The Ares rocket and Orion spacecraft will replace the space shuttles from 2015 onwards. I don't understand: the Orion looks a carbon copy of the Apollo capsule only slightly bigger. It cannot carry any payload or carry out any research and can't land by itself. Can NASA call this a progression or a step backward? What do you think?
When complete, they will be larger than these facsimiles here....
After launch they meet in an Earth orbit rendezvous, and the crew in Orion mate with the lunar (or other) vehicle, and off they go to the moon or wherever.
Can NASA call this a progression or a step backward? What do you think?
I think in retrospect you could call the entire shuttle program a step backwards from the apollo days. They gained a re-usable vehicle, but they lost the ability to go beyond earth orbit, they lost the ability for heavy lift, and the shuttle has proven to be very costly where it counts the most - the loss of human lives.
I see the return to rockets like Ares 1 as a step back in the right direction.
I think it's a matter of cost as well. The shuttle was a technological marvel but proved expensive to maintain and security issues emerged. They had a few hiccups on one re-entry and one launch with "worn out" equipment. They do take a serious beating everytime they go up and come down. Re-using stuff is good for the side powder rockets but didn't seem to work in the long run for the main vehicle. The Ares vehicles are more conventional, simpler, less prone to failure I'd say.
The Shuttle size and launch fuel load is quite inefficient.
A large and dangerous part of the shuttle design was to fly upon re entry.
The old fashioned ablative shield and parachutes is far lighter and many times smaller.
I think in retrospect you could call the entire shuttle program a step backwards from the apollo days. They gained a re-usable vehicle, but they lost the ability to go beyond earth orbit, they lost the ability for heavy lift, and the shuttle has proven to be very costly where it counts the most - the loss of human lives.
I see the return to rockets like Ares 1 as a step back in the right direction.
I have to agree imagine where we would be now if it wasn't for the shuttle it was impressive but I think we would already be on Mars now if we had kept Apollo going
I have to agree imagine where we would be now if it wasn't for the shuttle it was impressive but I think we would already be on Mars now if we had kept Apollo going
I we had kept Apollo going I doubt NASA would have had any funds left for anything else. Besides we haven't sorted out growing food or having an eco-system in an isolated environment yet to sustain people. Moon or Mars bases are still a long way away I reckon. Think about what all the shuttle has accomplished. We got Hubble up there for a start. That alone justifies it. We know a lot more than we did 10yrs ago.
I we had kept Apollo going I doubt NASA would have had any funds left for anything else. Besides we haven't sorted out growing food or having an eco-system in an isolated environment yet to sustain people. Moon or Mars bases are still a long way away I reckon. Think about what all the shuttle has accomplished. We got Hubble up there for a start. That alone justifies it. We know a lot more than we did 10yrs ago.
Actually, in terms of present day dollars, Apollo is cheaper than the Shuttle. $25 billion v $10 billion/year...for 28 years. Each Shuttle costs $4-5 billion, so just in spacecraft alone, the original fleet cost as much as the entire Apollo program. Let alone all the ancillary equipment and stuff. It's money that should've been used to get us permanently to the Moon, and it probably would've been done by the early 80's. The problem with NASA, and it became inherent in the Shuttle is that their "culture" changed. They went from over-engineering systems and making them reasonably cheap, to under designing craft on smaller budgets than was needed in order to cut costs and save money, but in the final analysis spending far more than was expected. The Shuttle did a lot of good things in its time, but I think history will show it to be a rather mediocre craft for the most part and an abject failure in some instances. It hasn't lived up to their design or flight expectations. It never could because it wasn't good enough and they seriously underfunded the program.
Actually, in terms of present day dollars, Apollo is cheaper than the Shuttle. $25 billion v $10 billion/year...for 28 years. Each Shuttle costs $4-5 billion, so just in spacecraft alone, the original fleet cost as much as the entire Apollo program. Let alone all the ancillary equipment and stuff. It's money that should've been used to get us permanently to the Moon, and it probably would've been done by the early 80's. The problem with NASA, and it became inherent in the Shuttle is that their "culture" changed. They went from over-engineering systems and making them reasonably cheap, to under designing craft on smaller budgets than was needed in order to cut costs and save money, but in the final analysis spending far more than was expected. The Shuttle did a lot of good things in its time, but I think history will show it to be a rather mediocre craft for the most part and an abject failure in some instances. It hasn't lived up to their design or flight expectations. It never could because it wasn't good enough and they seriously underfunded the program.
Sure Carl, it's an expensive exercise and not a truly versatile heavy lift concept.
But it never was supposed to be.
Compare 6 manned landings to the moon in an entirely one-off, non
re-useable craft to 130 odd missions where at least the vehicle is
reused in a turnaround of a month or two.
A backup shuttle is normally ready for use if needed.
You can't really compare the two concepts in only dollar terms.
It has served it's purpose well, expensive, sure, manned spaceflight is always
gonna be expensive.
Imagine where we would be now if they lost the first shuttle and crew in 1981.
It was the first time a new spacecraft concept was tested on it's maiden
flight using a manned crew. It was the first time solid fuel was used.
Did you know they nearly lost the craft? They did...the body flap was damaged
by a shock wave from the solids igniting and overextending the flap.
If the crew had known this they would have ejected at a safe altitude.
Loss of vehicle.
For the purpose of building and testing concepts in space....ie building
a VERY expensive ISS , to be shutdown in another decade or so....for the
purpose of having a proven, reliable, mostly re-useable lift vehicle for
low to medium Earth orbit payloads...for the purpose of simply keeping
the space program running and people employed in cutting edge industry,
I think the shuttle program is and has been justified.
The shuttle has been fantastic and accomplished many important things, but yes it turned out way too expensive and never flew as often as initially proposed. It was really intended to cut costs, but the opposite has very much been the case.
The single most disastrous flaw in the design of the shuttle was to mount the crew vehicle on the side. This was the sole cause of the Columbia accident and has always, both before and after, been a serious concern.
At least with Constellation they're going back to a main vehicle mounted on top which is much less risky. I think overall the Apollo design was great, very simple and effective, and I'm sure they will benefit enormously from following that path again.
Sure Carl, it's an expensive exercise and not a truly versatile heavy lift concept.
But it never was supposed to be.
Compare 6 manned landings to the moon in an entirely one-off, non
re-useable craft to 130 odd missions where at least the vehicle is
reused in a turnaround of a month or two.
A backup shuttle is normally ready for use if needed.
None of the Shuttles ever flew 130 missions a pop. The total number of missions ever flown is 127. They were supposedly designed to do 100 each orbiter before a major overhaul was needed. They were flat out getting 10 out of an airframe before an overhaul was needed. It was cheaper to launch satellites into space on an Atlas rocket or the ESA Ariadne 4/5. Most of the satellites launched by the Shuttle were military birds or NASA probes...even most of them went up via Atlas rockets, rather than the Shuttle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinetic
You can't really compare the two concepts in only dollar terms.
It has served it's purpose well, expensive, sure, manned spaceflight is always gonna be expensive. Imagine where we would be now if they lost the first shuttle and crew in 1981. It was the first time a new spacecraft concept was tested on it's maiden flight using a manned crew. It was the first time solid fuel was used. Did you know they nearly lost the craft? They did...the body flap was damaged by a shock wave from the solids igniting and overextending the flap. If the crew had known this they would have ejected at a safe altitude. Loss of vehicle.
For the purpose of building and testing concepts in space....ie building
a VERY expensive ISS , to be shutdown in another decade or so....for the
purpose of having a proven, reliable, mostly re-useable lift vehicle for
low to medium Earth orbit payloads...for the purpose of simply keeping
the space program running and people employed in cutting edge industry,
I think the shuttle program is and has been justified.
Steve
I am quite aware of what's been going on in the program. They've nearly lost all of the Shuttles on more than one occasion. They're just lucky they have the three that are still flying. The only thing that the Shuttle has proven to be worthy of is a good "truck" for hauling parts to space stations and resupplying them. In so far as being a launcher of satellites, it was nowhere near as reliable as the Atlas or Ariadne and it's a darn side more expensive. Not only that, but NASA could've employed people in cutting edge space exploration far better and more efficiently getting back to the Moon. That would've kept the space program running just as well as having the Shuttle.
One thing I can tell you now and that's the ISS is the biggest white elephant they've ever put up into space. Redesigned about 7 times and 5 times as expensive as it should've been. So far it's done nothing, at least nothing worth writing home about. No one wanted it, except NASA and a few pollies...even there it was nearly voted out of existence in Congress. Not too many scientists wanted it, either.
I would not call the Shuttle progam a failure or waste of money. We have certainly learned a lot from it. But it is clearly time for the next step in space travel.
While I do hope they get a succesful Lunar program up and running there are a lot of hurdles to jump first. Are we really ready to build a 'permanent' moon base? As impressive as the ISS is it is not permanent. It has a limited lifespan after which things start to wear out and need replacing. The first modules are reaching that age so that although the ISS is only just being completed it is fast aproaching the end of life date. AFAIK it will be effectively abandoned at this time. How can we say we are ready to build a Lunar base?
A true permanent Lunar base would require the transport of enough equipment to establish mining, ore processing and manufacture capabilities to build and maintain the base.
Then you get into the food, water and air supply issues. Discovery of water on the moon is nice but again you need a significant processing plant to make use of it.
I could go on. The more you think about it the more there is.
In space program terms, getting back to the moon is a short term project of about 10 years. Establishing a base on the moon is a medium term project of about 50 years. Putting someone on Mars is still a long term project.
In the meantime an efficient launch vehicle is needed to continue robotic space exploration projects.
One thing I can tell you now and that's the ISS is the biggest white elephant they've ever put up into space. Redesigned about 7 times and 5 times as expensive as it should've been. So far it's done nothing, at least nothing worth writing home about. No one wanted it, except NASA and a few pollies...even there it was nearly voted out of existence in Congress. Not too many scientists wanted it, either.
I we had kept Apollo going I doubt NASA would have had any funds left for anything else. Besides we haven't sorted out growing food or having an eco-system in an isolated environment yet to sustain people. Moon or Mars bases are still a long way away I reckon. Think about what all the shuttle has accomplished. We got Hubble up there for a start. That alone justifies it. We know a lot more than we did 10yrs ago.
Might the reason we haven't sorted out growing food or eco-systems is because we shifted focus from the moon and beyond to Low Earth Orbit. Hubble and the ISS could both have been launched using APOLLO type technology and I think we would have learned a hell of a lot more. I still think that there will be a place for a Shuttle in the future if the space elevator doesn't become viable I think they will get that working someday.
No, I'm not....no one wanted it except NASA and a few others. They tried killing the thing several times. One of the votes for the budget appropriation bill to build the station passed by 1 vote. That's how close it got. It was an extremely unpopular program, that was only saved because they managed to get it to a stage that everyone was willing to put up with. Clinton had a pretty hard time trying to sell it to Congress, and so did NASA. Even some of the other countries which have contributed to the station had misgivings. It was only the idea of national prestige for some that managed to keep their ends of the bargain going. Some, like Russia, the ESA and Japan had already committed to the project and couldn't pull out without losing heavily.
In the end, they blended what would've been the Russian MIR-2 concept and their own Space Station Alpha (which was a 4 man crew sized station) concept. Even there, Clinton only managed to convince Congress to opt for "Plane A".
What would you call "long term", if you believe 50 years is medium term??
I was deliberately non-specific there
Except to add that a Lunar base makes a good launch site for a Mars mission so it becomes a dependancy.
We may set Mars as a goal but I don't expect to see anyone committing to a date any time soon (the next 10 years).
I was deliberately non-specific there
Except to add that a Lunar base makes a good launch site for a Mars mission so it becomes a dependancy.
We may set Mars as a goal but I don't expect to see anyone committing to a date any time soon (the next 10 years).
That's sitting on the fence...if you make a statement about terms of length of time, then you should be able to qualify those terms. Yes, a Lunar base would make a good launch platform for a Mars mission but a mission to Mars is hardly dependent upon it. It's just something nice to have because of its benefits, but you don't need one in order to go to Mars.
I agree with you there...it will take more than 10 years to prepare to go to Mars, but hardly 40 or 50 years, or even longer. If it did, then we'd might as well pack up, go home and forget about it now. If the reason was "Oh, but we could use better technology that might be developed after a little while, or in 10-20 years" (like they're doing now), we'd never get there. That just shows a complete lack of commitment, no confidence in themselves and another way to justify wasting money on some stupid war against the latest "bogey man" somewhere else in the world (which given the US's way of thinking, that's exactly where it'll go).
I we had kept Apollo going I doubt NASA would have had any funds left for anything else. Besides we haven't sorted out growing food or having an eco-system in an isolated environment yet to sustain people. Moon or Mars bases are still a long way away I reckon. Think about what all the shuttle has accomplished. We got Hubble up there for a start. That alone justifies it. We know a lot more than we did 10yrs ago. 
).
