Talk:Orion (spacecraft)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion determined that Orion (Constellation program), Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Orion Lite should be merged into Orion (spacecraft), with no consensus to also merge in Crew Exploration Vehicle. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Evening folks, hope everyone had a good Christmas and New Year! I'd like to propose the merger of Crew Exploration Vehicle, Orion (Constellation program), Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and possibly Orion Lite into Orion (spacecraft). The current articles between them all concern the same spacecraft, simply as part of different programmes (like Apollo and Skylab for Apollo (spacecraft)) or launched on different rockets (like the Redstone and Atlas for Project Mercury). Between them, IMHO, the articles have enough content for one decent one, especially when now-superfluous information (such as the Project Constellation timetable) is removed. Merging them would reduce confusion, especially when the spacecraft starts flying, and I believe the spacecraft has sufficient notability to replace the redirect; a hatnote pointing at the current redirect's target would be perfectly sufficient. Comments and views are, as ever, appreciated. :-) SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Support merger of Orion and MPCV but Oppose CEV which covers the design competition and other proposals, and Orion Lite, which was a separate proposal and development. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Support with the merging of Orion, MPCV and Orion Lite into Orion (spacecraft), and I also Oppose the merging CEV into Orion as it is a different craft altogether.--NavyBlue84 23:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks for the supports chaps and, in response to the CEV opposes, I would say that, as the spacecraft hasn't actually flown yet, the vast majority of the resultant article will concern the design process. As the CEV article also concerns part of that design process, I would say that it can be merged into the design section for now and, when the Orion article becomes big enough to split, we can put the CEV part, alongside the rest of the design section, into a new article in a similar manner to Space Shuttle design process. As for Orion Lite, its a tiny article which, according to the article itself, may well concern a version of Orion that will never fly; as a result I personally feel it fails WP:NOTABILITY and so should be merged until such a point as it undergoes some actual development. Cheers, SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that once Orion and MPCV are merged the article will already be fairly long, and given that MPCV is still under development, it is only going to get longer. There is also enough to be said about other proposals to justify a separate CEV article, so I think we should retain the present one, and possibly split some of the early design history from the Orion article into it. As for Orion Lite, if a merger could be conducted without the loss of any content then it might not be such an issue, however I would argue that it is still more notable than the countless proposed-yet-unflown commercial spacecraft that keep cropping up, and many of them seem to be considered notable. I would also argue that there is definitely not enough room to merge more than three of the articles without compromising on content. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 09:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In that case, how about the design section from the Orion article be merged into the CEV article and the result renamed to Orion design process or something of that kind? As for Orion Lite, I think its short enough to not require any content loss when being merged; as for notability vs other COTS vehicles, that's another issue; if you'd like to bring it up elsewhere I'd have to say I'd probably agree with you. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The proposals were for the "Crew Exploration Vehicle", so I think the current title would be the more common name. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 14:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

True, but the proposals for the CEV were a part of the design process for Orion. If we're going to have all the design process in one article, calling it CEV is incorrect, as its the design process for Orion, not CEV. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be more logical to put post-CEV design work in the Orion article, and leave the alternative proposals under CEV, after all it would be incorrect to call them alternative Orion designs; they were alternative CEV designs with the final CEV evolving into Orion. I think the best solution would be to have CEV about the design competition, and Orion about the spacecraft which evolved out of it. Include Orion refinements in the Orion article, it shouldn't be more than a section. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 19:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There were many alternative designs for the Space Shuttle, doesn't stop us having one article encompassing them all... SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying we shouldn't, I just think it would be better to present it from the angle of the programme as it was at the time, rather than the start of a long process mostly related to a single design. We'd still have two articles, one on Orion and one on the original proposals, but more specifics on the history of the Orion design would be in the Orion article, rather than cluttering up the CEV article. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... Still not a big fan, but I guess we can deal with that at another time. Everyone happy to merge the three Orion articles in the meantime? SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I am lost on what is being proposed by WD. Do you mean an article like that on the shuttle design process, but encompassing all the design options, and one that is dedicated to the final selection? Like article A would talk about CEV, Orion Lite, MPCV, and Orion, then article B would talk about MPCV?

As for merging the three that are agreed upon, I am go for it!--NavyBlue84 19:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the CEV article would cover the initial development, proposals and the design/contract competition. Anything after the downselect would be covered in the Orion article, including refinements, and proposed derivatives, such as Orion Lite. In terms of content, the distinction between CEV and Orion would be more or less the same as it is now. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 12:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As everyone is happy with merging the Orion articles, I'll go ahead and execute the merge. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense now, thanks WD. Doing that way is IMO probably the better way.--NavyBlue84 15:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, that's the merge executed; any help in cleaning up the result would be greatly appreciated! :-) SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent Edits

This text seems to be the problem:

On 11 October 2010, with the cancellation of the Constellation Program, the Ares program ended and development of the original Orion vehicle was retooled into the MPCV, planned to be launched on top of an alternative, allegedly cheapercitation needed Space Launch System.

We have no citation, but "allegedly" is weasel-y. If I remember correctly, the SLS is to be flexible enough so that the aggregate cost of the various components and configurations is intended to be less than individual development of separate systems. Now, what was I reading that gave me that idea? --cregil (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

So, undo it. It was just added by an IP user. No need for ceremony, soapbox, or consensus for a one word edit. Just undo the edit and move on. Doyna Yar (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of soapboxes, were you? I didn't do it because I do not trust my memory on this and do not have a source. Did not mean to irritate that burr under your saddle.--cregil (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Good info

Status of ESD, Orion, SLS, and GSDO (23 July 2012) - Pg. 10 to 15

Cargo Craft Payload Capacities and Summary of All Active and Being-Manufactured Spacecraft

For everyone's information, I have collected the following info:

Cargo Craft Payload capacities to Low-Earth Orbit:

• Space Shuttle: 24,400 kg (53,600 lb)
• Progress: 2,350 kg (5,200 lb)
• Automated Transfer Vehicle: 7,667 kg (16,900 lb)
• H-II Transfer Vehicle: 6,700 kg (14,771 lb)
• Dragon: 6,000kg (13,227lb) [approx.]

(information taken from the wiki page of each vehicle)

Please also see a Summary of All Current and Being-Manufactured Spacecraft (with proper names and company names) here:

• Orion_(spacecraft)#See_also

Please use this info and update it/add to it as you see fit. It's some of the most important stuff that people will likely want to know about current human space travel. --Radical Mallard (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of developments and updates?

Do you think that a timeline section for new developments and updates would have merit?--Ourhistory153 (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

As a fan of man's space exploration it would be intellectually stimulating to watch the progress of Orion. And in one easy to find location. Anybody else fee that way?--Ourhistory153 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Turn picture upside right?

This is driving me nuts. What's your opinion on turning the picture on its horizontal axis to have the window and therefore the astronauts right side up? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 14:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean like this? I think it looks terrible, but that's just me. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Turn it a further 90° to the left.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 15:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So this then. That's significantly less awful. I still prefer the Earth being below, however. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but "right side up" is rather meaningless in this context. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can still define up versus down in relation to the Earth's surface if we like, just at very high altitudes. Freefall makes everything much less consequential, though. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the astronauts are positioned so that their head is next to the window. In the current picture that means it's facing towards the References section. I think it would be better if they were facing the History tab. :D--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 06:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.