[quote]NASA has found the ideal spaceship to take astronauts far from Earth - the same one they've been working on for several years and have spent $5 billion on.
All the Orion capsule needed was a new name - the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.
NASA said it decided the spacecraft would be what takes astronauts to a still-to-be-determined destination.
The disposable capsule would take four astronauts on 21-day trips.
The Orion capsule was a cornerstone of former President George W. Bush's plan to return astronauts to the moon.
NASA gave Lockheed Martin a $7.5 billion contract in 2006 to build it.
The Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle is the same ship with almost no changes, said NASA associate administrator Doug Cooke during a teleconference yesterday.
The capsule is the only part of the Bush space plan that President Barack Obama did not cancel last year.NASA said then the Orion capsule could be used as an escape lifeboat at the International Space Station.
Now the ship will be attached to a still-to-be-designed big rocket and go out of Earth's orbit.
Possible destinations include nearby asteroids and eventually Mars.
"We made this choice based on the progress made to date," Mr Cooke said.
"This vehicle design and concept is most appropriate for the future direction. It made the most sense to stick with it."
Mr Cooke had no date for launching the capsule with astronauts aboard, no specific destination, and no eventual cost of each capsule or the entire program.
But it will cost less than the original plan because NASA has found some "efficiencies", MrCooke said, without elaborating.
The ship would not be reusable because it will land in the Pacific Ocean and salt water corrodes metal.
It will land like the Apollo capsules with a parachute and weigh about 23 tons.
George Abbey, former director of NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, said the ship design is too heavy and landing in water is a mistake.
He said it goes back to the past instead of building on the reusability of the space shuttle program.
The space shuttle fleet is retiring in July. Eventually, private companies will take over the job of carrying cargo and astronauts to the space station.
Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat and former space shuttle flier, said using Orion means a "huge savings" for taxpayers because billions have already been spent on it.
"This is a good thing," Mr Nelson said. "It shows real progress towards the goal of exploring deep space and eventually getting to Mars."
[img]http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/05/25/1226062/413827-nasa-orion.jpg[/img]
[i]NASA's decided the $7.5bn Orion capsule is good enough to use, despite the fact it would go rusty in a splashdown / AP[/i][/quote]
[url]http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/nasa-reveals-spaceship-for-mars-journey-the-orion-theyve-been-building-for-several-years/story-fn5fsgyc-1226062413565[/url]
What's the approximate time this spaceship will need to get to Mars?
[QUOTE=captainHOE;30041414]What's the approximate time this spaceship will need to get to Mars?[/QUOTE]
[quote]The disposable capsule would take four astronauts on 21-day trips.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;30041458]*airquote*[/QUOTE]
That's not the same. They don't actually have any solid plans for how to go to Mars with it yet, and right now the ship is designed for 21 day trips.
Going to Mars will probably take longer than that.
Can't be that fast...
I'd like to point on this tidbit:
[quote]"This is a good thing," Mr Nelson said. "It shows real progress towards the goal of exploring deep space and [B]eventually [/B]getting to Mars."[/quote]
Oh, thought the meant the thing for getting [I]to [/I]mars, not [I]on[/I]it.
5 billlion for redesign of the Apollo capsule. Are you kidding me. I'm seriously dissapointed.
What if they land in a fresh water lake?
It looks pretty badass if you ask me
[QUOTE=SlashSpeed;30041500]5 billlion for redesign of the Apollo capsule. Are you kidding me. I'm seriously dissapointed.[/QUOTE]
Where does it say it's simply a redesign of the Apollo capsule? I'm sure it's pretty full of new technology.
[editline]25th May 2011[/editline]
This reminds me, I watched Apollo 13 again last night. Brilliant movie.
I must be missing something... it's designed as a capsule for re-entering earth's atmosphere then landing in the pacific ocean? how's that going to help when we're trying to land it on a big hulk of rock called Mars?
It sounds to me like they're going to need to redesign the majority of it.
[QUOTE=Flyboi;30041536]I must be missing something... it's designed as a capsule for re-entering earth's atmosphere then landing in the pacific ocean? how's that going to help when we're trying to land it on a big hulk of rock called Mars?
It sounds to me like they're going to need to redesign the majority of it.[/QUOTE]
[B]Sensationalist Headlines[/B]
It's not designed for Mars trips yet, that's a future goal.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;30041524]Where does it say it's simply a redesign of the Apollo capsule? I'm sure it's pretty full of new technology.
[editline]25th May 2011[/editline]
This reminds me, I watched Apollo 13 again last night. Brilliant movie.[/QUOTE]
It's a a capsule with no engine systems of it's own, that can rotate but not change its course and is launched into orbit by rocket that is dumped in orbit once used.
The technology inside is most probably all new, but essentially, it's the same thing. They should be working on something new, not on a 50 years old design.
[QUOTE=SlashSpeed;30041582]It's a a capsule with no engine systems of it's own, that can rotate but not change its course and is launched into orbit by rocket that is dumped in orbit once used.
The technology inside is most probably all new, but essentially, it's the same thing. They should be working on something new, not on a 50 years old design.[/QUOTE]
This 50 year old design has proven itself to be an incredibly effective and (relatively) cheap way of getting people into space and back safely.
Do you have any idea how many people died during flight on all of the missions NASA had that used a capsule system?
[editline]25th May 2011[/editline]
Let me tell you: 0
[QUOTE=LarparNar;30041594]This 50 year old design has proven itself to be an incredibly effective and (relatively) cheap way of getting people into space and back safely.
Do you have any idea how many people died during flight on all of the missions NASA had that used a capsule system?[/QUOTE]
It's not about safety or how effective it is, it's the fact that we could do far more with the current technology then this...for 5 billion dollars.
[QUOTE]The disposable capsule would take four astronauts on 21-day trips.[/QUOTE]
Well Mars is approximately 60 million km from here, which is 37 million miles (Rounded for convenience)
After they have left the atmosphere and are moving through space they travel close to 20,000 mph, so unless they double or triple that speed you can expect it to take at least 75 - 100 days to make the journey.
Why do we need to do anything more if this design works perfectly fine in every way? Designing something entirely new would be way more expensive.
I'm sure the heads at NASA have thought this through properly.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;30041627]Why do we need to do anything more if this design works perfectly fine in every way? Designing something entirely new would be way more expensive.
I'm sure the heads at NASA have thought this through properly.[/QUOTE]
Why? Because we can and we should. Just look at Virgin Galactic and SpaceX. Those companies are the future of space program.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;30041671]Guess what:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Capsule[/url][/QUOTE]
Guess what, the Dragon is reusable. I didn't come here to argue, i just stated my opinion.
The fact that the Orion isn't reusable is a flaw yes, I can agree with that.
So first we'll send a bunch of robots to Mars, with a mission to build a large saltwater ocean there, so we can land this pod-thing in it.
I still think the Dragon is the way forward. All we need now is some sort of low-cost high-yield propulsion system.
Also, we need to start making offworld construction facilities, so we can build bigger vehicles designed specifically for being in space. Building spacecraft on the homeworld is hardly a wise thing to do, since it's really tricky to get these damn things off the ground. Better to build them on the Moon, or even in an orbital shipyard.
This is just like the Appollo one's but more bad ass because there are updated stuff and painted black
Does this mean NASA is going to make Mars Base: Alpha?
aeiou
No way it's going to Mars in 21 days. It has to refer to something else.
It only takes 21-days to travel to Mars?
The shortest I've heard is several months.
[QUOTE=angelangel;30043218]It only takes 21-days to travel to Mars?
The shortest I've heard is several months.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I don't know what the line "The disposable capsule would take four astronauts on 21-day trips." is supposed to mean. It's obviously wrong.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;30043278]Yes, I don't know what the line "The disposable capsule would take four astronauts on 21-day trips." is supposed to mean. It's obviously wrong.[/QUOTE]
I think 21-day trips around Earth but that seems really long for such a small space.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
