Author Topic: NASA Says Orion Taking Astronauts To Mars - What's Wrong With That?  (Read 74862 times)

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
The PR surrounding the Orion EFT-1 test flight was that Orion would eventually be taking astronauts to an asteroid and then to Mars.  This was not just media observers saying this, but NASA Administrator Bolden had an editorial on CNN.com where he stated:

"We intend to learn as much as possible before Orion carries astronauts to explore an asteroid and then on a journey to Mars."

Plenty of media outlets stated the same, which means they were getting it directly from NASA PR.

It has been argued that, even if Orion itself would not be carrying the astronauts that were going to Mars but would just be shuttling the astronauts to the real vehicle that would be carry humans to Mars, that some hyperbole was OK for various reasons.  Those reasons included:

A.  The public is too ignorant or short of attention span to understand how many steps it will really take NASA to get to Mars, so it was better to just dumb down what this test was to "Orion will take humans to Mars".

B.  NASA wants to generate excitement about going to Mars so the public will support funding for building the real hardware that NASA needs to get to Mars, and the public won't notice that what NASA said about Orion was hyperbole or untrue.

C.  Some people actually believe that Orion is the vehicle that will take astronauts to Mars.

So is engaging in hyperbole a good tactic for NASA?  Is "dumbing down" how much hardware and precursor effort it will take to get to Mars a good idea?

How does that help NASA?

Thomas Young, the former EVP of Lockheed Martin stated in congressional testimony last year when asked when NASA would be able to reach Mars:

"With the current budget, bear with me, I would probably say never"

NASA knows this too.  They say the 2030's, but that's more of an aspiration than a reality because of the current budget situation.

If NASA needs more money, the source that will provide it is Congress, not the American people.  The American people have historically only been engaged in our efforts in space far after most of the time and money has been allocated, and they are just watching the end results.  If you would have asked the public in 1964 whether going to the Moon was a good idea they would have said no, yet after Apollo they supported the effort.

So it's not the U.S. Public that NASA needs to convince, it's the President (who runs NASA) and Congress.

But my assertion is that if anyone digs into what NASA has been saying, which the Orion - as currently designed and funded - will be ready to take humans to Mars, that they will discover an HLV amount of caveats.  Chief among them is that as designed the Orion/MPCV can only keep humans alive for 21 days, and can only return from as far out as the Moon.  Essentially a whole new "Orion" needs to be funded to be the real transport to take humans to Mars.

And I think the people in Congress that have so far been reluctant to fund ANY operational missions for the SLS will feel that NASA has mislead them on how easy it will supposedly be to get to Mars.

I think that misdirection, that lack of being upfront with everyone about what this vehicle really represents, will do more harm than good in NASA's efforts to get more funding.

Or do you think it will help them?
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
I think the reason they're mentioning Mars with respect to Orion is that there isn't really any plan at all to use Orion for anything.  There's a vague proposal for an asteroid mission, and they mention that too, but it's hard to get excited about building a whole new capsule for an asteroid mission.  Hence they mention Mars for lack of anything better to say to try to justify the billions spent on a capsule without a real mission.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 12:34 am by ChrisWilson68 »

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1440
  • Likes Given: 1301
I think the reason they're mentioning Mars with respect to Orion is that there isn't really any plan at all to use Orion for anything.  There's a vague proposal for an asteroid mission, and they mention that too, but it's hard to get excited about building a whole new capsule for an asteroid mission.  Hence they mention Mars for lack of anything better to say to try to justify the billions spent on a capsule without a real mission.

I swear Bolden mentioned something about a lunar mission during EFT-1 attempt 1... I was only 4% awake though, so not sure.

Offline TerryNaylor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 49
No, the reason they are saying it's a first step to Mars is because Orion is the crew vehicle transport involved in such an architecture.

Happy to help.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
IMO it's wrong because Orion was selected and designed long ago for going to the Moon, and only continues to exist as a development program to appease certain political constituencies. It is in no way a first step to Mars, let alone "the spaceship that will eventually take astronauts to Mars", as I heard so often today listening to the mainstream coverage of the launch.

edit: it theoretically could be shoehorned into a Mars exploration architecture, if in fact it ever emerges from its tortuous development in a final, fully functional form.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 01:01 am by EE Scott »
Scott

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
If NASA ever gets funding to do a real attempt to send humans to Mars, then at that point they'll design the actual architecture they'll use.  All these notional Mars architectures NASA has written for decades will be forgotten.  Then we'll find out if Orion is a part of that.

My bet would be it would not.  That's partly because it's going to be a long time in the future before that happens and partly because Orion is not particularly well-suited for the job.  It's not big enough to be the complete habitat for a trip to Mars.  So a much bigger habitat module would need to be built.  Once they have that big habitat, a smaller capsule like CST-100 or Dragon makes more sense for going to and from the surface of Earth.

Orion is really designed for trips to and from lunar orbit.  It's not a very good design for anything else.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Orion will take astronauts to Mars, but not by itself. And NASA never claimed that it would. There will be a hab module, providing additional living room and storage for consumables. And a true CPS for propulsion.

Orion by itself can perform missions in cis-lunar space for up to 21 days. Such as the ARRM mission, lunar orbit, EML1/2, etc.

That's why the official name is MPCV, for Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle.

But no matter what the mission is, Orion will always be the launch and re entry vehicle.

Cheers!


Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
No, the reason they are saying it's a first step to Mars is because Orion is the crew vehicle transport involved in such an architecture.

The meme is that astronauts will be going to Mars "in" the Orion (see Bolden's statement), but everyone pretty much acknowledges that humans can't survive such a trip packed inside the Orion, and would have to live in a hab module of some kind.

NASA's last detailed study of a trip to Mars, the Human Exploration of Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0, uses an Orion for local space transportation at Mars, and to/from the Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV) when it is near Earth.  But on the trip out and the trip back the Orion would be configured to a "quiescent state" and just checked periodically.

So in DRM 5.0 it would be "involved" as you say.  But it's not what humans are riding in on their way to Mars - which is the discussion at hand.

With that limited amount of use there could be commercial alternatives in the future that negate the need for the Orion.  Getting the crew to an LEO staging point where the MTV is in orbit could be done with a Commercial Crew vehicle, and if all that is needed is a capsule that can return from Mars return velocities, the SpaceX Dragon could be used.

So while the Orion could be a small part of a future trip to Mars, NASA PR is claiming too large a role for the Orion.  They make it seem like once it's operational we're ready for Mars.  Hyperbole.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
Obviously we're not going to Mars in a cis-lunar capsule, and whenever we do summon the resources to develop a spacecraft large enough to go to Mars, I will be awfully disappointed if we design it to be reliant on an Orion command module. Why would we do something like that? Why would Orion have better avionics than the great big Mars spacecraft we build in the future?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
I think that Orion is part of NASA's Mars Design Reference Mission.  So that's where the statements originate.   

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
I think that Orion is part of NASA's Mars Design Reference Mission.  So that's where the statements originate.   

Yes, part of the DRM.  But as you know it's not the vehicle that carries humans to Mars, the MTV is.

So does overstating what the Orion can and will do hurt NASA in the long run when it becomes obvious that the Orion has to hitch a ride on the spacecraft that takes humans to Mars?

That is no way to build credibility, and NASA already lacks credibility regarding cost and schedule for just about anything.  Will Congress be more or less likely to fund NASA to go to Mars if they are not able to trust what NASA says?  That is the real question.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Tea Party Space Czar

  • President, Tea Party in Space
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • TEA Party in Space Czar
  • Washington DC
  • Liked: 294
  • Likes Given: 284
Orion will fly once... maybe twice.  The first mission will be in 2018 (maybe a slip to 2019) followed by a mission, yet unknown, in 2022.

By then where will our commercial partners be?

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
NASA isn't misleading anyone. They are just trying to put a good spin on what they can do with minimal funding. NASA, like all parts of the Federal Bureaucracy, does what it is told.

Congress refuses to give NASA what is needed for BEO exploration, yet they told NASA to build Orion/SLS with inadequate funding.

Remember, Obama's original plan was to spend five years doing research and then decide what to do. Constellation, including Orion, was to be cancelled. Congress didn't like that. They compromised on what we got today, which is a program on life support just to make it look like NASA is doing something. If you don't like what is going on, blame Congress and the President.

Don't forget the real purpose of Orion/SLS is to spend money in certain congressional districts by writing checks to specific corporations. Sadly, it has nothing to do space exploration.

Whether you support Orion, SLS, MCT, L2 Gateway Station, etc. doesn't matter because nothing is ever going to work without more money. And I don't mean spare change. It will take several billion dollars additional funding per year to get to Mars. NASA will not get the money. Congress has allocated enough to meet their political objects. Unfortunately, it is not enough to meet any real world objectives.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Don't forget the real purpose of Orion/SLS is to spend money in certain congressional districts by writing checks to specific corporations. Sadly, it has nothing to do space exploration.

Whether you support Orion, SLS, MCT, L2 Gateway Station, etc. doesn't matter because nothing is ever going to work without more money. And I don't mean spare change. It will take several billion dollars additional funding per year to get to Mars. NASA will not get the money. Congress has allocated enough to meet their political objects. Unfortunately, it is not enough to meet any real world objectives.

I agree with you that the purpose of Orion and SLS is to keep the money flowing to certain congressional districts.  But I disagree that we need more money to do anything interesting in space.

Commercial cargo and crew programs for the ISS have done a lot with not much money compared with NASA's human spaceflight budget.  If the whole human spaceflight budget went toward programs that used COTS-like procurement models and concentrated on many smaller launches instead of a few mega-launches, I think we'd have a very exciting space exploration program.

Imagine COTS-like competitions for fuel depots, in-space tugs, orbital stations, and deep-space habitats.  It could open up a lot of the solar system.  Later we could add landers.

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
Whether you support Orion, SLS, MCT, L2 Gateway Station, etc. doesn't matter because nothing is ever going to work without more money.

Oh I wouldn't be so sure. If SpaceX keeps lighting fires under the seats of the establishment and starts making actual headway towards Raptor/BFR/MCT Boeing, LM and even NASA will find additional "efficiencies" and halve the cost of SLS/Orion and then halve it again. Seems to work like magic. Great things can happen then, and great things in turn, if they are actually happening, tend to attract more money.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
It is never a good idea for any public official, especially one as prominent as the Administrator of NASA to mislead the public. All it does is destroy the credibility of that person and any agency they head up.

The flight of EFT-1 presented the Administrator with a golden opportunity to lay out the case for Mars in a very realistic way, and acknowlege Orion's real place in that mission, giving credit where credit was due. It was a fabulous mission. NASA PAO could have prepared a short video clip showing Orion launching to meet the MTV, and the MTV departing earth orbit. Fast forward to Mars with the MDV going to the surface and the MAV returning to the MTV. Fast forward to earth and show Orion bringing the crew safely back to earth. It would have been a good video and most importantly it would have been true. But he didn't do that. Instead he misled the public. At best that was not good.

For the EFT-1 mission, I was glued to the screen both days and ecstatic at the final conclusion with Orion recovered. Charlie ruined it  by not telling the whole truth. Orion will not carry astronauts on a journey to Mars. A Mars mission will take a total elapsed time of 12-18 months. The crew will spend at most only a few hours in Orion. 
« Last Edit: 12/06/2014 12:43 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Maybe NASA is so accustomed to using political-speak with Congress that they feel free to deal with the folks that elected those 'representatives' in the same manner.  The entire program is only loosely reality-based.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 614
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 1826
NASA PAO could have prepared a short video clip showing ...
Now that would have been misleading and would have created a ton of unfounded hype. Vaguely talking about Orion being first step toward mars and eventually carrying astronauts on the way (he didn't say all the way) is way less miselading.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Somewhere in all that talk in NASA TV on launch day someone mentioned, that the heat shield might be upgraded for reentry from Mars.

The last Boeing presentation with SEP did not show Orion on the way to Mars but with an adequate heatshield the crew could return directly to earth instead of going to some L-point first.


Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Somewhere in all that talk in NASA TV on launch day someone mentioned, that the heat shield might be upgraded for reentry from Mars.

The last Boeing presentation with SEP did not show Orion on the way to Mars but with an adequate heatshield the crew could return directly to earth instead of going to some L-point first.

As I was listening to the EFT-1 mission as the capsule prepared to re-enter Earth's atmosphere, they said the capsule would be subjected to a g force of 8+.  And that was not even from the distance of the Moon, must less when coming back from Mars.  Apollo 15 experienced 6 g on re-entry, but they were only gone for 12 days.  Humans coming back from a 2 year trip to Mars are going to have degraded bodies from the no or low gravity environments they have been living in, and there might even be some crew that are injured.  I think the crew health guys at NASA are not going to be happy with this.

If we're going to spend hundreds of $Billions on going to Mars we should use a clean sheet approach to figuring out the best way to do that, especially since so much has happened since last decade with the commercial aerospace sector.  If the SLS and Orion can be part of that, fine, but don't assume just because Congress told NASA to build them that they are the best solution.

Of course the above statement assumes that Congress cares about going to Mars, and so far they don't...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1