Orion's first test flight

[justinthesommer]

Go nasa!

Soooooo amazing! I am so pumped!! Can't wait to see the future and what we have in store for us

 

[localoid]

Wow! Really awesome live views from the Ikhana!

Edit: Well, now the Ustream feed is crapping out, under heavy load.

Edit 2: Ustream feed back up. Orion's back home, bobbing in the water. Every system worked perfectly throughout the mission.

 

[obeygiant]

I see now why they chose he name Orion.

 

[MacNut]

Image

I see now why they chose he name Orion.

Wait until the SLS is developed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

 

[S.B.G]

Image

I see now why they chose he name Orion.

Very apropos!

 

[Huntn]

Reusable space craft (shuttle) what a great idea, except it was so damned expenive and vulnerable , which seems like the opposite what the idea of reusability was supposed to accomplish. It illustrates what 60s technology could achieve with billions to throw at it. The value of reusability is still there if we can keep costs under control.

 

[quagmire]

Reusable space craft (shuttle) what a great idea, except it was so damned expenive and vulnerable , which seems like the opposite what the idea of reusability was supposed to accomplish. It illustrates what 60s technology could achieve with billions to throw at it. The value of reusability is still there if we can keep costs under control.

The issue with the Shuttle was everyone had a hand in its design which made it complex, big, etc. Then everyone outside of NASA took their hands off giving NASA a vehicle not ideal for their own needs with a small budget.

Shuttle shouldn't be used to say reusability is a pipe dream or whatever. Shuttle shows sadly how gov't can screw things up.

Hopefully SpaceX is more successful in making reusability practical.

 

[orestes1984]

There's still no effective space plane, sadly, and we're going back to the 1960s to get things done. Why we have to copy an already usable craft in the Soyuz is beyond me, but America gets its panties in a knot if it has to share something Russian.

We should be focusing on a propulsion system that can carry a habitation module and a landing vehicle to Mars and beyond quickly and efficiently rather than reinventing the wheel.

 

[MacNut]

There's still no effective space plane, sadly, and we're going back to the 1960s to get things done. Why we have to copy an already usable craft in the Soyuz is beyond me, but America gets its panties in a knot if it has to share something Russian.

We should be focusing on a propulsion system that can carry a habitation module and a landing vehicle to Mars and beyond quickly and efficiently rather than reinventing the wheel.

They are working on propulsion, the problem is the fuel source and making it small enough to be practical.

A space plane can't land on the moon or Mars. We need a system that can get us deep into space safely.

Sharing with Russia is hugely expensive. I think they charge 30 mill per seat.

 

[elistan]

There's still no effective space plane, sadly, and we're going back to the 1960s to get things done.

I don't see why that's an issue.

Why we have to copy an already usable craft in the Soyuz is beyond me, but America gets its panties in a knot if it has to share something Russian.

Because a foreign government can say "nyet" and you no longer have a launch vehicle or exploration craft.

We should be focusing on a propulsion system that can carry a habitation module and a landing vehicle to Mars and beyond quickly and efficiently rather than reinventing the wheel.

That's pretty much what the Orion craft and SLS vehicle are, though, right?

 

[quagmire]

There's still no effective space plane, sadly, and we're going back to the 1960s to get things done. Why we have to copy an already usable craft in the Soyuz is beyond me, but America gets its panties in a knot if it has to share something Russian.

We should be focusing on a propulsion system that can carry a habitation module and a landing vehicle to Mars and beyond quickly and efficiently rather than reinventing the wheel.

Capsules are better suited for the G's and temperatures of the faster reentry speeds of beyond LEO missions. The Shuttle would not be able to survive the temps the Apollo capsule and the Orion Capsule will endure.

 

[orestes1984]

Because a foreign government can say "nyet" and you no longer have a launch vehicle or exploration craft.

I fail to see why one space agency has to be pitted against the other in this day and age and why particularly with the ISS now, why we can't just all get along and get something done.

I fail to see why in the year 2014 it still has to be a giant penis waving exercise.

 

[quagmire]

That's pretty much what the Orion craft and SLS vehicle are, though, right?

The issue with SLS is that there is nothing new on the propulsion side. The Core stage is the Shuttle's external fuel tank( just enclosed now), using the RS-25 engines also known as the SSME's( Space Shuttle Main Engines), a 5 segment version of the same Shuttle SRB's, and the upper stage is from the Delta IV.

Though that is just the 70t version. The 130t version will use new boosters and I am hoping the Pyros booster wins since it uses the F-1 engines from the first stage of the Saturn V.

 

[elistan]

The issue with SLS is that there is nothing new on the propulsion side. The Core stage is the Shuttle's external fuel tank( just enclosed now), using the RS-25 engines also known as the SSME's( Space Shuttle Main Engines), a 5 segment version of the same Shuttle SRB's, and the upper stage is from the Delta IV.

Though that is just the 70t version. The 130t version will use new boosters and I am hoping the Pyros booster wins since it uses the F-1 engines from the first stage of the Saturn V.

But that's not an "issue." The criteria were quick and efficient, not newness. (And newness shouldn't be a requirement anyway.)

 

[fat jez]

But that's not an "issue." The criteria were quick and efficient, not newness. (And newness shouldn't be a requirement anyway.)

I'd say more quick and dirty. The solid fuel rockets on the shuttle were an extreme risk every time the shuttle went up. More than a few of the o-rings burned through at least partially and it was only luck there was not another accident like Challenger. I was horrified when I saw they were continuing to use the same type on Orion

 

[orestes1984]

I'd say more quick and dirty. The solid fuel rockets on the shuttle were an extreme risk every time the shuttle went up. More than a few of the o-rings burned through at least partially and it was only luck there was not another accident like Challenger. I was horrified when I saw they were continuing to use the same type on Orion

It's part of space flight, there will be another disaster, it's only a matter of when.

 

[MacNut]

I'd say more quick and dirty. The solid fuel rockets on the shuttle were an extreme risk every time the shuttle went up. More than a few of the o-rings burned through at least partially and it was only luck there was not another accident like Challenger. I was horrified when I saw they were continuing to use the same type on Orion

Orion has a better abort system. They can eject the capsule from the rocket if things go south.

Either way how are we supposed to get into space. What can provide enough thrust.

Plus we are going to Mars. We don't know if a crew can even get their safely. Space travel is risky, there are no guarantees.

 

[quagmire]

Orion has a better abort system. They can eject the capsule from the rocket if things go south.

Either way how are we supposed to get into space. What can provide enough thrust.

Plus we are going to Mars. We don't know if a crew can even get their safely. Space travel is risky, there are no guarantees.

IMHO, liquids are safer than solids for manned vehicles. It's why I am rooting for the Pyros booster.

 

[elistan]

I'd say more quick and dirty. The solid fuel rockets on the shuttle were an extreme risk every time the shuttle went up. More than a few of the o-rings burned through at least partially and it was only luck there was not another accident like Challenger. I was horrified when I saw they were continuing to use the same type on Orion

These aren't your grandfather's SRBs. 🙂

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls_qualification.html#.VIOAqUdHarU

Although similar to the solid rocket boosters that helped power the space shuttle to orbit, the five-segment SLS boosters include several upgrades and improvements implemented by NASA and ATK engineers. In addition, the SLS boosters will be built more affordably and efficiently than shuttle boosters, incorporating new and innovative processes and technologies.

 

[MacNut]

IMHO, liquids are safer than solids for manned vehicles. It's why I am rooting for the Pyros booster.

The bigger problems with a trip to Mars is the distance and the inability to have any chance of rescue. The moon was 3 days away and they were on their own. Now we are talking about a 6 - 9 month trip. There are going to be so many points of failure. The first of which is getting a crew of 4 to get along for a very long car ride with no pit stops.

 

[fat jez]

IMHO, liquids are safer than solids for manned vehicles. It's why I am rooting for the Pyros booster.

I would agree. They can be throttled and if necessary, shut off.

----------

Either way how are we supposed to get into space. What can provide enough thrust.

The engines on the Saturn did the job fine and they were liquid fuelled. I'm sure with the advances in materials over the last 50 years, they can be lighter and more efficient than lighting two Roman Candles strapped to the side of the rocket.

 

[orestes1984]

IMHO, liquids are safer than solids for manned vehicles. It's why I am rooting for the Pyros booster.

None of this solves the issue that you're strapping a bunch of human beings, who incidentally are highly flammable, to rocket fuel. It's going to be dangerous at the best of times. The safety issue is somewhat resolved here because if things go south they can actually eject using the space capsule which wasn't previously possible using the shuttle.

While the F1B boosters were good, they're also built on a 1950s design, and for that we might well just admit the fact that we had it right 50 years ago and just go to town with Apollo style rockets to get where we want to go and forget about wasting all this money in the first place.

 

[juanm]

Wow. Absolutely fascinating. That is simply incredible, and thank you very much for drawing my attention to this; I had never even heard of them.

This is still too far out from amateur rocket scientists -which is what excites me most- but still awe-provoking nonetheless:
Full screen in HD and with sound, of course 😉

Wanderers

 

[S.B.G]

This is still too far out from amateur rocket scientists -which is what excites me most- but still awe-provoking nonetheless:
Full screen in HD and with sound, of course 😉

Wanderers

I saw that video earlier this week; very, very cool!

 

[orestes1984]

The videos appearing these days on Vimeo are awesome.