That's not fair! Endeavour is jailbait AND the bastard child of Discovery and Atlantis. But it also has a really cool name.
Orion can be a step backwards in terms of manned travel to low earth orbit. While made with superior technology, it cannot carry nearly as much cargo, supplies, or people to a space station. But as the vehicle to return to the moon, I find it a logical evolution of the Apollo concept that got us there in the first place.
And in all honestly, if you HAVE to send people to the moon, why not buld on what works? We can't build moon hoppers like we saw in 2001 to ferry dozens of people there without it being hideously expensive. If you want to send four people on a limited budget, you use what did it before with a complete makeover. Hell, you can argue that the Soviets based their Soyuz concept on Apollo (a service module, command capsule, and orbital module, which would have been swapped for a lander had they managed to send Soyuz to the moon in the 1960 as they wanted), and they're still using the design today for LEO missions, just like Orion will be multitasked.
Now, this logically turns to the question of why ARE we sending people back to the moon in the first place. You can argue that all you want elsewhere, but since NASA was told to do it, they will and there's no way they're using a shuttle derivative to do it. And if your ISS is still gonna be around, why not use it to complement the Soyuz to keep the station flying while it's still around.
Now, if only they'd design Orion with a CBM hatch instead of a tiny PMA-compatible plug. Then they could bring stuff up that didn't essentially have to be stored in supermarket bags.
Mark
