This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Orion Delays and ISS Access

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
June 24, 2012
Filed under , , ,

Orion High-altitude Abort Test Faces Budget-driven Delay, SpaceNews
“A high-altitude test of the Orion deep-space capsule’s launch abort system could be delayed two years [FY 2018] to accommodate the tighter program budgets anticipated by NASA and Orion prime contractor Lockheed Martin.”
Sen. Hutchison Stresses Importance of Continued Progress on both Commercial and Government Space Launch Vehicles
“I just hope that there will no longer be budget proposals from the President, whoever that will be next year, that will appear to cut back on the future and fund the present because we have an authorization bill that assures both, we support both,” Sen. Hutchison said at the hearing.”
Prepared statement by Bill Gerstenmaier
“Based on the availability of funding and industry performance, this strategy allows for adjustments in program scope, and enables a domestic capability to transport crewmembers to the ISS likely by 2017, based on the readiness of U.S. commercial providers to achieve NASA certification.”
Keith’s note: If the Orion abort test doesn’t happen until FY 2018, then what does this mean for using Orion to take crews to the ISS? NASA plans for using the ISS now end in CY 2020. If Orion delays continue, commercial crew service providers could reach the ISS well before Orion can. How can Orion provide the capability to be a backup system for International Space Station cargo and crew delivery if commercial crew carriers fly well before Orion flies? As such, why is Orion/SLS being designed with the capability of going to the ISS in the first place?

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

94 responses to “Orion Delays and ISS Access”

  1. Christopher Miles says:
    0
    0

    “If Orion delays continue, commercial crew service providers could reach the ISS well before Orion does. So … why is Orion/SLS going to the ISS in the first place? “

    Seems like backwards legitimacy- in order to seem capable, you must at least do what the commercial guys can do (at a minimum).And many still have that old phantom notion that Space Station as a launch point to places further out. Station as stepping stone. We built it, so it must be useful as a starter destination /way-point right?

    Funny that CxP was all about ending station early, yet SLS includes station visit(s).I’m just going to take it as a given that Lockheed and Boeing, etc feel entitled to these billions, and will keep getting SLS funding from their favorite Senators.

    Meanwhile the good folks that work hard on these programs and deliver great technical achievements against ever changing program milestones (and scope creep) will feel attacked here and on other blogs… simply because we dare to ask: “WHAT IS ALL THIS FOR?”

    Keep asking Keith- Keep asking.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      To be fair, Lockheed and Boeing bid on totally official procurements and provide services requested by the government. They are in business after all.  But both companies are also making very serious efforts to provide commercial crew capabilities – and launch services. So, while they are building the status quo, they are not exactly ignoring the next wave either.

      • Christopher Miles says:
        0
        0

        I just want players that aren’t geared up and tied to the DOD/Congress model to have a fair shake without it being implied that because a solution doesn’t cost 20 billion, it’s somehow inferior.

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        Could it be that by being a “backstop to commercial” Congress can rationalize fewer “commercial”s … because Orion is “competing” with them … albeit at a 8-10x budget advantage?

        E.g. they are rationalizing attempts to reduce CCDEV awards as well as their considerable thumb on the scale. While totalling ignoring that they are violating own rules (e.g. if there is a likely “commercial” offering, govt is supposed to “buy” and not “build” / compete with it.

      • Ben Russell-Gough says:
        0
        0

        Keith, would you say it’s fair to characterise Lockheed and Boeing as ‘Hydras’, beasts with several heads? It occurs to me that the ‘head’ getting involved with commercial crew and launch services isn’t the ‘head’ involved with SLS/Orion development.  So you have the (ostensiably) same company actually fighting against itself because different divisions are trying to protect different projects and revenue streams.

  2. pennypincher2 says:
    0
    0

    And, of course, it seems quite forgotten that even if there were some reason to send Orion to ISS, that it is possible to do on a Delta IV Heavy.  Of course Delta IV Heavy is expensive — so expensive that four flights a year would cost almost as much as ONE SLS flight.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      You forgot to add in the cost to develop SLS in the first place!  How many commercial launches using exiting, proven launch vehicles could you buy for the same amount of money need to develop SLS?  Lots.

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      Penny,
      You’ll do better in looking at the history of launch vehicle component pricing as a predictor of actual rather than projected cost.

      A single use (aka SLS or Shuttle or Saturn or anything) component doesn’t go down post development but up. History bears this out in government procurement. That is due to obvious market economics – it is why PWR was held as a part of United Technologies, and then recently the “R” was sold, because it no longer had this ability (Shuttle program conclusion, and SLS instability as a revenue source / program risk).

      Very typical with weapons systems and over reliance on “cost plus”. But there are other things that defense requires, and other ways of getting them.

      Could theoretically things change and be different? Sure. But the motivations to do so, as demonstrated for 30+ years, has been not to.

      And now that we have the smallest example (COTS) of success done the other way,  the old way is imperilled. This is a good thing for both the taxpayer (more efficient use of funds), the aerospace industry (more success because its predicated on the results it reliably can deliver with FFP), and … the arsenal system (more appropriate systems that suite more reduced use of “cost plus” so they are driven by the need to outcompete FFP but in their speciality only).

      To accomplish this, Congress can’t be the lazy bastards that they’ve historically been. They have to show backbone and leadership, not the phoney baloney “gotcha game” to set-off voters into stupid camps to hide their misdeeds. They are only doing this because they can galvanize stupidity and narrow minded interest against the strategic needs of the American people. Who let them do it.

  3. richard schumacher says:
    0
    0

    Under this schedule SpaceX should already have demonstrated the Dragon escape and landing system multiple times before Orion flies even once.

    Complaining here is fun, but if you really care about the waste of money write to your Senators and Representative and tell them to end SLS:
    http://www.usa.gov/Contact/

  4. newpapyrus says:
    0
    0

    The Obama administration proposed a $1 billion budget for the MPCV in 2013 ($200 million cut from 2012 levels) and a $1.34 billion budget for the SLS (a $140 million cut from 2012 levels). That’s a $340 million cut for NASA’s beyond LEO program. Its actually a $740 million cut relative to the beyond LEO program Obama inherited from George Bush ($3.4 billion a year)  when both the Space Shuttle and the ISS LEO programs were still running. The Shuttle’s gone yet he’s still cutting the beyond LEO program!

    However, for LEO on steroids advocates (where NASA has been for the last 40 years), there’s a $170 million increase for the ISS in 2013 and a $429 million dollar increase for Commercial Crew Development. What a surprise?

    As has been said many many times before, its pretty obvious that the Obama administration doesn’t want the SLS/MPCV program, and never did,  and will do anything possible to undermine it and NASA’s ability to send humans beyond LEO.

    Just check the proposed administration budget for yourselves! Obama and Holdren (Dr. Evil) should be ashamed of themselves!

    Marcel F. Williams

    • meekGee says:
      0
      0

      Marcel – you don’t like LEO on steroids, huh.
      You were pretty vocal about Shuttle termination IIRC…
      And you’re also pretty harsh on SpaceX, who is the most beyond-LEO advocate out there.

      So which is it?

      • newpapyrus says:
        0
        0

        I have nothing against Space X except for their advocacy for Obama’s horrible space policy of trying to integrate Commercial Crew Development into an unnecessary big government program that was supposed to be terminated by 2016.

        I was against the ISS program when Reagan first proposed it because I thought it would trap NASA at LEO. Unfortunately, my prediction came true! And  ISS funding continues to undermine NASA’s ability to move beyond LEO.

        Marcel F. Williams

        • meekGee says:
          0
          0

          Well Marcel, I’m a fellow LEO-hater, and do NOT like ISS one bit.

          But what SpaceX said from day one was that their goal was Mars. Definitely beyond LEO, yes?
          And in order to do it, they have built their own low-cost rocket, and are using it to be a sustainable enterprise… Satellites, ISS supply, etc. Whatever.

          Obama proposed a Mars-centric program, based on this COTS-to-LEO tool. Recognizing that the cost+ contractors and NASA make horrifically expensive rockets, the plans lets NASA concentrate on the “net” payload. That was a good plan. Regrettably, congress mandated SLS, since congress does not care one bit about going beyond LEO – they care that their masters get paid in contracts. Obama, Bolden, and Garver did not have the political capital to fight congress, since the opposition to a COTS plans was bipartisan.

          Oppose SLS and even ISS, for sure. Blame Obama and SpaceX for them? Hardly.

          • newpapyrus says:
            0
            0

            The Obama administration proposed studying an HLV for an additional 5 years before building it until Congress forced him to start building one right now. 

            And there have been no funds dedicated for the development of any manned Mars spacecraft by the Obama administration or by private industry. Obama’s Mars centric program is mostly about studying and dreaming about going to Mars, which is pretty much what NASA has been doing for the past 40 years.

            Marcel F. Williams

          • meekGee says:
            0
            0

            Exactly.

            Obama (and by proxy, Bolden and Garver) realized that SLS or any other government-developed launch system is a waste of money.
            However, congress is too beholden to Boeing and LMCO to be able to cancel such development out right.

            So instead, they pushed COTS as a work-around, and end-run around congress, and did all they could to bury SLS until COTS leaves it no choice but to die. If heavy-lift is truly needed, then SpaceX (et al) will develop it – but based on need, not on desire to spend in specific districts, and they’ll do it for a lot less money.

            Regrettably, very little of the plan survived. You tell me – if Obama was canceling all the launch efforts, and keeping the NASA overall budget roughly the same – can’t you see how all this extra money would have ended up in missions? Where else would it have gone? This was the whole intent!

            You can dislike Obama all you want. I did not like Bush. And I’m a Mars-over-moon guy. But when Bush came out with “terminate shuttle, get out of LEO”, with all its faults, I supported it. What happened afterwards with Griffin and CxP was just a prequel to what’s happening now – the rocket companies got greedy, and we ended up with Ares I and
            Orion.

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

            … trying to integrate Commercial Crew Development into an unnecessary big
          government program that was supposed to be terminated by 2016.

          Ironically Commercial Crew will have the effect of hastening ISS’s “day of reckoning”. Because they have to put up or shut up. It’s only the reliance on Soyuz that forces it as an “international” dependance.

          The second effect of commercial will be allowing early non SLS beyond LEO work. Stuff that is clearly out of the range of Soyuz – it will take the Russian’s about a decade to get together an organized capacity (Proton and Soyuz can work in theory but ZOND is decades ago and a lot has changed – also new issues). So we can get and return people sooner than later.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      “As has been said many many times before, its pretty obvious that the Obama administration doesn’t want the SLS/MPCV program, and never did,”

      True, they clearly recognised the stupidity of Constellation/Orion and its successor. However…

      “and will do anything possible to undermine it”

      …it’s interesting that the haters are running the program they hate, SLS, better than Constellation was run by the guy who came up with it.

      What excuse did Griffin have for failing his own program?

      [Also, you might want to check some of your “billions/millions”. “a $170 billion increase for the ISS in 2013 and a $429 billion dollar increase for Commercial Crew Development. What a surprise?” Certainly would have surprised me.]

      • newpapyrus says:
        0
        0

        Thanks for the correction!

        The Constellation architecture delayed the development of an HLV until the Ares 1 was completed which was why I was strongly against the Ares I/V architecture.

        Marcel F. Williams

  5. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    I’ve heard that the all-up costs of a Dragon capsule is under ten million dollars or about the cost of a new mid-sized business jet. How long will it be before other small companies start designing their own capsules to fly on the Falcon? How long will it be after Spacex masters reusable launch vehicles before folks start whipping up space capsules in their garage!

    The big companies are too slow, too entrenched to ride with this wave. A shame, that is. Boeing use to assemble multiple 747 fuselages where Spacex’s rocket stages and spacecraft are being designed, built and flown now.

    tinker:

    BTW: I saw the Tesla Motors Model S ‘Delivery Event’ and was surprised to hear that Tesla Motors has over 2,000 employees. That’s more folks than Spacex employs! So, less than 4,000 diligent folks on a mission have turned two industries on their heads? Just tell me this can’t be replicated. Why not?

    • SkyKing_rocketmail says:
      0
      0

      I’ve never heard of that price quote before though it makes sense in terms of similar technologies, similar mass, and total cost and size of the Space-X effort. Can you cite a source for the number? 

      Remarkable that an Orion capsule, which is also similar technology and mass, is thousands of times more expensive and is taking ten years longer to develop. Of course time is money and so the extra ten years probably accounts for a large amount of the extraordinarily high cost.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        SkyKing:

        If you don’t include amortizing development costs, the hardware value of a Dragon capsule is probably closer to a couple million dollars (off the lot, as it were). Vertical integration has a lot to do with that. Starting with ‘raw’ materials and using time, energy, machinery, and manpower, amazing things can be done. Energy is cheap, machinery is a mostly one time cost, human resources are only as good as the vetting process and time is balanced between what your folks can do for you and how long you can afford to pay them. Spacex has a pretty dedicated team of, seemingly, just the right folk. I have faith in them.

        And no, I can’t cite my estimates ;).

        If your nick is any indication then you know that a pretty good plane (and maybe even a small jet) can be had for a cool couple million. Also, Burt Rutan developed and built a carrier aircraft and a spacecraft for twenty five million dollars. If launch costs come down, so will the manufacturing costs of payloads, be what they may.

        There must be some mental threshold that prevents anyone from making a payload that costs less than the launch to put it into space. OK, maybe NASA has done that, but only because launch costs were so high.

        tinker

  6. SkyKing_rocketmail says:
    0
    0

    Did I miss something? 
    I thought the current plan is:test an Orion command module in a kluge configuration, on a Delta IV at lunar reentry speed in late 2014 or 2015. That does not include anything but a minimally configured Orion command module-no service module, no ECLS, etc   Then test an unmanned Orion in a Zond-like circumlunar flight on an SLS in 2017 or 2018. Then do a manned Apollo 8 style lunar orbital flight in 2021 or 2022. There has been no real plan for an Orion going to ISS and no Orion would be available for such missions for about 10 years (2021 or 2022). At a billion per Orion capsule, an ISS Orion flight would be a pretty expensive mission. Do delays to the high altitude abort test, discussed here, effect any of the other flights? You probably do not need proof of a functional abort capability until a manned mission, which is many years later.  I suspect that that Orion for the abort test is nothing more than a minimally configured boilerplate with a real abort system and real reentry/recovery system. The Orion plan is so back-loaded, with no big events until very late in the DDT&E cycle, that delays early on probably have little effect. 
    The question people really need to be asking is why it takes NASA so much money and so much time to develop something that has been done before and that others are demonstrating doesn’t really cost that much money or that much time to accomplish.

    • nasa817 says:
      0
      0

      It’s nothing but a jobs program.  Huge amount of money spent on NASA civil servants in the program office, engineering, support functions, and everywhere else you can imagine.  All for “oversight” of what the contractor is doing.  That contractor being Lockheed Martin, they have a similar bureaucracy to support after many decades of government contracts.  Contractors do everything better than the government, even the bureaucracy and bloated workforce.  SpaceX doesn’t have that, not yet at least.  If they make it in this business for another 3 decades, they will be the same.  I hope not though, if “new space” doesn’t get it right on this one thing, we will never get anywhere.  I know that NASA will never go anywhere ever again because of this one problem, bloated bureaucracy of do-nothing free-loaders.  There are good, smart people here, but they are in the minority and struggle daily against the tide of stupidity and the politics of the useless losers who are in charge.  The Orion program has spent nearly as much money on development as the Shuttle program, granted inflation means the dollar amounts are really not comparable.  But given the difference in capability, complexity and cutting-edge technology of the Shuttle at the time, the Orion should be an order of magnitude cheaper.  It’s just a freakin’ capsule for cryin’ out loud.

      • Spaceman888 says:
        0
        0

        Amen nasa817 – you are spot on!!  Been there done it, and saw enough crap at
        these Centers in the last 5 years to last a lifetime. And they wonder why I get
        pissed off when they say I’m not paying my fair share of taxes. Shut this
        bloated, worthless agency down already and save them the embarrassment and me
        some tax dollars.

  7. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    Orion – 8 years old (total to develop $18B). Same age as Dragon($2B).

    • SkyKing_rocketmail says:
      0
      0

      Both started in 2005. The first fully functional Dragon was in orbit in December 2010, so it took about 5 years. A major missing piece so far is the abort system. The 2014 flight does not look like a real Orion since it is missing several of its main components (service modules, etc). So a functional Orion does not reach orbit until 2017 or 2018, an extra 7 years. Sorry if I overestimated in my earlier post. 

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        Both actually started in 2004, offset by a month, at a Congressional briefing. And Orion gets a bit of a cheat too since really it started before that as part of OSP, but they don’t want to admit to it …

        The $18B is an under quote by 2-10B by my projections. The $2B is an over quote by 0.3-0.6B likewise.

        EFT-1 will announce a 2 year skip IMHO. And there are other delays of critical subsystems …

        Hard to compare them, but a “good enough” metric for me is  COTS-1 / EFT-1, and abort systems tests for both.

        Note the time offset.

        You might be able to predict a cancellation date based on that. Then back calculate the accumulated budget consumed, and project the number of DragonRider flights bought with that … as a bulk buy. Pad for a “beyond LEO” configuration ..

        Ironically, Orion is the best run, most reasonable part of SLS/CxP/… But will be the first to be cancelled. Go figure.

        • mmeijeri says:
          0
          0

          Actually, Altair (minus the cryogens) and the new space suits were the most reasonable parts, and true to form they were cancelled first.

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            Yes it was a lander. Yes it was big.

            Passed the “good enough” test.

            Did I care for the design – no. Didn’t matter.

            Should have built it and flow it on an EELV heavy. Then you’d have had the basis for a “beyond LEO” program.

            The only reason for not doing so would be if you never wanted to have a “beyond LEO” program, and you wanted to indefinitely stuff dollars (heh heh!)  into an indeterminate launch vehicle development.

            After all, if you listen to the pro SLS arguers here, they always ignore dev costs and fixed costs, and have this “magic fairy dust” of “it will all be cheaper in the end”.

            So development is never ending and we get no results.

    • CadetOne says:
      0
      0

      > Orion – 8 years old (total to develop $18B). Same age as Dragon($2B).

      Can another organization (e.g. Bigelow?) do for the orbital platform business what SpaceX has done for launch & spacecraft business?

      • JimNobles says:
        0
        0

         Not really a market for orbital platforms at present.  Bigelow’s idea of leasing space facilities might work out though.  But I wouldn’t expect much action on this front until Falcon Heavy comes online then maybe lower launch costs will encourage new markets. 

  8. bobhudson54 says:
    0
    0

    OK, then, here we go again. NASA never fails to stick to their schedules. Now they’re talking about more delays in their Orion project which leads to cost over- runs. The result will result in another money-pit, if its not already. There is no clear mission for the Orion other than to resupply crews to the ISS. Whereas the falcon/Dragon vehicle is designed for multi use. It would seem logical that NASA would switch gears and back Space X in their endeavors but NASA has defied all logic and is hesitant to back anything that is radical to their beliefs. If NASA did anything logical, we’d already have a colony on the Moon and have several manned flights to Mars under their belts. But we all know that NASA and the government don’t always follows anything logically now don’t we?

  9. Joshua Mahan says:
    0
    0

    There is no plan to take crews to ISS with Orion.  The delayed abort test is Ascent Abort Test 2 (AA-2).  The plan as I understand it is to reuse the Orion capsule from EFT-1 and a surplus ICBM to test the Launch Abort System (LAS). Even with the delay, the test should occur before the first manned mission (EM-2).  Also, my understanding is that Orion’s being purposely throttled back

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Then why is NASA keeping the backup capability to visit ISS as an option?  If the window wherein ISS will be operational overlaps for only several years with Orion why even bother to retain this capability?

      • Joshua Mahan says:
        0
        0

        You could say the same thing about commercial crew. The most realistic manned flight dates are in 2017. 

      • pathfinder_01 says:
        0
        0

        “Then why is
        NASA keeping the backup capability to visit ISS as an option? If the window
        wherein ISS will be operational overlaps for only several years with Orion why
        even bother to retain this capability?”

         

        Because the
        Fy2010 law requires it and because a spacecraft that can’t dock isn’t very
        useful. You do need the ability to dock/undock for BEO missions. However no
        sane person would use Orion for transport to the ISS over commercial crew.

        Expand

        “You could say the same thing about
        commercial crew. The most realistic manned flight dates are in 2017.”

        There are plans to extend ISS lifetime to
        2028.

      • Ben Russell-Gough says:
        0
        0

        I think it is easy to overstate the importance of Orion as an ISS crew launcher.  It is a capability that the vehicle HAS but it isn’t really its prime purpose.  The Orion’s docking mechanism is for docking to mission spacecraft such as the DSH and any future lander.  It just happens that the same system can be used to dock to the ISS, which means that the type can be used for crew rotation to the ISS if required.

        I think it is Congress rather than NASA that are focussed on Orion-to-ISS.  For whatever reason, commercial crew simply isn’t acceptable to them; unless it is a lot earlier and a lot cheaper, I’d expect NASA’s congressional supporters to insist that Orion is the DEFAULT US crew vehicle for ISS, not the backup.  They’re spinning this political position by trying to create the impression with the public that Orion is the Apollo to ISS’s Skylab – a requirement for minimal functionality.

  10. Stone says:
    0
    0

    Just the tip of the iceberg on SLS overruns and delays.

    Marcel:

    How can SLS even be called a BEO program?!   Anyone that thinks that a Mars program will be conducted with just people in a canister for a year are crazy!
    And that goes for using a Dragon capsule for such also!!

    SLS could supply a means to get back to the Moon.  But at what cost, and for what purpose?

    I also believe that a return to the moon is the next appropriate step.  But only to establish a base, and learn ISRU!

    The logical approach is:
    1.  Commercial for ISS.  I also agree that ISS is basically an albatros around NASA’s neck, but to the extent it provides a market for commercial to shoot for, then let it hang there!
    2.  Instead of SLS, use the funds to explore NautilusX type technologies.  Use ISS for a demonstration of centrigugal gravity concepts, for use in a true Mars exploration trip.
    3.  Establish ISRU concepts on the moon.  If they cannot be established, we are indeed locked in to earth and LEO only!
    4.  Re-orient NASA to an R&D organization.  Get rid of the “ten centers ” concept!  Yes, shut them down!   I know, Steve, can’t be done within the political arena of today.  But one can can wish!

    • newpapyrus says:
      0
      0

      1.  In order for there to be cost overruns for the SLS/MPCV program– cost have to actually increase!  Instead, the opposite has been true.

       Funding for the SLS/MPCV was originally proposed to be about $4 billion in 2012 by the Congress (Its their baby!). Compromise with the White House brought it down to $3 billion for 2012. And now the White House wants to reduce it further to $2.77 billion in 2013. So there have been no cost overruns for the SLS/MPCV program– only continued reductions in funding. That’s just the facts!

      2. You don’t need the ISS to demonstrate artificial gravity. You simply need to launch an artificial gravity space station.  And this has to be deployed at L1 and appropriately mass shielded to protect from galactic radiation and micrometeorites. Launching such a structure on an HLV would be the simplest and cheapest  way to do that.

      3. NASA needs to be more than just an office for government officials to sit around dreaming about the future while tossing sharpened pencils up at the ceiling; it needs to be  a manned pioneering program so that privateers can quickly follow.

      Marcel F. Williams

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

         In order for there to be cost overruns for the SLS/MPCV program– cost have to actually increase!
        Not really. You can also slip schedule to keep current budget while not meeting milestones. You’ll fund that later on next years budget.

        Launching such a structure on an HLV would be the simplest and cheapest  way to do that.
        No – that presumes zero development cost, and that what you design from can have a lower fixed cost base. For SLS both are false. Even EELV’s have lower fixed cost base on components and assembly – so there’s no way to get better.

        I will agree with you that using a HLV makes for simpler deployment because you don’t need on orbit assembly.

        But what we got out of doing ISS was the ability to do cheap on orbit assembly. So what do you get out of neglecting a capability?

        NASA needs to be more than just an office for government officials to
        sit around dreaming about the future while tossing sharpened pencils up
        at the ceiling; it needs to be  a manned pioneering program so that
        privateers can quickly follow.

        Full agreement. They can improve their game too by learning from the “privateers”. And by using known strengths they already have!!!!!

        • newpapyrus says:
          0
          0

          Except the SLS/MPCV schedule keeps slipping because of a reduction in the budget– not because of budget overruns. And NASA management has stated that some important components and timelines for the SLS/MPCV program have to be delayed because of reductions in the SLS/MPCV  budget– as was stated in the article.

          Marcel F. Williams

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            This omits the consideration of unspendable budget given not meeting dependant milestones prior to ordering certain components.

            If you order them ahead, you may waste money because they change requirements because development “goes a different direction”. If you don’t order them, your time lines get delayed because they are not there when you need to do the next step.

            This has already happened on Orion, sometimes for multimillion dollar items. The carbon fibre structure now to be used for Liberty is one case that’s public already.

            So how much waste do you want to blame Obama for, verses how much delay do you want to blame him for? Have you quit beating your wife?

      • Stone says:
        0
        0

        Yes, I used the wrong term –“cost overruns”– with respect to this delay.  Although I suspect that such delays will lead to cost overruns as computed against original program plans.

        But I agree that NASA nor the contractor can be ‘blamed’ for this delay when it is due to reduced funding from their program plan.

    • Nox Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      NASA does not only do space-flight activities. Please remember that NASA does Research in Aviation, Materials, Communication, Etcetera Etcetera.  I am all for shutting down centers that don’t do much other then support the ISS – but NASA centers do all kinds of basic or complex research activities as well.

    • Jeff Havens says:
      0
      0

      Good lord, *someone* remembered Nautilus-X.

      I know this might come off as rude, but just how much more has to be wasted before someone kills NASA off all together and starts from scratch?  

      Yes, overly simplified.  But it’s the FED UP in me.

  11. yg1968 says:
    0
    0

    There are no plans to send Orion to the ISS. 

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      http://www.nasa.gov/explora
      “Capability to be a backup system for International Space Station cargo and crew delivery.”

      http://www.nasa.gov/audienc

      Orion is the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, or MPCV. It will carry astronauts into deep space and then return them home to Earth. Orion will be able to travel to the moon, Mars or an asteroid. If necessary, the MPCV will transport cargo and crew to the space station. 

      Why even bother retaining this ISS visitation capability if the window for visits is so small?

  12. CadetOne says:
    0
    0

    While there are still supporters of SLS/Orion, I think overall it (and CxP before it) has eroded support for NASA and the government space program among space advocates.

    • SkyKing_rocketmail says:
      0
      0

      At lunch today a friend and I were discussing the slow and labored process for NASA to get a new vehicle developed and flying and I commented that NASA needs to reinvent itself. His response was that NASA is being reinvented and its called Space-X. 

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

         I’ve heard it that the US is in a space race with Russia … and  itself.

  13. CadetOne says:
    0
    0

    One question I rarely hear asked is: Does the ISS provide any value to actual customers?  That is, enough value to actually pay a fair value for its use.

    If the answer is “yes”, then there may be reasonable expectation that ISS can be self-supporting (i.e., customers actually pay enough in user fees to maintain and operate it) or another provider (Bigelow?) will provide a similar service. And in that case, there will continue to be a need for regular launches to LEO for people and supplies beyond 2020.

    If the answer is “no”, then there should probably be a lot of navel-gazing regarding the costs to design, develop, launch, and operate the ISS since ~1984.

    • SkyKing_rocketmail says:
      0
      0

      ISS and the other stations and platforms before have never given anyone an opportunity to see if there is a money making case for spaceflight beyond comsats and in a limited sense reconnaisance satellites. For manned spaceflight too many obstacles have been put in the way-difficulty getting launched, integration difficulties, safety difficulties, astronaut training difficulties, accidents which pop up and interfere with plans, expense of time and dollars. Launch and return capabilities have never been provided on a ‘routine’ basis.  In 86 they were getting close to production when Challenger happened. Now within the last few years, you have an ISS but very limited crewtime, no regular up and down logistics, and a cumbersome integration process. 

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      ‘value to actual customers’: is this the test of any space enterprise, then? The question isn’t asked because it’s not relevant.

      What about the science missions from the past decades? None of them provided cash flow. Deep-drilling in the antarctic? Searching for the Higgs? Looking for malaria treatments? Nope, no cash flow.

      Tests of business efficacy are neither useful nor relevant to the current discussion, except tangentially; it is knowledge and exploration we want, after all. Perhaps there will come a time when longer range exploration can be made profitable. Nobody knows. Some guys think they can mine astroids. One company has built a spiffy rocket. They stood on the shoulders of NASA and others. In a way, they stood on our shoulders, too. We are all, together, transfixed by the magic of space.

      Move forward as efficiently as we can? Well, of course. Accept failure without recrimination? Certainly. Scratch our heads over the wisdom of SLS? Yep. Shoot arrows at each other? No.

      As to those ‘actual customers’:  How do we sell tickets to places and wonders yet unknown and undescribed? Do we eschew hard scientific research for want of customers? No. We band together as a people and we fund this work as best we can, looking forward to a future that none of us can even begin to envision.

      Everyone here has the fever.

      It’s a great time to be alive, isn’t it?

      • CadetOne says:
        0
        0

        > The question isn’t asked because it’s not relevant.

        @_@

        It should always be relevant question, even for basic science, because it forces a careful analysis to find cost effective approaches.

        For example, if you are doing research on the effects of microgravity, you might use magnetic levitation, suborbital rockets, one-off orbital lab (e.g., DragonLab), or ISS. The right choice depends on a lot of factors. But the key is the researcher *is* the customer, and she needs to find the how best to spend whatever dollars she has allocated to her research.

         

  14. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Wrote this for the SLS thread but it applies here too

    Spacex builds Aldrin Mars recycler
    The second generation mars transfer vehicle.
    So how do we go travel to settle Mars??

    Do we go on speed boats or sail boats? I like sail boats. Better on gas/methane lol.

    So Spacex takes on Tinkers Space station lifter idea and we build stations where? L1? So this is the construction site for the Mars recycler??

    Well if you are going to be traveling to mars where it takes 5 plus months you want lots of room plus martian gravity right??? This is the foundation of a Space city.

    So your mars recycler is a multi floor tinker tanker space station. Right? Don’t you just start stacking wheels to grow, so only one side of one wheel is exposed to the sun that you shield with space rocks. Don’t you use/live in parts of it in L1 to support moon mining while you construct it???
    Isn’t this Von Braun’s Safer (artificial gravity)Space station design. That we never built? 
    Even Saturn V like SLS wasn’t big enough?

    Tinker, 
    Sure seems to me that Elon might be interested in your Space station heavy lifter idea for his Mars settlement plans.

    Better give the guy a call.

    News flash

    Lift Off of the first Giant Tinker Tanker

    Spacex uses their recoverable oxygen tugs/rockets to start Aldrin’s city of multi planet commerce that lays permanent  tracks to Mars.

    Inner Solar System Railroad Inc.

    Marcel

    What if ALL that money that will be wasted on SLS this next decade was given to Elon and he used it to  build Tinkers Lifter, using merlin 2 s, and built Tinkers space station as the mars permanent Mars recycler and it were possible to get the Orion gang to do all life support R and D,

    And we had this as a plan with a goal to have recycler flying by trans mars earth orbit by 2030 and the Space community all pulled together.

    I bet it would be possible and wouldn’t cost anymore than just getting SLS off the ground.

    Marcel

    You want a 50 billion dollar BEO plan??

    How about a permanent  railroad to Mars for my 50 billion. Instead of an old fashion porky pie disposable rocket.

    Mars settlement!

    That’s what im talkin about 
    Lololol

    You and your friends wasted enough time and money.

    No more!!!

    Joe Taxpayer

  15. Michele Smith says:
    0
    0

    Ok I’ve been quiet for a long time here but I really need to reply to this one.  

    1st regardless of what this President said in his April  speech at KSC about Orion going to station even as a life boat, this has never been the administrations plan.  1st go back and read the speech it was never meant to be more then a life boat.  2nd  Adminstrator Bolden in did not mix words before before congress,  his statement included that Orion
     would only be used for station if all the commercial crew company  went bankrupt and pull out.  You can check the transcripts of the congressional hearings,  I listened to them live 

    Ok lets address the inevitable comparison ,  
    1st Dragon is not manned rated , and Spacex has said it will take a minimal of 3 additional years to be ready to carry humans. (SpaceX said 3 to 5 years when first asked). 

    2nd.  Nasa has gone to great lengths to cut requirements for the commercial community to help them.  These requirements were not removed for Orion and SLS .  So to compare the two is in truth (if anyone cares ) is comparing apples and oranges  and unfair.

    3rd .  The administration has gone to great lengths to delay Orion from withholding funding that congress passed and president signed, delaying giving LM the go ahead to get acquire the delta 4 to launch  EFT1.

    Though I know the inclination of folks here , commercial good NASA bad there is a lot more going on then people are seeing .  

    Sorry to make this a bit of rant   but I would suggest you go back and check some of this Presidents first statements on NASA .  Manned spaceflight is not his priority , Pretty words do not match whats being done. 

    I also know that many here will never believe the truth ,  and prefer some of the positions stated here .  But until NASA and commercial play on an even field  they can never be judged on the same field .   

    Orion and SLS has never had the funding that they should have , and add the changes in requirements ,  the bureaucratic overhead  it will never match up with the appearance of the commercial guys .  but just remember one thing you only know the money Nasa has funded into the commercial , not the  amount of other funding is added , they don’t have to be transparent , and in the development phase they don’t have to report each delay .    

    As for the one who said Orion is “just a capsule”  so is dragon , so is several of the other possible commercial entrants into this operations.  

    Some things to think about 

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      “But until NASA and commercial play on an even field  they can never be judged on the same field .”

      Does that mean commercial crew can also have an annual budget of nearly $3 billion per year? I agree!

      “Orion and SLS has never had the funding that they should have , and add the changes in requirements ,  the bureaucratic overhead  it will never match up with the appearance of the commercial guys .”

      So a program with a budget of $3 billion a year can’t match some “guys” who share less than $0.5 billion a year between them? And you think we are the ones being unrealistic? Good grief.

      All that bureaucratic waste, all that inefficiency, that’s what we’re trying to end. If you don’t like it either, then you should be demanding that SLS/Orion be broken up into COTS/CCDev style fixed-cost competing multi-vendor contracts, instead of trying to run down the only programs that are actually doing things differently.

      This is what I don’t understand about guys like you. You complain about all the things holding you back, but you work to preserve the very same system you’re complaining about! Madness!

      “As for the one who said Orion is “just a capsule”  so is dragon , so is several of the other possible commercial entrants into this operations.”

      I think you mis-read them. When people say “Orion is just a capsule”, they are asking why it should cost an order of magnitude more than other capsules. It’s just a capsule, it should only cost capsule-money to develop.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Was this actually written by the same Michele Smith who is a Communications Specialist at Goddard? Just wondering.

      • Bennett In Vermont says:
        0
        0

         Good question. Another one is why is this person using two different names to post comments?

        If indeed this person is a “Communications Specialist at Goddard” then there’s little doubt as to why NASA is as fracked up as it is, especially at communications.

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      Hard to argue with your ignorance. Or political justifications. Gotta find that enemy.

      President said in his April  speech at KSC about Orion going to station even as a life boat …
      Yup – he wanted something else, and was negotiated into this position(MPCV). So what. You think that somehow you “know his heart”  by this? Or that it matters?

      Dragon is not manned rated …
      Are you conveniently forgetting that Congress didn’t want to pay for COTS-D . And that Musk at the time said this would put back things a few years? But that NASA says that Dragon/ Falcon is furthest along in human rating than the others, thus closest to finished for this … because that’s what they were shooting for from the start? Or do you want them to do this for free, so you can deny they did it, and (heh heh) have them spend more money for nothing?

      … Nasa has gone to great lengths to cut requirements for the commercial
      community to help them.  These requirements were not removed for Orion …

      Untrue. NASA says they all have the same requirements. What is different is the processes to obtain those requirements / certifications – very different. Govt agencies don’t have the budget / flexibility / scope to revise processes / procedures, so they get … absurd … to reach their objective. That’s why COTS worked.

      I know. Worked inside NASA … outside NASA … overseeing NASA … alongside NASA. Sometimes things are 100x more expensive than need be. Usually … because times change.

      The administration has gone to great lengths to delay Orion from
      withholding funding that congress passed and president signed, delaying
      giving LM the go ahead to get acquire the delta 4 to launch  EFT1

      … as Congress has gone to great lengths to thwart the executive branch’s leadership and execution. This is how American political institutions have worked since 1776 (actually before too!). Perhaps you also don’t realize that Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon … all had similar tussles with a variety of Congresses over space.

      You are just demonizing w/o looking at what the battles are about. They have nothing to do with space, but just about who gets what.

      Though I know the inclination of folks here , commercial good NASA bad there is a lot more going on then people are seeing . 
      NASA is commercial. NASA is govt.  Govt costs 10-100x more and slower. Simple – want more for the buck. NASA oversees both the same.

      What they don’t see is what goes on in Congress. What goes on with companies. What NASA processes are.

      Manned spaceflight is not his priority
      Not POTUS, Congress, or even … voters. Yet they must do something.

      They all want the budget behind HSF. If  Georgia shifted all-up to semiconductors or bombs no space … Shelby would be arguing against HSF completely. They are only  upset now because recent successes in HSF upset budget deals they’ve made.

      But until NASA and commercial play on an even field  they can never be judged on the same field . 

      How do you call it a even field? Many would same dollars per result on time. Clearly you want more time/budget/latitude for govt.  Why is that unlevel playing field fair? Goodness? Kindness of heart?

      Orion and SLS has never had the funding that they should have …
      Correct. Even with Bush and a Republican Senate and House. Why?

      … changes in requirements …
      Yes but why? Perhaps because OSP left out Shuttle primes? Because Orion would have been too successful, too fast?

      … the bureaucratic overhead  it will never match up with the appearance of the commercial guys …
      Yes. But we don’t know how to bound how much more. For 20+ years its been … unbounded. In a down budget time that’s not good enough. So at the moment, what’s happening it we’re going to get “basic functionality” so we aren’t dependant on the Russians. Because we don’t know how much to budget/time, we’re getting it from “commercial” – we’ve run out of time, and that ship has sailed.

      Do you honestly think we’ll afford redundant programs now?

      What we can’t face right now is … what to do next.

      remember one thing you only know the money Nasa has funded into the
      commercial , not the  amount of other funding is added , they don’t have
      to be transparent , and in the development phase they don’t have to
      report each delay . 

      NASA is not transparent.
      Nothing/none here is.
      NASA knows about delays years in advance of reporting them.
      “Commercial” routinely over promises and under delivers. Like when Musk says something big and it comes off a year later. Same just sounds different.

      So how did we get into this predicament? Lack of realism in HSF. Simplistic “perfect world” of Bush / Griffin. We got suckered.

      Best view for NASA development – learn tricks from “commercial” and do them better. Do things that they can’t do. Ever.

      Win the next game.

      • Drea_mer says:
        0
        0

        President said in his April  speech at KSC about Orion going to station even as a life boat … 
        Yup – he wanted something else, and was negotiated into this position(MPCV). So what. You think that somehow you “know his heart”  by this? Or that it matters?      as for knowing his heart on the matter of human space flight I’m going by statements then canadate Obama made in 2008 about delaying HSF for a minium of 5 years to support education , and that if you were a fan of Manned spaceflight you would not agree with his position.

        Not to mention the top three items he gave Adminsitator Bolden had nothing to do with HSF/Technology / or research.

        As for the change in requirements everyone is having so much fun with ripping on me for .  The ones I’m talking about is are the administrative ones.  Everyone here states NASA needs to reorganize and be more efficient (be more like commercial) however NASA hands are tied by many additional requirements and regulation that stop that from happening.  

        Even with the “help ” in the this area commercial has recieved when they truly move to production state it will be far harder to run the slimed down activities they are now . 

        now as so many here has posted , I knew the result when  I posted my first message .   So I will leave people with one thought ” The truth is the three edge sword, your side my side and what actually is ”   What actually is is hard to find without all the fact of what happens behind closed doors 

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          … going by statements then canadate Obama made in 2008 about delaying HSF for a minium of 5 years to support education …
          My read from even earlier comments he’s made – money going into CxP’s HSF didn’t do anything for his goals.

          … if you were a fan of Manned spaceflight you would not agree with his position.
          Yes. But even his opponents couldn’t with $10B get something going. Obviously somethings broken. To get HSF you need to do something different to fix the problem.

          The ones I’m talking about is are the administrative ones.
          I’m well aware of those. Congress and Griffin messed those up rather badly. I was … annoyed. But Congress won’t let you fix these right now – even though many know how to do something like SpaceX and Orbital (and others) do inside NASA – that was what I was specifically speaking about. Congress doesn’t realize how important this is – they are a bunch of lawyers who don’t understand that the “help” they provide has devastating effects.

          This is why backing Congress’s direction fails – precisely for the reason you mention.

          Even with the “help ” in the this area commercial has recieved when they
          truly move to production state it will be far harder to run the slimed
          down activities they are now .

          Look at flight rate for HSF either with Commercial Crew and/or SLS/Orion. The flight rate is 6months a flight on the average. They reuse the same people in house for pad/launch/operations crew. That means they can work in a reduced state for longer than NASA can. Obviously, they are prepared for HSF to drop to the barest levels possible and still be reliable.

          No one is planning for scaling up just yet.  Before that happens, much in many places needs to change.

          add:
          One place to begin – now’s the right time to revive the National Aeronautics and Space Council, now that CRS is going ahead.

    • SkyKing_rocketmail says:
      0
      0

      “lets address the inevitable comparison, Dragon is not manned rated” Actually Dragon has most of what it will take to be man-rated.
      If you were intending a comparison with Orion, Orion does not fly in a realistic version similar to what Space-X flew for another 5 or more years.

      “Nasa has gone to great lengths to cut requirements for the commercial community to help them” 

      Many of NASA’s requirements are self-imposed for mission success reasons. NASA requires commercial to be safe. That does not mean that commercial is not dedicated to mission success. They simply do not need to answer to NASA for it. Industry wants to be successful so that they do not waste their investment and so that investors are not frightened off. 

      NASA and LM have received more than enough funds to be successful and to be much further along than they are, as Space-X has recently demonstrated. NASA’s problem is pretty simple: organize better, define the requirements better, and work smarter, not harder. 

    • LPHartswick says:
      0
      0

      I couldn’t agree with you more.  The administration just needs to give them the funding they were promised, and stop throwing them anchors.  Orion & SLS will give the country the BEO capability that it needs.

  16. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    If kept, the Orion is likely to be used to support deep space spacestations and transfer vehicles.  To do that the spacecraft will need to dock with the spacestation.  Years of experience in preventing disasters has demonstrated that major functions needs to be tested in realistic situations before the equipment is certified as operational.  Testing on the Earth’s surface is not sufficiently realistic, so the place to test the Orion’s docking facilities is LEO.

    Currently NASA has access to only one spacestation in LEO and that is the ISS.  So LEO docking needs testing at the ISS.  Consequently the Orion needs to visit the ISS.

    Now is there a valid reason for the Orion to make a second visit to the ISS?

  17. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Tinker

    Think through this idea a minute. You said that you are interested in launching a skyscraper. Well what if you could LAND one on another planet. 

    Now that Spacex has developed reusable oxygen/kero/ or methane  tugs.

    Why couldn’t we do this??

    Use the tugs to build your wheel recycler and set it on it’s way. 

    Then you build a giant dragon capsule. You build it as large you can lift with your 6 tugs. Same shape has dragon. You build it at the launch site same as you built the station. 
    Very similar to a shipyards that builds steel ships.

    Your giant Dragon 

    DRAGON BASE

    This thing could be a complete exploration/settlement Base 

    The nose cones tip seats your crew during earth launch and mars landing and has launch LAS draco like escape. 
      
    A whole new meaning to Mars-One

    Dragon base could meet with Mars recycler docking at the hub of recycler for trip to mars.

    Then land whereever you may want to start a new town.

    Lol some one said we are not going to settle mars in capsules, lol so I thought why not with Tinkers/Spacex’s 6 recoverable TUGS we could launch a capsule big enough if we wanted too.

    The advantage of Smart cheap future heavy lift.

    Cancel SLS

    Cancel Orion

  18. Mark625 says:
    0
    0

    So, Keith, you would be happy if we spent $X billion developing a new launch system that couldn’t go to ISS? I doubt it. In fact, I’m pretty sure that you would mock NASA mercilessly if SLS/MPCV ended up being physically unable to deliver cargo and crew to ISS.

    Orion is late because this Administration wants it to be late. It has been short-changing SLS and MPCV in every budget request since the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 was signed into law. Only broad bipartisan support in the Senate has saved NASA HSF so far, and with the loss of KBH and possibly Bill Nelson too, NASA’s HSF future does not look bright at all.

    And who is going to pay for all of these wonderful commercial providers once NASA is gone? Where is the demand for commercial crew without an anchor tenant such as NASA? Are there really that many billionaires around who want to fly to space for kicks? I don’t think so.

    Get ready for the new America, where space travel is just one of the many things that we used to be capable of, but no longer have the national will to do.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Why does SLS need to go to ISS to deliver Orion when Atlas V, Delta IV, and Falcon 9 can do it?

      • Mark625 says:
        0
        0

         I still can’t believe that you are actually arguing against MPCV having even the capability to dock with the ISS. Aside from the legal requirement in the NAA2010, having this capability just makes sense. Why should the new NASA manned system (MPCV) not be interoperable with the premier existing NASA manned system (ISS)?

        To go out of your way to make sure one is unable to interoperate with the other would be shortsighted in the extreme. That would be like the Navy buying a fighter jet that is unable to land on any existing aircraft carriers, or the Army buying a tank that can’t be transported with any existing delivery systems. Sure, that’s the level incompetence we have come to expect from government systems, but shouldn’t we be trying to avoid that level of stupidity instead of encouraging it?

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

           No. He’s saying that Orion has more of a point to be used with the ISS with three other launch vehicles that already exist. (Actually, there are three other vehicles on the planet that can do so as well that exist, but that’s another story).

          It makes no sense for a hundred ton plus payload capacity that costs as much as a aircraft carrier each flight, to lob something that costs as much as a handful of tugboats to do same, w/o amortizing the huge development cost as well. Keep in mind the Columbia (CAIB) separate cargo/crew too.

          Nor does waiting to fly Orion only on SLS manned. Nor the additional overhead (considerable) of govt development having to prove that the SLS/Orion combination will support a mission to the ISS.

          You can instead retain comparability with ISS as a alternative – would save a few hundred million and improve schedule (less work to do).

          So why isn’t this done? Because it is a “fig leaf” mission, so the “rocket to nowhere” has someplace to go, albeit 10x  overbuilt and 100x over cost.

          In other words – politics.

          • Mark625 says:
            0
            0

            Wrong. You’ve twisted the premise of this entire thread. It’s not about whether it would be better to launch Orion on any other booster, it’s why even bother. Here is Keith’s quote:

            “How can Orion provide the “capability to be a backup system for International Space Station cargo and crew delivery” if commercial crew carriers fly well before Orion flies? As such, why is Orion/SLS being designed with the capability of going to the ISS in the first place?”

            His question is just silly. Say I have a rental car agency nearby, and also own a truck. “How can my truck be a backup ride to the grocery store when I can already rent a car? Why should my truck even have the capability to go to the grocery store when I can rent a car?” Bad logic.

            Also, Atlas-V can’t go to ISS, it’s just a booster. It needs a spacecraft. Same for Delta-IV. And Falcon-9 is also a launcher owned by a private company (designed with NASA $$ of course) that has no interest in letting it carry anything other than Dragon. Other than EFT-1, AA-2, and other test flights, Orion will never fly on anything but SLS.

            SLS will have the ability to launch Orion and many tons of payload to LEO, and Orion will have the ability to deliver it to ISS. This just makes sense, and it’s the law.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Deleted by author

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

             Did so in an earlier comment. Unlike other commenters here, don’t repeat myself.

            Your analogy is flawed. As a mission / vehicle requirement it increases costs. Any requirement does.

            The original spec for Orion was to fly as the SC on the EELV’s, and Atlas V – always the easiest to human rate (engines/parts designed that way from start unlike Delta IV).   Part of the OSP program.

            Griffin  decided to make it fly only on SLS. Originally, with ESAS, the thought was that the “big dumb booster” would just boost cargo/propellant, you could risk more, since if you lost the craft you wouldn’t lose people. Then you’d ferry up people on a smaller, cheaper to human rate LV/SC.

            That’s how we got away from “dual launch”, and to 1.5 launch. Then “the stick” was supposed to lower the cost (the “.5”) while increasing the economics(reuse). Miserable failure.

            Nobody remembers or cares. Part of why all this nonsense happens.

    • HyperJ says:
      0
      0

      “Orion is late because this Administration wants it to be late. It has been short-changing SLS and MPCV in every budget request since the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 was signed into law.”

      Oh wow. Yes, attempting to lower the yearly Orion budget from $1.2 billion per year to ONLY $1 billion per year. The horror. 

      No, Mark625 – Orion is late because JSC and the contractors are wasting taxpayer funds left and right. If it truly will take them 15+ years at $1+ billion per year… This project DESERVES to be cancelled. These people have had PLENTY of resources, PLENTY of time. Yet they fail to execute, again and again.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Why will NASA be gone!!! Won’t NASA still design wonderful mission programs using this cheaper space flight capablity?? Wont NASA start doing more important R and D??? Won’t NASA better serve our Space future???? I thought NASA was more important than just a rocket builder.

      Guess I am confused again?

      Joe Public

      NASA HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT just flew a test capsule to ISS month or so ago, right?????

  19. Trainwreck_Spotter says:
    0
    0

    There sure is a lot of venom towards NASA. I have to agree that efficiency is NOT something they have in their mission statement but questioning their competence in such a sweeping manner seems inappropriately hostile, particularly given the “facts” cited are so full of obvious errors. Comparing Dragon to Orion is like comparing a Yugo to a Range Rover. Sure, both are space capsules but they’re designed for very different missions. Their costs are different driven greatly by hugely different size and capability.

    Slapping together a space vehicle using manufacturing techniques and component technologies developed by others is inherently a cheaper proposition. What’s disturbing is how criticism is then given to the technology developer for taking longer and costing more. It’s like watching a generic drug producer making fun of the original developer due to higher development costs, testing costs, and approval costs. Harvesting other’s breakthroughs is inherently a cheaper game.

    The fact of the matter is that Orion was, from the start, designed for beyond earth orbit operations. In doing so it’s much larger than Dragon, it’s developing entirely new subsystems for longer durations, and is stressed to return in much hotter reentry trajectories, just to name a few significant differences.

    All that said, there is no doubt Orion and SLS could dramatically cut costs by operating with minimal government oversight, pre-paid milestone payments, and added milestones when overruns happen. This approach just hasn’t been tried when it comes to actual development of capabilities new to human-kind. Feel free to go on about your NASA bashing. At least they’re trying to move the state-of-the-art forward and create rather than harvest.

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

       Comparing Dragon to Orion is like comparing a Yugo to a Range Rover.
      You’ve got it backwards. Dragon is more advanced than Orion.

      Their costs are different driven greatly by hugely different size and capability.
      Dragon and Orion aren’t that different in size. Dragon has more capabilities.

      Slapping together a space vehicle using manufacturing techniques and
      component technologies developed by others is inherently a cheaper
      proposition.

      If this is so, then why is Orion so expensive.

      In doing so it’s much larger than Dragon, it’s developing entirely new
      subsystems for longer durations, and is stressed to return in much
      hotter reentry trajectories, just to name a few significant differences.

      ECLSS technologies are largely similar. They have the same basic avionics and navigation capabilities. Both can handle same high C3 reentry with appropriate heat shield thickness. Both use Al Li structural. Radiation – both are largely untested due to lack of accumulated exposure in cislunar space – the only way to be sure.

      … no doubt Orion and SLS could dramatically cut
      costs by operating with minimal government oversight, pre-paid milestone
      payments, and added milestones when overruns happen …

      What they could use from “commercial” … better administrative structure so that engineers / developers / project managers … don’t have to go up/down 6 levels of management for routine changes they think up. Have onsite shops / manufacturing to fabricate what they need in real time, rather than 3 weeks to revise certain parts.  

      Different approaches for rapid development / testing / revision. Different costing methodology not beholden to obsolete AF approaches. Hundreds of overdue, necessary changes. Including the way safety must become integral … but isn’t.

      • NonPublius says:
        0
        0

        “Dragon is more advanced that Orion”

        Please provide facts to support this statement.

        I’ve also read in other posts that Dragon is designed to return from Mars.  Can someone explain what the Mars mission crew size is with Dragon, mission duration, etc etc

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          Dragon doesn’t jettison a LAS and shroud, and on return jettison a service module (not yet even done). These are significant mass penalties that require a larger launcher.  And the same propellant serves multiple purposes – abort, orbital operations, recovery. Obvious advantage of a more advanced design.

          More like this. Do your own research.

          Orion follows too much of Apollo. They can’t/won’t step out of its shadow.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            See Mr. C I almost missed that one. I never thought about a dragon returning from Mars. I always just thought of it as a Mars lander. Anyway thanks for the info.

  20. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    Just a little news for you commercial does Leo while we do BEO guys

    http://news.discovery.com/s

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      DTARS:

      Notice the serious redesign from the Merlin 1c. Not only does it appear to be simpler than the 1c but it’s footprint on the thrust frame seems to be smaller too. This gives credence to the folks that think that the thrust frame for the Falcon 9 v1.1 will be an octagon of motors around a center Merlin. The thrust frame is said to be half the weight of the original and also without the four fairings above the corner motors.

      So, why don’t they just use 7 engines (six around a center motor) like they could with the improved thrust?

      Here’s why.

      – The Falcon 9 v1.1’s first stage will be 50% longer than the original and be capable of carrying 40% more payload… but they won’t!

      – The Falcon 9 v1.1’s second stage will be longer as well. This is so the first stage burn ends at a lower velocity and altitude to facilitate recovery.

      – The new ‘ring around the Merlin’ thrust frame (an example of which can be seen in Spacex’s Grasshopper photos) will give the center Merlin more room to vector (steer) during powered landings. Expect the center Merlin to be a little lower than it’s neighbors.

      – Elon Musk told Popular Mechanics in Feburary:

      “The payload penalty for full and fast reusability versus an expendable version is roughly 40 percent,”

      Whole article here: Elon Musk on SpaceX’s Reusable Rocket Plans – Popular Mechanics

      Falcon 9 v1.1 will be the platform that Spacex uses to develop reusable rocket stages.

      I rest my case :).

      tinker

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Tinker no time to read your post now but I wrote this last night

        Inner Solar System RailRoad constructs space station  payloads to be launched by Spacex 

        We are reporting for the Brownville News in Texas. We are visiting Spacex commercial launch site where they are building the Buzz Aldrin Mars Recycler. As we enter the spaceport to meet with the recycler space stations construction superintendent. We see six tall looking towers. Each in different stages of construction. The site super explains that this is the low tech part of building the giant space station. Each of the six towers are parts of the station that will be assembled at L1 near the moon. He explains that he manages the construction crews that are assembling these similar tower/tanks much the same way he would if he were building apartment buildings side by side.

        We noticed that there are railroad tracks all over the construction site??? He explains that the tracks will be used to transport the the 6 recoverable tugs to each tank tower site for integration and launch. He says that the same 6 tugs will be used to launch All these giant tanks to L1 near the moon where they will be put together like tinker toys.

        He took us to the first site which it the one closest to completion to give us an idea of what the station will be like in space. 

        The tank towers are rectangular not cylinders like most rockets.

        He says that this is because that it is a much more useful shape for people in space.

        He points out that on one side of the tank is a glass like transparent wall. (tank wall is cutout is removed behind glass once the section is in space) To our surprise he says this side will face away from the sun when wheel is assembled in space. He points to truss like structure next which he calls the thrust frame. He shows us the mirror surface on the 1/4 of frame and tells us that once in space this will act as giant mirror that will reflect sun light to the rear transparent wall of the wheel. Other  3 sections of the thrust frame have Solar cells on them to generate electricity. So most all of the of the thrust frame is used for light and energy once the thrust frame unfolds in space. 

        The wall that will face the sun will have space masonry added to it, in space to protect the colonist on their trips. The mirrors angle can be changed should there be a dangerous Solar event.

        We see that this in a big project  but he says since most of the construction is done here on the ground it’s really not much harder than building sky scrappers in a small city. Which makes the cost quite reasonable.

        SLS Crowd shouldn’t you be building HLV like this????

        Why the hell in 2012 are we still trying to build 1960s type rockets.

        The more I think about it something like your lifter station is the path to Mars. 🙂

        I’m ready for a site super job building space stations. lolol

        Inner Solar System Railroad

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Reusable HLV may not be to far away 🙂

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Tinker

        Sir we the jury find your argument compelling and we agree you are correct!! Lol

        Thanks 🙂 for the insight which leads to hope. 

        This means Spacex will have may soft water crash it’s first booster in a year or so right? When do you think their first

        Falcon 9 v 1.1 will fly??? 

        All this SLS Orion talk seems so silly when Spacex’s first recovery WILL change everything!!!!
         

  21. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    I’m thinking about commercial space flight vs government space flight. And wondering about the mars-one model and thinking how much research money do we pump into Antarctic and wondering it we had some scientist on mars doing research already couldn’t we find enough research money to keep them supplied and busy doing science on this new world. Boots on mars seems to be a pretty valuable resource to me.
    Seems to have more value to me than ISS

    Hire a Martian scientist today! With government money

    Learning what is so laughable about this Idea would be very interesting.

    • pathfinder_01 says:
      0
      0

      Nothing really except level of funding.

      http://www.nsf.gov/news/new

      NSF funds three anartic stations and much more with just 7
      billion dollars. Nasa’s budget is larger. If you can get the cost of LEO down
      to maybe a few  tens of million a year to
      maybe a hundred million then it becomes possible for NSF to fit it in its
      budget.

      http://antarcticsun.usap.go

      It seems that you can have science on both polls for less
      than $450 million a year.

  22. SkyKing_rocketmail says:
    0
    0

    Dragon is designed to carry 7. Orion is too heavy so they are down to 4. Dragon is designed to return from Mars missions. 

    “Get ready for the new America, where space travel is just one of the many things that we used to be capable of, but no longer have the national will to do.”

    National will is a big issue if you want the taxpayer to pay for the program. National will is not an issue at all if commercial interests pay for development and people who want to fly pay for the flight. 

  23. mfwright says:
    0
    0

    “Orion was designed for beyond earth orbit operations.”

    I have a problem when hearing such statements. I can see how Orion is needed for a high speed re-entry, but I simply cannot see it as a spacecraft BEO. Unless there is a habitat module (which none is budgeted), Orion is way too small for people to occupy while going to Mars or an asteroid. I can see how Orion is used for a moon mission in same manner as Apollo but there is no lander budgeted. Some say Dragon can do the same but I see unless you have habitat and/or landers why are we arguing BEO?

    Alrighty so I haven’t read all the studies and reports, so far I see only discussions of capsules and launch vehicles. If other required portions of a BEO spacecraft are documented, it sure is difficult for Joe Taxpayer to find these things he has to pay for.

    • Stone says:
      0
      0

      My thoughts exactly.  And I tried to say this the other day.
      SLS/Orion are not a BEO ‘program’.  They are a “Lets build a big rocket and a Capsule” program.  Perhaps they might be used as elements of a BEO program someday.  But today, and for the next approximate 10 years, they are not even  a part of a  BEO program.