Orion: NASA's once and future manned spacecraft

There’s nothing I’d rather see than a NASA built Orion spacecraft take astronauts beyond earth orbit. They could go to an asteroid, to Mars, wherever. But NASA would be breaking new ground, stretching the human frontier again. The space agency did a great job operating the complex, dangerous and (I think) fatally flawed space shuttle for a few decades. This is true despite the two tragedies—such a vehicle couldn’t possibly be flown for 35 years by humans without fatal accidents.

NASA has been expanding our view of the universe with complex and successful missions, including Mars missions. Not so long ago, Mars was a graveyard to spacecraft. But NASA has become good at it, and Curiosity (fingers crossed!) should further demonstrate NASA’s ability to execute very difficult assignments. (Sadly, the Russians are still having problems with their Mars missions—with their latest failure expected to return to Earth in a fireball sometime this weekend.)

And now there’s Orion. First, it was George W. Bush’s plans to beef up human space exploration. But he didn’t provide much funding. Then, Barack Obama killed the program. Congress attacked NASA for cost overruns and other imagined failures. Congress failed to understand that rocketry is difficult and trying new things involves unknown costs and unpredictable dangers. If it were a popularity contest, Congress would lose and NASA would win. But Congress controls the purse strings.

Somehow, NASA was given the go-ahead again and Orion was re-named and restored. (I still call it Orion.) Still, funding is tight and the long-term budget required for such a project is not guaranteed. The Ares launcher remains dead (although the Ares Ix flew a successful test), and a new rocket, called SLS, is being developed. Is it just another name for a revived Ares? I don’t think so, but at this point it’s impossible to tell.

All I have now is questions: What will the mission of the new Orion be? They say a trip to an asteroid, but nobody says it convincingly. Who’s responsible for design? Boeing or NASA? If it’s Boeing, could the aerospace company launch Orion spacecraft for private companies? What will the crew size be for the new Orion? We hear that it may have different configurations. Again, this sounds like evasion or uncertainty. You can’t create real spacecraft with vague plans; you need to have specific specs.

I think NASA is in a very difficult political position, and that they know it. Navigating the conflicting signals of the U.S. Government is more difficult for them than navigating to the stars. I’m rooting for NASA to be given the green light and the budget to match.

Falcon 9 in flight.

SpaceX,the private space company that produces a line of launchers (called Falcon) and a cargo/manned spacecraft (Dragon) will deliver supplies to the International Space Station for the first time—in February.

This is a BIG test.

With ambitious plans, SpaceX’s most important mission to date will be this one, justifying NASA’s contract to them to re-supply ISS. It’s tricky. Not only will the craft need to get into orbit, but it will need to rendezvous and dock. Although NASA and Russia have been doing it for years (and recently, China), it’s not something private space companies have mastered. Now, SpaceX has the go-ahead to try.

Other plans for SpaceX—launch American astronauts aboard its Dragon craft to the International Space Station. And SpaceX is reportedly even working on a huge rocket, possibly capable of launching a mission (unmanned? manned?) to Mars.

How far can SpaceX go? A long journey begins with a single step. The next big one will be in February.

NASA is an organization with talented managers and an impressive track record from its birth in the 1950s to today. It pioneered new technologies, send probes and people to distant—seemingly unreachable—places.

But it needs to have clear goals, and a budget to match. Congress and NASA legion of critics have left the space agency in a foggy mess, with ever changing demands. So, NASA seems to have taken the best available tactic: coming up with a modular space launcher, and letting Congress make up its mind which version it wants to fund.

Of course, even this isn’t good enough for some people. Because by putting up orbiting fuel depots and using existing satellite launchers, NASA could do manned space exploration cheaper. This works great if human life doesn’t matter to you—because existing rockets like Delta and Atlas are much, much more dangerous than NASA’s designs for future manned launchers.

To meet the expected insufficient budget Congress will inevitably provide, NASA re-used existing technologies for its new launch vehicle: Apollo-style engines, shuttle-style solid rocket boosters, etc. (Not only is the technology old, but even the name is unimaginative: space launch system.) But no matter what you do, sending people beyond Earth orbit is going to be expensive. Either you are willing to do it, or not.

I expect Congress to cancel this new launch system, as it did Constellation before it. Congress is under the illusion that space flight can be cheap and handled by private companies. Some things can be done cheaper and still very well—as companies like SpaceX are showing. BUT, sending people into deep space isn’t something that Congress is qualified to give advice—or make demands—about. Congress should either provide sufficient funds, or surrender the future to the Chinese.

New Shepard spacecraft blows up. Try again.

I don’t want to sound too cavalier about this, but the fact is: rockets blow up. They are filled with explosive fuel which is then ignited. Trouble, sometimes, is inevitable.

This isn’t to downplay the serious implications of an exploding rocket. Some rocket failures are more serious than others: the Challenger failure, with the loss of seven lives, was crushing.

But sometimes rocket failures are not that serious; they are expensive and a part of learning to build new, better, and successful space vehicles. Thinking about rocket failures in recent years—and in recent weeks—illustrates the point

Remember the Ares I-x? An early experimental version of what was to become the Ares series of launchers flew successfully in October 2009. (There was some damage and other irregularities; but uncovering and fixing these irregularities is the purpose of early flights of new rocket designs.) But Ares was cancelled, because engineers hadn’t yet solved all its technical issues and the costs were deemed too high. I find it amazing that after more than 50 years of spaceflight, anyone imagines that new spacecraft won’t have difficulties or require significant budgets. Innovation requires taking chances and often spending more money.

Anyhow, the NASA rocket was deemed a failure. And people praised the private space companies. Now, I love private space companies almost as much as I love NASA—but nature will not be fooled. Private scientists and engineers face the same challenges as government ones. Orbital Sciences, a private company with a long history of successful launches, has been struggling with its Taurus XL launcher—with $424 million satellite launch failure back in March. They had an earlier failure, which destroyed Orbiting Carbon Laboratory in 2009. But Orbital Sciences move ahead, now readying a test flight of their system to re-supply the ISS. And they should.

Jeff Bezos’ somewhat mysterious space company, Blue Origin, has a high-profile failure this week. His “New Shepard” spacecraft crashed and was destroyed during a test. It’s dramatic; it’s disheartening; it’s expensive. But it happens. Nobody was killed. Live and learn.

SpaceX, which has had some great success with the Falcon/Dragon combo, has had multiple failures. People seem to forget this now that SpaceX is on a role. (Yeah, I’m a fan, too…but I also don’t expect perfection.)

Even the venerable Soyuz failed in its most recent mission to send supplies to the ISS. This is the vehicle which has carries cosmonauts into space without a single fatal accident since 1971. It happens. If you demand complete safety and success, rocket science isn’t for you.

That may be about to end.

A failed launch of a Russian cargo ship, meant to resupply that ISS, now endangers ANY new launches to the station. The system that failed on this unmanned launch was pretty much the same as one used on the manned Soyuz vehicle. And Soyuz, the only spacecraft in the world today capable of carrying passengers to the station, is for the time being, grounded.

The next scheduled crew to the ISS included Daniel Burbank, who would have been the first American to fly in the post-Shuttle era. That flight has been delayed. At best, it will launch in October. Another possibility: an unoccupied space station by November.

Burbank to fly, and other American astronauts will follow.

Yeah, I’m not too happy about it. The United States has no capability to send people into space. The Chinese can do it. The Russians can do it. But America can’t.

Nevertheless, Americans continue to fly in space. Current, two of our astronauts are aboard the International Space Station: Ron Garan (who happens to be of Russian descent) and Mike Fossum. More will follow.

The next American to fly will be Daniel Burbank. on Expedition 29. His launch (aboard a Soyuz in October) will be Burbank’s third trip into space. So, as disappointing as the situation of our space agency is, with budget woes and vague plans, we are not (yet) out of the business of sending people into space…even if they do have to hitch a ride.

The suspense for me is huge. The shuttle is an amazing and very dangerous vehicle. The countdown has resumed.

Chris Ferguson, from my current home town of Philadelphia is in command. Seems to be go for launch. Engines are burning. Liftoff!

Okay after full throttle up. SRB ready to separate. Less than 6 minutes to orbit. Everything looks good. I certainly feel relief now that those necessary but scary SRBs have done their job and been jettisoned.

Now 4 minutes, 20 seconds into the flight. Will hook up with ISS on Sunday morning. All is going well. Making it look easy. (It isn’t.)

About 2 minutes to orbit. Main engines will be shuttling down, shortly. External fuel tank will be let go after that.

Main engine cut off. (MECO). External tank is gone, as required. Should be in orbit shortly. I can breath (relatively) easier…at least until landing day.

Here’s a (no long being updated) page with links to national space agencies. I’ll be reviewing them occasionally, looking for interesting things to post here. You can too!

So, the program was ended. But a few weeks back, the Orion spacecraft was revived (albeit the name was dropped). And NASA announced it would be used for manned flight beyond earth orbit.

Today, we hear that Ares will also be revived (without the name).

This is good news, because the Ares-Orion combo is capable of doing great things in space; and they are the safest vehicles for manned flight ever. After decades of flying the very dangerous shuttle, this will be refreshing.

But NASA is in a precarious situation. Politicians are fickle. NASA may end up (yet again) insufficiently funded. Long -term programs, like ambitious manned spaceflight, require steady, dependable money.

We already reported about the Mercury Messenger spacecraft (and it’s 1970s predecessor). But now there’s more, including how Mercury (strangely) resembles Saturn!

Iran, which has successfully launched a satellite into orbit, and sent up some small animals, plans to send a monkey—and eventually a man—into space.

Have any ideas about sending people to the stars? DARPA would like to hear them. They’d like the U.S. to launch an interstellar spacecraft with passengers by 2111.

Speaking of getting to the stars, our trusty old space probe, Voyager 1, seems to be closing in on interstellar space.