Orion Lite's job floated

[docm]

Service as a lifeboat for ISS, negating the need for Atlas V man-rating and an LAS.

Guess that leaves the commercial crew contest open for Dragon, Dream Chaser and Cygnus.

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100413-o ... -plan.html

Orion to Become Crew Lifeboat Under Revised Obama Space Plan

COLORADO SPRINGS -- A top NASA official said U.S President Barack Obama will announce plans to continue development of a stripped-down version of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle for use as a crew lifeboat on the international space station.

Obama, who is scheduled to deliver a space policy speech at NASA's Kennedy Space Station in Florida April 15, will also unveil plans to initiate development of a heavy-lift launch vehicle by 2015, NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver told reporters following remarks at the 26th National Space Symposium here April 13.
>

 

[EarthlingX]

Looks like a full circle. They did some serious improvements to avionics, there is new TPS available, i remember parachuting tests, carbon shell ..

Wiki : Crew Return Vehicle

The Crew Return Vehicle (CRV), sometimes referred to as the Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV), was the proposed lifeboat or escape module for the International Space Station (ISS). A number of different vehicles and designs have been considered over the past two decades – with several flying as developmental test prototypes – but no one single design has been built as the dedicated CRV.

 

[EarthlingX]

www.spaceref.com : OSTP Fact Sheet on the President's April 15th Address in Florida: A Bold Approach for Space Exploration and Discovery

Date Released: Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Source: Office of Science and Technology Policy

On Thursday, April 15, at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, the President will outline a bold strategy for human spaceflight that increases the NASA budget by $6 billion over the next five years. His plan represents an ambitious effort to foster the development of path-breaking technologies; increase the number, scope, and pace of manned and unmanned space missions; make human spaceflight safer and more efficient; and help create thousands of jobs.

 

[Crossover_Maniac]

They're better off scrapping Orion and just extending shuttle until a replacement comes along. Developing a crew capsule while still using the Soyuz is a waste of money. They really didn't think this thing through.

 

[tadpoletriker]

Without transport up capability, it seems a total waste of money.
Lite works, but only if it can go both ways.

JohnB

 

[rockett]

I sense a token attempt to appease the critics, without a commitment. The interesting thing to me is the 2015 date to start a heavy lift rocket. Possibilty of passing the buck (and blame) to another Administration.

 

[Astro_Robert]

I also think that Orion-lite is a complete waste. The Soyuz capsules do fine in that capacity, although it might be nice to have a larger version to support the larger crews. I mean really, at this point how much money do they expect to save by going Orion-lite and making it a shell of its former self to be used only as a lifeboat, verses completing it so that it could be used both as a spacecraft on its own as well as a lifeboat?

That the Heavy Launcher may be accelerated is a potentially redeeming aspect, but then scrapping Ares-I in favor of faster and cheaper manrating an Atlas-V has long been an option that would have allowed accelerating the Heavy Launcher, while retaining a usefull Orion spacecraft.

I also find it interesting that Niel Armstrong (noramlly very private and reserved) and the other Apollo commanders have come out strongly against the plan while Buzz Aldrin has supported it. I can only surmise that Mr. Alrdin likes the heavy launcher a lot.

If SpaceX and Bigelow are successful, then it might make this Orion & Launcher debate more interesting again, until then I am very disapointed. Further, I find it ironic that after being the first president in like 40 years to have meaningful NASA participation in his inauguration parade, Obama's seminal act regarding the space agency seems to be to gut it.

 

[pathfinder_01]

I think it could be a smart move. It frees commercial space from the requirement that their vehicle be able to spend 3 months (or more) docked at the ISS to support crew. If commercial fails it could be upgraded to perform LEO missions. It increases down mass from the ISS. It allows us to get more faith in a capsule that may need to be stored in space for long trips.

Politically I am normally closer to a godless commie, but I think LEO needs to be the domain of business. The only way to drive the cost down is to be able to field different designs all at once. To be able to change operations without political considerations. Those are abilities that NASA lacks. NASA must go before congress to get funds to build new vehicles. Companies do not.

I think NASA needs to put down the duckie. It is going to cost too much if it operates all LEO access as well as BEO access. There are more people in LEO regularly than at any time in the history of the space program. A viable space program needs earth to LEO access as well as space stations. Both of which are old hat now. I won’t go so far as turn the ISS over to commercial, but access to it should be purchased like a plane ticket. This moves it closer to it.

 

[RVHM]

I think NASA needs to put down the duckie. It is going to cost too much if it operates all LEO access as well as BEO access. There are more people in LEO regularly than at any time in the history of the space program. A viable space program needs earth to LEO access as well as space stations. Both of which are old hat now. I won’t go so far as turn the ISS over to commercial, but access to it should be purchased like a plane ticket. This moves it closer to it.

Only for people who pass an intelligent test previously. The darn thing is too valuable to put a fool up there.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well, we let fools post here...

 

[swampboy]

Sounds to me they are trying to do this on the cheap develop a crew module first then the rocket to launch it and totally pissing off every one in the process. :evil:

Now on to a more serious thought will she hold 6 crewmembers or just 3 will it land in the ocean or on land? :roll:

 

[tadpoletriker]

Sounds to me they are trying to do this on the cheap develop a crew module first then the rocket to launch it and totally pissing off every one in the process. :evil:

Now on to a more serious thought will she hold 6 crewmembers or just 3 will it land in the ocean or on land? :roll:

Makes sense!

How about four if by land, five if by sea.
Saves a lot of launch mass. Smaller escape tower.

JohnB

 

[sftommy]

Does anyone else note the irony of building a ship to get humans out of space while stopping the building of one to get them into space?

<rolling my eyes>

 

[Valcan]

Well, we let fools post here...

OMG! NINJA CHOP!

 

[neutrino78x]

I sense a token attempt to appease the critics, without a commitment. The interesting thing to me is the 2015 date to start a heavy lift rocket. Possibilty of passing the buck (and blame) to another Administration.

Original Bush plan was 2017 "to start a heavy lift rocket."

From Physics Today:

Obama also re-committed to NASA building a heavy-lift vehicle, starting now in 2015 two years earlier than under the old schedule. This was part of the original constellation program, and was one of the few parts of the program that was kept when NASA's budget came out earlier this year.

Also, note that the Obama Plan is Conservative and Capitalist. I'm a liberal, but I support the capitalist part.

--Brian

 

[neutrino78x]

I think it could be a smart move. It frees commercial space from the requirement that their vehicle be able to spend 3 months (or more) docked at the ISS to support crew.

Yep.

Politically I am normally closer to a godless commie, but I think LEO needs to be the domain of business.

I am the same way! Well, not communist, but I'm socially liberal and economically conservative, a position known as "moderate liberal", or, on the right, "libertarian".

The only way to drive the cost down is to be able to field different designs all at once. To be able to change operations without political considerations. Those are abilities that NASA lacks. NASA must go before congress to get funds to build new vehicles. Companies do not.

Exactly. As I've said before, "elephants can't dance."

I think NASA needs to put down the duckie. It is going to cost too much if it operates all LEO access as well as BEO access. There are more people in LEO regularly than at any time in the history of the space program.

Yep, and the way you continue that is through private enterprise, not the government.

I won’t go so far as turn the ISS over to commercial, but access to it should be purchased like a plane ticket. This moves it closer to it.

Perhaps Bigelow should be allowed to put a commercial hotel module up there, as long as he powers it by a separate solar panel? I don't know, I'm not sure how far I would go with that one. Commercial stations really should be built by commercial entities, in my opinion. Unless it is serving the purpose of an airport, like those orbital fueling depots....

--Brian