Slashdot Mirror
Next NASA Vehicles To Resemble Shuttles
ausoleil writes "Spaceref.com has an internal NASA memo outlining potential plans for the next generation of launch vehicles. They will closely resemble the current Shuttle and use some of the same hardware. Of course, they plan to leave the exploding parts out of their next versions. From the article: 'NASA has decided to build two new launch systems - both of which will draw upon existing Space Shuttle hardware. One vehicle will be a cargo-only heavy lifter, the other will be used to launch the Crew Exploration Vehicle.'"
So, as always, (good science/actual military need/sensible budget-keeping (pick appropriate phrase based on article) ) takes a backseat to Senator Whosit saying, "You won't cost my state jobs!"
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
It's nice to know that NASA is putting together two new launch vehicles for cargo and crew. However, what's on the drawing board to follow those vehicles in the next 10, 20, or 50 years from now? Or, is NASA is doomed to repeat the shuttle experience again by using the new vehicles for the next 30 years without having anything new in the pipeline?
What we need is NASA to get out of the vehicle design business and let the free-market industry come up with innovative designs to build, test and deliver. It should be like building cars when the designs keep getting better and more reliable every year.
Seriously. Why are we still building giant fireworks? Couldn't a mass-driver work with new heat-resistant materials? Or those JP Aerospace guys with the blimps-to-orbit plan?
Even the Space Elevator doesn't have this problem. Surely there are better things to do with the money to lower cost-to-orbit than building giant bottle-rockets. As long as we remain under the paradigm of taking our fuel with us, it seems to me the cost and complexity goes through the roof. My two cents only.
NASA Budget Shows Shuttle Phase-Out
You're missing certain points. That shuttle weight includes the engines, have fun launching things without those. So that wil ltake up some mass as well. In addition the Shuttle engines were designed along the lines of: efficiency and reusability above all else including cost. Yup, they're expensive, efficient and designed to be reused. So those of course can't be used for a non-reusable launch vechicle which means the engines used won't be quite as good. It can stil lsend a lot into LOE but not nearly as much as you're talking about.
First cynical point: They'll be using the existing shell design, because they're going to use existing everything. We pay billions, they claim to have redesigned everything, they redesign nothing. They make a few minor cosmetic changes and we all live under the assertion that we live in a brave new NASA world of progress once again while some beaurocrat reappropriates the money for his own black-ops.
Second cynical point: If our one big goal is to go BACK to the MOON within the next decade (or was it twenty years?), why do we need such new complex spacecraft? We did it in April of 1969 with the computing power of today's calculator, but we need a complete overhaul to manage to do something we already did almsot four decades ago?
I'm seeing us spending a lot of money here. Doing a lot of grunt work here. Yet, all we're achieving is the same thing we've already achieved. How disapointing.
On the one hand, I'm glad. The Shuttle has proved to be a horrible waste of money, a boondoggle of 1970s technology dictated by political pork and military paranoia rather than being designed for an actual specific purpose, and I'm glad it's going to be replaced.
It's just a shame that the only way we can get people out into space seems to be with 1960s technology rather than 2000s. At least, under the current government-funded model.
You must think in Russian.
Please, have a little respect. The "exploding parts" comment in the headline was uncalled for and childish.