Splashdown! Orion lands safely in the Pacific Ocean The Orion spaceship has landed safely in the Pacific Ocean, off the coast of California, just a mile and a half off-target, after its maiden voyage in space. NASA’s new manned mission capsule operated almost entirely by the book today, passing each of its test flight milestones more or less on time, and dropping back to Earth …
Unfortunately, NASA probably had to come up some scenario and sold it to the politicians about how this will help us win the cold war ... opps wrong century ... to help us defeat the all bad guys around the world. If it's not in the name of national insecurity, then it won't get funded.
But I agree, better to spend it on this than on a drone that looks like a butterfly and carries a tactical nuclear weapon.
I'd rather them blow tax money on Orion
I hate to tell you but no-one is even asking you about whether you like to see this or that done with the taxdollars that your kids will have to pay back.
Yeah, "Orion" is nice (for some values of nice), but so would be Petunias on every balcon of Washington, D.C.
Full disclosure: I would vote for it (or at least something in the general direction of it), if I could and the money was on the table.
It's too bad that NASA probably has had to axe a lot of promising research and development in order to fund this stuff. Given the current speed of development, I doubt the SLS is going to be anywhere near competitive in price by the time it has been developed. Orion is going to be a pricey proposition as well.
Nasa needs a larger budget and for politicians to stop fucking up its agenda every 4 years.
I am very curious about the Roscosmos offer to launch an Apollo 8 style circumlunar tour on Soyuz.
Not heard of lately but it was real.
There are many obscenely wealthy people who had the ability to pay, a few paid many millions of US dollars to be on the ISS, why did none of the obscenely rich take up the circumlunar offering from Roskosmos? AFAIK, is no longer on offer, why is that?
It is interesting on many levels.
"Math needs a little work. 2014-1969=45 years."
Reading skills need a little work..
"And if that goes well, the space agency is aiming to get people going on a mission to Mars in 2021, over 50 years after it managed to make human footprints on the Moon."
2021-1969=52 years.
"There is nothing wrong with Russia.", I like to agree, but there is a guy who has driven himself into a corner, and I hope the Russians will understand how to deal with it before soon. There might be even stronger stupidity available. It would be better if internal stupidity could be dealt with internally before it becomes global.
Hovewer there is also this rather funny moon conspiracy theory. Do you really think the Russians would have kept mum if the USA had failed. Damn it.
Something for the weekend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIviufQ4APo
"He is also very popular", so was Hitler, among the royal family too. Remember Henry Ford. At the Olympics in Berlin the French gave him the Heil Hitler, some countries did not. Please, no matter how I disliked Boy Bush he did accept his eight years, eight too many. Putin is now informing the Russians he will stay on (as the nice guy he is) for his fourth stint, only not for life as he has put it now. Hitler was elected in a democratic way. Shit happens and Woodhouse was joking about it. Smile Russians smile as long as you can, or the hell.
is a small capsule like that to go to Mars and back? The main point seems to be continuing handouts to contractors like Lockheed-Martin.
Not that they are short of taxpayer dollars.
The implication in their press is that they paid for it themselves (370 million US dollars, ridiculous, and that seems to be the cost of this one flight!).
How much were they receiving in the development phase?
Anyone with precise knowledge, please share it.
I do not believe it, US citizens paid for that flight and for the overpriced project, from a corporation that is obese from war contracts.
Do not believe that they do anything for the greater good, although I know their engineers try for excellence.
Congratulations to them for the flight.
Alright, I read it in detail. Some interesting ideas, seems very reliant on tech. copied from the USSR and Russia via the ISS.
Today's most interesting aerospace news is that Russia is going to pull the plug on ISS participation in 2020, and will use the modules that are currently in production for it as the basis for a new station in a higher orbit.
I only checked the Reg. tonight because I thought they might have a story about it.
I am sure that the fliers all get along most of the time, but with the economic war on the ground, it's no wonder that they want to put a limit on US exploitation of their space tech.
What a shame.
"...a pass through the lower Van Allen belt, atmospheric re-entry at 20,000 miles an hour and 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit"
Uhmm. Didn't El Reg pledge some time ago to using metric units (at least in addition to Imperial and Reg-al ones)? Mainlanders would appreciate.
Well let's see:-
Miles to kilometers is 8/5, so 3604 divided by 5 is about 700 plus a bit, multiplied by 8 is 5600 plus a bit, say 5700 km.
0°C to 100°C is the same as 32°F to 212°F so a lot of Farenheits is about 100/180 as many Centigrades, so 5/9 times as many Centigrades, so 4000 °F is about (5 x 4000) / 9 = 2222 °C ish.
Oh look I've got a caloculator, 5800 km and 2204°C.
Say 5,800 ish km and 2,204 ish Celsius being more like it.
Did you, by chance, have a hand the orbital and re-entry calcs which resulted in landing "just a mile and a half off target"? Now multiply that by the trajectory distance to Mars and "Oh hello deep space. Where did that little red planet go?"
Now all sing along "Ground control to Major Tom......."
I was only joking about the mile and a half. When it comes to travelling to Mars you start from orbit. You can calculate your trajectory very accurately when you don't have air in the way.
Once you're moving, you can also verify just how close you are going to be and tweak your trajectory en route. Is not like firing a gun at a target millions of miles away.
Still not a bad song, hey!
As for the units, I would say 'much hotter than a kettle that's come to the boil, and from a height of about 60,000 soccer pitches'.
It is still just an over-priced tax extravaganza for now. No big impressive show. Nobody aboard, they likely can't even do that if they want at this stage.
Don't get me wrong, a mile and a half out is pretty good. But Buran landed within 5 feet of its target on its one and only flight.
Also, keen to see how they plan to put together a Mars lander. That thing has to touch down with a hell of a lot of delta-v in the tanks.
Anyway. Well done to all. A safe flight is a successful flight.
But Buran landed within 5 feet of its target on its one and only flight.
Apples and bananas. Buran was flown onto a runway; Orion came down on parachutes. A little harder to calculate wind vectors and make adjustments. And let's not talk about copping hangar designs from the Russians, shall we?
Er, El Reg?
NASA sending people to Mars in the 2020's? Check your facts, please. NASA has ZERO plans to send people to Mars in the 2020's nor have they even begun work on the habitat module they'll need.
Seriously, 4 people in an Orion capsule for six months? Eww...
Kudo's to NASA for getting the mission to work but it doesn't change the fact that Orion is a horribly expensive capsule for a horribly expensive rocket, SLS and together, they're so very very (I'd even say horribly) expensive that NASA will never be able to afford to do anything with them.
Which makes all of this a bit pointless really...
I got an idea. They should make a reusable space ship, one that glides back to Earth. It could be turned around in about a month and reused. 'Cause that'll be cheaper and safer. I bet that the risk of failure might be about 1-in-10,000. And there's no way that each launch would end up costing $1.2B. With a fleet of four or five, they could be launched once a week.
" 'Cause that'll be cheaper and safer. I bet that the risk of failure might be about 1-in-10,000. And there's no way that each launch would end up costing $1.2B. "
You forgot the rest.
"And set a fixed cap of 1 Beeeelion dollars a year* on the budget (with no rolling over any underspend) and no allowance for inflation."
Thank you Caspar Weinberger of the (Nixon era) OMB.
*Enough to design a single new vehicle and a single new engine, which killed all the original 2 stage proposals. The winning design (1 vehicle + mother-of-all-RATO packs + humongous drop tank was a British aerospace engineer).
I'm an old fart who clearly remembers the birth of the space race way back in 1957. The single event that changed our world forever occurred when Russia successfully launched Sputnik 1, the world's very first satellite into orbit. America was completely caught off guard and thus the space race was born. The name Sputnik immediately went viral overnight. Soon, unmanned, then manned, orbital missions followed, again led by Russia. The space race was moving forward at breakneck speeds. JFK's throwing down the gauntlet speech in 1962 proclaiming that America would put a man on the moon in that decade, and did, was a fantastic period of amazing technological achievements by brilliant scientists and engineers and designers using archaic 'slip sticks' (slide rules) and drafting tables. Not only were there no personal computers in those days, there were no electronic handheld calculators. In spite of these challenges NASA did indeed put a man on the moon by 1969. OK, back to the future...
FFS, now I almost feel like Sherman, and we've slipped into Mr. Peabody's WABAC time machine and crash landed back in the early 1960s again. So in this, the 21st century, with ever more powerful super computers and advanced technology we're back to using 1960ish space capsules perched on top of incredibly expensive disposable rockets AND having to fish the soggy space capsules out of the salty brine again. WTF?! It's almost 2015 and we're suddenly back to square 1 again. I just can't believe how absurd this whole mess is.
I always felt like NASA lost the plot decades ago when it promptly abandoned human space exploration way back in 1972 after the (mostly) successful Apollo moon missions and instead concentrated on Earth-orbiting missions resulting in the long running Space Shuttle program. Sure much was learned, but at the cost of not advancing human space exploration.
So now we have the ridiculous Orion program. What an effing joke! We have had the technology to go to Mars decades ago - post Apollo. This can only mean that NASA seems to be employing the same quality of brainless twits, aka, 'scientists', that have infested the medical research 'industry'... you know... the ones who haven't found a cure for anything in the last 50 years. But...hey... they have mastered the art of treating, not curing illnesses, so you and I pay and pay and pay and... OOPS, that's a rant for another day.
OK, here are some interesting tidbits about Orion:
1. From Wikipedia: "Astronauts were deliberately left off the flight to test the heat shield, parachutes, jettisoning components, and on-board computers before committing a crew. As a result, instead of standard seats, cockpit displays, and life-support equipment, the craft was filled with sentimental toys and memorabilia..." OMG, how can anyone respond to this line of thinking? So they didn't think it was important to test the life-support equipment in actual flight conditions. This is effing beyond insane... unless they're not really planning on launching any manned missions!
2. From Wikipedia: "Astronauts may fly on the Orion by 2021." OUCH, so there won't be a manned mission until 2021 at the earliest?! The destination hasn't even been decided yet. [rolls eyes]
3. Here's the biggy... From qz.com:
"The US government has a spacecraft again—but don’t believe the Mars hype"
"The problem is that Orion is neither fish nor fowl: It was originally conceived as part of a program to replace the Space Shuttle as a transportation to low-earth orbit, but that program was cancelled for cost-overruns and replaced with commercial contracts. Orion was revamped as a vehicle for exploration beyond low-earth orbit, but it actually isn’t big enough to allow people to make the three-year trip to Mars—that will require an additional craft, the as-yet-undesigned habitation module. Then there’s the issue of building a lander to get everything down to the surface of the red planet."
"This spacecraft has cost $60 billion to develop so far and likely won’t fly again until 2018."
"And even if Orion is the spacecraft that will take people to Mars, that won’t happen for 20 years. Why then use technology that is decades old, and rockets that are even older?"
"That’s why [former NASA deputy administrator Lori] Garver have been critical of this project, which she says is more about placating contractors and members of Congress than accomplishing scientific goals."
OK, the bottom line for all you younger guys and gals out there who think this Orion program is so wonderful, we older folks, who were around to witness the absolutely extraordinary space programs of the 1960s-1970s, just shake our heads as we know it for what it really is... a gazillion dollar pork barrel project, courtesy of American taxpayers.
[quadruple facepalm]
"Rebuttal: Apollo 4, 5, and 6. Three unmanned flights that included the CM."
LOL...You're completely missing the point JP. NASA has already been there - done that - and has the teeshirt to prove it. Waaay back in the 1960s NASA was just spreading its wings and each new mission was unique and previously never done before.That's certainly not the case here in the 21st century. Yes, Orion space program is indeed regressive and is simply a sham. It was born from previous ultra-wasteful pork barrel projects that were cancelled. It just has a new name, that's all.
I was thinking something similar yesterday while watching it. I want to be excited about the new program, and it is great we are back in space, but I kept thinking Congrats NASA - welcome to the 1960's. They were even saying many of the systems were from Apollo. While proven systems are good, I don't feel like we have made the next evolution in travel like in the introduction of the shuttle program. The news had referred to the capsule sending them up to another ship in orbit though. Which could be more interesting I suppose. Then you could think of these as shuttle buses. Based on how the space station assembly took years to build, they should be building the new space assembly platform about now in time to be starting to assemble another ship by the 2020's though. Then those programs go through what the ISS went though in congress.
In terms of actual rocket science, they're keeping the actual good bits of the space shuttle, the SRBs and the space shuttle main engines.
As they don't need to fly any single-orbit missions anymore, they don't need huge wings anymore. The buge wjngs of the shuttle were needed so that on a single orbit polar mission, the shuttle could use its wings to compensate for the earth rotating underneath it, so it could return in a single orbit to its launch site. The air force wanted that, but no missions were actually flown.
Without wings, they can place the orbiter ontop of the rocket, and not have piece of foam and ice smash into it on take off.
The first SRBs to fly will actually be reused from the shuttle, and have flown before. They don't plan to reuse them anymore. If it doesn't pay off, don't do it.
The space shuttle main engines are phenomenal still today, their fuel efficiency is 1.7 times better than that of Saturn V.
Of course, politicians will probably cancel the SLS, which is the most useful bit of all the associated projects...
From reading, I always had the impression that NASA was ordered to stop the extra-terrestrial flights with crews at Apollo 17 ... a looong time ago.
Shuttle was an interesting failure.
US govt should refit the X-37b for piloted flights with two or three aboard, instead of whatever war-games they have it playing now. That would make for a very affordable and re-usable lift to orbit.
What use is a re-entry heatshield in the thin atmosphere of mars, let alone the wisp around the moon.
It should make a nice crater so we can find the landing site though.
Similarly, parachutes on Mars are so useless we use rockets to land, Good luck with them on a lunar landing.
So, how do these technologies help us get to either objective?
There is a great deal more to this story. This capsule was built on a no-bid subcontract from the United Launch Alliance. It is strictly 1960's technology because that is all ULA (Boeing+Lockheed) can do. The AVERAGE cost overrun by ULA has been 42%. They have NEVER delivered a product within 10% of the contractual deadline. Contract courts have allowed the overruns and contract 100% of the time --- maybe because every contract court judge is a former defense industry executive. This was a half-billion dollars spend on a capsule that has such limited utility that it is essentially worthless.
Compare the Orion to the Dragon capsule. (The V2 Dragon is the same as the current capsule except for the addition of seating and crew support electronics.
The Dragon capsule is flying currently. It has made several missions to the ISS carrying cargo in its pressurized and unpressurized compartments. It has also brought back delicate experiments and broken equipment. This is something that Soyuz and Orion cannot do. They are passengers only whereas the S[paceX capsule can accomodate a wide mix of people and cargo. The Orion can carry 4 astronauts. The Dragon can carry 7. The Orion is dependent on parachutes and a water landing to return. Water recoveries are incredibly expensive because of the huge amount of men and material involved. The Dragon capsule was designed to use a propulsive landing system with parachute backup to land anywhere with the precision of a helicopter. This dramatically reduces recovery costs and provides for reuse of the capsule. Both Orion and Soyuz are one-time-use capsules. (The current sea landings are a contractual requirement of NASA.) The bottom line is that the capsule is 20-30 years ahead of Orion and is already flying and is 2 years ahead of schedule and significantly under budget. The Dragon capsule actually has the ability with refueling, to both land and take off from the moon. The Orion has the capability to go to the Smithsonian museum.
But it doesn't stop there. The Falcon upper stage is multiply restartable. No other upper stage has this capability. SpaceX has already launched six satellites at once into different orbits. Neither the Delta nor Atlas series has this capability. And SpaceX does not use Russian or Chinese-made parts or electronics or even motors produced under license from Russian. The restartability has several functions that include being a lunar heavy lift lander.
But the crowing accomplishment for SpaceX is the booster. The Falcon booster is designed to be recovered back to the launch pad and reused. The booster has been used as many as 16 times without failure already. The past ISS missions have practiced landing on the surface of the ocean to gain the telemetry in a reallife situation. All those landings have been successful. On Dec 16th SpaceX will launch another supply mission to the ISS, but will attempt recovery of the booster to a barge, from which it will be "hopped" back to Canaveral. This one feature along can reduce launch costs by as much as 70%. Add to that the savings from land recovery and launching multiple satellites with one launch and you have a system that is 30-40 years ahead of anything ULA or the ESA or the Russians have.
All the reply ULA and NASA (and the Pentagon) have is to try to do everything with no-bid contracts which exclude SpaceX and to drag their feet on certifications. Could this have anything to do with the fact that hundreds or Pentagon and NASA procurement officers find post-retirement six-figure jobs with Boeing or Lockheed? Or the fact that ULA "ownes" a large number of Congressmen? Of course it does.
But currently SpaceX is launching satellites at 42% of the cost of an ESA Arianne launch. And that numnber will decrease over time. Every SpaceX vehicle for the next ten years is already booked up. It really is time to stop no-bid contracts to ULA. The intention of no-bid contracts was to keep that segment of the defense industry healthy. But with Chinese-made electronics and Russian-made or licensed components, the Russian and Chinese defense industries benefit as much of not more. SpaceX is home-grown, American, and does not rely on China or Russia.
"There is a great deal more to this story. This capsule was built on a no-bid subcontract from the United Launch Alliance. It is strictly 1960's technology because that is all ULA (Boeing+Lockheed) can do. The AVERAGE cost overrun by ULA has been 42%. They have NEVER delivered a product within 10% of the contractual deadline. Contract courts have allowed the overruns and contract 100% of the time --- maybe because every contract court judge is a former defense industry executive. This was a half-billion dollars spend on a capsule that has such limited utility that it is essentially worthless."
Don't know enough about "Contractor court" to comment on this. It would explain a lot.....
"Compare the Orion to the Dragon capsule. (The V2 Dragon is the same as the current capsule except for the addition of seating and crew support electronics."
It's a bit more than that. That's called the Environmental Control and Life Support System. It's a bit more substantial than what 1.0 has been carrying (V 1.0 has carried mice).
The big item (apart from the beefed up ECLSS) is that crew Dragon docks rather than is "berthed" so it's got independent thrusters on it and a whole different chunk of ironmongery on the front.
"It has also brought back delicate experiments and broken equipment. This is something that Soyuz and Orion cannot do. "
Incorrect again. Both can do this. That's sort of the point. Till Commercial Crew flies the US has nothing to carry humans. Orion is (in theory) the backup to Commercial Crew, but as it's only human rated on (unflown) SLS it will be hugely expensive to use this way.
"The Dragon capsule was designed to use a propulsive landing system with parachute backup to land anywhere with the precision of a helicopter. "
Currently. Original version was IIRC air bags and parachutes. The land landing (like Soyuz) is a big cost saver.
"But it doesn't stop there. The Falcon upper stage is multiply restartable. No other upper stage has this capability. "
Again wrong. Centaur has been restarted 5 times. The Ariane 5 storable and cryogenic upper stages also have restart capability. IIRC the Russian Frigat US is also a LOX/Kero design with restart capability (and runs a staged combustion cycle, like most Russian engines).
"SpaceX has already launched six satellites at once into different orbits. Neither the Delta nor Atlas series has this capability."
They do, as does Ariane 5. Look up "Secondary payload adaptor." BTW Orbital launched Orbcomm satellites 6 at a time from its Pegasus XL
I'll leave it there. We get it. You're a fanboi.
Don't get me wrong SpaceX has made significant achievements. They are just not what you think they are.
Supersonic retro ignition. Discovering upper stage reuse is uneconomic. Expecting that only a "BFR" size vehicle will have enough payload to make upper stage recovery economic. Coming close to full water landing.
These are all significant achievements and involve real science and deep understanding.
Whilst most of the 'facts' above are a little off, I think it would be a brave person who bet on Orion being first to the Mars ahead of SpaceX/Falcon. As you say, SpaceX's achievements are truly great, and are coming at a faster rate than from any other launch company.
Looking forward to the possible barge landing in a week or two's time...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
