Apollo vs Orion
Discussion
It seems that Orion/Delta IV (thankyou Eric 
) may just have enough of a toehold to survive and develop. Obama copied some of Kennedy's speech and there seems to be a bit of genuine excitement.
Just maybe we are coming to the end of 20 years of PC and 'send the money to Africa', and are getting back to what humans do best?
If we think of the Apollo programme - essentially 10 years from conception to Moon - how does Orion compare with it? Apollo progressed in clear steps, each step testing the next phase from Earth orbit to Moon landing. I still have the Super Mousse mission badges
Is Orion essentially just 30% bigger with a potential to go very much further? And which bits of the 'tech' needed to get to Mars do we lack? Could Orion match Apollo's progress, but with 'Moon' crossed out and 'Mars' written on in crayon?
) may just have enough of a toehold to survive and develop. Obama copied some of Kennedy's speech and there seems to be a bit of genuine excitement.Just maybe we are coming to the end of 20 years of PC and 'send the money to Africa', and are getting back to what humans do best?
If we think of the Apollo programme - essentially 10 years from conception to Moon - how does Orion compare with it? Apollo progressed in clear steps, each step testing the next phase from Earth orbit to Moon landing. I still have the Super Mousse mission badges
Is Orion essentially just 30% bigger with a potential to go very much further? And which bits of the 'tech' needed to get to Mars do we lack? Could Orion match Apollo's progress, but with 'Moon' crossed out and 'Mars' written on in crayon?
Simpo Two said:
It seems that Orion/Delta IV (thankyou Eric ) may just have enough of a toehold to survive and develop. Obama copied some of Kennedy's speech and there seems to be a bit of genuine excitement.
Just maybe we are coming to the end of 20 years of PC and 'send the money to Africa', and are getting back to what humans do best?
If we think of the Apollo programme - essentially 10 years from conception to Moon - how does Orion compare with it? Apollo progressed in clear steps, each step testing the next phase from Earth orbit to Moon landing. I still have the Super Mousse mission badges
Is Orion essentially just 30% bigger with a potential to go very much further? And which bits of the 'tech' needed to get to Mars do we lack? Could Orion match Apollo's progress, but with 'Moon' crossed out and 'Mars' written on in crayon?
At the minute, the only real uncertainty is the radiation. There are several ideas about how we'll get around that, from sending tonnes of lead through star trek style deflector arrays, through using astronaut sewerage as a shield, down to "oh, we'll send old people".) may just have enough of a toehold to survive and develop. Obama copied some of Kennedy's speech and there seems to be a bit of genuine excitement.Just maybe we are coming to the end of 20 years of PC and 'send the money to Africa', and are getting back to what humans do best?
If we think of the Apollo programme - essentially 10 years from conception to Moon - how does Orion compare with it? Apollo progressed in clear steps, each step testing the next phase from Earth orbit to Moon landing. I still have the Super Mousse mission badges
Is Orion essentially just 30% bigger with a potential to go very much further? And which bits of the 'tech' needed to get to Mars do we lack? Could Orion match Apollo's progress, but with 'Moon' crossed out and 'Mars' written on in crayon?
Other than that it's just a case of spending the money to send a lot of very big rockets into orbit so we can send all the things necessary for a Mars mission. We're looking at a hefty transit stage, at least one lander (probably resuable), and a Mars base capable of supporting life for a few months. You'll also need to send a lot of fuel. None of the stuff is beyond the state of the art.
Apollo, initially anyway, actually moved forwards extremely erratically.
The programme was created in 1959 as a follow on to Mercury. It's main objective was to allow men to stay in space for up to 2 weeks and to have the capability of going around (but not landing) on the moon.
North American won the contract and the programme was officially named Apollo in July 1960. North American got to work straight away and within a couple of months had come up with a design which looked very like the eventual Command and Service Module.
Six months later, when Kennedy said the US should land a man on the moon within a decade, suddenly Apollo became more focused and a rethink was needed. Initially it was thought that the best way to achieve Kennedy's goal was to fix legs onto the Service Module and land it and the Command Module on the moon.
It was realised that a monster rocket even more powerful than the proposed Saturn V would be needed - and the ten year deadline could not be met.
That's where the Lunar Module came in coupled with a flight involving rendezvous and docking - which the original Apollo craft had not been designed to do.
It was decided to draft up a second generation Apollo Command and Service Module with rendezvous and docking capability. However, to keep the programme moving along, it was decided to proceed with the 1st generation craft as well. The 1st generation Apollo Command Service Module was referred to as the Block I and the 2nd generation as the Block 2. After the 1967 pad fire (with a Block 1), it was decided not to use the Block 1 design for any manned flights.
So you can see that the design of the Apollo craft went through quite serious permutations before the first successful flight (Apollo 7, in October 1968).
As for the actual flights themselves, the goals, aims, crew members and flight plans for each mission often changed at very short notice. These changes happened because of politics, crew illness, technical problems etc.
For instance, Apollo 8 was supposed to be the first test of the Lunar Module in earth orbit. The LM wasn't ready so that mission became Apollo 9. Apollo 9 SHOULD have been a manned test of a Command Module re-entry from far out (like today's Orion flight) but worries that the Russians might send a cosmonaut around the moon before the end of 1968 prompted NASA to take a gamble and at VERY short notice they decided to put the revised Apollo 8 mission all the way into lunar orbit.
After that missions became a bit more logical and structured but even then there were some last minute changes - such as Apollo 15 changing from an early "H" version of the Lunar Module to the more advanced "J" version.
The main difference between Apollo and Orion was that Apollo was carried out under extreme time pressure but with virtually no budgetary restraints (at least, not until after Apollo 11).
Orion has no time pressure but very tight budgetary restraints.
The programme was created in 1959 as a follow on to Mercury. It's main objective was to allow men to stay in space for up to 2 weeks and to have the capability of going around (but not landing) on the moon.
North American won the contract and the programme was officially named Apollo in July 1960. North American got to work straight away and within a couple of months had come up with a design which looked very like the eventual Command and Service Module.
Six months later, when Kennedy said the US should land a man on the moon within a decade, suddenly Apollo became more focused and a rethink was needed. Initially it was thought that the best way to achieve Kennedy's goal was to fix legs onto the Service Module and land it and the Command Module on the moon.
It was realised that a monster rocket even more powerful than the proposed Saturn V would be needed - and the ten year deadline could not be met.
That's where the Lunar Module came in coupled with a flight involving rendezvous and docking - which the original Apollo craft had not been designed to do.
It was decided to draft up a second generation Apollo Command and Service Module with rendezvous and docking capability. However, to keep the programme moving along, it was decided to proceed with the 1st generation craft as well. The 1st generation Apollo Command Service Module was referred to as the Block I and the 2nd generation as the Block 2. After the 1967 pad fire (with a Block 1), it was decided not to use the Block 1 design for any manned flights.
So you can see that the design of the Apollo craft went through quite serious permutations before the first successful flight (Apollo 7, in October 1968).
As for the actual flights themselves, the goals, aims, crew members and flight plans for each mission often changed at very short notice. These changes happened because of politics, crew illness, technical problems etc.
For instance, Apollo 8 was supposed to be the first test of the Lunar Module in earth orbit. The LM wasn't ready so that mission became Apollo 9. Apollo 9 SHOULD have been a manned test of a Command Module re-entry from far out (like today's Orion flight) but worries that the Russians might send a cosmonaut around the moon before the end of 1968 prompted NASA to take a gamble and at VERY short notice they decided to put the revised Apollo 8 mission all the way into lunar orbit.
After that missions became a bit more logical and structured but even then there were some last minute changes - such as Apollo 15 changing from an early "H" version of the Lunar Module to the more advanced "J" version.
The main difference between Apollo and Orion was that Apollo was carried out under extreme time pressure but with virtually no budgetary restraints (at least, not until after Apollo 11).
Orion has no time pressure but very tight budgetary restraints.
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 5th December 20:33
davepoth said:
At the minute, the only real uncertainty is the radiation. There are several ideas about how we'll get around that, from sending tonnes of lead through star trek style deflector arrays, through using astronaut sewerage as a shield, down to "oh, we'll send old people".
Other than that it's just a case of spending the money to send a lot of very big rockets into orbit so we can send all the things necessary for a Mars mission. We're looking at a hefty transit stage, at least one lander (probably resuable), and a Mars base capable of supporting life for a few months. You'll also need to send a lot of fuel. None of the stuff is beyond the state of the art.
Don't forget the other plan I heard: Other than that it's just a case of spending the money to send a lot of very big rockets into orbit so we can send all the things necessary for a Mars mission. We're looking at a hefty transit stage, at least one lander (probably resuable), and a Mars base capable of supporting life for a few months. You'll also need to send a lot of fuel. None of the stuff is beyond the state of the art.
Recruit a bunch of smokers and take their cigarettes away, even with cosmic radiation their overall cancer risk goes down!
ash73 said:
Reality check here
I think there's zero chance of a manned trip to Mars in our lifetime, anyhow they should be focusing on deflecting asteroids; a goal which has far more practical value.
Just needs money throwing at it. Less than 30 years from the V2 to landing on the moon. Less than 70 years from man's first powered flight to landing on the moon. We could get a man to Mars by 2034 ... or sooner. Getting back might be a problem though.I think there's zero chance of a manned trip to Mars in our lifetime, anyhow they should be focusing on deflecting asteroids; a goal which has far more practical value.
We pretty much know how to get to Mars ( barring the radiation issue ). Orion is the first element - as well as standalone missions it can be used as the command centre for a modular long-duration craft assembled in orbit.
Getting back may not be such a large issue either - assuming we can put automated fuel-factories on Mars surface that will use the martian atmosphere to produce liquid oxygen and methane ( there's a reason SpaceX are looking at methane as a fuel
) which can then be launched to refuel the manned craft
Getting back may not be such a large issue either - assuming we can put automated fuel-factories on Mars surface that will use the martian atmosphere to produce liquid oxygen and methane ( there's a reason SpaceX are looking at methane as a fuel
) which can then be launched to refuel the manned craftI think a mission to Mars is going to be an international effort. The one key piece of technology that's furthest from development is the Mars Lander. I think the US has the track record and money to pull it off. Europe is already proposing to develop the Service module for the Orion. That leaves the habitation module and a rocket stage capable of inserting the whole lot into Mars orbit and returning the Orion and hab module back to Earth. I think the Russians have the track record for habitation modules, but with current tensions in Ukraine and Putin's wider foreign policy tactics, their involvement seems a way off. There's still the Chinese consider, but I suspect they may go their own way, or partner with someone else.
I guess it's all to do with gravity wells. I see a sort of comparison with the early polar explorers. You can't carry everything you need to get to the objective from the start in one go, so you have to build caches along the way. Each cache is stocked with what you need to get to the next one (and the burden is doubled if you want to get back of course). So you could work it out in reverse - start with a capsule parachuting into the Pacific Ocean at the end of its mission, multiply it up backwards, and what you end up with is what you need to start...
t.
ash73 said:
davepoth said:
At the minute, the only real uncertainty is the radiation.... other than that it's just a case of spending the money to send a lot of very big rockets into orbit
Reality check hereI think there's zero chance of a manned trip to Mars in our lifetime, anyhow they should be focusing on deflecting asteroids; a goal which has far more practical value.
your article said:
The good news is that there's nothing technologically impossible about a manned Mars mission. It's just a matter of deciding it's a priority and putting the time and money into developing the necessary tools.
Your point?Just because something doesn't exist right now does not mean it won't exist tomorrow.
The point is that no major breakthroughs in science or technology are needed.
The problems are known and can be overcome. The only issue is funding - which has been the problem at NASA for decades now. And even attitudes to funding can change rapidly depending on social and political considerations.
The point is that no major breakthroughs in science or technology are needed.
The problems are known and can be overcome. The only issue is funding - which has been the problem at NASA for decades now. And even attitudes to funding can change rapidly depending on social and political considerations.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff