Talk:Orion (spacecraft)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space exploration. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. See also our assessed articles.	Assessment:
		B Class
		High Importance

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents 1 Comments 2 Slashdot 3 Picture placment 4 Broader program? 5 Editing without bias 6 Isn't the new timetable that was added under spiral development a little too optimistic? 7 New section 8 Acronyms 9 Article is too long 10 Suface landing update 11 Graphics 12 Writing 13 Methane Engines 14 Splitting Page 15 Merge: OSP 16 Apollo J-2 engine? 17 Requested move 17.1 Survey 17.2 Discussion 18 Move to new name 19 Requested move 19.1 Survey 19.2 Discussion 19.2.1 Launch date 20 Terminology 21 Contractor selected Aug. 31 22 CEV mockup picture 23 Pictures 24 Edit of 11/13

[edit] Comments

What parts of the various design proposals contain non-reusable parts? Doesn't NASA want a more reusable, economical way to reach LEO? -Jon, 1:41 PM EST 6/18/05

NASA has already more reusable way to get to orbit (Space Shuttle). As one can see, more reusable is not necessarily more economical (at current technological level). --Bricktop 10:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Will the CEV be just the capsule (and thus presumably useable with different rockets), or will it be the combination of capsule + rocket? --NeuronExMachina 04:03, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In a sense it will be both, and more. The CEV, or project Constellation as it is now called is a modular vehicle which is comparable to the Apollo command module and the LEM combined. So it is a capsule with rocket motors. But it does not include the launcher, so yes it could presumably be used with several different kinds of launching rockets to place it in low orbit for going to the ISS or to send it off to the moon or other celestial bodies. AlainV 06:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope, when you read the Draft RFP issued on January 21st, 2005, the CEV includes neither the launcher nor the LM. It is really like the Apollo command and service module. 23 Jan 2005.

Would whoever wrote the t/space has withdrawn from the competion please cite their source. I went to thier website and it says nothing of this developement. Since t/Space was formed just for this competition then thier is no way this would not be mentioned. Unless the company was a farce from the begining. --Hfarmer 09:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point. Hmm. NASA Watch citing New Scientist. Rand Simberg ditto. All sources I'd respect, but some poking around doesn't find a source other than New Scientist. I'll ask around. Shimgray 12:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Another one - a UPI story, but again referencing New Scientist.

An update... Henry Vanderbilt, from the Space Access Society:

I've spoken to David Gump recently, on that subject as well as others, and he said that T-Space has made no final decision either way on bidding for CEV. (...) may have ended up having too much read into it.

(from a Usenet post: news<423C4F1D.70BB0BD5@mindspring.com>). So it looks like it was possibly incorrect (although the paperwork burden certainly is extensive). Shimgray 03:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• We are past the deadline (May 2nd). So do we know who did bid ? 82.127.151.89 16:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• The Lockheed CEV design does look similar to the Russian Kliper. Maybe they should call it the "Yankee Clipper". ;-) Reubenbarton 18:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

This is mostly for others since Reubenbarton is probably already familiar with this—The name "Yankee Clipper" would certainly fit with the current Apollo-to-Shuttle naming conventions NASA seems to favor. Endeavour, Columbia, Challenger and Yankee Clipper (see Apollo_12) were used as Apollo program module names (along with several others).

• Boing link is a dead. Revision is needed.

• Space.com posted a new CEV article (03-Aug-2005) with some more detail not yet included in this wiki article. Including concept art of the new solid-booster-derived vehicle.

• This part:

    The CEV would be an Apollo-like capsule, not a lifting body or winged vehicle.

should be removed, or amended, and the later references updated. The Sentinel article (and I have it right here in front of me), does not definitively state that the CEV will be an Apollo-like capsule, excluding a Lockheed lifting body like design. It's simply a generalized example to contrast what the CEV will not be: a huge winged spaceplane like the shuttle. In fact, the most definitive adjectives the article uses are "strikingly similar" and "same general concept as" (an Apollo like design), which to me isn't enough evidence to rule anything out.

[edit] Slashdot

This article was just linked on Slashdot. —chris.lawson (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

• Also keep a close eye on the Space Shuttle program article, it was linked in the same Slashdot article. Also linked in comments in that Slashdot article were Big Gemini and T/Space. -Eisnel 23:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Picture placment

I think this article would be improved a bit my re-arranging the pictures to corrospond to the text of the article and placing at least one of them on the left. I will have a go at it this evening or tomorrow if no one else does by then. Dalf | Talk 00:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree--68.85.35.211 02:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broader program?

The last few external links on the page just now, from Andrews' Space & Technology, aren't dealing with the CEV proper - rather, they're consulting documents for the overall program, and a contract for some related hardware. Should this stuff be kept here, or spun off into a Project Constellation (or something) page? Shimgray 13:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. There is a mix here between the broader CE&R (Concept Exploration and Refinement) of the Constellation project (which addresses the whole stuff to go the the Moon and beyond, CEV, LSAM and EDS - plus the launchers) and the CEV proposals, the CEV being a subset of the overall architecture. The Andrews, Raytheon, ... etc material should go to the overall Constellation article, while the CEV concentrates on the Lockheed and Northrop proposals of May 2.82.127.210.72 08:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Editing without bias

Hi: I've edited the CEV page to update some information about FAST and shuttle retirement, added references, and made the origin section first to make it more logical. I have referenced the opinions of engineer Robert Zubrin with regard to spiral development and a direct mission profile; however, I admit that I have a bias in favor of his opinions and I want to make sure that I have written the page in an impartial manner. Have I done this?

Captain Koloth

[edit] Isn't the new timetable that was added under spiral development a little too optimistic?

2007 - 2009 - First unmanned flight of CEV in Earth orbit -> would really like to see a source for that, NASA is planning to have the CEV developed within only 1 to 3 years? Themanwithoutapast 04:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The plan before Griffin came in was to fly a CEV or a CEV boilerplate in 2008; Bush's vision supports testing a CEV by 2008. Since design apparently will be frozen in 2006, since contractor selection will take place then, according to this source [1], it is reasonable to assume that CEV testing will be earlier than under the original plan. Griffin has expressed a desire to fly the manned CEV as early as possible, which could mean as early as 2010 or 2011. Since the procurement schedule is being moved up by two years by dispensing with FAST, and a prototype was to have been built in 2008 anyway, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some sort of flight test as early as late 2007. Certainly it shouldn't be any later than the originally planned 2008.

--Captain Koloth 12:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Captain Koloth

So, the year 2007 as the first unmanned flight to Earth orbit (!!!) is just speculation - the only basis is Griffin's statement that he wants to close the gap between Shuttle end and an operational CEV? If that is the case we should mention how we derive this timetable - because, come on, you have to design and build this thing even for an unmanned flight - it is just not possible to do this within one or two years. Themanwithoutapast 13:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you're right - even Gemini and Apollo took much longer than that. I'll revise it to 2008-2010. --Captain Koloth 15:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

According to CBS reports [2], Griffin stated first manned flight no earlier than 2012, while other NASA officials suggested "not later than 2014". First testing of ARES I lift boosters is set for 2009, while first potential moonflight would be 2018. The official goalpost for moonflight is 2020. Given these timelines, it looks as if the shuttle fleet may have to continue flying a couple years past the planned 2010 retirement date, as I doubt the US government would be pleased to rely on Russian lift vehicles and capsules to perform manned flights.The Dark 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New section

I've added a new section about the Planetary Society Report co-chaired by Griffin in July 2004, as it appears to reflect the actions he has taken so far as Administrator. --Captain Koloth 13:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acronyms

The article's many acronyms are NAE and CAH. DanielHolth 20:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article is too long

This article is too long and addresses too many non CEV topic. Should be split between an article about general exploration strategy, an article about the Moon mission scenario and an article about the CEV itself, which is just one of the elements used to go to the Moon. Hektor 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• I reiterate that article is muuuuchhh too long especially after ESAS section addition (should be a separate article). Some stuff also in the article has become ludicrous, like "Hopper, European equivalent to CEV", come on !Hektor 05:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• I too think that it's too long encompassing too many topics. Why does lsam and project constellation redirect here? This article should be about the cev. There should be an article about the project as a whole where a bunch of stuff from this article can be put. 01:25 28 January 2006
  • I will remove the Ares I launch vehicle content which is covered in the Ares I article.Astrowikizhang 13:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, this article should focus on the upper stage. Maybe mention Aries I for continuity. -Fnlayson 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suface landing update

Just to cite a source - Mike Griffin has stated, see http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/126521main_MDG_AIAA_Space_2005.pdf , that all four CEV crew will descend to the surface, leaving the CEV unmanned. Will update entry to suit. Alex Swanson 02:26, 8 September 2005

[edit] Graphics

Someone should go and replace those ancient images on the page now with the new NASA graphics released with the ESAS - there's tons of high-quality images on the NASA site now. Someone should also rewrite the ESAS section and make it past tense (i.e. "recommends" or "recommended" and not "is thought to contain a recommendation").

agreed all of those featured CEV designs are history now, I would update the images myself if i could be bothered to learn how :). The article does go into too much detail about the competing disgns when it should simply concentrate on NASA's exporation architecture annouced in September 2005. 10:30, November 2005

For me the display of the pictures at the beginning of the article is messed up; the leftmost part of them appears behind the menu bar ("Browse", "My Pages", "Special Pages"). I don't know how to fix that. Lukas 02:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing

Could you guys try to think before writing? I know Wikipedia's more about dumping as many facts and half-baked interpretations into clusterfucks of monster sentences, but ya know, maybe it's time to turn over a new leaf? BE CONCISE.

[edit] Methane Engines

This article mentions the use of liquid methane as a fuel, although plans call for this to be scrapped for now: Nasaspaceflight.com

[edit] Splitting Page

This page is too long, and, to make it worse, it covers way too many topics. First of all, there should be seperate pages for the EDS and LSAM. There already are pages, but typing in "Earth departure system" or "lunar surface access module" still redirects to this page. The pages should be entirly seperate. The sections of this article should be shortened and link to the respecitve main page.

Also, do you think it would be too radical (or just plain stupid) to seperate the CEV into 2 articles: the project as a whole and the CEV spaceship as a whole. "Project Constellation" could redirect to the former, and the latter could detail the structures and such of the actual spaceship.

The resulting pages would be:

1. CEV (program as a whole) / Project Constellation
2. CEV (spaceship)
3. EDS
4. LSAM

Also: (already existing articles)

1. Shuttle Derived HLV
2. ESAS

--68.85.35.211 03:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I would suggest to relable the article Project Constellation as the main project page and have only one CEV article on the spaceship, as (although it does not sound that way in the media) the CEV is actually only the crew capsule together with a service module. I will start to create the basic structure, others may want to actually concentrate on content. Themanwithoutapast 03:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried, but am not really able to unwind all these intertwined articles quickly. I defer to someone else to take on the task. Themanwithoutapast 03:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge: OSP

Yes, yes, article is already too long, but Orbital Space Plane is too short. Perhaps content from both articles could go into History of the Crew Exploration Vehicle? Alba 14:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo J-2 engine?

It's true that NASA scraped it's plans to use the shuttle main engines however the new engine they chose is not the J-2 as the article states but the RS-68 according to this article on NASA's website http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/main/index.html --cassini83 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's true. The SSMEs were not designed for air ignition.

[edit] Move to new name

This will need to be revisited soon. I would suggest waiting until after the "official" NASA announcement next week. Rmhermen 00:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that the name is official[3], the article should be moved to "Orion (spacecraft)". I see someone setup a redirect there, so to flip the name around we'll need an admin to help out. Also, something probably needs to happen to the "Project Orion (lunar program)" stub. Orion is not the name of the entire program, just the spacecraft. We may have to go through AfD on that one. It's going to be fun explaining that this is not the same as "Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)". --StuffOfInterest 11:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving the page over the redirect should work. It should only require an admin if the page has a history >1. JRawle (Talk) 13:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know that one. Thanks. I always thought that the move would fail if there was anything already at the target location. --StuffOfInterest 17:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Launch date

The article says "2008–2010 — First unmanned flight of CEV in Earth orbit. [10] 2011 (June) — First manned flight of CEV in Earth orbit. " However that is a bit unrealistically. It is intended to have a CLV rocket test in 2009 with a four-segment SRB and a mock-up fifth segment and second stage flying, not sure how there could be an unmanned CEV flight in 2008 then. Secondly, NASA has officially answered the question of their targeted first manned CEV flight: Sept 2014. This date was stated during the NASA press conference when they announced the names of the CEV and CaLV to be Ares 1 and Ares 5. Themanwithoutapast 20:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

The article is inconsistent regarding the habitable crew vehicle; CM is in one place said to stand for "Crew Module" and elsewhere for "Command Module". Which is the most current usage? RandomCritic 06:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Crew Module. Apollo used the term Command Module. Same acroynm for both. -Fnlayson 20:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contractor selected Aug. 31

FYI for those who watch this page:

NASA Exploration Systems' managers will host a press conference at 4 p.m. EDT Thursday, Aug. 31, to announce the prime contractor to design, develop, and build Orion, America's next human spacecraft. Cjosefy 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

--

Down goes Northrop Grumman!

It's Lockheed. Gpotter511@yahoo.com 03:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

—— I'm not sure about the validity of this statement:

For CEV, Lockheed Martin promised the Administration to manufacture the manned spacecraft at new facilities to be built in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida,[citation needed] all three states with strongly Republican Congressional delegations; the competing proposal by Northrop Grumman and Boeing, which are the only U.S. companies to have previously built manned spacecraft, planned on building CEV at existing facilities in California and Alabama.

• That's only one part. Manufacuring facilities will be needed. Surely there will be something in Houston since JSC is there. -Fnlayson 02:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No doubt there will be something in Houston for the reason that you state. But that reason would be valid regardless of which contractor won. Can anyone provide some kind of verification that the claims about new LM facilities in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida? If not the claims should be removed. --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The NASA press release: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06305_Orion_contract.html (SEWilco 04:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Lockheed Martin press release: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17865&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&sc=400

• Thanks. The facilaites mentioned don't seem to be new there. Maybe remodeled existing ones. -Fnlayson 05:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those references support the assertion that these are new facilities, or that they are being built specially for CEV/Orion. For example, the Michoud facility has been in Loiusiana and doing space program work for years.

The second assertion about Northrop using only existing facilities in CA and AL is also questionable - it seems likely that they would have needed some kind of facilities at both JSC and KSC. Moreover, I know that at least some of the people involved in the Northrop proposal were scheduled to move to Houston if Northrop had won the contract. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Boeing has facilities in those areas. NASA also has facilities available at JSC and MSFC. New job opening would be created by either team. With that sentence removed, it doesn't matter. -Fnlayson 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There likely wouldn't have been significant new facilities regardless of which contractor won. Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin do work on the Space Shuttle; both companies maintain facilities at all NASA shuttle-related locations. These locations are California (Edwards AFB region), Texas (Johnson Space Center region), Alabama (Huntsville), and Florida (Cape Canaveral region). I'm not as familiar with Northrop or Boeing's facilities, but Lockheed Martin has Space Systems facilities in Huntsville, Houston, and Sunnyvale.The Dark 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CEV mockup picture

I uploaded this picture, but I couldn't find a really good place to put it in the article. I think it's a nice picture that shows a glimpse of real work being done towards this capsule. If someone thinks of a good place for inclusion, please do so. Cjosefy 22:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

There are a ton of pictures on this page! There are a bunch down the right side of the page right at the beginning, which is pretty unnecessary. I'm going to remove a few. We don't need two pictures of the spacecraft orbiting the moon. If you look at the apollo they have some representative pictures of the spacecraft scattered throughout as to not overwhelm the reader. There are also one or two pictures that don't go with the text they're beside. I'll move those --Perwfl 01:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The deed is done. I may have gone a bit overboard, but the page looks much nicer now.--Perwfl 01:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit of 11/13

I removed a line that was factually incorrect in multiple ways. It stated Lockheed and Martin Marietta are separate entities, which is untrue. It stated the SR-71, U-2, and Viking landers are currently manufactured, which is untrue. Beyond the factual errors, it was a grammatic mess and unnecessary information that would more appropriately belong on the manufacturer's page anyway. The Dark 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)