Talk:Constellation program/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Suggestions for improving the article

This article could benefit from adding information about project timelines, contractors, and funding. When is the program projected to reach certain milestones? Are funding issued expected to delay the project? What contractors are participating, and are they experiencing technical difficulties? Stuff like that. 24.55.107.138 01:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I can provide some of that information, but don't currently have time to edit the article properly. Development of Project Constellation is to proceed in five "spirals," or sub-project developments. Spiral One is Crew Exploration Development and Test, which is the development of a LEO-capable manned space vehicle. Spiral Two is Global Lunar Access for Human Exploration, which would allow for landing anywhere on Luna and the potential for base development. Spiral Three is Lunar Base and Mars Testbed, where the base is developed for visits of several months' duration. Spiral Four is a Mars flyby, and Spiral Five a manned Mars landing. To the best of my knowledge, Spiral One is to occur by 2014 and Spiral Two by 2020. Spiral Three could occur essentially any time after Spiral Two. Four and Five will (probably) require a different spacecraft from Orion. As for contractors, Lockheed Martin is primary on Orion, with Aerojet General, Honeywell International Inc, Orbital Sciences Corp, Hamilton Sundstrand, and United Space Alliance among the subcontractors. The Ares I Rocket is primarily built by ATK Thiokol, with the main subcontractors being Boeing and Rockwell International. Ares V I know less on, but last I saw, the engines were built by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne.The Dark 19:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Does anyone else think it kind of sounds like "Project: Megazord"? Maybe NASA can build several Ares-type unmanned modules that can align in space to become a deep space exploration vehicle - perhaps to bring a crew to Mars. I of course I say Megazord because it sounds like Power Rangers in concept.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.65.212 (talk • contribs)

The Apollo capsule was redesigned after the Apollo 1 fire to use a mixed oxygen/nitrogen environment. The current article implies that the mixed gas environment planned for Orion is an improvement over Apollo's 100% oxygen. I suppose that is true if you ignore the Apollo redesign... Sarrica 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

I agree with Davebenham. The two articles are separate, albeit related.

I object on the grounds that project orion is about to become a widely used search term in its own right. It will then be split into its own article, anyway. Just let the little stub simmer here for a while and see what happens. Give Peace A Chance 01:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Apollo (the mission name) entry is separate from the Saturn (the launch vehicle) entry. Why should we deviate from this format? Project Orion (lunar program) is specifically geared towards a landing on the moon. Project Constellation has a larger scope, encompasing a entire new launch system. I think as the two topics mature, it will be clear that keeping them separate is best. --Davebenham 02:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not merge. Give a brief dscription of each mission in Project Constellation and provide details in seperate articles. -Fnlayson 03:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Project Orion is the planned return to the moon, which is (theoretically) part of Project Constellation wings656 12:57am Aug 10 2006 EDT


Agree with Davebenham, on grounds of the Saturn-Apollo analogy. --Age234 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lengthy Subsections?

The subsections are getting a bit lengthy. Any ways to break em down a bit more? Goldencrisp87 06:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

LES based on Soyuz LES?

"The LES, based on the Russian Soyuz and Chinese Shenzhou LES systems..."

Is this true? If yes, needs citation. However, the CEV is much larger than the Soyuz crew module. The basic design of Russian and legacy American LES's is quite similar -- both date from the 1960's. Are there specific new features of the proposed LES that are adapted from later (1980s) versions of the TMA-series? If not, this phrase should be deleted, or modified to reference "legacy LES systems".

If true, given that the Shenzhou is entirely derivative, only Soyuz should be cited, unless the Chinese have introduced noteworthy improvements to the LES (unlikely, since it is a secondary system and probably works fine as is).RandallC 09:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Heat Shield Size

Does anybody know if there will be a smaller heat shield for ISS/solo flight than lunar because of the lower entry speed? Riceplaytexas 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer on Heat Shield and LES

In regards to the heat shield, NASA is looking into the same PICA heatshield used on the Stardust reentry capsule. The plan is for NASA to adopt a "universal" heat shield design that would be used for ISS, lunar, and planetary flights that can be replaced after each mission. For example, an unmanned Orion spacecraft that would fly to the ISS would be "recycled" for later use on a manned Orion lunar flight. As described in the most recent issue of Popular Mechanics magazine (March, 2007), the goal is to have a heat shield that would be 8% lighter than that employed on the Apollo Command Module. On heat shield thickness, the former Soviet Union employed a modified Soyuz reentry capsule that had a thicker heat shield than the one used on its Earth-orbiting version, and it had worked successfully, using in both the skip-entry and direct-entry pattern that is being considered for Project Constellation.Rwboa22 17:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

On the LES, the system is identical in design to that used on the Soyuz and Shenzhou spacecraft, but unlike their LES, the Orion LES would have the same thrust as that of the Mercury-Atlas rocket that was used to launch John Glenn into orbit in 1962. Remember, the LES used on Apollo was as powerful as the Mercury-Redstone rocket used on Alan Shepard's and Gus Grissom's flights, and that LES, like the Orion LES, are solid-rocket motors. Also the Orion LES would employ the same mechanics (like the so-called "canards") that the Apollo LES incorporated, and finally, unlike the Soyuz/Shenzhou LES, in which it has to yank both the Orbital Module and descent capsule away from the rocket, the Orion LES would only yank the Orion Crew Module away.Rwboa22 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

DIRECT?

Why is DIRECT mentioned in the article introduction? It's not "under consideration" by anybody at NASA, it's a space enthusiast's idea. NASA is set on Constellation as it's currently designed and has stated many times that "this is the way it'll be". It should properly be mentioned under "alternative plans", but with the disclaimer that it's not a NASA idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.161.207 (talk • contribs)

I agree, there needs to be a citation that the Constellation Project is actually considering DIRECT or the statement needs to be removed. A link to DIRECT could appear later in the article under "see also" or even an alternatives or criticisms section. But the current sentence in the introduction seem inappropriate.128.2.184.59 20:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I moved that to a new Alternatives section. If no reference for it is provided after a while, that should be removed. -Fnlayson 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I added a brief mention of the EELV option to the Alternatives section, and amended the DIRECT reference to accomodate.
  • The EELV based entry seems incomplete, like it's missing a finishing phrase or something. -Fnlayson 04:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Removing the word "which" from that sentence seems to have made it complete. --OuroborosCobra 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Shortened Subsections

Pursuant to the suggestion above "Lengthy Subsections?", much of the material in the sections which have sub-articles has now been removed. (Actually it's commented out, for easy access if anyone feels the need.) Has all of that material already been incorporated into the appropriate sub-articles? Sdsds 05:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Article Name Change

The article is entitled "Project Constellation", but NASA refers to it as the "Constellation Program." [1] Doesn't it make sense to have the official, correct name for these programs? (I'm not entirely sure, but I believe this would apply for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo as well.) Drawingnearisgood 05:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lunar Ascent Engine

The article states that five RL-10 engines are used on the LSAM, four in the decent stage and one in the ascent stage. NASA has not finalized the type of engine used on the ascent stage; however, it will almost certainly not use the RL-10. The RL-10 is a cryogenic LH2/LOX engine, whose fuel would boil-off during a 6 month surface stay. An engine using storable propellents, similar or identical to the one planned for the CEV (adapted from the second-stage Delta II engine) is much more likely. I will change the article to this, I would appreciate any proofreading.

Conversion of Orion

NASA could at one time convert a few Block III Orions into ships ready to go to Mars. Ther's even a proposal for a giant booster named the Ares IV. Block IIIs could be launched from the Ares IV. (Joao10000 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

Timeline Problems

I have noticed that on several other pages relating to Constellation have launch dates that differ from each other for the first human flight and other flights of Ares 1. Also the first human flight of the Ares 1 has been changed to 2015 and no sooner. I also believe that it should be noted that the up comming presidential canidates could change the schedule drastically. For example Obama wants to add an additional 5 years for the first human flight pushing the launch to 2019 and not 2015. Therefore I feel that this election cycle and the future prediction of Constellation should be mentioned in the article somewhere but I am not sure where. Aerospace7 10:23, 27 May 2008

Archive 1

I just wanted to leave a brief note stating that I went ahead and archived the previous discussion. After reading through the discussion and the article it appeared as if most of the issues brought up had been addressed. I'm hoping this will provide a clean slate so people can start improving this article again. Grant (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Towards a Featured Article

In the coming months and years, the Constellation program is going to become more important and relevant to people. Since not many people know about Constellation, I would imagine that many people will end up coming here for some basic information about it. Because of this, this article needs to be strengthened, and the best way to do that is to attempt to make it a Featured Article. Even if we fail, we will likely end up with a Good Article. Grant (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

From going through a couple Featured Article reviews, I suggest passing a Good Article review first. That'll reduce the pain of fixing formatting and other issues that are brought up. This article could use a History or Development section to give the background and some history of it. I think some of this info is there, but spread out in various sections. I know a little about the program but not sure where to get sources for this. A layout like Apollo program and Space Shuttle program with a little from WP:Air/PC (for ideas only, separate WP) seems the way to go here, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you completely. I'm thinking we get it so WP:Space judges it as an A-Class article, then go for GA and then finally try for FA. I also agree that there needs to be some type of background section. I had this in mind when I rewrote the intro earlier today when I made mention of NASA Authorization Act of 2005 and the Vision for Space Exploration. Both of these are going to be key components of the background section. I'll put together an outline for how I think the article should be structured. Let me know what you think. Grant (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Outline

  1. Intro
  2. Background
  3. Spacecraft
    1. Orion
    2. Altair
    3. Earth Departure Stage
  4. Boosters
    1. Ares I
    2. Ares V
    3. Ares IV
  5. Missions
    1. Low-Earth orbit
    2. Lunar flights
    3. Other proposed flights
  6. Program critiques
  7. Alternative proposals
  8. See also
  9. Reference
  10. External links

A few comments on the outline above: I've put Ares V before Ares IV because the primary development route that NASA is looking at is for the Ares I and V, and not making the Ares IV at all. In fact, I'm even thinking of moving Ares IV down to Alternative Proposals and put two subsections there, one for Ares IV and one for DIRECT. Most of the information regarding Constellation is already in Wikipedia, most of it in the Ares I, IV, V, Orion, Altair and EDS articles. I would like to pull some of that information into this article so people can get a good understanding of all the components of Constellation without having to go to the articles specific to each piece of hardware. At the same time, I would like to remove a lot of the more technical information that's currently contained here, especially the stuff about what engines will be used. I don't think that's information that is necessary in a general information article. Grant (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Booster and Spacecraft Information

I want to structure each subsection under the booster and spacecraft sections the same way. Roughly basing this off of what I'm seeing within Apollo program, I propose a three paragraph format. The first paragraph should state the name of the spacecraft and describe its intended purpose. The second paragraph should be a physical description of the craft and how it operates. The third and final paragraph should be regarding the primary contractor who will build it. A possible fourth paragraph might need to be included to describe the time line of development and any testing and launches that have occurred. Grant (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Article moved from Project Constellation

NASA calls it "Constellation Program", so why the lower case program for the article name? Not a big deal either way really... -Fnlayson (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I did this so it would conform to Apollo program. If you go to Apollo Program it will redirect you to Apollo program. I don't know why it's this way, I would actually prefer Constellation Program, but I thought I would make it conform to other Wikipedia articles. Grant (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I hadn't noticed about the Apollo article. Wikipedia policy can be picky on capitalization sometimes. So that will avoid those issues. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of style#Article titles. Thanks for renaming it, Grant (not sure whether we should do the same to Project Mercury and Project Gemini?) --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It's actually interesting the way NASA refers to each project. It looks like it's The Mercury Project, The Gemini Program and The Apollo Program. I actually would think that making these changes across Wikipedia would be beneficial. Grant (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a 'project' from conception until actualization. It becomes a 'program' once it's established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.50.139 (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama slashing budget?

Is there any reality to assertions that Obama has stated that he wants to slash the budget for this project? __meco (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to self seems to be Talk:Constellation program/Archive 1#Timeline Problems. __meco (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
If and when changes to the Constellation program are announced then they can be added to the article. Talk and speculation about possible future changes should not be added. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

as of Jan 28th, 2010 the budget for future manned moon missions has been cut http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35131431/ns/technology_and_science-space/ --voodoom (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That MSNBC article only states that the Obama Administration's proposal for NASA plans. Correct me if I am wrong, but such change would require Congressional approval. If that should happen, then it should be noted in the article. Andy120290 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the President's office submits a budget and Congress may change it before passing it. The FY10 Defense budget went through a lot of drama before getting passed and signed. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lunar Sortie/Outpost Flights

I'm new to this, but realized that there may be some innacuracies in this section; according to the NASA website, the SRB Seperation occurs at T+125.9s, and the Main Engine Seperation at T+329.0s. The PDF is here: http://event.arc.nasa.gov/aresv/ppt/Saturday/2Sumrall/2Sumrall.pdf, Page 6 shows the events. There may be changes in information as the project updates; the PDF is from the Ares V Astronomy Workshop held April 26, 2008. Is the article using newer sources? Jamil d (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bring this up. This article does not cite/reference the separation times it lists. The times are for Ares I, which could be slightly different than the Ares V times listed in that file. Maybe I can find something like that for Ares I... -Fnlayson (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply; you're right, the numbers are for Ares I; I didn't realize (http://www.slideshare.net/astrosociety/ares-i-integration-approach-presentation, Slide 6): If that's the case, the numbers are right. I'll go ahead and edit the numbers, if there's anything wrong let me know Jamil d (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, good find there. The times on slide 6 looks to cover it. Sure, go ahead. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandenberg?

Why wouldn't Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 6 be used to save fuel on polar launches? Hcobb (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Two reasons; the first being that no polar orbit flights are planned, and the second would be fairly obvious if you had read the SLC-6 article. --GW… 17:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Altair volume

The article compares Altair with the Apollo LM and states that Altair will be "...almost 5 times larger, occupying a total volume of 1,120 ft³ (31.8 m³) as compared with the Apollo lander's much smaller volume of 235 ft³ (6.65 m³)." However, these figures look like they are comparing the overall volume of Altair with the pressurised volume of the LM. The currently proposed pressurised volume of Altair is 17.45m3, a little over two-and-a-half times that of the LM. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/289914main_fs_altair_lunar_lander.pdf --Coconino (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Individual mission articles

Hi all. There's a discussion at Talk:Proposed Constellation mission regarding just what to do with all the stub articles we have on individual Orion/Altair flights, most of which are single-sourced and quite tentative.

I meant to mention the discussion here when I started it, but apparently forgot - my apologies! If anyone has thoughts on the matter, please do leave them there. If there's nothing further in the next week or so, I'll start merging them back down to a single list. Shimgray | talk | 12:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Following on from this, I've proposed merging Orion Asteroid Mission and Orion Mars Mission into this article; it seems a bit strange to keep them seperated when they're so hypothetical. Shimgray | talk | 13:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems fair. Merge here and summarize/tighten wording. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. I'm too tired/preoccupied with TV to do any real cleanup after merge though, so please copy edit/cleanup. Thanks!
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The comparison image is wrong

The main comparison image on the page (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maximum_payload.PNG), is clearly not accurate. In this picture the Ares V is shown as being slightly shorter than the Saturn V, yet from all information I can gather, the Ares is supposed to be 116 m (380 ft) tall and the Saturn was only 110.6 m (363 ft) tall. So it is clearly wrong, any change of anyone fixing this? Thanks. --Hibernian (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The source seems to be NASA itself, so there isn't much we can do on that and remain within license to post it, I'd guess. Is it possible that the discrepancy comes from the Apollo escape system? That seems to be what is pushing the Saturn to look taller in the picture, and I can see that not being part of the "official" Saturn V length. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, on close examination of the picture (by pixel count) this is indeed the explanation. The escape tower thing adds approximately 10 m of additional height to the Saturn V (and the Ares I), but this is not mentioned on the page (or at least I didn't notice it). It seems the picture is accurate after all; call off the alert, lol. Though it should probably be mentioned somewhere that the Saturn is actually about 120 m tall, if all of the structure is included (and the Ares I is about 104 m). --Hibernian (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ares V Lite

The article's intro states "Ares I will have the sole function of launching mission crews into orbit." However, this BBC News article describes an "Ares V Lite" which it states "would be a smaller version of the freight carrier, capable of carrying astronauts." Anyone have any info on the discrepancy? —divus 06:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No discrepancy. The Constellation program has the Ares I and Ares V designs now. There are other alternative launchers that have been proposed. The BBC article mentions an "Ares V lite" as another possibility. -Fnlayson (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks. —divus 10:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It's the plan Obama is thinking of and wants, not the main idea. It is, however, important enought probably to be put in Alternative launchers and a small page. Theguywhohatestwitter (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ares V may turn into Ares V lite. Ares V lite/light is a scaled down version of Ares V. So Ares V is probably the better place to cover that. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ares V Lite is covered at Ares V#Ares V Lite now. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Project dead?

The article contains one sentence saying that the project will not receive funding in 2011. Is this a final decision? If so, that would mean the project is "dead", and the article needs a revamp, does it not? Swarm(Talk) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No. See the Obama slashing budget? section above. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Didn't see it. Swarm(Talk)
Understandable. This page needed some archiving. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Constellation is dead and article should be rewritten. --ThorX13 (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree! Ian Page (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't only the verbs be changed to conditional instead of future? Xionbox₪ 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

cancellation proposal announced on 7 year anniversary of the Columbia disaster

This was noted in the article and later was removed from the remover called it "unrelated trivia." If the Associated Press considers it worthy to be mentioned, which they did in several articles, I think it is appropriate here also. Thoughts?--69.248.225.198 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Add it
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Unrelated trivia. The disaster has not direct bearing on this. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Post-Constellation policy direction for NASA

I have started a discussion in the main NASA article Talk Page.

Now that NASA has announced a new (post-Constellation) direction for their plans to get humans into Earth-orbit,(Private Spaceflight Goes Public, Alan Boyle, MSNBC Cosmic Log, 2010-02-01; many other sources will be published this week) and the Obama Administration is backing the new policy in the just-released budget proposal, it seems we need two things. First, we need an update to the general article on NASA, in order to reflect the new policy direction. Secondly, it seems to me we need a new NASA-related policy history article created in the vein of, and as a successor to, Vision for Space Exploration (2004), Aldridge (2004), and Augustine (2009).

If you are interested in the topic, suggest you comment there. N2e (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Cancellation Image

Funny as it is, the second logo with the word 'cancellation' below needs removal, right? It Figures. (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed it. Looks like image vandalism or something. Unhelpful anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fate of Constellation

Please make sure to leave the status of Constellation and all of it's child projects as "under development" until the budget is approved by the congress. The fate of the project is still unknown since many in congress want it to stay, and recently wrote a provision into law that makes it so the president can't change funding without the approval of congress.

Ittiz (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its cancellation is still only a proposal, there is no indication that it has been cancelled yet on the NASA webpages. 88.105.46.10 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My edits to include the likely cancellation in the first phrase were reverted as purported "vandalism". Well, I am sorry to say to all those trying to present this chimera as a viable program: you are just deluding yourselves at taxpayer's expense. There is absolutely no doubt it will be ultimately cancelled. We'll see you next year. 76.176.24.87 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


This is an encyclopedia, not a news site or a blog. I didn't see what you wrote, but the fact that the constellation program is not included in Obama's budget for NASA should be mentioned, not that it has been canceled however. Since it won't be canceled till congress votes on the budget, it doesn't matter how certain it is. Sure if you throw an wine glass into the air, and the odds that it will break when hit hits the ground is almost certain, you can't say the glass broke until it actually breaks. All you can say is it will "most likely" break, especially in an encyclopedia.


151.204.226.4 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Needlessly biased or political text removed from cost.

The cost section appears needlessly political in its discussion when projecting costs. While it may be legitimate to mention costs from other programs, extending those same costs to another, different, program is biased and appears to be advocacy and not explanation of material directly related to the subject at hand. Text removed is pasted below.


Applying the same underestimate to the Constellation program would put its actual 10-year price tag at $151 billion (in 2008 dollars), or $404 billion over 20 years including the Commercial Crew and Cargo program. It is too early to know if similarly over-optimistic estimates will apply to Constellation's launch frequency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southern Forester (talk • contribs) 12:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Constellation_program/Archive_1&oldid=1136636784"