I used to consider myself a political independent, moderate, etc. The one thing this administration has been able to do is push people like me away from him and their philosophy. That is the change I can believe in.
I am wondering a few things.1) If the Orion is being designed only as a crew return vehicle, then how would it be able to do the asteroid and Mars orbit missions that has recently been asked of NASA?
2) Why are we spending billions on a crew return vehicle. The ISS already has crew return vehicles, the Soyuz. What is the point of creating something that we already have?
3) What rocket will the Orion fly on?
The Block 0 CRV could fly on a stock Atlas V 552 or Delta IV-Heavy, since it would not need a LAS.
No we don't need another return vehicle, we haven't for the past 12 years and we don't need to waste the money on it now.
For the price of the CRV Ares I doesn't look too bad. Remember the CRV isn't capable of delivering crew to orbit but yearly costs are about equal to that of the Ares I.
[T]here was such a great opportunity to correct the Program of Record and do something great while putting this administration's stamp on a common sense approach to exploration. Instead, we have chaos, uncertainty, and a return to the "better, faster, cheaper" mantra of the 1990's in the form of "commercialization" of human spaceflight.
Quote from: tigerade on 06/07/2010 02:34 pmI am wondering a few things.1) If the Orion is being designed only as a crew return vehicle, then how would it be able to do the asteroid and Mars orbit missions that has recently been asked of NASA?It's called "block development" or "spiral development". Block 0 = CRV, Block 1 = CTV, Block 2 = CEV. Apollo was similar, with Block 1 being a LEO CTV only, with Block 2 being used for lunar missions. Except Apollo's budget was high enough that both blocks were developed almost in parallel, while Orion would be serial.snip...
They seem to only have thrown out the CRV idea as a political compromise to the Texas and Colorado delegations in Congress.
Quote from: EE Scott on 06/11/2010 01:31 pm They seem to only have thrown out the CRV idea as a political compromise to the Texas and Colorado delegations in Congress.Especially considering that after spending 4.5 billion for Orion CRV there will be running costs of a billion per year and IN ADDITION another 5-6 billion at least in development costs to get to the original BEO Orion. Somebody has yet to come up with a way to pay for this spacecraft.
Quote from: manboy on 06/10/2010 10:49 pmNo we don't need another return vehicle, we haven't for the past 12 years and we don't need to waste the money on it now. The problem is that something could hapen to ground the Russian CRV (remember the chaos after Challenger grounded the STS fleet). For the last 12 years, the Shuttle could have been pressed into service as a CRV in the event of a Russian 'crisis'. That is no longer possible (we are retiring the orbiters and running out of launch parts with no plans to build more).Quote from: manboy on 06/10/2010 10:49 pmFor the price of the CRV Ares I doesn't look too bad. Remember the CRV isn't capable of delivering crew to orbit but yearly costs are about equal to that of the Ares I.Apples to oranges.
Quote from: Jorge on 06/11/2010 04:38 amQuote from: tigerade on 06/07/2010 02:34 pmI am wondering a few things.1) If the Orion is being designed only as a crew return vehicle, then how would it be able to do the asteroid and Mars orbit missions that has recently been asked of NASA?It's called "block development" or "spiral development". Block 0 = CRV, Block 1 = CTV, Block 2 = CEV. Apollo was similar, with Block 1 being a LEO CTV only, with Block 2 being used for lunar missions. Except Apollo's budget was high enough that both blocks were developed almost in parallel, while Orion would be serial.snip...The bolded above might actually make sense if that's the way they would present their 'plan'. But they have not been quite so explicit in this. They seem to only have offered the CRV idea as a political compromise to the Texas and Colorado delegations in Congress.
I thought NASA just saw it as a better way than having to pay the fees associate with canceling the contract.