9 ms·
How does this compare to what SpaceX is doing? Does it make sense for NASA to be doing this in parallel with Dragon?
by JeffL 12y ago
How does this compare to what SpaceX is doing? Does it make sense for NASA to be doing this in parallel with Dragon?
- trhway 12y ago>Does it make sense for NASA to be doing this in parallel with Dragon? it is called competition - a best known way to get 2 of something at the total cost of 2X when otherwise it would be only 1 inferior version of that something at the cost of 10X
- mmanfrin 12y agoSpaceX is building a shuttle to get people to orbit and back -- Orion is meant to get people to Mars. I think the scale is different.
- shmerl 12y agoAren't SpaceX also working on the Mars mission long term? How are they addressing the interplanetary flight?
- guardian5x 12y agoMaybe in the very longterm. SpaceX is at the moment in orbit where NASA was in the 60s. Going to the moon is a much greater distance than most people imagine. Not even speaking of Mars.
- DavidSJ 12y ago> SpaceX is at the moment in orbit Not for long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory
- sriram_sun 12y agoTrue. NASA is now where NASA would have been in the 70s or 80s if the initial momentum of going to the moon was maintained.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- TkTech 12y agoAll of the planets in our solar system, including the gas giants, fit between the earth and the moon with a little bit of room to spare. http://i.imgur.com/CLqdeKf.jpg http://i.imgur.com/CLqdeKf.jpg People severely underestimate the distance to the moon!
- Lambdanaut 12y agoFor some more perspective. The layman should know that actually getting into Low Earth Orbit is BY FAR the most fuel-consuming burn of any rocket mission. Even on a mission to Mars, the most predominantly fuel-consuming burn will be to LEO. Getting to the moon from LEO takes less than half the delta-v that it takes to get to LEO, and WAY less fuel (because by this time you've dropped so much weight getting to LEO) So the real problem will always be the stupidly inefficient method by which we conduct space flight. We send all of our supplies out of an enormous gravity well with a thick atmosphere. Imagine what we could build if we already had everything in space for us already. The only way we'll be able to become truly space-fairing is if we either become an astroid-mining civilization, or if we build something that lets us virtually ignore Earth's gravity well, like a space elevator.
- CodeGenie 12y agoI ask you this question because you seem to know what you're talking about, whereas I simply don't. Watching the launch today, I couldn't help wonder why they don't use standard jets to get the vehicle to a height where a rocket could take over. The highest a jet has flown is about 37km and LEO is considered to start at about 160km. That 37km though in my mind would be the toughest and most fuel costly to ascend. Would it not save both weight and money to use jets and fixed wings up through the low altitudes before turning to rockets for the higher altitude ascent?
- drgath 12y agoThat's pretty much the approach of Virgin Galactic. Reasons why it works for them, but not for NASA would have to be explained by someone more qualified. I do know that VG barely gets into LEO, whereas NASA's requirements are much higher. In any case, I presume the scientists at NASA (and SpaceX & co) have considered just about every alternative, and the current approach still remains the most efficient for their needs.
- iamcreasy 12y agoNot really. Planetary Robotics Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University is building a lunar rover named Andy and they have already purchased a launch slot from SpaceX to send their rover to the moon. The projected launch date is October 2015. This team are also competiting for Google Lunar X Prize.
- melling 12y agoHow much of NASA's $20 billion budget is spent on spent flight? It's budget is quite small. Apple made $100 billion in fiscal 2014. Now can you imagine what a SpaceX with that kind of revenue could do? A self-sustaining business model is the better way to develop space technologies.
- ceejayoz 12y ago> A self-sustaining business model is the better way to develop space technologies. It's a good way to improve space technologies. SpaceX builds on a lot of the research and development NASA did with taxpayer dollars, just as Apple benefited from government subsidy and investment in things like early computers and the Internet.
- valarauca1 12y agoI strongly disagree. While for profit sounds great, and does work amazingly well at a large number of US, EU, and multi-national corporations. It also doesn't. Complex scientific programs can have developmental studies measured in decades. Which even very healthy multi-nations can't stomach. Selling a 50+ year ROI R&D program is really hard, and will likely get you laughed out of the boardroom. But this is ultimately something that happens in academia. Due to largely public funding. Because as an charitable entity profit doesn't necessarily interfere with development and/or research of new ideas. Your goal is literally to piss away money experimenting on things. While business and innovation to go hand in hand very happily. Business by definition don't transcend profitability. It is their goal. So while they do join hands for the short term, this is a short fling, not a life long love affair. :.:.: Also SpaceX does seem impressive. But everything they've currently done was done in the 1960's, without modern computing, or even integrated circuits. I like SpaceX but they are literally riding NASA's coat tails. A structural analysis of a rocket engine can be done in a CAD simulation. Instead of by 5 guys with slide rules, and an IBM batch processing computer barely performing 100 KFLOPS.
- trhway 12y ago>But everything they've currently done was done in the 1960's, without modern computing, or even integrated circuits. I like SpaceX but they are literally riding NASA's coat tails. has been for now. Significant differences though start to appear - 1. their rockets are modular from the start (even Russia has trouble to get similar system - Angara - off the ground) 2. GrassHoper - self-explanatory 3. "Raptor" full flow staged combustion engine - once they get that one, they will become way ahead of any previous development.
- smackfu 12y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter
- shmerl 12y agoThanks. SapceX never made it a secret that their whole goal is flying to other planets. So the claim above about different scale sounded quite off.
- mikeash 12y agoI think it's worth noting that the working name for the rocket to launch this thing is the BFR. It stands for Big Rocket, and I'll let you figure out what the F stands for.
- ChuckMcM 12y agoActually SpaceX is also building a system to get people to Mars and back. It is focused on the current money making opportunities however. I've not heard whether or not SpaceX has done the on-pad abort test they were planning for last month.
- yock 12y agoThere hasn't been any official word, as far as I know, but the rumor has been that the pad abort originally intended for November might happen in January sometime.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- cdash 12y agoThis is not really true either. Orion can in no way shape or form get anyone to Mars. Maybe a modified Orion will be used as part of a plan to take humans to Mars but it is not capable of that on its own.
- mmanfrin 12y ago"Orion, which could one day take astronauts to Mars..." [1] "NASA just tested Orion — a spacecraft that might someday carry people to Mars" [2] "NASA and its commercial partners are designing Orion to take astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid in the 2020s, and to Mars and its moons in the 2030s" [3] "Orion will facilitate human exploration of the Moon, asteroids, and Mars." [4] "This time, the rocket was unnamed, but the craft is designed eventually to carry humans to Mars" [5] [1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/05/368652770/a-succesful-launch-for-nasas-orion-spacecraft http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/12/05/368652770/a-s... [2] http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7322909/orion-test-flight http://www.vox.com/2014/12/3/7322909/orion-test-flight [3] http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/splashdown-orion-spaceship-aces-first-flight-test-n262146 http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/splashdown-orion-spaces... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29 [5] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/05/nasa-launches-orion-spacecraft-in-boost-for-mars-mission http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/05/nasa-launches...
- danielweber 12y agoYou are repeating news sources that are repeating press releases. The Orion has less than 214 square feet of room. This isn't enough for 4 people to live in for 6 months. NASA says it's for Mars because it gets people excited. But Congress has not instructed them to do a mission to Mars, and Congress is in charge, for better or for worse. There is no mission to Mars.
- ceejayoz 12y agoI would expect a Mars mission to be coupled to a living space during transit. Bigelow's inflatable modules might be a good fit, and they're testing one soon on the ISS.
- InclinedPlane 12y agoSpaceX is also working on a vehicle to transport humans and cargo (at incredible scale) to Mars routinely using reusable vehicles. And to be 100% clear, Orion is not capable of making the journey to Mars. Orion is envisioned as potentially being a key component of a larger system that could be used for Mars exploration, but by itself it is perhaps only maybe 10-20% or so of what would be needed for such a trip.
- kevin_thibedeau 12y agoAny practical Mars mission is going to require a staging area in LEO or a Lagrange point to assemble a larger interplanetary craft. Dragon will be up to that task.
- smackfu 12y agoProbably not, but NASA paid for the development of Dragon as part of the Commercial Resupply Services program.
- efuquen 12y agoThe two spacecraft are meant to do two completely different things. Orion was designed for deep space exploration, Dragon is not.
- jwcooper 12y agoSort of. According to Wikipedia the plans are for the Dragon to be modified into the "Red Dragon" for future mars missions. "Red Dragon is a modified SpaceX Dragon capsule for low-cost Mars lander missions using Falcon Heavy rockets. Plans call for a sample return rover to be delivered to the Martian surface while also testing techniques to enter the Martian atmosphere with equipment a human crew could eventually use." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dragon_(spacecraft) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dragon_(spacecraft)
- chrisMn 12y agoNote, for all you "SpaceX and NASA are competitors" people, that the Red Dragon design study was something that NASA paid for.[1] SpaceX and NASA are are on the same side in reality. Only in magical internet flamewarland, carried out by people who don't do any of this for a living, are they in opposition. [1]: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013431.pdf http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/2012001...
- smacktoward 12y agoSky & Telescope editor Kelly Beatty drew a pretty strong distinction between the two in an interview on the public radio show Here & Now a couple days back (http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/12/03/nasa-orion-mars http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/12/03/nasa-orion-mars): INTERVIEWER JEREMY HOBSON: Do you think it's possible that the private sector beats NASA in getting to Mars? BEATTY: Not with people.
- catfish 12y agoBEATTY is wrong of course. SpaceX entire premise is the mission to Mars. By the time Orion ferries its first astronaut to space, SpaceX will be the low cost operator to the ISS. Orion uses a parachute to land, Red Dragon will use Super Draco based thrusters to land. Nasa throws away the tanks used to get Orion to Space, SpaceX will land the tanks and reuse them to lower overall mission cost. Nasa spent 60 billion dollars to get this far, won't be ready to test its new SLS system for 3-5 years, won't fly a human for 10+ years. SpaceX will fly astronauts to space by 2017. SpaceX spent 3 billion getting this far and resupplies the ISS. Multiple times. Beatty is short sighted and underestimates Elon Musk.
- ghayes 12y agoI hope you're right about the future, but I wouldn't be so confident in what hasn't yet happened. Alternatively, SpaceX hasn't launched people into space; NASA has. SpaceX hasn't launched a space station; NASA (and others) have. NASA has larger budgets, but they solve that problem by having larger budgets.
- danielweber 12y agoNASA doesn't have any hardware to put people into space, either. The Orion is them trying to get back into that business, which is just what SpaceX is trying to get into.
- jkimmel 12y agoI'm bullish on SpaceX when it comes to launch systems and vehicles, but to the best of my knowledge they haven't demonstrated any expertise in Life Support Systems. The hardest part about getting to Mars isn't flinging a metal tube off the Earth. That part we know how to do. The hard part is keeping people alive for 6 months there, 6 months back, and providing all the equipment necessary to do meaningful science on the surface. This isn't to say that an adequate launch system isn't essential to the mission, but I would be very surprised if SpaceX developed life support systems independently and more efficiently than NASA. More likely, I can imagine a news headline in which a SpaceX rocket sends a NASA capsule and living module to an off-world mission.
- InclinedPlane 12y agoIn my opinion, Orion is pretty much worthless, although that's a strong opinion. Realistically it is at the very least a hugely flawed program. Orion has no mission yet, it's really just a component of a larger system, but that larger system hasn't been designed or funded. Worse, Orion has several design flaws that limit its usefulness. For example, it's designed with an old-fashioned tractor abort system, a huge solid fueled rocket that will be attached to the capsule during launches. However, in most realistic scenarios the crew for a mission that would use Orion would not actually be launched from Earth on Orion, rendering that feature nearly useless. Except that it's a feature that takes away literal tons of useful hardware from the spacecraft since it is a heavy (7.5 tonnes) component that steals payload mass from the rest of the vehicle. That sort of issue is endemic to the entire Orion project, and even worse for SLS. It's a hugely expensive hypothetically useful system designed around hypothetical constraints for missions that haven't even been designed, let alone funded, yet. Realistically it'll probably end up not being useful for whatever mission architectures we end up with for future manned interplanetary missions, and more flexible designs or newer systems are, I suspect, far more likely to be useful and practical when that time comes. Orion is particularly interesting since it's sort of the cornerstone of a potential manned Mars mission. But when you compare it against competing designs such as SpaceX's "MCT" architecture there is about 1-2 orders of magnitude greater cost, significantly greater complexity, and yet less capability. At this point there is a very high likelihood that no human crew will ever end up in an Orion spacecraft, and the more likely outcome is that the project will be abandoned prior to anything interesting happening with it.
- danielweber 12y ago[ ] has no mission yet, it's really just a component of a larger system, but that larger system hasn't been designed or funded Fill in the blank and you've described a good fraction of NASA's technology over the past 20 years.
- 32faction 12y agoSpaceX as of right now only has medium class rockets which is aimed at space station resupply. The Space Launch System that Boeing uses to carry the Orion is a heavy lift class. The difference is in carrying capacity. Think star destroyer and super star destroyer.