Orion Drop test

[Moonwalker]

...why were they destroyed? :huh::blink:
To prevent the Soviets from getting them?

They weren't destroyed. Most stuff actually still exists while some stuff found its way to living rooms and hobby rooms of some former NASA employees The other stuff is not publicly available on the web but spread over the NASA archieves. Anyway, the engineers and scientists who developed the Apollo systems and worked with it are either death already or retired. It's almost a half century.

NASA couldn't rebuild Apollo and they don't need to do so because it would not make any sense. But some old stuff is used once again partly for developing Orion (I guess for studying the drag and such things). The new system nevertheless has almost nothing to do with the Saturn LV's and Apollo spacecraft, beside the shape of Orion and the second stage engine. The interior, materials and technology of Orion is going to be totally different (no fuel cells for example).


-----Posted Added-----

I think you are just quick to apply the tag "unqualified" to all people who disagree with your fandom - as hard as it sounds: I think the promise of going to the moon is the only reason why massive cost and time overruns, already in the earliest phases of the program, are not putting it under critical review. Only few (and very qualified) people question the program - and many unqualified people celebrate the landings before the first metal is cut.

Well, at least I can't really see very qualified people criticizing NASA and Ares while offering any different serious and realistic solution to the problems "they" see on Ares. It's just a lot shoptalk with the dream of private and commercial space flight spread all over countries but which certainly would not bring us any close to the Moon and Mars within the next decades.

Also, I would be seriously interested to know who those very few qualified critics are.

And if Apollo 1 would get repeated, the program would not get saved by a NASA director playing scapegoat. Apollo did only not get cancelled because of two things:

• The program was still in good health during the time, Apollo 1 happened - cost overruns and time delays had been limited.
• The fear of the Russians being first had been an advantage for Apollo, to outweigh many problems.

Constellation has not the first and not the second point. The Chinese are still far away from landing on the moon and the constellation program is not yet on track.

Actually true. But remember that Challenger and Columbia did not cancel the STS program with the support of NASA and the congress to continue with the program (but it was discussed already after Challenger). Constellation would not stop too certainly. It would slow down I think. But the critics would explode, at least on the web almost anywere. And this place here would almost burst... :lol:

Remember: Constellation does not explain, how more than flags and footprints should be financed. For a permanent manned moon base, you need higher launch rates - and if you have expensive and hardly serializable hardware for that (Like Ares is), you will have exploding costs which will make it harder to fund the plans. Constellation does not address this problem at all.

I think that STS once also didn't explain how to finance Alpha/ISS Even Skylab had to be abandoned.

 

[Urwumpe]

Actually true. But remember that Challenger and Columbia did not cancel the STS program with the support of NASA and the congress to continue with the program (but it was discussed already after Challenger). Constellation would not stop too certainly. It would slow down I think. But the critics would explode, at least on the web almost anywere. And this place here would almost burst... :lol:

I think that STS once also didn't explain how to finance Alpha/ISS Even Skylab had to be abandoned.

Actually, that is not the whole truth.

Challenger happened during a phase of competition with the soviets, with the whole US spaceflight industry - and in some European countries...:dry: - being oriented towards the Shuttle. This did change afterwards, but the Shuttle remained the only option for a while and was thus saved by lack of options - but with the NLV/ALV program being pushed forward as alternative for the Shuttle - A system which has a striking similarity to DIRECT today.

Columbia ended the Shuttle program. Without Columbia, the Shuttle would have likely been flying deep into the 2020's - the fleet was still young and in good shape, and the demand for a replacement not strong enough to overcome NASA.

PS: And the ISS was actually made because Alpha/Freedom was too expensive for the real launch costs, and the russians could bring their experience to NASA.

 

[Moonwalker]

Challenger happened during a phase of competition with the soviets, with the whole US spaceflight industry - and in some European countries...:dry: - being oriented towards the Shuttle. This did change afterwards, but the Shuttle remained the only option for a while and was thus saved by lack of options - but with the NLV/ALV program being pushed forward as alternative for the Shuttle - A system which has a striking similarity to DIRECT today.

NASA determined to go forward with the support of the congress after Challenger. Of course there was no other option. But it's not that much different to today. Without Ares NASA also would have no other option really. They wouldn't just end the whole program after an accident. And continue with STS instead of Ares is not an option at all, for certain reasons.

Columbia ended the Shuttle program. Without Columbia, the Shuttle would have likely been flying deep into the 2020's - the fleet was still young and in good shape, and the demand for a replacement not strong enough to overcome NASA.

I think it is unlikely that the shuttle would have been flying deep into the 2020's but until the 2010th. Although no Shuttle has flown 100 flights it is designed for, it wouldn't have been flying for almost 5 decades I think. Not flying 100 times doesn't mean no aging. At least the tiles of my old basement look much better than the whole surface of the Shuttles meanwhile :lol: No, seriously, the Shuttle has its age which is not a secret.

PS: And the ISS was actually made because Alpha/Freedom was too expensive for the real launch costs, and the russians could bring their experience to NASA.

So you see how more than footprints and flags could be financed. With the difference that this time Russia might learn something from the USA

 

[eveningsky339]

Frankly, I think NASA is trying to re-live Apollo. And honestly, much of the "technology" in use, such as the old-fashioned capsule design and the use of expendable propellants, is cutting edge... 40 years ago.

NASA has literally hundreds of feasible proposals for a panorama of projects. Mars missions, air-breathing launchers, you name it. The problem lies in that horrible B word, bureaucacy.

 

[Moonwalker]

Frankly, I think NASA is trying to re-live Apollo. And honestly, much of the "technology" in use, such as the old-fashioned capsule design and the use of expendable propellants, is cutting edge... 40 years ago.

Beside the second stage engine, Ares has nothing to do with the Saturn familiy (sadly). And beside the exterior shape of Orion, it has almost nothing to do with the Apollo Command Module (sadly too).

I'm still interested in a clear conception of an Ares and Orion competitor, which is cheaper and which can be used to fly to the ISS, to the Moon and Mars as well...

NASA has literally hundreds of feasible proposals for a panorama of projects. Mars missions, air-breathing launchers, you name it. The problem lies in that horrible B word, bureaucacy.

I think that those misterious hundreds cutting-edge technologies are not really usable or even invented yet. Honestly, I don't even know what people mean all along by cutting-edge technology. Warp drive? Beaming capsules into LEO?

 

[JamesG]

They weren't destroyed. Most stuff actually still exists while some stuff found its way to living rooms and hobby rooms of some former NASA employees...

Nope. Sorry alot of the literal blueprints and on the fly revisions that were done to the Apollo project hardware are gone. Those were hectic days where they didn't always document everything.

If you wanted to recreate a Saturn V, you would literally have to disassemble the rocket laid out in Florida and reverse engineer it and all the supporting hardware.

 

[Andy44]

Of course they documented everything! You don't do engineering on that scale without documenting EVERY thing. NASA is terrible at archiving stuff, as the lost moon tapes show us, but the documents are there somewhere.

 

[Kyle]

I know how NASA feel's, it happened to me on orbiter 10 minutes ago. I crashed and killed the CTV's crew. Dang Parachute.

 

[Moonwalker]

NASA is terrible at archiving stuff, as the lost moon tapes show us, but the documents are there somewhere.

It's tapes of the Apollo 11 mission which can't be found, not all tapes like some people wrongly believe. Not to find tapes which were spread on archives almost 4 decades ago doesn't mean that they are lost. Same for blueprints and other documents by the way. It also doesn't mean that NASA is terrible at archiving stuff. That's the usual nonsense written by a few clueless journalists and moon hoax conspirators partly too.

 

[Urwumpe]

Moonwalker: NASA has a big problem with finding old material, as they have no central archive policy. Each laboratory, each institute has it's own archive, even major projects have their own, with different policies. It is still impossible to make a central search of material, with with tools like NIX or NTRS - because it requires still a lot of work to catalog the many archives.

The Apollo AGC for example is not so well known because of NASAs archives - the MIT has it's own archive which is really well tended and this had a large collection of the MIT involvement in Apollo.

That is no "usual nonsense by a few clueless journalists" as you claim - it is a fact. And a well known problem inside NASA, as you can see by the many small attempts to overcome it. It just has not the required priority inside NASA to also catalog older material as well.

Again, knowing a bit of the topic before bashing people for their opinion, might be better... And like at home: A file, which you can not locate anymore, is lost. Even if it still exists. Somewhere.

 

[Moonwalker]

Well, NASA seems to have problems with almost everything these days, not only Constellation, when listening to people outside NASA who probably never even been there as a simple visitor in some cases. To assume and to allege things is easy to do, especially when knowlegde comes from lectures, books, pictures and web sources only. At the end, real NASA employees know it at best I think. But I can't find any serious source which implies that NASA has bad archives all along only because tapes of one Apollo mission are missing.

 

[Urwumpe]

Are you a NASA employee?

 

[Moonwalker]

Are you a NASA employee?

Of course not, you should know

But I never implied that NASA has bad archives because a very few hours of magnetic moonwalk tapes are missing. All I see is badmouthing when it comes from one topic (Constellation) to another one (archives).

 

[Urwumpe]

Of course not, you should know

But I never implied that NASA has bad archives because a very few hours of magnetic moonwalk tapes are missing. All I see is badmouthing when it comes from one topic (Constellation) to another one (archives).

No, but you implied that all information about NASA, which is not from first hand NASA sources, is automatically bad and not true. And that you can't find any first hand NASA source (which is sure not a sign that you had been searching very actively, nasaspaceflight.com has quite a lot of insiders mentioning exactly these conditions.)

As you are sure no NASA employee, and very likely not active inside any bigger spaceflight agency, I doubt that you have any right to attack my argument by questioning the person. Only because your own argument against people, is also applying to you.

And it is not a sign of a bad archive if a few tapes are missing. It is a sign of a bad archive, when nobody knows what happened to them. Even a remark "Thrown into the trash bin" would be more understandable as the statement "It must be in some boxes somewhere in a NASA location or at home at a former employee".

 

[tl8]

Whoa Guys, Cool it down please

 

[Moonwalker]

Well, I just realize that the gossip factory, the allegations (not point of views) against NASA is about 99,9% from persons who haven't anything to do with NASA really. But never mind.

 

[JamesG]

What does that have to do with anything? Would I have more credibility in your mind if I were a NASA employee? Even if I were the janitor?

 

[Andy44]

Not to find tapes which were spread on archives almost 4 decades ago doesn't mean that they are lost.

Sure sounds like "lost" to me. I call my car keys lost if I can't locate them in 5 minutes. I think 4 decades is a bit much.