Talk:Orion (spacecraft)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


This sentence makes no sense:[edit]

"Following cost overruns and schedule delays caused by insufficient funding..." How can you blame spending too much money on not getting enough money?

-David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.81.227 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

you are right I realy dosent give sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.104.37.203 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
One: Mind your tabs/spacing, two: "there was a cost overrun...caused by insufficient funding" Insufficient funding caused a cost overrun. It does make sense. JamesJNHu (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes, having to toss in the money in small, irregular and stopgap fashion, under constant wrangling about who's going to pay and how, leads to considerably higher costs than if there are appropriate, solid funds right through and you stick with a plan that was essentially mapped out from what you wanted to achieve. Not paying up for the right stuff at an early stage, or not doing the proper research because there was a glut in the funding leads to much higher costs at a later stage. Many people who have built a house or fought ill health can tell you that: it doesn't always pay to have to be tight-fisted. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Explore an asteroid in lunar orbit - POV?[edit]

The section on the asteroid in Lunar Orbit seems quite POV. In pushing the case for the asteroid it seems to be comparing apples with oranges in the cost estimates. The estimate of $2.6 billion is the cost of a single mission. The $150 billion is not a single mission cost, but the cost of colonizing the Moon - multiple missions plus development! Since the Curiosity Rover mission cost $2.5 billion, the asteroid estimate cannot possibly fund anything more than a single mission, particularly with the Obama Administration claiming it can be done for less. It likely wouldn't involve any of the development or other costs. The comparison is clearly not a fair representation of the relative costs of a return to the Moon verses the actual capture of an asteroid, transfer to Luna Orbit followed by an actual manned mission to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I finally tracked down the Keck document investigating this. The are talking about capturing a 7m (that's 23ft) diameter earth crossing asteroid, and putting it into orbit around the Moon. The $2.6 billion estimate is the cost of the capture mission only: the launch vehicle, the ion thrusters, the solar panels, flight system etc. They do NOT include the cost of any human spaceflight to the asteroid. Thus the exploration cost for the asteroid is much higher. Also the duration of the capture mission is of the order of 10 years from initial launch as Keck configures it. It is surely not acceptable to say the cost of exploring an asteroid is only $2.6 billion - the cost of capture, and the cost of the competing mission is the cost not of only a single mission, but the actual colonization of the Moon itself! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Article tense[edit]

There is a lot of present and future tense in the history section that seems inappropriate. Any thoughts on updating it to read in past tense? Sanchazo (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, be bold, go ahead and change it where you think appropriate. Thom2002 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Second Cold War?[edit]

There's been some news talks about a Second Cold War as things mount between Russia and the USA, and that this may be another instance where the US beat Russia, as they did with the Moon landing :) 134.148.67.15 (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Size compared to Apollo[edit]

This sentence seems mathematically incorrect: "With a diameter of 16.5 feet (5 meters) as opposed to 12.8 feet (3.9 meters), it provided 2.5 times greater volume." Even assuming "2.5 times greater volume" really means "2.5 times the volume", it still cannot be correct. A 5 meter diameter cylinder has about 1.6 times the volume of a 3.9 meter cylinder of the same height. Elsewhere in the article it says "[the crew module] will have more than 50% more volume than the Apollo capsule." which seems more accurate. Mnudelman (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Orion capsule is quite a bit taller. Kaleja (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
In that case, the article should compare both dimensions, so it does make sense.—Finell 04:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Why isn't the article's title "Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle", with redirects from "Orion spacecraft" and "Orion space craft" (and any other appropriate redirects)? —Finell 04:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If I had to guess, it's because there's a general consensus that article titles should be whatever is the most well-known designation, it's designated as the Orion spacecraft in everyday language so Orion (spacecraft) doesn't seem too far fetched to me. Best Regards InsaneHacker (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Header Picture[edit]

Now that the capsule has been flown, would it be better to have an actual picture of the EFT-1 Orion instead of a computer rendering? I realize that the rendering might look better, but having a real picture seems better than just a conceptual design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnethercutt (talkcontribs) 22:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

B-class review[edit]

At the request of @N2e: I have begun to conduct a b-class review of this article against the WikiProject Spaceflight criteria. I will post a more detailed review later but for now I have identified the following obvious issues.

  • The article uses a non-standard infobox which should be changed - I would suggest Template:Infobox spacecraft class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
  • In several places the article uses non-SI units; for science-related articles SI units must take precedence
  • The Orion Lite and Funding sections should either be expanded or merged into other sections.
  • The "Orion Program mission section" needs to be rewritten completely. There are several parts of this that I actually found quite condescending to the point that I failed it against criterion B6; for example stating and restating the outcome of EFT-1 (the green background looks awful) and whether missions are crewed or not, and having a separate column for acronyms.
  • The article is tagged with {{Include-NASA}}. Any article tagged with this can never attain B-class status and the copied-and-pasted content needs to be found and rewritten before the page can be considered.
--W. D. Graham 10:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)