Do you like NASA's new Ares Launch Vehicles and Orion?
- Thread starter Brent
- Start date
The Ares-V looks great, good thrust, heavy payload and it might get us closer to Mars but word on the inside is that they are having issues with the Ares-1 (the launcher that looks like a German Hand Grenade aka TheStick). The new launch vehicles will be built using Shuttle components, why use Shuttle parts if Shuttle has been proven to be an expensive and dangerous transport system. Which leads to be question is NASA an entity which wants to push the envelop in exploration or is it an entity for corporate welfare that wants to keep all these Shuttle huggers employed ?
Well, if you had technicians with 20+ years of experience on a particular launch vehicle, wouldn't you want to capitalize on that knowledge base going forward?
Personally, if you're going to do something that's allegedly new and innovative, keeping it close to systems that are already proven and have a large group of people who know how to run and maintain said systems just makes sense instead of designing something totally new that nobody knows how to make work.
Personally, if you're going to do something that's allegedly new and innovative, keeping it close to systems that are already proven and have a large group of people who know how to run and maintain said systems just makes sense instead of designing something totally new that nobody knows how to make work.
I like it. I don't think NASA can get the funds to build the extra cool looking space planes right now so they have to make do with what they can. Maybe someday in the future if the country gets interested in space again and willing to give them the money, NASA can again try to make a space plane.
For now I suppose sticking to probes for the most part is not so bad.
For now I suppose sticking to probes for the most part is not so bad.
As long as NASA does some extra cool missions with the Orion, say for instance a mission to an Asteroid, that kind of mission would capture the public's imagination and might very well help propel NASA back to it's glory days in people's minds.
I think forcing NASA back to the cpsule is a good thing as the shuttle was obviously flawed in several fundemental ways.
Just a funny quote I think about when people talk about the Shuttle as a "mistake"...
"The Space Shuttle is a collossal white elephant. It was built to service a space station, and we don't have a space station."
-- Carl Sagan, interviewed for the Discovery Channel's The Space Shuttle (1994)
"The Space Shuttle is a collossal white elephant. It was built to service a space station, and we don't have a space station."
-- Carl Sagan, interviewed for the Discovery Channel's The Space Shuttle (1994)
It was a mistake, but we learned many many things from it6 so was it a failure, not so much of a failure, more of a dissapointment as it couldn't live up to the promises it made when it was first rolled out.
Now imagine if that every shuttle launch was a "Shuttle-C" with a capsule on the nose. And the "Shuttle-C" was filled with space station parts, our space station would be huge after a fashion.
Now that we have moved back to capsules, I think we need to send up some sorta "orbital tug" powered by a highly efficient, high thrust ion thruster. For this orbital tub could be like a mini space station that may take a week to reach an orbit from the ISS to the hubble, but could do that sorta servicing missions. Also it could go to the lagrange points if given enough time, that would be a lot better than the space shuttle and a good way to leverage the capsules.
Right, so I haven't read any responses to the OP yet! (thought I better not before I answered the initial question)
Actually it makes good sense to not use a spacecraft that was envisioned in an age where everything was possible.
The 'throw-away' rocket also makes great fiscal sense! (today)
Obviously the commercialisation of sending stuff into space (didn't Sea Launch just come back?) is going to be the forefront or doing exactly that, but eventually the (extremely) fantastic ideas of 'the guys that invent stuff' (in this case: the NASA) is going to become the tank of ideas that the commercial space industry will use in the next generation…
X-Price anyone?
We've all seen the 'space shuttle: generation two'-videos, doesn't say anywhere if it's actually feasible in any way!
The shuttles -as we know them- aren't. So why should the next gen of the same ol' engineers dreams be?
Some day -perhaps even within our lifetimes (whatever they might be)- a re-usable space-craft might actually become a feasible and doable idea! -Just not now.
Here are some more quotes:
"It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path...We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."
"inherently flawed"
"My opinion is that it was. ... It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible."
-Mike Griffin, NASA Administrator on the Space Shuttle
Link from the horse's (PhD) mouth
^An immense experiment!
And as I understand it of great importance to (especially) US industry and commerce.
Again: NASA is a think-tank doing research more than a corporation shooting stuff into orbit. Don't you have other vehicles (than the shuttle) and launch-sites (than the cape) to do that already?
Or am I missing something?
And as I understand it of great importance to (especially) US industry and commerce.
Again: NASA is a think-tank doing research more than a corporation shooting stuff into orbit. Don't you have other vehicles (than the shuttle) and launch-sites (than the cape) to do that already?
Or am I missing something?
Indeed, that's all it needs to do really.
Actually, this was from the horse's mouth...
Message from the NASA Administrator Regarding Space Station and Space Shuttle Comments | SpaceRef
I didn't read everone's post but did anyone else read the article a few days ago saying that the new rocket (for the moon mission) is so badly designed that it could shake so badly that the rocket will be destroyed?
How fucking hard is it to make a moon rocket?!?! We went to the moon 40 years ago and the rocket didn't shake badly enough to worry.
Idiots working at NASA, I think they should all be made to wear the "I'm not a rocket scientist" tee shirts, because clearly they aren't.
How fucking hard is it to make a moon rocket?!?! We went to the moon 40 years ago and the rocket didn't shake badly enough to worry.
Idiots working at NASA, I think they should all be made to wear the "I'm not a rocket scientist" tee shirts, because clearly they aren't.
In '68-'69 a debate raged amongst NASA decision makers. Go with the shuttle or use a BDB approach.(Big Dumb Booster). The interview I saw in the wake of Challenger with a former design exec from NASA pointed out that a simple use of interchangeable design component or "modular" rockets could be used to place truly staggering amounts of payload in orbit to build a space station-but Nixon wanted the illusion of us "flying" into space and backed the shuttle.
That scratched an orbital launch platform to head back to the moon from. In the interview, the guy said Nasa could have been transferring over 100 tons of payload and materials for a lunar base every 3 months. And this was using modified Deltas! Ares/Orion is a half-assed attempt to follow that plan, but instead of re-usable it should be dismantled in orbit for raw materials. That saves you all of the extra systems inherent in return-reuse tasking. Then you use a simplified shuttle to lift your crews or even send them up on Russian capsules to save money. We'd be back on the Moon in 6 years and gearing up for Mars by 2020. If not sooner.
That scratched an orbital launch platform to head back to the moon from. In the interview, the guy said Nasa could have been transferring over 100 tons of payload and materials for a lunar base every 3 months. And this was using modified Deltas! Ares/Orion is a half-assed attempt to follow that plan, but instead of re-usable it should be dismantled in orbit for raw materials. That saves you all of the extra systems inherent in return-reuse tasking. Then you use a simplified shuttle to lift your crews or even send them up on Russian capsules to save money. We'd be back on the Moon in 6 years and gearing up for Mars by 2020. If not sooner.
