HOME | DD
lusitania25 — 1st Launch Of Orion,replacing the retired Shuttle
Published: 2014-12-19 20:52:09 +0000 UTC; Views: 629; Favourites: 20; Downloads: 19
Redirect to original
Description
The dawn of Orion, and a new era of American space exploration.Related content
Comments: 27
but isn't this going backwards?
i don't want to go to mars and plant a flag and come back
i want humans living on mars ;w;
(also isn't 90% of this non-reusable?)
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Once they have developed a craft to go once they can return, alot of this isnt re-usable but for heavy launches its the only way
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes they will waste billions going back to the moon which could pay to take them to mars
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The Space Shuttle was considered metaphorically as a great white elephant; too much investment for too little gain. It's a masterpiece of technology even today, but it was also hideously expensive to build and maintain, and unsuited for deep space exploration. Its very existence tied NASA to low orbit for decades. Retiring the shuttles was considered a wise move as it allows more NASA funding to be diverted to cheaper but more cost-effective means of putting man into space, like the Orion program.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah, but SLS won;t last long , maybe a few launches then the costs get too much (like apollo) as large rockets are not very popular these days in space exploring.
it would make more sense to make SSTO's like skylon and ship parts up and assemble the ship in space.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ok then, but i personally hope SpaceX falcon heavy return vehicle works well too :3
and dream chaser.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Shuttle was so much better looking but at least Orion has the capacity to go beyond earth orbit
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
IMO, they carried over a bit of shuttle ugliness by retaining those godforsaken solid rocket boosters. Those things are just nasty, spewing burnt rubber into the air by the thousands of tons...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes and they are made by the company responsible for the loss of challenger
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They use the solids because they are cheaper. There is no forthought given to the ecological consequences. It's all about saving bucks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They should have stopped the contract with them after challenger, an engineer told the managers the boosters should not launch in cold weather but they lied to NASA about it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, once again, NASA caved to money. It had nothing to do with logic. Corporate pressure on NASA to deliver at all cost. Don't blame NASA. Blame the politicians who had to be appeased.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yep at least the USA has a manned flight program again
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see rockets being around for quite some time, thus the advancement of rocket science is bound to evolve away from SRB's. The thing about those candles is this: as soon as the match is lit, you have full thrust. The down side is, until it runs out of fuel, it is pedal to the metal, baby. If something goes amok, you cannot stop those engines. You have to cut them loss and jettison them. Using all liquid rockets, you have full control of thrust throughout the entire burn, with the added option of stopping the engines and then restarting them later. THe big disadvantages to liquid rockets are complexity, weight, and lower thrust per pound of fuel.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yea i think they are staying with them because they are reuseable and they have a booster recovery operation already in place from the shuttle days, even the crew capsule from orion is designed to be reuseable
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When they learn to make liquid rockets which are as light and efficient as the SRBs, those will become dinosaurs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes hopefully,or a more efficient rocket motor
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They are using hydrogen and oxygen in the first stage. The second stage is hypergolic using methyl hydrazine. Lots of boom in a tiny package. Not a lot of thrust per se, but a really high nozzle velocity. This engine can insert a payload into a Holman ellipse to Mars and return via the same ellipse. However, using this path will take eighteen months of mission time. We do not know yet how to survive that long in space. I think a return to the moon for permanent colonization is a more realistic goal. It will be much easier to launch a mission to Mars from the Moon rather than the Earth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think if they wait til the moon is colonised it will be a long time til they go to mars, i hope they decide to go direct ,they just need to commit to it 100% like they did with Apollo
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We need both missions, but we need a better overall plan to carry them out, without relying on government dollars to do so.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Such huge projects will need government support, but some companies like virgin galactic might bring some money into it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It will take global action from government and corporate interests combined.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0