Talk:List of Constellation missions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Minotaur
- Do you really seriously believe that NASA is going to send a 4500 mm dia. Orion capsule demonstrator on top of a dia. 1670 mm Minotaur ? Hektor 13:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Read the cite. They do not intend to test the capsule, just the tower. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- If they wanted to test both the Orion capsule and the LES, NASA would have to build a so-called Little Joe III, which would have very expsensive to construct (just for four launches), but would have allowed NASA to test the recovery system. Would make a way cool day trip down to Wallops Island, VA (NASA facility used for Mercury-era Little Joe I tests) if NASA would want to really simulate launch pad abort tests. Rwboa22 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- They will, I don't see how they could do without it.Hektor 18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Historical numbering of moon landings
Calling the first lunar landing of a Concstellation craft the seventh human landing on the moon is historically correct but it's mighty confusing when you read this without knowing everything about the Apollo missions. You have to put context in there, or call it the first lunar landing of the Constellation program or take out numbering. --AlainV 04:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3 rather than 4 crew members landing on the moon?
I was under the impression that all four crew members land, leaving the CEV tended from earth, in fact that exactly what this article says - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Surface_Access_Module
Anyone know definitively?
- I was pretty sure that all four crew members land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonite (talk • contribs) 10:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2007 version
I've updated the list as per the latest Nasa PDF reference listed on the article. Of course, individual Orion missions must be updated now. Done some, but the articles are inconsistent now, and this must be solved. I think that the mission numbering and plans will change in the following years, so individual articles are still premature. Ricnun 14:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orion 14/LSAM 1B
Okay, I saw the entry for Orion 14/LSAM 1B as a sort-of "rescue" flight for Orion 13/LSAM 1, but remember the step-by-step approach used by NASA for the Apollo Program in 1967-1970. Originally, Apollo 8 would have been the CSM/LM test flight in low-Earth orbit and Apollo 9 was to repeat the same process in high-Earth orbit. Because of issues regarding the LM in 1968, NASA, especially Dr. Robert Gilruth, Dr. Christopher Kraft, and Mr. George Low, had the boldness and the guts to get both President Lyndon Johnson and NASA Administrator James Webb to send Apollo 8 to both the Moon and the history books. As for the flight designation, I feel that NASA should stick to the term "Orion Rescue" and "LSAM Rescue" so that it would not be confused with the actual flights in progress.
While were on the subject of this revision of flight plans, I feel that NASA should resurrect the Apollo-style step-by-step approach designation for the Constellation Program. By dividing the phases of the program by a letter designation, it would allow NASA to focus on flights to both the ISS and the Moon, and later to Mars and beyond.
- A: Unmanned test flights of Orion spacecraft in LEO
- B: Manned test flights of Orion spacecraft in LEO
- C: Unmanned and manned operational flights of Orion spacecraft to International Space Station
- D: Manned circumlunar flight of Orion spacecraft (using an Earth Departure Stage with a LSAM
mass simulator and docking hardware)
- E: Test flight of LSAM in LEO
- F: Test flight of Orion & LSAM in lunar orbit with unmanned LSAM landing
- G: First manned landing since 1972
- H: Lunar Outpost Building flights
- I: Lunar Outpost Operational flights
- J: L2 Lagrange Halo Orbit Flights
- K: Manned Venus Flyby (?)
- L: Manned Mars Preparation Flights (?)
- M: Manned Mars Landing
[edit] Discrepancies with pages
There are serious discrepancies between what exists on this page and what exists on the mission pages, in terms of mission duration, expected launch dates, whether missions are manned or not... I suggest that someone verify that what exists on this page is the most up-to-date information we have, then modify the linking mission pages to reflect that information.
For example, Orion 2 on this page seems to indicate it will be manned, at least in the text. But its page says it is unmanned. Orion 3's information seems consistent. But Orion 4 has a launch date of 2014 (no month) and a ~90 day mission on this page, while its own page says it will launch in June of 2014 for a ~14 day mission. Orion 5 is similarly out of whack - launch in 2015 (no month) with a ~180 day mission, on its own page it says it will launch Sept 2014 on a ~14 day mission. Further on, the missions described for Orion 13 and Orion 15 - on their pages - seem to be describing identical mission.
I could go on, but you get the picture... The pages are in serious need of a clean-up. Canada Jack 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- A closer examination of the planned flight document from which much of this information is presumably culled reveals a few points which should be reflected on this page, IMHO. First, the document indicates missions which are manifested at a 33 - 40 % confidence level given current funding levels and those with a 65 % confidence level. IOW, a lot of these missions are not chipped in stone, particularly the ones up to Orion 7. Secondly, the document quite clearly lists expected flights within FISCAL years, not calendar years, starting with FY 2011. Since a fiscal year here starts October 1 of the previous year, note should be made that 2015, for example, is in fact October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015.Canada Jack 17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)