steph
Well-known member
Damn, that thing is ugly. Buut, if it gets people on the moon, I won't care about the paintjob or lack thereof
I was wondering, what is it with that color?Damn, that thing is ugly. Buut, if it gets people on the moon, I won't care about the paintjob or lack thereof
I bet part of it is a reflection from the solar panels.I was wondering, what is it with that color?
It depends. Orion itself is a cool spacecraft IMHO. If you will it is actually the Apollo CM reloaded as a bigger 20th century version. But the rest looks strange once attached to the service module. Looks like 18+ content... I don't know who designed this but it just looks very wrong. But I agree, it returns humans to the Moon and that's just awesome. It certainly will be an awesome journey especially with todays multimedia technology. Can't wait to see it happen...Damn, that thing is ugly. Buut, if it gets people on the moon, I won't care about the paintjob or lack thereof
It's interesting in that they got the mandated STS tooling and infrastructure incorporated to make something that actually flies. The ICPS is a modified Delta second stage. The whole thing is one or two steps up from Junkyard Wars. Good looks were not a primary objective.It depends. Orion itself is a cool spacecraft IMHO. If you will it is actually the Apollo CM reloaded as a bigger 20th century version. But the rest looks strange once attached to the service module. Looks like 18+ content... I don't know who designed this but it just looks very wrong. But I agree, it returns humans to the Moon and that's just awesome. It certainly will be an awesome journey especially with todays multimedia technology. Can't wait to see it happen...
It's actually interesting how they combine the experiences and designs from Apollo and STS into Orion and the SLS.
I think it's quite common in the aerospace and aviation industries. If you fly with a 737 NG or MAX for example you're actually sitting in the fuselage (nose section) of a 707 designed in the 1950s. Skylab was made of remains from a Saturn V actually assigned to fly humans to the Moon while the design of the Shuttle's instrument panels was close to Apollo. Not to mention the human rated Titan rockets for Gemini. That business seems to be a craft room in general, looking on how to scrape the bottom of the barrel. And I guess it saves time and money too. They always use existing hardware and facilities.It's interesting in that they got the mandated STS tooling and infrastructure incorporated to make something that actually flies. The ICPS is a modified Delta second stage. The whole thing is one or two steps up from Junkyard Wars. Good looks were not a primary objective.
It's like the story of the pig that could sing opera - it's definitely not the best opera you ever heard but it's a miracle that it can sing at all.
There are always engineering constraints. The only question becomes how artificial they are to the solution of the problem.I think it's quite common in the aerospace and aviation industries. If you fly with a 737 NG or MAX for example you're actually sitting in the fuselage (nose section) of a 707 designed in the 1950s. Skylab was made of remains from a Saturn V actually assigned to fly humans to the Moon while the design of the Shuttle's instrument panels was close to Apollo. Not to mention the human rated Titan rockets for Gemini. That business seems to be a craft room in general, looking on how to scrape the bottom of the barrel. And I guess it saves time and money too. They always use existing hardware and facilities.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information but a lot of it is wildly incorrect and/or fantasy.In the Eighty's the " Ride Report" spelled out that NASA needs a defined goal . So we got the ISS. Project Constellation had a plan of a Moon base and permanent presence on the Moon. Artemis has a stated goal of the first woman and first person of color on the Moon. It is funded through Artemis 4 with plans for at least 10 flights in about fifteen years. This will be canceled soon after Artemis 3 if they can land a 12 story building in a rock pile. By 1 launch a year those who thought this up will be long gone along with billons and then what, maybe Space X will bale NASA out with Star Ship. Gateway will have the plug pulled pretty soon , its already being delayed out due to funding so can the Orion with this Service module get to a lunar orbit to dock with the Moonship lander and get home. I dont think the sm is up to the task, might need to use the 2 Apollo Sm's NASA still has. One at JSC and one at KSC. I see a lot of weak links in this plan but I think counting on the Moonship and this SM are showstoppers, never mind no new engine program after Artemis 4
Also, Aerojet Rocketdyne is under contract to produce the new expendable RS-25E engines for after Artemis 4. They are already cutting metal and testing engine components:In the Eighty's the " Ride Report" spelled out that NASA needs a defined goal . So we got the ISS. Project Constellation had a plan of a Moon base and permanent presence on the Moon. Artemis has a stated goal of the first woman and first person of color on the Moon. It is funded through Artemis 4 with plans for at least 10 flights in about fifteen years. This will be canceled soon after Artemis 3 if they can land a 12 story building in a rock pile. By 1 launch a year those who thought this up will be long gone along with billons and then what, maybe Space X will bale NASA out with Star Ship. Gateway will have the plug pulled pretty soon , its already being delayed out due to funding so can the Orion with this Service module get to a lunar orbit to dock with the Moonship lander and get home. I dont think the sm is up to the task, might need to use the 2 Apollo Sm's NASA still has. One at JSC and one at KSC. I see a lot of weak links in this plan but I think counting on the Moonship and this SM are showstoppers, never mind no new engine program after Artemis 4
I think you need to seek some reputable sources of information. This is tinfoil hat babble.Ok you say that this Orion can do the same LOI burn as was done in Apollo and do the TEI burn as well ? Even in Constellation the Altair lander was to do the LOI burn. for 40 years NASA had lost a flight ready CSM but was found rusting away in the hot TX sun at JSC . it was saved and restored as well as the Saturn 5. Your right no way they would ever use 60 year old flight hardware but I don't think this ESA SM carries enough fuel to fly the Apollo missions. THe Apollo guys figured out the no bucks no Buck Rodgers so the Saturn 5 carried all needed to land on the Moon. I went to work at JSC in 1978 and worked on the Skylab plan if it was to be saved by STS 3. Well it burned up but working with that Apollo//Skylab hardware was awesome.
The Artemis plan as of now call for Artemis 4 to carry Gateway parts but why fly it if it has no use , why spend all that money.
I hear the Space X Moonship will need 7 refueling flights per mission . What will that cost? I see them trying to land this 12 story building 2 times then we'll see if a new congress funds anything past that . I wished NASA had flown all the Apollo missions and then more advanced Apollo Moon missions but no funding. I retired not long ago from Space X in TX and the Lunar Dragon was stored 2 doors down . I am flying advanced Apollo missions with AMSO with new landing sites and will build a Moon base soon.
I know there is talk about taking a Dragon 2 with extra fuel and landing legs to land on the Moon, might be the way to go
If you look at the stack weights the Orion / ESM stack is lighter, mostly due to the fuel requirements and weight of the fuel cells in the Apollo CM/SM stack being replaced with solar cells and batteries.thanks for the chart between Orion and Apollo, how much fuel do they carry and how much thrust does the SPS have ? Are you willing to give NASA an open check book ? I like the idea of going back to the Moon but 6 launches to get Gateway up , what would that cost ? I think Moonship was picked because it does need the gateway with the other options seem to have to use it.