Jump to content

Talk:Orion 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.60.66.216 (talk) at 22:40, 30 December 2007 (→Orion 13/LSAM 3). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

13?

Wow, so is NASA really doing this by sheer coincidence or trying to "redo" Apollo 13?

  • You can be into high technology or into superstition, but I think being into both is odd. Hektor 10:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just think it's werid that the first mission is "Orion 13" and I remember reading that NASA did not want to use "13" for any future missions. I heard this is why they switched to the cryptic shuttle mission names after STS-9 to avoid and "STS-13".
      • Who wants to bet that they'll eventually change the number? 23:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Orion 13

Although NASA had to confront an Apollo 13, remember, Apollo 1 was actually numbered "AS-204." That is why the Thompson Committee's report is known in NASA circles as the "AS-204 Report." As for the Shuttle, remember that prior to Challenger, NASA and the U.S. Air Force were rebuilding the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) launch pad into a Shuttle launch facility to launch spy satellites into polar orbit, as Shuttle at the time would have been the only launch vehicle used by the U.S. The x1-x and x2-x designation was adopted as a code used by NASA and the DoD for flight manifestation purposes. It was dropped after Challenger when President Reagan allowed the DoD to start building Atlas, Titan, and Delta rockets and in the process, closed down the military launch pad.

As for Orion 13, I feel that NASA has "grown" up (in the terms of numbering their flights), and because it is not supporting Orion flights to both the International Space Station and to the Moon at the same time, along with taking the "step-by-step" approach used in Apollo, I think that the Orion 13 designation is just a coincidence. And remember, Orion 13 is the first "attempted" landing since 1972 — no mission is guaranteed, and in the Apollo program, there were three near-abort situations that occured (Apollo 11, Apollo 14, and Apollo 16).

Rwboa22 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orion 13/LSAM 3

NASA might as well attempt to put Orion 13's lander somewhere near the Apollo landing sites so that we can prove that man went to the moon and maybe quiet up all those conspiracies.(Joao10000 19:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • more than a little interesting that we're not going back until 2019. maybe because that's the year when nasa will finally have the real technology to send men to the moon and back, almost 50 years after the last 'moon landing'.24.60.66.216 (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skip Orion 17, Lets go with Orion 18

Since NASA has revised its scheduling to have the first post-Apollo lunar landing with Orion 17, how 'bout changing the manifest again to have Orion 13 do an Apollo 9-style earth orbital mission in which LSAM 1 is tested out completely in Earth orbit (or in the originally Apollo manifest, do a high Earth orbit flight to both test out the LSAM and the Orion CM's heat shield) and manifest the first landing for Orion 18. That way, NASA would not confuse the history books with two "17" flights (Apollo 17 and Orion 17/LSAM 4) and instead, make a smooth transition from Apollo 17 (December, 1972) to Orion 18 (January or February, 2020).

By the way, at the same time, NASA should look into sending Orion 17/LSAM 4 to Tranquility Base for the first landing. First of all, it's familiar territory, and after Neil and Buzz piloted the Eagle over a crater filled with boulders the size of the old-style VW Beetle, we would have more information about the landing site than anyone else. Also, by landing near Tranquility Base, we could retrieve samples of the foil insulation from the LM's descent stage, the laser reflector experiment project, the life-support backpacks worn by Neil and Buzz (primarily for materials analysis in support for the future lunar and Martian outposts), and even the U.S. Flag planted by them during their 2½ hour moonwalk.

Just imagine seeing the actual Apollo 11 flag at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. It would allow NASA to recover some face after the Columbia accident in which prior to STS-107, NASA had plans of retrieving the Hubble Space Telescope and displaying it there (now since abandoned due to safety reasons). This will also shut the conspiracy theorists up for good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwboa22 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orion_17&oldid=181071137"