Celestia Forums

I almost don??t believe that the ship that will replace the space shuttle will be simply a capsule and not a true spaceship.How NASA can spend so much money in this Trash thing?
Nasa will accomodate and will not realize until it??s too late that we need a big and fast spaceship to go to Mars,something that US agency is not planning yet.
The Orion crew return vehicle is SO BAD,that the trip to the Moon will take the same amount of time as 1969,unbelieveable 4 days.
It??s sad that the REAL ORION spaceship,moved by nuclear fission and the only one that deserves this name,was completelly abandoned...
Look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... propulsion)

Have you even bothered to read up on the proposed specs of Orion, or did you just look at the pictures? They're not looking to create a Trekish spaceship, Daniel, they're looking to build a ship that can get the job done, that is reliable, and which will not be horrifically outdated by the time that the first one rolls off of the assembly line. The shuttle fleet itself is slowly falling apart, simply because it is *old*. The Orion project supplies us with an equitable replacement, one that is, in fact, superior in many ways. So what if it takes for days to get to the Moon? The point is, it can make it there, and with a reasonable amount of reliability.

The old Project Orion you quote was never anything more than a pipe dream, anyway, and in no way even remotely comparable to what we need now, which is a vessel capable of CisLunar travel. Forget Mars, forget the stars. We need to get comfortable traveling in our backyard before we decide to head over to the next city.

I'm sorry if this is a rather snippy post, but such blasts of yours, coming out of left field as they so often do, is really quite aggravating, not to mention downright trollish.

...John...

Dollan wrote: The shuttle fleet itself is slowly falling apart, simply because it is *old*.

Like every time you step on board one of those 70's era DC-9s that some carriers still use. Always freaks me out a bit...

I too was a bit disappointed to see the direction taken with Orion... but, Dollan is correct with regard to cost effectivness and its ability to fullfill current requirements as far as trekking about in our own backyard is concerned. We've much to yet master in this respect.

What disappoints me more though, is the apparent attitude I've seen most recently on national TV with regard to the worthyness of retaining NASA. The argument being, we're spending too much and not learning enough for the buck spent. It just figures doesn't it. These are likely the same people who'd like to turn NASA over to the tourisim industry... what the hell, $20 million buys you a ride into space now as a tourist, and in time (just like airline fares) I'm sure that will drop in price too. So tell me - what can our latest space tourist teach me?

Unfortunitly, there are too many people out there in the US who think money should be spent elsewhere or just don't care. What is needed is for some probe to detect gold or diamonds, etc in insane amounts on some asteroid or moon. Then watch how fast we get out there.

cartrite wrote:Unfortunitly, there are too many people out there in the US who think money should be spent elsewhere or just don't care. What is needed is for some probe to detect gold or diamonds, etc in insane amounts on some asteroid or moon. Then watch how fast we get out there.

Oh, we know that there's gold in them thar rocks . I doubt that would actually get people out there though. What's going to get people into space is either (a) space travel that is a hell of a lot cheaper, which is only going to come from improved technology (e.g. beanstalks, fusion power etc) or (b) something that forces us offworld (e.g. impending asteroid strike, global warming etc). Personally I think the latter is going to be more likely... humanity needs a good slap in the face following by a swift boot up the arse to get it off this rock

Well if we're in the purgatory, I hate NASA for building Orion by themselves. There, I said it. Why the hell didn't they come to terms with the ESA (which I understand was open to cooperation, only this time they didn't want the backseat) why are we going to have two vehicles (the CEV and the european ACTS). Was it so hard to come to terms over who takes what into orbit? This is the XXIst century, not the Apollo days, it isn't about who builds the biggest rocket anymore.

Not only is space exploration underfunded these days, but now they will have to cope with severe inefficiency because they have to build these two in parallel. We can't fesably build one manned Mars exploration mission, and now we want two?

I think each NASA/ESA bigshot should be issued a tin bracelet with "WWPS" written all over it. Maybe if they think What Would Picard Say :geek: when they haggle over political crap, they'd make more sense.

Scytale wrote:Well if we're in the purgatory, I hate NASA for building Orion by themselves. There, I said it. Why the hell didn't they come to terms with the ESA (which I understand was open to cooperation, only this time they didn't want the backseat) why are we going to have two vehicles (the CEV and the european ACTS). Was it so hard to come to terms over who takes what into orbit? This is the XXIst century, not the Apollo days, it isn't about who builds the biggest rocket anymore.

"International co-operation" would be a bigger disaster though. Have you seen how bad the ISS is lately? MASSIVELY over-budget, and still not able to do the basic things it was actually designed to do properly, vast amounts of bureaucracy involved...

I'm sad to say that only money move people nowadays, so until giant comercial trust won't dig through space (for x reason), I suppose we don't have much chance to see big steps in the space conquest...

If you folks will forgive the general reply here...

The big problem that I see with space exploration is that people expect us to turn into some sort of Star Trek-like setting overnight. Most folks out there in the public want us to go to Mars right away, and have no *clue* that we need to develop the technology to a high degree of reliability before we can even attempt it. As far as I can tell, we still don't have a high reliability in low Earth orbit, never mind reaching the Moon on a regular basis, and definitely never mind going to Mars.

Sure, we could go to Mars right now, and odds are we would be successful. But I can guarantee you that it would be an Apollo-style "heroic" mission, with little science and a lot of national chest thumping. If you can't follow up on the attempt, why bother to begin with, especially when it will have no benefit, scientifically or technologically. Apollo was essentially a dead end, remember.

The benefit of Orion, in my view, is that it is a small step towards a greater goal, one that will actually help us get to the Moon and get there often, with that degree of reoliability. After that, we need to learn to live on the Moon, even temporarily. The technologies spawned off from this mastery (or even semi-mastery) of CisLunar space will definitely help us get to Mars, a process that should also be taken one step at a time.

International cooperation or no, the move into space is going to have to be a long and difficult one. Hell, Earth orbit isn't like driving to the corner pub. Not yet. We'll get there, I'm confident of it. But I have a hunch it will be a long time before we do. And if we rush it to satisfy the Daniels of the world, then it will only end in tragedy. Look at the huge delays in the entire space program following the Challenger and Columbia tragedies.

What would happen, do you imagine, if a vessel were lost on the way to Mars, because we rushed it?

...John...

Malenfant wrote:"International co-operation" would be a bigger disaster though. Have you seen how bad the ISS is lately? MASSIVELY over-budget, and still not able to do the basic things it was actually designed to do properly, vast amounts of bureaucracy involved...

Pish! Of course the ISS is overbudget, it's a huge project, and it has never been done on this scale. And it's the first massive inter-agency cooperation project. There are many firsts with the ISS. The point is, cooperation would've nearly doubled the efforts behind the new program (ESA aims to match NASA's budget by 20-something, plus ACTS is allegedly also supported by Roskosmos and JAXA). You cannot convince me that the costs of bureaucracy will surpass the advantage in manpower and funds.

Dollan wrote:International cooperation or no, the move into space is going to have to be a long and difficult one. Hell, Earth orbit isn't like driving to the corner pub. Not yet. We'll get there, I'm confident of it. But I have a hunch it will be a long time before we do. And if we rush it to satisfy the Daniels of the world, then it will only end in tragedy. Look at the huge delays in the entire space program following the Challenger and Columbia tragedies.

Well until they satisfy the hardcore StarTrek fans, the cowboys at NASA should do one thing they can do, which is give up the Space Race mentality. Getting the civilized world behind the space program is a much more important and sensitive goal than a trip to Mars - that's why the ISS was a success on several levels.

Space exploration is not about techology. Technology will get there, given money and time; it's intangible, one can't really influence its advance directly - only indirectly, by turning the taps on and off. Cooperation, and sound economical and political discipline is the key, and can make the difference between failure and success. In fact, it did make the difference - if good old Soyuz hadn't been on duty after the Columbia disaster, the ISS would've been abandoned for a year or so.

I am sorry for the harsh tone, but I'm very dissapointed with NASA. It seems that they can go through hardships to the stars, but they can't reach across a lousy ocean

Scytale wrote:

Malenfant wrote:"International co-operation" would be a bigger disaster though. Have you seen how bad the ISS is lately? MASSIVELY over-budget, and still not able to do the basic things it was actually designed to do properly, vast amounts of bureaucracy involved...

Pish! Of course the ISS is overbudget, it's a huge project, and it has never been done on this scale. And it's the first massive inter-agency cooperation project.

That's no excuse! Just bcause it's a 'massive inter-agency project' (and I'm sure it's not the first, there must be instances of such things on Earth, plus there was Apollo-Soyuz in space, and Cassini-Huygens) doesn't mean it has carte-blanche to run overbudget and behind schedule. The ISS still can't even do basic things that it was designed to do.

There are many firsts with the ISS. The point is, cooperation would've nearly doubled the efforts behind the new program (ESA aims to match NASA's budget by 20-something, plus ACTS is allegedly also supported by Roskosmos and JAXA). You cannot convince me that the costs of bureaucracy will surpass the advantage in manpower and funds.

They do though. Plus you have the disadvantage of people dropping out when they lose interest.

My only qualm with the Orion project is that we're gonna have a lot more "space crap" floating out there. I do like that the payload/supplies go up separate from the crew, limiting fatal accidents by keeping people away from many things that could go awry. 2 vehicles allows for specializing both parts for their tasks, but at the expense of quite a few more parts that will just junk up space.

I guess I would envision a different path, that would put a more adept station in low earth orbit first. From there we could launch and recover moon teams, spending less fuel to get there, and less fuel to get between there and the moon as you won't have an atmosphere to get most of the big parts through.

Ships could be assembled from smaller parts, at the station.

Eh... maybe I'm just rambling.

Oh... and to address the comment that NASA will go through whatever to get to the stars but can't reach across the ocean to hold hands with other countries... (paraphrased, sue me for being too lazy to quote)

... There are a lot of OTHER Government agencies that impede that, on both sides of ANY relationship.

I know that political issues is forbidden here,but how to separate one thing from another,if the useless Iraq War is stealing money not only from the Moon and Mars manned missions,but also for important scientific robotic missions to places like Europa and Neptune/Triton?Can you believe that this missions won??t be launched until 2015.It??s too much time waiting!And not to mention that the Hubble still DON??T HAVE A TRUE SUCESSOR.The NGST ONLY operates in infrared wavelenghts!

ElecMoHwk wrote:Oh... and to address the comment that NASA will go through whatever to get to the stars but can't reach across the ocean to hold hands with other countries... (paraphrased, sue me for being too lazy to quote)

... There are a lot of OTHER Government agencies that impede that, on both sides of ANY relationship.

danielj wrote:I know that political issues is forbidden here,but how to separate one thing from another,if the useless Iraq War is stealing money not only from the Moon and Mars manned missions,but also for important scientific robotic missions to places like Europa and Neptune/Triton?Can you believe that this missions won??t be launched until 2015.It??s too much time waiting!And not to mention that the Hubble still DON??T HAVE A TRUE SUCESSOR.The NGST ONLY operates in infrared wavelenghts!

Daniel,

"mind your step" concerning political statements. Selden is watching carefully!


It might have escaped to you that astronomers like very much to use telescopes operating at wavelengths DIFFERENT from visual light. Think of Titan, for example. We would have seen almost NOTHING through the haze without using near-infrared imaging!!! A major point is that infrared light --due to it's longer wavelength-- has the ability to penetrate through galactic dust areas. So by means of infraread astronomy we have the exciting posibility to look towards the center of the MilkyWay whiich in visual light would be blocked by dust!

Never forget that usually the LEAST important reason for a space mission is to send back nice looking photos in visual light

It's always a good idea to try and learn about the many facets of a scientific project that was endorsed by many experts, before writing headlines like

Unbelievable. New Project Orion is Pure TRASH"

Such inappropriate writings make their writer appear in unfavorable light ...

Bye Fridger

It appears that you didn??t understand my point.With the Orion Project,we will take the same time to get to the Moon as in 1969:4 days.This is a tremendous retrocess,and at this pace,we will never get farther than Mars.No,I repeat,NO other mean of transportation get this kind of retrocess or stagnated like the the spaceships.Trains,cars,boats,airplanes,every mean of transportation have your speed progressively increased.And yes,Orion Project is a TRASH.I wouldn??t want a "Star Trek like" spaceship,but at least a more advanced space shuttle,like the fated X-43 and other possibilities.Even the Delta Clipper Rocket was a better choice.The Orion ship is simply a Apollo capsule with 2 solar panels and some technology.Unbeliveable...
And you maybe have forgotten,but some studies are only possible with visible light,like the spectra of stars and other bodies.What we have now for search new "earthlike planets" are very small telescopes like CoRot,that will fail in its mission,for sure,because don??t have enough aperture.A REAL SUCESSOR for Hubble is really NECESSARY.
And the low budget in NASA is because a lot of money is diverted to another matters.Yes,this happen in Brasil,too,but this don??t mean it lessen USA??s error.
The USA have to think about your priorities and NASA Orion Project is simply a mean of doing something spending the least money possible and to show that the space program is simply a very small appendix in US??science program.But this will ruin space development techonology and soon,even the robotic missions,spaced by 5 or 10 years will lose support from the population of USA.No one have INFINITE paciency.And NASA is very inefficient in any means and maybe would be better if it was a private company...

Daniel,

Please remember that the distances to the Moon and the other planets are thousands of times greater than the distances here on Earth.

Space travel speeds are limited by physics.

Chemical rockets simply don't have the power that would be needed to reduce the travel time significantly.

Nuclear thermal rockets can do only slightly better.

Exernal nuclear pulse engines (the original Project Orion) could do much better, but are not permitted by international treaties which prohibit the use of nuclear bombs in outer space.

To put it another way, the amount of energy needed to make it easy to reduce space travel times to the values you would like would also make it easy to reduce the Earth to an unlivable cinder. People don't like that idea.

What about ionic propulsion,like the one that powered Deep Space 1 and other probes.It is believed that if this propulsion would be better developed,we can get to Mars in half of the time,or maybe less.The question is Nasa and other agencies stopped thinking in better means of propulsion...
And of course,remember the imponderable.It??s not impossible that at any time,someone discover a revolutionary new fuel!

selden wrote:Daniel,

Please remember that the distances to the Moon and the other planets are thousands of times greater than the distances here on Earth.

Space travel speeds are limited by physics.

Chemical rockets simply don't have the power that would be needed to reduce the travel time significantly.

Nuclear thermal rockets can do only slightly better.

Exernal nuclear pulse engines (the original Project Orion) could do much better, but are not permitted by international treaties which prohibit the use of nuclear bombs in outer space.

To put it another way, the amount of energy needed to make it easy to reduce space travel times to the values you would like would also make it easy to reduce the Earth to an unlivable cinder. People don't like that idea.

Ionic propulsion is great to send small probes out that accelerate to great speeds over a long period of time.

The problem with large ionic, or perhaps more specifically, plasma engines, including those with variable specific impulses, is the tremendous amount of electrical energy that they require to operate at. Solar panels aren't going to generate this much power, Neither are fuel cells. This power can only be generated with nuclear devices such as radioisotope thermoelectric generators (used on a number of probes) and fission reactors.

There is ongoing research on plasma drives, but until we can generate copious amounts of electricity with a low mass generator, we aren't going to see these things used as thrusters. The trick is to be as energy efficient and mass economic as possible, and that means using the tried and true chemical rocket motor. Large scale RTGs (if that's feasible) and fission reactors--and when we develop them, fusion reactors--are going to be very "heavy" and thus undesirable because they would need more thrust which means bigger engines and more fuel which is more mass, and so on. That's the famous Rocket Equation of coming to a happy medium (or acceptable trade-off) in fuel/oxidizer, engines, and the rest of the spacecraft mass so that you can make your spacecraft do what you want it to do for the lowest cost not only in energy, but in money as well.

I was a little disappointed by the Orion CEV, but in retrospect this design is the best for the needs of the program. It is safer than the Shuttle because the crew capsule can jettison from the rocket during launch if an emergency demands it. The Aries rockets use the same solid rocket booster as the Shuttle System so it remains reusable. The capsules will be salvageable--repaired and refitted for reuse.

For the things that we want to do in LEO, we don't need a Next Generation Shuttle. The size of shuttle's bay limits the size of the payloads it can carry, so it can't carry the larger rockets that would be needed to send a spacecraft to the moon. The lengthy turn-around time between landing and launch has made many use conventional rockets to put satellites in orbit. The ISS has taken over as the platform for conducting experiments. The only reason for another Shuttle would be for the construction of stations and the repair of satellites as you need the robotic arm to perform those missions. The ISS is going to be completed in the next few years and the only thing in orbit that comes to mind that can be repaired and serviced is the Hubble (sometime this year). I don't know what they have planned for the Hubble, but its not going to be up there forever.

We don't need a rocket/glider to get people to the ISS or the moon. It obviously isn't as cost effective. Believe me, it if were we wouldn't be reusing the Apollo ideas.