NASA to test-fly Orion spacecraft next fall

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--NASA officials said Wednesday that the space agency is on track to launch its first flight test in September 2008 of the Orion spacecraft, the successor to the space shuttle that's expected to take astronauts back to the moon by 2020.

NASA is halfway through the key portion of its contract with Lockheed Martin, which is building the spacecraft, before it begins tests at the White Sands Missile Range next fall, according to Skip Hatfield, Orion manager at NASA's Johnson Space Center.

"We're making great progress," Hatfield said during a press conference here at NASA Ames Research Center. The conference was organized to provide an update on the progress of NASA's development of the Orion spacecraft, as part of the Constellation Program.

The progress report comes a week after NASA said that it's investigating sabotage of a noncritical computer due to be flown to the International Space Station aboard the space shuttle, which was cleared to lift off on Tuesday. NASA also revealed last week that it allowed inebriated astronauts to fly on at least two occasions despite their posing a flight risk.

Much of NASA's future focus these days seems to be on the Constellation Program, whether on developing the crew vehicle or testing robotic rovers that can explore uncharted craters on the moon. Once the space shuttle Endeavour is retired in 2010, Orion is slated to be the primary craft for human space exploration, taking astronauts to the ISS by 2015 and onto the moon by no later than 2020. NASA hopes to use the vehicle for other deep space missions onto Mars or an asteroid.

Hatfield said Orion will resemble the Apollo spacecraft that took three astronauts to the moon and back in 1969. Yet Orion will be much larger and capable of carrying six people in its crew capsule to the space station (four to the moon). Orion will be 16.5 feet in diameter and have a mass of about 25 tons. Inside, it will have more than two and a half times the volume of an Apollo capsule. Also, where Apollo's power system used fuel cells, Orion will use solar arrays.

"One of its obvious differences is...in its state of the art avionics system," said Hatfield, who attributed that to advances in computing since the 1960s.

The craft will be comprised of four parts: a launch vehicle, or spacecraft adaptor that will carry the capsule into low-Earth orbit; a service module that contains an engine and pedals for aerodynamics; a crew module (in which the crew rides); and a launch abort system. This system is used to eject the crew in case of emergency on the launch pad. It will also include a set of airbags so the craft can land on solid ground.

One of the more critical elements of Orion that NASA is currently testing is heat shield materials, which are essential to vehicle protection on re-entry to the Earth's atmosphere and have failed in past missions. NASA Ames is developing and testing materials on its own, but it's also contracted with Boeing and Textron Systems to develop alternate heat-shield materials for the spacecraft. It plans to select the best of the lot, said James Reuther, leader of the Advanced Development Thermal Protection Systems Project for Orion at NASA Ames.

Reuther said the team is looking at reusing the heat-shield materials used on Apollo, a proprietary material called Avcoat. But he said the recipe for Avcoat is hard to reproduce without the scientists who initially developed it in the 1960s. Also, Orion will require a stronger material capable of withstanding heat five times stronger than that experienced in re-entry from low-Earth orbit. Given that Orion is larger than Apollo, the heat shield must also withstand a 30 percent temperature increase, he said.

Where does NASA stand on risk of the heat-shield materials for Orion? "We can handle the initial operating system of (re-entry from) low-Earth orbit," Reuther said. "On the lunar side it's a much greater challenge. We need a single heat-shield material for the lunar environment and re-entry...We're at greater risk there building a single system for both from scratch."

[bblande]

So disappointing...

Did anyone in 1969 think that by now we'd have space tourism on the moon? Or at the very least some type of base there? It just seems disappointing that we're still scheduling scientific expeditions to the moon for 2020!

[K.P.C.]

This might sound crazy but . . . .

I still truely believe we went to the moon in the 60's . . . .
The people that claim it was a Hollywood hoax are nut jobs . . .

But . . .

Quote from the article:
"But he said the recipe for Avcoat is hard to reproduce without
the scientists who initially developed it in the 1960s"

Nobody at NASA has the recipe for a [material/coating]
developed "AND USED" almost 50 years ago?

That 40+ year old [material/coating] "is/was" better than
anything developed up to now?
2007?
"Avcoat" is a mystery [material/coating]?
NASA kept no notes?
Did the original scientists develope this [material/coating] in
secret then magically spray it on Apollo (each Apollo mission)
before lift off?

I'm 46 years old
I've been a news junky for about 25 of those years
I've always and still do believe we've been to the moon
There's a station here that shoots a beam of light at a mirror
placed there . . .

But NASA can't recreate a 40 year old [material/coating]?

What the F*+*K are the shuttles using now?
inferior [material/coating]?
inferior to 40+ year old [material/coating]?

This one small little insignificant reference in an article (on c/net
of all places) is the very 1st time I have ever had doubt about us
ever having been to the moon.

NASA keeps no records?!!!!

[K.P.C.]

To ajhoughton . . .

I agree with you.

The technology, the lives saved, the day to day benefits to
everyones lives garnered from the quest to reach the stars.

Most just don't know . . .

Velcro, fire dectors, cordless power tools, laser surgery, laser
"anything", body imaging, MRI's, digital mammography, light
emiting diodes (LED's), anyting satellite related . . .
Cel phones, GPS, weather, world wide TV instantly . . .
The "Jaws of Life" use by rescue workers to safe people trapped
in cars after an accident.

I barely even scratch the surface here.
Anybody that tells you that money spent on space technology is
wasted money is a short sighted ignorant fool.

[Dr_Zinj]

The Space Race is what fueled Electronics Miniaturization

The directly led to integrated circuits which permitted the development of personal computers. Without the space program, we'd still be using 1950's technology: rotary phones, mechanical adding machines, morse code, etc.

[Dr_Zinj]

ORION is a piss-poor name selection

You see, the problem is that the original Project Orion was a proposal to design a nuclear explosion fueled pulse drive for spacecraft. You can find more information on it on Wikipedia. The big point was nuclear propulsion is extremely efficient; so much so that we could literally launch an aircraftcarrier-sized ship to tour the entire solar system, take only a year to get to Pluto, and fly to Mars and back in way less time than current chemical fueled rockets.

This new Orion spacecraft NASA is talking about has nothing to do with nuclear propulsion; and isn't any more efficient than currect rockets.

[janstett]

Why are we going backwards?

I'm disappointed to see that we're regressing in our launch vehicle designs to Apollo capsules with a glandular problem. I know the Shuttle is overly complex and expensive, but do we have to prove the Russians right by sticking with nose capsules? Even worse, now we're going to land our capsules on LAND like the Russians do? Ugh. I was really hoping for a space plane that takes off on a runway and goes into space from the upper atmosphere.

[fred dunn]

Why? Helium 3, and it is not a waste.

The moon is chock full of Helium 3 which is a vital component in Fusion research which can and probably will result in the abandonment of nuclear fision generation of electricity.
Fusion generation does not have the drawback of leaving radioactive waste and is considered a clean "Green" source of power.
Currently Japan, China, and the USA are scheduled to go to the moon to set up a base for future missions such as space telescopes and the harvest of moon rock which is rich in Helium 3.
It just gets my goat that it's taking so damned long to do it, but in retrospect after losing two shuttle crews in "proven" craft I guess they have to take it slow and easy.
In my opinion (for what it's worth) if they intend on mining moon rock for helium 3 they can do that with robotic craft and get this program moving on the fast track.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements

[dbell1998]

So this is America in the 18th er 19th 21st Century?

Gee that's one small step for a bean counter and one giant step back for the U.S.

There is no vision, no imagination, no intellectual bravery in this crap. We bought the whole "gubment caint do nuttin' right" b.s. and now by golly it's become true. Congrats. This is what America has become. Land of the captive home of the chickens. Or maybe the chickens have come home to roost.

Hey we let them take the moon landing away (one of the most successful public works programs) and we bought all that crap that we the public are morons and only big corporations can save the day and make us taller too... Yeah right... We.. yeah WE went to the moon in 10 years. They (corporate America) can't even get an electric car on the road after 50 years. And "gubment caint do nuttin right.." Depends who is running it.

BTW: the Orion "visionary" test flight will be an "up and down" flight like Shepard's flight in the early 60's. Wow... and I hear there's a propellar plane on the drawing board..