Space shuttle replacement won't fly until 2014

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Bummer

----------------

Story Highlights:

1) Cost concerns are at the root of the delay, says program manager.

2) Orion is sometimes called "Apollo on steroids".

3) Unlike the space shuttle, Orion is a capsule that will parachute to a landing.
4) The new goal of a September 2014 launch is a year later than NASA had planned.



(CNN) -- NASA has put off the planned launch of its next-generation Orion spacecraft for a year, a setback to efforts to fly a successor to its aging space shuttles, the space agency announced Monday.

"September 2014 is when we are saying we will launch the first crew on the Orion," program manager Jeff Hanley told reporters in a conference call Monday.

NASA officials plan to wrap up assembly of the International Space Station and retire the space shuttle fleet in 2010, freeing up money to build and fly the new spacecraft. Cost concerns are at the root of the delay, but NASA is also giving itself wiggle room to deal with the unforeseen technical problems that will inevitably crop up, Hanley said.

"It's the unknown unknowns that we have to hedge against," he said. "Having some number of months of schedule flexibility to meet our commitment, in addition to having some number of months of cost -- dollars -- flexibility, is key to keeping ourselves in a healthy posture."

Sometimes called "Apollo on steroids," Orion is designed to ferry astronauts to and from the space station and eventually back to the moon. Unlike the space shuttles, which land like an airplane, Orion is a capsule that will parachute to a landing at Edwards Air Force Base in California. See photos of the full-size mock-up » http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/08/11/nasa.orion/index.html#cnnSTCPhoto

The new goal of September 2014 is a year later than NASA had planned to launch the first Orion, but still six months short of the March 2015 commitment date set by Congress. Program managers were hoping to fly the new vehicle much sooner than that to keep the gap between the last shuttle flight and the first Orion flight to a minimum.

"As we looked at the plan we had for September 2013 against the available dollars, it became clear to us that we needed to adjust our schedules," said Hanley.

[sickandtwisted 0]

Do not trust the Orion Syndicate. Especially the women!

Sorry, Star Trek humor.

Skymama stalker #69!!!!

[VectorBoy 0]

Too bad its replacement isn't a lifting body.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Those damn things never did work. Ask Steve Austin.

[PhreeZone 15]

Orion is still Vaporware at this point and is only at Mock up stages.They haven't flown any of the major parts yet and its going to be until I'd guess 2015 before there is a manned trial flight. From there it is a long time until the full abilities of the design will be used. Its set up for 4 people to the Moon and 6 to the ISS with no cargo ability, this is a downgrade from the current ability of the Shuttle. Moon bound missions are going to require a seperate launch of all the moon bound equipment days or weeks earlier and then Orion will dock with it in LEO and then head off to the moon.

The Shuttle needed replaced but I'm not a fan of the proposed plans currently with Orion. Its more of a Moon or Bust project and is ignoring the need to do things such as hauling cargo and personal to work on that cargo at the same time. It also sucks that the end of the Shuttle is the end of Hubble since there will be no more maintence program for it since its not in the scope of Orion to addess any longer.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[quade 3]

Orion isn't a Space Shuttle replacement; it's an Apollo replacement.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wayneflorida 0]

NASA is going backwards. NASA budget is 80 percent of what it was in 1969 (2007 dollars). Y’all remember 1969. The United Sates of America
landed on the moon. I saw it live on TV. At least I thought I did until the news told me Hollywood faked it.

It was a proud day, and because of our current government leaders probably never to be done again in my lifetime.

I’m depressed----- tell brain to think skydiving-------I’m ok now.



DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW (it’s for the children)

[happythoughts 0]

HARP

Read up on Gerald Bull, a ballistics expert.

He designed the Super Gun for Iraq based on a design that he worked on years before.

The stats that I remember being quoted seem low:
Shuttle cost to launch - $10,000 per lb.
Super Gun launch of satellite - $300 per lb.

Shuttles take over one month to refit for launch.
Super Gun can be cleaned and re-fired once a week.

The idea was to use a projectile about the size of a telephone booth (for those who remember them) and weighing 300-500 lbs. Launch it in to low orbit.

It is a lot cheaper than using a rocket to push it into space.

Opinions of his projects vary. He had some very major successes. Being assassinated has put a crimp in his plans.

[Peej 0]

Quote

Orion isn't a Space Shuttle replacement; it's an Apollo replacement.

Looking at the pics, and knowing nothing about the project, i'd agree. I guess i was expecting something that looked a lot more high tech.

Advertisio Rodriguez / Sky

[sickandtwisted 0]

I wonder why they do not leave the shuttle fleet parked at the International Space station. They could be used as life rafts, or for a little trip to the Hubble telescope if it breaks down.

Skymama stalker #69!!!!

[PhreeZone 15]

There are currently only 2 docking rings on the ISS. 1 is reserved for the Souyz capsle that is used for escapes if needed, 1 is used for incoming cargo and supply shipments and then those Progress modules are discarded to allow for the next Souyz/Shuttle to dock to bring up more people/return to Earth. The ISS would need to be 2-3 times larger to allow room for the entire shuttle fleet to dock on it. That is not including the additional ongoing maintence that is needed with the shuttles to keep them servicable such as needing oxidizer to keep power active and allow manouvering thrusters to work if needed. Fuel needed to fly to Hubble and back (the shuttles can only be refueled on the ground) is a huge issue since it is in a different orbit then the ISS, the Shuttle is just able to reach Hubble on a direct shot currently. It has almost no extra fuel at time of reentry due to it being a 48-49% consumption to get there and another 48-49% to return to earth. Hubble is truly at the reaches of what the Shuttle can get to with very little safety margin.

NASA is trying to roll a hard six by going for the Moon and then Mars, if it does not get there by the dates it has currently a lot of the NASA funding is going to dry up and set the space program back decades and it will have killed the shuttle program while taking money away from the ISS and other programs.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,400]

> I wonder why they do not leave the shuttle fleet parked at
> the International Space station.

1) Fuel. They'd run out of fuel rapidly. (They get electricity from fuel cells.)
2) Fuel. You need fuel for the OMS engines to get around.
3) Fuel. It evaporates even if you don't use it. H2 and O2 are the worst, but even the hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide evaporates after a while.
4) Meteor damage. Even after just a week in orbit the shuttle comes back with dings in it's windshield, engines, wings etc from micrometeorite damage.

The shuttle is a decent way to get to orbit and an even better way to get back, but not a very good on-orbit vehicle.

BTW one very cool design that they cancelled was the CRV, the crew return vehicle. It would have been a lifting body design that re-entered, glided to near where it wanted to land, then deployed a massive 7500 square foot ram-air parachute to land.

[ryoder 1,384]

Quote

BTW one very cool design that they cancelled was the CRV, the crew return vehicle. It would have been a lifting body design that re-entered, glided to near where it wanted to land, then deployed a massive 7500 square foot ram-air parachute to land.

Straight-in landing, or a swoop?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,400]

>Straight-in landing, or a swoop?

Well, it depends. It's not really designed for it, but one of the astronauts is a natural, and he's always been good at extreme sports, and what's the worst that can happen? He'll be careful.

[TEB6363 0]

I remember them pushing the prototype design out of the Cal City Otter and having the landing controlled by radio on the ground.. Pretty cool stuff for a guy who likes radio control and skydiving...

Once the plane takes off, you're gonna have to land - Might as well jump out!!

[Meux 0]

If we spend a billion dollars in the space program, we get a billion dollars worth of infrastructure, education and other benefits.

If we spend a billion dollars on the welfare program we get a two billion dollar welfare habit.

Any guesses on where we're going as an Obama Nation?

We damn sure aren't going to space. Not enough votes there.

I'm gonna miss the space program.

[billvon 2,400]

Please do not post politics in Bonfire. We have a forum (Speaker's Corner) specifically for politics, guns and religion. Most people don't want to hear that here.

[Meux 0]

Apologies to all

[kingbunky 3]

epic fail on the parachute tests:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/pa_chute_test.html

video

"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart."
MB4252 TDS699
killing threads since 2001

[VectorBoy 0]

Quote

epic fail on the parachute tests:

The crew is going to need wingsuits then.