Slashdot Mirror
NASA Names New Spaceship 'Orion'
An anonymous reader writes "NASA's new spaceship that will carry astronauts to the moon and later to Mars has been officially named Orion. NASA confirmed the name after it was accidentally leaked to the media. Previously called the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Orion will be NASA's main human spaceflight vehicle after the space shuttle fleet is retired in 2010. Orion was named after one of the brightest constellations in the entire sky. Earlier this year, the rocket that will launch Orion was named Ares I, and the heavy-lift rocket was named Ares V. NASA hopes the new names will become as familiar as Apollo and Saturn V."
Atlantis is assigned the Dadaelus. The Prometheus was Earth's primary defense. The Orion took her place after the Prometheus's destruction.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the article above say the "vehicle" was officially named Orion. The project, as you so pointed out, was already named Orion, but they apparently hadn't release what the vehicle was going to be called? Although common sense would tell you.
you kids these days :-)
Besides a constelation, Orion is also a well known space project from the 70s which dealt with nuclear propulsion (wiki).
And maybe they are fans of what Larry Niven did with the idea.
Also, don't forget the Master of Orion video game - which has a fitting theme.
Oh, to be able to live on Mars....
I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
No, they are continuing the tradition of taking prominent spaceship names from TV SF series. The Orion featured in the German 'Raumpatrouille' (Space Patrol).
Watch for Cmdr McLane!
But then, there have been 8 ships in the USA Navy with the name Enterprise as well as 14 Enterprise ships for Britian's Royal Navy. Its certainly not exclusive to the Trek 'oh Stars Orion though... well thats just a blatant attempt to snag fans from the Stargates... or perhaps fans of Greek mythological hunters.
The Project Apollo mission patch (image at http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/apollo-logo.j pg)has the constellation of Orion in "A" in the center of the patch, so Orion is a continuation of the Apollo legacy and a commitment to the return to the Moon.
Michael
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
Actually, this may be a 2001 reference. Orion was the shuttle that Floyd took from Earth to the space station. Aries was the ship he took from the station to the moon base.
I'm currently reading Gene Kranz's book "Failure is not an Option." Yes, Mercury flights started in 1961 and we hit the moon with Apollo in 1969.
The difference is that with the first time around, the government threw TONS of money at it and gave it their full support. I have a feeling that if the Chinese or the North Koreans came out tomorrow and said that they were putting a man on the moon in 5 years, we would see some changes. As it is, with NASA's current budget, I think a man in orbit in 8 years is doable...With what we learned from Mercury-Gemini-Apollo, once we prove to ourselves that the hardware is capable, it should be pretty easy to get back to the moon.
> I hardly think it is appropriate for NASA to have a Captain of Orion when "Master of Orion" obviously outranks him/her.
In naval terms, Captains outrank Masters.
Back in the 1950's and 1960's, there was a project to develop a nuclear spaceship named Orion. The basic principle was to operate it by detonating nuclear weapons some 60 m behind the spaceship... over and over and over again. Probably the closest you could ever be to multiple nuclear blasts and expect to live.
The flipside, however, would have been payload and velocities that would otherwise be way beyond human technology -- we're talking manned mission to Pluto without the crew missing Christmas at home.
As usual, Wikipedia has an excellent article on the whole thing...
It's 'based on' the Apollo system in the same sense that a 2006 Corvette is 'based on' a 1966 Corvette or the latest CPU from Intel is 'based on' the 8086.
Mostly because their is little resemblence between the two models except at the most superficial levels. They are using Apollo specs and modern equipment - equipment that doesn't exist except as spec sheets. (Not to mention we can no more quickly conjure up a modern Apollo than we can a modern '66 Corvette from scratch. Many components are no longer manufactured, manufacturing methods have changed, etc... etc...) Car manufacturers typically take 4-8 years to bring a new model to market, and they do this *every year*. Ditto for a new airliner, and airframe manufacturers have decades of experience and ongoing processes. (Which NASA and its contractors significantly don't.)
Yes, it's very unreasonable - because you have a vast misunderstanding of what is involved. (No offense, but few people who haven't studied the programs appreciate the magnitude of the task.) 'Modern design techniques' aren't magic wands, nor are 'modern manufacturing techniques' - you still have to do all the development, analysis, design, integration, testing, qualification, etc..., etc... Modern stuff is a bit faster at doing the calculations and writing up and distributing the paperwork/research/specs/etc..., but the actual work and skull sweat still takes considerable time.
Take for example the CAD/CAM software they'll need to design and integrate the capsule - software at this level is extremely specialized. You can't simply take the program that Boeing uses for airliners, or GM for cars, or Electric Boat for submarines and start designing a capsule. These are three different programs, each optimized for their particular use. You can't simply buy Microsoft Industrial Design XP 2006, install it and go to work. It will have to be created practically from scratch. (You can't go back to the old ways either - without starting from scratch.)
Or to take something very basic to the new spacecraft - the structure of the crew compartment. Attached somewhere to this will be the flight control computer - which will weigh a quarter of the Apollo era computer and take up about a third of its volume. This means you have to redesign the structure to mount the computer - which changes loads, vibration modes, etc... etc... (Even just sliding an adapter into place, a bad idea for various reasons, will start the same cascade.) Cabling will be different, which means new holes for the clamps, (which also changes loads and modes). Both the changes to the computer and the changes caused by the computer will change the center of gravity, which effects aerodynamic performance, loads on the escape system and parachutes, etc... etc... And that's just *one* change among thousands - each of which interacts with the others.
Oh wait, theres no wings, no rudder, and the only airfoil is a blunt cone...
And it's a good thing, too. Wings are a really dumb idea for a spaceship - they are heavy during liftoff, hard to cool during reentry, and not big enough when you land. And these "blunt cone" airfoils can have over 100 miles of cross-range, and make pinpoint landings. (Think about it, they have about a 0.3 lift to drag ratio and fall through about 100 miles of atmosphere, trying to burn off the insane speed they have) All of the previous capsules landed within one mile of the target using 1960s technology! (Exception equipment failure, of course)
Really, it is hard to beat a capsule - and pointless to try at this point. You put wings on for convenience, when you don't care that you are throwing away design margins. We are not there in space vehicle...
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;