Talk:Project Constellation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Related projects: | ||
 |
WikiProject Space exploration | Importance to Space exploration: High |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
Contents |
[edit] Suggestions for improving the article
This article could benefit from adding information about project timelines, contractors, and funding. When is the program projected to reach certain milestones? Are funding issued expected to delay the project? What contractors are participating, and are they experiencing technical difficulties? Stuff like that. 24.55.107.138 01:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I can provide some of that information, but don't currently have time to edit the article properly. Development of Project Constellation is to proceed in five "spirals," or sub-project developments. Spiral One is Crew Exploration Development and Test, which is the development of a LEO-capable manned space vehicle. Spiral Two is Global Lunar Access for Human Exploration, which would allow for landing anywhere on Luna and the potential for base development. Spiral Three is Lunar Base and Mars Testbed, where the base is developed for visits of several months' duration. Spiral Four is a Mars flyby, and Spiral Five a manned Mars landing. To the best of my knowledge, Spiral One is to occur by 2014 and Spiral Two by 2020. Spiral Three could occur essentially any time after Spiral Two. Four and Five will (probably) require a different spacecraft from Orion. As for contractors, Lockheed Martin is primary on Orion, with Aerojet General, Honeywell International Inc, Orbital Sciences Corp, Hamilton Sundstrand, and United Space Alliance among the subcontractors. The Ares I Rocket is primarily built by ATK Thiokol, with the main subcontractors being Boeing and Rockwell International. Ares V I know less on, but last I saw, the engines were built by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne.The Dark 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The Apollo capsule was redesigned after the Apollo 1 fire to use a mixed oxygen/nitrogen environment. The current article implies that the mixed gas environment planned for Orion is an improvement over Apollo's 100% oxygen. I suppose that is true if you ignore the Apollo redesign... Sarrica 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Merge
I agree with Davebenham. The two articles are separate, albeit related.
I object on the grounds that project orion is about to become a widely used search term in its own right. It will then be split into its own article, anyway. Just let the little stub simmer here for a while and see what happens. Give Peace A Chance 01:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The Apollo (the mission name) entry is separate from the Saturn (the launch vehicle) entry. Why should we deviate from this format? Project Orion (lunar program) is specifically geared towards a landing on the moon. Project Constellation has a larger scope, encompasing a entire new launch system. I think as the two topics mature, it will be clear that keeping them separate is best. --Davebenham 02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Do not merge. Give a brief dscription of each mission in Project Constellation and provide details in seperate articles. -Fnlayson 03:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Project Orion is the planned return to the moon, which is (theoretically) part of Project Constellation wings656 12:57am Aug 10 2006 EDT
Agree with Davebenham, on grounds of the Saturn-Apollo analogy. --Age234 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lengthy Subsections?
The subsections are getting a bit lengthy. Any ways to break em down a bit more? Goldencrisp87 06:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LES based on Soyuz LES?
"The LES, based on the Russian Soyuz and Chinese Shenzhou LES systems..."
Is this true? If yes, needs citation. However, the CEV is much larger than the Soyuz crew module. The basic design of Russian and legacy American LES's is quite similar -- both date from the 1960's. Are there specific new features of the proposed LES that are adapted from later (1980s) versions of the TMA-series? If not, this phrase should be deleted, or modified to reference "legacy LES systems".
If true, given that the Shenzhou is entirely derivative, only Soyuz should be cited, unless the Chinese have introduced noteworthy improvements to the LES (unlikely, since it is a secondary system and probably works fine as is).RandallC 09:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Heat Shield Size
Does anybody know if there will be a smaller heat shield for ISS/solo flight than lunar because of the lower entry speed? Riceplaytexas 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Answer on Heat Shield and LES
In regards to the heat shield, NASA is looking into the same PICA heatshield used on the Stardust reentry capsule. The plan is for NASA to adopt a "universal" heat shield design that would be used for ISS, lunar, and planetary flights that can be replaced after each mission. For example, an unmanned Orion spacecraft that would fly to the ISS would be "recycled" for later use on a manned Orion lunar flight. As described in the most recent issue of Popular Mechanics magazine (March, 2007), the goal is to have a heat shield that would be 8% lighter than that employed on the Apollo Command Module. On heat shield thickness, the former Soviet Union employed a modified Soyuz reentry capsule that had a thicker heat shield than the one used on its Earth-orbiting version, and it had worked successfully, using in both the skip-entry and direct-entry pattern that is being considered for Project Constellation.Rwboa22 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
On the LES, the system is identical in design to that used on the Soyuz and Shenzhou spacecraft, but unlike their LES, the Orion LES would have the same thrust as that of the Mercury-Atlas rocket that was used to launch John Glenn into orbit in 1962. Remember, the LES used on Apollo was as powerful as the Mercury-Redstone rocket used on Alan Shepard's and Gus Grissom's flights, and that LES, like the Orion LES, are solid-rocket motors. Also the Orion LES would employ the same mechanics (like the so-called "canards") that the Apollo LES incorporated, and finally, unlike the Soyuz/Shenzhou LES, in which it has to yank both the Orbital Module and descent capsule away from the rocket, the Orion LES would only yank the Orion Crew Module away.Rwboa22 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DIRECT?
Why is DIRECT mentioned in the article introduction? It's not "under consideration" by anybody at NASA, it's a space enthusiast's idea. NASA is set on Constellation as it's currently designed and has stated many times that "this is the way it'll be". It should properly be mentioned under "alternative plans", but with the disclaimer that it's not a NASA idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.170.161.207 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Shortened Subsections
Pursuant to the suggestion above "Lengthy Subsections?", much of the material in the sections which have sub-articles has now been removed. (Actually it's commented out, for easy access if anyone feels the need.) Has all of that material already been incorporated into the appropriate sub-articles? Sdsds 05:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
