Talk:Orion (spacecraft)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orion (spacecraft) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 365 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Spaceflight C‑class High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States C‑class Mid‑importance

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Copied multi

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

This sentence makes no sense:

"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)[reply]

you are right I realy dosent give sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.104.37.203 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no toilet?

A Russian is claiming there's no toilet on this craft [1] , is that a design change? Or is that a mistake, and we don't need to update? -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explore an asteroid in lunar orbit - POV?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article tense

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)[reply]

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

Second Cold War?

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)[reply]