Talk:Orion (Constellation program)

 This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

description

Someone described it as: "Apollo on steroids."--LandonJaeger (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup and the need for even more cleanup

I did a good amount of streamlining with the article this weekend, but the overall content needs some significant fact checking and updating. Likewise, the Augustine Commission is presenting the review of US human spaceflight this week, and preliminary reports have indicated that of the handful of options the report will present, the Ares I is only present in one of these. I believe the Orion is present in all or most of the proposals, but my guess is that we'll have some significant changes to make here in the coming weeks. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is Carson Flats, Nevada?

The article mentions Carson Flats, Nevada as a landing site, but Carson Flats is redlinked. I wanted to fix the link, but I can't find any reference to Carson Flats outside NASA documents or wikipedia pages. Where is this mysterious Carson Flats? Does it actually exist? Billgordon1099 (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Land or water?

Reading the article, I noted a difference in landing site for the Orion:

From section History, 8th paragraph:

Like the Apollo Command Module, Orion would be attached to a service module for life support and propulsion. It would land on land rather than water, similar to the Russian Soyuz spacecraft and the Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft.

From section Crew Module, 2nd paragraph:

Water landings will be the exclusive means of recovery for the Orion CM.

If I read this incorrectly, sorry. On the other hand: That could mean the article is unclear to readers. :-)

Thanks!

--80.254.148.83 (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The images on Lockheed Martin's website seems to hint at something different.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/Orion/index.html --Craigboy (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Page needs to be updated

Now that Orion has been saved a whole lot of information is now incorrect.--Craigboy (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This page is up to date, and you have provided no examples of out of date items therefore I have removed the tag Conman56 (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

When I posted that the whole page was severely out of date.

What I've updated:

• Removed outdated images when a current alternative has been available

• Removed information stating that Orion would be used solely as a lifeboat

• Removed info that said Orion was canceled

• Removed incorrect info on heat shield

• Updated launch vehicle references

• Added Orion's possible destinations and possible launch date

• Added info on Authorization Bill

What needs to be updated:

• Timeline and the majority of anything that mentions when Orion is expected to fly is for the most part out of date

• Anything that mentions Constellation as if the program is still active (return to moon, Ares I...)

• Specifications need to be looked into to see if they're still true

• Article should note that Orion's specs may change once a new heavy lift vehicle design is chosen

--Craigboy (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Good reference on current specs

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=6bb9bc53-1ac8-457a-a5a2-018cbb8df292

--Craigboy (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Orion (Constellation program)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Currently has more cleanup tags than any other good article: in need of updating since November 2010, unsourced statements from October 2010 and February 2007, contains potentially dated statements from 2005 and April 2009, a sentence needs clarification from January 2010 and tagged as having obsolete information from May 2010. Tom B (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

nothing happening at the moment, no edits in 2 and a half weeks, delisting Tom B (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here's the rub, Constellation was cancelled, Orion was not. Much of the development and testing was fully funded and now that Orion is the basis (nearly a mear rebranding) of the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, much of what might have seemed out of date really isn't. I do agree that Constellation and Ares should be in the past tense.--RadioFan (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Rebranding as it is, there is still a separate article for the MPCV, and there shouldn't be two articles speaking in the present tense about the same thing. I think the best solution to this would be to merge this article into the MPCV article. There is a proposal being discussed in that article to have a merger go the other way around, but it seems that ten years from now it's going to seem rather stupid that MPCV redirects to Orion when neither NASA nor Lockheed Martin calls it that. If there is no merger of the two articles, Orion needs to be made past tense (but again I think a merger is best). [I would propose this myself, but I'm feeling rather timid since I'm fairly new to more significant editing than the occasional typo-fix.] OllieWilliamson (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

error found in description of Orion service module propulsion/propellant

The wikipedia article describes the Orion service module as using the AJ-10 rocket engine.

The AJ-10 rocket engine uses a propellant combination of N204 and Aerozine 50 and produces about 9,800 pounds of thrust.

But according to this NASA link the Orion service module engine has 7,500 pounds of thrust and uses the propellant combination of N204 and monomethyl hydrazine (MMH), which is obviously not an AJ-10 rocket engine.

In fact I believe the Orion service module is planning to use a slight variation of the rocket engine which was used for the Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS).

Each OMS engine produces 6,000 pounds of thrust and the propellant used is a combination of N204 and MMH.

Note how the data for the OMS engine of the Shuttle almost exactly matches the data for the Service Module engine of the Orion spacecraft.

I am pretty sure the news that the Orion was going to use a variation of the OMS engine was announced years ago, but I am still searching for that link.

98.176.52.187 (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Brad

Got it! A very up to date link from Aerojet

There is no question, the Orion Main Engine (OME) is an uprated version of the Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System Engine (OMS-E).

98.176.52.187 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Brad