Recommended Posts

Hey Guys,

 

What functionality does the Orion provide over Dragon/Starliner?

 

I know dragon is half the weight, I just dont know what the Orion does that is worth the extra weight.

 

 

 

 

If they used dragon and the ESA service module, would the falcon heavy have enough thrust, with the extra 10% with the block 5.

 

 

2 hours ago, IsItPluggedIn said:

Hey Guys,

 

What functionality does the Orion provide over Dragon/Starliner?

 

A full service module (propulsion, consumables stores, more batteries etc.) Not that SpaceX couldn't build one on a pallet to fit inside the Trunk and add lines to the Dragon Claw umbilical. That and some high density polyethylene radiation shielding. Yes, HDPE is a rather good shield. Extra points if you add about 5% elemental boron to shield neutrons.

 

Essentially enough to take the mission life with a crew from a few days to Orion's 21.1 days

 

Quote

 

I know dragon is half the weight, I just dont know what the Orion does that is worth the extra weight.

 

Mission life with a crew aboard and a bit more radiation shielding. See above.

 

Quote

If they used dragon and the ESA service module, would the falcon heavy have enough thrust, with the extra 10% with the block 5.

 

FH could launch a Crew Dragon and crew on a lunar free return trajectory, a loop-around, and not have mission life issues. Maybe add some HDPE for shielding, but it's not that heavy.  This would have been the Grey Moon mission which was replaced by #blueMoon using Starship.

 

Add the aforementioned service module pallet to the Trunk and who needs Orion - or SLS? (but that's politically incorrect in Florida, Alabama, Colorado or Chicago [Boeing's home base])

Edited by DocM
  • Like 2

All of the above, which SpaceX won't need to bother with at all since Starship is able to carry 100 people + a modest 100 metric tonnes of cargo to Mars ... so figure another 50 metric tonnes of mass saved for the moon (since they won't have to carry all of the extra consumables for the long Martian mission).

 

More than doable for a Lunar mission on Starship. That's why Crew Dragon won't need to do it. It's a mission slated for Starship; in fact, already paid for. One of the first ones will be doing a once-around.

 

Orion is not needed in any context. At the time it was ordered, yes. Now, no.

Crew/Cargo Dragon may end up being used for the Gateway station under CLPS etc., But Starship would be insane for that mission.

 

First, it's several times larger than the Gateway, making the optics look bad for NASA. 

 

Second, who would be docked to who? Again, way too large for the mission.

  • Like 1
On 4/4/2019 at 8:27 AM, bguy_1986 said:

Are they still ignoring Starship?  lol

On 4/4/2019 at 12:12 PM, DocM said:

Yes, for now. Once Starship stats high altitude tests that gets a LOT harder.

NASA has finally acknowledged Starship!  lol

 

Potential mission managers and line engineers see the handwriting on the wall long before upper management suits, and with the pics & hops at Boca Chica Twitter has cranked up the volume to 11.

Edited by DocM
  • Like 1
  • 4 months later...

Wasnt the issue that Orion was too heavy for FH/DIVH to send direct, it would need to dock with a second stage in orbit and the Orion doesnt have the ability to do the docking?

 

Do we have any more information about how they would get around the issue, are they bringing the docking functionality forward?

 

2 hours ago, IsItPluggedIn said:

Wasnt the issue that Orion was too heavy for FH/DIVH to send direct, it would need to dock with a second stage in orbit and the Orion doesnt have the ability to do the docking?

 

Dock in orbit with an SLS ICPS upper stage, separately launched.

 

AKA: Distributed Launch

 

Quote

 

Do we have any more information about how they would get around the issue, are they bringing the docking functionality forward?

 

NASA Admin. Bridenstine said flat out the only vehicle-side docking system the US has with a flight history is SpaceX's version of the International Docking Adapter, so ICPS would need to use "IDA-X" to dock with Orion.  "IDA-X" is also simpler and cheaper than Boeing's unit.

 

Boeing developed IDA, it is used on ISS and Orion, and SpaceX's version has docked with it (Crew Dragon DM-1).

Edited by DocM
  • 2 months later...
On 4/25/2015 at 5:34 AM, FloatingFatMan said:

 

Blithering idiots.

 

Use 1 or the other, NEVER mix them!

I so wish, growing up, we were taught the metric system in the US. I have "learned" it but still am not used to it like I would be if I had grown up using it. Why anyone would use both in a car is beyond me but in space?

51 minutes ago, xrobwx said:

I so wish, growing up, we were taught the metric system in the US. I have "learned" it but still am not used to it like I would be if I had grown up using it. Why anyone would use both in a car is beyond me but in space?

 

I was taught the metric system in the 1960's, in a farm community (one-room schoolhouse for grades 1-5).

 

The issue has been implementation at the govt, industrial and supplier levels. This results in generations of legacy products & regulatory pages specifying Imperial. Not to mention road signs etc.

  • 2 weeks later...

😵

 

Ars Technica...

 


NASA does not deny the over $2 billion cost of a single SLS launch

"NASA is working to bring down the cost of a single SLS launch."

For the first time, a government cost estimate of building and flying a single Space Launch System rocket in a given year has been released. This estimate of "over $2 billion" came in the form of a letter from the White House to the Senate Appropriations Committee first reported by Ars this week.
>
Dont forget development costs
>
What the White House cost estimate did not include, however, was development costs. Since 2011, Congress has appropriated approximately $2 billion per year for the "development" of the SLS rocket (this does not include hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually on ground systems "development" for the rocket at Kennedy Space Center). 
>
Adding all of this up, the true cost of a Space Launch System mission with Orion on top in the 2020s, including the rocket's development but excluding ground systems and Orion development costs, appears to be in the ballpark of $5 billion per flight.

Let's hope the astronauts are served more than just pretzels after takeoff.

  • 2 months later...
  • 6 months later...

Cost of Orion

 

NASA IG: Twenty. Nine. Point. Five. Billion. Dollars. 😱

 

NASA: $11.3 billion 😲

 

https://spacenews.com/nasas-inspector-general-criticizes-orion-cost-accounting/

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — NASA’s inspector general criticized the agency for its accounting of Orion program costs in a new report, arguing it has “hindered the overall transparency” of the program amid growing costs and schedule slips.


In a July 16 report, NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) raised several issues with costs of the Orion program, including the agency’s decision to exclude many costs from a formal cost estimate for the program as well as “overly generous” award fees paid to the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, over the life of the program.

Through January of 2020, the latest financial data was available, NASA spent $16.7 billion on Orion, dating back to the Constellation program. NASA estimates spending $12.8 billion on Orion through 2030, primarily on production of future spacecraft.

While that suggests a total of Orion through 2030 of $29.5 billion, NASA’s formal estimate for life cycle costs for the program is $11.3 billion,
>

On 7/17/2020 at 10:54 AM, DocM said:

Cost of Orion

 

NASA IG: Twenty. Nine. Point. Five. Billion. Dollars. 😱

 

NASA: $11.3 billion 😲

 

https://spacenews.com/nasas-inspector-general-criticizes-orion-cost-accounting/

 

I wonder how many SpaceX's that much money would get you...

 

  • 1 month later...

Seems like it's several steps backwards to me now, the whole SLS concept.

 

Throw away most of the rocket at launch ... it's so ... crude. Brute force is all well and good, but ... blech. It smacks of yesterday's technology. :no: 

 

I dislike it immensely.

2 hours ago, Unobscured Vision said:

Seems like it's several steps backwards to me now, the whole SLS concept.

 

Throw away most of the rocket at launch ... it's so ... crude. Brute force is all well and good, but ... blech. It smacks of yesterday's technology. :no: 

 

I dislike it immensely.

They have been tasked with a semi-impossible goal. Go back to the moon and stay there before 2024. No time to do proper research and development of new ideas and technologies. Luckily you (we) have SpaceX. 

  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. They are seeking a better life too. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!