The Orion crew capsule rides into Earth orbit atop the Ares I rocket, also in development (artist's concept). Courtesy of NASA.

Business

Part Apollo, Part Boeing 787

Officials at Lockheed Martin say the Orion crew vehicle, NASA's Moon-bound successor to the space shuttle, will combine retro-1960s and cutting-edge aerospace technologies.

  • Monday, September 11, 2006
  • By Wade Roush

The Apollo program, which sent a dozen men to the Moon, ended in 1972. It's so long ago that fewer than half of all Americans are old enough to have watched one of its missions on live TV. Yet some of the technology behind Apollo is about to be brought out of retirement for NASA's return to the Moon, scheduled for 2020.

The agency's new system for traveling to Earth orbit, and later to the Moon and Mars, dubbed The Constellation Program, essentially duplicates the Moon mission technologies proposed by Wernher von Braun in the late 1950s and used in the Apollo program. For instance, it includes a multistage rocket similar to Apollo's Saturn V, a crew vehicle similar to the Apollo command module, and a lunar lander directly based on the Apollo lander.

Advertisement

Last month, NASA chose aerospace giant Lockheed Martin to build the crew vehicle, called Orion. The craft's cone-shaped crew module and cylindrical service module might have just arrived from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum--except they're a bit larger than the Apollo versions, carrying four to six crew members instead of three.

Yet, according to Lockheed Martin officials, Orion will make the Apollo craft look like a Model T. Orion's reentry system, for example, will incorporate knowledge gleaned from Lockheed's recent Genesis and Stardust missions, which retrieved materials from comets. What's more, the avionics software and equipment will be based on systems used in the newest passenger jets; and a new abort system will carry astronauts away from the main rockets in case of a Challenger-like launch disaster.

Patrick McKenzie is business development manager for the Orion project at Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Denver, CO. He talked with Technology Review on September 7 about the technologies--old and new--going into Orion.

Technology Review: What did aerospace engineers learn from Apollo that can be applied in the Orion project? And why does your design look so similar, at least superficially, to the Apollo command module and service module?

Patrick McKenzie: One of the most enduring things that Apollo got right was the aerodynamic shape of the capsule--which also happens to be the most visible element. One of the reasons NASA chose to go with the Apollo-type shape is the proven safety database that goes along with that. When you look at alternatives like lifting-body designs--space airplanes like the Shuttle--they provide things like additional cross-range [the ability to steer to different landing sites], but you are not able to fly them safely in the event that a control system goes offline. A ballistic reentry system like a capsule can return the crew safely in the event of a fault. But virtually everything else about this capsule is new technology--not necessarily bleeding-edge, but developed after Apollo.

TR: What are some of the most important new technologies, in your opinion?

PM: One of the major technology applications that is clearly going to be different with Orion is the automated rendezvous and docking capability. Orion will need to dock with the International Space Station and with the Earth Departure Stage [the rocket that will accelerate Orion out of Earth orbit to the Moon]. The Shuttle is manually docked, and Apollo obviously wasn't automated. Orion will have manual override capability, but the vast majority of the time, there should be no need for a crew member to intervene.

Print

Related Articles

A Reporter's Moon Trip

The rewards of reporting an epic journey of man are more than the excitement of the moment. The audience shares new perspectives on another world.

Purified Urine in Space

NASA boldly goes where no filter has gone before.

Returning to the Moon

New technologies on NASA's next lunar spacecraft will collect information to make human exploration safer.

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

SirLanse

71 Comments

  • 1983 Days Ago
  • 09/11/2006

Bad Name

RE-Using Orion just makes it harder to Google the
original nuclear powered rocket project.
NASA had a Mars capable nuclear power plant.  The anti-nuke nuts got it cancelled.  It is going to be hard to get to mars with 60's tech.  Maybe we could build a road and travel by ox-cart.
Get my kids off this rock!
If the future of mankind is amongst the stars,
It must start now!

Reply

magnetrain

3 Comments

  • 1982 Days Ago
  • 09/12/2006

Chem Orion vs. Nuke Orion

No manned planetary exploration without nuclear power, not un-pc, just chemistry and physics.  Nuclear Orion is still the biggest fastest way to explore the system, to bad politics won't let it happen.

It's interesting to see that the orbiter, the only part of the shuttle system that's NEVER failed (shot down by tank debris) is going to be mothballed and the new vehicle system is going to use some of the SRB and external tank stuff (both infamous in failure.)  Correct me if I'm wrong about the SRB or external tank info, please.

Reply

Phineas

127 Comments

  • 1983 Days Ago
  • 09/11/2006

Not So Fast There

This is a feeble attempt to speak against a manned trip to Mars.

While there is no shortage of brave astronauts who are willing to volunteer, the risks are high. Even with equipment that works well you must take into account getting sunburn on the trip and other medical emergencies away from home.

Atmospheric braking has worked several times and there has been at least one failure. The return trip is just as hazardous as outbound. The risk is additive.

Not only are you sending people to Mars, but you must send the complete launch facility for their return. Mars has a far deeper gravity well than Luna. This is a staggering fee. How much is planting the flag worth?

BTW, the cost to send enough provisions to live out our lives on Mars equals the cost to return. This may be a viable option if we choose to go.

I think that the argument against manned flight boils down to a risk-gain assessment. I'm very much in favor of the Brave Little Toaster version of exploration.

Question: What do Martians called their planet pre-human emmigration?
Answer: "Ours"

Reply

kitk

76 Comments

  • 1983 Days Ago
  • 09/11/2006

shoot for the moon--and beyond

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. That is the lesson of every achievement, and every wasted moment. It also follows for crossing the street to buy groceries. Inaction may be easy, but it leads nowhere, and you know we get great technological and even economical advances out of our space programs. If you do not take ocassional 'Giant Leaps', you may as well be crippled.

Reply

Phineas

127 Comments

  • 1983 Days Ago
  • 09/11/2006

Re: shoot for the moon--and beyond

I am not against advancement but we need a BIG breakthrough in rocketry before our transpermia.

I agree with Stephen Hawking when he says we must to get off this planet to insure man's survival. Right now we can dream big but are hampered by reality. Unmanned projects will advance technology and give more bang for the buck. Von Braun's autobiography is "I Aim For The Stars". We may get there.

Reply

dbreneman

2 Comments

  • 1982 Days Ago
  • 09/12/2006

Re: shoot for the moon--and beyond

I'm selfish.  I want to see people on Mars before I die.  Back before myopic politicians gutted the space program, we were told people would be on Mars by 1985, and we've been gypped.  What greater project is there for mankind to aspire to?  We need to get to the stars eventually to assure the survival of our species, but we *can* get to Mars now. Let's go, dammit!

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.

Videos

Consumer-Driven Disruptions

More

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

Facebook

Silver Spring Networks

Apple

Akamai

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement