NASA's Orion Moon Craft Unveiled 179
Velcroman1 writes "Lockheed Martin on Tuesday unveiled the first Orion spacecraft, a part of what NASA had planned as the sprawlingly ambitious Constellation project that would offer a replacement for the space shuttle — and a means to ferry humans into outer space and back to the moon. Orion and the companion Ares heavy-lift rocket were part of Constellation, a program cancelled under President Barack Obama's 2011 budget proposal."
Too bad it's not a real Orion (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So a concept that got killed in the early 60s is more real than a current project that is actually in testing? Can we get a "get off my lawn" while you are at it?
Re: (Score:3)
Okay. Get off my lawn.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion (Score:5, Insightful)
Not more real, but certainly more exciting. The fact that a 50 year old concept is more exciting than a new space vehicle says a lot about the failures of the space program. If funding had continued just a few years longer we might have seen simple thermal nuclear rockets like NERVA fly. Even the simplest nuclear rockets would have been almost an order of magnitude more effective than chemical rockets, and the preliminary tests were 100% successful. The fact that no one has even broached the subject since says a lot about the public's fears of anything nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Not more real, but certainly more exciting. The fact that a 50 year old concept is more exciting than a new space vehicle says a lot about the failures of the space program.
I'm not sure what you mean by "failures"? Maybe it didn't meet your expectations but definitely not failures. We have what we due to politics and limitations of reality not "Failures" of concepts or of what NASA has accomplished.
Like everything else, Reality seldom matches our expectations.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion (Score:5, Interesting)
Chemical rockets are a dead end. They will never be able to put large amounts of supplies into orbit and will never be fast enough of interplanetary distances to be practical as anything more than an interesting diversion. The failure I am referring to is the failure to recognize this and invest money, time, and effort into alternatives. NASA successfully test fired a nuclear powered rocket that as a drop in replacement for on the Saturn V would have improved it's payload by 4x, using technology from the '60s. And then the funding dried up for anything experimental or paradigm shifting and we've been stuck on chemical rockets which have no hope of actually accomplishing any of the long term goals of the manned space program.
Perhaps it isn't a failure of the agency, they do, after all, get their funding and many of their mission statements from congress. But I have never heard about a high ranking NASA spokesman going to congress and saying "We need money for advanced, non-chemical launch technologies".
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion (Score:4, Insightful)
I do see more hope for a Scram-Jet type launcher, or electromagnetic launcher. Both are much better than either chemical or nuclear. Once we are in the vacuum of space there is plasma and engines much like VASIMER, or even nuclear thermal.
Re: (Score:3)
Electromagnetic launcher / etc. - first, remember how such proposals talk about building a megastructure (often... dynamically suspended; do you see many normal (puny) buildings like that?).
Secondly, not assuming gargantuan fantasies, the proj
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that precisely what killed the Ares heavy lift rockets?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Chemical rockets are a dead end. They will never be able to put large amounts of supplies into orbit and will never be fast enough of interplanetary distances to be practical as anything more than an interesting diversion.
Chemical rockets already have proven you wrong here. My view is that you have the two technologies switched around. It'll be a long time, if ever, that nuclear propulsion is permitted to lift payload out of Earth's gravity well. I think there will be many decades of successful in-space operation of nuclear propulsion before it'll be allowed in that critical role. By the time, nuclear propulsion is allowed, it might not even be necessary (with, for example, launch structures like space tethers or launch loop
Re: (Score:2)
I love the fact that no one seems to remember that the whole "test ban treaty" against nukes in space is what made the funding dry up, in turn killing this project. I'm sure if we could do it today there would be money put to it. It doesn't matter if you have all the money in the world, you can't do the impossible.
The treaty ban on nuclear explosives in space made Orion impossible. However, there is no issue with nuclear thermal rockets like NERVA.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion (Score:4, Interesting)
Energy density of H2: 39,000 Wh/kg (actually lower because this doesn't include an oxidizer.
Energy density of Fission of U-235: 25,000,000,000 (of course lower, because you need support machinery)
Pretty clear we aren't quite at the limits of our energy sources using today's launch technologies.
Uhm, no (Score:3)
They reused the name to help people forget that the other one ever happened.
Or rather, to help people forget that the other one, which didn't actually happen, was ever planned.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion (Score:4, Interesting)
Project Orion will never be revived. However, use of nuclear power may still live in VASIMR technology. The prototype is supposed to go up this year but we'll see. If it works as planned it's a game changer for in-space travel. Unlike most revolutionary technology companies Ad Astra is actually helmed by an ex-astronaut with an actual Ph.D. VASIMR technology comes from Dr. Franklin Chang Diaz's MIT thesis.
It is a huge year for SpaceX, Ad Astra, and spaceflight in general this year.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/10/ad_astra_nasa_vf200_announcement/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
The Ad Astra Rocket Company, headed by Dr Franklin Chang Díaz. has already built an experimental prototype version of its Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR)
Did Robert A. Heinlein's ghost ghost write that article? :-)
Zero chance that VASIMR will be nuke powered (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Orion would NEVER be used to get into orbit. Setting off nuclear weapons in the atmosphere is big no no.
2. The US does not have a big enough stock of nuclear weapons to use Orion even in space. It would need to make more, and very cheaply.
As I said... it's just not going to work.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me paint a possible future scenario for you.
1) There is a limited nuclear exchange between two countries, let's say Pakistan and India as a modern day example.
2) While hundreds of thousands/Millions die in the attacks radiation casualties outside of the attack are limited to a few thousand.
3) Some bright spark decides casualties could have been fewer if they had not just airspace control, but also had assets in orbit.
4) After the public accept that there could be limited nuclear exchange, nuclear weapon
Re: (Score:3)
Orion calls for specialized nuclear explosives to be developed, the weapons we currently have in stock are far too powerful for the use you want to apply them to.
Re: (Score:3)
What for? The rebels in the middle east just want to oust their own crappy leaders, they're not worried much about other countries, and certainly don't want to destroy their own cities. The rebels in Egypt and Tunisia did just fine, ousting their crappy leaders without much death and damage at all. The rebels in Libya are having a somewhat harder time unfortunately, but they're actually welcoming a limited amount of foreign intervention to keep Gaddafi's forces from slaughtering them.
The rebellions in th
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's an interesting link about many of the nuclear propulsion systems over the years: http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040112/nuclear.shtml [strangehorizons.com]
Baby puke green? (Score:2)
I know there must be technical reason behind it, what is it?
Re:Baby puke green? (Score:4, Informative)
It's worth noting that one of the most difficult and most important aspects of spacecraft design involve the energy management within the spacecraft. Spacecraft are subject to high levels of radiation, high and low temperature extremes, and house multiple boxes of electronics that cannot be cooled via typical convective methods as they are on the ground. Thus, to keep a spacecraft operating effectively, a full analysis must be done to take into account all energy (thermal or otherwise) sources in a spacecraft and redirect energy to appropriately sized energy sinks (radiators, heat-pies, etc.). This is one aspect of spacecraft design that many folks fail to take into account when discussing how simple it would be to build a spacecraft that does [insert theoretical task here].
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmmmmmm... heat-pies.. glarggghughhhhhh *Drool*
Re: (Score:2)
It's the ultimate green tail
Re: (Score:2)
But, in this case, the green paint is a corrosion-inhibitive primer on the internal structure.
Ah, that also makes sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Offtopic, by why are the majority of aerospace projects painted in that hideous baby puke green?
I know there must be technical reason behind it, what is it?
Note that the picture shows the interior structure of the capsule, not the final external panels. I assume that it's probably a yellow-green zinc chromate coating that is commonly used to prevent corrosion on aluminum parts on aircraft and spacecraft.
Re: (Score:3)
Offtopic, by why are the majority of aerospace projects painted in that hideous baby puke green?
I know there must be technical reason behind it, what is it?
Note that the picture shows the interior structure of the capsule, not the final external panels. I assume that it's probably a yellow-green zinc chromate coating that is commonly used to prevent corrosion on aluminum parts on aircraft and spacecraft.
Why bother coating the aluminum? Aluminum oxide does a pretty good job of preventing corrosion.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother coating the aluminum? Aluminum oxide does a pretty good job of preventing corrosion.
Not really. Exposure to salty, humid air (think naval aircraft or anything sitting on the pad at KSC), dissimilar metal contact, etc. will all cause corrosion. Plus, aluminum alloys are more susceptible to corrosion than pure aluminum (or alloy sheets with thin aluminum coatings). Stress concentrations can exacerbate corrosion.
Plus, corrosion spreads, and the more widely spread it is, the harder it is to repair.
Think about it for a minute. We've been building airplanes made of aluminum for decades. If
Re: (Score:3)
Look up the old liverys of american airlines. Thats not silver paint, thats polished aluminium.
for example: http://s3.amazonaws.com/collectapedia_prod/images/62178/American_Airlines_990_Astrojet.jpg [amazonaws.com]
Nowadays that does not fly anymore, as more and more composites are used, which are
a) not as sexy unpainted
and
b) non-conductive, so need a conductive paint layer to prevent damage in thunderstorms
Re: (Score:2)
The bare metal scheme requires constant polishing. However, it's also in an easily-visible location without holes or corners to trap moisture like the inside of a structure would have. It's workable on the outside of an aircraft, but really not practical for the inside.
Look, I've built an airplane and work on airplanes for a living. I think I know what I'm talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that good. Not for most aluminum alloys under any kind of severe conditions. And zinc chromate over anodizing is much better than zinc chromate alone.
Of course, speaking of the inside of a spacecraft, it's hard to imagine the conditions would be at all severe.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. It's the same protective primer they paint 747s and such with before they apply the outer-coat of paint and assemble all the pieces.
If you ever see a jetliner in the shop, it will probably be re-coated with this stuff anywhere that is sealed or infrequently maintained.
Re: (Score:2)
How much of a problem is the toxicity and carcinogenic properties really, though? As long as the material is handled carefully in a safe manner, with appropriate protective clothing and such, how much of a problem is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Anticorrosion coating, color helps make sure no parts are missed and un-coated.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet most sane people seem to hate those bland and "calming" colors intensely. Just from asking a few friends I have come to the conclusion that I am definitely not alone in almost getting feelings of nausea when I'm forced to be in hospitals or other buildings painted in those "calming" color schemes...
Although in practice I suspect it has more to do with being "non-offensive" to a the point where the non-offensiveness becomes offensive. It's not just the colors, ever look at the paintings on the walls of a
Re: (Score:2)
Back to Apollo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Back to Apollo (Score:4, Informative)
It also goes along the line of why not utilize the previous designs for the shuttle and improve on it rather than making a whole new launch system?
Because the shuttle is a flawed design created by committee to meet numerous contradictory requirements?
Re: (Score:3)
In terms of actual track record - the Shuttle failed to deliver on many of its promises. Despite being a reusable vehicle, I believe it proved to be actually more expensive to operate than one-time-use launch vehicles. Part of that was due to conflicting requirements from multiple entities - the military wanted certain capabilities that greatly increased cost.
Meanwhile, the one-time use + capsule approach worked VERY well while it was in use, and has continued to work very well for Russia.
Go with what wor
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but not a warmed over, super-sized Apollo capsule. Is that it for innovation out of NASA? Modernized 40 year old capsules?
You know, my brand new tower looks exactly the same as my 386 tower from 1993. Is that innovation? Modernized 18 year old computers?
(If you look real close the power supply type has changed, and I no longer have 3.5 or 5.25 floppys, in its place I have a front panel USB hub, and no turbo button / turbo LEDs, but this all requires close examination)
Re: (Score:2)
For rockets, at least, I'm under the impression that the modern Soyuz is a solid design.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd that you use "modern" in the context of Soyuz, when both the spacecraft and the booster are 40-year old designs.
Re:Back to Apollo (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, if you take a form factor like the capsule, you find that you don't have those giant moment arms (save for the solar arrays which, if designed properly, should go a long way in canceling out each other's torques). What's more, you have a nice aerodynamic shape that can reenter atmospheres much more elegantly than, say a brick with wings bolted on. All in all, the capsule is a beautifully elegant design that solves many of the difficult space-environment design problems through passive geometry, rather than through more active systems like large control mechanisms or expensive ceramic tiles.
Just because a design is 40 years old doesn't mean it's poor. The car is the same form factor that it was back when it was design in the early 1900's, but that's because there is a lot to be said for a 4-wheel base vehicle. That doesn't mean all cars are the same as the Model T though.
Finally, you should probably realize that The Orion was built and designed by Lockheed-Martin, not NASA.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with capsules? They're the best, most reliable, and most efficient solution to the problem of transporting humans to space and returning them to Earth, and they're going to remain that way until the Space Elevator is built and rockets are used.
Choice quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of Orion's components can be re-used in subsequent flights, including some electronic systems, Bray said. The spaceship itself won't be reused because of the tremendous forces it endures on liftoff and re-entry, he said.
Rep. Ed Perlmutter and Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado Democrats who pressed Obama to salvage the Orion project, said they were confident the spacecraft will fly, but neither discussed specifics in brief remarks at the dedication ceremony for the test building.
I think there's a type somewhere... seems more like the Onion Moon Craft.
Re: (Score:2)
Rep. Ed Perlmutter and Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado Democrats who pressed Obama to salvage the Orion project, said they were confident the spacecraft will fly
In an unrelated story, Lockheed Martin announces [bizjournals.com] a $35 million training center for Orion in Colorado.
Re: (Score:2)
That was mentioned in TFA, about ten paragraphs down.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, no launch vehicle, no significant reusable structural components. . . ?
But I guess an astronaut can bring his or her cell-phone and laptop from one flight to the next, right?
I completely hate everything this design and vehicle represents. But, I still think it's totally cool. I still want to see it fly. Just not on that horrid abortion that was Ares.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this "it" ? (Score:2)
Is this the moment where a private corporation risks a hundred million dollars betting on space exploration?
Re: (Score:2)
It’s a lack of vision. (Score:3)
I will disagree – It’s a lack of vision. Blame it on our Presidents [and I do use plural] or our Congress – but it’s a vision thing.
Do we want to
Build a space station?
Go to Mars?
Go to the Moon?
Go to an asteroid?
All of these are valid, but each of these requires something a little different. Instead of a clear voice [We shall put a man on the moon in 10 years] we have th
Re: (Score:3)
All of these are valid, but each of these requires something a little different. Instead of a clear voice [We shall put a man on the moon in 10 years] we have these ½ measures for the past 20 years. And this leaves us with what? No replacement for the Space Shuttle?
Clear voices and tunnel "vision" are great for showing off human ingenuity (and specifically American ingenuity in the Cold War), but aren't necessarily that great for making progress. Not to knock Apollo, but seriously, what a clear voice of "We shall do [insert phenomenal but specific achievement" gets us is 10-20 years of focus on a specific task that lets us touch the place we were talking about, plant a flag, then leave with a couple samples. Great, but not what I call visionary. It was a vision, ba
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, my imagination was fired much more by Voyager, Hubble, the Mars Rovers, and Cassini, than it ever was by the Shuttles or ISS. ISS is a worthy endeavor, I'm just saying, when I think of humans in space doing science I think that's really cool, but when I think of all these instruments studying other planets, other galaxies, expanding human knowledge of our universe, it brings tears to my eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
They're going ahead because Congress hasn't passed a budget for 2011 yet, so under CR, they keep getting the funding profile they had last year. The government, i.e., you and me, are still paying for it. And when we stop, they'll stop.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd bet that part of it is the Us FY2011 budget debacle. Congress never passed a new budget for 2011. They just repassed a part of the old 2010. The 2010 budget had money to finish Orion. So basically they dropped another wad of money on LockMart marked "do it again". OK, not quite that easy really, but the extra cash probably came in handy on some of the finishing touches.
not charitable (Score:2)
Orion makes the shuttle look like child's play. (Score:4, Interesting)
I highly recommend this video [lockheedmartin.com].
Re: (Score:2)
NASA = 3D Realms (Score:2)
Shuttle Replacement = Duke Nuke'Em Forever
The only way we're getting a shuttle replacement is if someone other than NASA's in charge.
Re:NASA = 3D Realms (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. NASA hasn't bungled anything. The reason we don't have a replacement is that it takes more than 8 years and every president cancels the last guy's program. We wouldn't have made it to the moon if JFK hadn't been a hugely popular martyr. And even then, as soon as we set foot on the moon, they canceled Apollo. And every president since has canceled the last guy's program - except Carter. Carter, being a one-term president tried but failed to cancel the shuttle and that's the only reason we ever had it.
So Regan had the shuttle. Bush #1 supported a replacement but Clinton canceled it. Clinton supported a replacement (venturestar) but Bush #2 canceled it. Bush #2 supported a replacement (constellation) but Obama canceled it.
I don't see how any of this is NASA's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
A slight bit of clarity is called for here... (Score:2)
Keep in mind that while this was NASA's plan - the plan only existed because NASA was directed to create and implement the plan by the Bush administration.
Re: (Score:2)
which is like saying that Apollo was NASA's plan, but it only existed because NASA was directed to create and implement the plan by JFK.
You're trying to poison the well.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's pretty much like saying water is wet and fire is hot - it's the stone cold truth.
Nope, just reaching for clarity here. Too many people act as if NASA were some independent entity. It isn't.
How much savings by launching from 20 miles up? (Score:2)
-CF
Re:How much savings by launching from 20 miles up? (Score:4, Informative)
Fairly significant, actually. Kistler's original launcher design was an 'SSTO' which would have launched from a platform lifted to around 100,000 feet; they reckoned that made the difference between viable and non-viable for that design.
There are two main benefits: you don't have to worry about aerodynamic drag, and you can use engines optimised for vacuum operation which are more efficient than engines optimised for sea-level operation.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the concept used.
Speaking in terms of gravity, you dont gain much. But you are putting the vast majority of the atmosphere below you. This makes, for example, hydrogen engines more efficient for 1st stages (they need huge tanks for the light nitrogen, which create tons of drag in the lower atmosphere.)
A Peak Inside (Score:2)
18 pictures and not one showing crew accommodations.
...the harsh environment of deep space... (Score:2)
Some copy writer for the press has been watching too much Star Wars.
Or maybe, just maybe, the vibration testing is for doing things in near space, like flying through the atmosphere while landing.
Re: (Score:3)
The space shuttle is not elegant, unless you think camels are elegant. Design by committee does not anything elegant make.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In terms of being highly adapted for the terrain they occupy, as well as the climate ... I'd call that somewhat elegant.
Now, cameltoe [wikipedia.org], that's a whole different story. Considered by some to be the most elegant design in nature. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
The space shuttle is not elegant
It sure as hell is. Pics of the orbiter in space always impress the hell out of me....
To wit:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Space_Shuttle_Discovery_(STS-114_'Return_to_Flight')_approaches_the_International_Space_Station.jpg [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why China will ultimately surpass us (USA) in space exploration. Unlike us, they don't have a flawed system where the entire direction of their national space policy changes on one man's whim every 4 years. In fact, the Europeans will probably also surpass us, because they too do not have flawed systems where one man has most of the power of the nation at his command, and can basically make any decision he wants with near-dictatorial powers (it's called "signing statements").
Re: (Score:2)
elegance of the Space Shuttle
o.O
Re: (Score:3)
A simple capsule that carries little in the way of extra weight is much more elegant in my mind. Those wings may look nice, but they are heavy and cause trouble.
And who's decided it isn't worth or time? I'm pretty sure NASA's budget is still strong despite the hatchet men in congress, exciting things are happening on many fronts, and we've got *multiple* manned vehicles currently in development and likely to see flight within 5 years. This is an exciting time for space exploration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
not like we ever got any cool technology from space tech >_>
I love Tang!
Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? (Score:5, Interesting)
The only passage I see that references our President is "Orion and the companion Ares heavy-lift rocket were part of Constellation, a program cancelled under President Barack Obama's 2011 budget proposal."
That is a statement of fact. It is in no way biased, skewed or twisted. It's just about as plain a statement as one can make.
But I guess it must be hard to notice these details when you've got to read over such a highly-held nose.
Re: (Score:2)
misunderstanding (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As if we would learn all we could by going to the Moon long enough to plant a flag and tool around in a buggy.
When astronauts return to the moon, it should be to check out the fully-functional habitats that were assembled robotically for them, so they can stay for an extended period of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Excuse me... would you mind telling me where the "dig" is at the President?
The only passage I see that references our President is "Orion and the companion Ares heavy-lift rocket were part of Constellation, a program cancelled under President Barack Obama's 2011 budget proposal."
That is a statement of fact. It is in no way biased, skewed or twisted. It's just about as plain a statement as one can make.
But I guess it must be hard to notice these details when you've got to read over such a highly-held nose.
Um, you do realize that selective statement of fact is one of the best ways to manipulate people, right? But given your reaction maybe you don't.
The story could have also said that "President Obama chose to replace the Constellation program with one focused on fostering the development of the technology for accessing Low Earth Orbit in the private sector." But of course that would insinuate that our "Socialist" President actually believes in the ability of the private sector to innovate rather than handin
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's a difference between "reading between the lines" and "making shit up to justify [your] viewpoint".
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you're the type of person who if I were to tell to "Have a nice day", you could "read between the lines" that I actually said that I hope your everyone in your immediate family gets AIDS and that you should go skydive naked into a field full of cacti.
There's a difference between "reading between the lines" and "making shit up to justify [your] viewpoint".
Aw, how cute. So naive. From a "news" network whose executives provide political talking points to all of their news reporters? I don't think I'm making anything up. Have a nice day, Sunshine.
Re: (Score:2)
The only passage I see that references our President is "Orion and the companion Ares heavy-lift rocket were part of Constellation, a program cancelled under President Barack Obama's 2011 budget proposal."
Dude, enough with the racism already.
Re: (Score:3)
NASA is dead under every President since Johnson.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)