Blue Origin Thread (merged)

[tater]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

ESA actually does. So do many other research organizations around the world.

Climate deniers can deny the causes, but it's undeniable that stuff is happening and that we need to better understand exactly what is and why. To stop measuring the problem won't make it go away. Proposing cutting science budgets, just because you disagree with the results, is obscurantist, and we have enough of that already.

Yes, they do that too. Ever heard of SOHO ? And ESA Solar Orbiter is scheduled for launch in 2018.

If ESA already does, we don't need to replicate it. Right now, the Earth observation budget just for NASA is almost half the entire ESA budget. If they want to pool total Earth observation costs, and pitch in 50%, then maybe it's worth it. Otherwise, I'd prefer boots on the moon... just because it's cool, honestly.

I'm well aware of solar observatories, it was tongue in cheek, though the Earth observation people should perhaps pay more attention to the most important input into the system. Regardless, the EU has the GDP of the US, basically, so if they pay any less for such spacecraft than NASA does, clearly they are less interested in the problem. This is particularly true when one considers that the EU has defense subsidized as well.

It's outside the purview of NASA, frankly. Aeronautics, astronautics. They are welcome to design spacecraft or rockets for institutions that want to look at Earth. They should stick with what they are for, they should not be running these programs at all, but turning them over to some institution that wants to pay the ongoing costs.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by tater

[Nibb31]

26 minutes ago, tater said:

If ESA already does, we don't need to replicate it. 

That is just ignorant. It shows that you have no understanding of how science works.

26 minutes ago, tater said:

Right now, the Earth observation budget just for NASA is almost half the entire ESA budget. If they want to pool total Earth observation costs, and pitch in 50%, then maybe it's worth it.

I agree that we should be spending more on Earth science. We should also be spending more on astrophysics, social studies, economics, biology, and health research too. Scientific knowledge is the key to progress, even if you prefer some fields rather than others.

The argument that NASA should be doing less science, or that we should be spending less in certain fields that you don't happen to like, is not going to help anyone.

26 minutes ago, tater said:

Otherwise, I'd prefer boots on the moon... just because it's cool, honestly.

That is your opinion. Unfortunately, that is not what most taxpayers want. If you were to un  a poll on what people care about, space exploration won't even register. It's a miracle that NASA gets the budget it currently gets.

I also think space exploration is cool, but not the point where we have to gut scientific research to do it. Boots on the Moon don't really accomplish much. Understanding how our world works accomplishes a lot and helps us secure a better future.

26 minutes ago, tater said:

It's outside the purview of NASA, frankly. Aeronautics, astronautics. They are welcome to design spacecraft or rockets for institutions that want to look at Earth. They should stick with what they are for, they should not be running these programs at all, but turning them over to some institution that wants to pay the ongoing costs.

Earth studies have been part of NASA's charter ever since the National Aeronautics and Space Act in 1958.

 

[Nibb31]

41 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

So I'm seeing SpaceX catch a lot of flak from armchair rocket scientists for not having unequivocally, absolutely nailed down the cause of the problem. Under the circumstances, is it even possible to do so?

It's always possible. The problem is how much are you ready to spend on isolating the root cause ?

After Columbia, NASA spent millions of dollars on studies and tests. They tore down the other shuttles and did destructive testing on various components. They interviewed hundreds of people. They analysed thousands of pages of documents and procedures. The even built a special cannon to shoot supersonic blocks of frozen foam at RCC panels.

If they had an unlimited budget and unlimited time, SpaceX could cycle test other cores through the same procedures to pinpoint the cause. They could verify their hypothesis by pushing hardware to its limits during destructive testing. But SpaceX is a private corporation that doesn't operate in the same economical or legal environment as NASA. They are on a limited budget and they have economical pressure to resume flights ASAP.

[YNM]

1 hour ago, Jonfliesgoats said:

Spaceflight is inherently risky.  Developing a system, that can sustain a high op tempo means taking on some of these risks.  

But not cutting corners by not solving the problem, just develop a different procedure. Although engineers are free to devise a solve anyway, even "ignore the problem" can sometimes be the solve.

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

So I'm seeing SpaceX catch a lot of flak from armchair rocket scientists for not having unequivocally, absolutely nailed down the cause of the problem. Under the circumstances, is it even possible to do so?

Yes it can. They should know the limits.

 

But, you know what, it's their money. I'm just advising against doing science experiment in engineering products. Do science in science, and engineer by the results.

Edited December 3, 2016 by YNM

[Green Baron]

26 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It's always possible. The problem is how much are you ready to spend on isolating the root cause ?

*snip*

I see it the same way. SpaceX should have a natural urge to pin the cause down because a second unexplained failure could mean the company's end. The limitations are manpower, time and money, SpaceX isn't able to pay a staff of investigators and wait a year or two like NASA and their overseers did after their respective "anomalies".

Of course i'd like to see Falcons flying again. Would like to know how the story of the interplanetary transport etc. commences. But the technology must work or you can forget about long term missions.

 

[Jonfliesgoats]

These the challenges of aerospace.

I can remember some times where we just took a wag at what we thought was causing a given problem on a platform.  Our issues were relatively minor in comparison (signal interference between components installed in a plane v. catastrophic loss of the craft and payload) and we could troubleshoot them in flight.  Still nailing down the exact cause of a problem takes time, takes cooperation between departments which may or may not exist and money.  Chasing down the exact cause of a problem thoroughly can sometimes shut down an entire program permanently.

These challenges are tough!  That's why I relied on bigger brains than my own.

YNM, makes a good point too.  I can think of times where we let certain platforms go to their working site despite knowing there were significant problems which degraded capabilities.  With a little more dedication to QA, especially early in a process, we could have fielded an exceptional product rather than a very good one.

At the end of the day, it takes someone with access to proprietary knowledge at SpaceX to speak intelligently about this.

 

[YNM]

Not just QA, but also feasibility.

 

But yeah, unless someone here is their intern these speculations are far from proper.

[tater]

7 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

That is just ignorant. It shows that you have no understanding of how science works.

This conversation isn't about science, it's about money. I'm talking about that, alone. It is a finite resource, and every penny spent on Earth by NASA is not spent on something else. NASA's budget, is, and has been relatively constant over the years as a function of total spending.

Quote

I agree that we should be spending more on Earth science. We should also be spending more on astrophysics, social studies, economics, biology, and health research too. Scientific knowledge is the key to progress, even if you prefer some fields rather than others.

Again, this is about money, I'd prefer astrophysics. Social "science," like pretty much any field with 'science" tacked on to the name, is not science, BTW. Political science isn't a science, either. I'd hope NASA would spend 0% of their budget on either of those.

Quote

The argument that NASA should be doing less science, or that we should be spending less in certain fields that you don't happen to like, is not going to help anyone.

My problem is the way they spend money, and the fact that the large % of the NASA science budget is now spent on Earth, almost 50% of their science budget, in fact (~2B out of ~5B). Again, a finite resource. I'm fine with them having several hundred million a year, that's more than enough to launch a new platform every year or two, and deal with it.

Some of the work costing 2 BILLION $ a year would be done far cheaper by private institutions of higher learning. The continuing work here on Earth---obviously a University is not launching a spacecraft. If you know anyone employed by the US government in science (I know many), you'll know how they spend money. "Look, it's the end of the fiscal year, everyone dump your new computer in that bin over there and buy a new one, if we don't spend every single penny we were given last year, our budget drops, and we were too frugal and have a few hundred grand left over to blow before the first of the month!" In short, NASA spends money in the same fashion as the Pentagon.

That's why NASA should launch spacecraft, then let someone else run them.

Myself, I'd prefer NASA primarily spend on planetary science on other planets. 

Quote

That is your opinion. Unfortunately, that is not what most taxpayers want. If you were to un  a poll on what people care about, space exploration won't even register. It's a miracle that NASA gets the budget it currently gets.

It's not a miracle at all, it's like Pentagon base closures. That's why facilities are spread all over.

Quote

I also think space exploration is cool, but not the point where we have to gut scientific research to do it. Boots on the Moon don't really accomplish much. Understanding how our world works accomplishes a lot and helps us secure a better future.

No human activity in space has any scientific benefit compared to probes given the same expenditure. That's not the point of manned space. All manned space is simply "because it's cool." If you want pure science, gut manned space entirely and build probes. Boots on the moon might, however, be inspirational to some people who might later do the more mundane science that is usually done.

And on another note, this "helps US," bit. Yeah, humanity. I get it. Then ESA should have the same "miracle" of NASA's budget as a % of EU GDP. Put your money where your mouth is, in other words. My taxes amount to driving a few euro sedans off a cliff each year, so my personal spending on NASA is likely even measurable, so I feel like I have more skin in the game.

Quote

Earth studies have been part of NASA's charter ever since the National Aeronautics and Space Act in 1958.

The charter specifically refers tot he atmosphere a few times, but it's generally in the context of aeronautics and astronautics. I could have a friend who is an attorney parse the legalese, but NASA was always more interested in the science that immediately impacted flight, or spaceflight.

Edited December 3, 2016 by tater

[tater]

on topic for this thread, I bet ARM gets killed. They don't even have a hardware design yet, so it's easy to kill, and the mission is pointless for Orion, anyway, it could be done by a probe. The problem is that there is bipartisan Congressional support of SLS/Orion, but they are fine with killing some pf the dumb missions (like ARM)---not really realizing that ORION has no real missions, except cislunar (and the current version is a cislunar vehicle, they haven't tested it at direct EDL from Mars velocities, or upgraded it to actually do so yet.

[StrandedonEarth]

6 hours ago, YNM said:

But not cutting corners by not solving the problem, just develop a different procedure. Although engineers are free to devise a solve anyway, even "ignore the problem" can sometimes be the solve.

The system was designed to operate within certain parameters. When the system went outside the parameters due to improper loading, the helium tank burst. Ergo, load the system properly.

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, tater said:

This conversation isn't about science, it's about money. I'm talking about that, alone. It is a finite resource, and every penny spent on Earth by NASA is not spent on something else. NASA's budget, is, and has been relatively constant over the years as a function of total spending.

Again, this is about money, I'd prefer astrophysics. Social "science," like pretty much any field with 'science" tacked on to the name, is not science, BTW. Political science isn't a science, either. I'd hope NASA would spend 0% of their budget on either of those.

Says you, who has visibly zero understanding of those sciences. The knowledge gathered by social sciences is still valuable and has real world applications or simply advances our understanding of the world we live in.

2 hours ago, tater said:

My problem is the way they spend money, and the fact that the large % of the NASA science budget is now spent on Earth, almost 50% of their science budget, in fact (~2B out of ~5B). Again, a finite resource. I'm fine with them having several hundred million a year, that's more than enough to launch a new platform every year or two, and deal with it.

Congress decides where the money goes. If NASA stopped doing Earth observation, the money would not be freed up for NASA. It would simply not be allocated to NASA. It might end up going to NOAA, NSF, DoD, or it might not be spent at all.

The same is true for SLS by the way. If SLS is cancelled, NASA doesn't automatically get to spend the SLS budget on other stuff. The SLS money doesn't get spent, period.

2 hours ago, tater said:

Some of the work costing 2 BILLION $ a year would be done far cheaper by private institutions of higher learning.

Oh yeah. Where do you think those 2 BILLION $ end up being spent ? Who builds the spacecraft that NASA designs ?

Private institutions can only work if someone is paying them. Whether that someone is NASA, NOAA, NSF, or DoD doesn't change much.

2 hours ago, tater said:

The continuing work here on Earth---obviously a University is not launching a spacecraft. If you know anyone employed by the US government in science (I know many), you'll know how they spend money. "Look, it's the end of the fiscal year, everyone dump your new computer in that bin over there and buy a new one, if we don't spend every single penny we were given last year, our budget drops, and we were too frugal and have a few hundred grand left over to blow before the first of the month!" In short, NASA spends money in the same fashion as the Pentagon.

Sounds like how the Soviet Union spent money too. 

2 hours ago, tater said:

Myself, I'd prefer NASA primarily spend on planetary science on other planets. 

Some could argue that won't help up much, since we aren't going there any time soon.

2 hours ago, tater said:

It's not a miracle at all, it's like Pentagon base closures. That's why facilities are spread all over.

No human activity in space has any scientific benefit compared to probes given the same expenditure. That's not the point of manned space. All manned space is simply "because it's cool." If you want pure science, gut manned space entirely and build probes. Boots on the moon might, however, be inspirational to some people who might later do the more mundane science that is usually done.

And on another note, this "helps US," bit. Yeah, humanity. I get it. Then ESA should have the same "miracle" of NASA's budget as a % of EU GDP. Put your money where your mouth is, in other words.

I would love it if ESA got more money personally. I also think that research in general should get more money. Spending money on research isn't just altruism. It's a demonstration of soft power, which increases political and economical influence. Keeping the edge in technology helps the economy and 

And I agree that the EU is becoming more and more irrelevant in technology, because it isn't spending enough on research. The result is a high level of brain drain and strategic technology is being bought up by foreign companies (See Alcatel, Alsthom, Nokia, Siemens, Bayer, and so on...) or being given away as part of trade deals (Airbus or Dassault).

ESA is not the EU by the way, so its percentage of the UE GDP is irrelevant.

2 hours ago, tater said:

My taxes amount to driving a few euro sedans off a cliff each year, so my personal spending on NASA is likely even measurable, so I feel like I have more skin in the game.

Lucky you !

 

[tater]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Says you, who has visibly zero understanding of those sciences. The knowledge gathered by social sciences is still valuable and has real world applications or simply advances our understanding of the world we live in.

Occasionally doing something useful does;t make social science a science. I laud their attempts to use the scientific method to the extent they do, I'd say the same about economics (also not a science). The scientific method is a very useful tool, but its application doesn't make any field that uses the tool a science.

Quote

Congress decides where the money goes. If NASA stopped doing Earth observation, the money would not be freed up for NASA. It would simply not be allocated to NASA. It might end up going to NOAA, NSF, DoD, or it might not be spent at all.

The same is true for SLS by the way. If SLS is cancelled, NASA doesn't automatically get to spend the SLS budget on other stuff. The SLS money doesn't get spent, period.

Oh yeah. Where do you think those 2 BILLION $ end up being spent ? Who builds the spacecraft that NASA designs ?

Private institutions can only work if someone is paying them. Whether that someone is NASA, NOAA, NSF, or DoD doesn't change much.

Yeah, it likely goes away (the 2B) if cut, but it might now, we'll have to see. I'd wager they get cut back, however. Given the need to create busy work for SLS (Congress is all in for SLS), maybe it gets shunted there.

Quote

Sounds like how the Soviet Union spent money too. 

Yeah. That is absolutely reality, BTW. A buddy of mine makes his living up buying the lab salvage and reselling it (pennies on the dollar, sometimes literally by weight)---from Sandia National Labs, and Los Alamos. This happens every year. All such government spending programs have budget growth (for inflation, etc) contingent upon spending what they got last year. They all spend every dime, every year, and while the bulk is on "real" expenses, the waste at the end of the year is pretty shocking.  

It's a way of life. As government agencies they are literally forced to attend classes in how to walk around the labs (when outside) in the cold to avoid ice. Like ice on the sidewalks. You have to be certified to be allowed to use a ladder, which involves people I know with their physics PhDs going to classes taught by worker dudes about using a step ladder. No joke. 

Quote

Some could argue that won't help up much, since we aren't going there any time soon.

Other planets? I'm talking about probes, not people. We're still sending probes out, and should do more.

 

Quote

I would love it if ESA got more money personally. I also think that research in general should get more money. Spending money on research isn't just altruism. It's a demonstration of soft power, which increases political and economical influence. Keeping the edge in technology helps the economy and 

And I agree that the EU is becoming more and more irrelevant in technology, because it isn't spending enough on research. The result is a high level of brain drain and strategic technology is being bought up by foreign companies (See Alcatel, Alsthom, Nokia, Siemens, Bayer, and so on...) or being given away as part of trade deals (Airbus or Dassault).

ESA is not the EU by the way, so its percentage of the UE GDP is irrelevant.

Yeah, I realize the ESA is not all the EU... I suppose (as an outside observer) that's part of the problem with the whole EU project, it needs to be a federalist thing, or not. It's hard to separate picking the best of all worlds from the worst, really. Seems like common currency is hard when all expenses are not set up on an equal footing, and that exchange rates would in fact solve many issues (devaluing some currencies to encourage investment). Think tomorrow will have any impact on that (I know there is a vote in Italy, but I am not well-versed in the politics of it)?

Regarding science getting more money... we all want our pet interests to get more money, but someone has to pay for it (or everyone does if money is simply printed to pay for it). Many people I know survive off of government spending, either directly (lab scientists), or indirectly (lab contractors in engineering and science), so I know that they want it to increase, always.

Spending more means taking the money from someplace else... I'm fine with taking it from where most spending actually happens (which is not discretionary spending).

Quote

Lucky you !

Luck has nothing to do with it.  

(small volkswagons are sedans, BTW  )

Edited December 3, 2016 by tater

[Ten Key]

Thank you for keeping up with this @Aethon. It's been fascinating watching the hardware come together, slowly but surely. 

[YNM]

I urge they test these out first with computational and scaled modelling...

Also, I believe they didn't made it back then to specifically hold (super?)cooled kerosene, no ?

Edited December 4, 2016 by YNM

[Eklykti]

On 03.12.2016 at 11:36 AM, Nibb31 said:

They could verify their hypothesis by pushing hardware to its limits during destructive testing.

They already did some destructive testing.

On 03.12.2016 at 2:38 AM, YNM said:

Yet-another-Challenger impending ?

Dragon 2 can use it's SuperDraco thrusters as launch abort system, has a big heat shield at the bottom and no explosive boosters on it's sides. So Challenger scenario is very unlikely. Even if the second stage explodes at high speed, but not enough to reach orbit, the heat shield will probably not be too damaged and could still survive the reentry, especially if SuperDracos will fire and get away.

Other way, if the full rocket explodes early in flight, any heat shield damage will be survivable as it will be not enough speed to burn it.

[Aethon]

Hey.  I'm glad people enjoy it.

We've really made a nice scrapbook of a snapshoted time in history and the slow, constant work of a space project..  I appreciate everyones' contribution.  Hopefully Orion/SLS will go somewhere.

[magnemoe]

9 hours ago, Eklykti said:

They already did some destructive testing.

Dragon 2 can use it's SuperDraco thrusters as launch abort system, has a big heat shield at the bottom and no explosive boosters on it's sides. So Challenger scenario is very unlikely. Even if the second stage explodes at high speed, but not enough to reach orbit, the heat shield will probably not be too damaged and could still survive the reentry, especially if SuperDracos will fire and get away.

Other way, if the full rocket explodes early in flight, any heat shield damage will be survivable as it will be not enough speed to burn it.

Yes, the previous fail with an dragon one cargo mission to ISS was pretty similar to the pad explosion however this happened close to maximum acceleration. 
Dragon one has no escape system but it appear intact afterward. it crashed as it was not programmed to do an emergency landing. 

Heat shield is also protected by the trunk. The high airspeed helps in keeping the explosion behind you. 
Pods are far safer than shuttles. Far more sturdy, can land everywhere and is aerodynamic stable at all speed. Escape system will work at all time to.
Dragon 2 has an benefit in that it keeps it all the way to orbit, most other systems drop it along with the fairing or after first stage. 

[YNM]

11 hours ago, Eklykti said:

They already did some destructive testing.

Dragon 2 can use it's SuperDraco thrusters as launch abort system, has a big heat shield at the bottom and no explosive boosters on it's sides. So Challenger scenario is very unlikely. Even if the second stage explodes at high speed, but not enough to reach orbit, the heat shield will probably not be too damaged and could still survive the reentry, especially if SuperDracos will fire and get away.

Other way, if the full rocket explodes early in flight, any heat shield damage will be survivable as it will be not enough speed to burn it.

Ah, fine then. Fingers cross !

Regarding my "impending" note : yes I know evacuating a capsule from explosion is easier/less dangerous compared to evacuating a fully-ladden supersonic 737. But I don't like seeing explosions, more so when it's only hold off so far by a single part/procedure/dumb luck.

Edited December 5, 2016 by YNM

[Tullius]

6 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Dragon 2 has an benefit in that it keeps it all the way to orbit, most other systems drop it along with the fairing or after first stage. 

Which doesn't mean that Mercury, Apollo or Soyuz cannot escape an high altitude failure. They would use their normal thrusters for in-orbit use. Soyuz even once performed such an escape (unfortunately not quite a textbook example, since it subjected its crew to 21g).

The reason why Mercury, Apollo, Soyuz and Orion need an LES, while Dragon doesn't, is because Dragon is the only one capable of a powered landing, i.e. it already has thrusters that can generate sufficient thrust at sea level, so why not use them as the LES. The other spacecraft drop the LES thrusters, since they don't need them anymore after the initial launch.

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, Tullius said:

Which doesn't mean that Mercury, Apollo or Soyuz cannot escape an high altitude failure. They would use their normal thrusters for in-orbit use. Soyuz even once performed such an escape (unfortunately not quite a textbook example, since it subjected its crew to 21g).

The reason why Mercury, Apollo, Soyuz and Orion need an LES, while Dragon doesn't, is because Dragon is the only one capable of a powered landing, i.e. it already has thrusters that can generate sufficient thrust at sea level, so why not use them as the LES. The other spacecraft drop the LES thrusters, since they don't need them anymore after the initial launch.

I know, however an escape system who stays with you all the way is nice then the second stage is the problematic one. 
And you would not like to use the escape system procedure at end of gravity turn anyway. 
It might be an partial burn mode for it too for second stage burn, just to get away from it, then leaving some fuel to adjust trajectory, like in KSP you don't wand to go down in mountain area. 

[Tullius]

8 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

I know, however an escape system who stays with you all the way is nice then the second stage is the problematic one. 
And you would not like to use the escape system procedure at end of gravity turn anyway. 
It might be an partial burn mode for it too for second stage burn, just to get away from it, then leaving some fuel to adjust trajectory, like in KSP you don't wand to go down in mountain area. 

Wikipedia has a nice article on the Apollo abort modes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_abort_modes In short, after the LES is jettisoned, the CM would be separated from the failing rocket together with the SM. So no problem of deciding where to land, since the SM is doing the whole job for you.

In short, you don't have only one abort mode for the whole flight. Orion has 5 abort modes and Apollo 8, each of which is tailored to the specific phase of the flight (and possibly also the failure).

As to where you are landing: Apollo and Soyuz probably just don't care as long as the crew survives (Apollo would have splashed down somewhere in the Atlantic anyway). The Space Shuttle and Orion actually try to not land somewhere completely out of reach of the recovery teams.

[wumpus]

On 12/3/2016 at 4:48 AM, YNM said:

But not cutting corners by not solving the problem, just develop a different procedure. Although engineers are free to devise a solve anyway, even "ignore the problem" can sometimes be the solve.

Yes it can. They should know the limits.

But, you know what, it's their money. I'm just advising against doing science experiment in engineering products. Do science in science, and engineer by the results.

You are assuming that this single possible cause of loss or rocket and cargo is absolutely a bigger threat than all other possible dangers to the craft.  The issues is that they have 2 catastrophic failures in 30 rockets put on the pad (even worse if limited to full thrust).  Best guess is that they need a larger ongoing safety check and not plan on any passengers in Dragon any time soon.

update: Note that it looks like the Dragon could escape either of these disasters.  So a lot of this thinking is rooted in my "the shuttle is how you get into space" attitude (I did watch one or two Saturn liftoffs.  But by the time I could understand the details everything was shuttle...).  Of course, reverting after your spaceship explodes doesn't help either.

Edited December 5, 2016 by wumpus
update

[YNM]

I'm more concerned because these failures seems to happen during the later stages (2015 upwards). I mean, if they really doesn't change anything it should go fine. I just hope that any of the recent changes isn't the primary cause for the failures. I'm aware that technically they're creating rockets like phone manufacturers creating their new flagship product - not all is thoroughly tested with time yet. But there's not much more I can say on proper grounds.

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, Tullius said:

Wikipedia has a nice article on the Apollo abort modes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_abort_modes In short, after the LES is jettisoned, the CM would be separated from the failing rocket together with the SM. So no problem of deciding where to land, since the SM is doing the whole job for you.

In short, you don't have only one abort mode for the whole flight. Orion has 5 abort modes and Apollo 8, each of which is tailored to the specific phase of the flight (and possibly also the failure).

As to where you are landing: Apollo and Soyuz probably just don't care as long as the crew survives (Apollo would have splashed down somewhere in the Atlantic anyway). The Space Shuttle and Orion actually try to not land somewhere completely out of reach of the recovery teams.

Yes, you use the service module to escape with second stage fail, acceleration is much lower here, your are out of most of the atmosphere and well into the gravity turn. 
Still dragon 2 would have an benefit if the second stage blows up.
As for landing that would be the almost in orbit scenario,  
It did not look like Orion has pad abort? or it it just an part of mode 1. 
 

[Tullius]

8 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Yes, you use the service module to escape with second stage fail, acceleration is much lower here, your are out of most of the atmosphere and well into the gravity turn. 
Still dragon 2 would have an benefit if the second stage blows up.

They are probably thinking that the risk of the SM being damaged is sufficiently low that it is not worth carrying the LES any further. Also bear in mind that in the case of Apollo, they turned the automatic abort system off after reaching 30km of altitude. So they expected that any failure occuring afterwards would be harmless enough that manual abort would be sufficient.

Nonetheless, not relying in the SM surviving is certainly advantageous.

8 hours ago, magnemoe said:

It did not look like Orion has pad abort? or it it just an part of mode 1. 

I think it is the latter. In the wikipedia article about Apollos abort modes, abort mode 1a is said to be similar to a pad abort.