Orion program delayed 2 years

[davidy12]

Honestly, if you ask me, I still think that the SLS and Orion will still make it and we'll see men on a circumlunar flight by the time I'm studying to get my PHD. I can almost guarantee it. The SLS isn't like the Ares V that never reached full production and at this point its too far for them to just pull the plug on.

[fredinno]

I'm not going to quote' date=' 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.[/quote']

The Soyuz spacecraft successor (PPTS) is supposed to be able to be used for both LEO and BLEO, possibly with modifications for the latter. However, without a SLS-like launch vehicle to be made, whether they will actually use it to go to the moon...

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, if you ask me, I still think that the SLS and Orion will still make it and we'll see men on a circumlunar flight by the time I'm studying to get my PHD. I can almost guarantee it. The SLS isn't like the Ares V that never reached full production and at this point its too far for them to just pull the plug on.

When would that be?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

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.

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

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.

There was no tooling to create manned spacecraft in place after the last shuttle orbiter was made, a long time ago. The Orion capsule is also larger and more capable than Apollo.

I'm pretty sure they are good at unmanned exploration and management- ever heard of the Mars rovers?

[davidy12]

@Fredinno: 2019 (unmanned): Also I'm willing to bet my time at grad school and be willing to bet my entire college education that an unmanned fight around the moon will happen my senior year in college. And when I'm in grad school, that we'll see astronauts back in space. It may be on the 10th anniversary (don't need to explain that) of the shuttle's retirement or it may be on the 10th anniversary of when I discovered KSP (2013), but it's gonna be one of those years, I can almost guarantee it. No offense, but I always try to look on the positive side of things, so call me an optimist.

Edited September 17, 2015 by davidy12

[Kryten]

The Soyuz spacecraft successor (PPTS) is supposed to be able to be used for both LEO and BLEO, possibly with modifications for the latter. However, without a SLS-like launch vehicle to be made, whether they will actually use it to go to the moon...

Angara-5V can do lunar free-return, and two Angara-5V launches can get lunar orbit. Anything beyond that would be very difficult.

[fredinno]

Angara-5V can do lunar free-return, and two Angara-5V launches can get lunar orbit. Anything beyond that would be very difficult.

Source? A 35T LV seems to small for a single launch manned Lunar Transfer, barring something like ion propulsion.

[AngelLestat]

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.

hahaha, it must be hard to be in your position and trying to find words to defend something that is indefensible, regardless of the angle you look at it there is no way to make sense of all this.

It doesn't need to be cheap? You know that there is a high chance that SLS and Orion would not be launched more than 4 times.. dont you?

At that launch count, we would have something a lot less efficient than the shuttle in cost by kg. It will become know as the higher design failure on the space history. Which in your head... is a good design and all the cost is justified haha

Ok.. that kind of logic, explain a lot of our previous discussions.

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.

I guess multiple computers and cores would be enoght for any radiation problem, but if the magnetic shield is really needed, it would not be hard to keep that portion of the ship (just the computer) insolated and cool enoght for superconductors, which they will require very low energy to mantain the field.

There was no tooling to create manned spacecraft in place after the last shuttle orbiter was made, a long time ago. The Orion capsule is also larger and more capable than Apollo.

I'm pretty sure they are good at unmanned exploration and management- ever heard of the Mars rovers?

If Orion is not more capable than apollo 50 years after, then... Houston, we have a problem...

Also in my first post I said that the robotic missions was "ok", kinda disappointed, but ok.

About the shuttle.. everybody know that was a failure, but in kg to LEO, the SLS would be more expensive than the Shuttle if it does not have at least 2 launchs by year in a long time frame.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1

That is the cost of the 130 tons version, if you use the 75 tons version it will be 85% higher cost, if the program gets cancelled after 4 or 6 launchs, no matter how many launchs by year you have, it will be much expensive than the shuttle.

The cost of the SLS if its launched 1 by year (in many years time frame), it will be 15 times more expensive than falcon heavy in expenderable mode and without crossfeed.

[Requia]

Except of course that falcon heavy without crossfeed barely even qualifies as a heavy lift vehicle, let alone a superheavy (disclaimer that given SPaceXs history I expect them to get around to it).

As for that document, it assumes a 30 billion development cost... which is either completely made up or mistoook a budget proposal that includes dozens of launches for development only.

[G'th]

SNippy snip

I don't believe its fair because Constellation as a whole was bogged down by a poor budget as well as a myriad of flaws in the design and concept of most of the vehicles and equipment. Orion under Constellation never got anywhere significant and at the time was the probably the least developed portion of the entire program. Judging Orion based on what happened with Constellation isn't fair because most of what Constellation developed for Orion has either been completely overwritten or dropped from the design altogether. Really they're almost two completely different spacecraft.

And actually its a pretty cheap vehicle given the context. When you adjust for inflation, spending 17 billion today equates to spending about 2 billion back in 1969. And the Apollo CSM actually did take 17 billion (Upwards of 100b in todays money) to develop.

And again, 17 billion isn't all that much. At all. As has been said countless times, when you stand back and look at the big picture what we're spending right now is a pittance. As scary and huge as 17 billion might seem, in reality its just not. The biggest misconception anyone in the US or anywhere for that matter has is that the space program is this arbitrarily expensive thing, but it has no basis in reality. Want to know how much of every tax dollar goes to NASA? 1 penny. If you want to criticize how much is being spent on NASA, you can't look at it from the perspective of 17 billion dollars because you can't judge that amount on a personal scale. This is why its commonly argued that space exploration IS cheap, because the actual cost on a personal scale is just that. A whole penny on the dollar.

Yes, yes they did forget. There was a lot of buzz about that years ago in fact, and its largely due first to the general problematic administration (Which NASA has always, always, ALWAYS had a problem with) and then to the Shuttle program.

You can't compare the two without taking into consideration what their purposes are. Its not a fair comparison.

Because NASA never got adequate funding in the first place. Its quite literally the equivalent of expecting 3 men to do the job of 12 with no overtime pay, and not only that expecting results that would be BETTER than if you adequately funded the program. Its no secret that NASA has its administrative issues, but if theres anyone to blame for NASA not being able to get the job done its the external people dictating what they do.

And again you're arbitrarily putting this expectation on NASA to use bleeding edge technology, and that is just dumb. For one, its been proven time and time again that the same basic design from over 50 years ago is still just as fine in space as it ever was, and given the track record of the Shuttle program, NASA would be wise to say as far from bleeding edge as they can.

Lol at the idea of NASA not wanting to try and go to Mars. The entire end goal of Constellation and SLS is a manned Mars mission. Sure there hasn't been a decided upon plan for doing so, but thats not required right now, because we still have to develop the hardware just to get people around the Earth-Moon system before we can consider going to Mars. A manned Mars mission is still a long ways off for anyone, and its going to require a hell of lot more infrastructure in place and research completed to accomplish it.

Why are you making things up? Orion IS being designed for Mars. You know, I hate to deride you here but I really have to question how you feel you can criticize the program when you can't conceive of how Orion would fit into a manned Mars mission.

~~ (next post of yours)

Its no secret that SLS has very little planned payloads and the hope is that once it launches funding will be appropiated to develop and/or support the development (Via third party) of payloads for it. Congress isn't going to put NASA on developing SLS and then just let it go to waste. It would be politically suicidal, even in the currently unsupported climate NASA finds itself in.

I don't know what kind of fantasy you have about what NASA can and can't do, but they can't magically stretch their budget to make SLS any more than what it is. It doesn't work that way.

[AngelLestat]

Except of course that falcon heavy without crossfeed barely even qualifies as a heavy lift vehicle, let alone a superheavy (disclaimer that given SPaceXs history I expect them to get around to it).

As for that document, it assumes a 30 billion development cost... which is either completely made up or mistoook a budget proposal that includes dozens of launches for development only.

You need to read the full document to understand. I read it 6 month back and I checked with other sources, and the values are ok, in fact today that final cost seems it will increase for the last news.

About the cost comparison with falcon heavy, is measure in cost by kg to LEO. So in this comparison does not matter if it carry 130 tons or 30 tons.

I don't believe its fair because Constellation as a whole was bogged down by a poor budget as well as a myriad of flaws in the design and concept of most of the vehicles and equipment. Orion under Constellation never got anywhere significant and at the time was the probably the least developed portion of the entire program. Judging Orion based on what happened with Constellation isn't fair because most of what Constellation developed for Orion has either been completely overwritten or dropped from the design altogether. Really they're almost two completely different spacecraft.

If you make a design spending billions of dolars and then you realize that it would not work' date=' so you need to start again.. The first fail needs to be included in the development cost.. Because there are not 2 very different things, is the same orion program, and I cant imagine different requirements for the capsule.

And actually its a pretty cheap vehicle given the context. When you adjust for inflation, spending 17 billion today equates to spending about 2 billion back in 1969. And the Apollo CSM actually did take 17 billion (Upwards of 100b in todays money) to develop.

Is not like that, here Zubrin said that the cost is similar and explain why...

https://youtu.be/3UChuIqIKF4?t=4m12s

And again, 17 billion isn't all that much.

It is, and you notice when you compare development and launch cost from SpaceX vs NASA.

Or when you make the comparison with different engineering accomplish.

There is no comparison with 1960, when they needed to develope all from zero with tech of that time..

Now you have a lot of different engines and rocket designs to compare and base your design, you have super computers that can save you years in development using simulations.

Special software to assist engineers. New, cheap and better materials to chose.

+50 years on technology (which equal to magic in many fields)

This is why its commonly argued that space exploration IS cheap, because the actual cost on a personal scale is just that. A whole penny on the dollar.

I know that compared with the defense budget is nothing, which I always complain, but is not the point.

Not because you may have a lot of money, it means you can waste the one you have.

Its quite literally the equivalent of expecting 3 men to do the job of 12 with no overtime pay, and not only that expecting results that would be BETTER than if you adequately funded the program. Its no secret that NASA has its administrative issues, but if theres anyone to blame for NASA not being able to get the job done its the external people dictating what they do.

The goverment is looking for a epic manned mission, because that is what everyone wants. It also attracts investment and many other benefics for the country. But until now NASA answer was... too risky, we still do not know how.. etc.

Lol at the idea of NASA not wanting to try and go to Mars. The entire end goal of Constellation and SLS is a manned Mars mission. Sure there hasn't been a decided upon plan for doing so, but thats not required right now, because we still have to develop the hardware just to get people around the Earth-Moon system before we can consider going to Mars. A manned Mars mission is still a long ways off for anyone, and its going to require a hell of lot more infrastructure in place and research completed to accomplish it.

That is the NASA lie. We did the Moon in 1969!!! Why we would have problems now? Give that amount of money to spacex, and they will reach mars in 7 years.

Why are you making things up? Orion IS being designed for Mars. You know, I hate to deride you here but I really have to question how you feel you can criticize the program when you can't conceive of how Orion would fit into a manned Mars mission.

It needs a lot of extras that are not included in the development. If fact, the movie (Man on Mars: Mission to the Red Planet) it said something related to this, as the goal is missing and is not real designed to go mars.

Its no secret that SLS has very little planned payloads and the hope is that once it launches funding will be appropiated to develop and/or support the development (Via third party) of payloads for it. Congress isn't going to put NASA on developing SLS and then just let it go to waste. It would be politically suicidal, even in the currently unsupported climate NASA finds itself in.

It will be also politacally suicidal if by that time, Spacex or other agencies had better alternatives to SLS, which is not hard to believe.

I don't know what kind of fantasy you have about what NASA can and can't do, but they can't magically stretch their budget to make SLS any more than what it is. It doesn't work that way.

Because I was focus in their missions and designs, I know that everytime they can do something better or cheap, they always choose the worst option. So I lost my faith in them.

They can not also see the super fast change in technology that we will experience the next 10 to 15 years. And how all long term missions are all pointless due this factor.

[Zucal]

That is the NASA lie. We did the Moon in 1969!!! Why we would have problems now? Give that amount of money to spacex, and they will reach mars in 7 years.

NASA at that time was barely allocating any resources to anything but Apollo, it was a single-minded agency. it also had the full weight of the administration's support over three presidencies behind it, and so much funding they were stumbling over it. That NASA is a completely different beast than what we have now, and the situation that led to is isn't going to happen again.

So, say you give SpaceX all that money and tell them to go to Mars as cheaply and quickly as they can. Now let's say they do it, quick and dirty using Bigelow Habs, Dragons, and Falcon Heavies. Great. Now what? Going to Mars shouldn't be just about bragging rights, but about stable and long-term expansion. You won't get that by doing it as quickly as you can, but by slow and methodical building of skills and tech.

[fredinno]

Except of course that falcon heavy without crossfeed barely even qualifies as a heavy lift vehicle, let alone a superheavy (disclaimer that given SPaceXs history I expect them to get around to it).

As for that document, it assumes a 30 billion development cost... which is either completely made up or mistoook a budget proposal that includes dozens of launches for development only.

Last tine I checked, FH w/o crossfeed is 40T to LEO. Still clearly a HLV, but nowhere near SLS.

I also considered the document shown overly pessimistic too. BTW, R&D costs are lower for the smaller variants, due to few componentsneeding to be developed.

- - - Updated - - -

hahaha, it must be hard to be in your position and trying to find words to defend something that is indefensible, regardless of the angle you look at it there is no way to make sense of all this.

It doesn't need to be cheap? You know that there is a high chance that SLS and Orion would not be launched more than 4 times.. dont you?

At that launch count, we would have something a lot less efficient than the shuttle in cost by kg. It will become know as the higher design failure on the space history. Which in your head... is a good design and all the cost is justified haha

Ok.. that kind of logic, explain a lot of our previous discussions.

I guess multiple computers and cores would be enoght for any radiation problem, but if the magnetic shield is really needed, it would not be hard to keep that portion of the ship (just the computer) insolated and cool enoght for superconductors, which they will require very low energy to mantain the field.

If Orion is not more capable than apollo 50 years after, then... Houston, we have a problem...

Also in my first post I said that the robotic missions was "ok", kinda disappointed, but ok.

About the shuttle.. everybody know that was a failure, but in kg to LEO, the SLS would be more expensive than the Shuttle if it does not have at least 2 launchs by year in a long time frame.

http://www.thespacereview.com/archive/2330a.jpg

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1

That is the cost of the 130 tons version, if you use the 75 tons version it will be 85% higher cost, if the program gets cancelled after 4 or 6 launchs, no matter how many launchs by year you have, it will be much expensive than the shuttle.

The cost of the SLS if its launched 1 by year (in many years time frame), it will be 15 times more expensive than falcon heavy in expenderable mode and without crossfeed.

SLS is still cheaper than shuttle per KG, even with inly one launch per 2 years, as shown on the graph. I will also not be scrapped after 4 launaches because that would 1. Look dumb 2. Put jobs at risk.

Even Shuttle was supposed to last till 2030 before Columbia, even though it was technically worse than SLS Orion in almost any way.

Beyond 2018, barring economic collaspe, SLS Orion will survive. The only vehicle that was cancelled like you described was Buran, which was b/c the Soviet Union was collasping.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't believe its fair because Constellation as a whole was bogged down by a poor budget as well as a myriad of flaws in the design and concept of most of the vehicles and equipment. Orion under Constellation never got anywhere significant and at the time was the probably the least developed portion of the entire program. Judging Orion based on what happened with Constellation isn't fair because most of what Constellation developed for Orion has either been completely overwritten or dropped from the design altogether. Really they're almost two completely different spacecraft.

And actually its a pretty cheap vehicle given the context. When you adjust for inflation' date=' spending 17 billion today equates to spending about 2 billion back in 1969. And the Apollo CSM actually did take 17 billion (Upwards of 100b in todays money) to develop.

And again, 17 billion isn't all that much. At all. As has been said countless times, when you stand back and look at the big picture what we're spending right now is a pittance. As scary and huge as 17 billion might seem, in reality its just not. The biggest misconception anyone in the US or anywhere for that matter has is that the space program is this arbitrarily expensive thing, but it has no basis in reality. Want to know how much of every tax dollar goes to NASA? 1 penny. If you want to criticize how much is being spent on NASA, you can't look at it from the perspective of 17 billion dollars because you can't judge that amount on a personal scale. This is why its commonly argued that space exploration IS cheap, because the actual cost on a personal scale is just that. A whole penny on the dollar.

Yes, yes they did forget. There was a lot of buzz about that years ago in fact, and its largely due first to the general problematic administration (Which NASA has always, always, ALWAYS had a problem with) and then to the Shuttle program.

You can't compare the two without taking into consideration what their purposes are. Its not a fair comparison.

Because NASA never got adequate funding in the first place. Its quite literally the equivalent of expecting 3 men to do the job of 12 with no overtime pay, and not only that expecting results that would be BETTER than if you adequately funded the program. Its no secret that NASA has its administrative issues, but if theres anyone to blame for NASA not being able to get the job done its the external people dictating what they do.

And again you're arbitrarily putting this expectation on NASA to use bleeding edge technology, and that is just dumb. For one, its been proven time and time again that the same basic design from over 50 years ago is still just as fine in space as it ever was, and given the track record of the Shuttle program, NASA would be wise to say as far from bleeding edge as they can.

Lol at the idea of NASA not wanting to try and go to Mars. The entire end goal of Constellation and SLS is a manned Mars mission. Sure there hasn't been a decided upon plan for doing so, but thats not required right now, because we still have to develop the hardware just to get people around the Earth-Moon system before we can consider going to Mars. A manned Mars mission is still a long ways off for anyone, and its going to require a hell of lot more infrastructure in place and research completed to accomplish it.

Why are you making things up? Orion IS being designed for Mars. You know, I hate to deride you here but I really have to question how you feel you can criticize the program when you can't conceive of how Orion would fit into a manned Mars mission.

~~ (next post of yours)

Its no secret that SLS has very little planned payloads and the hope is that once it launches funding will be appropiated to develop and/or support the development (Via third party) of payloads for it. Congress isn't going to put NASA on developing SLS and then just let it go to waste. It would be politically suicidal, even in the currently unsupported climate NASA finds itself in.

I don't know what kind of fantasy you have about what NASA can and can't do, but they can't magically stretch their budget to make SLS any more than what it is. It doesn't work that way.[/quote']

Orion is incapable of Mars Return entry speeds. Not that it matters, Orion is a paperweight to be carried by a mars vehicle.

[AngelLestat]

NASA at that time was barely allocating any resources to anything but Apollo, it was a single-minded agency. it also had the full weight of the administration's support over three presidencies behind it, and so much funding they were stumbling over it. That NASA is a completely different beast than what we have now, and the situation that led to is isn't going to happen again.

As I point before, the amount of funding is questionable as zubrin said in the link I show in my previous post.

But yeah, many of those thing are true.

So, say you give SpaceX all that money and tell them to go to Mars as cheaply and quickly as they can. Now let's say they do it, quick and dirty using Bigelow Habs, Dragons, and Falcon Heavies. Great. Now what? Going to Mars shouldn't be just about bragging rights, but about stable and long-term expansion. You won't get that by doing it as quickly as you can, but by slow and methodical building of skills and tech.

At our time it will be silly to have long term goals, something is coming that might change everything. So my posture: "lets do it before we make that step"

A manned mission to venus atmosphere it does not need so much payload, it can be launched with 1 SLS and 5 falcon heavy, using orion. So they might try that before find a way to accomplish a mars mission.

Last tine I checked, FH w/o crossfeed is 40T to LEO. Still clearly a HLV, but nowhere near SLS.

I also considered the document shown overly pessimistic too. BTW, R&D costs are lower for the smaller variants, due to few componentsneeding to be developed.

SLS is still cheaper than shuttle per KG, even with inly one launch per 2 years, as shown on the graph. I will also not be scrapped after 4 launaches because that would 1. Look dumb 2. Put jobs at risk.

Even Shuttle was supposed to last till 2030 before Columbia, even though it was technically worse than SLS Orion in almost any way.

Beyond 2018, barring economic collaspe, SLS Orion will survive. The only vehicle that was cancelled like you described was Buran, which was b/c the Soviet Union was collasping.

Again, all that will be true if they find enoght excuses to launch the SLS and if SpaceX fails with its new heavy launcher design.

Orion is incapable of Mars Return entry speeds. Not that it matters, Orion is a paperweight to be carried by a mars vehicle.

If they use Orion for a mars mission, it will be just as a capsule to reentry earth in the return. It does not land on mars, it will be attached to the transfer vehicle that orbit mars.

[Nibb31]

hahaha, it must be hard to be in your position and trying to find words to defend something that is indefensible, regardless of the angle you look at it there is no way to make sense of all this.

It doesn't need to be cheap? You know that there is a high chance that SLS and Orion would not be launched more than 4 times.. dont you?

At that launch count, we would have something a lot less efficient than the shuttle in cost by kg. It will become know as the higher design failure on the space history. Which in your head... is a good design and all the cost is justified haha

Ok.. that kind of logic, explain a lot of our previous discussions.

Did I say it didn't need to be cheap? I said it wasn't designed to be cheap because that wasn't part of Orion's requirements. Please don't insult my logic when it's your comprehension skills that are lacking.

You asked why Orion was more expensive than the Commercial Crew program. I gave you the reasons, which are mostly political and systemic because of the way NASA does business with its contractors. That doesn't mean that I agree or condone those reasons. I'm just trying to answer your question by explaining to you how reality works and why it works that way.

Government money is never wasted. For each highly-qualified job that is created by SLS and Orion, more jobs are created in the area to support them (services, shops, schools, health, cleaning, restaurants, etc...). Those people, in turn, pay taxes and boost the economy of the area. At the same time, the nation benefits from maintaining and advancing the technological capability of putting people into space.

If NASA stops spending money on SLS/Orion, it is likely that several NASA centers will have to shut down, which not only would put 20000 NASA employees out of a job, but would also bring down all those support jobs in the area. The engineers would have to move on to other jobs. Some might be able to remain in the aerospace industry, but most would have to move away and reconvert to something totally unrelated. Some might even move abroad, taking their technical knowledge to benefit other countries, but in the end, the country loses the technology.

That is why politicians want NASA to spend money. If it flies one day, then cool. If it doesn't, then it's no big deal. SLS and Orion are peanuts compared to US Government budget, but the effect on the economy are substantial.

If Orion is not more capable than apollo 50 years after, then... Houston, we have a problem...

Also in my first post I said that the robotic missions was "ok", kinda disappointed, but ok.

It is more capable. It has a much more robust ECLSS that allows 21-day mission duration with 4 astronauts whereas Apollo could only do 10 days with 3. It also has much improved navigation and communication systems. It has more room, automatic docking. And a toilet.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Nibb31

[More Boosters]

Did I say it didn't need to be cheap? I said it wasn't designed to be cheap because that wasn't part of Orion's requirements. Please don't insult my logic when it's your comprehension skills that are lacking.

You asked why Orion was more expensive than the Commercial Crew program. I gave you the reasons, which are mostly political and systemic because of the way NASA does business with its contractors. That doesn't mean that I agree or condone those reasons. I'm just trying to answer your question by explaining to you how reality works and why it works that way.

Government money is never wasted. For each highly-qualified job that is created by SLS and Orion, more jobs are created in the area to support them (services, shops, schools, health, cleaning, restaurants, etc...). Those people, in turn, pay taxes and boost the economy of the area. At the same time, the nation benefits from maintaining the technological capability.

If NASA stops spending money on SLS/Orion, it is likely that several NASA centers will have to shut down, which not only would put 20000 NASA employees out of a job, but would also bring down all those support jobs in the area. The engineers would have to move on to other jobs. Some might be able to remain in the aerospace industry, but most would have to move away and reconvert to something totally unrelated. Some might even move abroad, taking their technical knowledge to benefit other countries.

That is why politicians want NASA to spend money. SLS and Orion are peanuts compared to US Government budget, but the effect on the economy are substantial.

It is more capable. It has a much more robust ECLSS that allows 21-day mission duration with 4 astronauts whereas Apollo could only do 10 days with 3. It also has much improved navigation and communication systems. It has more room, automatic docking. And a toilet.

Wait what did the Apollo crew do during transfers then?

[Nibb31]

Wait what did the Apollo crew do during transfers then?

What do you mean? Look up Apollo Waste Management System.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Nibb31

[shynung]

It is more capable. It has a much more robust ECLSS that allows 21-day mission duration with 4 astronauts whereas Apollo could only do 10 days with 3. It also has much improved navigation and communication systems. It has more room, automatic docking. And a toilet.

This feature alone is a killer deal for me. No one likes having to spend a few weeks without a comfortable method of disposing waste.

[sojourner]

Last I read Orion no longer had a toilet. When did it get added back in?

[fredinno]

HACOC will aost certainly not happen before Mars- it's a lot more risky, for one.

[Requia]

Last tine I checked, FH w/o crossfeed is 40T to LEO. Still clearly a HLV, but nowhere near SLS.

I also considered the document shown overly pessimistic too. BTW, R&D costs are lower for the smaller variants, due to few componentsneeding to be developed.

Orion is incapable of Mars Return entry speeds. Not that it matters, Orion is a paperweight to be carried by a mars vehicle.

I heard 29t, if its 40t that's a hell of a lot better, we can use that.

Well, its mostly a paperweight, but the heat shield is sortof the reason you'd bother to lug it to mars, even if you plan to aerocapture the main SC for reuse its waaaay easier to clear that plan if nobody is going to be inside it.

[Nibb31]

Last I read Orion no longer had a toilet. When did it get added back in?

Not sure really, the Wikipedia says that Orion will have a toilet. This paper from september 2014 discusses waste management on Orion and talks about a test article that is to be tested on the ISS in 2018:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140009939.pdf

[fredinno]

I heard 29t, if its 40t that's a hell of a lot better, we can use that.

Well, its mostly a paperweight, but the heat shield is sortof the reason you'd bother to lug it to mars, even if you plan to aerocapture the main SC for reuse its waaaay easier to clear that plan if nobody is going to be inside it.

Falcon Heavy payload capacity source: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falconH.html

Non reusable Falcon Heavy= 45T to LEO, while reusable is 28T to LEO.

45T version will probably be used for deep space missions, so I went with that.

[AngelLestat]

Did I say it didn't need to be cheap? I said it wasn't designed to be cheap because that wasn't part of Orion's requirements. Please don't insult my logic when it's your comprehension skills that are lacking.

Then the requirements are wrong, make things cost effective is the most important factor to measure how much it can do and the time in will be around.

You asked why Orion was more expensive than the Commercial Crew program. I gave you the reasons, which are mostly political and systemic because of the way NASA does business with its contractors. That doesn't mean that I agree or condone those reasons. I'm just trying to answer your question by explaining to you how reality works and why it works that way.

Your classic statement always is: "the cost is fine.. that is the way to do the things done", defending NASA position and politics. But maybe is like you said, my english is bad and I dint understand you..

Government money is never wasted. For each highly-qualified job that is created by SLS and Orion, more jobs are created in the area to support them (services, shops, schools, health, cleaning, restaurants, etc...). Those people, in turn, pay taxes and boost the economy of the area. At the same time, the nation benefits from maintaining and advancing the technological capability of putting people into space.

You seems more concern about how much money the people make with these projects instead the main point, space exploration.

If NASA stops spending money on SLS/Orion, it is likely that several NASA centers will have to shut down, which not only would put 20000 NASA employees out of a job, but would also bring down all those support jobs in the area. The engineers would have to move on to other jobs. Some might be able to remain in the aerospace industry, but most would have to move away and reconvert to something totally unrelated. Some might even move abroad, taking their technical knowledge to benefit other countries, but in the end, the country loses the technology.

You are a syndicalist now? XD

Is not about the workers, you can use the same money to make 3 times more of what NASA does if you have good politics. But maybe somebody is always choosing old tech to keep it safe at the same time they keep all the money that instead will be needed for new tech developments, I really doubt it that if somebody analize all the budget with all the employes, for sure it will be still a lot of money missing.

That is why politicians want NASA to spend money. If it flies one day, then cool. If it doesn't, then it's no big deal. SLS and Orion are peanuts compared to US Government budget, but the effect on the economy are substantial.

You get much more effect in the economy if you do the things right.. If you really do something that works efficient and can be used. As I said hundred of times, inspiring people doing big things is what attract more investment to the country. Of course this happens because is not about the general benefic, is about the benefic of those few that makes the rules.

It is more capable. It has a much more robust ECLSS that allows 21-day mission duration with 4 astronauts whereas Apollo could only do 10 days with 3. It also has much improved navigation and communication systems. It has more room, automatic docking. And a toilet.

I read about Orion life support system, still super simple, and its navigarion and communication system... is just that.

Not sure where those billions are..

HACOC will aost certainly not happen before Mars- it's a lot more risky, for one.

Is cheaper, you can use the atmosphere to aerobrake, shorted mission time and travel, which decrease considerable the radiation to 1/4 and the food needed. Only 2 astronauts.

You dont need to land. The same NASA said it is easier, but that it will take a big change in politics to do venus before mars.

[maccollo]

Orion is incapable of Mars Return entry speeds. Not that it matters, Orion is a paperweight to be carried by a mars vehicle.

Looked around for the max renetry velocity velocity of Orion, but I couldn't find anything substantive.

I do remember that this was a thing that was discussed back about the Inspiration Mars plan, but that trajectory wasn't any Mars return trajectory. A low energy transfer from Mars to Earth will get you reentry velocities around 11.5 km/s-+ a few 100 m/s depending on the transfer window, while the Inspiration Mars trajectory resulted in reentry velocities of 14.2 km/s. That's like coming back from Jupiter. Since the heating rates go up by the cube of the velocity this is way way worse.

[Zucal]

Looked around for the max renetry velocity velocity of Orion, but I couldn't find anything substantive.

I do remember that this was a thing that was discussed back about the Inspiration Mars plan, but that trajectory wasn't any Mars return trajectory. A low energy transfer from Mars to Earth will get you reentry velocities around 11.5 km/s-+ a few 100 m/s depending on the transfer window, while the Inspiration Mars trajectory resulted in reentry velocities of 14.2 km/s. That's like coming back from Jupiter. Since the heating rates go up by the cube of the velocity this is way way worse.

IIRC the only reason Orion couldn't do it now is because it needs a higher-rated heat shield. That's not a huge upgrade.

[_Augustus_]

I think that HAVOC will happen before Mars, simply because of the educational opportunity. People will realize that Venus is not just hell on steroids, and be in awe of familiar features like clouds and orange sunrises.

Plus, much less hardware is needed and there's only ED instead of EDL. Everything that needs to be used on HAVOC already exists in some form:

1. Blimps. These have been used to carry people, so they're definitely safe.

2. Air launch to orbit. Used by the Pegasus rocket, a reliable and cheap launch system.

3. Teflon coating and firefighting gear. Needed to protect blimps and humans that are on EVA, both are widespread and used every day on Earth.