NASA's New Shuttle

j0ugh writes "NASA releases plans for a new spacecraft (Audio stream contains the meat) that would replace the space shuttle. The vehicle is part of a system that will be capable of putting astronauts on the moon by 2018, laying the groundwork for space travel to Mars. NASA says the new system is designed to be 10 times safer than the space shuttle"

Comments

10x safer?

[confusion]

How do you classify something as 10x safer than something else? Do they expect 10x less people to die, 10x less frequent explosive disasters, or are the events themselves 10x less dangerous, meaning astronauts could survive?

Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/

based on Space Shuttle technology

[wiredog]

So NASA's going to be using the latest in 1970's tech? Woo Hoo!

Re:Deja vu

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that at this rate, with exceptions such as the Hubble, it's cheaper to deorbit a broken sat and send up another one ( 200kg of stuff to send upstairs) than to send up a shuttle to service it (20 tons of stuff to send upstairs).

Most of the cost of an earth-orbiting sat is ultimately the launch vehicle.

Re:Great.

[failure-man]

Well, that's only like, 20 times more dangerous than a car. Pretty good considering you're basically riding a bomb to orbit.

Doubtful

[Kefaa]

The funding of the space program continues to be less and less each year (adjusted for inflation). Even those in NASA recognize it depends on the "will of Congress" to fund such an effort at a time when we are spending $180 Billion a year in Iraq, $200 billion on Katrina, Billions upon billions for Homeland Security and we still have other natural disasters to face (Rita is on her way now).

Further, we do not have the motivation that existed in the 60s, when Russia beat the US into space. It was not just American pride, it was a deterrent, to both sides, to show they had the technology to be a leader in the world. Unless we see China, or India on the moon, it is unlikely to be of such importance that NASA would be funded for it. Even if we do see them, the question may be "So what? We were they ~40 years ago."

Talking about precursors, or the technology we would derive from such an effort, will be lost on the "yes, but we have "X" that needs to be paid for first." I wish it were otherwise, but I just do not get the feeling we have the 60s excitement around space. People look at the technology and fail to see it was possible because it was necessary to fulfill the mission. They are thankful for the derivatives, but many believe another Steve Jobs could create the same in IPOD like fashion.

Apollo on steroids, how true...

[Soft]

Mike Griffin's comment, that this is "Apollo on steroids", has more truth than it appears. It seems that no provision is yet made in that plan to actually build something on the Moon (they say that permanent bases eventually will be set up, but where is the payload for that? right now it's still flag-and-footprints, only longer); and that the operating costs will make the new program just as affordable as the previous ones, Apollo and Shuttle, i.e. barely.

Any comments on the following analyses? Transterrestrial Musings
Space Access Update #112

How to privatize the manned space

[Baldrson]

It used to be that NASA would excuse its competition with private sector launch services by pointing to its manned space missions as an example of what it was doing that couldn't be done by purchasing a launch service. However, now that manned space missions are receiving all this attention from space tourism investors, NASA is increasingly standing in naked competition with the private sector.

This is all quite unnecessary. The private sector is already chomping at the bit to invest in manned space. Griffin says $100M over 13 years is going to be spent within the existing NASA budget for this initiative but if that $100M were simply available as incentives, be they prizes, tax credits for manned space transport and habitation, there would be an explosion of alternatives in a highly competitive environment that would yeild results in a short time.

Re:Good

[LandKurt]

As far as I can tell, the SSME has to be the most complicated rocket engine ever designed. Using the older and simplier J-2S should significantly reduce costs and improve reliability.

I'd agree. The SSME has the design constraint of operating from sea level pressure to vacuum. Thus it runs at a very high pressure, which complicates things. Rocket motors designed to operate at altitude can be made simpler and more reliable.

If its not on the first stage it doesn't need to be a SSME, and it probably shouldn't be.

Not going to happen

[Animats]

No way is this going to happen. The US doesn't have the money. And they're not going to get it. Even conservatives are now fed up with Bush's spending.

But it's great for NASA bureaucrats. They can just idle along, issuing press releases, running their "centers", and promoting their "education" programs, without actually building anything flyable. And they get to blame Congress for not providing more money.

You can see this already. NASA just converted their home page to Flash.

The next people on the moon will be Chinese. They have such a strong manufacturing economy that it won't be a stretch to build a big booster. The "China price" on a booster should be low. Maybe the US will buy some.

Taco's spelling to improve too

[saskboy]

Do you think taht by 2018 CmdrTaco will know the difference between "to" and "too"?

"from the stuff-to-listen-too dept"

Scientists predict that Taco's spelling will be 10 times more accurate, with sufficient funding from Congress.

Re:That's Entertainment!

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

I believe that being an astronaut is on a volunteer basis. If you put an ad in the paper that said:
Be one of the first humans on Mars. All expenses paid trip to Mars one way, See a new planet. Do some research. There will be no return trip.
I'm absolutely sure you would have 1000+ volunteers that would consider their life a fair trade just to go, just to SEE it with their own eyes.

Re:I, explorer

[websaber]

I am really starting to feel nausea when speaking about space. Doesn't any one even remember JFK's qoute!!!

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." - JFK 1962

We didn't go to moon to find out what the moon is made of we went to the moon to find out what we are made of!!! Ever since we went to the moon it became the benchmark or our planet, "If we can get to the moon why can't we ...." I am really scared about our lack of ambition I know our best years are ahead of us but let's hope we have the guts to get there.