Building Orion

What an annoyingly biased article. Some comments:

1) Starting with the title: "NASA's First Lunar Orion Test Capsule Built" seems to imply that they've built a fully fitted Orion capsule, which is clearly not the case. He elaborates on this later in the article but I find the title misleading.

2) "This GTA test vehicle is not the de-scoped and stripped down, unmanned 'rescue lifeboat' recently proposed by President Obama at his April 15 space policy speech at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) where he resuscitated the Orion project, but with limited objectives and functionality." Ken, your bias is showing (not the first time in this article). Also: this GTA isn't a vehicle; at the moment it's just the outer shell and some interior structural elements, which is to say that at this point, it could be turned in to almost any of the proposed versions of Orion (including the "de-scoped and stripped down" version). It's an empty can, probably as "stripped down" as one can get.

[skipping past additional statements of bias]

3) "Everyone working on Orion clearly hopes that the vehicle will move forward ..." Not everyone. Did you actually seek out opinions different than your own? Or do you only record people who agree with you?

4) "It was remarkably easy to imagine myself floating weightlessly through the crew tunnel [plus some more biased statements]" ... it's much easier to imagine before the rest of the interior is installed. I've been in a capsule with "flight-like" seats, consoles, storage, etc - it's *extremely* cramped; the thought of being stuffed in there with 3 other people is appalling. It's hard to imagine even turning around in a fully configured Orion module. But getting in a fully configured module with a few other people might give you a better notion of why the Orion capsule isn't possibly adequate for a long-duration mission. It's not an interplanetary spacecraft; it's an Earth landing vehicle (based on the best we could do in the 1960s).

5) "'Everything inside Orion and all subsystems will be state of the art,' Larry Price, Lockheed's Deputy Program Manager for Orion explained to me." Except for all of the stuff that's already EOL and we're looking at doing lifetime buys for; those things were state of the art a decade ago and are better described as "obsolete." But the other stuff - yeah, state of the art. (In all fairness - there's a lot of really cool technology that was developed for Orion that is definitely cutting edge. But there's also a lot of technology that is disappointing at best because it was whatever was cheapest.)

6) "'Orion is not Apollo on Steroids!', stated Price." That's for sure.

This reads more like an op-ed piece than actual journalism. Which is it supposed to be?

Keith, did you watch/listen to "This Week in Space". Your boy, Elon, never passes on an opportunity to diss Sen. Shelby. Practically speaking, if the Republicans retake the Senate this year, what does he image will happen to his governments contracts, which finance most of his company?

Editor's note: Shelby deserves every diss that is tossed at him.

Folks:

In the time it took Lockheed Martin to do this Spacex has ,in the same amount of time, already put their Ground Test Article into orbit... and they even have a launch vehicle to do it too.

tinker

For Pete's sake.

Dragon mockup does not equal Ground Test Article.

Thanks for the article, SpaceRef.com
GO Lunar Orion !
"Committed to Moon" !

CEV and Dragon are two separate beasts.

One is CURRENTLY being built for deep space missions, which requires harder requirements to meet than that of a taxi.

The other is a LEO space taxi, which it is a fine design for. But, where is the progress on the MANNED Dragon? Do they have any displays, controls, abort tests, ECLSS, any of that? I really wish they would just post their progress on this so we can see. But people just say "they don't have to" and use that as an excuse to slam the people who ARE showing us their progress.

The bias here is just humorous at times. Its always accepted (encouraged?) when its against CxP and its contractors, but shamed upon when its the other direction.

People are foaming at the mouth to bite at almost any existing contractor that its just becoming pointless to even debate anymore. These extreme poles people sit on are dragging the entire program down.

I love SpaceX, I hate Elon. His (and Keith's) latest attempts to attack the character of Neil Armstrong is a [DELETED] joke.

Elon demotes him to a "test pilot" and nothing more. He then goes on about how Buzz has a PhD, and conveniently leaves out the fact that Armstrong has a Masters in Aerospace Engineering since before Elon was born.

Then there is the whole "manipulation" accusation. This implies Armstrong can't even think for himself, and hes is just a puppet. The whole thing is based on "eye witness testimony", which in the science and engineering world is completely worthless.

Show us proof.

Editor's note: and you make these attacks/accusations anonymously while Elon and I openly identify ourselves ...

What did I accuse you of? I said that I think its a joke, since there is no proof being laid on the table. So fars it is all speculation and hear say. You two are the ones attacking without showing us proof.

All I asked for was proof. Where is the proof? Let me guess, your making sure your sources stay (you guessed it) anonymous?

Speaking of, anonymity is of things that makes the internet what it is, its not all bad. You can voice your opinion without consequence, and lets the reader focus on content, rather than source.

What value does the real name add or remove from the content of somebody's post? What would you do with my name anyways? How could you tell between a faked real name and a made up screen name?

More importantly, why didn't you address the content of my post?

Aerin:

A Ground Test Article is a Ground Test Article. A pressure vessel is a pressure vessel. It's the same vacuum in low earth orbit as it is in lunar orbit last I checked. Scaled Composites won the X Prize by flying Spaceshipone to the vacuum of space and did it in shirt sleeves... three times! OK, so let's here you talk about radiation shielding or avionics maybe. Spacex would do both cheaper, faster and better. Did you know that the Soyuz has always been rated for beyond earth orbit missions and re-entry? Your saying that a small, innovated American company can't improve on forty year old technology?

Spacex built their test article, beat it up and had it sitting around in there factory for almost a year before they decided to fly it. They did this in the same time LockMart built a skeleton not even ready for testing.

There's a Wright way and a wrong way to do things... need I say more?

tinker

Folks:

Oh, I just can't resist!

Really, go to the article (if you haven't already) and look at the photo with this caption:

"Lockheed Martin team of more than 80 aerospace workers poses with Orion GTA just welded into one piece on May 27, 2010 after 3 years of development work. Credit: Ken Kremer"

What do you see? A virtually empty factory floor and one (count 'em, one) little Ground Test Article in the middle of the floor with "more than 80 aerospace workers" "after 3 years of development work".

I mean, like, aim at foot and pull trigger or what!

tinker

I looked very hard at these photos to see any gold plating in there, which surely is the case because this spacecraft, a slightly larger version of what was developed a generation ago, would cost the American taxpayers BILLIONS to bring to operational flight status. I know the good people at MAF worked their hearts out to build this thing.(having lived and worked nearby some 25 yrs ago)But the original Orion, like its Ares 1 booster, was neither sustainable nor affordable. And insult Elon Musk all you want, he can deliver a manned capsule and an entire launch vehicle to the pad for a fraction of what just the Orion spacecraft would cost Americans. If NASA rebids the Orion CRV, then this lovely product of the designer's art may wind up out on the lawn at MAF right next to the S-IC stage also abandoned by policymakers.

This is the very thing that make me laugh. The notion Orion is a lunar capsule. I can only hope MAF can bring it's innovation forward IE, Innovation is a change in the thought process for doing something or "new stuff that is made useful"

It is the Idea that its current design can be made useful as a return craft from ISS in the case of an emergency. Yet we hear nothing from the current CxP workforce to bring forth an idea that Orion and it "new" Idea as a planetary spacecraft that will go where NASA want to explore, ie Asteroid, Mars, moons, Comets and so on.

Get over Cx and move on with it, it is not going to be a JSC managed large program that sucks the life out of the agency this is for sure.

How is this capsule useful for distant manned space travel? Get on with it MAF!

Well, the Dragon mockup is in orbit and this shell of Orion is sitting on the ground, 7 years away from flight under the best scenario. So you're right, you could say Dragon mockup equals FLIGHT test article.

And Neil Armstrong is just a test pilot, but that's not a bad thing. He just happens to also be the first person to step foot on another celestial body. I find it rather strange that arguably one of the most famous people in human history disappeared from the public eye for 40 years and only now does he come out and complain that we are changing our plans to recreate his feat some 50 years later at 20 times the cost.

The Lunar Test tag is a bit misleading. I believe there are two versions of the manned Orion, one for ISS and one for Lunar. I could be wrong but I believe this GTA is more for ISS mission design testing than Lunar mission testing. Granted the data gathered would probably work for both, I think the focus to date has been more the ISS mission Orion versus the Lunar mission Orion. Lunar still has a ways to go.

I wouldn't get too excited with your comparison. The Dragon flight qualification vehicle that was flown last week was identical in aerodynamic profile (right down to thruster openings) to the actual vehicle and was manufactured to the same specifications. The Dragon ground test article was built a long time ago and an actual flight ready Dragon cargo spacecraft is already built and is undergoing final integration by SpaceX in California. How long do you think it would have been until even the first Orion LEO flight vehicle was integrated? 2015? 2018? Where would it fly to anyway?

I wouldn't get all excited about the capabilities of Orion either. It has too much weight and not enough volume or redundancy for deep space missions and it's overkill for LEO taxi duty (not to mention too heavy). A better solution is a low cost taxi vehicle (like Dragon) and a deep space vehicle that never reenters the atmosphere. That would make sense however so it's probably off the table.

With regard to Neil Armstrong, he's certainly more than a pilot. However, I believe he and some of the other Apollo astronauts have indeed been manipulated. If they were really plugged in to what was going on, they would have spoken up years ago. It's too little, too late at this point.

Frank, you are correct in your assertions BUT as others have commented, comparing Orion to Dragon is at best apples and oranges, at worst disingenuous.

By the way Orion and Ares are sustainable IF funded as the Augustine report stated (notice that I did not say "recommended"). Whether we have the money or political will are matters for a separate debate.

And they will require at least 36 months (their own estiamte0 from receipt of order to upgrade Dragon to manned capability. Add in the time they have already put into the Dragon, and all of a sudden they are taking about the same amount of time as Orion which is a much larger capsule meant for deep space operations including interplanetary travel.

So where is the great "private industry advantage"? i certainly do not see it here.

...A better solution is a low cost taxi vehicle (like Dragon) and a deep space vehicle that never reenters the atmosphere. That would make sense however so it's probably off the table.

Manned deep space vehicles that never reenter the Earth's atmosphere would be useful for travelling between:
(a) LEO spacestation and Earth-Moon Lagrange (EML) point spacestation
(b) EML spacestation and a Mars orbit spacestation, possibly on Phobos
(c) performing the return journeys.

The astronauts can transfer to the landers at the far end of the journeys.

The propulsion module of the two sets of craft will be very different - chemical for LEO-EML and electric for EML-Mars. However a common command module containing the cockpit, galley, living areas, toilet and life support may be possible. These systems can be derived from those developed for the Orion.

The fly-by-wire nature of modern spacecraft should simplify developing a standard interface between command and propulsion modules. This can be explained in a booklet that can be written in a week.

@tinker

"In the time it took Lockheed Martin to do this Spacex has ,in the same amount of time, already put their Ground Test Article into orbit... and they even have a launch vehicle to do it too."

For the record, Lockheed has had the contract for 3.5 years and Falcon 9 has been in development for 5 years. Orion is a manned vehicle, designed to go to ISS and the Moon. The Dragon capsule is a cargo ship and as flown was a mockup which was slightly more real than the Ares I-X mockup you all like to mock so much. The Orion GTA is basically what we will be flying. The only difference is that in order to build it in time for various tests it wont be a 100% accurate design when it is complete - but then neither was the Enterprise. But comparing the Orion GTA to the Falcon qual unit is being far less than truthful. Aerodynamically, I think it was probably on the money, but it is my understanding that there was no working systems aboard that unit. (I could be wrong) Even what Orion flew on Pad Abort 1 was of better fidelity and actually had working parts. I congratulate SpaceX on their achievement it was a great day for SpaceX and a great day for commercial space flight, I do not dispute that, but first you are comparing apples to celery. Second, you are wrong about something else. Really, Lockheed doesnt have a rocket to lift it? Lockheed has the Atlas V which can lift twice as much mass to orbit, so not sure I understand that statement. You are right, Orion does not, but you implied Lockheed does not. It just so happens, that isnt their job on this program. But I'll take Atlas V's lift over a Falcon 9 any day for getting a crew to orbit.

@eep

"Also: this GTA isn't a vehicle; at the moment it's just the outer shell and some interior structural elements, which is to say that at this point, it could be turned in to almost any of the proposed versions of Orion"

You make a lot of valid points about the bias and other things, however, I think you show your own bias while making those points. Thing to note above. This is not the outer shell of Orion at all, the closest thing you have to the outer shell is the middle conical shaped section, but even that, I would not call outer shell.

"Everyone working on Orion clearly hopes that the vehicle will move forward ..." Not everyone. Did you actually seek out opinions different than your own? Or do you only record people who agree with you?"

Seriously? If you work on Orion and dont want it to move forward, than you need to move on. Because I know a whole lot of people at Lockheed and various subcontractors and non Prime contractors that really support Orion and really like their jobs and really want Orion to continue who are getting laid off. If people who work Orion hate Orion so much, I hear the Merchant 7 are hiring. Everybody I know who is working on Orion wants the project to move forward as an exploration vehicle, not a rescue vehicle. No I did not ask every single person, but you can get a pretty good sense of the mood. Obviously there are those who many not want to, but they are a small minority and I think they should step aside. Why cling to a job if you dont believe in it, when people who do believe in it are losing their jobs? Just saying.

@tinker

"Lockheed Martin team of more than 80 aerospace workers poses with Orion GTA just welded into one piece on May 27, 2010 after 3 years of development work. Credit: Ken Kremer What do you see? A virtually empty factory floor and one (count 'em, one) little Ground Test Article in the middle of the floor with "more than 80 aerospace workers" after 3 years of development work".

Yeah and last I read in several articles, SpaceX has over 1000 employees now for their one flight article they have built and launched and the one they have half built. So what's your point? Oh that it takes people to design and build spacecraft? You see one unit because LM has not begun production of Orion yet, that would be a bit premature since CDR has not occurred yet, dont you think? I dont think that 80 people working at MAF on the various aspects of design, the models, and the building of the hardware, the friction stir-welding machines and assembly is really all that much considering what we are talking about here. Also, they did not spend 3 years building that piece of hardware, the 3 years went into design and development of the vehicle, in that time they had to set up an area in the MAF facility for Orion, put in friction stir welding machines and I imagine they did some testing of the machines and learning/testing on the machines to determine how to build the vehcile. But I guess you are just going for the cheap thrill of trying to seem clever and "score a point" for whomever it is you are trying to score a point.

@possum

"Well, the Dragon mockup is in orbit and this shell of Orion is sitting on the ground, 7 years away from flight under the best scenario."

That's funny because according to every schedule I've seen, early 2014 is the first orbital flight, but I guess if you want to believe the tabloids, have at it. P.S. - Armstrong has a B.S. in Aeronautical Eng and an M.S. in Aerospace Eng and taught Aerospace Engineering for 9 years after retiring from NASA. So among other things, he is not "just" a test pilot, just like Buzz is also not just a test pilot. The thing he has in his favor is that he never embarassed himself by appearing on Dancing with the Stars, rapping with Snoop Dogg and appearing on World Wrestling Live or whatever nonsense that was.

Are the astronauts pawns? Maybe, but here's a thought - go back and see who was invited to the President's speech at KSC (not a single KSC worker and not a single Republican congressman, not a single person who opposed the plan) and then go back and find articles about the speech Bush made about the VSE in 2004 and see who was in invited and who was in the audience (and I am no fan of Bush) - but it was a fully bi-partisan affair. There was no sign at the door that said Republicans Congressmen only. Food for thought.

Also saw lots of comments about how cheap Falcon's development has been. I hear this all the time, but nobody ever backs it up with cold hard numbers. Can anybody actually do that? I know they have been awarded over $350 million by NASA already for hitting COTS milestons, with another $250+ million waiting as they complete the 3 Demos. Elon invested over $100M of his own money by the beginning of 2006. Dont know how much since then. There are other unknown investors. So what is their actual development cost? I think it is a lot higher than people here seem to think.
I still think whatever it is is low, I just think everybody here seems to think it is $100M and clearly the numbers do not support that fantasy. With 1000 employees now, mostly in LA, that wouldnt even be enough to employ them for 1 year.

@Spaceboy

I stand corrected on the outer shell comment - it's clearly not an outer shell; I had the word "shell" in my head and for some reason it came out that way. Thinko.

You're also correct that I have a personal bias - I think anyone who cares enough to post on the matter has one. My only issue was that this article was presented as journalism, but it was clearly not an objective account.

As for working on Orion and not wanting it to move forward: this is a notion that I've brought up in previous posts (e.g. http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/blunt-talk-in-h.html#comment-33243 or http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/05/while-we-all-ar.html#comment-34019). I personally don't think that the Constellation architecture was the best solution. But I do absolutely support the notion of human space exploration, and I recognize that just because *I* don't agree with the POR doesn't mean that it's not the best, or totally unworkable - it just means I have a different vision of how to explore space. It's important (vital, actually) to have differing viewpoints and healthy debate when trying to solve such complex problems; as someone who views HSF in a very philosophical way I don't think it's responsible for people who disagree to just slink off and quietly pout. I actively voice my opinions at work when they're relevant and I think that in my own little sliver of the program I've made a positive impact. I still disapprove of the architecture, but I definitely approve of the overall direction, which is exploration. I put a lot of energy and effort into my work, as do most of the other people that I personally interact with. I don't think my personal views negatively impact my work. But at the same time - I personally think we would be better off working towards a different architecture. If Orion is what we get, then I want Orion to succeed.

But my personal view is that a craft designed for landing on Earth is not appropriate for deep space exploration. My personal view is that we're all focusing on Orion and Ares I, but those aren't vehicles for exploration - they're for doing things around Earth. My personal views are based on my engineering background and my experience in the ISS program. We haven't even begun to start working on Altair (another disappointment IMO), or even considered the rest of the spacecraft - the part that houses crew members, stores their consumables, provides volume for exercise and sleep and science, and the rest. Hence my comment on the size of the capsule - it's cruel and inhumane to even consider putting four people in there for more than a couple of days. What century is this? Surely we can do better.

Spaceboy:

Spacex had around over 1000 employees now ! A couple of years ago they had half that number. In 8 years Spacex has designed, tested, built and launched two different launch vehicles and two different rocket engines plus developed, built and tested a man rated space capsule. They are a lean machine that can and has outperformed the "big guys" hands down.

I say again... do some research first and maybe try to be less verbose next time (there's a lot of bloat in you post... just like the company you are trying to support).

tinker

Where is the manned capsule? The last statement I saw regarding manned Dragon, they were talking about the need to add displays, controls, LAS, ECLSS, etc. and the like.

Also, the president of SpaceX fairly recently testified that they would take 2-3 years from contract award to have one built. This implies that it is not built yet. There is a lot more to it than just "man-rating" a cargo capsule before you have a manned vehicle ready to fly.

I have serious doubts that a manned capsule is just sitting there waiting the fly. Can you show us proof or at least some evidence of this? If so, the gap is closed and boom no more problems, right? I'd love to see it, but really I just don't think it exists yet.

"In 2009 and 2010, Elon Musk has suggested on several occasions that plans for a manned variant of Dragon were proceeding and had a 2-3 year time line to completion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon

Waste:

It's not the Dragon or Falcon that will take three years to develop, build and test, it's the launch escape system that Musk was talking about. Browse around, that's clearly stated in a number of places. Falcon and Dragon are ready to go as far as structure, redundancy and life support are concerned. Spacex wants to build their launch escape system in-house like everything else. I'm sure that the price they stated is conservative because it amounts to more than they've spent already on Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon put together. But hey, it's the one place where you gotta spend big and hope it's never used.

As for "screen" for the astronauts, I'm sure that Spacex will probably just use high quality laptops or tablets on wireless. Why not, all the ISS user input is done that way. Not a biggy.

If you want to gripe about something, Spacex has learned more from the Russians on how to design and build rockets and spacecraft than they have from NASA or it's contractors (but, being American designed and built means it'll be better for sure).

tinker

"So where is the great "private industry advantage"? i certainly do not see it here."

I could say something flippant like "Falcon 1 and 9 have both taken payloads to orbit while Ares management is still figuring out if it is cheaper to recover the solid or expend them".

The main advantage of the program structure that SpaceX is operating in right now (providing a service not a product) is that it allows innovation, nimbleness and designs which incorporate some aspects of cost containment.

If SpaceX cannot put together a product and do it for a cost that makes them a profit...they go out of business. If the Constellation program cannot live within its cost structure the answer (until this year) has been to stretch out the program.

Some of the admissions from the program as simply stunning. Only when program termination loomed...did they even start looking at the cost structure of recovering or ditching the solid.

The P-51, F-14 were all put together like Musk put together his rocket.

Robert G. Oler

So I will bite. What SpaceX just launched is just as close to their manned vehicle as what this article shows Orion to be.

I would be more impressed with the Lockheed folks had they also built 2 rockets in this time, but whatever. I alos think that a lot of the reason for Orion delays has to do with Aries issues. Orion was a good choice for a reentry vehicle to base a BEO exploration program on. Unfortunately the powers that be blew it when they decided what candle to put it on top of.

Well said and nicely done Spaceboy. You are 100 % correct in every point. You are not the one with all the bloat.

"As for "screen" for the astronauts, I'm sure that Spacex will probably just use high quality laptops or tablets on wireless. Why not, all the ISS user input is done that way. Not a biggy."

Omg. clueless. you think laptop = avionics. I can't even begin to fill in your gaps in understanding.

tinker,
I don't think its just the LAS, they have also stated the need to add in D&C components in order to satisfy crew "concerns".

From Oct 09'
"We're, of course, trying to allay some of those concerns," says Bowersox, the former director of NASA's Crew Operations Directorate. "We'll do what makes sense from the point of view of using humans to increase the reliability of the whole system. To do that, we have to give them displays and controls.

If you need controls on the spacecraft, laptops probably won't work. The ISS laptops are not used during ascent. The G loads prevent crew from being able to reach far, so you need at least essential controls in what is often called "reach zone 1", and they have to be usable under these loads for actions like crew initiated aborts and other commands. Plus with gloves on, a standard laptop keyboard would probably be nearly impossible to use in a time critical manner.

rlkelley,
I agree that this article is misleading in that this is a real lunar Orion. Its a GTA. I wasn't trying to argue that, just that the manned Dragon isn't sitting in a hanger ready to go.

And yes, Ares I needs to be thrown away. I don't understand why Nelson would want to continue it for flight tests and let its primary payload Orion be essentially thrown away. Its the root cause problem of CxP. Delta IV or Atlas please for a BEO Orion is what I'd like to see, FWIW.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by comparing the Dragon qualification unit (which is in orbit) to the Orion ground test article. The Dragon ground test article was built more than a year ago. They're doing final integration on the first flight vehicle (outfitted for cargo) right now. As for comparing the first Falcon 9 flight to Arex 1-X, I don't think you even want to go there... Arex 1-X had virtually no hardware in common with Ares 1 and was a brief sub-orbital flight. The entire upper stage was a mockup, including the Orion (which had no working systems and nothing in common with the actual Orion spacecraft other than it's shape and mass). The Falcon 9 test flight used an actual Falcon 9 first and second stage (imagine that) and reached orbit. The Dragon was not a simple mockup but a shell produced to the same specification as the actual flight vehicle. The entire Falcon 9 rocket system cost about the same to develop and fly as the Ares 1-X test flight cost alone. Ouch!

SpaceX started work in earnest on Dragon in 2006 after receiving the COTS award from NASA. While the contract was for cargo they designed the vehicle from the start to carry a crew. They've been working on Dragon for about the same amount of time that Lockheed Martin has been working on Orion. SpaceX has not received a contract or funding to work on a crewed version of Dragon yet. The development work they've done for crew has been on their own initiative and at their own expense.

You may take Atlas V over Falcon 9 for crew to orbit but that's probably because you're not paying the bill or thinking about the big picture. Atlas V is very expensive and it uses Russian engines. Both are significant hurdles to overcome.

I'm not sure where you've gotten your numbers for SpaceX government funding but they're off base. SpaceX has been awarded $278M in COTS funding for the development of Dragon (cargo) and three test flights (the flight last week was not one of the three). They have also received contracts for $1.6B to provide cargo delivery (twelve flights) to the ISS. SpaceX is a private company and does not need to report it's finances so we have to take their word when they say that less than $500M has been spent on the development of Falcon 9.

With regard to the LAS, SpaceX is not planning to develop it in-house. They'd likely contract with Orbital and ATK who are developing the LAS for Orion. That system will not work as is for Dragon however... too heavy and too powerful.

Last but not least, if you really think that Orion was going to fly on an Ares 1 by 2014 then I have some land in Florida you may be interested in buying...

Possum said: "our plans to recreate his feat some 50 years later at 20 times the cost"

Let me fix that for you - "our plans to recreate his feat some 50 years later at 20 times the cost at a fraction of the risk"

I am not a fan of Constellation / Orion nor the way in which the project was managed, but the truth be told the level of rick we took as a nation to accomplish Apollo was far, far beyond what the nation would accept as reasonable for routine access to space and a permanent outpost on the lunar surface.

SpaceBoy - yours was the best and most well thought out post I have seen in a while - thank you.

Tinker - I think you statement "As for "screen" for the astronauts, I'm sure that Spacex will probably just use high quality laptops or tablets on wireless. Why not, all the ISS user input is done that way. Not a biggy." is way wrong.

Currently, on the ISS they use 802.11 wireless on the Lenovo T61p laptops used in the SSC configuration running Windows for admin stuff like email and procedures. This is a "Crit 3" application.

However,for the PCS - the "Crit 1R" laptops used to interface with the ISS flight avionics systems, they use the same model of Lenovo laptop talking through a wired dual channel 1553 interface using a PCMCIA card manufactured by DDC.

Even though we would like to get rid of the cables tethering the laptop to the UOP there is no way Safety or anyone else would let us do critical function like commanding over a wireless interface at this time (maybe sometime in the future?)

"the truth be told the level of rick we took as a nation to accomplish Apollo was far, far beyond what the nation would accept as reasonable for routine access to space and a permanent outpost on the lunar surface. "

I find that position entertaining considering that the nation accepted the loss of 14 astronauts and two orbiters and kept on flying the shuttle

Robert G. Oler

"As for "screen" for the astronauts, I'm sure that Spacex will probably just use high quality laptops or tablets on wireless. Why not, all the ISS user input is done that way. Not a biggy."

I see you got beat around the ears on this statement.

It wont be a laptop, but it wont be much more then that.

Dragon is doubtless designed like most modern vehicles (modern airplanes, submarines, etc) more like a UAV then an Apollo capsule. ie it is "human in the loop" not "loop dependent on human". My sister in law jokes that she could fly her Airbus across the Atlantic after "positive rate wheels up" all the way to needing the tiller to taxi....with her PDA sitting in first class if there was a link to the airplane, after all most of the training she did was on her laptop.

As it is she can do it without touching the joy stick AFTER PRGU by simply using "the tablet" and a touch stick...

If the vehicle (DRagon) can essentially do the mission with the humans on the ground, if you have humans in the vehicle they need some interface with the vehicle...and some situational awareness device. The "avionics" one person referenced are already on the vehicle.

This will come as some shock to the folks at NASA. The folks on the shuttle are used mostly as an adjunct of the fly by wire system with "real" control being on teh ground. Most of us who actually fly airplanes laugh everytime the folks on the ground chuckle as they are reading up "words" to "do this or that checklist" or "skip this or that page".

There is almost no reason for the folks on the shuttle to be "pilots". The vehicle could have been adapted to autoland from the first mission on, saving a ton of cash in terms of flight training...and the rest of it is basically just doing what is trained in the sim over and over...

I had the chance awhile back to "fly" one of the UAV's in the US. As I was "flying it" the vision of what the sister in law said was kind of kicking around in my head.

As I flew back home I decided to actually have my hand on the controls all the way down from 350...made me feel better.

Dragon will be very different from what has happened in the past.

Robert G. Oler

Mikes
seriously just too tired and not using a pc at moment, very slow touch screen. So please forgive typos. I agree, there is nothing to compare between falcon 9 launch and orion gta which was my whole point.

Secondly, the COTS demo contract is a milestone/demonstration based award fee contract. Not to be confused with their cargo contract. They have collected $350M by reaching milestones on the COTS contract, this *is* a matter of public record. I can find a link tomorrow. The remaining incentive is for the 3 demo flights and it is the $278M you speak of. I agree 100% that the launch was not part of the demo flights and not part of any nasa money to be awarded for that flight. However, if you think they didnt spend that $350M refining their dssign and buildingthe flight hardware, that is jjust naive.

Last, i said orion would be ready to launch in early 2014. Didn't say it had to be on Ares.

P.S. - i really dont see Orbital building a las for their biggest competitor

You are also right, that being a private company allow SpaceX the freedom to not divulge their costs. However, this in no way obligates me me to accept or believe their claims of less than $500 million.

Mikes
seriously just too tired and not using a pc at moment, very slow touch screen. So please forgive typos. I agree, there is nothing to compare between falcon 9 launch and orion gta which was my whole point.

Secondly, the COTS demo contract is a milestone/demonstration based award fee contract. Not to be confused with their cargo contract. They have collected $350M by reaching milestones on the COTS contract, this *is* a matter of public record. I can find a link tomorrow. The remaining incentive is for the 3 demo flights and it is the $278M you speak of. I agree 100% that the launch was not part of the demo flights and not part of any nasa money to be awarded for that flight. However, if you think they didnt spend that $350M refining their dssign and buildingthe flight hardware, that is jjust naive.

Last, i said orion would be ready to launch in early 2014. Didn't say it had to be on Ares.

P.S. - i really dont see Orbital building a las for their biggest competitor

You are also right, that being a private company allow SpaceX the freedom to not divulge their costs. However, this in no way obligates me me to accept or believe their claims of less than $500 million.

Fly by wireless will reach HSF someday!

Some of us have been working on those concepts for well over a decade, starting with ESA Wireless work, like this work:

http://conferences.esa.int/03C20/s2b-03.ppt

(blowing my horn a bit, as a lot of the slides are from our work), and moving onto the CCSDS Wireless Working Group.

It's coming to aircraft soon: http://www.caneus.org/fbw/content.aspx?id=2009_home

and is already being examined for spaceflight: http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Technology/SEMG1G1P0WF_0.html

with NASA, ESA, CSA, and others players moving forward.

But I don't think Elon's got it in the present Dragon. But it'd be a great way to go, and I believe it's essential for Deep Space HSF, for a lot of reasons.

It actually increases the safety, in the end, because it increases total system rel.

"level of rick"

Dang it Mr. Oler - would it be to much to ask for you to correct my spelling when you quote me? It was a long day yesterday.

You said: "I find that position entertaining considering that the nation accepted the loss of 14 astronauts and two orbiters and kept on flying the shuttle"

I contend that the nation really did not accept the loss of the vehicles and crew members - and since you live in the Clear Lake are just like me, they were not just crew members, they were friends and neighbors.

Safety and cost are the two reasons that the shuttle is being retired - and I think that if the shuttle had a "perfect" safety record we would be flying it into the future.

Crish, even absent the 2 Shuttle accidents -- both caused by senior management ignoring flight results, not any fault in the s/c itself which was never designed to be struck by anything during ascent -- the cost of operating and maintaining the Shuttle fleet is horrendous. If the top line NASA budget doesn't grow, then there is no money left to do anything else. Even the planned Shuttle upgrade program, SLEP I and II, couldn't get full funding no matter how Gen. Kostelnik tried. Sean O'Keefe made the fateful decision that to pay for the VSE the Shuttle had to go. Of course, as we learned that wasn't nearly enough to cover Orion and Ares 1, much lwess the lunar booster and lander.

@MikeS

I'm going to correct myself now - we were both partially right and we were both partially wrong. $278M is the total award for the COTS contract. Of that $278M, a full $248M has been distributed to SpaceX already for meeting milestones. There is still $30M to be earned by launching the 3 Demos, plus meeting readiness reviews before launch.

In addition to the $248M, SpaceX has earned $101M on the cargo contract for meeting milestones. So they have earned a combined $349M from NASA so far, but it is combined between the two contracts. There is $30M left to earn on COTS and the cargo is out of $1.6B total I believe. But as others have said, the cargo contract will be for services rendered.

For the record, i have a lot of respect for what SpaceX has done and is doing. I started following there progress long before their first Falcon 1 launch. What I have been trying to point out is the hypocrisy in the postings by readers here between their hatred of anything NASA and blind love of anything not NASA. I dont understand why people think it has to be one or the other and that the two cannot coexist. I personally think commercial eventually doing most of the LEO ops would be great, with NASA concentrating on deep spae exploration.