Capsules go up and shuttles come down!

NASA picked Lockheed Martin Corp. as the prime contractor to build the Orion spaceship, which will replace the aging shuttle fleet and take astronauts to the moon for the first time since 1972.

The contract's initial phase, valued at $3.9 billion, would get the U.S. space agency one ship made to carry crew and another for cargo; people are expected to fly on the new vessel by 2014. The first lunar voyage should happen by 2020.

The Orion space vessel is a departure from the shuttle's winged design, and looks more like the capsules that carried Apollo astronauts to lunar orbit in the 1960s and 1970s. But while the appearance is similar to Apollo's, the Orion capsule's interior is about two and a half times bigger.

NASA reckons Orion will be 10 times safer than the shuttles because it has an escape rocket on top of the capsule that can quickly blast the crew away if launch problems develop.

Sounds good, but what happens if there is a urgent repair on a satellite where an astronaut is needed to go out into space without the assistance of the shuttle or the shuttles robotic arm?

The only technical advantages of the shuttle were larger crew sizes and its ability to deploy an astronaut near a satellite for repairs.

How will the Orion capsule spaceship compensate for the shuttles technical abilities or prove to be better than what the shuttle used to be?

Well it costs less and utilizes less fuel but...

I do believe the shuttle program shouldn't be permanantly cancelled and Nasa should be privatized so that politics won't get in the way of space exploration!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What? Space exploration isn't an entitlement -- like healthcare and retirement benefits?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Wait. Lockheed Martin Corp. is a privately owned company, right?

I thought the Leftie mantra was that profit is never a proper motivator in the name of the proper, common good; and that elected representation always is the Gold Standard of what's best for us all.

I'm sensing a consistancy discontinuity, right about now.

Alert!! Alert!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who is going to stump up the cash to buy NASA and pay to explore space? What return is there on the investment? Would you privatise all of NASA? It is a large and nebulous organisation, which bits would be attractive to investors do you think?

Buy why privatise NASA? Right now, you can pay to get satellites launched by various commercial enterprises, and can ride to the ISS on a Russian rocket. If you want to explore space privately, you could invest in Scaled Composites, and fund Burt Rutan.

As for cancelling the Shuttle, it's old and expensive, and should be retired. NASA would not be attractive to investors with such an Albatross around it's neck. A new design is needed, but again, Burt Rutan seems to be working on that angle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is a return to the capsule an admission that the shuttle was flawed? If not why wouldn't the next generation of space vehicles not be a development of the shuttle design?

 

Had NASA spent the money on going to Mars instead of vesting the majority of it into the space shuttle program, we would have been there by now and would have established a research base there too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is that realistic?? The effort required to go to Mars is huge. Even the effort to go back to the Moon is significant. Bearing in mind that a LOT of risks were taken to beat the Russians to the moon, no-one in their right mind would take those same risks today (with no competition).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The shuttle didn't really deliver what it was designed to do. It was supposed to cut costs by being re-usable, but ended up requiring too much maintenance and costing more than a conventional disposable rocket to launch payloads, pound for pound. (sorry dollar per pound!)

It does allow NASA to do do some things they otherwise may not have been able to do easily (like capture and return satellites), but a way to do these things will be found once it is out of service.

We can achieve our goals more cheaply using mass produced, disposable rockets. I think we should have pursued the Dynasaur concept (envisaged in 1957!) and refined and enlarged that. Would have had the benefits of the Shuttle, and hopefully been cheaper.

 

Going into orbit to service the international space station is political. Going to Mars is science.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It delivered a space telescope, or more, and rebuilds; a space station -- segment by segment; engineering and operational experience; jobs, etc.

One might first begin any enterprise with a notion of what it is they want: Marriage, for instance.

But experience teaches that a successful enterprise is best realized by knowing, going into it, what it is that you don't want.

And experience is what you have moments after you needed it.

 

What's the ultimate goal then for the space shuttle program? Land on the Mars or service the space station? I would strap on a couple extra stages to the space shuttle, toss in enough food, fuel, equipment and supplies in the shuttle payload bay area for a 12 month trip, make some extra needed modifications and drag along a martian lander with it and head to Mars with a four man crew. Forget the space station. Someone else have a better idea? If you do, it's 'Show Time'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Home ==> Bus stop ==> Work.

Home ==> Car ==> Gas Station ==> Work.

Earth ==> Earth Orbit ==> Moon.

Earth ==> Earth Orbit ==> Moon ==>Mars.

Earth ==> Earth Orbit ==>Mars.

I'm sensing a pattern.

 

The space shuttle was not only an inept design, with more compromises than a whore working the Albert Docks, but never had any clearly defined purpose. It was an engineering failure; a scientific failure; an economic failure; and a political failure. More to the point it destroyed America's ability to lead the exploration of space. [This fact will not become apparent to all for another thirty years, but it will become apparent.]

 

Proof that people can believe anything.

 

Evidence that there is a certain optimum length of message at which ambiguity is minimised and a threshold below which clarity is lost.

 

WTF are they doing!?!?!?!?!?!? :bugeye:

They have gone to the moon already! There's nothing to see there! Rather then waste money going to the moon, they should be speanding heavily on research to go to Mars! Or building a solar sail, for fuck sake!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How exciting... by 2020, I will be almost 40 years old- and we will still be going to boring moon!


Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzz!!!!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Which patter? Mars=Work and Earth Orbit=Car?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They are DUMB! :bugeye:

 

Agreed......Going to the moon is not going to make to many travel agencies happy in the next 20 to 30 years. Mars is the best choice. Play a little sand golf, check out the big canyons, off road vehicling, rock collecting and maybe get in some fossil hunting (if there are any to find). Lot's of possibilities on Mars, especially for those long holliday vacationers.

 

There is no value in going back to the Moon. Even as a staging post for Mars, as there is very little point sending a human to Mars. Manned exploration is rather pointless, when we can acheive the same goals for a lot less money with probes and rovers.

But people, the taxpayers, like seeing people in space, and the idea of sending a crew to Mars makes them think we have advanced, and makes them pride. A Mars mission therefore is about regaining a nations pride in it's space faring capability.

Personally I would be take more pride in meeting existing committments, like the ISS, rather than attempting new things, but that's politics.