Where will Orion end up going?

[Robotengineer]

It's pork, so when pigs fly. 

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

What exactly is HAVOC?

[SuperFastJellyfish]

 

[Ten Key]

I love how Orion is tacked on to the end of that for no good reason whatsoever. 

[todofwar]

1 hour ago, Ten Key said:

I love how Orion is tacked on to the end of that for no good reason whatsoever. 

It's been a while since I've seen that, I could of sworn orion was the service module for the whole mission. Funny how memory plays tricks sometimes.

[okan170]

Probably it'll end up bringing crew two and fro from the Moon-orbiting NEXT-Step habitat(s) that are currently being developed.  Fortunately  funding has been proposed again this year to continue those efforts.   ESA remains interested in providing more service modules (waiting on NASA to be directed to do more flights) in exchange for potential astronaut seats, so at the very least you could end up with a small station around the Moon occasionally visited by Orion and resupplied by Commercial Cargo providers (per NASA's comments).

[fredinno]

9 hours ago, Glaran K'erman said:

@fredinno The Illuminati of course.

Surely I am optimistic, very well aware.

Which part of my comment are you quoting?

9 hours ago, ValleyTwo said:

At best it will be used to go to the Mun..er..Moon.  Maybe.  Right now, as is, from what I understand, a delivery system for orbit.  And that's it.  Now, I understand they planning to add to it but even if they do we have to see who is in charge of the White House in the next four years and what plans they have.

There is a small amount of funding for a commercially competed Deep Space HAB. And before you ask, it's a 4-way between Boeing, Lockmart, OrbitalATK, and Bigelow.

The next thing to do is to expand it to be man-worthy by 2023.

7 hours ago, todofwar said:

@fredinno It would be shorter than the Mars trip, but still longer than any other manned mission. I think going to a planet is easier than going to an asteroid just because we already did multiple planets and landed multiple rovers on Mars, but only got to orbit around a smaller body once and didn't manage to stick the landing (not hating on that mission, I thought it was great, just pointing out asteroids aren't necessarily the easy targets people so often think they are). Also, HAVOC involves getting onto a planet (can someone please come up with a name for "landing an airship from orbit"?) and getting back, a complication you can't test run with phobos. 

Not that you would, but yes an airship would work just fine on Mars since the atmosphere is all CO2. The fact that it's so near vacuum isn't so bad, I think weather balloons go to parts of our atmosphere that are thinner but I may be wrong. Still, not a great idea unless it solves the whole landing issue, since you can't use parachutes. 

Full disclosure, Mars gets so much attention that it seems easier to sell Venus missions as somehow helpful for Mars missions. Even if it's something of a stretch.

No, we orbited asteroids many times before (Hayabusa, NEAR, soon Hayabusa-2, AIM, and OSRIS-REX (All but one of these listed did/will land, at least for a few seconds))- and besides, Rosetta was around a comet, not an asteroid.

3 of those were sample return too, so.

Asteroid missions are also applicable to Phobos/Deimos/Venus and Mars Orbit/Flyby, and a basic mission might only need more fuel to get there, vs a normal NEO.

The problem with Venus is that the airship is a hugely complex machine that will not be applicable to Mars- and a Venus mission can only end in itself (also, less public support due to landism).

You can't test atmospheric entry landing on Phobos (assuming no aerocapture manuver), but the list of available destinations, publicity, and possible science is much greater than a Venus Airship.

Quote

Not that you would, but yes an airship would work just fine on Mars since the atmosphere is all CO2. The fact that it's so near vacuum isn't so bad, I think weather balloons go to parts of our atmosphere that are thinner but I may be wrong. Still, not a great idea unless it solves the whole landing issue, since you can't use parachutes. 

Full disclosure, Mars gets so much attention that it seems easier to sell Venus missions as somehow helpful for Mars missions. Even if it's something of a stretch.

Yeah, but the thinness also gives the atmosphere VERY little density, meaning your Venus Airship will carry little to no payload. That's why even helis have to spin at absurd rates, and Planes have to go at mach speeds to go airborne on Mars. For all intents and purposes, a Venus Airship has no applicability on Mars.

5 hours ago, Ten Key said:

I love how Orion is tacked on to the end of that for no good reason whatsoever. 

It's the crew capsule to send people back to Earth- something great on Constellation, but not nowadays.

It really demonstrates how Orion is useless beyond Luna. NASA always tacks it on because it provides justification for a program with no net goal.

It will stay that way unless the next president comes with a mandate that is NOT Mars or ARM (both are unachievable for different reasons)

 

[Nuke]

its going to be an iss cargo ship and nothing more.

[Glaran K'erman]

10 hours ago, fredinno said:

Which part of my comment are you quoting?

@fredinno seriously? Go look at you're post and see what you said to me, probably won't be hard to figure out...

[Nibb31]

3 hours ago, Nuke said:

its going to be an iss cargo ship and nothing more.

There is no way Orion is ever going to the ISS.

It can only launch on SLS, and they are not going to waste one of those billion-dollar puppies just to go to the ISS when two Commercial Crew vehicles are available for 10% of the price.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Nibb31

[Spaceception]

11 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

There is no way Orion is ever going to the ISS.

It can only launch on SLS, and they are not going to waste one of those billion-dollar puppies just to go to the ISS when two Commercial Crew vehicles are available for 10% of the price.

Unless for some reason it's used as a refueling station or something like that, but that's pretty unlikely in itself, so, yeah, I don't see it being used for LEO missions either.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Spaceception

[fredinno]

27 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Unless for some reason it's used as a refueling station or something like that, but that's pretty unlikely in itself, so, yeah, I don't see it being used for LEO missions either.

Why would you man a refueling station?

[Spaceception]

9 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Why would you man a refueling station?

Go to space, refuel the ship, go to the Moon, and return

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

Go to space, refuel the ship, go to the Moon, and return

That basically kills the point of SLS.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

Go to space, refuel the ship, go to the Moon, and return

That doesn't answer why a fuel depot has to be at a manned station.

The ISS is a research facility. It's in a bad inclination to be used as a fuel depot, and refueling operations would be detrimental to its research work.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Nibb31

[tater]

1 hour ago, Spaceception said:

Go to space, refuel the ship, go to the Moon, and return

As @fredinno said, that defeats the purpose of SLS... the same people in Congress pushing SLS are pathologically against fuel depots. For reasons. It's bizarre, but that's the way it is, so people working on orbital refueling have to sort of hide it from Congress.

[Spaceception]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

That basically kills the point of SLS.

 

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

That doesn't answer why a fuel depot has to be at a manned station.

The ISS is a research facility. It's in a bad inclination to be used as a fuel depot, and refueling operations would be detrimental to its research work.

 

1 hour ago, tater said:

As @fredinno said, that defeats the purpose of SLS... the same people in Congress pushing SLS are pathologically against fuel depots. For reasons. It's bizarre, but that's the way it is, so people working on orbital refueling have to sort of hide it from Congress.

Well then I guess there's no point for a LEO SLS/Orion.

 

Although, now that I'm thinking about it, why can't an Atlas or Delta take up Orion to the ISS? This question does ask how far will Orion go, not SLS.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Spaceception

[tater]

Why use Orion for ISS? That's absurd when we will have Dragon V2, and CST-100 for that? Part of the point of Orion is that it is a possible payload for SLS---and SLS is in desperate need of payloads since they need to launch at least a couple times a year, or the program hemorrhages money. As it is, most of the Orion missions are busy work to fill that one role---as large SLS payload.

[CptRichardson]

Never going to happen because our government is made up of short-sighted fools who can't think long term. SpaceX will get anywhere well ahead of modern NASA.

[Spaceception]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

Why use Orion for ISS? That's absurd when we will have Dragon V2, and CST-100 for that? Part of the point of Orion is that it is a possible payload for SLS---and SLS is in desperate need of payloads since they need to launch at least a couple times a year, or the program hemorrhages money. As it is, most of the Orion missions are busy work to fill that one role---as large SLS payload.

I heard a few years ago it was going to be used for the ISS, but i see your point.

[Panel]

3 hours ago, Spaceception said:

I heard a few years ago it was going to be used for the ISS, but i see your point.

During Constellation, it was supposed to be able to take 7 people to the ISS, but that role has been taken over by Commercial Crew.

[Spaceception]

29 minutes ago, Panel said:

During Constellation, it was supposed to be able to take 7 people to the ISS, but that role has been taken over by Commercial Crew.

AH, thanks

[RenegadeRad]

Guess we are not gonna advanced in space until war starts again, eh?

[Nibb31]

25 minutes ago, RenegadeRad said:

Guess we are not gonna advanced in space until war starts again, eh?

We advance. It just takes a long time. For younger generations who expect to get everything here and now, it's hard to wait, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

Technological advancement is driven by need. When there will be an economical or political need to expand into space, developing the technological capability will be the easiest part. It's only engineering after all.

[RenegadeRad]

3 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

We advance. It just takes a long time. For younger generations who expect to get everything here and now, it's hard to wait, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

Technological advancement is driven by need. When there will be an economical or political need to expand into space, developing the technological capability will be the easiest part. It's only engineering after all.

I don't want to die before seeing a man on Mars or Somewhere where no one had gone before....I just don't...have the patience...