Slashdot Mirror


A Look At NASA's Orion Project

An anonymous reader writes "People in north Iowa got a first-hand look at NASA's Orion Project. Contractors with NASA were in Forest City to talk about the new project and show off a model of the new spaceship. NASA has big plans to send humans to an asteroid by 2025. The mission, however, will not be possible without several important components that include yet-to-be-developed technologies, as well as the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Orion spacecraft to fly astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit. In fact, Orion's first flight test later this year will provide NASA with vital data that will be used to design future missions."

30 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Old dreams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I can't help but feel naming the module Orion was a throwback to the system they wish they had built:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

    1. Re:Old dreams by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, if it tries to explode them out its nose, it doesn't go in the right direction.

    2. Re:Old dreams by Cryacin · · Score: 2

      Be one hell of a sneeze.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  2. Re:Speaking of the future... by Xac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know this how? Science fiction?

  3. That's not an Orion... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... this is an Orion.

    Get back to us when you can take a crew of 200 to Mars and back. In a month.

    1. Re:That's not an Orion... by gijoel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An awesomely hilarious demonstration of said Orion pulse drive

  4. A noble effort by NASA, but by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's currently being done in a way that makes in inseparable from the SLS rocket, an out-dated and over-budget project enabled by government inertia and congressional pork. Also, the Orion MPCV itself doesn't represent much of an upgrade over existing manned space capsules; if it's to go anywhere outside of Earth orbit it's going to need a much larger and more complex space habitat attachment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... which has yet to be developed.

    --
    A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    1. Re:A noble effort by NASA, but by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      Well of course it's got to be tied to a project enabled by government inertia and congressional pork. The only way politicians will let the money be spent is when there's tons of jobs spread out over many districts. And of course you know that in two years after the next set of elections the dynamics between the Congress, Senate, and the new President will have changed which will mean a completely new mission for NASA. Which in turn will mean everything that they have been working on will have to be scrapped and they will begin from point zero on their new priorities.

  5. NASA has become small indeed... by xmark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It took 8 years from Kennedy's speech in 1961 to a human on the moon in 1969. Not only did NASA get a moon rocket designed, tested, and launched in that time, it also got an intermediate rocket program (Gemini) designed, tested, and launched prior to the moon program.

    From scratch.

    Now we're looking at (maybe) 11 years to develop a working rocket to go to an asteroid. Oh boy, journey to an, umm, space rock. Really stirs the heart, doesn't it? And this after willingly withdrawing from manned spaceflight capacity altogether for at least six years, and counting. Yep, just folding the cards and walking away from the table.

    Sure, go ahead and tell me how technically challenging the space rock odyssey will be. But the call of space comes from the same place the call of the sea arose from in the past. To Terra Incognita, where "Here Be Dragons." Sorry, there be no dragons around the space rock.

    The technical wizardry missions could and should be handled by robots. Humans should be reserved for missions which stir the soul, or the people who pay for such things (you and me) will stop paying.

    It's hard to think of a better demonstration of how the US used to get things done, and how it does things now, than to compare the space program we had 50 years ago to the current version.

    "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people together to collect wood, and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    1. Re:NASA has become small indeed... by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From SCRATCH?!??!?!

      You mean besides the technological base from WWII and the 1950s Cold War ICBMs, sure, "from scratch"...

      Commence eye roll sequence, eye roll sequence initiated.

      Hold for half an hour.

      "From scratch"... They weren't baking a cake.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    2. Re:NASA has become small indeed... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But in the 1960's NASA was involved in a massive dick waving contest which made them take risks that management today would be scared of even contemplating yet alone taking. If there was the money available we could easily go to Mars within a decade. It would be risky but there would be people willing to take those risks.

    3. Re:NASA has become small indeed... by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Now we're looking at (maybe) 11 years to develop a working rocket to go to an asteroid.

      It's worse than that. There will be no deep-space journey to an asteroid. Instead, a near-Earth asteroid would be selected or a small asteroid will be moved to near-Earth orbit using unmanned robotic craft. The 'manned asteroid mission' will not go any further than the Apollo missions did. And it would not do anything other than just take some samples and bring them back to Earth. Little in-situ science, and definitely no in-situ resource extraction. It really raises the question of why we're sending up humans in the first place.

      There _may_ be deep-space (i.e. anything outside of Earth orbit) missions in the 'future', but they would need big and complex manned spacecraft that have yet to emerge from the drawing board.

      We're not going outside of Earth orbit any time soon, not if we're to rely on NASA.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    4. Re:NASA has become small indeed... by xmark · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I will join you in the eye roll, but directed to your post.

      I assumed anyone reading my OP would understand I was talking about a specific engineering and exploration *project* rolled up from scratch (which is a colloquial term, with the literary license customary for such usage). Take the logic of your post far enough, and I would have to credit Australopithecus for the discovery of fire.

      We all, to paraphrase Newton, stand on the shoulders of giants. So too did the engineers at NASA. This should not require further explanation.

      Meanwhile, judging by the serial explosive failures of the 50s rocket tech you mentioned, and the weak tea served up by Mercury vs. the superior Russian tech, Apollo did not have the kind of technological base you've implied, anyway.

      If you read a good history of the Apollo effort, you'll find that the engineers *desperately* wanted a clean sheet approach. And they got it. Along with a government that cut red tape and cleared the way for them to do what they were there to do.

      Those days are gone.

    5. Re:NASA has become small indeed... by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      It took 8 years from Kennedy's speech in 1961 to a human on the moon in 1969. Not only did NASA get a moon rocket designed, tested, and launched in that time, it also got an intermediate rocket program (Gemini) designed, tested, and launched prior to the moon program.

      From scratch.

      Other than the part about Gemini... you're completely wrong. Development of the F1 engine started in 1956. The J-2 got started in 1959. Engineering studies and development of what would become the Apollo spacecraft and the Saturn V booster were well underway by 1960. There was also a ton of other R&D projects and nascent technologies from NASA and DoD programs then under way. (Apollo relied on chips developed for the DoD and a guidance system borrowed from a SLBM.) That's part of why Kennedy chose the moon landing as a goal over his other options we already had many of the pieces under development.
       
      And you can't discount another critical factor - during the crucial startup period Apollo had a massive budget.
       

      Now we're looking at (maybe) 11 years to develop a working rocket to go to an asteroid.

      Space programs are like women, when you compare a fantasy (your massively romanticized and largely factually incorrect version of Apollo) to reality... it's unsurprising that reality doesn't measure up.
       

      But the call of space comes from the same place the call of the sea arose from in the past. To Terra Incognita, where "Here Be Dragons." Sorry, there be no dragons around the space rock.

      Nope. The call of the sea was "here there be PROFIT".

    6. Re:NASA has become small indeed... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When Kennedy gave that speech, we had all of 15 minutes of manned spaceflight experience from putting a single manned capsule on what was essentially a V-2 rocket imported from Germany. Alan Shepard could have held his breath through most of that flight.

      So yeah, the later Mercury flights, the Gemini flights, and the Apollo program were essentially from scratch.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Re:So depressing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm going to assume you are from the US. So why does the US NEED such a large military? At first glance it only seems to be used for blowing people up in countries that were never a military threat.

  8. They're going to miss the target date by confused+one · · Score: 2

    OMB reviews, independent budget reviews and internal NASA reviews all say that at the current funding rate, the system will not be ready for such a mission for a decade beyond 2025.

  9. Orion is NOT carrying astronauts to Mars by ErnoWindt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is absolutely zero possibility that astronauts are going to be travelling to Mars in Orion which is basically Apollo + 1 extra seat. NASA has been misleading the general public about this for years. Oh yeah, astronauts are going to stay strapped to their seats for 18 months...in a capsule with almost no room to move. Major components of the project - including room to live and move around, along with mild gravity provided by a centrifuge - haven't been even designed yet, let alone price spec'd. No one has any idea how they will work or how they will protect astronauts from radiation from the Sun. I'm betting it's 2100 before we ever get to Mars, at least under NASA.

  10. The one good feature of ARM by gman003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    NASA's vaunted "Asteroid Redirect Mission" is now widely regarded as crap. It doesn't give us any new knowledge, it's not a good intermediate step for human colonization of space, and it's been mismanaged so badly that you could tell me it had been infiltrated by Russians intent on destroying America, and I wouldn't much doubt it.

    But it does have one saving grace: it's our best shot if we ever find an asteroid headed for Earth impact.

    I found this out sort of by accident - I was playing Kerbal Space Program, which has a NASA-sponsored module for doing asteroid redirects. I had a ship designed for that in orbit, and was looking for a good target.

    I found one. On a direct intercept course. About a week out.

    To make things worse, it was at like 80 degrees inclination. To cut a very long story short, I managed to redirect it to aerobrake, then stabilized the orbit so it wouldn't eventually deorbit.

    Now, I fully realize that was a game, and that rocket science is actually a lot more complex than strapping a shitload of boosters to everything (my standard design). But the basic principle remains - something that can redirect an asteroid to enter lunar orbit is also something that can redirect an asteroid off of an impact course.

    I don't know if that fully justifies the program - it's an absurd expense for what we get. On the other hand, what price can we put on avoiding extinction?

    1. Re:The one good feature of ARM by gandhi_2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "what price can we put on avoiding extinction"

      sounds like someone's got a great idea for a kickstarter campaign!

  11. Re:Speaking of the future... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NASA, other than a place for research money to go to die.

    NASA still produces excellent research. PICA heat shield and the FasTrac experimental rocket which SpaceX developed into PICA-X and Merlin 1. HL-20, which became Dreamchaser. Transhab, became Bigelow. And so on.

    It's on the operations side that they suck. Shuttle. ISS. Constellation/Area. SLS. Orion.

    NASA would be an amazing place if you could divert the $3b from SLS/Orion and the $3b from ISS into aerospace research and competitive programs like COTS/Commercial Crew.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  12. Re:So depressing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll preface this by saying I'm a libertarian and we tend to prefer the US government staying within its constitutional bounds. That means none of this post-WWII world police shit.

    That said, most of these other countries where we have bases have "outsourced" their defense to us. When the US is mocked for the insanely high levels of spending on military vs these other countries, don't forget to adjust for the fact that countries allied with us have an artificially low defense budget. Take, for example, the UK. They couldn't even manage to mount an air campaign against Libya without US logistical support. That campaign was against an opponent who couldn't even fight back against their air strikes. There are plethora examples of this if you research it.

    US government foreign policy prefers it this way, because then these other countries are beholden to us if they want to act militarily. It's hegemony.

    I would prefer if we stopped subsidizing the world's defense, returned to operating within our constitutional framework (no standing army, motherfuckers!), and left the rest of the world to sort out their own problems. No one is going to fuck with us; I strongly support retaining our nuclear deterrent.

  13. Re:Speaking of the future... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Funny. I don't recall seeing any Boeing pens last time I was there. I did see a number of pretty attractive female engineers and pilots.

    Maybe Lockheed makes the pens.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  14. Real history is more interesting than the fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    that somebody apparently taught you.

    Werner Von Braun's team of Germans were working for the US Army Ballistic Missile Development organaization in the 1950s where they used their WWII experience with the V2 in conjunction to the experience of their new American colleagues to develop the Redstone and Juno rockets. While Eisenhower was still president in 1958, they began the development of a giant experimental rocket called the "Juno V". The first stage comprised of a Juno rocket body (used as a fuel tank) with 8 redstone bodies clustered around it (half of them used to hold fuel, the others used as oxidizer tanks) with a cluster of Redstone H-1 engines at the bottom. This project was well underway as was construction of launch facilities in Florida (NOT complex 39 yet, rather LC34 and LC37 further south), plans for a liquid hyrdogen-fuelled upperstage, and studies on civilian uses of this rocket (including for possible moon missions) before John F Kennedy even started running for President and before Eisenhower joined with then-Senator Johnson to create NASA.

    When NASA was created from NACA in response to Sputnik, the Von Braun team and their projects, including the Juno V, were transferred to NASA and this rocket was renamed to "Saturn I". John F Kennedy won the 1960 election and was sworn-in in January of 1961. He gave his moon speech to congress in May 1961 (and his famous space speech at Rice University in 1962). The first Saturn I flew from Cape Canaveral in October of 1961 (only 5 months after telling congress he wanted to go to the moon). My point is not to take anything away from Kennedy (he had the singular vision to challenge the nation to aim for the goal, and the managerial wisdom to put the right people in place to get the job done) but rather to say that it actually took more than 8 years to get to the moon... it was actually about 11 years from the time the first work started on the Saturn rockets to the time Neil Armstrong planted his boot.

     

    Incidentally, it has now been a decade since the Columbia broke-up on reentry and the Bush Administration set in motion plans to replace the shuttle with Orion sitting atop an expendable rocket for missions to the Moon and Mars, so it's fair to be upset by the sluggish progress on this retro-future path back to the 1960s

  15. Oink, Oink by Squidlips · · Score: 2

    Manned spaceflight pork and a pointless mission to an asteroid. The money would be much better spent on unmanned robotic probes to Europa and other places of interest.

  16. Re:Thanks for your BS by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    100 years ago you would be correct.

    Federal regulations would not allow that to happen even without the unions today

    I thank the unions for what they did, I loathe the unions for what they currently do. For example the UAW was told to beat it by a factory in the south. Now dont forget the union came in talking about how it respects the worker, and the workers choices...

    well when the workers tell the union to pound sand, they keep pushing for unionization.... Now if the unions actually cared about the worker, they would stand by the workers vote to keep them out, not keep trying to get in (so they can get their cut of course) but no, thats not what the UAW does, the UAW is directly responsible for the collapse of the american auto industry.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  17. Re:So depressing. by the+gnat · · Score: 2

    All the hundreds of bases on foreign soil should be liquidated, and the foreign countries that get those back should start footing the bill for their own defense. Then we'll see how much they want to cry about American expansionist policies and so on.

    In fairness, it's generally not the South Koreans (to pick one obvious example) complaining about American expansionism.

  18. Re:Thanks for your BS by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

    To place all the blame on the union is really a false statement. Corporate America outsourced jobs to make MORE money they do not care 1 ounce for workers as they are just numbers. Or replacing jobs with robots who don't pay tax's don't buy cars don't do anything but make stockholders money we shouldn't blame CEO for raping corporations they never had I ounce of sweat in building. American cars were the best cars in the world up until the day Corporations started buying already made car parts from Communist country's Like China who doesn't give a fuck about Americans period. Are there bad union officials hell ya and there assess should be in jail but they are not the reason for the collapse of our auto industry.1 one people to blame are our elected officials for allowing cooperate America to outsource our tax paying jobs to slave labor communist country's like China.

    An industry that doesn't have the protection laws our UNIONS lost real life's to get. They live in filthy because there government doesn't force company's to provide safe and clean working areas. Something our Unions and Unions workers had fought for to get . Nope lets blame the Unions, that the easy scapegoat to blame. Takes the blame where it really belongs and that is corrupt government officials and greedy corporate America who will sell out an American worker in a heart beat. That is IMO based on everything I've lived through the last 56 years

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  19. Focus on SpaceX by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2

    Frankly, I think NASA should be working with SpaceX to get the DragonRider off the ground as fast as possible and work on the Falcon Heavylift. This is basically a pork project to keep the people who where making the solid rocket boosters in business.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.