Orion program delayed 2 years

[PB666]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34275758

[Kerbart]

It's hard to imagine that we went from launching the first man into space to landing on the moon in less than ten years...

[Bill Phil]

It's hard to imagine that we went from launching the first man into space to landing on the moon in less than ten years...

Well, we did have help from some very smart Germans.

Also, not us. Ancestors. People that wanted to do it.

Also, the first man was a Russian by the name of Gagarin, Yuri Gagarin.

[fredinno]

From NASASpaceflight.com: "While the first crewed launch of Orion remains on track for 2021, NASA has opted to install a “No Later Than†date of mid-2023, to allow for the contingency of future budget and technical issues."

From what I got from that article, EM-2 is still on track, only ARM is being pushed to 2023, meaning that EM-2 is going to what it was originally- a Lunar Orbital mission.

I was actually somewhat surprised, since I've been tracking SLS/Orion, and it seemed to be on schedule- SLS/Orion was actually slightly ahead of schedule.

Probably the ARM vehicle development is being shoved back into the abyss, like Altair was, in Constellation. Maybe something faster to develop will replace it, like a Lunar Oribtal ISS-Module derived station. Possibly sample return from the lunar farside.

Unfortunately, the pushing back of ARM only solidifies the "no payloads" argument.

[PB666]

It's hard to imagine that we went from launching the first man into space to landing on the moon in less than ten years...

No kidding ........this more than anything has fueled conspiracy theories.

[Kryten]

It's hard to imagine that we went from launching the first man into space to landing on the moon in less than ten years...

Before Kennedy's giant funding spike, Apollo landings were sitting somewhere in the mid-70s.

[cryogen]

From what I got from that article, EM-2 is still on track, only ARM is being pushed to 2023, meaning that EM-2 is going to what it was originally- a Lunar Orbital mission.

I understand it's EM-2, not ARM, that's been pushed back.

NASA's Orion spacecraft has officially moved from preliminary design to fabrication, but the agency says the first crewed flight of the vehicle could slip two years, from 2021 to 2023.

[...] Until now, that first astronaut-carrying flight, Exploration Mission 2â€â€a sojourn to lunar orbitâ€â€was expected to occur in 2021. It will be preceded by EM-1, a similar but uncrewed trip to the moon scheduled for late 2018. EM-1 will also mark the debut of the Space Launch System.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2015/20150916-orion-clears-kdp-c.html

Apparently the ARM timeline is even less clear. EM-3, the asteroid landing, would follow after the robotic part of ARM.

This 2013 ARM mission design document (PDF), for instance, uses 2009 BD as a sample target. The launch of the capture vehicle occurs by the beginning of 2017. In this scenario, the round-trip to 2009 BD takes six years, with the captured asteroid arriving in lunar orbit around 2024.

Because of the number of variables involved, pinning a specific timeline to ARM (and by extension, Mars) is currently an exercise in speculation. In any case, it’s still going to be awhile before we see astronauts poking around the surface of an asteroid.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/the-latest-on-nasas-asteroid.html

[AngelLestat]

I said it, and I said it, and I get tired to said it...

Nasa is just the place where you waste money to get almost nothing.

They are just designing a silly capsule.. not a time machine..

But the last option might be true, because the only thing they are good at is wasting time.

Without goals, nothing is new in the capsule, they use tech so old that nothing needs to be real designed.

[fredinno]

I understand it's EM-2, not ARM, that's been pushed back.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2015/20150916-orion-clears-kdp-c.html

Apparently the ARM timeline is even less clear. EM-3, the asteroid landing, would follow after the robotic part of ARM.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2014/the-latest-on-nasas-asteroid.html

Well, the original EM-2, before this announcement WAS ARM, so ARM has been pushed back, technically. On the other hand, the original ORIGINAL EM-2 was a lunar orbital mission, so....yeah, there's that.

From NASASpaceflight: "EM-2 remains on track for August 2021, following on from the 2018 EM-1 flight that will be an uncrewed Orion mission launched atop the Space Launch System (SLS) for the first time."

According to it, EM-2 is still on track to 2021, and has not officially been pushed back...yet.

Got to love conflicting sources, eh?

- - - Updated - - -

I said it, and I said it, and I get tired to said it...

Nasa is just the place where you waste money to get almost nothing.

They are just designing a silly capsule.. not a time machine..

But the last option might be true, because the only thing they are good at is wasting time.

Without goals, nothing is new in the capsule, they use tech so old that nothing needs to be real designed.

Oh yeah, since Orion uses Apollo- Era computer hardware....

SpaceX is also making a 'silly capsule' BTW.

Capsule designs are used because they work, and are mass-efficient compared to lifting bodies.

[shynung]

Without goals, nothing is new in the capsule, they use tech so old that nothing needs to be real designed.

It works. It's mass-efficient compared to things like winged orbiters (Space Shuttle, Dreamchaser). It's self-stabilizing in reentry conditions.

Also, not everything's old tech. The new capsules have fancy computers and LED lights. Touchscreens too, from what I read.

[Nibb31]

Without goals, nothing is new in the capsule, they use tech so old that nothing needs to be real designed.

Exactly what is "old tech" about Orion? What's silly about a capsule if it's the best design for the job? Is an Airbus A350 "old tech" because it has a fuselage, a tail, and two wings like a DC-3? Is a Tesla "old tech" because it has 4 wheels and a front-engine like a Ford Model-T?

As for the delay, it was pretty much expected. ARM could never have flown on EM-2 unless EM-2 was postponed to the mid 2020's. They haven't even started designing the unmanned asteroid capture spacecraft or selected a candidate asteroid. The manned ARM mission can only happen a year or two after the unmanned ARM part of the mission, which is pretty much impossible to launch before 2023 at this point.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Nibb31

[G'th]

^ There is afterall a reason we're returning to the technically old capsule design as a basis. As has been said, its just plain more efficient to use such designs over anything else. That doesn't mean though that Orion won't be top of the line as far as spacecraft go.

[Darnok]

Apollo mission answered important question for all humans... can we land on the moon? It was also shown as a need for the American people.

What question can answer Orion mission? What need it can satisfy?

[PB666]

Apollo mission answered important question for all humans... can we land on the moon? It was also shown as a need for the American people.

What question can answer Orion mission? What need it can satisfy?

can we nuke the moon for the conspiracy theorist? We could have then walk off a football field sized picture of niel armstrong. We could paint part of the moon to look like swiss cheese, or a big pizza pie. We could make a giant smiley face on the moon.

We could test the effects of low gravity on human physiology.

we could test the effect of same on plant growth.

We could test how much thickness of moon dust is required to attenuate 3 types of damaging radiation.

We could test equipment for digging into the moons surface, e.g. bores, wells and mine shafts.

We could see if the level of H20 increases with depth of the surface.

We could test equipment for leveling the surface or test materials for making a runway or permanent landing site.

We could plan for a science station.

We could place different telescopes for automatic survey of NEO.

We could plan for a Keck like observatory.

[Darnok]

can we nuke the moon for the conspiracy theorist? We could have then walk off a football field sized picture of niel armstrong. We could paint part of the moon to look like swiss cheese, or a big pizza pie. We could make a giant smiley face on the moon.

I don't get this part

We could test the effects of low gravity on human physiology.

we could test the effect of same on plant growth.

We didn't tested that on ISS?

We could test how much thickness of moon dust is required to attenuate 3 types of damaging radiation.

We could test equipment for digging into the moons surface, e.g. bores, wells and mine shafts.

We could see if the level of H20 increases with depth of the surface.

We could test equipment for leveling the surface or test materials for making a runway or permanent landing site.

ESA have plans for unmanned mission building base on Moon, why would you need to $pend lots of money to do same job in manned mission?

We could plan for a science station.

We could place different telescopes for automatic survey of NEO.

We could plan for a Keck like observatory.

I was thinking about... what would be cheaper to resupply and maintain space station on Moons orbit or Moon base?

Even making SETI antennas on far side of the Moon orbit would be nice (no radio signals from Earth).

Few days ago I watched video about Zubrin and his Mars Direct mission and there, he and his friends, repeated few times that people in NASA have no leaders for bold missions.

They love their money, low expectations and their jobs are great, they just dislike any progress, risk and stress and from what I can see it fits perfectly to NASA.

If I would have to guess what are NASA plans for next 15 years I would put my money on space station on Moon orbit. After 2020 ISS will be gone, most of people in NASA will be unemployed, their big project is gone they are no longer needed. So next logical step would be to make next space station that would let keep their jobs for years, but they can't build one more station on Earth orbit, they have to build it further. Mars is too far, Moon seems great strategic choice, if you consider what is going on in space market.

NASA has Orion that would let crew and resupply missions to fly to Moon orbit, SpaceX Dragon v2, Soyuz and Boeing CST-100 (confirmation needed about CST and Soyuz?!?) are unable to go into deep space missions like that. So NASA would keep their money and would get rid of competition with one simple move

[Frozen_Heart]

If I would have to guess what are NASA plans for next 15 years I would put my money on space station on Moon orbit. After 2020 ISS will be gone, most of people in NASA will be unemployed, their big project is gone they are no longer needed. So next logical step would be to make next space station that would let keep their jobs for years, but they can't build one more station on Earth orbit, they have to build it further. Mars is too far, Moon seems great strategic choice, if you consider what is going on in space market.

I really can't picture NASA doing anything in the next 15 years, just a cycle of design, delay, cancel. Over and over.

[lugge]

I really can't picture NASA doing anything in the next 15 years, just a cycle of design, delay, cancel. Over and over.

I really admire NASA for their big contribution to science. They did, and still do, great things.

However, the whole Constellation, Orion, SLS thing is bound to fail.

There are new player in the game who perform better at developing these stuff (SpaceX).

NASA is funded by the goverment, so they don't have the pressure a private buisness would have.

It's the same problem with my goverment. They pay lots of tax Euros for developing military stuff.

And also, there is on delay after another, the costs of the project explodes, and nobody really cares.

The budget is there, and so there is no need to stop such projects, because this would mean the defense budget is being decreased.

NASA should do what they can best:

Manage these missions, gather the science.

If a new spacecraft is needed, buy it from someone who already has one in stock.

[AngelLestat]

Many of you misunderstand me, when I said silly capsule, I was talking only about Orion. Not about all capsules design. In fact I think capsules are the most efficient base design to leave and go back to earth.

But not sure to know what kind of "new tech" is responsable of a total program cost of 17 billions!! to complete this "silly capsule".

Seriously, they are trying to accomplish fusion propulsion? Or a true 100% recycle habitat? Or a multipurpose capsule that can land or go anywhere?

No. They are not.. They just have a similar capsule (in their functions and tech) to the one used in the apollo program, but they had all the tools and new tech to make it very cheap vs that time, but they didn´t, in fact, it cost several times more. With the difference than in the apollo program they really needed to develope all these new tech.. what is their excuse now?

Orion is reusable? No.. Is cheap to make? no... Its launch escape abort system is new or efficient? No.. It can chose where to land? No. It use any new tech in the landing? No.. Its design may be compatible to a tether to produce artificial gravity? No.. It has an radiation shield? no.. Its computers can do something than old tech can not do? No.

Ok.. now is your turn.. tell me the benefics because I cant find them. How the cost is justified?

In contrast DragonV2 has a lot of things which need real development because never was tried before, and the the cost has no comparison.

Exactly what is "old tech" about Orion? Is an Airbus A350 "old tech" because it has a fuselage, a tail, and two wings like a DC-3? Is a Tesla "old tech" because it has 4 wheels and a front-engine like a Ford Model-T?

Tesla is an electric vehicle, it has plenty of new things.

But if you want to point what is "new" about Orion, be my guess, or tell me the beneficts that Orion will give us for space exploration, also try to justify the cost.

You'll leave this topic as you always do when you find there is not valid points in your argument? I am still waiting some words after all your misconceptions about MCP suits.

can we nuke the moon for the conspiracy theorist? We could have then walk off a football field sized picture of niel armstrong. We could paint part of the moon to look like swiss cheese, or a big pizza pie. We could make a giant smiley face on the moon.

We could test the effects of low gravity on human physiology.

we could test the effect of same on plant growth.

We could test how much thickness of moon dust is required to attenuate 3 types of damaging radiation.

We could test equipment for digging into the moons surface, e.g. bores, wells and mine shafts.

We could see if the level of H20 increases with depth of the surface.

We could test equipment for leveling the surface or test materials for making a runway or permanent landing site.

We could plan for a science station.

We could place different telescopes for automatic survey of NEO.

We could plan for a Keck like observatory.

Not sure what all that has to do with the Orion capsule?

NASA should do what they can best:

Manage these missions, gather the science.

If a new spacecraft is needed, buy it from someone who already has one in stock.

Yeah, I am not even sure if they are good in this or anything. We just have an old inspiring memory of what NASA one time was, which distance a lot of what today it is.

They had some good robotic missions (not sure how cost efficient they were), but today NASA try to be in so many different science fields which seems they forget about exploration.

Edited September 17, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Torquemadus]

NASA administrator Charles Bolden recorded a recent interview where he discusses Commercial Crew, the future of the ISS, Orion and SLS.

[cptdavep]

^ There is afterall a reason we're returning to the technically old capsule design as a basis. As has been said' date=' its just plain more efficient to use such designs over anything else. That doesn't mean though that Orion won't be top of the line as far as spacecraft go.[/quote']

If all goes as planned for Space X then Falcon and Dragon II will be landing propulsively and being reused by the time Orion is in service, won't be looking very top of the line then! To be honest Orion and SLS are both deeply disappointing systems, this is the 21st century, we should be pushing so much further. SLS in particular is a big load of recycled 20th century tech that should have cost a fraction of what it does to design.

[TeeGee]

Nasa was founded to beat the Russians to the moon. That's the ONLY reason they were founded. Since the Americans beat the Russians, Nasa has no more use to anyone.

Mark my words, the ONLY reason we'd go to Mars anytime in the next 100 years is if Russia or China threatens to beat the states there first. Competition is what fuels space exploration and I find that fact very disgusting.

I say we cancel Nasa funding for manned programs until someone else threatens to go to mars first. All Nasa seems to do is burn through billions of dollars spinning its wheels on programs that take too long to develop that ultimately get cancelled. It's painfully obvious to me that Nasa shouldn't be given the funds for manned programs anymore. Build probes and launch them on private rockets. That's all they should be doing right now.

Nasa is no longer the go-to space administration anymore, spacex will do it cheaper and more reliably. I hate to break it to you Nasa but you aren't the masters of spaceflight anymore. We've been launching rockets for a while now and other nations are starting to catch up and surpass you.

[G'th]

I'm not going to quote, because that just becomes a huge mess, so I'll just respond in order.

For one, we haven't spend 17 billion the current Orion program. If you include what was spent during Constellation on this number, as well as what we're going to spend on it by the time EM-2 lifts off, then sure it'll probably cost about that much (though you're still over by a billion provided the numbers stay consistent), but its not particularly fair to do so given the fact that Orion under Constellation was screwed over just badly as every other aspect of Constellation was. What we've spent since then was to redesign and actually get the thing ready, and thus far we've actually spent less and accomplished more in a smaller amount of time compared to Constellation.

No, we haven't invented some revolutionary new tech out of doing so, but we have done what Constellation set out to do originally in regards to the Orion, and thats simply to provide a safer, more reliable spacecraft that can be used to ferry crew to and from space. The capsule design fits this bill perfectly and efficiently. And regardless, Orion itself was never something that would have led to a new technology anyway, nor should have ever been expected to. It is a relatively simple spacecraft that has a simple purpose that plays a relatively minor role in the scheme of things. Trying to up the ante, technologically speaking, in the wake of the Shuttle program would have been the wrong the idea. Our technological progress as a whole needs to move forward a considerable way before we can try to make that leap from a spacecraft to spaceship. (IE, the difference between a throwaway pod named Endeavor that often gets forgotten and a spaceplane named Endeavor that's highly regarded and well known by the common man, even though the former technically accomplished something more historically important than the latter did)

Sure it sounds like we shouldn't have issues building one, but the problem is is that NASA hasn't built or seriously designed one in over 50 years, and in that time frame, they've spent the vast majority of their time designing, flying, and maintaining a completely different type of space craft. This is the same reason why NASA has very few in-house engines, and why old F1's were being pulled off museum displays and studied. It simply isn't actually that simple.

Two, its hardly silly. The US has lacked manned capability for years now and there's no real reason to outsource to Russia for this capability, especially when NASA is focusing more and more on deep space exploration as the private sector begins to enter LEO. Russia won't have manned deep space capability (and likely won't for a long long time, though I don't claim to know much about Russia's plans) and theres only one private company that'll be able to provide deep space capability and even that rocket won't be a perfect solution the problem either, as the Falcon Heavy is optimized primarily for LEO, and won't be able to deliver what the SLS will be able to deliver to any particular BEO location. Even when taking orbital construction into consideration, you're still not matching the SLS. The same number of SLS launches are going to deliver more to a particular location than the FH will.

Dragon and Orion have different purposes. Orion was never meant to be anything more than what it is, nor does it need to be. We don't need fancy bells and whistles for a spacecraft whose purpose is largely crew ferrying from Earth to a proper mission module/LEO and back. Reliability and safety is key for this purpose, and Orion will provide this in spades. From the very beginning, Orion's overall purpose was to replace the shuttle as a crew vehicle.

NASA has never deviated from exploration, and its only threw this overall purpose that its delved into so many different fields. They all ultimately go back to whats going to benefit space exploration and in turn benefit the planet as a whole. Nothing NASA is involved in of its own accord is something that won't eventually come back into (or come from, for that matter) the space program in one way or another.

Now, all that being said, its no secret that Orion and SLS have huge problems in that they were projects that were dictated to NASA rather than something NASA chose to pursue of their own accord, and as such leads to problems of the lack of payloads and active goals. And this really isn't NASA's fault (its administrative issues aside). Much of the manned programs problems since it began have largely stemmed from Congress and/or the White House dictating the how, what, and why of what NASA can design and build. This is why the shuttle program grew to be as convoluted as it was compared to what it would have been, and this is why NASA is building a rocket without a truly active manned program in effect. What we're seeing now is pretty much the equivalent of building and designing the Saturn V without a Kennedy figure saying we need to be on the Moon in 10 years or bust, with the added strain that is keeping alive a vast infrastructure that was developed to support a spacecraft that wasn't ever fully utilized.

In response to the post above me: Technically, NASA was already established in all but name when the Soviet space program popped up on the radar. NASA was essentially just NACA, but refocused towards space exploration. But no, to say that NASA has no more use is just woefully ignorant, because it literally ignores everything that NASA has done since 1969. And competition is only ever a good thing, regardless of what we're talking about, because in the end everybody else profits. (Unless we're talking Cold War arms build up type competition, but that's a special situation)

Cancelling the manned spaceflight program is just ridiculous. That's basically saying, oh well,we kicked Jimmy and now he's fallen down and can't get up. Lets just tell him its time to give up on using his legs.

NASA's biggest problem when it comes to the post-Shuttle program is that it never received the proper funding to get Constellation off the ground (though admittedly that program did have its flaws beyond that) and right now its only receiving just enough to get the US manned spaceflight capability again (and really its still not enough), but not enough to really go anywhere with it as of now.

And it will be a VERY long time before any other space agency surpasses NASA's achievements. NASA is still the king of BEO exploration, manned or otherwise.

Edited September 17, 2015 by G'th

[Frozen_Heart]

Now, all that being said, its no secret that Orion and SLS have huge problems in that they were projects that were dictated to NASA rather than something NASA chose to pursue of their own accord, and as such leads to problems of the lack of payloads and active goals. And this really isn't NASA's fault (its administrative issues aside). Much of the manned programs problems since it began have largely stemmed from Congress and/or the White House dictating the how, what, and why of what NASA can design and build. This is why the shuttle program grew to be as convoluted as it was compared to what it would have been, and this is why NASA is building a rocket without a truly active manned program in effect. What we're seeing now is pretty much the equivalent of building and designing the Saturn V without a Kennedy figure saying we need to be on the Moon in 10 years or bust, with the added strain that is keeping alive a vast infrastructure that was developed to support a spacecraft that wasn't ever fully utilized.

This is the reason I don't have faith in NASAs ability to push forward space exploration anymore. I don't doubt their abilities, but its simply not possible to design and build a spacecraft and all its needed support structures, landers, etc, before congress/president change their minds and want something else. Until NASA is free to set and pursue its own goals its not going to achieve anything in comparison to its previous accomplishments such as the moon landings.

[Torquemadus]

Many of you misunderstand me, when I said silly capsule, I was talking only about Orion. Not about all capsules design. In fact I think capsules are the most efficient base design to leave and go back to earth.

But not sure to know what kind of "new tech" is responsible for a total program cost of 17 billions!! to complete this "silly capsule".

In contrast DragonV2 has a lot of things which need real development because never was tried before, and the cost has no comparison.

What seriously needs to be clarified is what advantages (if any) Orion offers compared to the Crew Dragon and the CST-100 Starliner. If my understanding is correct, the Commercial Crew capsules are more advanced, considerably cheaper, and will be ready far sooner than Orion. If the Commercial Crew capsules begin flying in 2017 as currently planned, why does NASA need to wait another five or six years and spend a whole load more money to develop another capsule?

As far as I'm aware, the only advantage Orion has over the Commercial Crew capsules is that it gets to launch on the SLS, which can send it to cislunar space. If this is the only distinction, then all SpaceX have to do is build their own big rocket! In addition to Falcon 9 Heavy, which begins flying next year, SpaceX are working on their next generation rocket, which is provisionally referred to as the "Big Falcon Rocket" (BFR). Needless to say, BFR is expected to be vastly cheaper than SLS and capably of flying far more frequently.

SLS and Orion have drawn some heavy criticism, due to the expectation that they will be far too expensive to allow any useful exploration to occur. Meanwhile, once the ISS program ends, SpaceX and other commercial space companies are expected to sit back and do nothing while SLS and Orion paralyze NASA with crippling costs for many decades to come.

Casey Dreier painted an exceptionally pessimistic picture during a debate at the Mars Society Annual Convention in August. I had a chance to speak to him after the debate. His view is that SLS and Orion have too much political support to be cancelled, and that NASA are stuck with them for decades to come. His view is that SLS and Orion should be allowed to fly make-work missions in order to defer the cost of hardware needed for real missions for as long as possible.

[shynung]

...

Orion is reusable? No.. Is cheap to make? no... Its launch escape abort system is new or efficient? No.. It can chose where to land? No. It use any new tech in the landing? No.. Its design may be compatible to a tether to produce artificial gravity? No.. It has an radiation shield? no.. Its computers can do something than old tech can not do? No.

...

The old Apollo computers don't have colored graphics, for one. The new ones also work faster than the old ones.

And the touch screens. I mean, it's everywhere in people's pockets for a few years now (smartphones, iPads). I can't imagine a spacecraft designed in the 2010s to not have it.