Interesting
Yes, that’s all I have to say about Mr. X’s post on the future of Orion. Interesting.

News and Commentary on Space
Yes, that’s all I have to say about Mr. X’s post on the future of Orion. Interesting.
For the first time in twelve years of working various manned space programs, I finally made my first business trip to KSC last week.
The second-best part? Having extra time after meetings were over and a suitable facility pass to drive around to the various facilities and get lots of pictures.
The best part? Getting up-close to all three orbiters while all three are still in operational condition.
I’ll post a sampling here as soon as I get the pictures sorted and uploaded to Flickr, including shots of SpaceX’s pad, Ares-1X, and a couple of before/after comparisons with my grandparents’ slides from their visit to KSC in 1965.
By NASASpaceFlight.com. At their subscription site.
Jon Goff has a few interesting details from his first look at the appendices:
Now, having seen some of what’s in them (I’ve mostly been focusing on the 300+ page appendix to Chapter 6, that details all of their launch vehicle related decisions), I can understand why some people might not want that data to see the light of day. I was hoping to get permission to post a screenshot or two and some direct quotes, but for now you’ll have to get a subscription and check it out yourself.
Some gems to look for when you get a chance, all within the first 40 pages:
- Exceptions given in the ground rules and assumptions on maximum dynamic pressures to In-line SRM based crew launch concepts that weren’t given to any other vehicles (without the exception, all of the five-segment Stick concepts would’ve been ruled out from the start).
- Unrealistically assuming a fixed LAS mass regardless of first stage characteristics (like T/W, max-Q, and whether you can shut them down or not).
- Inaccurate dry mass numbers for existing EELV upper stages (just as some of the guys on NASASpaceflight.com had been saying for years now).
Hmm… It’s almost as if the study was rigged to generate a particular outcome…
I can’t wait to see what other “gems” are buried in the full text. Of course, I will wait, since I’m not going to pay for a “level 2″ subscription at NSF to obtain copies of information that I’ve already paid for (that, and I’m not going to help support a site which I loathe for its constantly-flickering animated ads).
[hat tip to the vactioning-in-our-home-state Rand Simberg]