal if the industry and production based on the research would not go to weapons and war but instead use that budget on spaceflight.

Furthermore your a anticlimax by summing up all your worries based on atleast partial if not complete miss interpretation.

Your "no offence" does nothing to prevent the offence I have felt from your comment.

Oh dear:huh:

You obviously don't know much, hell, you don't even know what JPL is, so I highly doubt you understand what is being said when you condemn military contractors, namely the loss of jobs for millions.

Plenty of examples the loss of jobs with such fine heads could convert into from the military Industrial complex they will come from. But that doesn't pop up with you somehow.

you have an extremely limited, narrow-minded, overly-negative view of the world, to the point that it causes you to be extremely ignorant and foolish.

No! And even if I do I feel absolutely positive. And that is what it's all about to me. I would scratch the "extremely limited, and "narrow minded" parts. And change "overly-negative" to constructively negative. To me a person that can't see negative things is naive and is bound to balance from a cliff one day. Lastly this is probably the first post you have ever read from me.

Making assumptions on a first impression is off the limits. Which is probably doable for you since this is a forum with anonymous persons around. But I probably upset you and I'm sorry anyways regardless of what you have just called me for.

[Whirligig Girl]

Orion's service module looks so puny. That said, anything that gets us out of LEO is a good thing

It's actually bigger than the Apollo C/SM's. The crew pod is larger to accommodate 4 crew.

[Whirligig Girl]

Nope, that was Ares I portion of the now cancelled Constellation program, this is about the Orion, the only part that carried over from the Constellation program to the SLS/Orion program and the SLS.

They are using the RS-25 (SSME) for the SLS. The Ares V and Ares IV would have used the RS-68 engines (Delta IV engines) but that is what got scrubbed, not the SSMEs.

[Rokker]

They are using the RS-25 (SSME) for the SLS. The Ares V and Ares IV would have used the RS-68 engines (Delta IV engines) but that is what got scrubbed, not the SSMEs.

I completely forgot that SLS is planning to use RS-25s, I was only thinking of the J-2X second stage engine for some reason, however I do stand by the fact that there were serious plans to use SSME's on the Ares IV and V up until Constellation's cancellation.

[Rokker]

Plenty of examples the loss of jobs with such fine heads could convert into from the military Industrial complex they will come from. But that doesn't pop up with you somehow.

Not on a large enough scale to make a difference. If 1 million engineers suddenly lose their jobs, there arent going to be another 1 million jobs waiting for them.

And no, if Lockheed and Boeing and all the others stopped with their military contracts, there would be no research to help my hometown. I live in Dayton, Ohio, home to the largest USAF base in the world and it is the head of the USAF research branch it is where a large part of the research that goes into those planes and those missiles comes from. Without military spending, my city would suffer.