Indeed, if they stay with speed from Cold War we would have already Moon Colony and Mars mission en route. The future is out there, not on this ball of dirt.
More then Orion I'm interested with X-37B and Dream Chaser. Not to mention Skylon... if nothing fuck up, this will be good decade for space.
Good luck! May be USA’s relative tech will be more effective then current Russian one. Our losers in cosmos industry obviously need a lot of good kicks. I stand for competition.
the Russian space program is alive and well. first we were buying rocket engines from them. second, the only reason why the Chinese have a space program is because they bought the schematics from Russia on how to build a space vehicle. next, the Russians are secretive. i wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have some type of program going that is being kept secret. the Buran vanished without good reason and we know that if you can build stealth fighters you can build spacecraft. i just want to see the Russian X-37.
@the Russian space program is alive and well.@ In some parts – yes (manned space especially), but in science space or satellites – we totally suck. We even can’t build new cosmodrome without constant delaying time schedule((( @the Russians are secretive@ Bgggg @the Buran vanished without good reason@ Baikal programs took after. But this program was refused too (officially at least) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal_(rocket_booster) Now we work at Angara rockets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara_(rocket_family) I guess (at least some people say) finally it will something average between Baikal and Buran as a standard space-launch.
Sorry to rain on the Parade but this is not the great step back into the final frontier. What is happening is a little hocus pocus for the camera's. What they are launching is a Dummy Orion Space capsule. it will go up just to come back down. the Rocket being used is the Delta IV Heavy which is a good old proven system. Orion is meant for the disastrous SLS, The Heat Shield on the Orion being launched is of a design that the builder will never use again as they are already moving away form it. none of the specialized stuff like life support is up for testing or even installed. Next launch if were lucky is 2017. then again uncrewed by 2018.. maybe and then again unmanned followed by a fourth launch in 2021 which may be the first manned mission. I have more faith in Space X and Private space for the American manned space program then SLS Dragon V2 from Space X could make a flight by 2017-2018 well Orion is at best 2020-2021. Orion is also not going to take any one from earth to Mars it's to small and cramped best on that would be a ground to ship connector and landing capsule.
Solomon Mig 105 was the original Russian X37. infact Dream Chaser is based on it in terms of shaping. they had a plan for something called Kliper . but really interesting is what every they have in orbit right now that is sending the Russians Telemetry in morse code
Always remember that Lockheed Martin is the contractor for the Orion spacecraft. Don't expect any better out of Orion than we've gotten out of the F-35 or F-22. Which means delays, broken promises, and out-of-control costs protected by their top-tier political lobbying arm.
Meaningless publicity stunts though? LM excels at that.
It would make a lot more sense if they had a new rocket to test, but that's not the case here. All they're sending up is basically an empty shell. With no real onboard systems.
What's your definition of on-board systems? Obviously the communication equipment will be tested. The avionics will be tested. The capsule itself will be vetted as they monitor pressures, g-forces, cabin air quality, etc.
Just because they're putting a guy in it first time up (a very good idea) and they're aren't testing a specific system or two (also a good idea) doesn't make this worthless or just a PR stunt.
Also, testing a new rocket and a new capsule would actually be a bad idea. Testing on a proven platform allows them to better narrow does down issues. If the rocket and capsule are new, how sure will you be the issue stemmed from the rocket or capsule? Your chances of a successful launch will obviously be higher with a proven rocket as well. I'd hate to completely lose your first chance to test the capsule because your new rocket exploded.
Pressures, g-forces, and cabin air quality can be tested just fine on the ground. I'm not saying that there's no value at all from this test, only that the value I see doesn't justify the cost of launching a full rocket mission at this time. Particularly when the next launch is 2-3 years off at least. If the capsule were maneuvering after launch, that would be a different story. But the only real thing we'll know is whether the parachutes work or not as it drops in the same arc that a rock would.
My point about the rocket is that a dummy-capsule test would be fine if it was required in order to test an unproven launch platform. But the Delta-IV heavy IS proven. So much so that the problems that delayed the launch from happening today were well-known to the ground controllers. As were the possible fixes.
Steven, you said "worthless", I say it's not pertinent nor the great step back into manned space for the US. more of a really complex and expensive recovery exercise for the system then a actual test. none of the critical systems for Orion will be tested as the capsule being launched is not even really the intended Orion. Even if it was pertinent the next launch is not for years, followed by years of long gaps the development schedule has no ambition to back it.
SandWyrm, Lockheed Martin has it's issues but the SLS is under Boeing and the worst offender is SLS. my worst Gripe about this is that they both (SLS and Orion) even exist. If this was the Second Bush Administration first Term or the late Clinton administration this would have been the way to go. today the Concept the Planing the mission plan is a relic. It was written based on old NASA needs when everything had to happen in House because no one else could. Since the second term of the Bush administration Private space Ventures reached a maturity level that this became obsolete. maybe 95% all of the manned space needs of the US until the 2020's is ISS taxi. you suit up board the commander starts the meter takes off get you to ISS drops you off then loads up with the people and stuff coming back. thats the mission plan for Dragon V2, CTS-1000 and Commercial crew not Orion. and late 2020's its maybe the son of ISS. but Orion is not meant for that. Orion is for the "Grand Space ventures". except the only part it could ever play is as a lander and transport back and forth between the real ship and the ground. additionally how long are the windows between grand space missions? years! So your one offing Orions just for that one glorious mission. that one in every two dozen that does something impressive and then sitting on them. Well another two craft, your work horse are sitting there. I can almost justify SLS has having a mission but Orion is at best a hedge on the bet, at worst and based on what we have seen it's a pork program.
The lesson learned from the Space Shuttle program is that cargo rockets and passenger rockets must be separated. It cost 5 times more per lbs on a passenger rocket than on cargo rockets, because cargo rockets can accept a lower level of safety while passenger rockets cannot. So astronauts and cargo must be launched on separate rocket systems. The shuttle program tried to launch cargo on a man-rated rocket and this is why the shuttle cargo delivery cost so much. Let cargo be launched on cargo rockets, where it's OK for the rockets to blow up during launch.
The reason cargo is launched on a different rocket than manned missions is due to vibrations. Typical cargo rockets have a higher threshold of how much vibrating the cargo can take.
Manned rockets have to be engineered to accept a much much lower level of vibrations. Otherwise, you'd literally shake your astronauts to death.
The Daily Beast has an article on the A2A missile problem, where it is well known that AMRAAM has a problem hitting enemy fighters with a strong EW system and stealth, and F-22 may run out of AMRAAMs before killing any Su-35s.
America's allies have long recognized this problem and are developing alternate A2A missiles; UK has teamed up with Japan to combine Meteor's propulsion with Japanese AESA seeker from AAM-4 missile, while Korea's developing a dual seeker(a radar seeker and an IR sensor) A2A missile to deal with stealth/EW.
This is why Lockheed's CUDA is a bad idea, because it's a radar guided missile when IR guided missiles are needed in stealth/strong-EW combat environment.
Some fun about the COPE INDIA exercise years back. One USAF dude told the story about the ROE for the air-to-air exercises. Defensive jamming was allowed. They had trouble calling AMRAAM shots. Funny to it wasn't the SU-30Ks that were an issue (these are much less capable than today's SU-3OMKIs). It was the MiG-21 in the "Bison" configuration that could call "AMRAAMski" shots (AA-12). It was an eye opener for the USAF. Later the USAF boss had to pay a visit to Singapore to explain to them that the F-15s they wanted to buy were still useful, even if they didn't rack up a high kill ratio in COPE INDIA (awkward).
Indeed this is the stupidity of trying to achieve an all stealth air force, and spending such a ridiculous amount of the national treasury. They have forgotten that while they are so focused on trying to "cloak the archer", that the archer's arrows may not be good enough.
Until we can field missiles that instantly arrive to their intended target over 100 km away, or lasers that actually work and can be economically viable, then our holy grail quest in search of total BVR dominance will be akin to chasing the white rabbit down the hole.
This is why I have always been very skeptical of the total capabilities of the F22 and why im skeptical of the F35. Or our puzzling fetish for radar stealth emphasis.
If they can launch orion on a delta IV....why do we need SLS? Yes, I know the SLS will have a 30,000lb+ payload advantage over Delta IV, but factoring in the massive R&D costs for a new rocket we could just launch the same mission on two rockets and be to Mars sooner on the same or cheaper dime. Really though my faith right now is in SpaceX for American manned-spaceflight.
The Delta IV is not currently human-rated. A study claimed they could make it so, but it's not currently. At this stage in the game you'd be just as well off waiting for SpaceX's heavy lifter than trying to modify the Delta.
Steven oliver, so this test is just a PR move ? no manned support system active in the capsule ? What the reason for this PR move then ? Is SpaceX late in their timeline of manned system launch ?
I guess I'm more impressed with Orion's reported mission profile of making 1 orbit in low-Earth-orbit, followed by 1 orbit blasted up to 3,500+ miles high, then re-entering the atmosphere all within 3 orbits? That would indicate some pretty good maneuvering and re-entry capability. (more than any advertised possible deep-space abilities).
Finally, even if Orion is nothing revolutionary or even a solid step back from shuttles, it is a move in to right direction.
ReplyDeleteMaybe NASA will be again National Aeronautics and Space Administration and not only NA (National Administration).
well said. shutting down manned flight for a decade (or so) was a mistake. we have alot of catching up to do.
DeleteIndeed, if they stay with speed from Cold War we would have already Moon Colony and Mars mission en route. The future is out there, not on this ball of dirt.
DeleteMore then Orion I'm interested with X-37B and Dream Chaser. Not to mention Skylon... if nothing fuck up, this will be good decade for space.
The US should have never left. Glad to see you back in the game.
DeleteWell, maybe tomorrow we will be. ;)
DeleteGood luck! May be USA’s relative tech will be more effective then current Russian one. Our losers in cosmos industry obviously need a lot of good kicks.
ReplyDeleteI stand for competition.
the Russian space program is alive and well. first we were buying rocket engines from them. second, the only reason why the Chinese have a space program is because they bought the schematics from Russia on how to build a space vehicle. next, the Russians are secretive. i wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have some type of program going that is being kept secret. the Buran vanished without good reason and we know that if you can build stealth fighters you can build spacecraft. i just want to see the Russian X-37.
Delete@the Russian space program is alive and well.@
DeleteIn some parts – yes (manned space especially), but in science space or satellites – we totally suck. We even can’t build new cosmodrome without constant delaying time schedule(((
@the Russians are secretive@
Bgggg
@the Buran vanished without good reason@
Baikal programs took after. But this program was refused too (officially at least)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal_(rocket_booster)
Now we work at Angara rockets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angara_(rocket_family)
I guess (at least some people say) finally it will something average between Baikal and Buran as a standard space-launch.
Sorry to rain on the Parade but this is not the great step back into the final frontier. What is happening is a little hocus pocus for the camera's. What they are launching is a Dummy Orion Space capsule. it will go up just to come back down. the Rocket being used is the Delta IV Heavy which is a good old proven system. Orion is meant for the disastrous SLS, The Heat Shield on the Orion being launched is of a design that the builder will never use again as they are already moving away form it. none of the specialized stuff like life support is up for testing or even installed. Next launch if were lucky is 2017. then again uncrewed by 2018.. maybe and then again unmanned followed by a fourth launch in 2021 which may be the first manned mission. I have more faith in Space X and Private space for the American manned space program then SLS Dragon V2 from Space X could make a flight by 2017-2018 well Orion is at best 2020-2021. Orion is also not going to take any one from earth to Mars it's to small and cramped best on that would be a ground to ship connector and landing capsule.
ReplyDeleteSolomon
Mig 105 was the original Russian X37. infact Dream Chaser is based on it in terms of shaping. they had a plan for something called Kliper . but really interesting is what every they have in orbit right now that is sending the Russians Telemetry in morse code
Always remember that Lockheed Martin is the contractor for the Orion spacecraft. Don't expect any better out of Orion than we've gotten out of the F-35 or F-22. Which means delays, broken promises, and out-of-control costs protected by their top-tier political lobbying arm.
DeleteMeaningless publicity stunts though? LM excels at that.
@Leon Cranson
DeleteThis mission is far from "worthless." From an engineering perspective it makes perfect sense.
It would make a lot more sense if they had a new rocket to test, but that's not the case here. All they're sending up is basically an empty shell. With no real onboard systems.
DeleteIt's more of a promo than a test.
What's your definition of on-board systems? Obviously the communication equipment will be tested. The avionics will be tested. The capsule itself will be vetted as they monitor pressures, g-forces, cabin air quality, etc.
DeleteJust because they're putting a guy in it first time up (a very good idea) and they're aren't testing a specific system or two (also a good idea) doesn't make this worthless or just a PR stunt.
Also, testing a new rocket and a new capsule would actually be a bad idea. Testing on a proven platform allows them to better narrow does down issues. If the rocket and capsule are new, how sure will you be the issue stemmed from the rocket or capsule? Your chances of a successful launch will obviously be higher with a proven rocket as well. I'd hate to completely lose your first chance to test the capsule because your new rocket exploded.
Pressures, g-forces, and cabin air quality can be tested just fine on the ground. I'm not saying that there's no value at all from this test, only that the value I see doesn't justify the cost of launching a full rocket mission at this time. Particularly when the next launch is 2-3 years off at least. If the capsule were maneuvering after launch, that would be a different story. But the only real thing we'll know is whether the parachutes work or not as it drops in the same arc that a rock would.
DeleteMy point about the rocket is that a dummy-capsule test would be fine if it was required in order to test an unproven launch platform. But the Delta-IV heavy IS proven. So much so that the problems that delayed the launch from happening today were well-known to the ground controllers. As were the possible fixes.
I think it is OK. Small money compared to the billions we waste per year on dud defense projects that will never provide any return on investment.
DeleteSteven, you said "worthless", I say it's not pertinent nor the great step back into manned space for the US. more of a really complex and expensive recovery exercise for the system then a actual test. none of the critical systems for Orion will be tested as the capsule being launched is not even really the intended Orion. Even if it was pertinent the next launch is not for years, followed by years of long gaps the development schedule has no ambition to back it.
DeleteSandWyrm, Lockheed Martin has it's issues but the SLS is under Boeing and the worst offender is SLS.
my worst Gripe about this is that they both (SLS and Orion) even exist. If this was the Second Bush Administration first Term or the late Clinton administration this would have been the way to go. today the Concept the Planing the mission plan is a relic.
It was written based on old NASA needs when everything had to happen in House because no one else could. Since the second term of the Bush administration Private space Ventures reached a maturity level that this became obsolete. maybe 95% all of the manned space needs of the US until the 2020's is ISS taxi. you suit up board the commander starts the meter takes off get you to ISS drops you off then loads up with the people and stuff coming back. thats the mission plan for Dragon V2, CTS-1000 and Commercial crew not Orion. and late 2020's its maybe the son of ISS. but Orion is not meant for that. Orion is for the "Grand Space ventures". except the only part it could ever play is as a lander and transport back and forth between the real ship and the ground. additionally how long are the windows between grand space missions? years! So your one offing Orions just for that one glorious mission. that one in every two dozen that does something impressive and then sitting on them. Well another two craft, your work horse are sitting there.
I can almost justify SLS has having a mission but Orion is at best a hedge on the bet, at worst and based on what we have seen it's a pork program.
The lesson learned from the Space Shuttle program is that cargo rockets and passenger rockets must be separated. It cost 5 times more per lbs on a passenger rocket than on cargo rockets, because cargo rockets can accept a lower level of safety while passenger rockets cannot. So astronauts and cargo must be launched on separate rocket systems. The shuttle program tried to launch cargo on a man-rated rocket and this is why the shuttle cargo delivery cost so much. Let cargo be launched on cargo rockets, where it's OK for the rockets to blow up during launch.
ReplyDeleteThe reason cargo is launched on a different rocket than manned missions is due to vibrations. Typical cargo rockets have a higher threshold of how much vibrating the cargo can take.
DeleteManned rockets have to be engineered to accept a much much lower level of vibrations. Otherwise, you'd literally shake your astronauts to death.
Not that your answer about cost is wrong, but vibrations are the main reason for the different rockets.
Deletehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/pentagon-worries-that-russia-can-now-outshoot-u-s-stealth-jets.html
ReplyDeleteThe Daily Beast has an article on the A2A missile problem, where it is well known that AMRAAM has a problem hitting enemy fighters with a strong EW system and stealth, and F-22 may run out of AMRAAMs before killing any Su-35s.
America's allies have long recognized this problem and are developing alternate A2A missiles; UK has teamed up with Japan to combine Meteor's propulsion with Japanese AESA seeker from AAM-4 missile, while Korea's developing a dual seeker(a radar seeker and an IR sensor) A2A missile to deal with stealth/EW.
This is why Lockheed's CUDA is a bad idea, because it's a radar guided missile when IR guided missiles are needed in stealth/strong-EW combat environment.
Some fun about the COPE INDIA exercise years back. One USAF dude told the story about the ROE for the air-to-air exercises. Defensive jamming was allowed. They had trouble calling AMRAAM shots. Funny to it wasn't the SU-30Ks that were an issue (these are much less capable than today's SU-3OMKIs). It was the MiG-21 in the "Bison" configuration that could call "AMRAAMski" shots (AA-12). It was an eye opener for the USAF. Later the USAF boss had to pay a visit to Singapore to explain to them that the F-15s they wanted to buy were still useful, even if they didn't rack up a high kill ratio in COPE INDIA (awkward).
DeleteIndeed this is the stupidity of trying to achieve an all stealth air force, and spending such a ridiculous amount of the national treasury. They have forgotten that while they are so focused on trying to "cloak the archer", that the archer's arrows may not be good enough.
DeleteAs I have always argued.
DeleteUntil we can field missiles that instantly arrive to their intended target over 100 km away, or lasers that actually work and can be economically viable, then our holy grail quest in search of total BVR dominance will be akin to chasing the white rabbit down the hole.
This is why I have always been very skeptical of the total capabilities of the F22 and why im skeptical of the F35. Or our puzzling fetish for radar stealth emphasis.
If they can launch orion on a delta IV....why do we need SLS? Yes, I know the SLS will have a 30,000lb+ payload advantage over Delta IV, but factoring in the massive R&D costs for a new rocket we could just launch the same mission on two rockets and be to Mars sooner on the same or cheaper dime. Really though my faith right now is in SpaceX for American manned-spaceflight.
ReplyDeleteThe Delta IV is not currently human-rated. A study claimed they could make it so, but it's not currently. At this stage in the game you'd be just as well off waiting for SpaceX's heavy lifter than trying to modify the Delta.
DeleteStayed up to watch this (night here). Ended up being scrubbed for the day.
ReplyDeleteSteven oliver, so this test is just a PR move ? no manned support system active in the capsule ? What the reason for this PR move then ? Is SpaceX late in their timeline of manned system launch ?
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm more impressed with Orion's reported mission profile of making 1 orbit in low-Earth-orbit, followed by 1 orbit blasted up to 3,500+ miles high, then re-entering the atmosphere all within 3 orbits? That would indicate some pretty good maneuvering and re-entry capability. (more than any advertised possible deep-space abilities).
ReplyDelete