pATREUS
Now THAT's a spaceship. Small, but perfectly formed.
Chizzy
Claims of this craft being able to go to mars is ridiculous. Mars trips are going to require a vehicle near the size of the space station. Even if this waste of money made it to mars with an astronaut still alive after 9 months trapped in a tiny tin can, it couldn't land. No oceans on mars for it to land on. So a vehicle too small to provide cargo space for a trip to mars, unable to land on mars, unable to take off from mars is in no way technology suitable to claim it to be able to go to mars. NASA show me a mars transit vehicle. Show me a mars lander, show me a mars escape vehicle, and ill believe you have a mars program. Until then dont talk to me about mars, talk to me about getting back to the moon with your apollo replica.
Bill Bennett
Yeah Chizzy, agree
Michael Hart
is it just me or is the launch of abort system a bad design idea. as the article states it adds much risk of failure. Also the waste involved need to be considered.
Who ever thinks that's a good design idea must have been without oxygen. Keep it simple stupid. The more complicated the design the more chance of failure. SpaceX has a much superior design.
SciFi9000
A deep space vehicle launching from terra firma is fine and dandy, but not at all smart or efficient. All that is needed is fleet of shuttles to get materials up into LEO where the real deep space vehicle can be assembled. The resulting large DSV would then have it's own lander/return vehicle/s for planetery missions. That's EXACTLY what the space shuttle was designed to do. It did just that to construct the space station (quite well I might add)... why a DSV was never assembled while the shuttles were in service boggles my mind.... now, there is a half assed program that compromises everything and achieves nothing. What this world needs is a more cost effective hagh capacity shuttle to get building materials to LEO. Go India or any country that will do this.
flink
@Chizzy, You're a tad negative about this. Apollo wasn't intended to land on the Moon, either. At the first Apollo launch, there was neither a lander nor a moon-capable vehicle available.
Consider where we are in the space program and also think about the pittance NASA has to work with. IMHO, I don't think there will be anything like a sci-fi inter-solar capable spacecraft for many decades, if not hundreds of years (provided mankind doesn't slide back to the pre-industrial revolution stage again). The propulsion systems are non-existent. There are many ideas and plenty of experiments in lab settings, but nothing large enough to really drive a ship.
The capsule itself is not intended to actually land on Mars. Just as with the Apollo, the crew travel in the capsule and the lander/supplies/etc. travel in a second large component behind the capsule. Any trip to Mars would probably be preceded by several launches (of more Delta's or shuttles?) of equipment modules full of fuel, supplies, and some sort of really cool, semi-rigid inflatable habitat modules.
Getting back into space will take some time. Don't be impatient, it'll happen. You're going to need to accept the fact that it just won't happen fast enough for you to go anywhere. Lot's of us have had to deal with that disappointment ;-)
For everyone else: Yes, the Orion is probably not "the" system that will make the first trip. A Japanese, Chinese, or commercial mission will more than likely make it there first.
NASA and supporters need to push the envelope on marketing this so that they keep their budget. Don't be harsh on them. They want the same thing as the rest of us do, but have to keep their duller political masters happy.
Slowburn
I'll bet Musk gets to deep space and Mars first.
BigGoofyGuy
While I think that is cool, I was hoping for an updated version of the Shuttle. Perhaps a lifting body design? There is a shuttle type aircraft being developed by the Air Force.
I think for them to land on Mars (or even the moon again - to have a station as a stepping place to launch to Mars or other planets), they would need a lander like they did for the moon.
I think Chizzy made some good points, IMO.
Slowburn
@ BigGoofyGuy NASA did everything in their power to make sure that the winged launch vehicle didn't work.
dugnology
All this for 4 billion. Cut your losses now and concentrate on Space-x's dragon. This is just lobby money. The whole ship is based on updated 1970's technology. The escape tower is almost as dangerous as not having one. The parachute landings in the desert? Why are we copying the Soviet Union? Was this capsule designed to be re-used or do we have to throw each one out or sent them to museums? The last Orion flight was also a huge waste of money. Putting a ship on a 5/4 scale Space Shuttle motor was just insane. That was ATK's lobby money.
The current dragon capsule can take a man if he brought his own O2 supply. Dragon II will probably beat this into space with a man in it unless this likely event happens: Nasa or the FAA will not clear Dragon II with a human in it until the CST-100 flies first.