This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Do you really seriously believe that NASA is going to send a 4500 mm dia. Orion capsule demonstrator on top of a dia. 1670 mm Minotaur ? Hektor 13:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the cite. They do not intend to test the capsule, just the tower. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they wanted to test both the Orion capsule and the LES, NASA would have to build a so-called Little Joe III, which would have very expsensive to construct (just for four launches), but would have allowed NASA to test the recovery system. Would make a way cool day trip down to Wallops Island, VA (NASA facility used for Mercury-era Little Joe I tests) if NASA would want to really simulate launch pad abort tests. Rwboa22 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They will, I don't see how they could do without it.Hektor 18:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the first lunar landing of a Concstellation craft the seventh human landing on the moon is historically correct but it's mighty confusing when you read this without knowing everything about the Apollo missions. You have to put context in there, or call it the first lunar landing of the Constellation program or take out numbering. --AlainV 04:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3 rather than 4 crew members landing on the moon?[edit]
I was pretty sure that all four crew members land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonite (talk • contribs) 10:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the list as per the latest Nasa PDF reference listed on the article. Of course, individual Orion missions must be updated now. Done some, but the articles are inconsistent now, and this must be solved. I think that the mission numbering and plans will change in the following years, so individual articles are still premature. Ricnun 14:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I saw the entry for Orion 14/LSAM 1B as a sort-of "rescue" flight for Orion 13/LSAM 1, but remember the step-by-step approach used by NASA for the Apollo Program in 1967-1970. Originally, Apollo 8 would have been the CSM/LM test flight in low-Earth orbit and Apollo 9 was to repeat the same process in high-Earth orbit. Because of issues regarding the LM in 1968, NASA, especially Dr. Robert Gilruth, Dr. Christopher Kraft, and Mr. George Low, had the boldness and the guts to get both President Lyndon Johnson and NASA Administrator James Webb to send Apollo 8 to both the Moon and the history books. As for the flight designation, I feel that NASA should stick to the term "Orion Rescue" and "LSAM Rescue" so that it would not be confused with the actual flights in progress.
While were on the subject of this revision of flight plans, I feel that NASA should resurrect the Apollo-style step-by-step approach designation for the Constellation Program. By dividing the phases of the program by a letter designation, it would allow NASA to focus on flights to both the ISS and the Moon, and later to Mars and beyond.
A: Unmanned test flights of Orion spacecraft in LEO
B: Manned test flights of Orion spacecraft in LEO
C: Unmanned and manned operational flights of Orion spacecraft to International Space Station
D: Manned circumlunar flight of Orion spacecraft (using an Earth Departure Stage with a LSAM
mass simulator and docking hardware)
E: Test flight of LSAM in LEO
F: Test flight of Orion & LSAM in lunar orbit with unmanned LSAM landing
There are serious discrepancies between what exists on this page and what exists on the mission pages, in terms of mission duration, expected launch dates, whether missions are manned or not... I suggest that someone verify that what exists on this page is the most up-to-date information we have, then modify the linking mission pages to reflect that information.
For example, Orion 2 on this page seems to indicate it will be manned, at least in the text. But its page says it is unmanned. Orion 3's information seems consistent. But Orion 4 has a launch date of 2014 (no month) and a ~90 day mission on this page, while its own page says it will launch in June of 2014 for a ~14 day mission. Orion 5 is similarly out of whack - launch in 2015 (no month) with a ~180 day mission, on its own page it says it will launch Sept 2014 on a ~14 day mission. Further on, the missions described for Orion 13 and Orion 15 - on their pages - seem to be describing identical mission.
I could go on, but you get the picture... The pages are in serious need of a clean-up. Canada Jack 15:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A closer examination of the planned flight document from which much of this information is presumably culled reveals a few points which should be reflected on this page, IMHO. First, the document indicates missions which are manifested at a 33 - 40 % confidence level given current funding levels and those with a 65 % confidence level. IOW, a lot of these missions are not chipped in stone, particularly the ones up to Orion 7. Secondly, the document quite clearly lists expected flights within FISCAL years, not calendar years, starting with FY 2011. Since a fiscal year here starts October 1 of the previous year, note should be made that 2015, for example, is in fact October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015.Canada Jack 17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reworking & possible merge/redirecting of all Constellation articles[edit]
I've reworked the table here based on a February 2009 schedule; it doesn't list anything after the end of 2020, so I've missed those off. Before I go and correct the various "Orion xx" articles, many of which have slipped a year again, I think it's worth wondering if there's really much point.
These articles are going to sit basically untouched for the next five to ten years, barring perhaps once a year pushing the estimated launch date back a bit - and that's if we notice to get it updated; this table's been wrong for six months. There's very little that can be said about any given one - it's a mission, it is currently projected to be flown in X year, it will be on Y booster, it will probably be used for a mission to Z. That's all that's in the available sources, and those sources themselves usually have a big asterisk saying "provisional" at the best of times... we're not actually going to be able to put meaningful solid content in these until, at the very earliest, 2013/14.
...so, thinking about it, this seems like a pretty good case for merging/redirecting those pages back in here. When we have more than a couple of sentences that can be written about an individual mission that distinguish it from all the others, sure, we can split it back out - but, at the moment, these fragmented individual pages really don't tell the reader anything at all. (Orion 17 has been at AFD and seems likely to close as redirect, which is what got me thinking about this.)
I'm inclined to oppose that. I think that the missions are individually notable, even at this distance, as long as reliable sources can be found (and if they can't then the information should not be posted anywhere, not even in a list). --GW… 15:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. The fact that there's a vague schedule is certainly notable, and we certainly have a reliable source to say what it is - so there's certainly enough to build some kind of a list. But (with the exception of the very close ones, the hardware test flights) they don't really have any independent existence outside of the overall projected program - there's no hardware in existence, no mission plan, no crew, just a "We intend to fly this in 2019". Point two of the guidelines on future topics seems relevant here - we can definitely say that there will be an Orion 10, barring the program collapsing by then, but we don't know anything that isn't generic. Shimgray | talk | 16:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. all the information is much too thin and uncertain at this time. I've been meaning to propose the same for a while now. All these articles say basically the same. Until there is an actual tangible plan, they might as well be merged into a good list. There is no need to create an article for any of these more than 3 years in advance. There is certainly basis for the X and Y flight, and no doubt we will someday have Orion articles for the flights, but that doesn't mean that a list of isn't more useful at this point in time. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging everything in here; there are no good sources for individual missions. Shimgray sums it up nicely. Kusma (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the comment below, I've been bold and redirected everything after 17 back to this page. Since the flight numbers probably will exist (eventually) but don't have anything baselined for them, they're in even more of a limbo than the others... Unless anyone has further objections, I'll do the others - at least most of the later ones - sometime over the next week. Shimgray | talk | 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging everything and redirecting it here until (and if) more information is brought up, otherwise all valueable information can be found on this list and that's a better way to handle things then updating all the pages to a schedule that wont even hold. KimiNewt (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orion 17 is also redirected here, after an AfD. Presumably most of the other pages should also redirect here until there is details about particular missions and crews. Nfitz (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's interesting to know. I've pulled my finger out and redirected all the Orion n and Altair n pages back here. I've left the Ares test-flights for now, since they're unique and something meaningful can probably be said about them. Any thoughts on the massively speculative Orion Asteroid Mission and Orion Mars Mission - a "later projects" section here? Shimgray | talk | 12:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the list of proposed constellation missions, it only goes up to orion 17 when other pages show up to orion 23, why is that? Gordomono (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above section - the most recent draft schedule doesn't list anything past 2020 and #17. (Strictly speaking it doesn't seem to list 17 either, but that's a typo). Shimgray | talk | 12:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title is wrong since now one of the missions has been flown and a second one (the pad abort) will fly soon. Hektor (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, really. One booster test has been flown... but the rest are still pretty papery. Ares I-X having happened doesn't really make any of the named Orion flights less "proposed" than they were last week, and they are after all the main gist of this article! Shimgray | talk | 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Constellation missions. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified one external link on List of Constellation missions. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I was going over this and I discovered that the unmanned Orion flight of 2014 actually took place, so I added it. Aside from the booster rocket, it was the exact same mission and within a month of the planned launch date, which if you think about it, is remarkable. The Ares 1X, was little more than a slightly modified shuttle SRB, which was launched as sort of a protest when the initial order for cancellation came down. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find that incorrect. The mission profile for Orion-1 (mission #3) is different from Exploration Flight Test 1, Orion-1 used Ares-I and was not a high orbit return test, but a LEO test. Ares-I could not do a high apogee test. I have restored the table to where it was with Orion-1 instead of EFT-1. I've moved your new table row into a new table about replacement missions of successor programs. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
