Re: Orion CEV...Apollo Strikes Back

I did happen across an animation of a proposed Orion mission last night on
the NASA Channel.

It's definitely an Apollo type mission. The difference seems to be the
length of time that the mission will support. The lander seems designed to
stay on the moon for extended periods, and perhaps to even lift off and hop
around to different sites (Last one I'm not sure about, that's what I
thought I saw in the animation).

The orbiter has a longer duration stay, using solar panels for power, I
would suspect to keep it in orbit longer.

The crew module returns to Earth, just like the Apollo module did. They
haven't decided yet for ocean or land touchdown.

There was also some mention of establishing a base on the moon where people
would stay for up to six months at a time.

The boosters are based on existing shuttle technology, using solid rockets
and fuel tanks like the shuttle does. Seems like there were two different
kinds of boosters, but I didn't catch what they were for.

I would suspect that this animation and others like it would probably be
available on the NASA web site.



On 9/1/06 8:10 PM, "Jon Schild" wrote:



Craig M. Bobchin wrote:
Where are you getting that I'm promoting a long space voyage?
Yes we need to learn how to protect against radiation and
weightlessness. But protection against radiation is one thing the
shuttle and ISS don't really teach us, being inside the Earth's magetic
field which is what helps the spactation astronauts stay safe.

Also where did I state that NASA is taking a step backwards, or that
Bush is to blame?

The fact remains that Apollo was started as a political statement during
the cold war. While it was cool and all and a lot was learned, we
stumbled after that instead of moving forward.

In article <1157139114.853459.59600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
jdelarroz@xxxxxxxxx says...

Well it seems you're promoting a prolonged space journey, which would
be great if we could find a means to keep people's bodies from breaking
down and keep them safe from radiation. I don't know much about
aerodynamics or shuttles, but I'm sure they're updating things as best
they can. I'd find it hard to believe that NASA engineers would take a
step backwards.

And I hate how everything has to be "i hate bush blahblahblahblah."
Next you know they'll be saying the weather is his fault. Oh wait..



Craig M. Bobchin wrote:

One thing you have to remember is that the shuttle is not now and never
was intended nor capable of going to the moon. The Shuttle design is
almost 40 years old and never really met it's ideal turnaround time for
missions.

Personally I believe that the whole manned space program
has been ill conceived from the beginning and needs to be rethought.

Now before anyone flames me for this, I'm a huge fan of the space pogram
and firmly beleive that we need to be in space. Just not the way we have
been for the past 25 years making LEO trips and returning. Don't even
get me started on that white elephant of a space station either.

If anyone wants to see what we could have done if we had the ba**s to
do it should read the book "The Orion Project". It is a great read about
the attempts to create a nuclear powered spacecraft in the 50's.



In article <1157089134.365132.150710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
merlin816@xxxxxxxxx says...

Has anyone seen the news about the contract going to lockhead/martin
for an Apollo style space craft? Am I the only one that sees this as a
gigantic step backward? Didn't we do this back in the 60's? I wikki'd
the Orion thing and it seems to be like a revamping of the Apollo
program. Its even made out of the same material in many cases. And
when the thing comes back from its trip in space...its a museum piece.

Maybe I've just grown up with space shuttles and aerodynamic landings
that just seem really cool to me. I dunno. I've been a fan of NASA
and the shuttles my whole life and know I'm depressed. Seems like the
really cool stuff is over. :(

John


I am one of those here who actually remembers the launch of sputnik.
Before that time, every story or article about space exploaration
confidently assumed it would be done by Americans. That little Russian
satellite caused a panic like I haven't seen since.



.


..

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mission to nowhere - (Space Shuttle)
    ... And if we wish to use Nasa as a vehicle for our ... mission in April 1981 with all the gusto its public relations team can ... "This can't go on forever," a senior shuttle manager at the Johnson ... kill public interest in the space program. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • NASAs Shuttle Discovery Launches to Enhance Space Station Science
    ... NASA'S SHUTTLE DISCOVERY LAUNCHES TO ENHANCE SPACE STATION SCIENCE ... Sturckow is joined on the STS-128 mission by Pilot Kevin Ford, ... NASA astronaut Nicole ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: Buran evolution - wish I understood Russian!
    ... to declare the shuttle "operational" so they could be removed: ... "Also unlearned?not forgotten?was the reason for Apollo 13 success. ... 13, it was the conception that NASA could get itself into a fix in space, ... Anyone who claims NASA invented "crash test dummy" testing of escape ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: NASA ASTRONAUT EILEEN COLLINS COMPLETES CAREER OF SPACE FIRSTS
    ... NASA ASTRONAUT EILEEN COLLINS COMPLETES CAREER OF SPACE FIRSTS ... Flight mission last year. ... the first woman to serve as a shuttle pilot and the first ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • NASAs Shuttle Discovery Launches to Fully Power Space Station
    ... NASA'S SHUTTLE DISCOVERY LAUNCHES TO FULLY POWER SPACE STATION ... Archambault is joined on STS-119 by Pilot Tony Antonelli and Mission ... Former science teachers Acaba and Arnold are now fully-trained NASA ...
    (sci.space.news)
Loading