So long SST, hello Apoll...oops, Orion

I remember there was a report about this some times ago in German television. Some guys from the NASA described why the go back to the capsule approach. The main reasons are security and costs. The shuttle system never works, as it should. Although it was only planed as a intermediate step to a space transport system that not only landing like a plane but also can start like one. Unfortunately the X plane project that was started to build a prototype was stopped long time ago because the technology was not ready. They are now working again on this but as they cannot promise when the have a working plane NASA taking the safe way to get a shuttle replacement.
 
Looks kinda too small to me to 'blaze a trail to mars', much less beyond...

Guess the "bigger is better" is out of fashion in the US these days. :p
 
The Shuttle was never going to be a viable vehicle for going to the Moon, it was never intended to go beyond LEO despite what Bruce Willis thinks.

The Shuttle's problem has been that it was born out of the thinking that designing multiple specialist platforms each focusing on a single problem was wasteful. The thinking wasthat it would be cheaper to build an all-purpose launcher/orbiter that would solve all the problems and more besides, and do it cheaper. This is a fallacy; anyone who has developed software will know this. The more powerful, flexible and generic the tool, the more costly it is to develop, and the more sacrifices and compromises have to be made to get it to work at all. Much better to design a tool which solves the problem at hand, and only the problem at hand.

Apollo is a basic design which has been proven to work half-a-dozen times or so. If we're going to repeat the goal of the Apollo programme I think it makes a lot of sense to adopt the same proven strategy, but do it with modern technology.
 
In terms of cost/efficiency its probably the best quick solution, but visually for a new "Moon, Mars and Beyond" space vehicle after all these years in technology improvements, well... in "joe" terms feels like trading a Horse back for a Mule.
But hey im not saying its exactly disapointing! Just really un-expected.
Almost no-one ever though decades back that this would happen! Am i right?!

Anyway if it gets the job done with more security and less costs as the quickest replacement for the shuttles, its the best decision, no doubt.
 
Still really dissapointed with the lack of progress in space travel. Im hoping to be able to visit Mars or the Moon at least before I die. So they only have 50-60 years left to do it in.

At least the astronomers seem to be really pushing things. I cant wait for the large array they are building in S.America to be up and running. Thats going to make Hubble(in certain areas) look pathetic.
 
Still really dissapointed with the lack of progress in space travel. Im hoping to be able to visit Mars or the Moon at least before I die. So they only have 50-60 years left to do it in.
Click to expand...
Richard Branson will probably get you there before NASA does (and quite possibly for about 1/20th the cost).
 
Blitzkrieg said:
Still really dissapointed with the lack of progress in space travel. Im hoping to be able to visit Mars or the Moon at least before I die. So they only have 50-60 years left to do it in.

At least the astronomers seem to be really pushing things. I cant wait for the large array they are building in S.America to be up and running. Thats going to make Hubble(in certain areas) look pathetic.
Click to expand...

Just travel somewhere with lots of dust and rocks. White rocks for the moon and then put on glasses with red lenses for the mars.
 
Retro tech FTW

When I first saw the headline, my first thought was someone was actually crazy enough to build the propulsion-by-nuclear-bombs monstrosity of 1950s Project Orion fame. Or non-fame, as the case may be.

An updated apollo capsule is a lot less cool then a nuclear pulse powered space ship. But I'll take whatever progress on space exploration I can get.

One of the things wrong with the world is there aren't enough crazed but brilliant Mad Scientists and inventors around.
 
the russians did the right thing with their space shuttle : fly it once or twice then let it collect dust. still a big waste of resources, but not one that lasts for three or four decades.

human presence in space would be much better had the US followed the russian model. sending people on Soyouz, cargo on Progress and tin cans (called space stations) on big rockets is so much cheaper and safer :p
 
nutball said:
Much better to design a tool which solves the problem at hand, and only the problem at hand.
Click to expand...
The problem with that though is that it limits progress. Ie: to do X, you actually have to go and develop tool X, and you have to go through the process of allocating the budget to design it, build it, maintain it... All with resistance along every step by sceptics and naysayers who have their own pet projects that think they can find much better uses for that money. Then you have to ACTUALLY design it and build it, with another round of sceptics, naysayers etc harping on every little setback that may occur and throwing FUD all around them like monkey-poo in an attempt to shoot the project down prematurely. Repeat this N times for every single tool you need to build, and it slows everything down quite remarkably.

Apollo is a basic design which has been proven to work half-a-dozen times or so. If we're going to repeat the goal of the Apollo programme I think it makes a lot of sense to adopt the same proven strategy, but do it with modern technology.
Click to expand...
Problem with that is that YES, apollo did what apollo set out to do, BUT, that was just to go to the moon. Once you get there - then what?! There isn't room, nor endurance in an apollo-type craft to actually get much work done. There's no need to re-reach the goals of apollo; we've done that already with the original apollo!

This can only be seen as a step back, and a big one. Throwaway space vehicles aren't going to get us anywhere.
 
ZoinKs! said:
One of the things wrong with the world is there aren't enough crazed but brilliant Mad Scientists and inventors around.
Click to expand...
There are, but management doesn't like them. Management wants things predictable, and wants to score points by making the right decision. And if you come with something revolutionary, nobody tells them it's a good bet.

So, make that a Mad Scientist with lots of money and very good PR skills. Right.


Edit: I agree completely with Guden: evolution of science isn't done by those geniusses, but by the grunts and managers, one very small step at a time. Make it fool-proof, in other words. Which is what the scientific method is all about.

But for new horizons, we'll have to wait for those very few gifted ones, who can sell it just as well. Or have them in a place and situation where money is no objection, as long as they think of the Ultimate thing. Weapon, most likely, in a devastating war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK I'm sorry this is going to be a drive-by because I'm starting to lose patience with certain people here.

Two questions:

- what is the most cost-effective way to get to Mars? Nothing else. Get to Mars.

EDIT: actually scratch that.

- if it's so easy and clearly the right thing to do ESA will be developing a re-usable manned vehicle capable of landing man on Mars next week, prompted by the Swedish government I guess? Good, I look forward to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You've no reason to be snippy with anyone, if going to mars is the goal, well then orion is a complete waste of money. There's not a single thing it could do to help with that goal in mind. All it can do at most is put a couple guys on the moon for a couple days, what are they gonna do there during that time to help us reach so much further out into space?
 
ShootMyMonkey said:
Richard Branson will probably get you there before NASA does (and quite possibly for about 1/20th the cost).
Click to expand...

SpaceShipOne is just a silly joke compared to real space travel. (And btw, JC's stuff is a silly joke compared to SpaceShipOne.) I've always been surprised at the fascination people had with their attempts to go to 100km height. Compare that height to, say, a common satelite in geostationary orbit, and they are off with a factor >350 times. Compare 100km to the earths diameter 12756km, and it seems like they almost haven't left the ground.

It's cool to builld a plane that goes to that height. But to compare it to real space travels? Bah!
 
Guden Oden said:
if going to mars is the goal, well then orion is a complete waste of money. There's not a single thing it could do to help with that goal in mind. All it can do at most is put a couple guys on the moon for a couple days, what are they gonna do there during that time to help us reach so much further out into space?
Click to expand...

Please expand on this statement, I'm interested to know why it's not contributing anything. Please point to an extant piece of technology which is capable of conveying a single human being (or ideally three) beyond the gravitational pull of the Earth to the Moon, supporting said human for ten days, and returning them safely. I have to say I'm struggling to put my finger on one, maybe your experience in the space technology industry is more extensive than mine, I dunno.

Question: do the following words have any meaning for you in the order they're written:

Mercury -> Gemini -> Apollo.

??? Which one of those three is Orion?

Orion may be a waste of money in the sense that it's re-solving a problem solved 40 years ago to which the solution has been lost. But that isn't the fault of Orion, that's the fault of the people who decided that Apollo should be canned, and of the first world nations in Europe who allows the know-how gained through Apollo to be lost because the Yanks didn't want to carry on with it. Orion is the most cost-effective way to re-gain that lost knowledge.
 
Basic said:
SpaceShipOne is just a silly joke compared to real space travel.
Click to expand...

Well said. I don't want to belittle Rutan's efforts which are, for the money he's spent, very impressive. There are though three things to be borne in mind when judging his achievements in comparison to NASA or any other (super)national agency:

- "if I have seen further than other men it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants". In other words, much of what he's done is old, proven technology developed at great cost by NASA et al.

- he hasn't actually been into space yet (my definition is: if you ain't been in orbit you ain't been in space)

- he hasn't killed anybody yet. It remains to be seen how his private venture and funding holds up in the face of a dozen dead passengers (which will happen).
 
nutball said:
Please point to an extant piece of technology which is capable of conveying a single human being (or ideally three) beyond the gravitational pull of the Earth to the Moon, supporting said human for ten days, and returning them safely.
Click to expand...
The real question isn't 'which craft is capable of doing that which you describe', but rather 'why would we WANT to do that which you describe'? We did that in the late 60s and early 70s for crying out loud. I wasn't even born by the time the last apollo mission took off from southern florida!

I haven't the slightest notion what knowledge it may be that we had then that we do not have now, some three and a half decades and 100+ space shuttle launches later. The reams of documentation from those missions can't be anything less than monumental, and many, if not most of the people involved should still be alive. Heck, from what I know, two of the original three moon landing astronauts still live... Just go ask them fer chrissakes. ;)

Why spend another dozen billions if not more just to repeat the baby steps we took a full generation ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top