Slashdot Mirror
NASA Shows Off Mock-Up of Mars-Capable Spacecraft
N!NJA writes with this snippet of a report from Reuters: "NASA gave visitors to the National Mall in Washington a peek at a full-size mock-up of the spacecraft designed to carry US astronauts back to the moon and then on to Mars one day. The design of Orion was based on the Apollo spacecraft, which first took Americans to the moon. Although similar in shape, Orion is larger, able to carry six crew members rather than three, and builds on 1960s technology to make it safer."
They're still working on the parachute.
Is this the same 'Orion' as the old atomic bomb powered Project Orion?
Better watch out for Predator drones.
Would that be the large, unmarked banks of blinking square lights, the female voice that always says "Insufficient Data" followed by a dramatic orchestral chord, or the engine that the chief engineer can only repair 10 seconds before destruction?
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
"Although similar, it builds on 1960s technology"? While the old one was build on 1860 technology? I don't get it.
"Hey! I just touched it and this piece fell off!"
"Hmm... It's... a Mock-up?... Yeah! It's a Mock-up!"
Not sure that I would want to be stuck in that with 5 other people for two years.
Might end up with an Event Horizon type situation.
Although perhaps without the portal to hell..
Don't get me wrong I hope we get off this rock and have a *real* space program but I suspect that I am not the only person reading this that thinks they were born before their time.
Good luck NASA, I hope it all goes well, this time.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Wow, all these years of working on the new moon/Mars project, and they hit upon the ingenious idea of making an Apollo splashdown pod slightly bigger. My tax dollars at work.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
We'll be at Alpha centuri in a few years, if all goes well.
The computers and glass cockpit inside the Orion spacecraft are similar to those now being installed on the new Boeing 787. It is well known that the 787's software is run under NinnleBSD and it is expected that the same will be true for Orion. Development in cooperation with Ninnle Labs is ongoing.
"You came in that thing?, Youâ(TM)re braver than I thought"
"...and builds on 1960s technology to make it safer."
Ah, am I the only one reading this and questioning just exactly what the hell we have been paying NASA Engineers millions of dollars for over the last 45 years?
I mean, I'm all for K.I.S.S. methodology and all, but damn, 40+ years worth of advances should not be completely looked over for "tried and true". Even that is questionable, given Apollos not-so-perfect track record.
Hell, how many "safety" features are still in use today from the 60's in automobiles?
Guess I better start buying stock in vacuum tube manufacturers...
So is this where millions of dollars are sank into?
NASA could've just went to Maytag who already has the latest generation of washing machines ready and standing-by. They are about as good and probably safer than this dishwasher NASA built.
... for April 1st, isn't it?
Sets some interesting challenges never mind the amount of time to get there but simple landing and taking off again will be horrendous. Bear in mind that to achieve even Low earth Orbit you kneed some pretty impressive ordinance. Getting back from the moon will be a piece of piss in comparison at only 16.6% earth gravity but Mars's gravity is 38% earth gravity which means any escape mechanism is going to kneed orders of magnitude more impulse in order to achieve marsion orbit compared to to same feat on the moon. I'm not sure it could be achieved with a single stage rocket although I admit it's a possibility. But what about Launch a pad???? Will it be Liquid or Solid propellant???? Many many questions of which I'm sure even NASA hasn't even started to look for answers yet.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
...and builds on 1960s technology to make it safer.
Does this mean that since the 1960's the safety of space travel has declined?
I am the lawn!
This is the best we can come up with? a fucking capsule?
That's not a spacecraft, it's a damn escape pod for a real space craft.
Why are we not focused on building a space ship? A real space ship? Why no earth corvette? or frigate?
I feel sorry for the crew who has to spend all that time in that shit box.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Why are you all still in the '90s?
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/Constellation/
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Wow, based on 60's technology for safety, amazing. that "cone shape" is really a nice touch too. Will they be using DEC PDP-8 computers like the first shuttle (designed in the 1960's), or just stick to analog, or gear driven computers for enhanced reliability (like the German V-1 and V-2) The advantage of mechanical computers is that WD-40 can significantly decrease computing time as required by speeding up the cogs. Also, mechanical computers are easier to keep cool. In 40 years, you would think that somebody at NASA would have watched "Space 1999" or "UfO", and stolen some of the ideas they had. The "Moon Shuttle" that docks with he high altitude bomber style aircraft and hence doesn't need wings or landing gear was a cool idea. This is practical as we recover satellites that way today. It could take passengers to either the space station or the moon directly. Also, the "Eagle" and "Hawk" ships from "Space 1999" were roughly based on the Apollo capsule shape for the command / cockpit section for limited use in atmospheric reentry, or as a lifeboat but overall were more of a helicopter style of design which allowed multiple use while in space. Passengers, cargo, or supplies such as fuel could be carried in the "cargo container area", much like a heavy lift Sikorsky does. Both ships were of space frame design (no pun intended) which allowed great flexibility in application, use, and customization to mission types. As a child of the 1970's I was extremely disappointed to see the Orion craft so reminiscent of Apollo. First the "Big Traks" on Mars (Spirit and Sojourner), now a retread of Apollo. What about the ships designed by Von Braun and company? Sure he was a Nazi and should have been deported / indicted for War Crimes, but like it or not while he was here he was our Guru when it came to spacecraft. It would be a lot easier to get excited about a "real spaceship" than a "cement mixer" looking thing like Orion. Even the Soyuz is cooler looking than that and more importantly more robust as spheres are very strong. The Apollo Service Module was shaped like a ballistic missile warhead which re-entered the atmosphere backwards thanks to an ablative heat shield. Its real purpose was for ascent not descent, since the Saturn 5 was our answer to the heavy lift Soviet ICBM launch systems. Seriously, Aerodynamics aren't important in space, however radiation shielding is. A cone shape provides less forward shielding than a sphere for example due to less cross sectional surface. I guess NASA needs some "new blood", too bad Burt Rutan wasn't involved, or science fiction writers, or dare I say, the Russians? We have been absent from space since 1972, is this how we want to return? Jim
How about starting from scratch and learning from our mistakes instead of using duct tape on it. Reference 1960's material, don't build on it.
JL421
when we get to watch em die light minutes from earth in space.
Even with that risk, I'd sign up as the first to go.
Lock the wife and the dog in the boot of the car.
Return one hour later.
Who's happy to see you?
Yup, really cosy for a long-distance space trip.
Specially since it's small capsule.
Not some big rotating structure.
No rotation = no "Stanley Kubrick's 2001 : Space Odyssey"-like artificial gravity. (Or like a five-years old playing with a bucket of water, whichever mental picture you prefer)
And a trip to Mars is surely going to be rather long (several months).
Several months without gravity means muscle atrophy and space osteoporosis.
Which means that once they land on mars, the astronauts will hardly be in shape to do their historic "small step for a human".
Imagine the historic phrase: "One small roll-down-the-stairs for a human, but a huge step for mankind". It sort of doesn't play out.
If only the NASA had the same budget as the war in Irak...
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
... builds on 1960s technology to make it safer.
Can you imagine a car manufacturer throwing out a line like that? "Our new car builds on 1960s tech to make it safer." Boy, that inspires me with all kinds of confidence.
Immediately after reading the headline containing the words "Mars Capable" the image of the Vista capable sticker flashed into my mind accompanied by the BSOD on all Command Center computers and some unfortunate astronaut's last communication transmissible to earth before his untimely death being "I told you we should have used Linux"
Sadly, it's not the Orion you may have been thinking of.
That's nice, but it's a horrible waste of money. What are we going to do in space? We don't have the technology to do anything useful there, and the few things we might do robots can do just as well. Why not take all of the money wasted on this and do basic research with it?
We'd all be much better off. Then every few decades we can decide if space is useful. And no, there is no scientific reason to put humans into space.
"No - this is a derivative of the 1960s Apollo capsule. But look at the bright side - all the relevant patents have expired by now."
I like the idea of an open source Apollo Rocket. Although for home build, I'm guessing finding a big enough garden shed for it, is going to be the least of the technical problems, so to speak.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
The vehicle in question is an ascent/re-entry craft. It might be sufficient for the trip to the moon (though certainly landing and relaunching will require a second craft as it did for Apollo), but this vehicle is not up to the task of providing suitable living conditions for a trip to Mars.
For a Mars trip this is at best a way to get up to the interplanetary vessel and return to Earth from it. Given that, I can't imagine why you would bother to cart it all the way there just to cart it back.
The only realistic approach to space travel in our solar system is to build a good nuclear-driven space ship in orbit, big enough so as that people can live many years in it, with rotating sections to simulate gravity. This spaceship will never land onto planets, but it would contain pods that could land and take off.
It could take a few trillion dollars, but if all the major countries co-operate, it is feasible. All the money spent in weapons could be spent for space exploration.
Being stuck in a capsule for minimum 6 months to Mars?? Fine if your a gerbil, not so fine if your a human being.
Is it too much to ask for people who read a supposedly tech site actually read, and perhaps think, before pounding their keyboards with things like "how's that little thing going to get 6 astronauts to Mars?", "NASA is stoopid", and the like?
Its proposed use is to carry up to 6 astronauts to the space station, and from there, 4 to the Moon. For the Moon missions, Orion will travel along with the Altair lunar lander.
For Mars missions, "Orion could rendezvous in low Earth orbit with vehicles that will take explorers to other destinations in our solar system such as Mars." http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/306407main_orion_crew%20_expl_vehicle.pdf
These Mars-bound vehicles will be assembled in low Earth orbit. There is no reason to believe that 4 or 6 astronauts would be confined to the small Orion capsule for the duration of a Mars voyage.
On a side note, I was 5 years old when I watched the first manned landing on the Moon. It's amazing to me that a manned Mars mission may happen when I'm in my 70's. Certainly not how I imagined things when I was young.
This mock up will come in quite handy when they fake the Mars landing.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
How is this going to be able to lift off from the surface of Mars again?
You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
Ok, did I miss something? Article says US-Navy built?
This ship is no more Mars capable than my Dad's Buick. It it too much to ask that Reuters get the story straight? I guess newspapers are in so much financial trouble that they have to lie in their headlines to sell copy.
Really, is this the best they can do? Building of 1960's tech?
And this part got me too:
Trips to the moon are scheduled for 2020, while a journey to Mars is believed possible by the mid-2030s.
GUH, wtf happened to our ability to explore space, to do cool stuff, to take damn risks?
For those wanting to have a brief look at it, the BBC have an interview with Alan Rhodes from Nasa, and some video of the craft.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Where is the Fed getting the money?
They PRINT it!
What does that do to the value of the money you currently have in your wallet and the salary you are about to be paid?
It makes it represent a smaller portion of the wealth of the nation!
What does that mean?
You just got taxed!
Thank you for playing! Better luck next time!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
all i can think of is vista-capable.
It is just marketing to make people think they are using pre-existing tech to keep things cheap.
If they came out and said they were working on a shape shifting liquid metal clokeable craft for the Mars mission it would die in five minutes because people would know it would cost a gazillion dollars.
The current path will still cost a gazillion dollars, just not scare the public in to rejecting it before it gets off the ground.
Ha! Since when does the "public" have any say in Government spending?!? The word "bailout" comes to mind, which has scared the shit out of the "public" enough.
I know as much as the next guy that innovations that NASA brings forth will likely create some economic stimulation and jobs, but dusting off capsule drawings and dragging Engineers out of retirement isn't exactly what I had in mind. Don't even get me started as to why we need to visit the red planet...
"Over the summer, flight doctors will analyze the data to ensure it does not make astronauts too queasy."
They're testing a the system for it's performance during an aborted launch and they're worried about the astronauts getting too queasy? If they have to abort a real launch, you would think that a couple of astronauts chucking would be the least of their worries. Survivability I understand, but this is not a theme park ride we're talking about here.
I agree - allow millions of interested, but disconnected eyeballs to scan for things like improper O-ring fitment, valid unit conversions, and validity of trajectory calculations, and you will have a vastly more involved, and better served society for all this galavanting around the solar system.
Maybe someone like Armadillo or Virgin will open up to the concept, and begin a shift.
Single page unbranded link:
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE52T6XH20090330?sp=true
My Babylon
Orion is NOT "Mars-capable".
What Orion is is a souped up Apollo. The only thing it will do in a Mars mission is carry the crew up to the real Mars-capable spacecraft, and bring them back down to Earth when the real Mars-capable spacecraft gets close to earth at the end of the mission.
Orion isn't even "Moon-capable", in that it doesn't (yet) have a Lunar Lander analog to take the crew from Lunar orbit down to the surface and back.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I would also hopes that it builds on some technology from this century, as well as the last.
The real story here is that all of this could have been done in the 1970's. We could have landed humans on Mars 30 years ago. We (for some set of "we") didn't want to. LBJ didn't want to. Nixon didn't want to. Is that all it takes to derail a Democracy - two leaders in a row that are opposed to something ?
It gives me a better appreciation for the travails of Admiral Zheng He and his treasure fleet.
I never understood the idea of the moon test. It not like if they fuck up on the moon vs on mars we have something in place. 'Oh good that irreparable part exploded on the moon, we'll just send.... FUCK'
When Earth becomes completely overpopulated and/or runs into resource shortages, that's when we'll see space flight really take off.
How is that, exactly? Population is governed by compound interest. Our population today is 6.6 billion souls. The current growth rate is 1.167% per annum. (Data via CIA.) Do the math. Today there were 213,000 more souls and 6000 tons more human flesh pressing inward on Mother Earth than yesterday. Tomorrow there will be 213,000 more. The day after - another 213,000. In six months that will be 214,000 per day - six months later, 215,000 per day, and so forth and so on. Less than a year from now there will be another 1.8 million tons of human flesh literally shouldering other species into extinction. That's not 1.8 million tons total - that's just the additional growth of skin and hair and sinew and good red meat locked up in your mama's Soylent Green recipe.
For space to matter in the solution of this problem, we have to build a fleet of ships capable of offloading 213,000 people - a new space fleet every day, year after year - forever. A space shuttle carries a crew of seven - so we need 30,000 space shuttles a day or 35,000 Orions. (Of course, that only gets you to low Earth orbit.) Each year we would have to move 1.8 million tons of human cold cuts - that's the equivalent of 18 Nimitz class aircraft carriers of flesh - to some other distant, unwelcoming world.
And then, of course, you've just shifted the horizon of the always looming catastrophe to a collection of planets rather than a single planet. Since this is a doubling issue, colonizing another planet - say, a terraformed Venus - just buys you an additional 60 years. If you want to push the inevitable collapse of civilization off for 240 years (roughly the duration of the American Experiment to date) - well, you need 15 additional Earth clones.
Our population problem will be solved on Earth - one way or another.
While the trip itself may be possible, this capsule and method of transportation does nothing to protect the travelers from the intense radiation they will be subjected to once they leave the the Earth's protective magnetic field. Even while on the Moon they are still pretty much protected, but between Mars and the Moon they will be absorbing way too much radiation than is healthy. Their risk of cancer upon return will be very high.
There is currently no reasonable solution to this problem as there is no material that can shield them from these effects. A self generated magnetic field might be helpful, but that technology does not currently exist. So we can their bodies there and back, but they won't be returning as healthy as they left.
I'd do the Moon missions, sounds like fun. The trip to Mars I'd gladly leave to someone more adventurous.
Great. Nearly 40 after the Apollo project NASA has to admit they dont have any better technology than the one basicly stolen and derived from german WW2 tech and developed by Wernher von Braun.
Maybe the US and friends shouldnt had outlawed rocket and space research in germany until the late 70. That way there would be a chance we had some decent spaceships by now.
Actually, they won't have too much to do. If a solar flare hits on the way to or from Mars, they will be parachuting in dead astronauts; less of a problem than living people.