Orion program delayed 2 years

[Kryten]

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.

SpaceX is not some kind of private space programme, they're a commercial launch provider and a NASA contractor. The only reason they're developing crew capability is because NASA are paying them to.

[fredinno]

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

Which is why SLS should not be cancelled. I disagree with the notion that the cycle of cancelling and desinging will continue, but I can see why you think so. I just think you are being overly pessimistic.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

No touch-screens, but a screen controlled by 'universal function' buttons. Why? Try to use a touch screen with gloves on.

- - - Updated - - -

What seriously needs to be clarified is wh9at 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.

There have been disscussions to why Orion and DragonV2, or CST-100 are not interchangable. One is a deep-space capsule, and the other is a LEO capsule. It's like comparing a off road jeep to a taxi.

[shynung]

No touch-screens, but a screen controlled by 'universal function' buttons. Why? Try to use a touch screen with gloves on.

I can understand that. Reminds me of RasterPropMonitor's multipurpose screens. Though, I don't get why would the astronauts need to wear gloves inside a pressurized capsule.

So, maybe flight controls, along with other critical systems, would use large glove-friendly buttons. Stuff like general-purpose computers could be something like laptops or tablet PCs.

[Kryten]

I can understand that. Reminds me of RasterPropMonitor's multipurpose screens. Though, I don't get why would the astronauts need to wear gloves inside a pressurized capsule.

Standard for launch and entry, as at those points you've a small but significant chance of not being in a pressurised capsule anymore.

[shynung]

Standard for launch and entry, as at those points you've a small but significant chance of not being in a pressurised capsule anymore.

So everybody wear pressure suits at launch? Must have been a tight fit.

[Kryten]

So everybody wear pressure suits at launch? Must have been a tight fit.

Modern launch and entry suits don't have independent pressurisation or life support, they're just hooked up to the capsule system; that saves lot of space.

[Torquemadus]

There have been disscussions to why Orion and DragonV2, or CST-100 are not interchangable. One is a deep-space capsule, and the other is a LEO capsule. It's like comparing a off road jeep to a taxi.

We know that Dragon v2 is "designed to carry astronauts to Earth orbit and beyond". http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/05/30/dragon-v2-spacexs-next-generation-manned-spacecraft We also know that Dragon's heat shield is designed to withstand return from missions to the Moon and Mars. http://www.spacex.com/news/2013/04/04/pica-heat-shield

Just because Dragon v2 is currently part of the Commercial Crew program, there is no reason to conclude that it isn't capable missions to other destinations.

By contrast, the Boeing CST-100 seems to be designed strictly for LEO destinations, such as the ISS or a proposed future Bigalow station. http://www.boeing.com/space/crew-space-transportation-100-vehicle/

- - - Updated - - -

Though, I don't get why would the astronauts need to wear gloves inside a pressurized capsule.

Some of the Soviet era cosmonauts didn't wear pressure suits. This was changed after Soyuz 11.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

This video explains how China fits into the current picture.

[Nibb31]

So everybody wear pressure suits at launch? Must have been a tight fit.

Well, yes. Pressure suits are required for launch and reentry, just like they are required for high-altitude fighter jets. Both the Russians and the Americans have paid the price when they tried to cut corners on that, so that requirement is not going away soon.

To answer the differences between a LEO taxi and an exploration vehicle, a Mini and a Land Rover are both cars, but they are not designed for the same purpose. You could modify a Mini to cross the Kalahari Desert, or you could use a Land Rover to drop the kids off at school and go shopping downtown, but neither would be the best vehicle for those purposes. The Commercial Crew vehicles are Minis. Orion is a Land Rover.

So yes, you could modify CST-100 or Dragon for BEO missions (I would actually advocate using them as a dinghy for a MTV instead of Orion because they are lighter and smaller), but it would probably cost more.

For example, Dragon carries a lot of extra weight with its landing system. It's a good idea for a reusable vehicle designed frequent commutes. But it's a useless (and unwanted) feature for an expedition that will only fly once every 2 years and that has a tight weight budget. On your trip to Mars and back, would you rather carry more science equipment or fuel for landing?

Orion has communication and navigation systems that are designed for leaving Earth orbit. It can be depressurized for EVAs. Its shape makes it capable of skip reeentry and provides more lift than Dragon, making it more adequate for high energy reentries. It has an ECLSS that can keep the crew alive for 3 weeks.

Dragon has none of those things. It would need extensive modification and system certification to do BEO work. Can it be done? Sure. (although the skip reentry thing is probably unsurmountable with the current mold line and CST-100 is probably a better candidate for the conversion). But in the end, it would be like turning a Mini into an off-roader when you have a Land Rover sitting in the garage.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Nibb31

[GeneCash]

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...

Or like my t-shirt says:

We went from landing on the Moon to "THIS BAG IS NOT A TOY" in only 20 short years

Anyway... I give SLS/Orion ZERO chance of a second launch, and maybe 10% of a first launch.

[Kryten]

(although the skip reentry thing is probably unsurmountable with the current mold line and CST-100 is probably a better candidate for the conversion).

CST-100 doesn't have the structural margins built in for the forces associated with BEO reentry, skip or otherwise.

[AngelLestat]

For one' date=' 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.[/quote']

Why is not fair to count the orion development under the constellation program? I dont think the requirements would be different, is the same orion program, the same failures to understand that if they waste a lot of money to make something which is not efficient for the the job, then it will be cancelled.

I take the 17 billions from this source:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/16/orion-spacecraft-may-not-fly-with-astronauts-until-2023/

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.

yeah, it's a relatively simple spacecraft that has a simple purpose with a development cost that does not correspond at all to what we have been saying.

It would not cost as much, even if it were made of pure gold. Is clearly than some people is using the program as an excuse to divert funds, Maybe Charles Bolden knows who might be

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

What are you saying? that they forget how to made one? XD

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.

I mention Dragon V2 just to compare development cost and achievements in new tech. Not to compare task and roles.

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).

Why is not their fault? Sorry, but nobody can be so naive to think they can waste all the money they want to produce something that is not cost efficient at all (even removing the development cost) and believe it will last for decades with a prohibitive launch cost is retarded; lucky if they use the Orion more than 4 times, plus at the time it will be ready, it will be total outdated at the speed tech grow lately.

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

mmm you might be right here, but I still believe this is more NASA fault than anything else.

Congress is waiting for a good planned project to Mars at a reasonable cost. But NASA no even want to try or take any risk.

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.

Orion is not designed for a mars mission, I really doubt if the capsule can be included in some way in the final Mars mission design.

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.

Heh, the fact that you really need to point that, not sure if it works as a pro Orion´s argument.

The only thing they are proud to claim is that Orion use 4 independent slow computers to deal with radiation.

But that choice cost them a lot of resources, because is a pain in the ass to deal with old technology (because nobody can give you support), that way is more difficult to find errors and test issues, you are all by your own, meanwhile if you use new technology, everybody is in the same page, you have plenty of tools to make your software and test it.

You can install new computers using each core independent, all working in parallel to compare results, each one has their own cache, now you have fast 3d solid nand memories that would be much robust and fast than normal RAM.

You can have many of those computers each one with plenty of cores to give you redundancy.

You can even shield the defaut computer with a small magnetic field to avoid part of the radiation just in that small area.

[PB666]

Orion is not designed for a mars mission, I really doubt if the capsule can be included in some way in the final Mars mission design.

^^^^^^^^^^

The mars capsule itself would take 15 years to develop, it would have to go though months of testing attached to something like the ISS.

I'm on NASAs side, particularly in the postColumbia public attitudes. Yes they need to be evolving to a better manned platform than the 1 per 3 month umbilical cord that exists between earth and ISS, but my goodness, it would be a disaster to plan a suicide mission. I personally don't have a problem with sending older astronauts to mars who know the outcome, but the Mars1 missions are bad idea.

[Dkmdlb]

Both the Russians and the Americans have paid the price when they tried to cut corners on that.

When did the US pay the price for cutting corners on that?

[Robotengineer]

When did the US pay the price for cutting corners on that?

Apollo 1.

[Nibb31]

When did the US pay the price for cutting corners on that?

Challenger.

The crew wouldn't have survived if they had LES/ACES suits in that accident, but NASA realized that the unpressurized suits were inadequate in most contingency situations.

[fredinno]

I can understand that. Reminds me of RasterPropMonitor's multipurpose screens. Though, I don't get why would the astronauts need to wear gloves inside a pressurized capsule.

So, maybe flight controls, along with other critical systems, would use large glove-friendly buttons. Stuff like general-purpose computers could be something like laptops or tablet PCs.

This is why gloves are needed in Orion during launch: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Crew_Escape_Suit

[AngelLestat]

The Commercial Crew vehicles are Minis. Orion is a Land Rover.

.

How a Land Rover that costs billions per trip, is useful in any way?

yeah there are different capsules for different functions.

But if you have a capsule that is too expensive to be used, then is completely useless. Something well designed needs to be efficient in its use.

I am still waiting if you are able to point me the new tech used in Orion. Or at least something to justified the cost.

^^^^^^^^^^

The mars capsule itself would take 15 years to develop, it would have to go though months of testing attached to something like the ISS.

I'm on NASAs side, particularly in the postColumbia public attitudes. Yes they need to be evolving to a better manned platform than the 1 per 3 month umbilical cord that exists between earth and ISS, but my goodness, it would be a disaster to plan a suicide mission. I personally don't have a problem with sending older astronauts to mars who know the outcome, but the Mars1 missions are bad idea.

Yeah I know, maybe they will be able to design an extention habitat for Orion to be used in the Venus HAVOC mission, which has shorted time periods in space.

[Frozen_Heart]

I am still waiting if you are able to point me the new tech used in Orion. Or at least something to justified the cost.

Well the electronics and software will be more advanced and powerful. Apollo was about as advanced as a calculator.

That's.... all I can think of.

[Nibb31]

I am still waiting if you are able to point me the new tech used in Orion. Or at least something to justified the cost.

It's not an experimental test bed for developing new technologies. That's what X-vehicles are for. It's designed to be operational and man-rated using proven state-of-the-art technology (TRL-8 or 9).

It was not designed to be cheap and comfortable. It was designed to be rugged and versatile. You keep on comparing it to the Commercial Crew vehicles, but it simply isn't designed to operate in the same environment, for the same missions, or even in the same political and economical climate. Different requirements make different vehicles. Orion is more expensive because the requirements are different.

[fredinno]

Why is not fair to count the orion development under the constellation program? I dont think the requirements would be different, is the same orion program, the same failures to understand that if they waste a lot of money to make something which is not efficient for the the job, then it will be cancelled.

I take the 17 billions from this source:

http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/16/orion-spacecraft-may-not-fly-with-astronauts-until-2023/

yeah, it's a relatively simple spacecraft that has a simple purpose with a development cost that does not correspond at all to what we have been saying.

It would not cost as much, even if it were made of pure gold. Is clearly than some people is using the program as an excuse to divert funds, Maybe Charles Bolden knows who might be

What are you saying? that they forget how to made one? XD

I mention Dragon V2 just to compare development cost and achievements in new tech. Not to compare task and roles.

Why is not their fault? Sorry, but nobody can be so naive to think they can waste all the money they want to produce something that is not cost efficient at all (even removing the development cost) and believe it will last for decades with a prohibitive launch cost is retarded; lucky if they use the Orion more than 4 times, plus at the time it will be ready, it will be total outdated at the speed tech grow lately.

mmm you might be right here, but I still believe this is more NASA fault than anything else.

Congress is waiting for a good planned project to Mars at a reasonable cost. But NASA no even want to try or take any risk.

Orion is not designed for a mars mission, I really doubt if the capsule can be included in some way in the final Mars mission design.

Heh, the fact that you really need to point that, not sure if it works as a pro Orion´s argument.

The only thing they are proud to claim is that Orion use 4 independent slow computers to deal with radiation.

But that choice cost them a lot of resources, because is a pain in the ass to deal with old technology (because nobody can give you support), that way is more difficult to find errors and test issues, you are all by your own, meanwhile if you use new technology, everybody is in the same page, you have plenty of tools to make your software and test it.

You can install new computers using each core independent, all working in parallel to compare results, each one has their own cache, now you have fast 3d solid nand memories that would be much robust and fast than normal RAM.

You can have many of those computers each one with plenty of cores to give you redundancy.

You can even shield the defaut computer with a small magnetic field to avoid part of the radiation just in that small area.

Heard somewhere the computer system was based off a commonly used deep space computer system with about as much power as a smartphone (or a little less).

It's not new as in "Cutting edge", but compared to the Shuttle, it's pretty darn modern.

I like the magnetic shield idea, but that's probably going to consume a lot of power, meaning more solar panel mass, meaning mass savings will be minimal. Probably not worth it.

[Dkmdlb]

Apollo 1

How would a pressure suit have saved them?

Challenger.

The crew wouldn't have survived if they had LES/ACES suits in that accident...

That's not an answer to my question, then, is it?

[fredinno]

^^^^^^^^^^

The mars capsule itself would take 15 years to develop, it would have to go though months of testing attached to something like the ISS.

I'm on NASAs side, particularly in the postColumbia public attitudes. Yes they need to be evolving to a better manned platform than the 1 per 3 month umbilical cord that exists between earth and ISS, but my goodness, it would be a disaster to plan a suicide mission. I personally don't have a problem with sending older astronauts to mars who know the outcome, but the Mars1 missions are bad idea.

Do you mean a Orion- Based MAV or Orion Earth Reentry vehicle? If the former, I can get where you are coming from. For the latter, just brake in Earth Orbit instead of direct reentry.ION Drives are almost certainly to be used for a Mars Mission- packing more Xenon for this purpose would probably need another 1-3T fuel MAX. A lot less than ~23T for a direct-to Earth reenty capsule. Not to mention it allows for reusability.

- - - Updated - - -

How would a pressure suit have saved them?

That's not an answer to my question, then, is it?

Soyuz 11 depressurised right before reentry, killing the crew- wearing pressure suits probably would have saved them.

[Dkmdlb]

Soyuz 11 depressurised right before reentry, killing the crew- wearing pressure suits probably would have saved them.

My question was about how the US paid the price for not sending crew up in pressurized suits.

[fredinno]

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.

An international manned space exploration programme would work- we already have experience on how to do this from the ISS and Shuttle-Mir, and really, even with increasing political tensions, is much more likely than another "Suptnik Shock". Even if it just ends up being NASA-ESA-CSA-JAXA, that's probably enough to spare NASA from having to develop, say a lunar lander on its own, spreading the cost, and making such a mission multitudes of times more likely.

[Nibb31]

That's not an answer to my question, then, is it?

Well they definitely paid a price on ASTP, with two crewmembers incapacitated and the other one unconscious. They were lucky to only spend a week in the hospital.

My point was that after the whole slew of safety reviews that occurred after Challenger, based on the fact that the Shuttle crew had little chance of surviving even a minor depressurization or a chemical leak, nobody is going to be doing shirt-sleeve launch and reentry without a pressure suit.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Nibb31