NASA sets Orion 13 for Moon Return

[edkyle98]

NOAA-13 suffered an unhappy fate. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[JonClarke]

But Progress 13, Progress M13, Transit 13 and Luna 13 did not.<br /><br />If you want to have logic to your superstitions then low numbers are far more unlucky than 13. Apollo 1, Soyuz 1, Ranger 1, Discover 1, Mariner 1, Zond 1, Venera 1, Mars 1 are just off the cuff examples. <br /><br />So why don't we retire the number one? because there is no logic or rationality to it. That is why it's a superstition and should be resisted.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[trailrider]

"Engine Room! I need everything ready to go in an hour!"<br /><br />"Ah, cannah do it in an hour, Captain! Two hours minimum!"<br /><br />(1/2 hour later "Engineer to the Captain! She's ready to go, Captain!"<br /><br />"Warp 9, Mr. Sulu!" <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

 

[erioladastra]

"However, the current station crew is Expedition 13."<br /><br />I am glad you pointed out that it is totally not true that NASA avoids 13 - but the current crew is Exp 14! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[Leovinus]

Ok, they did a crew change while my back was turned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

I can't remember the name of the episode, but it's the TNG ep. where they find Scotty in the patern buffer on the ship that crashed into the Dyson's sphere. My favorite line is where Scotty tells Geordi not to tell the captain the real time it will take to do something so that way when he pulls it off in half the time it seems like he's performing a miracle <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[cello]

"I see this Orion schedule about as credible as the Space Shuttle schedule in 1977. (50 launches a year etc....landing to launch process 30 days.....etc.)"<br /><br />i don't really know, is schedule tight or not. but i wouldn't compare it to shuttle program. apollo. was it much behind schedule? no. well, with virtually unlimited budget, yes, but anyway. you probably more than anyone here know about reasons, why shuttle program failed to meet original goals. personally i have a feeling that those wasn't only complicated technical issues, but also management. isn't in early 80ties program supervised by people which were more aware about shuttle technology, demands and capabilities? rather today they are just damn good managers. does shuttle program had chance to live different life? 13 years for putting orion on the moon sounds realistic to me. taking into account gathered experience, and that technology is expected to be "simpler" than shuttle, and already "developed" instead of apollo. well, almost <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />the moon... is so close.

 

[barrykirk]

Personally, I have no problem with the number itself.<br /><br />When the time comes to launch, the media will spend more time discussing the unlucky 13 than the mission itself. What a distraction.<br /><br />More people will know that Orion 13 is launching than will know what the destination or mission is.

 

[Leovinus]

If anybody here thinks that NASA will keep to that schedule when the ship is still in the head-scratching stage, they're dreaming. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I see this Orion schedule about as credible as the Space Shuttle schedule in 1977. (50 launches a year etc....landing to launch process 30 days.....etc.)</font>/i><br /><br />That seems like a strange comment. One of the primary complaints made about this effort is how conservative it is in both technology and timeline. There is very little new technology being developed (much of it is modifications/upgrades of existing hardware), and even after the Shuttle is retired (i.e., you mark that as the real beginning of the project), the timeline is <i>still</i> longer than it took to get to the Moon the first time 50 years earlier.<br /><br />I think Griffin tends to be conservative in what he promises. Although, there is the issue of recovering from accidents (e.g., if one of the early test flights fails), but I bet Griffin has slip in his schedule to cover that.<br /><br />On the other hand... if you are being sarcastic in that this is the reverse of NASA's earlier promises (i.e., over promise) and this is really a "Scotty" schedule, then I apologize. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /></i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">If anybody here thinks that NASA will keep to that schedule when the ship is still in the head-scratching stage, they're dreaming.</font>/i><br /><br />The hardware and designs that they plan to use are already fairly mature. The main engines and solid boosters for the Ares V already exist. The Ares 1 first stage is a modification of an existing engine, and they are planning static tests in the next year. A launch with the dummy second stage is planned in about 2 years. The J-2X second stage is probably the biggest unknown, and it is an extension of a venerable line of engines.<br /><br />One of my big concerns is what happens when the baby boomers start retiring in 2010, and they begin to draw in the non-existent "savings account". While "technically" social security will remain in the black for another 20-30 years because of the savings account, that savings account is just an accounting gimmick. That money to pay the boomers in ~2010 will need to come out of general tax receipts, and that will put a lot of pressure on discretionary programs like NASA.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I was not being sarcastic.</font>/i><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /></i>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I see this Orion schedule about as credible as the Space Shuttle schedule in 1977. (50 launches a year etc....landing to launch process 30 days.....etc.)"<br /><br />So the Orion project will fly ten times less frequently than the announced schedule? Could you elaborate on your expectations for the Orion schedule? <br /><br />I thought this Orion flight schedule looked depressingly slow-paced, despite Griffin supposedly pushing Orion development in order to close the 'manned spaceflight gap'.

 

[docm]

That's why it looked to me like a "Scotty Schedule"; plenty of room for compression if all goes well. Only thing that argues against it is that NASA won't be able to move the ISS support funding for use on the heavy lifter until they get out of the ISS in 2015-ish.<br /><br />If I were the Funding God I'd get out way before then and run heavy lifter and Ares/Orion development in parallel. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[cbspace]

If the schedule is going to be worse than what is posted. I would say this is the end of the Ares/Orion program at least and maybe even the US space program. The public will not spend $5 billion a year on nothing year after year. The two year hiatus of the shuttle program almost cost us the US space program. Ares was the only thing that convinced Congress to continue.

 

[flynn]

Bear in mind I speak as a European but I'd be suprised if the US was to scale back its space program especially with the Chinese space program snapping at its heels. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#800080">"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - <strong>Chuck Palahniuk</strong>.</font> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

That is probably correct.<br /><br />It reminds me of how do you get a dog to eat if it doesn't want to eat.<br /><br />Answer: You put it in a crate next to another crate with a dog in it. The two dogs see each other and will compete for the food, but since they are in different crates they can't fight over it.