|
Author
|
Topic: [Discuss] NASA's Orion Exploration Flight Test
|
perineau
Member Posts: 368
From: FRANCE
Registered: Jul 2007
|
posted 12-06-2014 10:14 AM
   
...so based on the aforementioned remark that Orion is essentially a re-entry vehicle for "a much larger spacecraft" to go to Mars, I would say in conclusion that it is unfortunately, little more than a somewhat improved Apollo spacecraft - not very exciting 40 years after the fact! |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-06-2014 10:24 AM
Excitement is subjective. Orion doesn't need to be exciting, it just needs to do what it was designed to do. |
Mike_The_First
Member Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014
|
posted 12-06-2014 10:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by perineau:
...I would say in conclusion that it is unfortunately, little more than a somewhat improved Apollo spacecraft - not very exciting 40 years after the fact!
It's not about the similarities — it's about the differences.The comparison to Apollo is one NASA makes themselves. They're also, though, quick to point out what differentiates the two. It's a lot more "exciting" if you don't write those changes off as being "somewhat improved." Plus, a lot of the "excitement" isn't necessarily due to the technology in Orion, but, rather, what that technology is destined to be used for and where it's destined to go. ETA: NASA Communications' Bob Jacobs posted this photo on his Facebook a couple of days back; I'm sure he wouldn't mind me sharing it here. I've moved it to a hosting site, so as to not share his personal FB info.  |
Chariot412
Member Posts: 164
From: Lockport, NY, 14094
Registered: Jun 2011
|
posted 12-06-2014 12:37 PM
Actually... I'm pretty excited.And I'm guessing so were the tens of thousands who attended the launch and hundreds of thousands who followed the event. But that's just a guess.  |
datkatz
Member Posts: 178
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-06-2014 12:50 PM
And I'm guessing that most people's excitement will fade years before the next flight.
|
datkatz
Member Posts: 178
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-06-2014 01:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Orion doesn't need to be exciting, it just needs to do what it was designed to do.
Actually, Orion does need to be exciting, or else it will never achieve the sustained funding it so desperately needs.NASA spent millions to excite the American public about Apollo, and were quite successful. When that excitement waned, however, after the first few landings, missions were cancelled — even though the hardware had already been paid for. I might add that Orion certainly would be exciting, doing what it was designed to do, if the program weren't so time-diluted. |
dabolton
Member Posts: 419
From: Seneca, IL, US
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 12-06-2014 02:25 PM
I think an interesting factoid that would be to see is how much square footage is be saved by the smaller electronics and glass touch panels. Ie how much roomier would an Apollo capsule be if the Orion systems were installed in it. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-06-2014 02:25 PM
quote:
Originally posted by datkatz:
When that excitement waned, however, after the first few landings, missions were cancelled — even though the hardware had already been paid for.
Had Apollo been reliant on public sentiment at the time, we would have never reached the moon. Public opinion polls at the time of Apollo showed that a majority of Americans were not in favor of spending money on sending astronauts to the moon. Only in 1969 did the polls slightly tip in the other direction, and by then the funding was already decided.NASA did not spend millions trying to excite the public, a point underscored in the excellent book "Marketing the Moon" by our own David M. Scott and Richard Jurek. If this is a subject that interests you, it's a must-read. Interest in the moon landings began waning with the end of Apollo 11 (there was a brief reprise as a result of the a astronauts being in peril on Apollo 13 but that faded before Apollo 14 launched). The latter Apollo missions weren't canceled because the public wasn't excited, however. The missions were canceled because Apollo had achieved its goal. Apollo was not a lunar exploration program; it was a "flags and footprints" program where the goal was national prestige. Everything that happened after Apollo 11 was based on the momentum of that mission but that never had the political backing to continue. |
datkatz
Member Posts: 178
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-06-2014 02:41 PM
Political backing depends, to a large extent for programs like these, on public support. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-06-2014 02:54 PM
For the most part it does not, which was the point of my mentioning that the lack of public support for Apollo didn't really have a role in Apollo 11 happening or the later Apollo missions being canceled.NASA programs have never had the type of overwhelming public support to make much of a difference politically. For the most part, the public has been indifferent about NASA — even during the early days. Space exploration was something nice to do, but not critical to the nation or worthy of increased funding. Getting back to Orion and the Space Launch System, it will succeed if NASA can function within its budget, which is why the flights are scheduled as they are. Trying to compress the program into a fewer number of years will only result in another cancellation due to budget overruns. |
datkatz
Member Posts: 178
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-06-2014 03:12 PM
Of course the incredibly drawn-out scheduling is due to poor funding. As Aviation Week just wrote: Constrained funding also threatens the program, and has forced the agency to defer key tests of the capsule's launch abort system that could ultimately lead to cost increases and schedule delays, should any unexpected technical issues arise. (Emphasis added.)Apollo's first "shakedown" flight (Block I) took place in 1966. Three and one-half years later we landed on the moon — with a total redesign of the spacecraft done in that time, as well. We stand on the shoulders of those giants who came before us; there is no question that today's snail-like pace is due to a lack of funding. I stated a while back that America does not have the will to support a true manned deep space exploration program. A nation's will is measured in its willingness to expend lives and treasure. I stand by my statement. |
datkatz
Member Posts: 178
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-06-2014 03:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
NASA programs have never had the type of overwhelming public support to make much of a difference politically. For the most part, the public has been indifferent about NASA — even during the early days. Space exploration was something nice to do, but not critical to the nation or worthy of increased funding.
Not true, Robert. And you'd know that if you had been there at the time. Space — and space exploration — were everywhere--advertising, architecture, toys, books, TV shows... Flights were carried live, and were magazine cover stories. (Even weeks later, thanks to the Life contracts.) There was a public excitement which hadn't been seen since the dawn of aviation, a half-century before. When that enthusiasm faded, manned space exploration faded as well, and we were left with a thirty-year shuttle boondoggle. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-06-2014 03:51 PM
Again, don't confuse public interest with public support. The public was interested in the Apollo landings (up to Apollo 11) and was happy to take part in the commercialization of the program, but that doesn't automatically translate to support. When questioned, a majority of Americans did not support funding the program until after it was already funded and on the decline.I am not disputing that there was excitement generated by Apollo 11. There most certainly was. But that excitement did little to shape the program itself. There were other, more complicated and more pressing forces at play. |
datkatz
Member Posts: 178
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-06-2014 03:57 PM
It wasn't just Apollo 11 that generated excitement, it was the entire space program, at least from Shepard's flight on.And even if I were to concede your point regarding public interest vs. public support (which I do not), at least then there was public interest. Today we have neither. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-06-2014 04:08 PM
There is most definitely public interest today. As just two examples: ESA's landing on comet 67P outperformed a celebrity's attempt to "break the internet" and Orion has been trending on Twitter for three days. The public is interested, but, as has almost always been the case, is not overwhelmingly supportive of spending money on space exploration. Orion's EFT-1 mission drew tremendous public interest, but NASA isn't counting on that to move the program forward. |
datkatz
Member Posts: 178
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-06-2014 04:19 PM
"Tremendous public interest"? I would argue that you, as a space journalist, are surrounded by like-minded people (both on and off the Web), and spend considerable time at space-related facilities.But as one who lives in the real world — no NASA press passes, no contractor invitations, no scouring the media (social and otherwise) for anything space related, there wasn't much knowledge of (let alone interest in) the EFT-1 mission. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-06-2014 04:27 PM
There were several hundred members of the press at the launch yesterday, most representing news organizations that are not dedicated to space exploration. The product of their work reached far more than space enthusiasts. The launch was broadcast live as part of the network morning shows on the east coast. In the lead up to EFT-1, feature articles have been running in general interest magazines, in newspapers and on television news. Sesame Street was counting down to the launch. So no, I am not limited my scope to those only in the know. The "real world" did take interest. |
datkatz
Member Posts: 178
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-06-2014 04:40 PM
Choose a random person in the street. Ask him/her who Kim Kardashian is married to. Then ask what happened yesterday at Cape Canaveral. Wanna take bets on which answer will be "I don't know"? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-06-2014 04:47 PM
Okay, I am sitting on a plane right now flying from Indianapolis to Houston. The person next to me came on the plane in Indiana, so is truly random to me. I just asked her: she knew the answer to both questions. Remind me again what does that prove? I didn't say everyone in the world paid attention to EFT-1. I said there was tremendous public interest. Randomly polling a person on a street (or on a plane) neither negates or confirms that assertion. |
datkatz
Member Posts: 178
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-06-2014 04:50 PM
Cool that you tried the experiment! I guess you'll have to poll a larger sample. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-06-2014 04:54 PM
In a way, that's already been done. A very large sampling of people needed to have mentioned Orion (or retweeted mention of Orion) for it start trending on Twitter. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3604
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-06-2014 07:02 PM
My experience was that many people who know of my interest in space initiated conversations about EFT-1. Most didn't know exactly what it was about, but they knew it was an important test. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3604
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-06-2014 07:11 PM
A technical question: Delta 4 Heavy uses liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, like the space shuttle main engines. Why does the Delta 4 Heavy have a bright yellow/white exhaust, whereas the shuttle had an almost invisible exhaust flame? The only answer I can come up with is that the SSME exhaust is very close to the blindingly bright SRB exhaust and seems faint by comparison, but I'm not convinced that is the right answer. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 12-06-2014 07:50 PM
Scheduling the next flight in 2018, does make Orion and the SLS easily forgettable. Funding plus the next Administration, makes that flight 50/50 in my mind. I loved (and my students did too!) the flight but the thought did cross my mind that this might be the only Orion launch. |
JBoe
Member Posts: 993
From: Edgewater, MD
Registered: Oct 2012
|
posted 12-06-2014 07:51 PM
By what I gathered from watching NASA TV of yesterday's launch it appeared that the launch and re-entry were flawless. Heck, even the NASA JSC commentator even deemed it to be performing as expected. Is the huge success of yesterday's launch attributed to more of the technical know-how of the Apollo program in certain engineering aspects or their continued refinement from all programs? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-06-2014 08:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Why does the Delta 4 Heavy have a bright yellow/white exhaust, whereas the shuttle had an almost invisible exhaust flame?
For the same reason provided for the observed flashes earlier in this thread: the ablative coating on the RS-68 engine nozzles. The "fountain of fire" is the ablative burning away. |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1961
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 12-07-2014 07:15 AM
I took the whole thing for what it was... progress. Having seen the beginning of the Mercury program, it was nice to see the beginning of another with its future capabilities at hand.What happens to the program is pure conjecture. It's alive right now and progressing at whatever speed it is progressing at. Enjoy it! |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 12-07-2014 07:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JBoe:
Is the huge success of yesterday's launch attributed to more of the technical know-how of the Apollo program...
They could certainly learn something from Apollo when it comes to recovery. There must have been huge confidence in the sea-worthiness of Orion not to employ divers to fit a floatation collar. Or is this to come once the capsule is manned? |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1815
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 12-07-2014 10:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by JBoe:
...or their continued refinement from all programs?
All programs. There is very little of Apollo influence left. The shape of the capsule is basically it. The capsule maker, Lockheed Martin, has a very small role in Apollo. Most of its experience was from the DOD and NASA unmanned spacecraft. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1815
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 12-07-2014 10:59 AM
quote:
Originally posted by datkatz:
I stated a while back that America does not have the will to support a true manned deep space exploration program.
Because it doesn't have reason or need to do so. Soft power projection is the only real reason. Any other reason won't pass a smell test, especially those related to "manifest destiny." The test is "does manned deep space exploration enhance the well being of the US government and its citizens?" There is basically no economic return from manned deep space exploration. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3604
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 12-07-2014 01:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The "fountain of fire" is the ablative burning away.
Thanks, Robert. That's a pretty good explanation of the difference between an expendable rocket-engine and one designed for re-use.By the way, Fred's (GACspaceguy's) photo of the launch posted on 5th December looks eerily like a Saturn V launch. |
datkatz
Member Posts: 178
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-07-2014 03:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
There is basically no economic return from manned deep space exploration.
Correct on both counts, Jim. That's why Elon Musk, who a) has a vision, and b) isn't afraid to spend money, will get to Mars long before NASA. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1815
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 12-07-2014 03:38 PM
It has nothing to do with a vision. That is the just the way it should be. Government doesn't need to lead, just facilitate and get out of the way. |
Mike_The_First
Member Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014
|
posted 12-07-2014 03:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by datkatz:
That's why Elon Musk, who a) has a vision, and b) isn't afraid to spend money, will get to Mars long before NASA.
Why does it need to be a competition? Why can't we just all say "Oh, sweet, we're finally going to Mars!"? Personally, I don't really care what company/organization is the first one to do it. They all build off each other's ideas anyway. You really think NASA cares if a private firm gets there before they do? I highly doubt that. This isn't the Cold War--the goal is achievement, not achievement before anyone else. So why can't we just look at the achievements instead of bickering over who will be the first to achieve it? |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1815
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 12-07-2014 03:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
That's a pretty good explanation of the difference between an expendable rocket-engine and one designed for re-use.
That is the wrong generalization. This condition is unique to the RS-68 which uses an ablative nozzle. Most expendable rocket-engines do not use ablative nozzles (Atlas V, Delta II, Antares, etc). And many, even though they are expendable, can be refired/reused. |
Paul78zephyr
Member Posts: 797
From: Hudson, MA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 12-07-2014 03:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The material falls into the exhaust and burns (by design).
Thanks for that info! I did not know the RS-68 used that type of nozzle design. I wonder how they decide on ablative nozzle vs fuel cooled. etc? |
datkatz
Member Posts: 178
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-07-2014 04:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
It has nothing to do with a vision.
It has everything to do with vision. Musk wants to go to Mars. He's not being contracted to go. quote:
Originally posted by Mike_The_First:
So why can't we just look at the achievements instead of bickering over who will be the first to achieve it?
Considering Orion's schedule, it certainly matters who gets there first. Orion has insufficient funding to overcome the setbacks that will surely come. That makes it highly questionable whether NASA will ever get there. Whenever Musk gets to Mars, he will be first. |
alcyone
Member Posts: 165
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 12-07-2014 06:12 PM
It will be extremely difficult and expensive for anyone, including Elon Musk, to get people onto Mars. |
Paul78zephyr
Member Posts: 797
From: Hudson, MA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 12-07-2014 07:16 PM
In this 'Orion, Delta IV Heavy Liftoff-Up Close' NASA video what are the 'streamers' that can be seen at approx :09? (Playing the video at 1/4 speed helps seeing them.) |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1815
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 12-07-2014 07:28 PM
LOIS - A type of liftoff instrumentation system. There are sensors on the vehicle that provide data until the data line breaks. |
advertisement