Updates Orion (MPCV) Updates and Discussion

[Grover]

it will certainly be nice to see some real space exploration going on in my lifetime, something Apollo-esque, perhaps a mars mission is a little optimistic, but even another set of moon missions (or even a single one) would be awesome to follow as it happens

 

[Krikkit]

it will certainly be nice to see some real space exploration going on in my lifetime, something Apollo-esque, perhaps a mars mission is a little optimistic, but even another set of moon missions (or even a single one) would be awesome to follow as it happens

Wow, I guess we have really lowered our standards.

Before I die I demand

Scientific moon base
Asteroid wrangling
Mars landing
Phobos landing
Manned Venus flyby (possibly on the way to mars)
and at least one manned mission past the asteroid belt

I am just wondering which country(s) I should be looking at to complete any of these

 

[Grover]

how about we colonise Ascension Island and do it oursleves!

you guys did know it is a REAL island didnt you?

 

[GoForPDI]

Yeah, of course we knew, thats why we use it!

Its part of the British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena, so its the perfect place for Skylon to operate out of

 

[orb]

NASA:

June 14, 2011​

MEDIA ADVISORY : M11-121
NASA Spacecraft to Make Cross Country Voyage


WASHINGTON -- NASA is inviting the public to view a test version of the agency's next spacecraft that will carry humans into deep space.

The Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, which NASA announced last month would be the agency’s deep space crew module based on the original work on the Orion capsule, will make three stops as it travels by truck from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in California to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The planned stops are June 15-16 at the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson, Ariz.; June 19-20 at the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum in Austin, Texas; and June 24-25 at the Tallahassee Challenger Learning Center in Florida. The module also will be on display June 29-July 4 at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex.

{...}

 

[Codz]

NASA:

June 14, 2011​

MEDIA ADVISORY : M11-121
NASA Spacecraft to Make Cross Country Voyage


WASHINGTON -- NASA is inviting the public to view a test version of the agency's next spacecraft that will carry humans into deep space.

The Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, which NASA announced last month would be the agency’s deep space crew module based on the original work on the Orion capsule, will make three stops as it travels by truck from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in California to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The planned stops are June 15-16 at the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson, Ariz.; June 19-20 at the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum in Austin, Texas; and June 24-25 at the Tallahassee Challenger Learning Center in Florida. The module also will be on display June 29-July 4 at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex.

{...}

That sucks. I left Pima on the 9th...

 

[GoForPDI]

Anyone else notice the Apollo A7L-esque fishbowl helmet around 5:40 in?

 

[Codz]

Orion and the SLS sounds really exciting!

 

[GoForPDI]

It does, doesn't it!

It won't take the 10 years to go somewhere that Apollo did, but its good to know that they are working on all the equipment they need NOW rather than waiting for more funding.

I cannot wait for the first crewed flights of all these new spacecraft. ''The gap'' will be well worth the wait.

---------- Post added 07-09-11 at 12:18 AM ---------- Previous post was 07-08-11 at 11:36 PM ----------

If each MPCV capsule is to be reusable, what sort of names should they have?

I believe that the names Enterprise, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour should definitely be used.

What do you guys think?

 

[T.Neo]

I believe that the names Enterprise, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour should definitely be used.

What do you guys think?

I propose Bob. Everything is better with Bob. :rofl:

 

[Cras]

If each MPCV capsule is to be reusable, what sort of names should they have?

I believe that the names Enterprise, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour should definitely be used.

What do you guys think?

I would say definitely not. I know some of those names had been used by Apollo modules, but they are too much now associated with the Shuttles, and I would prefer those names be retired and the new vehicle get to chart its own history with new names of its own.

When doing some research to see what other potential names could be used, following the same idea of famous exploration and scientific vessels of the past. Endurance, Victoria, Adventure all sounded good.

 

[Wood]

At the Kennedy Space Center, NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver held a briefing on July 7, to demonstrate and talk about the future of space flight and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (Orion). Also on hand: Mark Geyer, NASA Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Program Manager and Laurence Price, Orion Deputy Program Manager, Lockheed Martin.

 

[FADEC]

I think that the MPCV is a very good approach for the future. I would love to see it operational. They only need to get a proper launch system for it.

As for names: the first one will be named Columbia. I am even willing to bet on it. Columbia was the name of the ship of Robert Gray, who went around the earth with it in 1787. The crew module used for Apollo 11 was named Columbia. And the first Shuttle that launched into orbit also was named Columbia. And since the Shuttle Columbia was lost there could be no more honor to name another vehicle Clumbia for its first historic mission as well. And who would wonder if the first manned test mission of the MPCV would take place in April 2021...

 

[Urwumpe]

I think the MPCV is just another way of giving money to US companies without ever expecting to see a product.

 

[GoForPDI]

I would say definitely not. I know some of those names had been used by Apollo modules, but they are too much now associated with the Shuttles, and I would prefer those names be retired and the new vehicle get to chart its own history with new names of its own.

When doing some research to see what other potential names could be used, following the same idea of famous exploration and scientific vessels of the past. Endurance, Victoria, Adventure all sounded good.

I personally consider the Shuttle fleet as ships of exploration themselves and as successors to any vehicle that took the name before them, so I don't think their names must be retired.

The other day, the STS-133 crew visited Captain Scott's RRS Discovery, a ship built for Antarctic research, which is now berthed in Dundee. I thought that was a very nice visit indeed

 

[FADEC]

I think the MPCV is just another way of giving money to US companies without ever expecting to see a product.

But it's still a nice design. I don't see another concept on papers which looks that much worth flying in future than the MPCV does. Even if it does never fly. Only the launch vehicle is arguable.

One could also argue that the costs of the ISS is not worth it and the little science up there. But it's still science going on and the ISS is still a great technological achievement.

I see it like Prof. Harald Lesch when someday he was asked about Constellation and started to talk about Apollo as well. People who only care about money, who say it's all too expensive, are actually boring.

Useless war theaters are too expensive. But space flight is not IMHO.

 

[DanM]

Personally, I would like to see the MPCV being built, and launched on an existing EELV. It would be practical and would save a lot of money in development costs.

 

[T.Neo]

I think supporters of the MPCV don't exactly understand its problems. Let's go through them:

1. It is unecessary. There are no BEO missions planned as yet. It makes absolutely no sense to fund a project that has no known use.

2. It is superfluous. There are other vehicles for getting to LEO that have already flown hardware, and look likely to become operational long before MPCV.

3. It is overkill. Currently all US operations take place in LEO, for which BEO capability and a large manuvering capability are not needed.

4. It is an example of a bad system. MPCV is cost-plus, whereas SpaceX and similar are reward-based programs. NASA will pour far more money into MPCV to get some results, than it would pour into SpaceX to get more dramatic results.

Furthermore if the corporate welfare facet of things didn't exist, things would be very different. The whole MPCV scenario just doesn't make sense, and neither does the Senate Launch System. Using a ~70 ton capable vehicle to launch a 4-person capsule to the ISS? What?

It doesn't help that almost all praise for MPCV sounds like an advertisement for Big Aerospace.

And even if going the 'traditional' route is good 'insurance' against the potential failure of SpaceX, for example, PBS (Pork-Barrel System) still isn't a good idea. There are so many better ways to do things, that it really is not funny.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

I think supporters of the MPCV don't exactly understand its problems. Let's go through them:

1. It is unecessary. There are no BEO missions planned as yet. It makes absolutely no sense to fund a project that has no known use.

2. It is superfluous. There are other vehicles for getting to LEO that have already flown hardware, and look likely to become operational long before MPCV.

3. It is overkill. Currently all US operations take place in LEO, for which BEO capability and a large manuvering capability are not needed.

4. It is an example of a bad system. MPCV is cost-plus, whereas SpaceX and similar are reward-based programs. NASA will pour far more money into MPCV to get some results, than it would pour into SpaceX to get more dramatic results.

Furthermore if the corporate welfare facet of things didn't exist, things would be very different. The whole MPCV scenario just doesn't make sense, and neither does the Senate Launch System. Using a ~70 ton capable vehicle to launch a 4-person capsule to the ISS? What?

It doesn't help that almost all praise for MPCV sounds like an advertisement for Big Aerospace.

And even if going the 'traditional' route is good 'insurance' against the potential failure of SpaceX, for example, PBS (Pork-Barrel System) still isn't a good idea. There are so many better ways to do things, that it really is not funny.

My take:

1. If Obama stood on a stage right now and announced a BEO mission, would it change the requirements for MPCV? No. My point is that we don't actually need a specific mission to build MPCV - NASA knows it's going BEO, and MPCV will be needed for that, regardless of the specific destination.

2. True, there are many other vehicles for getting to LEO, but MPCV is not being designed for LEO or ISS. Only commercial vehicles are doing that (and they can't do BEO).

3. See above.

4. The results from MPCV will be far different than from Dragon, since it is designed for a completely different purpose.

 

[Mantis]

Personally, I would like to see the MPCV being built, and launched on an existing EELV. It would be practical and would save a lot of money in development costs.

Same here. I don't know why they don't look at launching it on at Atlas V or something similar. Man-rating an Atlas V has to be less expensive and time consuming than designing, building and testing something completely new. The again, they had a successful (early) test of the Aries rocket...dropping that sounds like a big mistake to me.