Slashdot Mirror
NASA'S Orion Arrives At Kennedy, Work Underway For First Launch
An anonymous reader writes in with news about the arrival of the Orion spacecraft at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center today. "More than 450 guests at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida welcomed the arrival of the agency’s first space-bound Orion spacecraft Monday, marking a major milestone in the construction of the vehicle that will carry astronauts farther into space than ever before. 'Orion’s arrival at Kennedy is an important step in meeting the president’s goal to send humans to an asteroid by 2025 and to Mars in the 2030s,' NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver said. 'As NASA acquires services for delivery of cargo and crew to the International Space Station and other low-Earth destinations from private companies, NASA can concentrate its efforts on building America’s next generation space exploration system to reach destinations for discovery in deep space. Delivery of the first space-bound Orion, coupled with recent successes in commercial spaceflight, is proof this national strategy is working.'"
Here's an alternative article, the linked one appears to be down or /.'d.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2012/07/02/NASAs-Orion-spacecraft-arrives-in-Florida/UPI-87191341254811/?spt=hs&or=sn
...at a non-slashdotted link, no less:
http://www.space.com/16395-orion-space-capsule-nasa-unveiled.html
It's Constellation that was defunded (with the Ares I and Ares V rockets). A replacement rocket (the Space Launch System) was funded instead.
Even though SpaceX is only a candidate for the low-orbit (space station) manned program and Orion is for deep space, I would not be surprised if SpaceX does so well they are considered for deep space too.
We should rename that planet and put an end to such jokes.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
For those keeping score at home:
The Constellation Program developing next-gen human spaceflight was investigated in the early 2000s, and reinvigorated in revised form in 2004, when President Bush endorsed significant spending on manned space exploration.
NASA began developing, as part of that project, a Crew Exploration Vehicle, working on it roughly 2004-2005, somewhat into 2006.
The head of NASA changed in early 2005, and the new head ordered a new study reevaluating NASA's human spaceflight programs.
As part of that study's outcome, the Orion spacecraft was contracted out to Lockheed, starting from 2006.
In 2009, President Obama ordered a new study reevaluating NASA's human spaceflight programs.
As part of that study's outcome, Constellation got the axe in the proposed 2011 budget (released early 2010).
The final version of the budget (late 2010) salvaged some parts of Constellation, spinning much of it off into a cheaper, scaled-down program, of which Orion is a major part, the other major part being the new launch vehicle. All that got going again in 2011.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
She'll make point five past lightspeed. She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
I'm looking at you, Microsoft and NASA.
Unless this thing rides nuclear explosions, it should have its own name.
...was the thought that first came to my mind when I saw it.
So... It takes billions of dollars to essentially make what amounts an upgraded Apollo Command Module or Soyuz Reentry Module?
What's wrong with just using a Soyuz then?
This is their launch-return vehicle, they're obviously not going to sit in something the size of a small minivan for 6 months on the way to Mars or an asteroid (unless its Apophis or something similar). The idea is they take this to orbit, dock with a spacecraft assembled in space, then go to wherever they want to go (eventually). The shuttle was always a boondoggle, the only reason it had the configuration it did was to return things from orbit, which it almost never did. They had to build a much less efficient reentry platform for that purpose, and even when reusable most of the external components weren't. A conical shape like this is very cheap since it's single use, there is no reason you cant salvage internal components if you want either.
The Russians have been using designs like this for over 50 years and their manned space program is TONS cheaper than ours, and you cant say that they cut safety corners to save money since their record over the last 20 years is FAR better.
Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
Deep space travel is fairy tale for the foreseeable future.
Orion is either:
(1) a joke
(2) somebody is fleecing the treasury for funding for as long as nobody raises any alarm.
I'm incline to believe it is #2.
We needed the biggest rocket ever built even to this day (Saturn V) just to get to the moon.
Mars is at least 200x farther away.
While Mars is 200x farther away, in terms of energy costs needed to get there it isn't nearly so bad. By far and away the most "expensive" thing to do in terms of spaceflight is simply getting to low-Earth orbit (LEO), as the Earth's gravity well is nasty, as is trying to fly out of the atmosphere with as little drag as possible.
If you look at the Delta-v budget for getting to Mars compared to the Moon, in theory Mars is "cheaper" (assuming bulk goods and robots moving in Hohmann transfer orbits and other energy saving ways to travel between planets). There are also other propulsion systems like Ion propulsion and VASMR that can make the trip much, much faster and don't require a huge gas tank in order to function (both can operate off of solar cells, RTGs or even nuclear reactors as an energy source, and the thrust going at a measurable fraction of the speed of light thus giving insane looking ISP values). Stuff like that doesn't work in terms of getting people into LEO, but it works just fine in interplanetary space.
The Moon is close enough that such exotic propulsion systems are not really economical for manned spaceflight, thus you need the monster disintegrating pyramid like the Saturn V.
The physical distance may be huge, but it isn't as bad as it would seem, particularly since spacecraft enroute to Mars don't experience drag unlike spacecraft in Star Wars or a motor vehicle traveling cross-country.
No The Constellation program was cancelled. The Orion capsule and the SLS portions were kept.
SLS wasn't necessarily kept, but rather transformed into a make-work project, hence the title of the program commonly called the "Senate Launch System" after the engineers who designed the spacecraft in the upper house of the national legislature in America. I had no idea that Orrin Hatch and Richard Shelby had advanced degrees in aerospace engineering, but they certainly laid down enough requirements that they sure demonstrated that capability.
That rocket sure has all of the hallmarks of being designed by a congressional committee too, where pesky things like physics and mechanical strength are perceived to be as mutable as the U.S. Constitution.
Is the continued commitment to solid fuel rockets. I feel it is very dangerous to put humans on anything that has solid rocket(s), even if they're boosters.
Your comment is strong evidence that everything is relative. The original Orion design called for a nuclear bomb powered spacecraft. Now, what were you saying about solid rocket fuel?
I always thought the name of the Orion capsule was odd given the name history. I can only presume the name was either completely coincidental by a clueless bureaucrat who never studied space history, or it was a deliberate naming choice knowing full well about the earlier program... either to bury that earlier program for good or hint at some future propulsion method.
I'd like to hope it was a clueless suit that never took an aerospace engineering course in their life and got their job as a patronage perk from helping with an election campaign.