Jump to content

Talk:Orion (spacecraft)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Comments

It is wrong to put Orion in the past tense. Congress passed a bill that does not allow Obama to unilaterlally terminate the Constellation program. He is proposing that it be eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.78.118 (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What parts of the various design proposals contain non-reusable parts? Doesn't NASA want a more reusable, economical way to reach LEO? -Jon, 1:41 PM EST 6/18/05

NASA has already more reusable way to get to orbit (Space Shuttle). As one can see, more reusable is not necessarily more economical (at current technological level). --Bricktop 10:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Will the CEV be just the capsule (and thus presumably useable with different rockets), or will it be the combination of capsule + rocket? --NeuronExMachina 04:03, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In a sense it will be both, and more. The CEV, or project Constellation as it is now called is a modular vehicle which is comparable to the Apollo command module and the LEM combined. So it is a capsule with rocket motors. But it does not include the launcher, so yes it could presumably be used with several different kinds of launching rockets to place it in low orbit for going to the ISS or to send it off to the moon or other celestial bodies. AlainV 06:15, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Nope, when you read the Draft RFP issued on January 21st, 2005, the CEV includes neither the launcher nor the LM. It is really like the Apollo command and service module. 23 Jan 2005.

Would whoever wrote the t/space has withdrawn from the competion please cite their source. I went to thier website and it says nothing of this developement. Since t/Space was formed just for this competition then thier is no way this would not be mentioned. Unless the company was a farce from the begining. --Hfarmer 09:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a good point. Hmm. NASA Watch citing New Scientist. Rand Simberg ditto. All sources I'd respect, but some poking around doesn't find a source other than New Scientist. I'll ask around. Shimgray 12:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Another one - a UPI story, but again referencing New Scientist.
An update... Henry Vanderbilt, from the Space Access Society:
I've spoken to David Gump recently, on that subject as well as others, and he said that T-Space has made no final decision either way on bidding for CEV. (...) may have ended up having too much read into it.
(from a Usenet post: news<423C4F1D.70BB0BD5@mindspring.com>). So it looks like it was possibly incorrect (although the paperwork burden certainly is extensive). Shimgray 03:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is mostly for others since Reubenbarton is probably already familiar with this—The name "Yankee Clipper" would certainly fit with the current Apollo-to-Shuttle naming conventions NASA seems to favor. Endeavour, Columbia, Challenger and Yankee Clipper (see Apollo_12) were used as Apollo program module names (along with several others).
  • Boing link is a dead. Revision is needed.
  • Space.com posted a new CEV article (03-Aug-2005) with some more detail not yet included in this wiki article. Including concept art of the new solid-booster-derived vehicle.
  • This part:
    The CEV would be an Apollo-like capsule, not a lifting body or winged vehicle.

should be removed, or amended, and the later references updated. The Sentinel article (and I have it right here in front of me), does not definitively state that the CEV will be an Apollo-like capsule, excluding a Lockheed lifting body like design. It's simply a generalized example to contrast what the CEV will not be: a huge winged spaceplane like the shuttle. In fact, the most definitive adjectives the article uses are "strikingly similar" and "same general concept as" (an Apollo like design), which to me isn't enough evidence to rule anything out.

Slashdot

This article was just linked on Slashdot. —chris.lawson (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Picture placment

I think this article would be improved a bit my re-arranging the pictures to corrospond to the text of the article and placing at least one of them on the left. I will have a go at it this evening or tomorrow if no one else does by then. Dalf | Talk 00:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree--68.85.35.211 02:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Broader program?

The last few external links on the page just now, from Andrews' Space & Technology, aren't dealing with the CEV proper - rather, they're consulting documents for the overall program, and a contract for some related hardware. Should this stuff be kept here, or spun off into a Project Constellation (or something) page? Shimgray 13:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. There is a mix here between the broader CE&R (Concept Exploration and Refinement) of the Constellation project (which addresses the whole stuff to go the the Moon and beyond, CEV, LSAM and EDS - plus the launchers) and the CEV proposals, the CEV being a subset of the overall architecture. The Andrews, Raytheon, ... etc material should go to the overall Constellation article, while the CEV concentrates on the Lockheed and Northrop proposals of May 2.82.127.210.72 08:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


Editing without bias

Hi: I've edited the CEV page to update some information about FAST and shuttle retirement, added references, and made the origin section first to make it more logical. I have referenced the opinions of engineer Robert Zubrin with regard to spiral development and a direct mission profile; however, I admit that I have a bias in favor of his opinions and I want to make sure that I have written the page in an impartial manner. Have I done this?

Captain Koloth—Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Koloth (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the new timetable that was added under spiral development a little too optimistic?

2007 - 2009 - First unmanned flight of CEV in Earth orbit -> would really like to see a source for that, NASA is planning to have the CEV developed within only 1 to 3 years? Themanwithoutapast 04:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)



The plan before Griffin came in was to fly a CEV or a CEV boilerplate in 2008; Bush's vision supports testing a CEV by 2008. Since design apparently will be frozen in 2006, since contractor selection will take place then, according to this source [1], it is reasonable to assume that CEV testing will be earlier than under the original plan. Griffin has expressed a desire to fly the manned CEV as early as possible, which could mean as early as 2010 or 2011. Since the procurement schedule is being moved up by two years by dispensing with FAST, and a prototype was to have been built in 2008 anyway, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some sort of flight test as early as late 2007. Certainly it shouldn't be any later than the originally planned 2008.

--Captain Koloth 12:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Captain Koloth

So, the year 2007 as the first unmanned flight to Earth orbit (!!!) is just speculation - the only basis is Griffin's statement that he wants to close the gap between Shuttle end and an operational CEV? If that is the case we should mention how we derive this timetable - because, come on, you have to design and build this thing even for an unmanned flight - it is just not possible to do this within one or two years. Themanwithoutapast 13:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you're right - even Gemini and Apollo took much longer than that. I'll revise it to 2008-2010. --Captain Koloth 15:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

According to CBS reports [2], Griffin stated first manned flight no earlier than 2012, while other NASA officials suggested "not later than 2014". First testing of ARES I lift boosters is set for 2009, while first potential moonflight would be 2018. The official goalpost for moonflight is 2020. Given these timelines, it looks as if the shuttle fleet may have to continue flying a couple years past the planned 2010 retirement date, as I doubt the US government would be pleased to rely on Russian lift vehicles and capsules to perform manned flights.The Dark 13:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

New section

I've added a new section about the Planetary Society Report co-chaired by Griffin in July 2004, as it appears to reflect the actions he has taken so far as Administrator. --Captain Koloth 13:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Suface landing update

Just to cite a source - Mike Griffin has stated, see http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/126521main_MDG_AIAA_Space_2005.pdf , that all four CEV crew will descend to the surface, leaving the CEV unmanned. Will update entry to suit. Alex Swanson 02:26, 8 September 2005

Acronyms

The article's many acronyms are NAE and CAH. DanielHolth 20:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Not all of the acronyms are defined, nor do they point to other pages. This makes it harder to read.
65.190.103.147 05:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Article is too long

This article is too long and addresses too many non CEV topic. Should be split between an article about general exploration strategy, an article about the Moon mission scenario and an article about the CEV itself, which is just one of the elements used to go to the Moon. Hektor 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I reiterate that article is muuuuchhh too long especially after ESAS section addition (should be a separate article). Some stuff also in the article has become ludicrous, like "Hopper, European equivalent to CEV", come on !Hektor 05:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I too think that it's too long encompassing too many topics. Why does lsam and project constellation redirect here? This article should be about the cev. There should be an article about the project as a whole where a bunch of stuff from this article can be put. 01:25 28 January 2006

Graphics

Someone should go and replace those ancient images on the page now with the new NASA graphics released with the ESAS - there's tons of high-quality images on the NASA site now. Someone should also rewrite the ESAS section and make it past tense (i.e. "recommends" or "recommended" and not "is thought to contain a recommendation").

agreed all of those featured CEV designs are history now, I would update the images myself if i could be bothered to learn how :). The article does go into too much detail about the competing disgns when it should simply concentrate on NASA's exporation architecture annouced in September 2005. 10:30, November 2005

For me the display of the pictures at the beginning of the article is messed up; the leftmost part of them appears behind the menu bar ("Browse", "My Pages", "Special Pages"). I don't know how to fix that. Lukas 02:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Writing

Could you guys try to think before writing? I know Wikipedia's more about dumping as many facts and half-baked interpretations into clusterfucks of monster sentences, but ya know, maybe it's time to turn over a new leaf? BE CONCISE.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.52.33 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Methane Engines

This article mentions the use of liquid methane as a fuel, although plans call for this to be scrapped for now: Nasaspaceflight.com—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.85.35.211 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 31 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Splitting Page

This page is too long, and, to make it worse, it covers way too many topics. First of all, there should be seperate pages for the EDS and LSAM. There already are pages, but typing in "Earth departure system" or "lunar surface access module" still redirects to this page. The pages should be entirly seperate. The sections of this article should be shortened and link to the respecitve main page.

Also, do you think it would be too radical (or just plain stupid) to seperate the CEV into 2 articles: the project as a whole and the CEV spaceship as a whole. "Project Constellation" could redirect to the former, and the latter could detail the structures and such of the actual spaceship.

The resulting pages would be:

  1. CEV (program as a whole) / Project Constellation
  2. CEV (spaceship)
  3. EDS
  4. LSAM

Also: (already existing articles)

  1. Shuttle Derived HLV
  2. ESAS

--68.85.35.211 03:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. I would suggest to relable the article Project Constellation as the main project page and have only one CEV article on the spaceship, as (although it does not sound that way in the media) the CEV is actually only the crew capsule together with a service module. I will start to create the basic structure, others may want to actually concentrate on content. Themanwithoutapast 03:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried, but am not really able to unwind all these intertwined articles quickly. I defer to someone else to take on the task. Themanwithoutapast 03:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge: OSP

Yes, yes, article is already too long, but Orbital Space Plane is too short. Perhaps content from both articles could go into History of the Crew Exploration Vehicle? Alba 14:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Apollo J-2 engine?

It's true that NASA scraped it's plans to use the shuttle main engines however the new engine they chose is not the J-2 as the article states but the RS-68 according to this article on NASA's website http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/main/index.html --cassini83 19:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's true. The SSMEs were not designed for air ignition.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • Concern. Would there be a better word, since (spacecraft) still leaves the LM as noted and Project Orion, previously renamed? Worth thinking about some more, maybe. Also, does Orion refer exclusively to the CEV, or to the whole stack, or to the project? --Dhartung | Talk 06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this Time NASA is likely to clarify the nomenclature further in coming months. My guess is that the entire spacecraft stack will be named "Orion", and the subunits will take that name as a prefix, e.g. "Orion CM", "Orion SM", "Orion LSAM", etc. The launch vehicle will likely maintain its name "Ares", although it is by no means certain that either of the two proposed Ares LVs will actualy ever be built. There's a movement afoot in the aerospace community to scrap the Ares I entirely and launch the Orion stack on the Ares V to simplify integration and support issues. There's another faction that opposes any new LV design and wants to launch Orion on the Atlas V and/or Delta IV Heavy LV. I say we leave things as they are until we get more data from NASA on this topic. Bchan
  • Oppose - The name remains preliminary. A redirect from Orion (spacecraft) would be more than adequate for now. Also per Bchan re: Orion (the entire dang rocket) vs. Orion (the tiny CEV at the top) issues. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per above. Only this time. *~Daniel~* ☎ 06:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to new name

This will need to be revisited soon. I would suggest waiting until after the "official" NASA announcement next week. Rmhermen 00:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that the name is official[3], the article should be moved to "Orion (spacecraft)". I see someone setup a redirect there, so to flip the name around we'll need an admin to help out. Also, something probably needs to happen to the "Project Orion (lunar program)" stub. Orion is not the name of the entire program, just the spacecraft. We may have to go through AfD on that one. It's going to be fun explaining that this is not the same as "Project Orion (nuclear propulsion)". --StuffOfInterest 11:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Moving the page over the redirect should work. It should only require an admin if the page has a history >1. JRawle (Talk) 13:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Didn't know that one. Thanks. I always thought that the move would fail if there was anything already at the target location. --StuffOfInterest 17:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Crew Exploration Vehicle → Orion (spacecraft) – NASA has officially assigned the name Orion to this vehicle; Orion (spacecraft) is currently held by a redirect. RandomCritic 13:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose. There's time enough for that when it is actually built. Actually, we don't need to wait until then, but at least wait until NASA starts using that name regularly, and don't base it on some newspaper report about applying for "trademarks" and an offhand comment by an astronaut. What's the rush? Gene Nygaard 13:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It isn't just one astronaut, it is an official NASA press release[4]. --StuffOfInterest 13:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn't mentioned in the article, nor in the premature reproposal of something decided less than a month ago. Gene Nygaard 13:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The article says "The CEV is named Orion" -- right there at the top. :) RandomCritic 14:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Launch date

The article says "2008–2010 — First unmanned flight of CEV in Earth orbit. [10] 2011 (June) — First manned flight of CEV in Earth orbit. " However that is a bit unrealistically. It is intended to have a CLV rocket test in 2009 with a four-segment SRB and a mock-up fifth segment and second stage flying, not sure how there could be an unmanned CEV flight in 2008 then. Secondly, NASA has officially answered the question of their targeted first manned CEV flight: Sept 2014. This date was stated during the NASA press conference when they announced the names of the CEV and CaLV to be Ares 1 and Ares 5. Themanwithoutapast 20:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

The article is inconsistent regarding the habitable crew vehicle; CM is in one place said to stand for "Crew Module" and elsewhere for "Command Module". Which is the most current usage? RandomCritic 06:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Contractor selected Aug. 31

FYI for those who watch this page:

NASA Exploration Systems' managers will host a press conference at 4 p.m. EDT Thursday, Aug. 31, to announce the prime contractor to design, develop, and build Orion, America's next human spacecraft. Cjosefy 22:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

--

Down goes Northrop Grumman!

It's Lockheed. Gpotter511@yahoo.com 03:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

—— I'm not sure about the validity of this statement:

For CEV, Lockheed Martin promised the Administration to manufacture the manned spacecraft at new facilities to be built in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida,[citation needed] all three states with strongly Republican Congressional delegations; the competing proposal by Northrop Grumman and Boeing, which are the only U.S. companies to have previously built manned spacecraft, planned on building CEV at existing facilities in California and Alabama.

No doubt there will be something in Houston for the reason that you state. But that reason would be valid regardless of which contractor won. Can anyone provide some kind of verification that the claims about new LM facilities in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida? If not the claims should be removed. --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The NASA press release: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06305_Orion_contract.html (SEWilco 04:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC))
Lockheed Martin press release: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17865&rsbci=0&fti=111&ti=0&sc=400
Neither of those references support the assertion that these are new facilities, or that they are being built specially for CEV/Orion. For example, the Michoud facility has been in Loiusiana and doing space program work for years.
The second assertion about Northrop using only existing facilities in CA and AL is also questionable - it seems likely that they would have needed some kind of facilities at both JSC and KSC. Moreover, I know that at least some of the people involved in the Northrop proposal were scheduled to move to Houston if Northrop had won the contract. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Boeing has facilities in those areas. NASA also has facilities available at JSC and MSFC. New job opening would be created by either team. With that sentence removed, it doesn't matter. -Fnlayson 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
There likely wouldn't have been significant new facilities regardless of which contractor won. Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin do work on the Space Shuttle; both companies maintain facilities at all NASA shuttle-related locations. These locations are California (Edwards AFB region), Texas (Johnson Space Center region), Alabama (Huntsville), and Florida (Cape Canaveral region). I'm not as familiar with Northrop or Boeing's facilities, but Lockheed Martin has Space Systems facilities in Huntsville, Houston, and Sunnyvale.The Dark 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

CEV mockup picture

I uploaded this picture, but I couldn't find a really good place to put it in the article. I think it's a nice picture that shows a glimpse of real work being done towards this capsule. If someone thinks of a good place for inclusion, please do so. Cjosefy 22:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Concept mockup of the Crew Exploration Vehicle used for system integration and stowage analysis located at the SVMF.

Pictures

There are a ton of pictures on this page! There are a bunch down the right side of the page right at the beginning, which is pretty unnecessary. I'm going to remove a few. We don't need two pictures of the spacecraft orbiting the moon. If you look at the apollo they have some representative pictures of the spacecraft scattered throughout as to not overwhelm the reader. There are also one or two pictures that don't go with the text they're beside. I'll move those --Perwfl 01:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The deed is done. I may have gone a bit overboard, but the page looks much nicer now.--Perwfl 01:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit of 11/13

I removed a line that was factually incorrect in multiple ways. It stated Lockheed and Martin Marietta are separate entities, which is untrue. It stated the SR-71, U-2, and Viking landers are currently manufactured, which is untrue. Beyond the factual errors, it was a grammatic mess and unnecessary information that would more appropriately belong on the manufacturer's page anyway. The Dark 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Article confusing

Is this Orion? Or is this Orion?

I've read the article twice, and I find it terribly confusing.

From the introduction, it would appear Orion, previously called Crew Exploration Vehicle, is a spacecraft that will replace the Shuttle.

Following that is a description of the "Orion Crew & Service Module", which I would assume is a subcomponent of the "Orion" spacecraft, though it's entirely unclear what the Orion spacecraft as a whole actually consists of.

And then the article goes into (too much) details into bids by Lockheed Martin's and Northtrop Grumman, and future developement of the "CEV", which was first introduced as being the former name for "Orion". Only now, it would appear the "CEV" is an entirely different project with a "mission module", and a "crew module" that looks like a shuttle, nothing like the "Orion Crew & Service Module" described earlier. 82.231.41.7 04:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hint: The first picture is under "Design." The second picture is under "Proposals: Original Designs." The Dark 13:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully a new rewrite of the lead section will lessen the confusion readers like the above experience. Review comments, or just plain rewrites, would be appreciated! Sdsds 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Confusing--the Answer

The top picture is the current Orion spacecraft configuration as adopted by NASA under Dr. Michael Griffin (the "Apollo on steroids" as he calls it). The bottom picture, taken from a Popular Mechanics magazine article, was a Crew Exploration Vehicle design that was popular with Griffin's predecessor, Sean O'Keefe. In addition to the lifting body design (in which I hated, I like the current vehicle as it was a proven design), another CEV design would have been in essence, a carbon copy of the Soviet/Russian Soyuz and Chineese Shenzhou spacecrafts; the three-part spacecraft that would have been another popular, if not easy to copy choice.

Rwboa22 14:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hypergolics

I apologize if I make an error, or if this post is somehow inappropriate, I am new to this editing thing. The following is a quote from the article as it stands now, which I intend to remove. As it stands it is attached onto the end of the second paragraph of the hypergolics section.

The reaction of cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen in the fuel cells in order to produce electricity also produces pure water (which on Apollo and the Shuttle, was used as drinking and cooling water), while LCH4 can be produced, shipped, and stored in the same fashion as commercial-use liquified natural gas (LNG).

I bring this to attention because this particular sentence, if you want to call it that, has since been edited many times. This sentence was originally added to the article ("Revision as of 17:41, 10 October 2006" by "63.164.145.85") as follows.

The combustion of cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen, on the other hand, produces pure water, while LCH4, can be produced, shipped, and stored in the same fashon as commercial-use liquified natural gas (LNG).

I am removing this sentence for several reasons. For this discussion I will divide the sentence into two parts. The first part is “The reaction of cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen in the fuel cells in order to produce electricity also produces pure water (which on Apollo and the Shuttle, was used as drinking and cooling water)” and the second part is “LCH4 can be produced, shipped, and stored in the same fashion as commercial-use liquified natural gas (LNG).” The entire sentence is extremely disruptive to the flow of the article and section. The sentence has no discernable place in the article or section. In fact these really should be 2 separate sentences. Joining them with “while” is completely nonsensical. As such I will treat them as 2 separate sentences.


The first part is off topic and irrelevant (it was the subject of many edits, the original form I have included to illustrate the ignorance of the original author not only to the article but to the matter about which he posted) to both the section and the article and in its original form was just plain wrong/misleading. However currently the first part of the sentence, while alone may carry no factual errors, due to its place in a section about hypergolics may falsely leads a reader to believe that the reaction in a fuel cell of LH2 and LOX is hypergolic. The second part on top of being off topic, irrelevant, and having nothing to do with the first part (ignoring factual or misleading mistakes) doesn’t tell the reader anything they wouldn’t already know if they knew what LCH4 and LNG are. I would like to point out that essentially (and especially for the purposes of the section) liquefied natural gas *IS* LCH4. CH4 is the molecular formula of methane, natural gas is basically an impure form methane (typically LNG is about 90% methane). So why this article about a spacecraft, in a section about hypergolic fuels (of which LOX/LCH4 isn’t a hypergolic combination as the section misleadingly might suggest) wants to state the obvious…I don’t know (again disregarding the factual/misleading errors). For these reasons it has been removed. I really wonder what the initial poster, and all the subsequent editors were thinking. Fieldworld 11:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Manufacturer name

Where is the "guideline" that says the name of the manufacturer of a spacecraft should precede the name of the spacecraft itself? This makes it look as though the spacecraft will belong to the manufacturer -- wouldn't that implication be false in the case of Orion? Sdsds 00:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to preceed the name, as is the usual practice in aircraft articles, but it needs to be mentioned somewhere in the Lead paragraph. That's part of the information the Lead is supposed to convey. I would have had to rewrite a sentence or 2 to fit the company in elsewhere, and unfortunately it was very late for me. Feel free to rewrite it to something you're more comfortable with. - BillCJ 00:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done -- thanks for your quick response and understanding! (As a side note, putting the manufacturer name before the product name makes good sense for aircraft which are produced by a manufacturer and then sold to multiple customers. That isn't quite the case with Orion, though!) I hope you are pleased with placement at the end of the first paragraph. Note also the cited source uses the phrase "prime contractor" which the wording in the article doesn't follow. Is that OK, do you think? Sdsds 01:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. If you've been awarded the contract, that usually means your now the prime contractor. Means the same thing, so it should be no problem. - BillCJ 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Source of "Artemis" Information?

In its current state, the article reflects that a citation is needed for the claim that in October, 2006, NASA announced that the LSAMS (the lander) would carry the name, "Artemis". Minutes ago, I Googled the term "Artemis" and then searched for the term on the NASA Website. Neither effort produced any reference to any such announcement. Personally, I am puzzled why this is so.

Consider, as well, that the name "Artemis" is problematical because NASA appears to have used the name in connection with another project (referring, in this respect, to a program of presumably unmanned scout ships, a reference to which was found in my NASA Website inquiry). Further, "Artemis" is also the name given to a lunar-related project arising from private origins.

Therefore, in addition to a call for a citation for the claim of an announcement, I think that it might be asked whether the claim should be defended by whoever it was that put it there, or perhaps even whether it should be deleted until such time as the citation is offered or found.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.79.161 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 11 Apr 2007 (UTC)

Article size

This article is now 51,330 bytes long! Does it make sense to move some of the material into sub-articles? One logical choice would be to move the sections on "Competition" and "Proposals" to a new sub-article. That material is all well-sourced, and makes for interesting reading on its own, but now has decreasing relevance to the current status of Orion.... Sdsds 10:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, two new articles titled for example: "Orion Spacecraft Competition" and "Proposed Orion Spacecraft Designs" could easily be spun off this article. Moheroy 10:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
As I understand Sdsds's proposal, he is suggesting one new article for both sections. I would support that. the page Crew Exploration Vehicle is currently a redirect to this article. As that was the original name of the project/competion, I think it would be a good name for the proposed article. - BillCJ 17:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Smart idea! (Sdsds | Talk) 18:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
As there was no objection I have implemented this idea. I've kept the Talk:Crew Exploration Vehicle page redirected here, though. Is that an OK choice or does it need to be a distinct page too? (Sdsds - Talk) 21:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It needs to have its own page with a project header. I've taken care of that. You did fine making it a redirect when you were unsure of what to do, though. - BillCJ 23:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Falcon 9 Heavy to replace Ares I?

The Falcon 9 Heavy rocket is due to fly in 2010 this is before the Ares I. See http://www.spacex.com

Unless NASA is going into direct competition with the private sector the Orion capsule will have a different launcher, does anyone have a pointer to the new launch programme? Andrew Swallow 04:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


NASA well-known issue with N.I.H. (not invented here) in this program prevents it from using alternate design. it is a joke that after most of the contractors suggest the soyuz/shenzhou configuration, NASA ignore the contractors design (after paying them, which i asked if you ain't gonna listen; why ask!), NASA have to dig the apollo out of the grave, supersize it and tell the contractors that is want they want. the Ares is a similiar joke, suppose to be "cheaper" because less development since it is shuttle based, but it turn out to not meet the requirement, again instead of turning to other existing concept, NASA decides to supersize it... so now NASA has to pay triple vs the contractors design, i am truely impressed with their intelligence! they are turning the space program over to the lobbyist who just wanna protect their bottomline... :) | sorry, my point is NASA will not give a damn about commerical system or the existing military LV because it is N.I.H. Akinkhoo (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Astrium invovlement

When Lockheed Martin bid on the Orion CEV contract, their team apparently included EADS Astrium. Did LM award a subcontract to Astrium? For what work? What about the other team members? Are they also now subcontractors? (sdsds - talk) 23:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture captions

I had noticed that several recently added pictures lacked captions. I have added some, but I was wondering if anyone else thinks they are really necessary , and if so, whether the ones I have provided are accurate. --Matthew Desjardins 00:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture size

The pictures have just been reduced to something I'd call 'unreasonably small'. In my opinion they were just fine before they were recently reduced. One of these images carries text which is now almost illegible. Is it just me, or does anyone else think these images are now too small? --Chris Jefferies (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The images are at the default setting now (most anyway). The Manual of Style says to not specify an image width except in special cases. Increase the image width in user settings to something larger (250px or larger). -Fnlayson (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well the one with labels for the components surely qualifies for a special case. -Fnlayson (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the one about the labels. However please do consider that some people do not have 1680x1050 screens. I noticed this when I was working on school on a 17" screen, and the previous images were taking up almost half my screenwidth. The guideline is there for a reason, and you can always click on an image to inspect it further of course. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

EVA?

Is it known whether the crew members of this spacecraft will be able to perform an EVA (spacewalk)?

81.235.171.21 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

LIDS and APAS compatibility

I changed the description of LIDS so it no longer asserts compatibility with the APAS docking system. While I could not find a source that said it was incompatible, the dimensions are different, the LIDS article says it is incompatible, and the ESAS details plans to attach an adapter to one of the space station's APAS or CBM ports to allow Orion to dock with it. -Wronkiew (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Everything that I ever heard about this system stated that it was incompatible. I think what the original author meant was that it was a "comparable system to APAS-89". This contrasted to CBM, which uses a totally different docking system. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article:PASS

This article meets the criteria for a good article. It is well written, referenced, and illustrated. Good job. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of Metric units of measurement in diagram

NASA, and most of the world, uses SI Metric units. Why, therefore, does the diagram use solely Imperial units? Can this be fixed please? As a non-American, I don't have a natural "feel" for what 198.0in means; I can't guess whether that is big or small without doing some calculations. Andrew Oakley (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Carrier rockets

Not to be too picky, but why are Ares IV and Ares V listed as carrier rockets? I thought Ares V was purely the cargo rocket and won't carry any of the actual Orion spacecraft (either capsule or service module). I suppose Ares IV was thought to potentially carry Orion, but as it's (supposedly) been dropped from consideration I'm not sure it should be listed as a carrier rocket. It seems to me like the carrier rocket should only list what it's actually launched on and not just talked about. Anyway, those are my 2 cents worth. - Nigelbeameniii (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall picture

This article lacks a good, up-to-date, picture of the overall configuration of the vehicle. Hektor (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

description

Someone described it as: "Apollo on steroids."--LandonJaeger (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and the need for even more cleanup

I did a good amount of streamlining with the article this weekend, but the overall content needs some significant fact checking and updating. Likewise, the Augustine Commission is presenting the review of US human spaceflight this week, and preliminary reports have indicated that of the handful of options the report will present, the Ares I is only present in one of these. I believe the Orion is present in all or most of the proposals, but my guess is that we'll have some significant changes to make here in the coming weeks. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


Where is Carson Flats, Nevada?

The article mentions Carson Flats, Nevada as a landing site, but Carson Flats is redlinked. I wanted to fix the link, but I can't find any reference to Carson Flats outside NASA documents or wikipedia pages. Where is this mysterious Carson Flats? Does it actually exist? Billgordon1099 (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Land or water?

Reading the article, I noted a difference in landing site for the Orion:

From section History, 8th paragraph:

Like the Apollo Command Module, Orion would be attached to a service module for life support and propulsion. It would land on land rather than water, similar to the Russian Soyuz spacecraft and the Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft.

From section Crew Module, 2nd paragraph:

Water landings will be the exclusive means of recovery for the Orion CM.

If I read this incorrectly, sorry. On the other hand: That could mean the article is unclear to readers. :-)

Thanks!

--80.254.148.83 (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The images on Lockheed Martin's website seems to hint at something different.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/Orion/index.html --Craigboy (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Page needs to be updated

Now that Orion has been saved a whole lot of information is now incorrect.--Craigboy (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This page is up to date, and you have provided no examples of out of date items therefore I have removed the tag Conman56 (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
When I posted that the whole page was severely out of date.

What I've updated:

  • Removed outdated images when a current alternative has been available
  • Removed information stating that Orion would be used solely as a lifeboat
  • Removed info that said Orion was canceled
  • Removed incorrect info on heat shield
  • Updated launch vehicle references
  • Added Orion's possible destinations and possible launch date
  • Added info on Authorization Bill


What needs to be updated:

  • Timeline and the majority of anything that mentions when Orion is expected to fly is for the most part out of date
  • Anything that mentions Constellation as if the program is still active (return to moon, Ares I...)
  • Specifications need to be looked into to see if they're still true
  • Article should note that Orion's specs may change once a new heavy lift vehicle design is chosen

--Craigboy (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Good reference on current specs
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=6bb9bc53-1ac8-457a-a5a2-018cbb8df292
--Craigboy (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Orion (Constellation program)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Currently has more cleanup tags than any other good article: in need of updating since November 2010, unsourced statements from October 2010 and February 2007, contains potentially dated statements from 2005 and April 2009, a sentence needs clarification from January 2010 and tagged as having obsolete information from May 2010. Tom B (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

nothing happening at the moment, no edits in 2 and a half weeks, delisting Tom B (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here's the rub, Constellation was cancelled, Orion was not. Much of the development and testing was fully funded and now that Orion is the basis (nearly a mear rebranding) of the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, much of what might have seemed out of date really isn't. I do agree that Constellation and Ares should be in the past tense.--RadioFan (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Rebranding as it is, there is still a separate article for the MPCV, and there shouldn't be two articles speaking in the present tense about the same thing. I think the best solution to this would be to merge this article into the MPCV article. There is a proposal being discussed in that article to have a merger go the other way around, but it seems that ten years from now it's going to seem rather stupid that MPCV redirects to Orion when neither NASA nor Lockheed Martin calls it that. If there is no merger of the two articles, Orion needs to be made past tense (but again I think a merger is best). [I would propose this myself, but I'm feeling rather timid since I'm fairly new to more significant editing than the occasional typo-fix.] OllieWilliamson (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

error found in description of Orion service module propulsion/propellant

The wikipedia article describes the Orion service module as using the AJ-10 rocket engine.

The AJ-10 rocket engine uses a propellant combination of N204 and Aerozine 50 and produces about 9,800 pounds of thrust. [1]


But according to this NASA link [2] the Orion service module engine has 7,500 pounds of thrust and uses the propellant combination of N204 and monomethyl hydrazine (MMH), which is obviously not an AJ-10 rocket engine.

In fact I believe the Orion service module is planning to use a slight variation of the rocket engine which was used for the Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS).

Each OMS engine produces 6,000 pounds of thrust and the propellant used is a combination of N204 and MMH. [3]

Note how the data for the OMS engine of the Shuttle almost exactly matches the data for the Service Module engine of the Orion spacecraft.

I am pretty sure the news that the Orion was going to use a variation of the OMS engine was announced years ago, but I am still searching for that link.

98.176.52.187 (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Brad

Got it! A very up to date link from Aerojet [4]

There is no question, the Orion Main Engine (OME) is an uprated version of the Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System Engine (OMS-E).

98.176.52.187 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Brad

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJ-10
  2. ^ http://microgravity.grc.nasa.gov/Orion/ServiceModule/
  3. ^ http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/scom/218.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.aerojet.com/news2.php?action=fullnews&id=240

Makyen (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything above here is from Talk:Orion (Constellation program)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orion_(spacecraft)/Archive_1&oldid=1251907193"