Orion Cockpit Promo Video
Video: NASA’s Orion Cockpit, SpaceRef
“Orion’s December flight test will be uncrewed, but the spacecraft is meant to carry people. Astronaut Lee Morin shows off the cockpit future Orion crews will use in this video. The first test flight of Orion is scheduled for December 4th.”
People will live for months or years in that capsule?
Glass cockpits need explaining?
And the display of 2014 will be the same one heading to Mars around the twelfth of never?
Where did you read that crews would spend month or years inside just that capsule? I’ve seen where it would be docked to another vehicle or module.
From 0:30 to about 0:55, he talks about deep space missions lasting ‘months or even years.’ He later talks about the capsule as if it were the focal point of that activity. The other items connected to the people canister looked either like propiulsion modules or far too small to support the fuel and provisions for a crewed mission spanning months or years.
For missions lasting months or years, you’ll need something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
the Orion by itself can only carry enough supplies for 4 people for 21 days. anything longer would require some sort of extra space with more supplies.
with a habitat attached, the Orion can still function as a command module, of course.
Too bad Orion is so expensive to get into space. If only we could launch it on a Delta, Falcon or Atlas.
The Falcon Heavy would get it into low Earth orbit.
It would require a second refuel or boost stage flight to reach escape velocity.
In any event, since the first crewed Orion does not fly until, at least, 2024, there is another option.
The reusable Falcon BFR, with 50% greater thrust than the SLS is supposed to be in use before then.
So falcon heavy can’t get this thing to escape V in one flight, with the right service module on it? Is Delta maxed out on this flight???
it has a capacity of 63,000 lbs to LEO according to wikipedia. the LAS + Orion + SM is about 60,000 lbs, so the Delta IV Heavy is very close to maxed for weight to LEO. it definitely for this mission profile, what with the second burn to put the Orion on a high parabolic trajectory.
The previous NASA administrator tried to make sure that Orion would be “too big” to launch on (then) existing EELVs, so NASA could practice designing a medium sized launch vehicle (Ares I) before moving on to design the HLV (Ares V). But both have been replaced with SLS which is still under development. Tick, tock, tick, tock…
Yeah, Orion is this deep space craft that cant go very deep. By itself anyway. It also wants to fly a lot but not very high. And not too soon.
Is “shallow space” a term ? Timid is maybe better.
“These are the same screens heading for mars” – um, way to predict the future decades ahead. They’ll probably still be using Nokia phones when they get there then, too.
It should be obvious to most that on very long missions there will be habitation in another separate, attached module. I wonder why people keep bringing that question up in nearly every comments section on nearly every space site I’ve ever seen.
Because the return capsule needs to be just that. A return capsule. You don’t spend 10 plus billion on a return capsule and call it a Spaceship.
DTARS nailed it.
And how much did this cost? And people inside Cannon wonder why the public is so confused with NASA spending priorities. 2022 is the first crewed Orion flight… how many times will CST-100 and Dv2 have flown?
But more importantly, does anyone really think Musk is going to stop with Dv2 in LEO?
I don’t.
If he gets government money like he’s getting now for his LEO taxi.
Musk has said flatly that they would continue whether or not funding became available. Funding affects the speed with which the work is completed, not the fact of its completion.
Watch the MIT Musk interview
In six or seven years Spacex will be test flying their MCT. This thing is reusable! Musk will have giant rockets sitting around as big as SLS. Want a moon program/base what ever. Buy a flight!
Yes Musk will make lots of cash on his reusable falcon line both from government and the private sector. And his engineers will work on getting us off this rock with all that cash.
Spacex engineers dont need a jobs program they will be building the hardware to settle the Solar system funded by cheap reusable rocket launch.
I believe that’s what you call a Space program
A PLAN
2024 is now the earliest planned crewed flight. Altho, with Senator Shelby in charge now, commercial flight is set to be gutted and all the plans for ARM will be dismantled, pushing both programs far out into the distant future. To those who voted Republican in the last election, thank you, very little.
NASA’s interest in human factors is laudable, but it would be nice if they would spend as much improving human factors in automobiles, aircraft, medical information systems and medical devices, i.e. on projects that would benefit all Americans.
That is not NASA’s job.
Then with all due respect NASA needs a midcourse correction. NACA was created almost a century ago, not to fly around the world in a giant biplane, but to work as a partner with American industry to help our nation become competitive in aviation, the high tech of the time. Today NASA has unique expertise in a spectrum of areas.
Sending four Americans to Mars with 40-year-old designs will cost $300B that we will have to borrow from China because American taxpayers won’t cough it up. Human spaceflight will continue only if we can reduce its cost sufficiently to make space a viable place for people to work, visit, and live.
The Moon Race was the anomaly. Making a real difference takes more than planting a flag, or publishing a few papers, though I’ve published some. It takes working directly with industry and science to find answers that private industry cannot accomplish on its own. It means producing practical benefits for America, not as an inadvertent byproduct, but as a primary goal.
It’s time to return to our original mission.
While I agree with you in theory, in practice we have more than a bit of continuous “welfare for engineers” going on in certain Congressional districts. Otherwise, why fund a new heavy launch vehicle and a new manned space capsule without funding any actual mission specific hardware?
If NASA doesn’t fly SLS/Orion, who else would build those large solid rocket boosters and that huge (core) liquid fueled first stage?
Unfortunately for the politicians, reforming NASA into a more NACA-like organization would result in restructuring and the loss of jobs in certain Congressional districts.
That’s the best/most important comment I think I have ever read on NASA watch.
Transform NASA into NACA for space? Get in line; many are trying to have NASA transform in a DARPA like agency.
One of the biggest events in human history was the Moon landing. It shaped a generation of engineers and scientists and inspired the public, who continually asked why we aren’t doing anything anymore. I don’t think developing a new cockpit display will have the same appeal.
We aren’t doing anything anymore because we are putting all our resources into trying to recreate the Moon landing, or rather what we think we remember of the Moon landing.
The world was indeed inspired by the first Moon landing. During the second landing, Apollo 12, a reporter asked people what they thought of humanity’s second voyage to the moon. Many were unaware of it. A common comment: “You mean we’re going back? Why? We’ve already been there.” Budgets were cut and public support evaporated.
Apollo was a master stroke in its time. But times have changed.
Not really trying to recreate a moon landing. More like trying to recreate the “good times” of government spending in political districts.
Good point. The announcement by Lockheed that they would do final assembly of the Orion in Florida was a deft stroke politically, since it is in Florida that they compete most directly with SpaceX and Commercial Crew for funding, if not for the same mission.
what “50-year-old designs” are you talking about?
Sorry, 40 year old. My bad. The SRBs and SSMEs. There have been updates of course, i.e. the SSME turbopumps and the SRB joints, but the basic designs are essentially the same as when the Shuttle was first put on paper. I would consider them obsolete today because of their high overall cost, yet RS-25s are now being newly manufactured. This isn’t to say all older designs are obsolete; the RL-10 still appears to be an excellent choice.
I’d have to disagree with you about both. since about 2009, ATK has been constantly working on the SRB design, for example, they had to modify both the fuel mix and the fuel grain geometry for the 5 segment SRB. they also changed the insulation and manufacturing processes. other improvements have been made also. the 5 segment SRB is significantly different from the 4 segment SRB.
http://www.nasaspaceflight….
the SSME has been continually upgraded throughout its working life. the Block II engines first flew in 1998, the Block IIA in 2001. since none of the engines are older than that, at the very least, you can’t say that it’s 40 year old technology. they still have the highest thrust-to-weight of any HydroLox engine in the US rocket arsenal.
IS Orion Nasa’s job?
Is Nasa’s job-
Writing cost plus contracts that allow big business to rip off the taxpayer?
Lieing to the public about how Orion is a Mars vehicle?
Providing Jobs for engineers to pretend they are helping settle space?
On with the 10 billion dollars show! Light that baby already! Good luck to all, that spent their lives working on it! They sure could do worse.
SLS was mandated by Congress and they hold the purse-strings when it comes to government money. NASA has to spend the money when the law tells them what to spend it on.
Jeff
MIT Musk interview
Given the constraints NASA does a good Job
While this is not really NASA’s job (except perhaps the aircraft part), I’m sure they publish many papers which anyone in those industries can read and learn from.
Yes I know it can be attached to a ‘hab’ module. But, show me the toilet.
Ah yes, the question surely asked by school children more often than any other, “How do you go to the bathroom in space”. Big Bang Theory did a whole episode on the doomed “Wallowitz space toilet”, necessitating an “unscheduled spacewalk” by the entire ISS crew. 😉
Seriously though. Creating a functioning bathroom in a relatively small capsule with some modicum of privacy (sight, sound, and smell) is going to be a bit of a challenge.
“sight, sound, and smell”
Only sight and sound. We all know that astronaut <bleep> doesn’t stink. I think it is all part of that Right Stuff screening.
But I agree that even two out of three will be tough in that volume.
You must not have read the accounts of the Apollo recovery crews. They specifically mentioned the smell upon opening the Apollo CSM. 😛
“Sir, it wasn’t how you looked, it was how you smelled.” — Navy Seal frogman to astronaut William Anders, explaining his reaction to opening the Apollo 8 capsule
I can imagine that SEAL’s annual performance discussion: “And to what defect in YOUR character do you attribute this smell response?”
😉
It will (probably) be a new design. The skylab, shuttle and ISS designs will be replaced with a newer/better design.
A design which uses ISS derived modules would bo doubt be cheaper and faster to develop than a “clean sheet” design. The nice thing about ISS modules is that they’re still being used on ISS, so the experience with them is current.
Public Space, Nasa Lockheed’s Orion/ SpaceX comparison
3000 engineers working for about ten years.
Spacex/ 5 falcon 1, 15 falcon 9s 6 cargo dragons, 2 launch pads, game changing R&D
NASA Lockheed’s/ 1 Orion Capsule
Credit
Trampoline Rocket
@TrampolinRocket
Add
Correction
About 10 years ago lockheed had About 5000 engineers working on Orion which has been reduced to about 3000 today.
About 10 years ago Spacex had a few hundred engineers and about 1500 when they launched the first falcon 9. They have about 3200 today
Since Orion is made by Lockheed, I have to question your facts here.
DTARS Boeing didn’t build Orion Space Capsule they loss NASA contract award to Lockheed Martin in August 31,2006 more like 8 years. Please do better research the facts before commenting such, incorrect statement not true at all.
Ooooopps I knew that. Think of SLS Orion as one monster
Do you disagree with the rest of the facts?
SLS Orion is One Monsters so, NASA better hurry up built this Rocket&Launch next 4 year. Before next President and Congress cancel this Project for sure. I Think Elon Musk Space BFR Rocket surpass them with Rapter engine bigger taller rocket hauling 200 metric tons into Leo make SLS look small 10 year late for sure.
“Spacex/ 5 falcon 1, 15 falcon 9s 6 cargo dragons, 2 launch pads, game changing R&D”
3 launch pads (Kwaj, VAFB, CCAFS) with two more under construction or modification (LC39A, Brownsville).
the launch facilities on Omelek Island have been demolished, and the pad itself has been stripped down to its original, pre-launch conditions. it’s no longer an operational launch site.
Still one of the things they did for less the cost of the whole Orion Program
Add edit correction Mr. Doug
Even though it has been torn down the facilities at Omelek Island should still be included in the Spacex acomplishments, I listed above.
how does a launch site for a small orbital rocket even remotely compare to the Orion?
The point of my original post should be clear. Spacex as done all it’s done with about the same number of engineers over about the same time, than it took Lockheed with a similiar number of engineers, to test fly one over grown return capsule.
Lori Garver said it’s hard to compare the costs between this and commercial Space and @trampolinRocket showed it in one tweet.
Your question is just about minor details as well as trying to get me off my point. I hope me correction cleared it up.
I’m a tick Pilot, fighting crime were ever I see it
To my trampoline
Biong!
Up Up and away!!!
Boing
the devil is in the details. building a small launch platform at an old military launch pad and launching 5 rockets from it (though only two successfully made orbit) utterly pales in comparison to what NASA has done for Orion.
it’s comparing apples and calcite.
The comparison is between all that spacex has done to the Orion Program.
any particular reason why you gloss over the Orion program? and are you including the Constellation program? are you counting work done on the Ares V and I (and sometimes IV)? because there was a LOT of work done, and not just on Orion. there were several years of R&D into things like heat shields, hull materials and structure, there were dozens of design iterations. they played around with landing on airbags, etc… they were also going through decades of data from the early days of NASA, they performed thousands of tests, worked on parachutes, the development of the LAS, work on the 5 segment SRB, etc.
Because the end product is not practical
so you think that research and development is pointless? in other words, the only thing that matters is the end result?
Like you, I’m old, so I’m stuck. SpaceX is taking a chance going with younger people but they can work longer hours and will stick with the company long enough to become experienced. There are some older people with ULA but many have been working for Delta or Atlas since they got out of school.
SpaceX functions like a silicon valley corp, six years is the max you will ever see with them.
I’m sure you old timers have plenty of knowledge to share, but I’m also sure that the last thing anyone at SpaceX wants to hear is “that’s not the way we did it on Shuttle” (heard at almost every NASA design review meeting).
Why is it important that Orion fly in the Van Allen belts?? What can they test in the few minutes it’s there? Wouldn’t they have to orbit for weeks to get any kind of important data on that?
Why is the flight so fast why not stay up a few weeks then return?
i suspect they want to fly through the VA belts because there is a radiation shielding experiment being carried in the interior of the capsule. they can compare the spike in radiation as they fly through the belts to the spike measured by the detector within the experiment.
http://www.universetoday.co…
it’s a short flight because 1. they don’t need to stay in space for weeks. we’ve got lots of other data on the VA belts and how things behave in outer space. 2. this is, first and foremost, a test of the capsule’s overall integrity. if it’s going to fail, it’s most likely to fail right away. and 3. secondarily, it’s a test of the heat shield. the point is to sling it aroud and crash right back to Earth. you don’t need to loiter in space for weeks to accomplish that.
THE ROAD TO MARS STARTS ON A BARGE!
One small step in the wrong direction for man. One Giant leap for Lockheed stock holders.
While I agree with Brian that not all NASA engineers are stuck in the ways of the shuttle program, it’s hard to convince outsiders that at a high level, SLS isn’t solidly based on the Apollo/Shuttle experience. On the surface SLS is, at best, slow evolutionary change. Still using large segmented solids, still using SSMEs (to be followed by a cheaper to manufacture version), still using large, expensive, ground infrastructure in virually all aspects of manufacture and launch. And in some ways, it is going backwards by throwing away its expensive liquid fueled engines on every flight.
When you look at cost, schedule, and projected flight rate, it looks like SLS will be a colossal failure (based on those criteria) even before its first flight.
You have just confirmed why Elon is hiring all these young kids – NO EXPERIENCE. While you have all this practical knowledge that was cutting edge yesterday, today it is old news. Elon wants bunch of “tabula rasa” kids that will approach any problem with absolutely no preconcieved solutions. Who would have even considered programming nearly everything in LabView?
I can’t believe I’m defending Spacex.
P.S. My intent was not to insult anyone – I appologize if I had.
Actually, they’ve hired quite a few “old timers” as well. But, they’ve hired the ones who are tired of the status quo and who truly want to innovate.
From an overall program perspective, very little that ULA or NASA is doing today is innovative. We’re seeing nothing but a rehash of expendable, or mostly expendable, vehicles being designed, tested, and flown with little to no emphasis on low cost. From a program perspective, ULA and NASA (SLS in particular) are operating in the “old space” world and are not evolving fast enough to keep up with “new space”.
Difference between NASA and SpaceX isn’t necessarily in innovation or modern design, its apathy caused by government procedural BS vs the ease of innovation. For me as a NASA engineer, if I want to use a brand new (to NASA) component, I have to submit so much paperwork and argue with so many people that I get tired of it. I cannot open a catalog of world class manufacturer and just order something that is certified to industry standard. I have to prove that it will pass a standard that was never intended to be used on this component. And trying to argue is pointless. I’m not at all surprised that most engineers just give up and use what has already been certified even if it is no longer in production or is so grossly overpriced, it makes me cry. (how would you like to pay $15k for a single 1/2″ 3000psi gas solenoid valve) that is why SpaceX can claim that they can build it cheaper and faster, they have much more flexibility.
When you look at cost, schedule, and projected flight rate SLS already is colossal failure.
Agreed, you can’t blame this all on “old timers”. But the policy decision for NASA to create its own HLV, despite the failure of Saturn V to be economically sustainable, was a bad decision all around.
The “old space” versus “new space” war is starting to get very hot. More importantly, “new space” is starting to show some significant successes. SpaceX is working hard towards practical reusability while NASA and ULA continues to use and design expendables. SpaceX is flying their own LOX/kerosene engine and Blue Origin is actively developing their own LOX/kerosene engine while Aerojet Rocketdyne sits on its hands, refusing to do the same without a huge government hand-out.
And the most telling sign that times are changing is DOD getting close to approving Falcon 9 for launches and saying very positive things about Blue Origin’s engine development program.
We live in interesting times.