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.

32 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Nuclear? by Ruie · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is this the same 'Orion' as the old atomic bomb powered Project Orion?

    No - this is a derivative of the 1960s Apollo capsule. But look at the bright side - all the relevant patents have expired by now.

  2. "builds on 1960s technology to make it safer" by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  3. I'm confused by ChienAndalu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Although similar, it builds on 1960s technology"? While the old one was build on 1860 technology? I don't get it.

    1. Re:I'm confused by vlm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Although similar, it builds on 1960s technology"? While the old one was build on 1860 technology? I don't get it.

      You have to realize these guys are journalists. Its big, and vaguely cylindrical, therefore its "the same technology". Rest assured they aren't using discrete transistors and core memory.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:I'm confused by bloodninja · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, they're replacing the obsolete 1980s technology (shuttles) with modern, 1960s technology. It's progress.

      No, no, Progress is Russian:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_spacecraft

      --
      Lock the wife and the dog in the boot of the car.
      Return one hour later.
      Who's happy to see you?
    3. Re:I'm confused by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed, good example. Although lot of the 1960's stuff wasn't exactly rocket science....for example, the Saturn V's had a problem with instabilities building up on the face of the combustion plate due to the pattern of holes that the fuel/oxidiser was sprayed through. In the end they got a bunch of blank combustion plates and drilled holes at random until they found one that worked without blowing the rocket to smithereens....or at least worked for the eight minutes or so that it took to get to orbit.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    4. Re:I'm confused by rbanffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is really not enough data to attest Apollo spacecraft were much safer than the shuttles. There were less than two dozen Apollo manned launches with one nearly (because the crew got really, really lucky) catastrophic accident and more than a hundred shuttle launches done by a small fleet that went to space a couple times each with two very serious mishaps.

      The best one can do is to extrapolate on data from about a hundred Soyuz missions. Soyuz seems to be slightly safer than shuttle and has in common with the Orion both the 60's tech and the mostly expendable architecture (IIRC, some systems are transferred from a used Soyuz to a new one after being recertified).

    5. Re:I'm confused by mike1086 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No....I think you'll find it *WAS* rocket science.

    6. Re:I'm confused by moogsynth · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed, good example. Although lot of the 1960's stuff wasn't exactly rocket science....for example, the Saturn V's had a problem with instabilities building up on the face of the combustion plate due to the pattern of holes that the fuel/oxidiser was sprayed through. In the end they got a bunch of blank combustion plates and drilled holes at random until they found one that worked without blowing the rocket to smithereens....or at least worked for the eight minutes or so that it took to get to orbit.

      People forget that the Apollo project killed off the much more reasonable X-plane development, one of which by 1962 was already flying at an altitude of sixty miles. Progression to space travel was seen as the logical next step. But when JFK decided "HOLY FUCK WE GOTTA GO TO THE MOON!", and the developers told him it might be possible to do deep space stuff by the seventies, he opted to kill the project and go for Wernher von Braun's batshit insane rockets instead.

    7. Re:I'm confused by Fzz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I agree that overall safety can only be assessed based on a large enough statistical sample, and we don't have that. But there are several known failure modes of the Shuttle that Apollo and Orion either don't have, or have backup safety systems that the Shuttle doesn't have:
      • A launchpad (and post launch) escape system that can pull the re-entry vehicle clear of an exploding launch vehicle.
      • The potential to abort a mission after launch before reaching orbit.
      • Re-entry heat shield is protected from impacts from ice/foam during launch.
      • Re-entry vehicle is statically stable during re-entry.
      • Propellant tanks and fuel for fuel cells stored outside the re-entry vehicle.

      All of these seem to argue in favor of Orion being safer than Shuttle. There are two obvious downsides:

      • Parachutes have potential failure modes shuttle does not have.
      • Re-use has the potential to reduce risks (most of the parts have already been test-flown). There's no way to test-fly a non-reusable vehicle.

      On balance, I tent to like the KISS approach, so favor the capsule. But you're correct; actual safety comes down to how well all the systems are actually designed and implemented. A simpler approach, poorly implemented, is no safer than a complicated approach implemented well.

    8. Re:I'm confused by moogsynth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um, reasonable in what way? It certainly wasn't useful for putting cargo in orbit. The most efficient and practical way (currently) to put anything into space is an engine strapped to gigantic gas tank strapped to a little bit of cargo. Adding additional stuff like wings, landing gears, rudder (and a frame to support it all) only detracts from the amount of cargo you can launch and seems to have negligible reuse benefits as demonstrated by the space shuttle.

      For the X-15 series, you might just be right. But the proposed X-20 was the plane that eventually got the chop. This one had a rocket too, which essentially made it a prototype space shuttle. Reusable. What's more, the Titan rockets they wanted for it had 2.5 million pounds of thrust (11,100,000 force newtons) compared with the Mercury-Atlas' 367,000 (1,600,000). What made them cut the project was that the Atlas rockets were already available whereas the more powerful Titan rockets were still four years away.

  4. Mock-up! by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Hey! I just touched it and this piece fell off!"

    "Hmm... It's... a Mock-up?... Yeah! It's a Mock-up!"

  5. Yeah well. by MrKaos · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I know you'll probably mod me a troll but I have a sinking felling that me and actually many of the people reading slashdot will never see a real push into space by humanity. I really want to remain optimistic about it but for me this whole orion project is like a reminder of where we *could* have been at the completion of the Apollo launchers.

    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.
    1. Re:Yeah well. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Space flight is not going to be a solution to overpopulation for a really long time. The cost of getting something to LEO is around $20,000 per Kg, maybe as low as $4,000 / Kg if you go with something with a fairly high failure rate. The cost with a space elevator would be around $220/Kg, just for the marginal costs, assuming that the magical space pixies built the elevator for free, or closer to $2,000/Kg for the full cost.

      Assume a person plus their life support equipment (no possessions) weighs around 100Kg, and you've got a cost of $200K to get someone into orbit (using wildly optimistic figures based on technology that doesn't exist yet). Getting them to somewhere where they can live, and including the cost of actually building that habitat, is likely to at least double this cost and more likely add another order of magnitude.

      The people who can afford this kind of expense (probably around $2m, more for anything much above subsistence living) are going to be the ones who can already afford a very comfortable life down here. The people who will most want to leave Earth will be the ones who can't afford to.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Yeah well. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Informative

      You know, 3/4 (or 70.1% according to a recent test) of the earth is currently uninhabited. It would be much cheaper to build underwater / on water habitats than dump people in space. But we're not doing it because it's still too expensive. An enormous amount of the human population is living at essentially, baseline survival levels or quite near it. They have no spare cash for anything, including Starbucks.

      I have this sneaky suspicion that the overpopulation of humans will 'take care of itself' before we get any significant population in outer space....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. Re:Nuclear? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Current Unixes (Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Darwin, Solaris, etc.) are also a derivative of 1960s technology. And if we were talking about that, the Unix and most of tne Linux guys, at least, would all be saying "yeah, but it's stable because it's so mature."

    what's the difference then, with a 1960s Apollo-derived capsule, then?

  7. Re:Yes by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

    We'll be at Alpha centuri in a few years, if all goes well.

    Nah, I prefer to win the game by global conquest. It's much more entertaining to pour all of your resources into armies, fleets and aircraft than spaceship components. Those fucking Celts will soon pay for sacking Athens back in 3400 BC, muhahahahahahahahaha.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  8. Princess Leia : by That_Dan_Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

    "You came in that thing?, Youâ(TM)re braver than I thought"

  9. Re:1960s safety? by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well seat belts came in around the late 60's... I think what they mean is the fundamental craft was sound (in the same way that cars are still fairly car-shaped) however they are now adding ABS, Air bags and a musical horn.

    --
    In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
  10. Re:Nuclear? by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

    They were going to name it SpaceShip Colbert, but their plans were ruined.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  11. The prospect of a mars mission by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:How many years have they been working on this? by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good point, yes, obviously making a spacecraft to carry six people to Mars is as simple as just coming up with the idea "make it bigger". It's not like it's rocket science, is it. They should have just read your comment here on Slashdot, we'd be there by now.

    What a waste of those tax dollars, if only we hadn't spent all that money funding NASA this past five years we could have had enough for, I don't know, almost an extra year of war in Iraq ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget ). And it's not like they did anything else with all that money, like Shuttle launches is it.

  13. Re:Nuclear? by noundi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would be the case if they had continued working on that model, but they didn't. So basically you would be saying that Windows is stable because Unix is old, which doesn't add up.

    --
    I am the lawn!
  14. Re:Looks cosy by OolimPhon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Perhaps in the large, cylindrical service module which will be launched by Ares 5 before the crew takes off? The crew capsule is just for earth takeoff and landing. They dock with the rest of the spacecraft in earth orbit before leaving for elsewhere.

  15. Re:How many years have they been working on this? by beejhuff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I (for once) RTFA, and from what I gathered, they've developed this module and updated launcher to provide an effective round trip mechanism for Moon expeditions, where they will practice the operations that will be required when a full scale Mars mission is executed (sometime around between 2020-2030). I think the important point is that NASA is realizing that the shuttle is not an effective mission system for the next generation of Moon missions, which are a pre-req for any future Mars missions.

    To me, this actually sounds like a sober assessment - and one that is long overdue.

    --
    Bryan "BJ" Hoffpauir
  16. This seems misleading by JerryLove · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  17. A little reading, please by stuntpope · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  18. Re:How many years have they been working on this? by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    I'm more worried about my tax dollars - the ones wasted on your education.
     
    In real world engineering, form follows function. Just like the Airbus 380 is basically an enlarged Boeing Dash 80, the Orion is an enlarged Apollo. For both functions there's only so many forms that work, and no particular reason not to choose something proven. This isn't fad and fashion driven product design (like the latest iCoolthing), but something people's lives will depend on.

  19. Re:Looks cosy by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Not sure that I would want to be stuck in that with 5 other people for two years.

    With enough viagra, lube, and toys, a crew of 3 guys + 3 gals might just survive. Exhausted, to be sure, but in pretty good spirits.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  20. Re:Bone mineral loss by stevelinton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except you can keep rotating for free, while constant acceleration using chemical (or even fission) power requires completely insane amounts of fuel.

  21. Re:How many years have they been working on this? by elwinc · · Score: 3, Interesting
    What they don't bother to mention in TFA is that

    * Moon-Mars is basically unfunded. NASA has to steal from other missions just to study Moon-Mars
    * The moon is a lousy steppingstone to Mars. Think about it: to land on a planet with an atmosphere, you can slow down with a parachute. To overcome your delta-V for a moon landing, you need to carry enough fuel to decelerate and to re-launch! If you just skip the moon entirely, you don't have that horribly expensive deceleration phase followed by that expensive acceleration phase.

    Face it, most of the actual science done in space has been done by robots and will continue to be for the forseeable future. Humans in space is not a bad idea, but Bush didn't fund Moon-Mars and it's unlikely to get funded any time in the forseeable future. Personally, I've always thought Moon-Mars was a cynical political ploy to win a slice of the nerd vote. But that's just me.

    --
    --- Often in error; never in doubt!
  22. Re:Bone mineral loss by camperdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One added benefit to the rotational method is that you can gradually alter the rotation so that by the time the astronauts reach Mars, they are acclimatized to its gravity. Same thing on the trip home.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!