Orion

Finally found out what the current Orion, whose test launch was just scrubbed, is.

I hope its launch goes well, but I'm surprised the first manned flights are so far in the future. If the test is successful, I would think it could be pressed into immediate use as an all-American way to get astronauts to the ISS and end the dependence on Russia.

John Savard

Quadibloc:

Finally found out what the current Orion, whose test launch was just
scrubbed, is.

I hope its launch goes well, but I'm surprised the first manned flights are
so far in the future. If the test is successful, I would think it could be
pressed into immediate use as an all-American way to get astronauts to the
ISS and end the dependence on Russia.

I have a better idea. Junk the ISS, sell it to Branson or Musk or one
of those rich guys. Then scrap future manned missions and invest in
lots of clever, productive robotic explorations at far lower cost than
manned extravaganzas.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 1:03:22 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
Finally found out what the current Orion, whose test launch was just scrubbed, is.

I hope its launch goes well, but I'm surprised the first manned flights are so far in the future. If the test is successful, I would think it could be pressed into immediate use as an all-American way to get astronauts to the ISS and end the dependence on Russia.

John Savard

They won't have any humans on board till 2017 and "Orion" is just the capsule, the rocket part hasn't even been built except perhaps one capable of achieving a low orbit. A pale, failed shadow of the Shuttle which could have been turned in Moon rocket or a Mars rocket.

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:03:21 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

Finally found out what the current Orion, whose test launch was just scrubbed, is.

I hope its launch goes well, but I'm surprised the first manned flights are so far in the future. If the test is successful, I would think it could be pressed into immediate use as an all-American way to get astronauts to the ISS and end the dependence on Russia.

Orion is absurd overkill for getting people into LEO. It makes very
good sense to continue contracting with the Russians for that purpose,
since they can do it for much less than we can. Why reinvent the
wheel?

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 14:31:16 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

They won't have any humans on board till 2017 and "Orion" is just the capsule, the rocket part hasn't even been built except perhaps one capable of achieving a low orbit. A pale, failed shadow of the Shuttle which could have been turned in Moon rocket or a Mars rocket.

I thought they didn't have any manned flights planned until 2021.

The Delta IV being used to test the crew module is certainly capable
of much more than low orbit. Ultimately, there will be an entirely new
launch system. This system is intended for getting to places outside
Earth orbit, which the Shuttle never was.

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 5:20:12 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
It makes very
good sense to continue contracting with the Russians for that purpose,
since they can do it for much less than we can. Why reinvent the
wheel?

Haven't you seen recent news items about the Ukraine?

John Savard

On Friday, December 5, 2014 2:26:25 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, December 4, 2014 5:20:12 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
It makes very
good sense to continue contracting with the Russians for that purpose,
since they can do it for much less than we can. Why reinvent the
wheel?

Haven't you seen recent news items about the Ukraine?

This sort of thing doesn't bother peterson: the people of the Ukraine and Russia have "chosen" to let Russia have the Crimea and maybe much/all of the Ukraine as well.

The bigger question is why have only one type of manned spacecraft? Why not a small capsule to get to the ISS, and larger ones for extended missions beyond LEO? Big dumb rockets to carry large unmanned equipment up, small supply ships and a small shuttle to only carry astronauts?

On Thursday, December 4, 2014 7:20:12 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Orion is absurd overkill for getting people into LEO. It makes very
good sense to continue contracting with the Russians for that purpose,
since they can do it for much less than we can.

But haven't you implied that manned spaceflight is a waste anyway?

On Thu, 4 Dec 2014 23:26:22 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

Haven't you seen recent news items about the Ukraine?

So what? I've seen nothing to suggest that it's seriously impacting
our relationship with Russia when it comes to operating on the ISS,
which is the only reason we need to get into LEO. And if the
relationship were to become so bad that Russia wouldn't transport U.S.
astronauts, the ISS would be effectively shut down. That would be true
if we used our own launch vehicle, as well, unless you imagine we
would use that capability to send a bunch of Navy Seals up there to
take control!

Getting into LEO uses a bus. The Russians have the best and cheapest.
Why not use it?

On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 05:39:43 -0800 (PST), wrote:

But haven't you implied that manned spaceflight is a waste anyway?

I've offered my view that MANNED spaceflight is largely a waste of
resources and offers little return for the investment. A degree of
research in that area is certainly warranted, but most of our space
resources should be going to robotic spacecraft. More around the Earth
for climate and resource monitoring, more space telescopes, more
probes to the asteroids, comets, and outer planets. That's where the
real value is.