Slashdot Mirror


NASA Delays Orion's First Manned Flight Until 2023

The Verge reports that the first manned flight planned for the Orion crew capsule has been delayed, and is now slated to take place in 2023, rather than the previously hoped-for 2021. The delay is based on both budget and design considerations; Bill Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for human exploration at NASA, said at a press conference yesterday that several changes have been made to save weight in the capsule, including reducing the number of panels that make up the craft's cone. The article notes So far, Orion has met most of its major milestones. The spacecraft made its first uncrewed test flight in December 2014. The engineering team also recently demonstrated the Orion could land safely despite the failure of two of its parachutes. NASA hopes to eventually launch the Orion on top of the Space Launch System (SLS) — a giant rocket the space agency is currently building to go beyond lower Earth orbit. The plan is to send astronauts on the Orion to Mars sometime in the 2030s.

115 comments

  1. Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    to go basically nowhere. It's a vacuum, fools, not some mythical "final frontier".

    1. Re:Wow, so much effort by Hydrated+Wombat · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you've never been to a national park to see something amazing? Never, right?

      Well, it's like that, except that I personally would love the opportunity to land on a moon of Saturn, for example.

      I'd like to see that. "The final frontier" is actually a pretty damn good way to explain it.

    3. Re:Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well, it's like that, except that I personally would love the opportunity to land on a moon of Saturn, for example."

      Except it's totally unlike that, which you'd admit if you were intellectually honest.

      "I'd like to see that."

      Ego. Not a "final frontier". Pure, selfish, childish ego.

    4. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, she's married. Get over it already. How can you spend your whole adult life pining about a woman who never, ever liked you to begin with?

    5. Re:Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But NASA *PROMISED* we'd have a man on Mars by 2035! And that was a PINKIE promise, mind you! That shit comes with PENALTIES if you break it!

    6. Re: Wow, so much effort by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Wow, harmless passive-aggressive types sure try to grow a [virtual] pair when they post AC, don't they...

    7. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On other words, the same as every other space-related project. Space is a Republican corporate welfare scam.

    8. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think your fake user name lends any credence or authenticity to your argument, you are pathetically delusional. In fact, your criticism of AC is juvenile and hollow.

    9. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... what?

    10. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please post your full name, address, postal code, city and country. I'll come by for a chat, faggot.

    11. Re:Wow, so much effort by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      Actually if there is a breakthrough with fusion power generation, we'll need a lot of Helium-3 which should be plentiful on the moon.

      If we are to colonize something other than earth, we need the experience of thriving in harsh environments.

      The fact that we cannot detect intelligent life elsewhere in the universe implies a responsibility to spread humanity - an off-site backup if you will...

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    12. Re: Wow, so much effort by sexconker · · Score: 0

      There's an AC troll that goes around posting nothing but anti space shit, typically insulting anyone interested in anything about space by calling them a childish, pie-in-the-sky "space nutter".

    13. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not "anti-space", anti "delusions about space". This simple distinction may be beyond your simple grasp, but it exists nonetheless.

      For example, would you call " I personally would love the opportunity to land on a moon of Saturn", an "interest" in space, or a borderline mental illness?

      An interest in space would be: "let me read the wiki about this, maybe buy a coffee table book, since I know how far away and hostile this really is in actual, practical, reality as framed by real engineering limits that actually exist."

      Thinking Star Trek is going to be real because your hard drive got bigger is ... nuts.

    14. Re:Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Actually if there is a breakthrough with fusion power generation"

      You mean the thing that has very little chance of ever happening, and if it did, we have literal oceans filled with far easier to burn deuterium?? Right here??

      "we'll need a lot of Helium-3 "

      Who's "we"? How do you speak for them? And how does a few parts per billion on a hostile rock do anything for us?

      "implies a responsibility to spread humanity"

      Religious drivel. If you people are so upset about my "anti space shit", maybe you should stop posting delusional shit about space. Space is a vacuum, it's not the salvation of the human race. That's early 20th century Russian Cosmism.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cosmism

      http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/the-holy-cosmos-the-new-religion-of-space-exploration/255136/

      http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/why-not-space/

    15. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your a pseudo intellectual, you post opinion and cute it as evidence for your foolish cynicism.

    16. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't feign ignorance.

    17. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your a pseudo intellectual"

      LOL

      "cute it as evidence "

      LOL to LOL

      " foolish cynicism"

      Or what mindless comic-book optimists call "realism".

    18. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, it's just that the girl he fell for head over hills in high school married an aerospace engineer working at JPL. She not only gave him three kids, but is a very appreciated artist and her space-themed illustrations grace the covers of many Science Fiction books. This was the last straw and sent him over the edge.

    19. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't even remotely funny the first time, and it's not getting any funnier the more you repeat it. Are you an autistic by any chance? OCD?

    20. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that truth hurts, but you have to face it.

    21. Re: Wow, so much effort by jimtheowl · · Score: 1
      "borderline mental illness"

      His statements are perhaps a bit naive, but I think he was trying to express curiosity.

      An interest in space does not have to be passively reading wiki's (or watching television). How would we know anything if we would just passively consume information about what has already been discovered?

      This is all about pushing 'engineering limits'. Call that your final frontier if you want, but putting down people for dreaming higher may just be a defense for justifying doing nothing.

    22. Re:Wow, so much effort by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So you've never been to a national park to see something amazing? Never, right?

      Well, it's like that, except that I personally would love the opportunity to land on a moon of Saturn, for example.

      I'd like to see that. "The final frontier" is actually a pretty damn good way to explain it.

      I think the point is that we shouldn't be spending hundreds of billions of dollars just to allow a bit of space tourism.

      This is not the same thing as saying there is no point to it at all, merely that you need a better justification than that.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an AC troll that goes around posting nothing but anti space shit, typically insulting anyone interested in anything about space by calling them a childish, pie-in-the-sky "space nutter".

      You are all space nutters. Space nutters say moo. MOOOOOO! MOOOOO! Moo space nutters MOOOO! Moo say the space nutters. YOU SPACE NUTTERS!

    24. Re: Wow, so much effort by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Not "anti-space", anti "delusions about space"

      You're overlooking the fact that the majority of slashdotters are binary thinkers.

      So, you're either pro-space or anti-space.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    25. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "An interest in space does not have to be passively reading wiki's (or watching television). "

      What else could it ever be for the vast majority of human beings? Seriously?

    26. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno about the other AC but I have a keen interest in space. I just don't care about sending humans places without a clear goal. As of right now space exploration is for robots and humans need a lot more R&D and practical near earth experience.

    27. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as you face that the sci-fi you gobbled as a kid was just daydreams, and not a thousand year plan for the human race.

      There won't be warp drives, or Mars colonies, or O'Neill habitats, or Ringworlds, or transporters, or replicators, or asteroid mining, or hundreds of weird alien races just waiting for us to show them this Earth thing called kissing.

      That's a truth you have to face. And it's real, as opposed to your embarrassingly stupid "joke".

    28. Re: Wow, so much effort by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      In their defense, there is a lot of space nutters around here.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    29. Re: Wow, so much effort by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      I like this new Mooo meme. Its a lot more polite than frosty piss.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    30. Re:Wow, so much effort by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Oh god. There is hardly any He3 on the moon. It is in the parts per *billion* range and a mine to run just one power station would be the biggest mining operation of ever. On top of that, He3 fusion is *way way way* harder than DT or even DD fusion. And with DD fusion you get He3 ash. It would still be cheaper just to breed He3.

      If He3 is the best reason you can come up with to go to the moon. You have no reason to ever go to the moon.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    31. Re:Wow, so much effort by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

      I can't really argue the point because I have not personally tested lunar samples or performed fusion experiments.

      That said, I have read *many* articles in popular press concerning the relative abundance of lunar He3 and its benefits as a fuel. E.g. http://www.extremetech.com/ext...

      I'll take your points and these articles with a grain of salt.

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    32. Re: Wow, so much effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Today not many people go to space, but in 20-50 years it will be just another touristic destination (at first for wealthy, then for common folks).

      Well that is if we take sustainable approach to space and not just do another Apollo type stunt and forget about space for few more decades..

      I personally believe that in the future (maybe 100 years or so) pretty much all food will be grown in space instead on planets or moons. In space you can have sun 24/7, have same temperature year round, no sudden droughts or freeze, no pests, no deceases (and if some appear it very unlikely to affect neighbours 'farm', and more space to grow anything we want that we can use in thousands of years), manipulations of gravity (through centrifugal forces) may help improve quality or quantity of grown food as well.

      I realise that at the moment it is easier to get all those benefits on Earth much cheaper and easier (through closed farms with conditioners and artificial light), but it will not always be this way. Eventually space travel will not be much different (in price or comfort) from taking a train or a plain.

  2. Do these dates work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "rather than the previously hoped-for 2010."

    8^)

    1. Re:Do these dates work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They never really did fix Y2K

      What do we got, 21 years till the big one, right?

    2. Re:Do these dates work? by willworkforbeer · · Score: 2

      Still hoping for a 2010 launch date... there's your problem right there.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  3. What's up with the fake link? by mark-t · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know how many times I tried to click on it before I finally realized that it was just some text surrounded by otherwise empty tags

    1. Re:What's up with the fake link? by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Maybe they were going to fill in the URL later and forgot? It's not like the Slashdot editors are going to verify the links are working...

      Anyway, there is a good bit of information about the Orion spacecraft on NASA's official page.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:What's up with the fake link? by Megane · · Score: 1

      NASA plans to fill in the URL for that link by 2023.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  4. Meta-delay unavoidable, please delay discussion by Hydrated+Wombat · · Score: 1

    ... is now slated to take place in 2023, rather than the previously hoped-for 2010...
    We regret to inform you that the delay announcement has been delayed as well.

    1. Re:Meta-delay unavoidable, please delay discussion by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Those guys have been stuck in that capsule a long time waiting for the "go - no go" decision. Hope they didn't have to pee when they got in.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Meta-delay unavoidable, please delay discussion by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Let 'em do what Al Shepard did.... pee in their suits.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Meta-delay unavoidable, please delay discussion by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      ... is now slated to take place in 2023, rather than the previously hoped-for 2010...

      NASA also announced, that those responsible for the delay, have been sacked.

      We regret to inform you that the delay announcement has been delayed as well.

      NASA further announced, that those responsible for the delayed delay announcement, have also been sacked.

      Rumor has it that next week, NASA will announce, that those responsible for the sacking, will be sacked.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Meta-delay unavoidable, please delay discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for NASA. My branch supports Orion heavily, mostly in the area of heat shield design, thermal analysis, and everything parachutes.

      We have a meeting today at 4PM. I had thought it would be the announcement of our new branch chief position. I had not considered the possibility that it would to inform the entire branch that is has been fired.

    5. Re:Meta-delay unavoidable, please delay discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is just sacking, and llamas, all the way down.

    6. Re:Meta-delay unavoidable, please delay discussion by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "I had not considered the possibility that it would to inform the entire branch that is has been fired."

      What!? Why the hell are you doing working on the heat shield design, then?

  5. Kickstarter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Where's the Kickstarter link?

  6. I think they missed that "Use before" date by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    2010 eh?

    Proofreading - it's not just for college papers.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    1. Re:I think they missed that "Use before" date by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      Evidence says otherwise

    2. Re:I think they missed that "Use before" date by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Metric.

  7. I think we knew it wasn't going to be 2010 by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    >> slated to take place in 2023, rather than the previously hoped-for 2010

    I think we knew it wasn't going to be 2010...

    1. Re:I think we knew it wasn't going to be 2010 by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's breaking news on Slashdot.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:I think we knew it wasn't going to be 2010 by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      I think we knew it wasn't going to be 2010..

      That was in the alternate timeline when the Nazis developed the atomic bomb first...

  8. The logical and peaceful choice it was. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > NASA Delays Orion's First Manned Flight Until 2023

    Thank you and please continue to cancel it outright! The last thing mankind needs is to pollute the celestial firmament with nuclear bomb explosions fallout and have us punished by advanced alien civilizations for such sheeniganship. Even GT999 steam is better than Project Orion.

    1. Re:The logical and peaceful choice it was. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The Galaxy is on Orion's Belt!

      https://www.pinterest.com/pin/...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re:The logical and peaceful choice it was. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Egg's on Coren22's face http://interviews.slashdot.org...

  9. space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 2

    So the only reason any organization ever does anything is because they'd suffer negative consequences if they don't do it. If a company doesn't do anything, they go out of business. A government agency can embarrass the elected officials in charge, so that the higher-ups get fired and replaced.

    None of that is likely to happen to NASA. No administration since Nixon has given half a squat about our space program. Half of the taxpayers are so short-sighted that they don't see any good reason to ever bother exploring the other 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe when we could instead use that money to increase their Social Security benefits by 0.001%.

    The date will slip again, and keep slipping, until some future administration axes the program, or until some bookkeeping snafu accidentally allows some team of engineers to be left alone long enough to actually engineer something.

    The only reason that they didn't push the "deadline" back to 2050 in this announcement is that they're trying to boil a frog. The frog, in this example, is us.

    1. Re:space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half of the taxpayers probably believe NASA is a quarter of the federal budget, or more.

      So maybe there needs to be some consequences to people's conceptualization of government spending.

    2. Re:space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      What percentage could name a single astronaut or list one advancement in the last 25 years outside of the Mars landers? I'd bet a majority have already forgotten about Pluto.

    3. Re:space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by Megane · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what an "administration" thinks about space anyhow. All the President can do is cheerleading. It's our legislative branch that keeps underfunding NASA, making sure that what funds they do provide are mostly earmarked to ensure that they go to the appropriate pork projects. Projects such as the Senate Launch System, which still lacks any real mission after it (someday) goes up for the first crewed test flight.

      Right now the only purpose of SLS is to build SLS.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by Mariner28 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what an "administration" thinks about space anyhow. All the President can do is cheerleading. It's our legislative branch that keeps underfunding NASA, making sure that what funds they do provide are mostly earmarked to ensure that they go to the appropriate pork projects. Projects such as the Senate Launch System , which still lacks any real mission after it (someday) goes up for the first crewed test flight.

      Right now the only purpose of SLS is to build SLS.

      Great Freudian slip there!

      --
      "A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
    5. Re:space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by sexconker · · Score: 0

      What meaningful astronaut or advancement has there been in the last 25 years?

    6. Re: space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are science missions so it's no surprise when mouthbreathers like you don't understand the value, and are ignored.

    7. Re: space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      OR...until it gets done privately.

    8. Re:space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of stuff going on with astronauts in the ISS. As far as advancements, the current Mars rovers are amazing, as well as other probes.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re: space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by sexconker · · Score: 0

      So... you can't answer the question. That's what I thought.

      I'm all for space, but let's be real - we hit a brick wall the instant we landed on the moon.
      The most significant thing to come after that would be GPS, and that was in the late 70s.

      We have no solid plan for going to Mars, we have no intention of doing more lunar missions, and our best attempt at a colony / biodome is a tin can floating in the upper atmosphere. We're not mining comets, commercial space ventures are still fledglings at best, and NASA has been retooled to be the world's most expensive weather service in order to further a political position.

      The public lost interest in space because we stopped doing interesting things. People don't give a shit if NASA's big news of the day is sending a tweet from the ISS or yet another repeat of watching how spiders spin webs in ultra low gravity. We don't have heavy lift, we don't have a shuttle, we don't have a crew-carrying ship worthy of getting to another planet (or even the moon), etc. We don't have anything that comes anywhere near as close to our crowning achievement from from 46 years ago.

    10. Re:space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      No administration since Nixon has given half a squat about our space program.

      Arguably no Administration ever has cared about the space program. The cared about about beating Rooskies, and the space program was a means to that end - but no more.

    11. Re: space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And thank fuck for not having the useless shuttle money pit. It doesn't exceed at anything but capturing spy sats.

    12. Re:space camp is neither space nor camp; discuss by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Citation required. they have done sweet fuck all in 10 years. Real scientist lose their jobs with that kind of publication record.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  10. Dragon by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Luckily, Dragon will be flying a bit sooner.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re: Dragon by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Not if the neo-cons in CONgress get their way.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Dragon by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      In NASA's defense, Orion is designed for missions away from Earth and Dragon is for LEO. While Orion will be tested in Earth orbit, so were Apollo components and I don't see that as a bad thing.

      Dragon is great and I think SpaceX will get pretty good mileage out of it, both manned and unmanned. I think having a private way to get people into orbit will also help other companies like Bigelow.

      Orion and Dragon have different design parameters. Orion is designed to pretty much go anywhere and will be expensive because of it. Dragon is designed to go to LEO as inexpensively as possible. Both of these are good things.

    3. Re:Dragon by Macrat · · Score: 1

      Orion and Dragon have different design parameters..

      Space X will likely already be flying a "deep space" Dragon long before Orion sees an orbital launch.

    4. Re:Dragon by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Why? Where's the money in it--at least before 2023?

  11. Perptually moving goalposts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the pursuit of 'perfection' will lead to an F-35 style mess.

    Just launch something already.

  12. Just for scale by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    So...
    In the 1960s we could take basically an untried technology and build it (from C-1 to C5), deploy it, and use it for a lunar shot in https://xkcd.com/1133/ (up-goer five)

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Just for scale by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Who needs space exploration when you have ubiquitous hi-speed internet, Facebook, Netflix and pizza delivering drones? You're living in the past!

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:Just for scale by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      ...and /.'s fine, modern comment system deleted the statemnt between the word "shot" and the xkcd reference:

      "...while in the 2000s, we announce a project in 2004 to essentially re-build (but update) 40-year-old tech, and the first manned flight isn't for 19 years"

      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:Just for scale by Coren22 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Imagine what NASA could do with the money from one less F-35.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    4. Re:Just for scale by questionableswami · · Score: 2

      Orion: 10 years and counting (from original Constellation announcement), 1 uncrewed sub-orbital launch, approx. 8 years to the first crewed launch. 18 years from announcement to crewed launch.

      The entire Apollo program: 9 years, including 6 lunar landings, 9 total lunar missions, 2 crewed orbital, 10 uncrewed orbital, 6 uncrewed sub-orbital. Also 1 catastrophic event/delay and 1 near catastrophic event which was saved by the ingenuity/resolve of the engineers.

      I miss the 1960s NASA (except for the catastrophes of course).

    5. Re:Just for scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to the sheer amount of money the Apollo-era NASA had, the time crunch meant they were willing to take more risks to be first. Plus, the tools to do as much analysis as we do now simply didn't exist--your cell phone has more FLOPs power than all the computing power available to NASA in the 1960s.

      Plus, there's a been a dramatic shift in public opinion since then. Now people get up in arms over failures and there's a Congressional investigation whenever anything goes wrong. It's better to spend 6 months doing paranoid-level analysis than make a mistake and bear Congress sticking its nose into things---that will add far, far, far more than 6 months to the milestone.

    6. Re:Just for scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that the big aerospace contractors have further refined their techniques since the 1960s to extract money from the federal government indefinitely on a single project without showing much progress. See also: F-35.

    7. Re:Just for scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. The reason is simple: there were few engineers and many technicians. The engineers from the 1960s were more like physicists or scientists of today. The engineers of today are like technicians from the 1960s.

      Basically, university is the problem.

    8. Re:Just for scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you should use the fine, modern Preview feature to ensure that you haven't botched your tags.

    9. Re:Just for scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, the tools to do as much analysis as we do now simply didn't exist--your cell phone has more FLOPs power than all the computing power available to NASA in the 1960s.

      That, plus the experience we've gained since the early 1960s, means we should be able to do it faster, not slower, even despite the reduced funding. The private space businesses are certainly proving this to be the case.

    10. Re:Just for scale by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      In the 1960s the space race was a proxy for a hot war between the US and the USSR so both nations put loads of money and expertise in their programs. Plus the programs were something to rally the citizens around. Today there isn't a space race, at least nowhere near in the intensity. Most of the nations are co-operating with the ISS. There's a bit of a race towards the moon and another one for Mars but they are all out far in the future. Sending people into orbit is fairly routine so that the average person doesn't follow it anymore. It's big news when the first person of a particular country goes up or something goes wrong. Other than that manned missions to the ISS don't make the front page of the news.

      So, other than a small group of enthusiasts, there is little pressure for the politicians to put a big emphasis and much funding on space exploration. For the most part they see it as a way to deliver jobs to their ridings. And because there isn't a big push on you are only getting the people that are really interested in space going into the field. Even then some people who could go into the field don't because they don't see a future in it. That was the cases for me. When I went to university was around the time there were a lot of layoffs in the aerospace sector in Canada so I went into computer science instead.

    11. Re: Just for scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. With all the layoff in computer-related jobs, it's time for a career change. Computers are dead.

    12. Re:Just for scale by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "the experience we've gained since the early 1960s, means we should be able to do it faster, not slower, even despite the reduced funding. The private space businesses are certainly proving this to be the case."

      You know going to space is quite a logarithmical problem, right? And private space business has demonstrated up to now their ability to do *some* parts of the *easiest* part, right?

  13. better break out the trampoline again boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no doubt they will push that date back to!

  14. the PORK must flow! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Well there's why it's taking so long, they've got to wait for the time machine specified in the design to be invented .

    Congress : "You're getting pork! And you're getting pork! And you're getting pork! EVERYBODY'S getting PORK!"
    "Sorry, no spaceship for you... we can't afford that."

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  15. And yet they hate CCDev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet some fools in Congress continue to push for Commercial Crewed Services to be defunded when they would probably be flying crews by now had the program been given the paltry funding they initially requested (about $800 Million a year). That funding is starting to come up to the requested levels, probably because of SLS's failures, but for the first 3 years they were basically running on half of the requested budget.

    1. Re:And yet they hate CCDev by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      You seem to be under the misapprehension that Orion is something to do with sending astronauts into space.

  16. The space race .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... has devolved into a special Olympics. With the SpaceX Dragon capsule nearing the finish line. While Lockheed/Boeing are still sitting in the starting blocks, drooling on their shoes.

    But Orion will get their medal too. Because the differently-abled have feelings too.

  17. Fantasy Spaceflight League by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Orion first made an uncrewed test flight in 2014. They hope to make the first crewed flight by 2023.

    And then send a crew to mars in the 2030s.

    Really? 9 years to go from test to *first* manned flight, then 7-17 years to a manned Mars mission?

    They just make this up over Starbucks?

    A Dragon will go to Mars before Orion at this pace. Any living Apollo engineers must be gagging on such progress. Let them get their slide rules out and build this with an Android smartphone for a computer and two trips on a Saturn V. Sheesh. We are losing the ability to do big things.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Fantasy Spaceflight League by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We won't necessarily land on Mars in the 2030s. A mission to Phobos and/or Deimos is a more likely first step -- no need for a massive lander and return vehicle, since the entire habitat can just sidle up to the rock. I saw some presentation suggesting 2037 as the goal for that first mission, and then to Mars surface in 204X.

    2. Re:Fantasy Spaceflight League by Megane · · Score: 1

      The primary mission of SLS is not to get humans into space. It is to funnel taxpayer money into various states and congressional districts.

      Delaying the manned launch increases the duration of the porkbux flow. Mission accomplished!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Fantasy Spaceflight League by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Can I join your fantasy spaceflight league? I'm drafting Mark Watney and EmDrive.

    4. Re:Fantasy Spaceflight League by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA is pathetic, still aspiring to go places on chemical boosters. This is the result of supporting mediocre candidates who make mediocre decisions and never aspire to do anything extraordinary - government workers.

    5. Re:Fantasy Spaceflight League by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      Hate to say it, but you're absolutely right.

      Why on earth is NASA even allocating money towards a "crewed" module? On a supposed mission to Mars, you're not going to sit in the same seat for 8-12 months. The module concept made sense when it was a race to put SPAM around the moon. And the slashdot peanut gallery is right; Dragon is going to beat out the Orion module by years. NASA may as well kill this component of the program.

      The two real challenges to a manned Mars mission will be to deliver a manned team as quickly as possible (and will probably require a genuine ion thrust engine and/or nuclear detonation propulsion), and to keep them alive long enough to survive the return trip. There's plenty of expenses there to drive the pork barrel; making a redundant, obsolete module design is just a waste of money.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    6. Re:Fantasy Spaceflight League by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1

      > This is the result of supporting mediocre candidates who make mediocre decisions and never aspire to do anything extraordinary - government workers.

      As opposed to funding the cream of private sector talent, who still have accomplished... almost nothing. Even Elon Musk is only duplicating what was done back in the 1960's.

      And your limited mentality is ignoring the actual culprits for this failure: politicians, not the government workers. Back when Apollo was in full swing, the only thing NASA government workers did was run the launch facility. The rocket designs were contracted out to commercial companies. Perhaps there were gummint engineers involved with the module & lander, but even then I bet most of it was contracted out to aerospace companies.

      The solution is not dismantling NASA (although it may help some areas). The solution is firing politicians until you get a set who understand they're only supposed to be contracting out commercial companies for the hard work, and award a multi-billion dollar bounty upon the company that gets it done. It may result in more astronaut deaths; but everyone is committed towards getting it done, rather than leaving it to NASA to figure out how to get it done.

      --
      There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
    7. Re:Fantasy Spaceflight League by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yup. I think the Mars mission will have to be a special ship (rather like the one in Astronaut), probably constructed in orbit.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  18. Inspiration by Chris+L.+Mason · · Score: 2

    They were obviously so inspired by the movie The Martian, they thought they could go back in time and get the program launched a few years ago. Give them some more time and they might just pull it off. :)

  19. How many years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So from Kennedy asking Congress to commit to putting a man on the Moon and returning him to Earth (25 May, 1961) to Armstrong's "one small step" on 20 July 1969, was just over eight years. That required designing and building an entire infrastructure and two generations of spacecraft. Now NASA wants nine years to go from an already test flown vehicle to the first baby steps manned flight of said vehicle.

    NASA, the "no output division" of manned space, where old bureaucrats and obsolete engineers go to die.

  20. Not Delayed, Just Projected To Be. by solartear · · Score: 1

    EM-1 is not actually delayed to 2023 yet. Just expecting it will be eventually because usually these projects have unforeseen delays. Currently they are still working to do 2021.

  21. Surprise! The summary sucks... by bledri · · Score: 2
    1. The goal is still 2021.
    2. The summary's original target of 2010 is a reflection on Slashdot, not NASA.
    3. The projected, potential slip from 2021 to 2023 is to account for budget uncertainties.
    4. The President (evil democrat at the moment) always proposes funding commercial crew (which gives competitive bids to private companies to solve the problem as they see fit) to return LEO launch capabilities ASAP.
    5. A congressional committee (mix of evil democrats and slightly more evil republicans) always moves funding from commercial crew to SLS/Orion (deep space/exploration built with multiple contractors based in their congressional districts as a way to "spread the wealth.")
    6. Too be fair, there are evil congressmen that support commercial crew and evil congressmen that oppose all spaceflight. But the evil congressmen with the most influence on the relevant committees currently prefer the wealth is spread to their own districts which sadly are not commercial space hotbeds.

    Yes, I am biased, I like commercial crew and I like having more than one commercial crew provider because I think it leads to a more sustainable future in spaceflight. That said, I'm OK with big long range government programs in theory. Unfortunately it's virtually impossible to do sustained government projects (like put humans on Mars) because the people that fund those projects have to worry more about where the money is spent rather than the actual outcome of the project. And the person that chooses the project changes every 4 or 8 years and usually doesn't want to look like they support anything the last guy did. Meanwhile the guy(s) that decide where the money goes hang around forever, so the money goes to the same people, just for a moving target of a goal. Which is why we are going back to the Moon, no Mars, I mean capturing an asteroid but still giving lip service to Mars, but not really. Or something like that.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  22. So.... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    The ISS will de-orbit by the time Orion flies.

    We'll be hitching ride with the Russians for the next 20 years (trust me on that, the timeframe will be pushed back even further). Of course that assumes we're not at war with the Russians by that point.

    Meanwhile; corporate, privately-funded access to space will be ahead of NASA... While it may take 30 more years, space-X or virgin galactic will have a re-usable SSTO craft by that time.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:So.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We won't have to rely on Russians that long. I have faith in private space companies.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:So.... by bledri · · Score: 1

      The ISS will de-orbit by the time Orion flies.

      We'll be hitching ride with the Russians for the next 20 years (trust me on that, the timeframe will be pushed back even further). Of course that assumes we're not at war with the Russians by that point.

      Meanwhile; corporate, privately-funded access to space will be ahead of NASA... While it may take 30 more years, space-X or virgin galactic will have a re-usable SSTO craft by that time.

      SLS/Orion's primary mission is deep space not LEO. But SLS/Orion tends to take money from Commercial Crew (which is the set of contracts for LEO human space flight.) SpaceX's Dragon/F9 and Boeing's Starliner/Atlas will be flying astronauts to ISS in 2017 (or 2018 if Congress keeps syphoning money from Commercial Crew to SLS).

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    3. Re:So.... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      We won't have to rely on Russians that long. I have faith in private space companies.

      I'd love to see the business plan of the company that wants to land a few astronauts on Mars.

      Apart from the sale of TV rights, I don't see there being much on the "cash inflows" line.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:So.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't have confidence in that. However, if Musk wants Space-X to go to Mars, he's got to make sure he's got relatively low-cost ways to get people and stuff to low earth orbit. As far as getting to LEO goes, he's doing what I want him to do, and he's got a business plan.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  23. P A T H E T I C by transfire · · Score: 1

    Time to shit can the whole thing and put Musk and Bezos in charge.

  24. I think they got that wrong, it's it... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    "the Orion crew capsule has been delayed, and is now slated to launch ... " at Infinity and Beyond!

  25. Hopeless by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    If we don't wipe out Islam, civilization won't last long enough to escape this solar system.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    1. Re:Hopeless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It won't matter who or what you wipe out, it's not physically possible. And what kind of mentality thinks we need to "escape" this solar system?

      Seriously. Grow up, stop the paranoid misanthropy, and get a grip.