Talk:Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

images
Sure would be nice to have a better image, especially for the infobox. The current one is all I can locate at this time that is NASA produced. There is this but it's produced by the contractor, Lockheed, which isn't automatically in the public domain the way a NASA produced image is.--RadioFan (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not just use pictures of Orion? It is the same thing...no one will notice! :P


 * Which is a point. Given the announcement of a "new vehicle" is just political bluster, it's really just re-badging someone else's idea for the new administration to claim as their own, I'd argue the Orion article could just be moved to the new name. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Concur, seems like just a new designation of Orion to me as well though time will tell and change and flexibility is what wiki is all about. Doyna Yar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

Merger proposal
Reasoning: Overlap and and background context.

Its the same vehicle but with the a different name. Its even being built under the same contract and the Orion ground test vehicle is now the MPCV ground test vehicle. Given the amount of design changes to Orion/Crew Exploration Vehicle it would take a significant change to the vehicle design or a change of contractor for it to be considered a different vehicle. --Craigboy (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Lots of press about how Orion has been cancelled. MPCV is a replacement program. Rillian (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the MPCV program different from the Orion program?--Craigboy (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this article, NASA is calling it the Orion MPCV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 16:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose' NASA isn't calling it that, that blogger/reporter/whatever is calling it Orion MPCV. NASA has been very specific in calling it Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.  I've been surprised in how specific the hyphenation has been in NASA materials which indicates a pretty strong branding around this new name.  Lockheed Martin has begun using MPCV in it's communications.   Names have changed before in programs, what is unique here is that it happened later in the development cycle.  I'd argue that there should be one article and it should be named Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.
 * Undecided it is hard to say at this point. It is based off the Orion, which was cancelled. It seems to be kind of political to me. If it is the same unit under the same name then I could see using the Orion Artical though it should be MPCV at this point. It would be worth mentioning this is the exact same thing just renamed. but I do believe it will take some time to really see if it is the same thing. For now I would have to say keep them seperate but time might show differently.MathewDill (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the above suggestion that there be a single article named Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (i.e. that the merger go the opposite way). I think this makes the most sense when you consider the flow a few years down the road... "Oh by the way, this used to be called 'Orion'" makes much more sense than MPCV redirecting to Orion when both NASA and Lockheed Martin refer to it as the MPCV. Something does need to happen, though, since at the moment we have both articles and they're both in the present tense. OllieWilliamson (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Orion is the reference design vehicle which means the MPCV is being built to Orion's specs.

"NASA’s initial assessments show high applicability of the Orion spacecraft development to the MPCV requirements specified in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, and this report describes how NASA has chosen the Orion as its Reference Vehicle Design." --Craigboy (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Orion's present specs, yes, but the programs are to become distinct with development proceeding on the MPCV. The following is from page 4 of that same report: "For the near term, NASA will continue work on the Orion until the MPCV Program is formally authorized to proceed..." OllieWilliamson (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound like a solid agreement will be achieved any time soon, but I do support a merger under the title Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, as this seems to be the official designation at this point. The rest is purely political. Tyrol5   [Talk]  18:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Does any of this help


 * Oppose Support going other way. - The MPCV is really a continuation of the Orion under a new name and revised purpose. Same people developing it, just modified functional specs. The design will change, yes. But the two articles can be merged with 'Orion' mentioned as having evolved into the MPCV in a 'historical' development section. Mentioning the differences in purpose.  Despite the 'press' thinking it as two different vehicles, the technical reality is what the proposal mentions, MPVC is the renamed continuation of the Orion program, and that is how Wikipedia should present the information. 'Orion' should be merged in and should redirect to 'MPCV'.  And 10 years from now the name will have been changed twice more. Aflafla1 (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Basically the same vehicle. I think it should be merged and titled under the MPCV, with Orion being in a section something to the effect "Beginnings" or "Previous versions".--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 Oppose : Merging, in this case, is a sort of editorializing--  The "same thing-- only different" taking on too much emphasis on the "same thing" because it is not. The mission and the crew requirements changed substantially. Orion was an Apollo-shaped Shuttle as far as mission and crew design requirements were concerned.

Ultimately Orion will be seen to be the precursor to the MPCV-- or at least so NASA appears to intend; and I do not see any reason to complicate the already general confusion of the public with merging the two projects. Orion has its own history. The MPCV builds on that development, but it is not Orion.-- cregil  (talk)  15:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "The mission and the crew requirements changed substantially. Orion was an Apollo-shaped Shuttle as far as mission and crew design requirements were concerned."


 * Do you have any proof to back up that claim? And please tell me how the two crafts are different.--Craigboy (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

July 8th NASA video calls the MPCV the "Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle". Link--Craigboy (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha! It looks to me like you are arguing with yourself-- given the long quote you provided on June 18th!  Crew down from "four to six" to simply "four" is the most telling that its function is not about crew change to ISS (I admit a bias-- I believe the six crew capacity was intended for ISS work-- we just didn't want to insult the Russians by stating the obvious).  Instead, capacity changed into ability for deep space, extended missions.
 * Nothing is written in stone, at this point. If we merge, I suspect we will un-merge at a later time. By the time men and women climb in it atop a booster and the countdown begins, I'll eat my hat if the capsule is still called the MPCV. It seems many want it to be called Orion (I am one of them), but 24-May-2011 press releases from NASA seem careful to make a distinction between the two.
 * Until such time as NASA declares the name will continue to be the Orion (and maybe they have-- and I just haven't read it?) we presume too much.
 * Meanwhile, my view is that Orion was cancelled, and (fortunately, or out of economic necessity?) able to serve as the basis for the funded MPCV.-- cregil  (talk)  15:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Please be civil. Orion had already been scaled back to not support ISS crew transportation. Crew size had been reduced to four a long time ago.--Craigboy (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies-- I had no intent of being uncivil-- I had thought you had used the long quote as evidence that the two names are being used for technical distinction. Humorous that we each that the same words supported out positions.  You are correct about the ISS function-- I had not followed the Constellation program at all and my interest here is a side interest.  Way back, when ISS mission was supposed to be a part of the design, I heard a "what if" conversation regarding an unforeseen Russian inability-- all of which tainted my view.  My interest here is a budding one -- focused only because of the lack of information I have been able to find.  Last I had heard, it was designed for a crew of six-- but now see that NASA held the idea of ISS supply with distaste long ago-- only begrudgingly saying it could, but adding that it shouldn't.
 * Playing catch-up, and scanning for sources, I note Lockheed seems to continue to call it the Orion. NASA seems to distinguish between the two only in terms of project authorization which may serve a useful purpose, here.  Given the design changes throughout Orion (mostly dictated by booster issues, it seems), the change to SLS appears no different, and in fact, I cannot find a mention of single modification due to that. That the video link you gave repeatedly includes the "Orion/MPCV" has me ready to change my stance, but with the caveat that the narration could have been a convenience for producing the video across the transition.
 * I offer a hair splitting: The Orion/MPCV as opposed to the Orion/CEV-- a distinction apparently already made in Wikipedia articles-- the latter being listed only as Crew Exploration Vehicle. -- cregil   (talk)  20:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - NASA Press Kit for STS-135, dated 5-Jul-2011; Section: "The Future"; Subsection: "Orion Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle." Multiple use of the Orion name throughout this section used to refer to the project in its current state as the "Orion MPCV". (search: NASA publication 59152055).-- cregil  (talk)  19:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - The program was called "Constellation", the spacecraft was called "Orion". Constellation was cancelled with the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, however, Orion spacecraft remained. The Orion Spacecraft are being re-purposed for usage as a lifeboat and other purposes in accordance with Pres. Obama's 2010 space initiatives, "In addition, as part of this effort, we will build on the good work already done on the Orion crew capsule. I’ve directed Charlie Bolden to immediately begin developing a rescue vehicle using this technology..." - Pres Obama. But the MPCV is an Orion spacecraft. However, reading the Orion article, this will take a lot of retooling to get these two articles together. Aabh (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Partial Support - Although the name has changed as have the missions, Orion-MPCV still shares the same spaceframe and systems as the Constellation-Orion. Therefore the vehicle is the same. The only thing that has changed is the deletion of the Lunar mission profiles, although they could be brought back at a later date. With the change in NASA's focus from LEO to Deep space missions, it is likely that Lockheed-Martin and Boeing will have to compete again at a later date for those missions. So merging the two articles where the vehicle itself in concerned would seem appropriate. The lunar mission version is currently defunct and should not be included in the Orion-MPCV article Cessnac172r (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

New video calls the MPVC "Orion".--Craigboy (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"The Orion spacecraft, also known as the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV)" http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110014805_2011015543.pdf--Craigboy (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

advert style
This article is written like an advert. Do others agree that the relevant template can be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.201.244 (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. The writing style is that of an advertisement or promotional literature. The template is appropriate. --Aflafla1 (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That it does read like an advert is because NASA has presented the information in advertisement form. I note how the entire article seems to have been written from the NASA pages.  I came here expecting to find more detailed data and sources!  I think we are going to have to be patient, but I know I can find more "It is this" material than the current, "This is why we deserve funding" fluff.
 * For example: One would think it reasonable that NASA can do better than seats "more than Apollo." Four? Eight?  Why don't we know? --Is it easily modified based upon mission?-- and, What are the considerations driving the parameters?
 * That we see so much emphasis from NASA in its material on the MPCV concerning safety and the escape tower tests, I have little doubt the present material is a marketing piece to present the project in a way to address the concerns of the public and Congress, based upon some survey. This is no way to launch (get it?) a public relations campaign-- some of us expect more.-- cregil   (talk)  22:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes This and even the original Constellation-Orion article read like an advert. Lockheed-Martin playing around on Wikipedia? Also in a way I leaves me feeling like it is a fluff news article too. Cessnac172r (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)