NASA’s Orion spacecraft returns home after historic EFT-1 mission
Orion arrives back at Kennedy Space Center after an 8 day cross-country journey. Photo Credit: Mike Seeley/Spaceflight Insider
KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla — The Orion spacecraft that carried out the Exploration Flight Test 1 (EFT-1 ) has returned to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Orion actually arrived from its cross-country voyage on Dec. 18 after being trucked across the continental United States. On Dec. 5, Orion lifted off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station’s Space Launch Complex 37 (SLC-37 ) atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket on a two orbit – 4.5 hour test flight. By all accounts the mission was a complete success – one capped off by the spacecraft’s seared exterior today.
“Orion’s flight test was a critical step on our journey to send astronauts to explore deep space destinations,” said Bill Hill, deputy associate administrator for exploration systems development at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “We stressed Orion to help us evaluate its performance and validate our computer models and ground-based evaluations, and the information we gathered will help us improve Orion’s design going forward.”
Jules Schneider of Lockheed Martin gives members of the media an update on Orion, post splashdown. Photo Credit: Mike Howard/Spaceflight Insider
EFT-1 saw the Orion spacecraft venture out some 3,600 miles (5,794 kilometers) above the Earth during it second, furthest orbit. Upon venturing out further than any crew-rated spacecraft has done since the Apollo 17 mission to the Moon, Orion then came back home – at a blistering 20, 000 miles (32,187 km) per hour. This caused the capsule-shaped craft’s heat shield to see temperatures as high as 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit (2,200 degrees Celsius).
Upon reentering into the Earth’s atmosphere, the spacecraft’s forward bay cover was jettisoned and some 11 parachutes slowed Orion down for splash down in the Pacific Ocean – just of the California Coast. The U.S. Navy recovered the vessel, bringing it into the USS Anchorage – where it was then ferried back to shore.
Louie Garcia, NASA’s Ground Operations Manager responsible for returning the capsule back to Kennedy Space Center, said: “It was an honor and a privilege to bring America’s Orion spacecraft back home to Kennedy Space Center.”
NASA had intended to carry out the mission on Dec. 4, but high winds, a sticky hydrogen valve, and a wayward cargo vessel out in the Atlantic Ocean – caused three holds, and eventually a scrub for the day. The weather for the day, seemed ideal, but winds at SLC-37 threatened to push the Delta IV launch vehicle back onto the booster’s service structure.
Close-up view of Orion, showing the effects re-entry had on the capsule. Photo Credit: Mike Seeley/Spaceflight Insider
“The flight itself was such a great success, but that’s only the beginning of the story,” said Orion Program Manager Mark Geyer. “Now we get to dig in and really find out if our design performed like we thought it would. This is why we flew the flight. We demonstrated on Dec. 5 that Orion is a very capable vehicle. Now we’re going to keep testing and improving as we begin building the next Orion.”
For now, Orion is safely tucked away in the Launch Abort System Facility (LASF) while the Orion team enjoys some much needed rest during the upcoming holiday break. After the first of the year, the team will work to gather data needed to complete the 90 day Orion EFT-1 final report. The report is owed to NASA on March 5, 2015. The team delivered a preliminary 14 day report based on initial data collected from the vehicle to NASA on Dec. 19.
Schenider discussed that Orion’s maiden flight passed 85 of 87 total objectives. The two objectives that will require further analysis were associated with the Crew Module’s Uprighting System (CMUS).
Orion made the journey back home across 8 states in 8 days. Photo Credit: NASA
He stated, “I’m sure you’re familiar with the big orange balloons that pop out on the front of the vehicle, to keep the vehicle from tipping over — we had four of the five deploy, with two losing pressure pressure quickly and the other two staying pressurized.”
These unmet objectives were considered to be minor issues. In Jan. the team will work to determine exactly what caused the balloons two to deflate, and the one not to deploy.
With its first flight behind it, this Orion will be studied, and refurbished in preparation for its next flight four years from now. The Orion spacecraft will be moved from the LASF to the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility (PHSF) to ensure all hazardous materials have been removed before it is processed at the Operations and Checkout Building.
The next steps that will be conducted to get Orion prepared to launch crews are four years away. NASA is planning on conducting the first flight of Orion’s intended launch vehicle, the Space Launch System or “SLS” along with another Orion spacecraft in 2018. In that same year, the Space Agency has scheduled the Ascent Abort 2 (AA2) test to take place at Cape Canaveral’s Space Launch Complex 46. This test flight will be carried out to validate Orion’s Launch Abort System and will lift off atop the upper stage of a Peacekeeper missile. The Orion capsule that will fly the AA2 mission is the same capsule that flew the EFT-1 test.
Video courtesy of SpaceFlight Insider
Welcome to Spaceflight Insider! Be sure to follow us on Facebook: Spaceflight Insider as well as on Twitter at: @SpaceflightIns
Jason Rhian
Jason Rhian spent several years honing his skills with internships at NASA, the National Space Society and other organizations. He has provided content for outlets such as: Aviation Week & Space Technology, Space.com, The Mars Society and Universe Today.
I have to say with all of the data that we as a nation have gathered since Apollo missions we have only come up with a design and engines that are 50 + years old. I can not believe we can not enter the atmosphere with out parachutes? This is totally outlandish spending billions on systems that are as old as my grandfather. We should be able to fly out of the atmosphere and in powered flight. We should also be able to reach speeds to allow us distant flight with the ability to live in habitats designed for permanent flight and living to pursue distant and local destinations. We are being swindled out of our nations money on shiny junk. I am tired of seeing and hearing about outdated technologies. You need to get out of the habit of using technology which is almost ancient in the time when we have more scientist and physicists at anytime in the history of man. Please allow innovation and bring our countries technology back to 2014 not 1940’s
The Orion uses the most advanced technology currently available. As was pointed out, space planes like the shuttle just flat out cannot handle the level of heat required. Also, a capsule is the most stable, safest way to re-enter the atmosphere. You guys looking for more advanced tech. I hear you, but no larger, powered descent spacecraft is even on the drawing board because no technology exists to do anything even close to that. heck, even a descent to Mars will require a heat shield. No fully powered descent for that either. If we build larger space craft, they will likely have to be built piece by piece in space and forever stay in space as long as they are in service. Descents and ascents to/from planets with atmospheres will require heat shields. What you guys want will require a big time and very expensive leap in technology…and is perhaps a hundred years or more away. Do you want to wait for that? Or just do the best we can for now and learn as much as we can along the way. The focus right now should be on funding the development of a nuclear thermal rocket for the Mars transfer vehicle in order to cut the travel time to Mars in half.
As much as I share the sentiments of Vince, there are indeed other more elegant means of reentering earths atmosphere. SNC Dreamchaser, and the Skylon orbital spaceplane are just 2 examples. Unfortunately, American politicians, and the American people are not interested in funding these very expensive initiatives.
While those are both viable for orbital reentry, those systems are not capable of reentry from deep space. The velocities from deep space cause magnitudes more heat and stress than orbital craft are capable of withstanding. The only affordable deep space recovery system to date is an ablative such as was used on Apollo and Orion.
It’s good to see Orion back at KSC. My wife and I were fortunate to watch the EFT-1 launch from the NASA Causeway. Congratulations to NASA, Lockheed Martin and ULA on a great job!
13 stars damaged, surrounding blue paint no damage, red strips severely damaged, minimal damage to white strips, no sign of damage to surrounding unpainted tiles. Conclusion micrometeorite damage?! How about the paint peeled from the heat? Different colors, different mix, different degree of peeling.
If this is an indication of the quality of the analysis of things that went wrong, I fear for the lives of the crew.
vince, you must have some inside information that the rest of don’t judging by your claim that the technology used here is as old as your grandpa.
I think what Vince was trying to state is not with the technology as far as on-board systems, ect. It’s the design. If we take a bow and arrow from the middle ages and put on a scope, compress it into a crossbow, and even put heat seeking arrows in it. It is still, basically an bow and arrow with newer accessories. The capsule design is not just old, its archaic.
More thoughts on going back to a capsule design: Do you realize WHY the capsule design was used to begin with? In the 1940’s NASA had a blank check to write out as much money as they wanted. They could throw away money on non-reusable parts. This is not the case for NASA today. A capsule design has been proven to be cost ineffective. Why do you think the shuttle design was constructed in the first place?
If the citizens in the USA would stop politicians from giving contracts to their friends, perhaps the US would have a better, functional space program. Instead the USA is quickly taking a back seat to Europe and Asia, and still somehow spending more money to do far less.
NASA, the once admired organization, now barely has the funds to finish building devices for missions before they are cancelled. And somehow spending this much money on this defunct design was top priority?
You can try to pick apart my statements, my analogies, or even flame my comment. This will not negate the facts that I have stated. The truth is true even if you decide not to believe it.
As we now have multiple companies coming forward with many different designs costing a 10th of what we pay…and the fact that designs are out there by the 100’s. Also we have space planes that are 25 plus years old we have the insight and technology to fly into space and in the layers of atmospheres that lead into space and back. We have proved several time over we can create habitats to stay in space. Have you not heard of the planes that fly around the planet in low orbit like maybe the U2 space plane. Not to all of the different engines available the technology is every where have you not been reading or keeping up to date with private and military and government sponsored technology. Do you not realize our computer are so powerful that we can build and test cars, airplanes, missile, ships and complete nuclear explosions with all the trimmings with in the super computers for at least 15 years. But besides that we have the most talented and intelligent people on the planet living and working in the US. So yes you should read a little more and realize what is available before you say that this is advanced people have be flying balloons for hundreds of years is that not the say technology?
I might add to my previous post that part of what I do is forensic analysis of the various field returns of our products that see extreme conditions, while time consuming it is never a good idea to jump to conclusions as to what the real root cause is. Clearly the painted flag area is reacting differently to bare tiles, is it worth the risk of the crew to have the symbol of our Nation when it is flaking off? How is that affecting the underlying tile?
This whole thing shoud be scrapped .. It’s a waist of money for a launch system that we know all about . So.. We place a glass panel display in a Space capsule hell my kid has a glass panel display its called an iPad .
It’s time to move on to a new launch system that is cheaper and less caustic to our environment.
Vince,
I admire your enthusiasm and pride in our nation’s aerospace abilities. We are indeed the world’s leader in this field. The arrogant comments about other people needing to read up…that’s not so admirable. If you have some knowledge about some advanced spaceplane that can survive a reentry at 33,000 feet per second, by all means, enlighten us. I’m a big fan of aerospace development. I read every trade publication I can find. And I have never come across anything like that. We ALL wish that some Star Trek-type technology existed to make interplanetary space travel easy to accomplish. Surely, the blunt-body design is 50+ years old. The same thing with chemical burning engines (Both liquid AND solid). But just because the basic principle has been around for a long time does not mean that it is outdated. We’ve been driving automobiles with four wheels for a long time too. Jet airplanes with swept back wings are still used today. Those designs work well for the kind of vehicles needed. Just because something has been around for a few decades doesn’t mean someone somewhere is hiding a more useful technology. Of course there are other technologies that can be used for other things. Ion-powered engines, for example, can one day be used to propel a craft on long journeys between planets within our solar system. But that same technology can NOT be used to power a launch vehicle from the ground to orbital velocity and altitude. They don’t have the specific impulse needed for such a flight profile. I normally let comments like that go. But this assertion that the government is deliberately wasting money at worst, or negligently doing so at best is just destructive to our morale. The seeds of doubt comments like yours (And Shawn’s) plant in people’s heads have a negative impact of stymieing growth. I’m sure you’re both patriotic men who only want our resources to be used wisely and efficiently. But you don’t seem to know what you’re really talking about when you postulate unused capabilities that don’t exist. The aeronautical engineers who work in our nation’s aerospace companies provide our government with the best they have to offer. REALLY, they do. The fantastic technology you assert is being overlooked is simply not available or not feasible. Elon Musk’s Dragon spacecraft has the technology to land with pinpoint accuracy, but only from low earth orbit after a short stay in space. Not screaming in for reentry from interplanetary routes after 3 years in deep space. Orion will be able to do this. Lacking space in it’s design for landing rockets and needing a parachute system instead is not the result of governmental buffoonery, but a design tradeoff dictated by the reality of mission design parameters and current, real-life technology.
Vince, you are on track on some of your points. America needs to get busy with how to handle fuel in space. The nation needs commercial gas stations in LEO and in EM1&2. We will never get anywhere until we have space based, reusable, Gas & Go space vehicles like the NAUTILUS-X.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAUTILUS-X
That is the direction I believe NASA should be pursuing and not in rockets, their design development or operation.
As President Bush outlined in The Vision for Space Exploration:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf
“In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration
systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs, NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles.”
As you read that quote, does it look like President Bush was refering to an orion capsule or a Nautilus-X?
Vehicles that can go to muitlple destinations, modular design, assembled in space and uses fuel based at fuel depots.
America’s NASA space program is TOTALLY on the wrong track. NASA should be cutting edge SPACE BASED vehicles that are gas n’ go. Not capsules. Astronauts should be riding commercial flights to commercial stations in LEO and then transport over to their SPACE ships….NOT capsules.
During the first week of April 2011, Haskell sent emails throughout North
America to friends who were either archaeologists, petroglyph specialists or experts on Native American art.
The multi-sensory nature of Boggs’s art is richly evident in his pieces, Guitar Electrique, Light Dance and
The Color of Jazz #1 and #2. The Sweetwater Petroglyph has never been scientifically dated by geologists.
…I think what Vince was trying to state is not with the technology as far as on-board systems, ect. It’s the design. If we take a bow and arrow from the middle ages and put on a scope, compress it into a crossbow, and even put heat seeking arrows in it. It is still, basically an bow and arrow with newer accessories. The capsule design is not just old, its archaic.
More thoughts on going back to a capsule design: Do you realize WHY the capsule design was used to begin with? In the 1940’s NASA had a blank check to write out as much money as they wanted. They could throw away money on non-reusable parts. This is not the case for NASA today. A capsule design has been proven to be cost ineffective. Why do you think the shuttle design was constructed in the first place?
If the citizens in the USA would stop politicians from giving contracts to their friends, perhaps the US would have a better, functional space program. Instead the USA is quickly taking a back seat to Europe and Asia, and still somehow spending more money to do far less.
NASA, the once admired organization, now barely has the funds to finish building devices for missions before they are cancelled. And somehow spending this much money on this defunct design was top priority?
You can try to pick apart my statements, my analogies, or even flame my comment. This will not negate the facts that I have stated. The truth is true even if you decide not to believe it.