Will NASA get it right this time?

[sao123]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14594789/

Wesley Huntress, a former NASA executive who is now at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, said the effort was less like Apollo on steroids and more like "Apollo on food stamps."

Im very afraid, but I hope that this program wont turn out like the shuttle.

 

[K1052]

As long as it doesen't blow up on the pad because someone forgot to do their english-metric conversions....

 

[DurocShark]

I really want this to go well. I'm tired of not having a real space program.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: sao123
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14594789/

Wesley Huntress, a former NASA executive who is now at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, said the effort was less like Apollo on steroids and more like "Apollo on food stamps."

Im very afraid, but I hope that this program wont turn out like the shuttle.

Problem is, Nasa has a penchant for canceling any program that might possibly fail, this is conservative enough that it won't.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
I really want this to go well. I'm tired of not having a real space program.

qft... of course, part of that has been a lack of a budget (thank you, congress:|)

 

[GTaudiophile]

Too bad Grumman lost out. They built the original Apollo spacecraft I think.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Too bad Grumman lost out. They built the original Apollo spacecraft I think.

No, North American built the command and service modules.

Grumman built the Lunar Lander.

 

[Kalmah]

It's about time they get the ball rolling. I want to be able to take a vacation to Mars after I retire.

I just wish some new technology would allow for cheaper missions/further/faster travel. It doesn't seem like anything is improving in this area, just determination to do new things.
Same technology, different design...
It looks like we are still going to be dinking around the same couple planets we are now for the next 500 years.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Well I just wish they had a better budget, but I can't wait to see some pics of prototypes.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: Kalmah
It's about time they get the ball rolling. I want to be able to take a vacation to Mars after I retire.

I just wish some new technology would allow for cheaper missions/further/faster travel. It doesn't seem like anything is improving in this area, just determination to do new things.
Same technology, different design...
It looks like we are still going to be dinking around the same couple planets we are now for the next 500 years.

I think you watch too much Star Trek.

 

[jlbenedict]

I guess the good news is, there should be some employment opportunites around Bethesda, MD coming soon

 

[Kalmah]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: Kalmah
It's about time they get the ball rolling. I want to be able to take a vacation to Mars after I retire.

I just wish some new technology would allow for cheaper missions/further/faster travel. It doesn't seem like anything is improving in this area, just determination to do new things.
Same technology, different design...
It looks like we are still going to be dinking around the same couple planets we are now for the next 500 years.

I think you watch too much Star Trek.

Actually you can blame Battlestar Galactica and a computer game called Galactive Civilizations2 for that.

 

[Jawo]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: sao123
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14594789/

Wesley Huntress, a former NASA executive who is now at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, said the effort was less like Apollo on steroids and more like "Apollo on food stamps."

Im very afraid, but I hope that this program wont turn out like the shuttle.

Problem is, Nasa has a penchant for canceling any program that might possibly fail, this is conservative enough that it won't.

They have to be extremely conservative, otherwise they wouldn't get any money from Congress...thats why the X-33 was cancelled, and they almost lost all funding after the Columbia. Its the sad, sad state of how Congress allocates money for NASA.

 

[Chiller2]

Is it just me or does this seem to be a step backwards? Makes about as much sense as a New Modern horse and buggy. Sure its Titaium frame Gas shocks carbon fiber shell and rims is a lot lighter stonger and smoother than the old version but in the end its still just a buggy pulled by a horse. As a stopgap measure to temporarly replace the expensive and dangerous shuttle I can accept it, but they need to be developing a system that can take off and land on short notice a real space plane. You have got civilians doing it why can't NASA.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Kalmah
It's about time they get the ball rolling. I want to be able to take a vacation to Mars after I retire.

I just wish some new technology would allow for cheaper missions/further/faster travel. It doesn't seem like anything is improving in this area, just determination to do new things.
Same technology, different design...
It looks like we are still going to be dinking around the same couple planets we are now for the next 500 years.

GET TO MAAAAAARS!!! </arnold>

total recall ftw!

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Chiller2
Is it just me or does this seem to be a step backwards? Makes about as much sense as a New Modern horse and buggy. Sure its Titaium frame Gas shocks carbon fiber shell and rims is a lot lighter stonger and smoother than the old version but in the end its still just a buggy pulled by a horse. As a stopgap measure to temporarly replace the expensive and dangerous shuttle I can accept it, but they need to be developing a system that can take off and land on short notice a real space plane. You have got civilians doing it why can't NASA.

The problems is:

Purpose - Most private space efforts have been to design and built a single purpose (read: specialized) vehicle. The space shuttle was designed and built as a multipurpose platform, capable of performing in all mission roles. Multi-role entities have always been a failure because they become too complex, and expensive. theoretically, specialized designs save money, because they reduce complexities, but in practice, because multiple designs are now required, savings are slim.

 

[archiloco]

think it's a step back....why go back to capsule type of ship............bah whatever as long as they are more safe.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: archiloco
think it's a step back....why go back to capsule type of ship............bah whatever as long as they are more safe.

It's just that the shuttle was so expensive to run that it just becomes economically cheaper to use a capsule/single-launch vehicle. I think one of the other ideas NASA was thinking for replacing the shuttle was using two single-use vehicles (so there would be 2 rocket launches at some points); one rocket to hold the crew and a larger rocket that could hold a siginifcantly larger payload than the shuttle ever could.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: archiloco
think it's a step back....why go back to capsule type of ship............bah whatever as long as they are more safe.

It's just that the shuttle was so expensive to run that it just becomes economically cheaper to use a capsule/single-launch vehicle. I think one of the other ideas NASA was thinking for replacing the shuttle was using two single-use vehicles (so there would be 2 rocket launches at some points); one rocket to hold the crew and a larger rocket that could hold a siginifcantly larger payload than the shuttle ever could.

Plus, the new system is modular. The'll already have a series of lifting rockets to use, so they can just design a lifting body 'plane' type craft (see the russian Klipper proposal) and plot it on top. Significantly lower development costs and they can sell "an upgraded ship for cheap" more easily to congress.

 

[CaptnKirk]

First of all - I don't think it's up to NASA to 'get it right' - it's up to Congress to 'FUND IT RIGHT', and quit meddling with it.

Remember that those who made the Gemini & Appolo missions a success back in the 60's aren't around any more,
they're in their 70's, 80's and 90's and retired . . . if they are still alive.
Only a handful of us left and no new spacecraft has been developed since I worked on the Space Shuttles
and I left that program with Rockwell way back in '78 and worked on the Vandy-Land Launch Pad up until '85.

Points (pick-aparts)

As long as it doesen't blow up on the pad because someone forgot to do their english-metric conversions....

Never had a manned craft blow up ]on the pad' - Challenger was lost 90 seconds into flight due to a joint-seal O-Ring failure.
Conditions were unacceptable for flight & Military Command insisted on launch over ruling the Thiokol Engineering team
who stated that the thermal environlent was outside of the parameters of safety - failed joint acted like a cutting torch.

English / Metric conversions led to the impact at 43,000 MPH with Mars it wasn't where it was supposed to be at the propper velocity.

I guess the good news is, there should be some employment opportunites around Bethesda, MD coming soon

Palmdale, CA where the Shuttles were built might get some action, as will Michould, LA where the External Tanks are made.
Northrup-Grumman, McBoeing, and Lockheed Martin have collectively bought up all the 'Old' companies that
made the legacy space vehicles, they're like Wal-Mart on steroids.

So many of the possible derivatives of the Shuttle as a heavy lifter never were built.

I look at this as a nostalgic return to a time when the concept of Space Flight was considered 'easier' than the Shuttle proved to be.

Using todays advanced technology to build 50 year old concepts, just in a bigger envelope.

As was stated earlier in this therad . . . a rocket powered horse and buggy.

This return to space is a look and retreat to the pasr with no long view towards the future.
What is the goal of doing something that was already done 50 years ago?

A Manned Mission to Mars will return less data at a much higher cost than any robotic explorer.
Just to say 'US did it first? - we already know more about the Moon and Mars than we do about the Earth's ocean depths.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
First of all - I don't think it's up to NASA to 'get it right' - it's up to Congress to 'FUND IT RIGHT', and quit meddling with it.

Remember that those who made the Gemini & Appolo missions a success back in the 60's aren't around any more,
they're in their 70's, 80's and 90's and retired . . . if they are still alive.
Only a handful of us left and no new spacecraft has been developed since I worked on the Space Shuttles
and I left that program with Rockwell way back in '78 and worked on the Vandy-Land Launch Pad up until '85.

Points (pick-aparts)

As long as it doesen't blow up on the pad because someone forgot to do their english-metric conversions....

Never had a manned craft blow up ]on the pad' - Challenger was lost 90 seconds into flight due to a joint-seal O-Ring failure.
Conditions were unacceptable for flight & Military Command insisted on launch over ruling the Thiokol Engineering team
who stated that the thermal environlent was outside of the parameters of safety - failed joint acted like a cutting torch.


Military command? Was there some sort of SpySat on board?


English / Metric conversions led to the impact at 43,000 MPH with Mars it wasn't where it was supposed to be at the propper velocity.

I guess the good news is, there should be some employment opportunites around Bethesda,MD coming soon


Are you referring to the new star trek game (legacy) being developed there?


Palmdale, CA where the Shuttles were built might get some action, as will Michould, LA where the External Tanks are made.
Northrup-Grumman, McBoeing, and Lockheed Martin have collectively bought up all the 'Old' companies that
made the legacy space vehicles, they're like Wal-Mart on steroids.

So many of the possible derivatives of the Shuttle as a heavy lifter never were built.

I look at this as a nostalgic return to a time when the concept of Space Flight was considered 'easier' than the Shuttle proved to be.

Using todays advanced technology to build 50 year old concepts, just in a bigger envelope.

As was stated earlier in this therad . . . a rocket powered horse and buggy.

This return to space is a look and retreat to the pasr with no long view towards the future.
What is the goal of doing something that was already done 50 years ago?

A Manned Mission to Mars will return less data at a much higher cost than any robotic explorer.
Just to say 'US did it first? - we already know more about the Moon and Mars than we do about the Earth's ocean depths.


yes, but... hopefully there will be some good spin-off technologies this time around again...

 

[So]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
First of all - I don't think it's up to NASA to 'get it right' - it's up to Congress to 'FUND IT RIGHT', and quit meddling with it.

Remember that those who made the Gemini & Appolo missions a success back in the 60's aren't around any more,
they're in their 70's, 80's and 90's and retired . . . if they are still alive.
Only a handful of us left and no new spacecraft has been developed since I worked on the Space Shuttles
and I left that program with Rockwell way back in '78 and worked on the Vandy-Land Launch Pad up until '85.

Points (pick-aparts)

As long as it doesen't blow up on the pad because someone forgot to do their english-metric conversions....

Never had a manned craft blow up ]on the pad' - Challenger was lost 90 seconds into flight due to a joint-seal O-Ring failure.
Conditions were unacceptable for flight & Military Command insisted on launch over ruling the Thiokol Engineering team
who stated that the thermal environlent was outside of the parameters of safety - failed joint acted like a cutting torch.

English / Metric conversions led to the impact at 43,000 MPH with Mars it wasn't where it was supposed to be at the propper velocity.

I guess the good news is, there should be some employment opportunites around Bethesda, MD coming soon

Palmdale, CA where the Shuttles were built might get some action, as will Michould, LA where the External Tanks are made.
Northrup-Grumman, McBoeing, and Lockheed Martin have collectively bought up all the 'Old' companies that
made the legacy space vehicles, they're like Wal-Mart on steroids.

So many of the possible derivatives of the Shuttle as a heavy lifter never were built.

I look at this as a nostalgic return to a time when the concept of Space Flight was considered 'easier' than the Shuttle proved to be.

Using todays advanced technology to build 50 year old concepts, just in a bigger envelope.

As was stated earlier in this therad . . . a rocket powered horse and buggy.

This return to space is a look and retreat to the pasr with no long view towards the future.
What is the goal of doing something that was already done 50 years ago?

A Manned Mission to Mars will return less data at a much higher cost than any robotic explorer.
Just to say 'US did it first? - we already know more about the Moon and Mars than we do about the Earth's ocean depths.

Permanent incorporation of the solar system to man's economic sphere is key to the future prosperity and continued progress of civilization. A small lunar science outpost and cheap, frequent launches are the keys to that.

 

[Kalmah]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
First of all - I don't think it's up to NASA to 'get it right' - it's up to Congress to 'FUND IT RIGHT', and quit meddling with it.

Remember that those who made the Gemini & Appolo missions a success back in the 60's aren't around any more,
they're in their 70's, 80's and 90's and retired . . . if they are still alive.
Only a handful of us left and no new spacecraft has been developed since I worked on the Space Shuttles
and I left that program with Rockwell way back in '78 and worked on the Vandy-Land Launch Pad up until '85.

Points (pick-aparts)

As long as it doesen't blow up on the pad because someone forgot to do their english-metric conversions....

Never had a manned craft blow up ]on the pad' - Challenger was lost 90 seconds into flight due to a joint-seal O-Ring failure.
Conditions were unacceptable for flight & Military Command insisted on launch over ruling the Thiokol Engineering team
who stated that the thermal environlent was outside of the parameters of safety - failed joint acted like a cutting torch.

English / Metric conversions led to the impact at 43,000 MPH with Mars it wasn't where it was supposed to be at the propper velocity.

I guess the good news is, there should be some employment opportunites around Bethesda, MD coming soon

Palmdale, CA where the Shuttles were built might get some action, as will Michould, LA where the External Tanks are made.
Northrup-Grumman, McBoeing, and Lockheed Martin have collectively bought up all the 'Old' companies that
made the legacy space vehicles, they're like Wal-Mart on steroids.

So many of the possible derivatives of the Shuttle as a heavy lifter never were built.

I look at this as a nostalgic return to a time when the concept of Space Flight was considered 'easier' than the Shuttle proved to be.

Using todays advanced technology to build 50 year old concepts, just in a bigger envelope.

As was stated earlier in this therad . . . a rocket powered horse and buggy.

This return to space is a look and retreat to the pasr with no long view towards the future.
What is the goal of doing something that was already done 50 years ago?

A Manned Mission to Mars will return less data at a much higher cost than any robotic explorer.
Just to say 'US did it first? - we already know more about the Moon and Mars than we do about the Earth's ocean depths.

I think I agree with you. I'm guessing safety and convenience are the purpose of this thing. But it's not going to get us any further than what we allready have.
I bet it's part of a plan for a manned mission to Mars in the future though. (which is something I support)

Yeah, it would be easier to send robotics to Mars instead, but I don't think research of any kind is the real reasoning behind this.. It's just to say that we've done it. Isn't that pretty much the whole purpose of all of this anyways? Exploring and expanding our boundries?

I wouldn't say that getting to Mars is pointless, more like a stepping stone to greater things. (the same technology isn't going to get us to Alpha Centauri, but I'm sure there is plenty to learn from it all)

But then again, maybe I'm being un-realistic. Will it ever be possible to get out of our own solar system? Shouldn't that be their focus?

 

[Baked]

At this rate, we'll never build a star destroyer before the turn of the next millenium. And we'll probably get wiped out by some alien race before that.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Baked
At this rate, we'll never build a star destroyer before the turn of the next millenium. And we'll probably get wiped out by some alien race before that.

600 years ago, we couldn't make more than a few thousand steel swords...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

Estimated: Shortly after the year 2200.