Talk:Orion (spacecraft)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

Good info

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

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

One: Mind your tabs/spacing, two: "there was a cost overrun...caused by insufficient funding" Insufficient funding caused a cost overrun. It does make sense. JamesJNHu (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes, having to toss in the money in small, irregular and stopgap fashion, under constant wrangling about who's going to pay and how, leads to considerably higher costs than if there are appropriate, solid funds right through and you stick with a plan that was essentially mapped out from what you wanted to achieve. Not paying up for the right stuff at an early stage, or not doing the proper research because there was a glut in the funding leads to much higher costs at a later stage. Many people who have built a house or fought ill health can tell you that: it doesn't always pay to have to be tight-fisted. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Size compared to Apollo

This sentence seems mathematically incorrect: "With a diameter of 16.5 feet (5 meters) as opposed to 12.8 feet (3.9 meters), it provided 2.5 times greater volume." Even assuming "2.5 times greater volume" really means "2.5 times the volume", it still cannot be correct. A 5 meter diameter cylinder has about 1.6 times the volume of a 3.9 meter cylinder of the same height. Elsewhere in the article it says "[the crew module] will have more than 50% more volume than the Apollo capsule." which seems more accurate. Mnudelman (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Orion capsule is quite a bit taller. Kaleja (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

In that case, the article should compare both dimensions, so it does make sense.—Finell 04:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Title

Why isn't the article's title "Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle", with redirects from "Orion spacecraft" and "Orion space craft" (and any other appropriate redirects)? —Finell 04:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If I had to guess, it's because there's a general consensus that article titles should be whatever is the most well-known designation, it's designated as the Orion spacecraft in everyday language so Orion (spacecraft) doesn't seem too far fetched to me. Best Regards InsaneHacker (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

B-class review

At the request of @N2e: I have begun to conduct a b-class review of this article against the WikiProject Spaceflight criteria. I will post a more detailed review later but for now I have identified the following obvious issues.

• The article uses a non-standard infobox which should be changed - I would suggest Template:Infobox spacecraft class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
• In several places the article uses non-SI units; for science-related articles SI units must take precedence
• The Orion Lite and Funding sections should either be expanded or merged into other sections.
• The "Orion Program mission section" needs to be rewritten completely. There are several parts of this that I actually found quite condescending to the point that I failed it against criterion B6; for example stating and restating the outcome of EFT-1 (the green background looks awful) and whether missions are crewed or not, and having a separate column for acronyms.
• The article is tagged with {{Include-NASA}}. Any article tagged with this can never attain B-class status and the copied-and-pasted content needs to be found and rewritten before the page can be considered.

--W. D. Graham 10:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Header Picture

Now that the capsule has been flown, would it be better to have an actual picture of the EFT-1 Orion instead of a computer rendering? I realize that the rendering might look better, but having a real picture seems better than just a conceptual design.

Since nobody seems opposed to this i'm going to change the header picture to an image of the capsule splashed down.Mnethercutt (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Orion (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/orion_feature_011613.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/03/eft-1-slips-december-satellite-launch-first/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spaceflightnow.com/orion/eft1/140315delay/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spacecraft/eft-1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403045627/http://www.astrium.eads.net/en/press_centre/astrium-awarded-two-atv-evolution-studies-from-esa.html to http://www.astrium.eads.net/en/press_centre/astrium-awarded-two-atv-evolution-studies-from-esa.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/10/nasa-managers-serious-atv-role-as-orion-service-module/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://spacenews.com/nasa-moving-ahead-with-plans-for-cislunar-human-outpost/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orion (spacecraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170731071530/http://www.waaytv.com/story/35488304/how-nasa-plans-to-put-boots-on-mars-using-huntsvilles-space-launch-system-rocket to http://www.waaytv.com/story/35488304/how-nasa-plans-to-put-boots-on-mars-using-huntsvilles-space-launch-system-rocket

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed talk page edit

Per ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Delete_IABot_talk_page_posts? and Template_talk:Sourcecheck#Can_we_change_the_standard_message_to_says_its_OK_to_delete_the_entire_talk_page_section I'd like to delete the above two External links modified section. Any objections ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I just archived them. — JFG ^talk 10:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

American?

With ESA developing Orion service module based on ATV, isn't Orion now a joined American-European spacecraft rather then just American? 12:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.174.231 (talk)

Why is the capsule pressure vessel pale green

Is the pale green a surface treatment or a chosen colouring ? (Looks same as some of the other SLS components) - Rod57 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Orion (spacecraft)#Orion Program mission schedule needs to be sync’d with Space Launch System

These two tables of mission plans have widely inconsistent dates

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)#Orion_Program_mission_schedule
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Missions

-- johndrinkwater (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the predicted marginal cost of another Orion MPCV and can it be reused

Have there been any reports or estimates of the cost of each Orion capsule ? (It's fairly easy to see the cost of the European service modules) - Has capsule reusability been discussed ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Orion (spacecraft)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Orion (spacecraft)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nsf-20180911":

• From Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway: Sloss, Philip (September 11, 2017). "NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans". NASASpaceFlight.com. Retrieved 2017-09-15.
• From Space Launch System: Sloss, Philip (11 September 2018). "NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans". NASASpaceFlight.com. Retrieved 17 September 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Updating the spoken version of the article

The spoken version of this article is now 5 years old, and there have been many major changes in that timeframe, and therefore I believe it to be appropriate to create a new version based on the current version of the article. I would personally be willing to record myself speaking this article.

Singularities421 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Text-to-speech of Orion(spacecraft).ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixing up the "Flights" section

I noticed the flights section is a little weird. I could maybe do something more uniform and specific like what we have done on the Artemis page, dividing the flights into three categories and writing descriptions above.--RundownPear (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The Orion article was tagged by user:Beland on 2 Nov 2019 for a Merge, but they stated no rationale for the merger. He/she proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle merging into Orion (spacecraft). Rowan Forest (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Don't merge - The Orion article is very long as it is and it will grow even larger as it begins to perform its several missions. I think that a brief mention in the History section is enough. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Hey, thanks for getting the conversation rolling. The main reason I proposed the merge is that it's unclear to me what the difference between the CEV and the Orion actually is. Aren't they the same thing by different names? -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. The Crew Exploration Vehicle was the generic name for a needed spacecraft. Several concepts were submitted, two were selected as finalists. It is definitely related, but as a history of Orion. Rowan Forest (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I've updated the article and dropped the merge tag. -- Beland (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I've gone over to the CEV page and turned it into a little Orion history page detailing past and present programs that included the CEV / Orion. Just enough to explain the history but not too much to make it an Orion 2 page.RundownPear (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2020 - withdrawn

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: RM Withdrawn. And no other support !votes, so closing as not moved.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Orion (spacecraft) → Orion MPCV – The parenthetical disambiguation becomes unpopular over time, because of the possibility of an unambiguous, natural disambiguation. This article is no different. Therefore, I suggest to rename it "Orion MPCV" à la "CST-100 Starliner". Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of disambiguation is to help readers find articles. Readers looking for the Orion spacecraft may not be familiar with what "MPCV" stands for (unlike "Starliner" which is pretty clear and a common name.) JustinTime55 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree that MPCV wouldn't improve the title, which is adequately described now. The point about finding this page for someone going to the disamb is valid, as it must be searched for and found near the bottom of a large collection. Once the program begins its missions (and probably sooner if not now), the spacecraft should probably be listed as one of the primaries for the name at the top of the disambiguation page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment Thank you, I am requesting to withdraw the RM. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

As a real-life example, I was looking for this article just now. The way I found it was to type "orion" into a search box, then Command-F followed by spacecraft. I never would have found it if was called Orion MPCV. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed change to Table for test flights

In the existing table Orion development test flights could we delete the Crew column, and add "Command module" and "Service module" columns so we can show what actual hardware was used ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rod57: Can you clarify what exactly you have in mind? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 10:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: Instead of

Orion development test flights

Mission	Patch	Launch	Crew	Launch vehicle	Outcome	Duration
Pad Abort-1		6 May 2010 White Sands LC-32E	N/A	Orion Launch Abort System (LAS)	Success	95 seconds
Exploration Flight Test 1		5 December 2014, 12:05 UTC Cape Canaveral SLC-37	N/A	Delta IV Heavy (Delta 369)	Success	4 hours 24 minutes
Ascent Abort-2		2 July 2019, 11:00 UTC Cape Canaveral SLC-46	N/A	Orion Abort Test Booster	Success	3 minutes 13 seconds

something like vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv :

Orion development test flights

Mission	Patch	Launch	Crew Module / Service Module	Launch vehicle	Outcome	Duration
Pad Abort-1		6 May 2010 White Sands LC-32E	PA-1 Capsule / No SM	Orion Launch Abort System (LAS)	Success	95 seconds
Exploration Flight Test 1		5 December 2014, 12:05 UTC Cape Canaveral SLC-37	EFT-1 Capsule / dummy SM	Delta IV Heavy (Delta 369)	Success	4 hours 24 minutes
Ascent Abort-2		2 July 2019, 11:00 UTC Cape Canaveral SLC-46	Orion Test Article / No SM	Orion Abort Test Booster	Success	3 minutes 13 seconds

with wikilinks as possible. ? - Rod57 (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

That seems like a good change. I doubt any of those would be noteworthy enough to ever receive their own articles, though. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 10:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Should non-flight articles be counted in the built section?

On the Infobox, theres a section with information on how many Orion spacecraft have been built. It currently says 4 (EFT-1, Artemis I, Artemis II, Artemis III) and all of these are space-flight articles, although there have also been plenty of other Orions built that are not space-bound (e.g. Orion Strucutral Test Articles, Orion Pad Abort 1, etc), yet these are still Orions so should they be counted? {{subst:Unsigned|Koplins|23:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)}

@Koplins: I think we should just count flight-capable spacecraft. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally test articles bar a single final prototype arent fully complete, they will only fit the components they want to include for that particular test (so for example for a test of a parachute they might have mass simulator instead of fitting it out, or for an electrical test they dont fit most of the mechanical components, for a vibration test they dont fit all the electrical components (testing them individually), etc..) which also allows them to do parallel testing without having to build multiple copies. WatcherZero (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism - allocation of costs

@WatcherZero: So the OIG clearly regards the constellation costs as reasonable to include. Orion spans a failed program and an active program, the fact that it spans two programs does not change the fact that money was spent on it outside Artemis and was necessary to its development. Production costs vs marginal costs vs any other way you want to break it down don't change the actual outcome. There are 9 possible uses for Orion by 2030 and the OIG projects that expenditures will be $29.5 billion by then. All program costs need to be included in number of actual uses. If the Orion Program continues to exist beyond 2030, then the costs per use will likely fall. At present, we need to go off of the data we have and that is 9 missions (1 uncrewed) at $29.5 billion. The OIG pretty much defines an RS so as far as I can tell, your revert has no valid basis you simply don't like the criticism. If you can find sources that are also reliable and have significantly different costs estimates, then by all means lets see some contrasting data, otherwise we have an obligation to inform based upon the best data available. SandowTheHeretic (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your conflating the Orion program and the Orion Spacecraft, the Orion program contains things separate to simply constructing the vehicle. For example the Asteroid Redirect Mission from 2014-2017 was included within the Orion program budget, that was a completely separate spacecraft to rendezvous with, grapple an asteroid and return it to Earth orbit for future study. The development of the Lunar hardware itself, things like spacesuits, rovers etc... Thats all Program budget (There are two other separate programs, one for the launchers and one for Mission Control). According to that OIG report (page 10) of the $29.5bn $6.3bn was spent on the Constellation Program, $13.0bn on development of the Orion program also including the prototypes and test flights of non-mission hardware up through the Artemis 2 mission. $10.2bn on manufacturing Orion Flight hardware including contracts already awarded for Orion 3 through 8 and fixed price options on Orions 9-14 which if ordered would fly after 2030. The Unit price of Orion spacecraft is listed on page 11 of the report as $900m each for Artemis 3-5 and $600m each for Artemis 6-8. WatcherZero (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The asteroid redirect expenditure was 107 million before it was cancelled. I couldn't find anything that indicates that this money came out of Orion but I'll grant you that it may have been. NASA has a habit of as the OIG put it, "Tailoring the budget" or to be more honest, obfuscating costs. To that end, we also have the question of how much money was obscured by horse trading ISS upkeep to ESA. We will probably never get a real number there but it is probably well over the 2.7 billion for Artemis 3-5. The OIG estimate of 29.5 Billion notably does not include the costs of Orion for Artemis 1 and 2. So without are real derivation we are still left with at least 29.5 billion spent by 2030. As you say, this article is about the Orion Spacecraft, not the Orion program. The inclusion of costs from constellation are as relevant as the cost from the Artemis program as they both pertain to the cost of the capsule. Orion has always fallen under Human Exploration and Operations and all of the other things that you mention above are in HEO as well but the the OIG breakdown is the chunk of that expenditure that relates to the capsule and service module. The marginal cost of 600 or 900 million essentially doesn't matter. Their actual cost per use must include all of the development and support costs divided by the number of uses. If we go back to when there was talk of putting Orion on a falcon heavy then we might have seen a lot more uses and the cost per use would have plummeted but since the limit on uses now is the number of SLSs, we know how many are possible over the next decade and it is 9 at best. This is a criticism section after all and a contrasting view to the party line is exactly what should be there. If we are at an average of 3.2 billion per Orion according to the OIG, then that is very much legitimate criticism. Probably 3.7 billion is a more fair number since Artemis 1 is as much of a test flight as the abort tests were.SandowTheHeretic (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur with WatcherZero. This is my position in regards to other NASA projects as well. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 07:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and it is a position that has put you in a position in which over a dozen editors across 6 months have regarded your position as unsupported by evidence and entirely indefensible. Despite your denial, you have lost the rfc on this issue on the SLS page since there is consensus that you are wrong and you have no other editors that support you position. SandowTheHeretic (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You can do the same for Crew Dragon. It received $1.7bn from NASA in development funding and $2.4bn in production costs for six flights, then theres the R&D money invested in Cargo Dragon by NASA of $450m, as your including previous programmes. And thats all without knowing how much SpaceX itself has spent on development. Elon has said Crew Dragon has overran its Commercial Crew Program funding by "hundreds of millions of dollars" as much as "50%" of its budget. It gets even harder because theres also the puff research contracts that NASA and the US Armed Forces use to funnel money to private companies a lot of which are off the books. But even from what we do know that increases headline Unit Price of Crew Dragon capsules from $400m to $1bn.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WatcherZero (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree to an extent. I have no interest in denigrating a program, my goal is simply transparency. Spending on Dragon 2 is a lot more transparent though. 3.1 billion in public funds with a result of 6 flights ends up at 520 million per flight and essentially 129 million per seat for those first 6 missions. This is well above the advertised 55 million per seat and a criticism section on the Crew Dragon page is warranted. However much SpaceXs spend of their own money in this development doesn't really effect the fact that tax payers get a service X for cost Y. Since SpaceX is selling seats commercially at 55 million, the cost to NASA is presumably going to be that or less for future missions and the actual cost per seat will drop as it does. This doesn't change the money spent vs service provided point we are at which is still 129 million per seat. Commercial Cargo funding certainly laid a foundation for crew dragon, but it also notably provided a service which constellation never did. Constellation also directly paid for the development of the exact same vehicle as Artemis whereas Crew Dragon is a very different vehicle than Dragon 1. SandowTheHeretic (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't part of the specification for the service module the delta-V it can give the Orion capsule

[2] says 1.8 km/s (but was that before the ESM) ?
[3] says 1346 m/s (with another 241 m/s from the capsule after separation). Too much like OR - what do NASA say ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Why is there no description of the enhanced radiation protection the Orion capsule is supposed to have

Why is there no description of the enhanced radiation protection the Orion capsule is supposed to have ? This article doesn't mention radiation at all. - Rod57 (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Because no one has added it to the point, citing reliable published source. BilCat (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Needs more on the crew module software and computers

Supposedly Orion will have lots of new and wonderful/expensive software but there's no detail here. Could also mention if/how it interacts with the Boeing software for SLS, and how involved NASA are in the Orion software specification, design, and development. Eventually we might have a separate article on Orion software systems. - Rod57 (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

We could also use more on other stuff, such as the power output of the solar panels. Given that this is known with past projects such as Dawn, I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to find (thought maybe its not available, as a dig through some documents seems to illude me) NovaAmm (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

From 2015: Orion spacecraft's avionics designed for reliability in deep space 2015 says Orion avionics based on Honeywell computer for Boeing 787 aircraft. EFT-1 used twin computers, but later ones will use quad computers (using the IBM PowerPC 750 FX processor chip) - but not voting - just a priority order. (Seems less safe!) This article claims Rad hardened processors, but others say not. Using an FAA certified OS. - Rod57 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)