| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space - Shuttle Forum » Future of Orion??
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Danny Deger |
 Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
What is your opinion of the future of Orion -- especially in light of the
recent budget downfalls?
My opinion is Orion will fly only because the Russians and the Chinese both
have a manned program. If it wasn't for this, we would stop ours.
But then I might be wrong. I thought the need of the Navy for a new carrier
based "bomber" -- especially a stealth one -- was so great they would never
cancel the A-12 in the early 90's. I was wrong. The program was so messed
up, they did cancel it. This might just happen to Orion.
Danny Deger |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider) |
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Danny Deger" <dannydeger@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45ee0c7f$0$4853$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Quote: What is your opinion of the future of Orion -- especially in light of the
recent budget downfalls?
My opinion is Orion will fly only because the Russians and the Chinese
both have a manned program. If it wasn't for this, we would stop ours.
But then I might be wrong. I thought the need of the Navy for a new
carrier based "bomber" -- especially a stealth one -- was so great they
would never cancel the A-12 in the early 90's. I was wrong. The program
was so messed up, they did cancel it. This might just happen to Orion.
Danny Deger
I thikn Orion/CEV/CLV etc is a bad mistake. But unfortunately probably
can't be undone. We're rapidly approaching (and probably in some cases have
passed) the point where we could continue shutle flights much beyond 2010.
(Maybe we can get a couple extra tanks, but I think even that capability is
fast fading. And that's really a long pole in the tent).
I think there's enough push for "We want a US presence in space" that we'll
fly Orion, even if it costs more than the shuttle and does less.
I'd prefer we continued the shuttle program and used post 2010 flights to do
some sort of lunar programs (there are plans out there) while looking to
move to a pure commercial solution for most taxi flights.
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ed kyle |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 6, 6:51 pm, "Danny Deger" <dannyde...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote: What is your opinion of the future of Orion -- especially in light of the
recent budget downfalls?
I think that like shuttle it will be delayed by a year, or two, or
three.
It will come in over budget too. That is a given. There will
probably
be a hint of scandal at some point in the program, accompanied by
a Congressional hearing and a reshuffling of program managers.
But it will fly. When it does, I think that it has a very good
chance
of proving to be the safest human launch system ever fielded.
- Ed Kyle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jorge R. Frank |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"ed kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1173240759.534853.186140@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Quote: But it will fly. When it does, I think that it has a very good
chance
of proving to be the safest human launch system ever fielded.
I think Orion's chances of flying over fifty flights in its entire
operational lifetime are low, but assuming it does, its chances of getting
through its first 58 flights without a fatal accident (which is what it
will need just to match the shuttle's safety record, currently the best of
any manned spacecraft) are even lower.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ed kyle |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 6, 10:24 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfr...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
Quote: "ed kyle" <edkyl...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1173240759.534853.186140@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
But it will fly. When it does, I think that it has a very good
chance
of proving to be the safest human launch system ever fielded.
I think Orion's chances of flying over fifty flights in its entire
operational lifetime are low, but assuming it does, its chances of getting
through its first 58 flights without a fatal accident (which is what it
will need just to match the shuttle's safety record, currently the best of
any manned spacecraft) are even lower.
What makes you think that?
- Ed Kyle |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Brian Gaff |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Well, politics gets into the way of most stuff these days, so who knows what
will happen if the Democrats get into the Whitehouse. Its very odd at the
moment, a Bush is going all out to control science by making key
appointments under the President's wing, but is at the same time championing
the manned space flight to other planets.
I suspect this is nothing to do with science, its all to do with diversion
tactics, so if you find a way to get out of foreign wars while saving face,
some other imperative will be used at nasa to do stuff, as they won't need a
diversion.
I happen to think that culturally, and at what is really a tiny cost per
person, sending people off planet will be good for us, but its precisely
because you cannot explain what benefits it brings that we need to do it.
We are an inquisitive race, and sooner or later it has to happen, why not
now?
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Danny Deger" <dannydeger@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45ee0c7f$0$4853$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Quote: What is your opinion of the future of Orion -- especially in light of the
recent budget downfalls?
My opinion is Orion will fly only because the Russians and the Chinese
both have a manned program. If it wasn't for this, we would stop ours.
But then I might be wrong. I thought the need of the Navy for a new
carrier based "bomber" -- especially a stealth one -- was so great they
would never cancel the A-12 in the early 90's. I was wrong. The program
was so messed up, they did cancel it. This might just happen to Orion.
Danny Deger
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| André, PE1PQX |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jorge R. Frank formuleerde op woensdag :
Quote: "ed kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1173240759.534853.186140@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
But it will fly. When it does, I think that it has a very good
chance
of proving to be the safest human launch system ever fielded.
I think Orion's chances of flying over fifty flights in its entire
operational lifetime are low, but assuming it does, its chances of getting
through its first 58 flights without a fatal accident (which is what it
will need just to match the shuttle's safety record, currently the best of
any manned spacecraft) are even lower.
If you are talking about US manned-launches only, your'e probably
right, but if you are talking in general: take a look at the Soyuz
launch record.
I mean the Soyuz is an very old design (I know it had some upgrades
etc.) but by my knowledge, it had only 2 or 3 fatalities since the last
part of the 1960's.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz.html
André |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider) |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"André, PE1PQX" <pe1pqx_geenviagra@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:mn.3aab7d73c8e3df37.58901@planet.nl...
Quote: Jorge R. Frank formuleerde op woensdag :
"ed kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1173240759.534853.186140@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
But it will fly. When it does, I think that it has a very good
chance
of proving to be the safest human launch system ever fielded.
I think Orion's chances of flying over fifty flights in its entire
operational lifetime are low, but assuming it does, its chances of
getting through its first 58 flights without a fatal accident (which is
what it will need just to match the shuttle's safety record, currently
the best of any manned spacecraft) are even lower.
If you are talking about US manned-launches only, your'e probably right,
but if you are talking in general: take a look at the Soyuz launch record.
I mean the Soyuz is an very old design (I know it had some upgrades etc.)
but by my knowledge, it had only 2 or 3 fatalities since the last part of
the 1960's.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz.html
Yes, but look at how many flights it has had since its last fatal failure.
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| André, PE1PQX |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Na rijp beraad schreef Greg D. Moore (Strider) :
Quote: "André, PE1PQX" <pe1pqx_geenviagra@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:mn.3aab7d73c8e3df37.58901@planet.nl...
Jorge R. Frank formuleerde op woensdag :
"ed kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1173240759.534853.186140@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
I think Orion's chances of flying over fifty flights in its entire
operational lifetime are low, but assuming it does, its chances of getting
through its first 58 flights without a fatal accident (which is what it
will need just to match the shuttle's safety record, currently the best of
any manned spacecraft) are even lower.
If you are talking about US manned-launches only, your'e probably right,
but if you are talking in general: take a look at the Soyuz launch record.
I mean the Soyuz is an very old design (I know it had some upgrades etc.)
but by my knowledge, it had only 2 or 3 fatalities since the last part of
the 1960's.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz.html
Yes, but look at how many flights it has had since its last fatal failure.
André
That's my point also.... those fatalities were many years ago.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Danny Deger |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Danny Deger" <dannydeger@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45ee0c7f$0$4853$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Quote: What is your opinion of the future of Orion -- especially in light of the
recent budget downfalls?
My opinion is Orion will fly only because the Russians and the Chinese
both have a manned program. If it wasn't for this, we would stop ours.
I have another question. Is Orion to the moon a good "practice" mission for
a trip to Mars? My thoughts are it could be if NASA designed it to be, but
adding features to the moon mission that will make it a good practice for
Mars cost money and time, so NASA will not do these things. For example,
reuse air and water would be good practice for Mars. NASA probably want do
these things for a moon mission.
I think we will spend some money on attempting a moon mission, i.e. do some
design and planning -- then cancel the moon mission due to costs. But, I
don't think we will do much of anything towards a Mars mission.
Danny Deger
Quote:
But then I might be wrong. I thought the need of the Navy for a new
carrier based "bomber" -- especially a stealth one -- was so great they
would never cancel the A-12 in the early 90's. I was wrong. The program
was so messed up, they did cancel it. This might just happen to Orion.
Danny Deger
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Herb Schaltegger |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 05:54:42 -0600, André, PE1PQX wrote
(in article <mn.3b067d73b3aba6e4.58901@planet.nl>):
Quote: Na rijp beraad schreef Greg D. Moore (Strider) :
"André, PE1PQX" <pe1pqx_geenviagra@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:mn.3aab7d73c8e3df37.58901@planet.nl...
Jorge R. Frank formuleerde op woensdag :
"ed kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1173240759.534853.186140@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
I think Orion's chances of flying over fifty flights in its entire
operational lifetime are low, but assuming it does, its chances of
getting
through its first 58 flights without a fatal accident (which is what it
will need just to match the shuttle's safety record, currently the best
of
any manned spacecraft) are even lower.
If you are talking about US manned-launches only, your'e probably right,
but if you are talking in general: take a look at the Soyuz launch record.
I mean the Soyuz is an very old design (I know it had some upgrades etc.)
but by my knowledge, it had only 2 or 3 fatalities since the last part of
the 1960's.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz.html
Yes, but look at how many flights it has had since its last fatal failure.
André
That's my point also.... those fatalities were many years ago....
No, that's not your point. The actual point was that Soyuz's flight rate is
so low compared to the shuttle's that you can't make a meaningful statistical
comparison.
Soyuz has also had several very serious near-misses that easily could have
resulted in fatalities except for basically dumb luck.
--
You can run on for a long time,
Sooner or later, God'll cut you down.
~Johnny Cash |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jorge R. Frank |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9,_PE1PQX?= <pe1pqx_geenviagra@planet.nl> wrote in
news:mn.3aab7d73c8e3df37.58901@planet.nl:
Quote: Jorge R. Frank formuleerde op woensdag :
"ed kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1173240759.534853.186140@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
But it will fly. When it does, I think that it has a very good
chance
of proving to be the safest human launch system ever fielded.
I think Orion's chances of flying over fifty flights in its entire
operational lifetime are low, but assuming it does, its chances of
getting through its first 58 flights without a fatal accident (which
is what it will need just to match the shuttle's safety record,
currently the best of any manned spacecraft) are even lower.
If you are talking about US manned-launches only, your'e probably
right, but if you are talking in general: take a look at the Soyuz
launch record.
I did.
Quote: I mean the Soyuz is an very old design (I know it had some upgrades
etc.) but by my knowledge, it had only 2 or 3 fatalities since the
last part of the 1960's.
Years aren't relevant, flights are.
Soyuz has two fatal accidents in 95 flights (1 in 47.5) and four fatalities
in 228[*] person-trips (1 in 57). Soyuz has had 85 safe landings since the
last fatal accident.
The space shuttle has had two fatal accidents in 117 flights (1 in 58.5)
and fourteen fatalities in 698 person-trips (1 in 49.9). It had 87 safe
landings between the 51L and 107 accidents.
Within the wide statistical uncertainty imposed by the small sample sizes,
those numbers are essentially identical - they're all "one in fifty", give
or take. (The other statistician's rule-of-thumb comes into play as well:
if a single accident for either vehicle is enough to change the rankings,
it's a tie.) I worded my statement as I did partly to be needlessly
provocative and partly because "tied for first" is still equivalent to "has
best record."
[*] - this is the only number I'm not certain of - it may be 225 but I
don't have my spreadsheet handy.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jorge R. Frank |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"ed kyle" <edkyle99@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1173244154.705840.40180@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com:
Quote: On Mar 6, 10:24 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfr...@ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
"ed kyle" <edkyl...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1173240759.534853.186140@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
But it will fly. When it does, I think that it has a very good
chance
of proving to be the safest human launch system ever fielded.
I think Orion's chances of flying over fifty flights in its entire
operational lifetime are low, but assuming it does, its chances of
getting through its first 58 flights without a fatal accident (which
is what it will need just to match the shuttle's safety record,
currently the best of any manned spacecraft) are even lower.
What makes you think that?
Several reasons. I've been thinking about it overnight to try to rank
them and right now this is the best I have:
1) Human error is the cause of 80% of aviation accidents and this pattern
is continuing in spaceflight. Out of five fatal accidents (Apollo 1,
Soyuz 1 and 11, STS-51L and 107), human error was a primary cause of all
but Soyuz 11. Compared to this cause, all other causes are secondary (and
therefore, all the safety features designed into spacecraft are likewise
secondary). It's just that in spaceflight, much more of the
responsibility falls on those on the ground rather than the flight crew:
in the four spacecraft accidents caused by human error, the error was the
decision to proceed with a launch or ground test despite indications of
an unsafe condition. There is no reason to believe that Orion will be
immune to this.
2) All spacecraft have design flaws; unlike aviation, we have not gone
through enough design generations to weed them out. The staleness of the
current US experience base due to the long gap between design generations
increases the likelihood of a flaw in Orion. And Orion already has one
obvious flaw, common to all current and historical capsules: the
necessity of jettisoning critical parts of the spacecraft during the
window between deorbit and entry interface. This design flaw was a
contributing cause to the Soyuz 11 mishap and the primary cause of two
close calls (Soyuz 5 and TM-5). It just doesn't get widely recognized as
a flaw per se because it hasn't killed an American (yet).
3) Orion's projected flight rate is so low that I believe reusability
will prove to be non-viable. That means a big hit to component
reliability since Orion's systems will never get out of the "infant
mortality" part of the "bathtub curve."
There are other reasons but after ranking them, I think the above three
capture the "first-order" effects and a good bit of the second-order.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider) |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"André, PE1PQX" <pe1pqx_geenviagra@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:mn.3b067d73b3aba6e4.58901@planet.nl...
Quote: Na rijp beraad schreef Greg D. Moore (Strider) :
"André, PE1PQX" <pe1pqx_geenviagra@planet.nl> wrote in message
That's my point also.... those fatalities were many years ago....
That's what NASA said right before Columbia.
And to make matters worse, I think you could probably argue that there was
more in common between STS-1 and STS-107 in terms of hardware and flight
experience than Soyuz-11 and today's Soyuz-TMA craft.
So really there's far less experience with the current Soyuz craft. (and
look at the number of failures the Soyuz-TMA has had, including a grossly
off-course landing.)
--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jochem Huhmann |
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> writes:
Quote: So really there's far less experience with the current Soyuz craft. (and
look at the number of failures the Soyuz-TMA has had, including a grossly
off-course landing.)
One thing to consider is the fact that Soyuz (the launcher) has quite an
impressive number of launches. It also had quite an impressive number of
launch failures, though. But the number could be large enough to look at
the individual failure details and to analyse if they would've been
survivable if there had been a manned craft on top of it.
Because one major difference between Soyuz and STS is the fact that a
launch failure with STS almost surely means loss of the crew, while this
is not neccessarily the case with Soyuz.
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:24 pm
|
|