Orion becomes a liability as Lockheed Martin pull 600 engineers off the contract

[mike robel]

I dunno.  Looks like too many providers for a small marke.  I would expect 50% to fail to land contracts lucrative enough to keep building spacecraft.

So this is how things are shaping up (assuming commercial crew goes forward):

Orion Block 0 CRV: Crew Rescue Vehicle, launched unmanned on EELV
Dragon: Crew and Cargo, launched on Falcon 9
Boeing Capsule: Crew (cargo?), launched on EELV
Dreamchaser: Crew, launched on EELV
Cygnus: Cargo and potential crew, launched on Taurus II

The good thing is, if all 5 of these spacecraft get developed for the ISS, that is 5 spacecraft that could potentially be evolved into a BEO spacecraft. Some of the companies may be content with the LEP operations and may not even try for the BEO contract.

I know there is a lot of doom and gloom on here right now...just trying to look for a brighter side to things. All things said though, I know a lot of people are going to blame Obama and FY2011 for this. However, Orion was dead right from the start, as Ares I continually dragged it down with it. I think most would agree that if we had just launched it on an EELV, we would be launch, at the very least, an Orion Block 0 by this time. What was done to Orion and those working on it over the last few years was not fair. However, they did amazing work considering what was thrown at them.

[KelvinZero]

Additionally to that, if there was one core goal of Constellation I really would have liked kept, it was a robust safe capsule that can survive return from beyond earth orbit.

More so than the lander? We can always upgrade a LEO capsule.

Well if you have the lander you also need the capsule and a mission, so what you are really talking about is the moon done on EELVs. That would be great but then we are really talking about doing VSE the way perhaps it should have been done.

If we dont do that, and are just talking about a part to save, then a capsule that we just keep evolving and gaining confidence in seems a good choice. This also puts flexible path missions a lot closer I imagine.

As for whether you can always upgrade a LEO capsule, I don't know enough to know if that is true. In any case I would like to see that be an explicit requirement of whatever vehicle is used, that BEO versions can be produced when required without going back to the drawing board and invalidating all the safety history so far.

(Im prepared to be corrected though )

[robertross]

I dunno.  Looks like too many providers for a small market.  I would expect 50% to fail to land contracts lucrative enough to keep building spacecraft.

So this is how things are shaping up (assuming commercial crew goes forward):

Orion Block 0 CRV: Crew Rescue Vehicle, launched unmanned on EELV
Dragon: Crew and Cargo, launched on Falcon 9
Boeing Capsule: Crew (cargo?), launched on EELV
Dreamchaser: Crew, launched on EELV
Cygnus: Cargo and potential crew, launched on Taurus II

The good thing is, if all 5 of these spacecraft get developed for the ISS, that is 5 spacecraft that could potentially be evolved into a BEO spacecraft. Some of the companies may be content with the LEP operations and may not even try for the BEO contract.

I know there is a lot of doom and gloom on here right now...just trying to look for a brighter side to things. All things said though, I know a lot of people are going to blame Obama and FY2011 for this. However, Orion was dead right from the start, as Ares I continually dragged it down with it. I think most would agree that if we had just launched it on an EELV, we would be launch, at the very least, an Orion Block 0 by this time. What was done to Orion and those working on it over the last few years was not fair. However, they did amazing work considering what was thrown at them.

And that to me is a legitimate arguement. There isn't. If commercial was truly commercial they would do it on their own dime. I recongnize the advantage of government helping out, but at the moment there isn't enough 'out there' to warrant have that many players at this time. So NASA's point of 'down-selecting' to just two commercial providers makes sense. But without a solid foundation at the moment (help for ISS to eliminate the gap), we're on a slippery slope until they are ready.

But this is about Orion, and it's really ticking me off.

[mmeijeri]

As for whether you can always upgrade a LEO capsule, I don't know enough to know if that is true

It seems hard to imagine there wouldn't be major synergies on the component and subsystem level. That was expected to be the case between Altair and Orion even though one's a capsule and the other lander, so I'd expect more synergy between a LEO capsule and a beyond LEO capsule.

[Tim S]

Thanks for mentioning Jeff Hanley's removal. An example of the new NASA culture.

[butters]

In terms of LEO, Orion wouldn't add anything of note beyond the capabilities of Dragon.  Further, given that autonomous rendezvous has been cut, Orion couldn't really do the ISS cargo mission.

The case for Orion in LEO is pretty thin.  As I've said before, Orion was designed for the LOR mission profile, and if we're not sending humans to LLO or EML, it's not really the right tool for whatever job it is we're trying to do.

I think the idea that we could save Orion after giving up on the lunar landing is just as misguided as the idea that we could save Shuttle after finishing ISS assembly.

Right now, our objectives are ISS logistics and flexible path.  Dragon is the best tool for the first job, and with some upgrades, it's a pretty good choice for flexible path as well (since a mission module is essential).

[gladiator1332]

I dunno.  Looks like too many providers for a small market.  I would expect 50% to fail to land contracts lucrative enough to keep building spacecraft.

So this is how things are shaping up (assuming commercial crew goes forward):

Orion Block 0 CRV: Crew Rescue Vehicle, launched unmanned on EELV
Dragon: Crew and Cargo, launched on Falcon 9
Boeing Capsule: Crew (cargo?), launched on EELV
Dreamchaser: Crew, launched on EELV
Cygnus: Cargo and potential crew, launched on Taurus II

The good thing is, if all 5 of these spacecraft get developed for the ISS, that is 5 spacecraft that could potentially be evolved into a BEO spacecraft. Some of the companies may be content with the LEP operations and may not even try for the BEO contract.

I know there is a lot of doom and gloom on here right now...just trying to look for a brighter side to things. All things said though, I know a lot of people are going to blame Obama and FY2011 for this. However, Orion was dead right from the start, as Ares I continually dragged it down with it. I think most would agree that if we had just launched it on an EELV, we would be launch, at the very least, an Orion Block 0 by this time. What was done to Orion and those working on it over the last few years was not fair. However, they did amazing work considering what was thrown at them.

And that to me is a legitimate arguement. There isn't. If commercial was truly commercial they would do it on their own dime. I recongnize the advantage of government helping out, but at the moment there isn't enough 'out there' to warrant have that many players at this time. So NASA's point of 'down-selecting' to just two commercial providers makes sense. But without a solid foundation at the moment (help for ISS to eliminate the gap), we're on a slippery slope until they are ready.

But this is about Orion, and it's really ticking me off.

And I agree...5 providers for access to the station is more than necessary. I simply listed all of the possible providers. In reality, I see it more likely that Cygnus stays cargo only. Orion starts out as Block 0 CRV only. So that leaves Dragon, Dreamchaser, and Boeing Capsule to battle it out. More than likely two of those get selected, just like COTS. Then when it comes time for BEO, we can look into making Orion BEO, or see if Dragon BEO or Boeing Capsule BEO would be better.

In regards to the gap, LM pulling engineers off doesn't really affect the gap. Orion / Ares I would not be ready in time to cut down on the gap, if anything it would be extended. Lockheed says they can have a dummed down, LEO version in 3 years, which is similar to the 3 year estimate from SpaceX for Dragon. The only way we are cutting down on the gap is extending Shuttle.

In terms of LEO, Orion wouldn't add anything of note beyond the capabilities of Dragon.  Further, given that autonomous rendezvous has been cut, Orion couldn't really do the ISS cargo mission.

The case for Orion in LEO is pretty thin.  As I've said before, Orion was designed for the LOR mission profile, and if we're not sending humans to LLO or EML, it's not really the right tool for whatever job it is we're trying to do.

I think the idea that we could save Orion after giving up on the lunar landing is just as misguided as the idea that we could save Shuttle after finishing ISS assembly.

Right now, our objectives are ISS logistics and flexible path.  Dragon is the best tool for the first job, and with some upgrades, it's a pretty good choice for flexible path as well (since a mission module is essential).

I feel terrible for those affected by this, but if I may play devils advocate here...

As you just said above, *IF* Cx is dead, what is the point of keeping Orion in any shape or form? If we are going to develop commercial crew...couldn't Dragon or Dreamchaser serve as a CRV? I don't see the pressing need to develop a CRV RIGHT NOW, as we have a perfectly good one already in the form of Soyuz. If we really want a redundancy on the CRV front, wouldn't it not be easier to convert either Dragon or Dreamchaser into a CRV once they are ready? If it can carry crew up, it could surely carry crew down.

Then again it could just be we are keeping Orion alive as a "Zombie Capsule", hoping that one day the funding magically arrives to turn it into the BEO spacecraft it was supposed to be.

[mmeijeri]

And I agree...5 providers for access to the station is more than necessary.

That strengthens the case for basing any beyond LEO capsule on a LEO crew taxi capsule. Maybe Dream Chaser can be made capable of lunar return too, but it seems better to start with capsules as they are a proven solution.

[Lars_J]

Maybe this is offtopic, but I don't get why Dreamchaser is brought up over and over. It is a paper project! Who exactly is backing it??

It's name may be more apt than what most realize.

[gladiator1332]

Maybe this is offtopic, but I don't get why Dreamchaser is brought up over and over. It is a paper project! Who exactly is backing it??

It's name may be more apt than what most realize.

Sierra Nevada is the company putting forward the concept. It is a viable option for a crew taxi. NASA seems to agree, as Sierra Nevada received $20 million of the $50 million given out in February for CCDev. Given the right time and money, anything can transform from "paper" to reality. I think the events of this week proved that.

[mmeijeri]

Maybe this is offtopic, but I don't get why Dreamchaser is brought up over and over.

Because it's awesome!

[Downix]

Maybe this is offtopic, but I don't get why Dreamchaser is brought up over and over. It is a paper project! Who exactly is backing it??

It's name may be more apt than what most realize.

Sierra Nevada is the company putting forward the concept. It is a viable option for a crew taxi. NASA seems to agree, as Sierra Nevada received $20 million of the $50 million given out in February for CCDev. Given the right time and money, anything can transform from "paper" to reality. I think the events of this week proved that.

SNC has the history to reinforce it, plus it is based on an existing design work by Northrup.  A lot of the early R&D work was done ages ago, they just need to put it all together.

[gladiator1332]

Maybe this is offtopic, but I don't get why Dreamchaser is brought up over and over.

Because it's awesome!

I agree, hence why I have had it as my avatar for awhile (though did change it to Dragon for a bit). But we digress.

[butters]

For the lunar landing objective, NASA should have left the launch vehicles to the private sector (e.g. ULA) and focused more on the lander.

For flexible path, NASA should focus more on the mission module and leave the rest to the private sector.  I'm sure that between ULA and SpaceX, the private sector can deliver the launch vehicles and crew capsule necessary to utilize NASA's flexible path mission module.

For example: An ISS-derived mission module and a Centaur could launch on Atlas V.  Then a suitably-modified Dragon Crew launches on Falcon 9 and rendezvous/docks with the mission module Centaur stack in LEO for the Earth-departure burn.

The important part is the mission module.  The capsule is just to launch the crew to LEO and then reentry at the end of the mission.

NASA need to get its priorities straight with regard to where it should spend its resources on micromanagement and where it should defer to the private sector.

[gladiator1332]

For the lunar landing objective, NASA should have left the launch vehicles to the private sector (e.g. ULA) and focused more on the lander.

For flexible path, NASA should focus more on the mission module and leave the rest to the private sector.  I'm sure that between ULA and SpaceX, the private sector can deliver the launch vehicles and crew capsule necessary to utilize NASA's flexible path mission module.

For example: An ISS-derived mission module and a Centaur could launch on Atlas V.  Then a suitably-modified Dragon Crew launches on Falcon 9 and rendezvous/docks with the mission module Centaur stack in LEO for the Earth-departure burn.

The important part is the mission module.  The capsule is just to launch the crew to LEO and then reentry at the end of the mission.

NASA need to get its priorities straight with regard to where it should spend its resources on micromanagement and where it should defer to the private sector.

Agreed. I think when the VSE was first announced, NASA understood this. The original idea was a simple capsule was going to be launched on existing EELVs, and NASA instead was going to concentrate on the lander and other things needed to return to the Moon. I believe we were going to have a flyoff of the CEV in 2008, and then actual flights to the ISS were going to be in 2010. Then ESAS happened and the rest is history.

[gladiator1332]

I am currently reading Mitt Romney's book, "No Apology" and the chapter I am on is about Innovation and Creative Destruction. A lot of what he says in this particular section relates to the current situation at NASA:

"As Alan Greenspan has observed, 'Deep down that is probably the message of capitalism: Creative Destruction- The scrapping of old technologies and old ways of doing things for the new, is the only way to increase productivity and therefore the only way to raise average living standards on a sustainable basis'."

Romney then continues, "Creative destruction is unquestionably stressful -- on workers, managers, owners, suppliers, customers, and the communities that surround the affected businesses. The pressures these groups put on political leaders to block game-changing innovations can be intense. The most important thing government can do to promote innovation and productivity is not to block it, as by preventing creative destruction."

[MATTBLAK]

I'd meet you half-way and say that this doesn't apply fully to all the workers on the Shuttle program -- I mean the E.T, SRB and especially SSME folk. They represent one flavour - the quickest - for deploying a Heavy-Lift system, including all the KSC & other infrastructure.

You Deep-Six those great folk and Good Luck starting from scratch to achieve a Heavy-Lift system, either in the long-term (5 years) or especially now!! And as for Orion vs Dragon? They are in similar states of completion, though 'thanks' to Ares 1, a Dragon prototype made it into space first. A full-featured Orion as portrayed in Constellation, would kick the butt of any other notional 'capsule' ship in the offering ANYWHERE, in terms of capability. But it appears to me - someone please prove me dead-wrong - that there is a subtle campaign going on: to undermine Orion to the point where it seems illogical to go on with it anymore. Almost like 'Big Space' is being manipulated into failing, again and again.

Orion should have been re-sized to 4.5 or even 4 meters, then there should have been a sensible, solid move to damn-well get it onto the Delta IV-Heavy, A.S.A.P. If this had been decided by Griffin 3 years ago, this could have happened before 2012. Maybe...

[Jorge]

For the lunar landing objective, NASA should have left the launch vehicles to the private sector (e.g. ULA) and focused more on the lander.

For flexible path, NASA should focus more on the mission module and leave the rest to the private sector.  I'm sure that between ULA and SpaceX, the private sector can deliver the launch vehicles and crew capsule necessary to utilize NASA's flexible path mission module.

For example: An ISS-derived mission module and a Centaur could launch on Atlas V.  Then a suitably-modified Dragon Crew launches on Falcon 9 and rendezvous/docks with the mission module Centaur stack in LEO for the Earth-departure burn.

The important part is the mission module.  The capsule is just to launch the crew to LEO and then reentry at the end of the mission.

NASA need to get its priorities straight with regard to where it should spend its resources on micromanagement and where it should defer to the private sector.

Agreed. I think when the VSE was first announced, NASA understood this. The original idea was a simple capsule was going to be launched on existing EELVs, and NASA instead was going to concentrate on the lander and other things needed to return to the Moon. I believe we were going to have a flyoff of the CEV in 2008, and then actual flights to the ISS were going to be in 2010. Then ESAS happened and the rest is history.

You believe incorrectly. The 2008 date was for development and "test" - not specifically flight test. First manned flights would begin in 2014.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54868main_bush_trans.pdf

Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the crew exploration vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014.

[JohnFornaro]

What I was trying to say, in that tersely worded, now deleted post, was something along these lines:

We are now getting ready to cancel a program. Like it or hate it, a lot of good valuable work was done on Orion.  Now we are getting ready, if past is prologue, to flush that data down the memory hole.  Perhaps forty years from now, Jim will be able to post a dog-eared scan of a "classified" Orion datasheet.  So I ask, if the program is indeed canceled by Congress, why not, within ITAR limitations, release the entire package to the American taxpayer?  Sooner, rather than later.  Maybe there's an entrepreneur who thinks he could build a similar capsule for less?

Thanks, Andy.  Sometimes in my deep frustration, I might possibly maybe get ever so slightly sarcastic....

...you need a HUGE LAS system which weights a lot....

I thought the LAS was one of the systems that was pretty well worked out by now.   Please don't tell me that the pad abort tests did not lift the proper mass?

The problem with Creative Destruction is that it seems that the pols delete the first word for the most part.

[TexasRED]

What I was trying to say, in that tersely worded, now deleted post, was something along these lines:

We are now getting ready to cancel a program. Like it or hate it, a lot of good valuable work was done on Orion.  Now we are getting ready, if past is prologue, to flush that data down the memory hole.  Perhaps forty years from now, Jim will be able to post a dog-eared scan of a "classified" Orion datasheet.  So I ask, if the program is indeed canceled by Congress, why not, within ITAR limitations, release the entire package to the American taxpayer?  Sooner, rather than later.  Maybe there's an entrepreneur who thinks he could build a similar capsule for less?

Thanks, Andy.  Sometimes in my deep frustration, I might possibly maybe get ever so slightly sarcastic....

...you need a HUGE LAS system which weights a lot....

I thought the LAS was one of the systems that was pretty well worked out by now.   Please don't tell me that the pad abort tests did not lift the proper mass?

The problem with Creative Destruction is that it seems that the pols delete the first word for the most part.

You aren't going to get many worthwhile details without going into ITAR\proprietary data.   

Better off starting over than trying to fill in the holes. And by the looks of things that is exactly the plan,  starting over.