# Question about the 2001 Orion



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

You know, I know when I look at clips of the Orion shuttle on its approach to the station, it doesn't seem to be all charred up on the botton, but if the thing is a reusable shuttle (which it obviously is), wouldn't the bottom of the thing be all black and charred up from re-entry? Seems to me one could paint a relatively clean movie version, and a more realistic, and seriously weathered version. Am I missing something here, or should it indeed be all charred up on the bottom?

Brad.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

MAybe they painted it before each flight. It is a commercial aircraft. It has to look pretty.


----------



## Alien (Sep 5, 2001)

If it had amazing retrorockets to slow its descent on re-entry then it wouldn't get charred at all. Look at all those vents/ports all around the ship just rear of the round PanAm insignia. As those ports are pointing forward so they could potentially be used to slow the vehicle to a slower re-entry speed, hence no charring or the need for heat sheilding etc.. 

I should work for NASA 

Alien
Todays Kiwi (New Zealand) Language Primer:
"***-****" out of the way location, backblocks, boonies


----------



## Steve Roberts (Sep 4, 2002)

Maiden Voyage?

Steve
(with tongue firmly planted in cheek)


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yah, it's on the way UP to the station. It hasn't reentered yet. All shiney and clean from a washdown after its last flight.


----------



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

i don't know that it was ever established as a landing craft....

Steve


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Well, in the pre-release info, it was described not just as a clipper, but also as a spacePLANE (probably in the movie program as well, I don't have mine anymore), so re-entry definitely seems part of the profile, as do the lines of the craft.


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

If you read Arthur C. Clarke's novelization of the movie, the Orion is the second stage of a shuttle system, being launched from a rail (like Fireball XL-5) on top of a flyback booster that separated from the Orion and returned to the Kennedy Space Center. So, the Orion III should show the wear and tear of both launch and stage separation, as well as re-entry.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> i don't know that it was ever established as a landing craft....
> 
> Steve


Why should it have wings when it is not supposed to fly in an atmosphere?

I guess a bit dirt would make it more realistic looking, but ALL vehicles in 2001 are very clean.

Greetings from Germany
Marco


----------



## CaptCBoard (Aug 3, 2002)

The skin of the Orion III is made of a new class of ceramic composite that is renewed electrostaticly after each flight. During re-entry, the ablative component heats to a critical temperature, swells slightly and is held in place by an open-cell substructure, but the excess heat is dispersed by the outgassing of the heated material, much like steam. Upon cooling after landing, the spent ablative contracts and is washed off, using a normal garden hose with a pistol spray nozzle. The resulting detritus washes into holding tanks, where it is collected once a month and used as fill in road construction. It really is a fabulous process, developed-- believe it or not, by Maaco.

Scott
[email protected]


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Scott, if anyone else had come up with that I'd think he was BSing, but somehow, you, I believe.


----------



## heyday (Apr 17, 2002)

I guess the bottom doesn't look charred because Stanley Kubrick didn't want it to look charred. The only way to model a "realistic" Orion III is to model what we see in the movie, since that's the only "real" Orion III.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I like Scott's explanation!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Seriously, there was talk of using a heat resistant ablative paint of some sort that would be renewed after each flight for the Delta Clipper program. But then, that's a different critter.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

It's the future so it _has_ to be shiney and new!
Sigh* The future ain't what it used to be...


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

Ignatz said:


> It's the future so it _has_ to be shiney and new!
> Sigh* The future ain't what it used to be...


Except in 2001, the future is cold, and anitseptic. :lol: Ah, the 1960's

Back in the 60's ablative coatings were the way to go, so that is how I think the Orion was done. It would burn off, and they would just spray a new coating on.

Back in the 90's I read a reprint of an interview with S.K. from back in the 60's when he was filming 2001. His big fear, was that with the way the U.S. space progam was progressing, was that he was being too cautious in his view of the future. 

If only he had been right. 

David.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Yeah, too bad about that. I can't believe I used to believe that we'd actually have a moon base by now!

Brad.


----------



## heyday (Apr 17, 2002)

While ablative coatings were used on the manned spacecraft of the '60s, I'm not sure if that's what futurists imagined for vehicles down the line. The X-20 Dyna-Soar didn't have any ablative, as I recall, but I could be wrong. I think they envisioned metal (some form of Inconel?) that would withstand entry, or they envisioned more benign entry profiles, or both.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

CaptCBoard said:


> It really is a fabulous process, developed-- believe it or not, by Maaco.



Good one Captain. But you can get it cheaper over at Earl Schieb's... :jest: 

Oops, my age is showing.

Mark


----------



## Jay Chladek (Apr 17, 2001)

The wings of the Orion are supposedly designed to act as scram jets with the vents in the wings. So I imagine something like this isn't designed to plow into Earth's atmosphere with the same type of profile as a Space Shuttle. If the ship was to do say a one orbit aerobrake manuever with multiple atmospheric skips to shrug off a little speed, then the heat loads would potentially be less then just plowing in on one pass. Power from scram jets would give the Orion better cross range capability as a result compared to a shuttle that has to come in and land at a pinpoint target and do it in one pass.

As for it not weathering, the actual studio model did have tonal paint variations on it with the various hull panels and on real shuttles one does tend to see similar tonal variations on space shuttle tiles. So, who's to say the thing doesn't have some sort of tile protection like a shuttle as well, just a bit more advanced so they don't need black tiles on the bottom. 

As for charring, a thermal protection system is designed to keep the hottest plasma away from the structure and if you do have charring anywhere, something is wrong. On shuttles, the plasma doesn't touch at all, but gets kept away from the structure if everything is working right (unlike Columbia from STS-107). The tiles don't really get charred, but change color over time as a result.

However, with that being said I do recall seeing one spot of black streaking on top of the Orion from a picture published in the Piers Bizony book. It sits behind the rectangular patch up there and I represented it on my model with a little pastel chalk. So it appears that there is one area of charring on the Orion.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Actually, it is all shiny because Star Wars hasn't been made yet.


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

terryr said:


> Actually, it is all shiny because Star Wars hasn't been made yet.


You mean "Moon Zero Two". It was there first with the dirt, and cracked upholstery.

David.


----------



## Marty Hopkirk (Apr 30, 2002)

*New Orion Kit*

With so much discusionon the Orion I'm a little perplexed that no one has mentioned Stargazer Models Orion [on this board]yet, it's probably the first truely accurate Orion kit and has an interior to boot. With so many folk wanting a accurate Orion [and those that but up with the 'old' Airfix kit, which if I'm polite, I wonder if they watched the right the film] - I find it strange that there has been so little discussion on this board about this gem.

Check out these links.

www.planet3earth.co.uk/orion_3_spaceplane.htm 

http://www.starshipmodeler.net/cgi-bin/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17936

They did'nt wash hardware [very often at least] in the Anderson universe, heavens above they even paid people to make them dirty - what ever next !!

Even though Moon Zero Two is not greatest film of its generation [understatement] it did point to a less than perfect future were space travel may have been a bit grubby, so kudos to makers for that vision at least.


Marty.......


----------



## DinoMike (Jan 1, 1970)

Dr. Brad said:


> Yeah, too bad about that. I can't believe I used to believe that we'd actually have a moon base by now!
> 
> Brad.


 Well.... there WAS that nasty little accident in 1999....


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Yeah, the moon was blasted out of Earth orbit. What you seen now is a giant flat painting. It was all covered up by using the Y2K scandal as a distraction.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Although I certainly like 2001, I'm not as up on the technology in the movie as many of you. But darn, that kit that Marty refers to is nice. My better half would be decidedly unimpressed on spending that kind of dough on a kit, given some upcoming bills that will need to be paid.!

Brad.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

terryr said:


> Yeah, the moon was blasted out of Earth orbit. What you seen now is a giant flat painting. It was all covered up by using the Y2K scandal as a distraction.


 If you've seen THE TRUMAN SHOW, you know that by studying the 'new' moon with binocs, you may be able to see Ed Harris as the man in the moon.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

If the Orion is indeed a "spaceplane" (as the wings would seem to indicate), how is the pilot expected to steer her upon re-entry? The last time I checked she had neither rudder nor stabilizer. Glaring oversight, that.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Carson Dyle said:


> If the Orion is indeed a "spaceplane" (as the wings would seem to indicate), how is the pilot expected to steer her upon re-entry? The last time I checked she had neither rudder nor stabilizer. Glaring oversight, that.


Doh! Should've noticed that!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yeah, 'cause, like, nobody's ever flown without tail surfaces before.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

Twang! Rake in the face.

Didn't it only have atomic engines? (in the kit anyway) That would not fly these days.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Well, John, that's also a good point...


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

*And the flying example jet fighter is still at Silverhill.*
*Horton even created plans for a homebuilt version!*












John P said:


> Yeah, 'cause, like, nobody's ever flown without tail surfaces before.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

yah, but I couldn't find a picture on line of the Ho-229 flying, so I didn't include it .


----------



## heyday (Apr 17, 2002)

The _Orion III_ probably flew through the atmosphere after entry by using the scramjets or whatever those things are in the wings. Yaw maneuvers are accomplished with differential thrust. Maybe the exhaust is piped to those two big orifices in the rear hump (for the "atomic rocket") or maybe the exhausts are those stepped indentations along the wings at what appear to be the elevon hinge line. The F-117 showed us that an engine exhaust doesn't have to be round. 

I suppose normal aerodynamic control surfaces (like the aforementioned elevons) control roll and pitch. Maybe those long, thin ridges on the nose just ahead and below the cockpit are some sort of canards or vanes that are retracted for spaceflight but extended for atmospheric flight.

All that is just a guess, though. The whole thing was made up, so the _Orion III_ doesn't have to obey any laws of physics or aerodynamics. But as a movie prop, it was beautiful and inspiring. We're still talking about it and modeling it (and companies are producing new kits of it) more than three decades after it first appeared on film.

Has any enterprising (no pun intended) aeronautics student ever done a research paper examining the theoretical aerodynamic and/or spaceflight characteristics (or, probably more accurately, the lack thereof) of various well-known sci-fi vehicles? I'm no engineer, but I'd love to read something like that. It'd be interesting to stick the _Orion III_ in a wind tunnel....

I seem to recall some interview with Gerry Anderson or one of his modelmakers years back in which he described a visit to a British aircraft factory and the engineers had a great time telling him what would work and what wouldn't of the various vehicles in his shows. And I seem to remember reading something that said the most popular sci-fi show among the folks who worked at NASA was "Babylon 5" because it made an attempt to adhere to the known laws of physics.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Jeepers John, I suppose you're right. Come to think of it, balloons, cannonballs and wee bits of airborne pollen also manage to fly without tail fins. Given your Flying Wing example, I'm sure the rudderless Orion would handle beautifully. 

Then again, maybe she'd spiral into the ground like a goose full of buckshot.

C'mon, guys.. Obviously the aerodynamics of a flying wing configuration would, for such a vehicle, alleviate the need for a conventional rudder/ tail assembly. The Orion however is not a flying wing, and therefore could not reasonably be expected to perform like one. Don't get me wrong; I think the "Pan Am Space Clipper" is a sterling example of 1960's motion picture art direction (not to mention being the first model kit I ever built). But as a practical means of airborne transportation... well, I like to think Dr. Floyd chose a different carrier for the trip back home.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

One of hte original ideas for the clipper was to have that rear portion just aft of the wings as a booster that would be jettisoned at some point in the flight. The final design doesn't really support that notion (the rear part of the wing was supposed to go with the tail) but it's an interesting idea. The sketch can be found in Bizony's book.


----------



## Brent Gair (Jun 26, 1999)

John P.'s examples are entirely correct.

The rudder or lack thereof is pretty much irrelevant as is the aspect ratio of the wing. The fact that the Orion's wing has a lower aspect ratio than a B-2 doesn't really mean anything.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/x-36.htm

So the Orion has no rudder...big deal.

A rudder and vertical fin is an extremely effective and simple way to provide yaw control. But there's no law that says you have to have one. Just because something is an easy solution doesn't mean it's the only (or even the best) solution.

A lot of things in aviation over the last 60 years have been done for the simple reason that "we've always done it that way". Ever wonder why the Boeing 7E7 dreamliner looks like a big 737 (circa 1967)? Why does the Airbus 340 look identical to the 1954 Boeing Dash 80?

There are plenty of ways to control yaw. You can vector thrust. You can split the trailing edge of the wing. You can use a rudder. But just because we are used to seeing planes with rudders doesn't mean that they are required by some imutable law of physics.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

Beside, a rudder would just kill the Orion's devilish good looks.


----------



## terryr (Feb 11, 2001)

The Discovery was supposed to have giant radiators for the reactors, but they looked like wings so they were taken off.

"it's only a model"


----------



## Jay Chladek (Apr 17, 2001)

Well, advances in flight control technology and fly by wire would theoretically make a vertical stabilizer redundant, but the hump on the back I imagine could act as a yaw damper of sorts since it does protrude vertically out into the slipstream. The computers of the spacecraft seen in 2001 do most of the flying anyway with very little input from the pilots (just watch the crew's lack of action during the docking sequence). Another possible explaination would be a retractible tailfin that comes out for atmospheric flight, but I doubt it.

As for the asthetic looks of Orion with a tail, anyone remember the "Virgin" shuttle from the Richard Branson "I Am Sci Fi" commercial that aired about 8 years ago? It had canards and a tail and it still looked bloody good.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

didn't want to use any examples of things that never actually flew, but there were a LOT of rudderless/tailless designs fiddled with over the years. For a scheissload of examples, just browse the WWII German projekts at www.luft46.com


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

Here's another site here about flying wings;
http://www.history-of-flying-wings.ip3.com













John P said:


> didn't want to use any examples of things that never actually flew, but there were a LOT of rudderless/tailless designs fiddled with over the years. For a scheissload of examples, just browse the WWII German projekts at www.luft46.com


----------

