Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Orion" Said To Be Name Of NASA's CEV Program  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4354 times:

Subject to final approval, "Orion" has been chosen by NASA to be the name for the Crew Exploration Vehicle program, according to the following news source:

http://www.space.com/news/060720_cev_orion.html

(Excerpt)

Quote:
NASA intends to use the moniker Orion as both the title for its next generation manned craft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), and as the project’s name. This approach is modeled after the 1960's program when Apollo Command Modules launched astronauts under Project Apollo.

Under Project Orion, NASA would launch crews of four astronauts aboard Orion capsules, first to Earth orbit and the International Space Station and then later to the Moon.


[Edited 2006-07-21 10:44:44]

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4346 times:

A note to readers:

I posted this thread before reading the following thread, in which the probable name of the CEV program was first revealed in this Forum. Therefore, I apologize for any duplication. Although the other thread pertained to hypothetical sales or leasing arrangements for the CEV, if the Moderators believe that this thread is redundant for the reason that the "Orion" name was first raised there, then I would welcome the deletion of this thread.

Once again, I apologize for any redundancy, as none was intended.

Can The U.S. Export Sell The CEV? (by DfwRevolution Jul 19 2006 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

[Edited 2006-07-21 10:53:07]

User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4263 times:

Perhaps it should be labeled WWSS1980 -What we should have strated in 1980. Had we killed the shuttle program then in favor of something like the CEV, the first crews would be going to Mars NOW. We would already have a much larger space station and/or moonbase as well.

User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4249 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 2):
Had we killed the shuttle program then in favor of something like the CEV, the first crews would be going to Mars NOW. We would already have a much larger space station and/or moonbase as well.

I remember those heady days right after Apollo 11 when 1999 seemed very far away -- and thus the moonbase seen in Space: 1999 could seem reasonably plausible!


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 4248 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 2):
Perhaps it should be labeled WWSS1980 -What we should have strated in 1980. Had we killed the shuttle program then in favor of something like the CEV, the first crews would be going to Mars NOW. We would already have a much larger space station and/or moonbase as well.

I doubt that. We already had heavy lift and lunar capability as late as 1972 but politicians killed it. What about cancelling Shuttle in 1980 would have made them suddenly restart Apollo? More likely, we'd have gotten no manned space program at all. That in turn might have driven commercial projects like SpaceShipOne sooner, but it might just as easily have led to investors saying "if the government can't do it for mega billions, why do you think we should give you money to try?" and we'd still be waiting.


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4245 times:

I think it was most unfortunate that the Vietnam War and the Great Society program made it so difficult to fund space exploration.

It's also interesting to think what would have happened if JFK hadn't been assassinated. Even assuming that he was re-elected, his second term would have been over before our manned landing on the Moon, but I wonder if he would have pushed more vigorously for a continuation of his vision. Perhaps, had he been able to serve out his terms, he would have even set a goal to actually colonize the Moon, for example.

[Edited 2006-07-23 00:28:13]

User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4226 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 4):
I doubt that. We already had heavy lift and lunar capability as late as 1972 but politicians killed it. What about cancelling Shuttle in 1980 would have made them suddenly restart Apollo?

They would not have restarted Apollo, but I doubt they would have abandoned manned space flight. It would have been replaced by something. It may have been a kind of "placeholder" capability with a smaller Appolo type capsule and a MIR type station. We would have better knowledge of the effects of long term space flight on humans. We would not have learned what we know about orbital construction and international cooperation through ISS, but that knowledge is of doubtfull utility now anyway. A heavylifter and advanced in-space propulsion systems are far more important. One thing is certain, we would have spent a lot less money to get where we are now, which is basically nowhere. Everything spent on the shuttle before then would be wasted (well, we would have the SSME, which really is a fantastic engine), but it was wasted anyway. It is not good to throw good money after bad.

I don't see any escaping the conclusion that building shuttle was a bad decision to begin with, and each year we decided not to at least phase it out we were making another horrible mistake. Almost every dollar spent on the shuttle was and is money poured down the drain, and it is a shame we built the ISS in such a way that we need to keep that drain open.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4211 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 6):
I don't see any escaping the conclusion that building shuttle was a bad decision to begin with, and each year we decided not to at least phase it out we were making another horrible mistake. Almost every dollar spent on the shuttle was and is money poured down the drain, and it is a shame we built the ISS in such a way that we need to keep that drain open.

The Shuttle as originally envisioned was not a bad decision, and in fact the original Shuttle vision today would probably still be the best course... a small reusable manned spacecraft to succeed Apollo. That's how Shuttle started out. It was to be a crew and supplies ferry to a Space Station. Sound familiar? I think the early Shuttle concepts called for something launched on a Saturn IB-class booster and it was to have around 20,000 lbs of payload (which is pretty damned close to optimum for today's Station... see ATV.)

At some point, NASA could no longer justify its small Shuttle because with the refusal of Congress to pay for a Space Station or more Saturns to launch one, there was nothing to Shuttle to. Apollo was dead. The Shuttle only survived because NASA sold it as a new all-purpose launch vehicle. I see no point along this "death spiral" that had NASA said "Hey, this isn't working out, we want to build Apollo Mk.II instead" where Congress wouldn't have said, "Thanks for the honesty, but you've just spent $3 Billion designing a Shuttle and rebuilding launch facilities for it. so there is no way I can go back to my district and just say, 'oops, we're going to start again, sorry about wasting your 3 billion taxpayer dollars', either make this thing work or we'll pull the plug and spend the money on DoD..."


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4152 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 7):
"Thanks for the honesty, but you've just spent $3 Billion designing a Shuttle and rebuilding launch facilities for it. so there is no way I can go back to my district and just say, 'oops, we're going to start again, sorry about wasting your 3 billion taxpayer dollars', either make this thing work or we'll pull the plug and spend the money on DoD..."

If they did abandon manned space flight it might not have been a bad thing. The DoD soon became unpopular, so I doubt the money would remain there for long. If it was put into planetary probes we would have seen some truly spectacular achievements by now. Put it in propulsion technology other than traditional rockets and we would have the makings of a real(not publicity - stunt driven) manned space program when we got back to it. Sure, we would have to relearn a few things. But by the time we got back to it the more expensive knowledge we learned in the 60's would be obsolete anyhow. The stuff that would not still be usefull(life support, spacesuits, etc.) we could learn from archives or by simply redoing it - at relatively low cost. Even if congress just spent it on pork projects or lowered taxes, my guess is it would end up doing more for us than the space shuttle did.

Congress has been willing to tolerate all kinds of billion dollar failures from NASA in the past, such as the X-33/Venturestar., NASP, etc. I doubt they would kill all manned spaceflight just after the Apollo achievements even if Donald Duck was the NASA administrator and each of the three stooges ran one of the centers. Remember, the Russians still threatened to upstage us back then. If the shuttle shared the same fate as Venturestar, my guess is they would have NASA build a Saturn Mark II capsule and a more economical booster to match. Perhaps the booster would incorporate some reusabily, like Allen's StarBooster. After the initial costs, that would provide a good placeholder program. Just send the capsules to orbit and back, perhaps with a seperatly launched Salyut-style lab. Later on, if you want a real program, you could add an HLLV launched space station. Or a Mir style station for less money. Use any money saved on unmanned exploration and propulsion research+testing.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20.....


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4131 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 8):
If they did abandon manned space flight it might not have been a bad thing. The DoD soon became unpopular, so I doubt the money would remain there for long.

I'm not sure what timeframe you're referring to. Shuttle got formal go-ahead in 1972. Give them a few of years after that to really figure out they'd screwed up the design (i.e., that wishful thinking was not going to make SRBs cheap or easy to assemble and launch), and you're into 1975-76, just coming out of the Watergate disaster and fast approaching the 1976 election. This is not the time for politicians to be announcing to their electorate that they just blew a few billion taxpayer dollars on the Space Shuttle and would like to start all over with something that looks suspiciously like Apollo Mk.II, which they'd already killed by saying it was too expensive. All the talk of "put it into new technologies to drive down the cost of space" would sound exactly the same as the language that led to Shuttle in the first place.

No, I think killing Shuttle circa 1976 would have been the death knell of government-sponsored manned spaceflight. There is no way the Carter Administration would have invested heavily in a Shuttle replacement or Apollo successor. Not gonna happen... his veep was Mondale, the most vocal critic of manned spaceflight during the late 60s and early 70s. And the Proxmires in Congress would have had a field day with NASA's wasting of billions on the Shuttle (they did anyway, spending that money and getting nothing at all to show for it would have been an easier target.)


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 989 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4129 times:

Do we have any sort of unit cost estimate for a CEV/Ares I mission?

$250 million ?


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4123 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
Do we have any sort of unit cost estimate for a CEV/Ares I mission?

$250 million ?

My guess would be around $500 million thanks to most of the same overhead as Shuttle but half the flight rate.


User currently offlineOkelleynyc From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4121 times:

Hey Thorny,

Has the recently released Space Frontier Foundation report circulated within your world? I'm on the lookout for a copy.

They're apparently calling for NASA to halt any future spending on CEV1 and move on to the CEV2. They think it's a waste to build a CEV just to go back and forth to low orbit. They want private industry to support that function and release 2 billion USD to fund COTS instead of the 500 million.

http://space.com/news/060724_cev_needsrevision.html

I think private industry is probably not up to the task just yet. Maybe in another 10-20 years.

[Edited 2006-07-25 03:50:44]

Durn! I can't type worth a hoot tonight.

[Edited 2006-07-25 03:52:07]


Just give me my Vario, my Ozone Mojo and a gorgeous day of soaring.
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4095 times:

Quoting Okelleynyc (Reply 12):
They're apparently calling for NASA to halt any future spending on CEV1 and move on to the CEV2. They think it's a waste to build a CEV just to go back and forth to low orbit. They want private industry to support that function and release 2 billion USD to fund COTS instead of the 500 million.

That would be the way to do things in a perfect world. Unfortunately, that means it will never happen in ours.

Too many official feifdoms, turf protection, Congresscritters seeking to protect the jobs of taxpayers in their districts, "not invented here-itis", etc. NASA and Congress want Son Of Apollo, costs don't matter. Opening new markets takes a very distant second to maintaining the status quo.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4074 times:

Wait a minute! It says FOUR people, everything else I have seen says SIX people, whats up with that?

Quoting Thorny (Reply 7):
The Shuttle as originally envisioned was not a bad decision

Totally agree, hindsight is 20/20 too. The concept is great, we just didn't know then what we know now, and the Feds screwed with NASA funding on top of it.

We needed two separate programs, but they combined it all into STS. We ended up with a reusable vehicle that was not very reusable, and much less available than hoped for. Too many reasons for this to count for this but we would not know all this if we never tried to build a reusable space plane then.

Bottom line, the STS has performed its orbital duties better than Apollo was capable of when we are able to launch them, but unfortunately did not achieve the high level of reliability of Apollo.

Quoting Okelleynyc (Reply 12):
I think private industry is probably not up to the task just yet. Maybe in another 10-20 years.

One of the core principals of NASA is to perform research and flight operations that private industry alone can not. When private industry can do low Earth orbit, NASA needs to scale back to just what private industry still cannot do.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4074 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 14):
Wait a minute! It says FOUR people, everything else I have seen says SIX people, whats up with that?

Crew of four for the lunar missions, crew of six for Space Station missions.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4072 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 15):
Crew of four for the lunar missions, crew of six for Space Station missions.

Thanks! I though I missed another big change.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4057 times:

Quoting Okelleynyc (Reply 12):
Has the recently released Space Frontier Foundation report circulated within your world? I'm on the lookout for a copy.

Here it is...

http://www.space-frontier.org/Presen...ions/UnaffordableUnsustainable.pdf


User currently offlineOkelleynyc From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4049 times:

Thanks Thorny....

I'll read it in the AM.....



Just give me my Vario, my Ozone Mojo and a gorgeous day of soaring.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic "Orion" Said To Be Name Of NASA's CEV Program
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Orion Cockpit To Be Based On 787 posted Sat Oct 7 2006 04:43:32 by N328KF
CEV Contractor To Be Announced 8/31 posted Mon Aug 28 2006 15:50:28 by DfwRevolution
NASA: Shuttle Resumption To Be Delayed Further posted Fri Oct 29 2004 23:37:50 by ConcordeBoy
Was CV-64 Suppost To Be CV-63. posted Thu Oct 19 2006 01:31:19 by 747400sp
CVN-77, USS Bush, To Be Christened 10/7/06 posted Thu Oct 5 2006 07:07:21 by BladeLWS
Firefly T-3A Fleet To Be Destroyed. posted Tue Sep 12 2006 03:07:30 by BOE773
Pluto Could Be Stripped Of Its Planet Status posted Mon Aug 14 2006 18:18:28 by YYZflyer
C-17 To Be Unseated By New Airlift Design. posted Tue Jan 10 2006 14:18:02 by CX747
Memphis Belle To Be Restored In Dayton OH posted Sun Oct 9 2005 05:56:24 by DAYflyer
All Shuttle Flights To Be Grounded Again posted Thu Jul 28 2005 02:15:28 by ConcordeBoy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format