Orion Drop test

[Moonwalker]

Finally, once in their history, kill their dogma against all stuff "not invented here" and adopt the US Airforce project structure?

And any suggestion how to design a completely different "cutting-edge" system? I mean something really amazingly different compared to Orion and Ares?

 

[joeybigO]

There was quite a few comments that made me think about something way in the past.

Three Astronauts were killed, a junior senator from the state of Massachusetts was dogging NASA to either cut the budget for more "optimal" projects, while others were skeptical about stepping into the space race.
The public was hounding NASA for cutbacks as it seemed a 1.2 billion dollar budget to cover some program that could not show direct results right away.

All this was in lieu to one of mans greatest acheivement.

The most common topic about this project has been about "failure". I'm going to give credit where it is due. The HMFIC's at NASA stuck to an idea, that was the best idea at the time. They will stick with their decision 'til we land on the Moon.

Until we land on the Moon this project will always be a failure in someone's eyes.

 

[Urwumpe]

And any suggestion how to design a completely different "cutting-edge" system? I mean something really amazingly different compared to Orion and Ares?

Other than making a difference between launch system and space systems?

Did you see the VSE proposals from the US space industry?

I wish I could get a 3D artist to make meshes for the SpaceHab proposal - that was really cutting-edge technology. Relied heavily on orbital assembly, which can be considered state of the art today, but used mass produced modules, which pretty economic.

 

[Moonwalker]

Other than making a difference between launch system and space systems?

Most people don't crititze Orion alone, they critizise Ares too as well as the whole program but without to deliver a realistic alternative. At least I can't see one.

Did you see the VSE proposals from the US space industry?

Not yet. I'm not rather interestest in stuff different from NASA as long as it isn't going to become a real project to be lifting off anytime soon.

But I'll have a look at it...

 

[JamesG]

Until we land on the Moon this project will always be a failure in someone's eyes.

It will be a long term failure if, just like Apollo, the project isn't sustainable because it continues to rely upon expendable munitions as the primary lift system.

I know this is a

here, but everytime I see or read something about Aries/Orion/Constilation, I find myself wonder WTF are we doing???

 

[Urwumpe]

Most people don't crititze Orion alone, they critizise Ares too as well as the whole program but without to deliver a realistic alternative. At least I can't see one.

The whole program is always a critical point - if the program is on track, even if projects are bad, you can't complain. But so far, the whole program is suffering because critical projects failing their targets.

And IMHO, as somebody who had listened to enough lectures about professional project management, the problems of Constellation already lay in it's beginning: Instead of a realistic assessment of the feasibility and possible architectures in the early phases (Phase 0 + Phase A), and than selecting the technical solutions, they immediately selected the technical solutions (ATK's "Simpler Safer Soon") and then designed the program around it. Which, of course, for anybody, who has been awake in the project management lectures while the boring early phases had been addressed, means: They now have to design reality around their selected solution to make it work.

Watch out for this project timeline:


1. Enthusiasm
2. Disillusionment
3. Panic
4. Search for the Guilty
5. Punishment of the Innocent
6. Promotion of the Uninvolved.

Not yet. I'm not rather interestest in stuff different from NASA as long as it isn't going to become a real project to be lifting off anytime soon.

But I'll have a look at it...

Can never be bad to know a bit more. Of course, unless you want to argue as "Somebody who has a fixed opinion and expects reality to adapt".

 

[Moonwalker]

...everytime I see or read something about Aries/Orion/Constilation, I find myself wonder WTF are we doing???

Well, designing a new manned spacecraft which will be able to leave low earth orbit again luckily. After more than three decades NASA had to stop doing so, which resulted in a loss of good persons and visionaries beside Wernher von Braun.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, designing a new manned spacecraft which will be able to leave low earth orbit again luckily. After more than three decades after NASA had to stop doing so, which resulted in a loss of good persons and visionaries beside Wernher von Braun.

Isn't it impressive how three decades can make all valid reasons why NASA had to stop doing publicity stunts on the moon forgotten? :dry:

NASA reached the new world in 1969, but never managed to pave a road to it. And constellation is current busy repeating this folly.

 

[mjessick]

I wish someone would start counting the cost of the Credit Boom Crash Crisis in years of the NASA budget. $800B would be around 50 years. I think that is pretty conservative...

 

[JamesG]

Or how about the Iraq war? :sorry:

NASA reached the new world in 1969, but never managed to pave a road to it. And constellation is current busy repeating this folly.

Yup.

Hopefully when President Obama kills Aries/Orion, NASA and/or Congress will have the foresight to step back, take a deep breath, and consider the lessons learned from the STS and the NASP programs. Even if it starts out as a paper project, they need to come up with a truly economical reusable design that can meet US and International goals in space as well as clear a trail for private sector space-lift and travel.

 

[Moonwalker]

@Urwumpe

The question is who says that Constellation is critical and if those people are able to assess NASA's work really. Theoretical stuff like lectures is one thing, especially if it's not related to NASA/Constellation really. I think reality, or lets say working for NASA and on Constellation, is another thing.

Constellation doesn't seem to fit to some people's imagination concerning future manned space flight which doesn't surprise me partly. But it doesn't mean that Constellation is critical really only because there are critics. I guess that there is even more critics on manned space flight on the whole rather than on Ares/Constellation only. But actually, when I look at all forums and blogs I come across, critics against Ares is minor compared to the fascination of doing something new, especially related to the Moon and possibly Mars in future.

I think the Internet and freaky journalists play a big role rather than real facts against Ares. I wonder how much critics would exist these days if we would see something happening like Apollo 1.

 

[Urwumpe]

Hopefully when President Obama kills Aries/Orion, NASA and/or Congress will have the foresight to step back, take a deep breath, and consider the lessons learned from the STS and the NASP programs. Even if it starts out as a paper project, they need to come up with a truly economical reusable design that can meet US and International goals in space as well as clear a trail for private sector space-lift and travel.

I can even live without reuse. I think three metrics are important to be improved for the future:

• Payload launch rate
• Number of astronauts in space
• Number of simultaneous Missions

@Moonwalker: I think you are just quick to apply the tag "unqualified" to all people who disagree with your fandom - as hard as it sounds: I think the promise of going to the moon is the only reason why massive cost and time overruns, already in the earliest phases of the program, are not putting it under critical review. Only few (and very qualified) people question the program - and many unqualified people celebrate the landings before the first metal is cut.

And if Apollo 1 would get repeated, the program would not get saved by a NASA director playing scapegoat. Apollo did only not get cancelled because of two things:

• The program was still in good health during the time, Apollo 1 happened - cost overruns and time delays had been limited.
• The fear of the Russians being first had been an advantage for Apollo, to outweigh many problems.

Constellation has not the first and not the second point. The Chinese are still far away from landing on the moon and the constellation program is not yet on track.

Remember: Constellation does not explain, how more than flags and footprints should be financed. For a permanent manned moon base, you need higher launch rates - and if you have expensive and hardly serializable hardware for that (Like Ares is), you will have exploding costs which will make it harder to fund the plans. Constellation does not address this problem at all.

 

[Moonwalker]

Hopefully when President Obama kills Aries/Orion, NASA and/or Congress will have the foresight to step back, take a deep breath, and consider the lessons learned from the STS and the NASP programs.

"We have learned so much about our space environment by flying the shuttle. And now it is time to go farther."

Eileen Collins

Even if it starts out as a paper project, they need to come up with a truly economical reusable design that can meet US and International goals in space as well as clear a trail for private sector space-lift and travel.

1. Why Ares has to meet international goals and why NASA has to clear a trail for private space flight?

2. Any suggestions how an economical reusable design should exactly look like, different than Ares?

 

[John_L]

I know this is a

here, but everytime I see or read something about Aries/Orion/Constilation, I find myself wonder WTF are we doing???

We're developing a new system, and, like all new system development, there's successes and failures. This was simply a failure, from which we'll learn what we did wrong so that we can make it right. With each failure, we gain valuable knowledge, so to all the whiners about wasted money and failure, you're wrong. Each step, successful or not is a step forward for the program.

 

[JamesG]

I think the Internet and freaky journalists play a big role rather than real facts against Ares. I wonder how much critics would exist these days if we would see something happening like Apollo 1.

Uh... no. Because today that something would be a NASSP (that derives its thrust from puppy dogs and sunshine).

I can even live without reuse.

But it can't live without re-usability to spread development and production costs over a service life that lasts longer than 7 minutes. Even on big government projects money IS as big an obstacle as gravity.

 

[RisingFury]

Orion could definitely be executed better...

If they have decided to take a huge step backwards towards Apollo, then at least they could have re-used Apollo's technology.

I saw this vid quite a long time ago and was shocked.
They're trashing too much of the ship. They'd be better off with an improved version of a reusable craft such as the Space Shuttle.

 

[JamesG]

... then at least they could have re-used Apollo's technology.

Can't. A lot of the engineering studies and blueprints that went into the Saturn Vs no longer exist. And shouldn't anyway. Apollo could be built much more effectively with modern materials and design tools. But it does require re-inventing a whole bunch of wheels.

The disconnect is that where rockets were the only viable option available in the 1950s, they represent a dead end to true space fairing. We are well into the transition period where we should be weening ourselves off expendable ballistic rockets.

 

[RisingFury]

Can't. A lot of the engineering studies and blueprints that went into the Saturn Vs no longer exist.

...why were they destroyed? :huh::blink:
To prevent the Soviets from getting them?

 

[joeybigO]

...why were they destroyed? :huh::blink:
To prevent the Soviets from getting them?

No.... Slovenians.... J/K

 

[Urwumpe]

...why were they destroyed? :huh::blink:
To prevent the Soviets from getting them?

No, just because they had no further use anymore and just consumed storage space.

They still exist as copy mostly on Microfiche, but the main problem is: They require manufacturing processes, which you don't use today.

I think even, some of the aluminum alloys used for the Saturn V are no longer produced in large numbers.

The whole IU of the Saturn V, would today fit into a single small box - modern launch vehicle control systems are far more capable and lighter - see for example the Ariane V Vehicle Equipment Bay (which is smaller and more capable as the Saturn V control systems)