U.S. unveils Orion spacecraft to take crew to Mars

Yahoo News ^ | 03/30/09

[mamelukesabre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-g_Y0UCxmg

[GonzoGOP]

It’s too limited in utility

My issue is that it is designed to do too many things, and is unlikely to do any of them well. A moon ship is going to have an inefficient shape for carting stuff up to the ISS or some other orbital facility.

A mars ship needs to be stored, in space, for years and then start up first try with no errors. This tends to require systems so simple that they can't fail. But those same systems are mass inefficient in a ship just designed for Orbital or Moon missions where the ship can be kept active the entire time, or where the crew has the option of an emergency return home.

NASA needs to decide what it wants to do, then bill ships to do those jobs. If we are just going to truck stuff up to the ISS then a reusable makes sense. Mars shots are going to be a rare bird, if they happen at all with the current state of the economy. So an expendable ship built with a shape for high speed reentry, and with systems so simple it can't fail is probably best for that mission.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Too damn bad it's not the original concept of an Orion nuke powered spacecraft. We would be getting out there a hell of a lot faster."

Can you imagine what the nimbys and greenis and bananas would do if Nasa anounced it was putting a nuclear reactor on the pad in Florida to launch into space?

Gah what a mess that would be.

[mamelukesabre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wiSWhPzdl8

[papasmurf]

You see, I fell into the trap of thinking too conventionally. I was thinking of a “one size fits all” vehicle. My bad. The thought that it could be stored, and that we might need a separate vehicle for the different types of missions, never entered my mind.

And I call myself a creative thinker...pfftt!

[Moonman62]

It’s too limited in utility. I know this great Country of ours can do better. This is just the “path of least resistance” answer to a temporary problem

Another one of W's great ideas. /s We can put it up there with ethanol and amnesty.

[AFreeBird]

They're gonna spend how long in that little thing to go to Mars and back? Sure Apollo worked for a half million mile round trip to the moon, but to Mars!

[Names Ash Housewares]

“Very unimpressive. It looks like it’s 1960, all over again.”

yes and no.

Try to remember exactly what this is all about.

Return to moon, to stay, and go beyond.

The Orion capsule enables missions beyond low earth orbit.

It will dock with a new larger lunar lander launched to orbit on another large rocket. Then head for the moon.

Orion will also visit space station.

There are ideas also to visit asteroids.

And eventually perhaps in our lifetime, we will see a Mars mission using some of this hardware you see today.

[Moonman62]

Very unimpressive. It looks like it's 1960, all over again.

One giant backwards leap for mankind. Thanks W.

[b4its2late]

Funding? Cut so we can give the money to illegals!

[GonzoGOP]

It makes me unpopular, but I don't think we should be thinking about Mars until we have the political will to build nukes is space. Chemical rockets are too slow and too mass limited. Just try running a PC in a non-teperature controlled garage for two years. No way it is going to keep working, but this ship has to do just that. Take a lawnmower, hardly a delicate piece of high technology, fuel it up and let it sit for two years and then try to start it. That is exactly what Orion needs to do. After a year in space a person looses 15% of their bone mass even if they exercise for two hours each day. The crew will be up there for more than twice that long. Will they be incapacitated by the 3g or more shock of reentry?

Build something like the NERVA and you can cut the time in half, and have enough spare mass to spin up the ship for gravity. Also being a bigger ship you can carry more spare parts. Heck the old 1950's Project Orion was talking about throwing a ship the size of a destroyer to mars in only 90 days. It played heck with launch facilities, but sit on an A- Bomb and pull the trigger and you are definitely going someplace in one heck of a hurry. And you actually took less rads then with a chemical powered ship because it had enough spare mass for a proper solar storm shelter.

[united1000]

That was a good movie.

[GeronL]

isn’t it a bit small for a Mars mission? I guess they would add modules for that?

[GeronL]

Our motto should be “Go Farther”

[Frank_Discussion]

The Orion is the head of the assembled spacecraft for Mars missions, and will not substantially change.

[Frank_Discussion]

Much Bigger.

Carries 6 crew instead of 3.

Reuasable, at least to an extent.

Goes to multiple destinations.

No, not 1960, not even 1969.

It WILL get the job done, and capably too.

[Frank_Discussion]

You really don’t knwo what you’re talking about. Moonman or not.

People just keep FREEKING OUT that it doesn’t look like the Millenium Falcon, and what is not understood is the developmental leaps being taken in the guts of the design. Mainly in longevity and internal crew accomodation, but there is a lot of good in this spacecraft.

The gumdrop shape is very efficient, so it is being used again. It is also safer than launching a lifting body with boosters and megatons of fuel slung alongside. Just because the shape is a familiar one doesn’t mean it can’t meet the missions asked of it, or that it is retro in ALL ways.

[Frank_Discussion]

For the love o’ pete, Please, PLEASE, go look at the mission profiles for the Constellation program. The ORion spacecraft is only part of the system. One thing ISS has taught us is that building spacecraft IN SPACE is not only feasable, but works rather well.

The Moon Missions will have Orion as a Command Module, and Altair as the lander. The Mars Missions will have Orion as a Command Module, and other items as part of a larger spacecraft complex, including interplanetary propulsion and Mars Landers, and habitation sections.

[papasmurf]

It doesn’t make you unpopular with me. I’m pro nuke. I think every neighborhood should have it’s own nuke power station. Problem is, when that is mentioned, people invariably think of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, which was notable mostly for Jimmy Carter, the China Syndrome, and a few inept officials, as no one died, and no link to any Cancer caused deaths has ever been established.

Now, we rank 17th in nuke energy produced, even though we consume the most.

Sad.

[anymouse]

The U.S. Navy-built Orion crew exploration vehicle will replace the space shuttle NASA plans to retire in 2010, and become the cornerstone of the agency's Constellation Program to explore the moon, Mars and beyond.

Apparenly Rooters doesn't know the difference between the Navy and NASA. Unless Zero has secretly got the Navy in the business of building spacecraft.