Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's New Shuttle

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the stuff-to-listen-too dept.

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"

4 of 476 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why fly... by minginqunt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When you put a date of '2018' on something, being at least two US administrations away, isn't that akin to basically saying "maybe, one day, but I wouldn't count on it"?

    I wish we could be honest. Nobody really can be bothered to put a man on the Moon or Mars. It's faster, cheaper and easier to have a little wheeled avatar nipping around for us, searching out prime real estate and letting us know that the nightlife in these places isn't a patch on Vauxhall, daahling.

    I mean, I'd like it to happen, but we all know it won't, right?

    Martin

  2. Back to where they begun? by Andr0s · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I must say, it is interesting to notice that NASA has, in fact, finally opted to return to the old, well-tried capsule approach, as opposed to reusable reentry vehicles such as Shuttle. Especially when one takes into consideration the significant amount of resistance NASA experts have been offering to the idea for years and years, despite the poor cost-to-results ratio of Shuttles and, apparently, high(er) risks involved in Shuttle flights as compared to capsule flights.

    Perhaps it is a bit of me that loves rubbing it in to american 'rocket scientists', but it might be interesting to notice that Russians never fully embraced their shuttles (Buran, http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/buran.html ) despite it posessing payload and operational capacities superior to those of US Shuttle...

    --
    '...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
  3. I wonder by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Interesting

    how many NASA engineers and others secretly cheered when Bush and Co. announced the end of the shuttle?

    For too long we spent out time focused on the Shuttle instead of space itself. Everything other than a few probes was centered around the space shuttle. How much of the ISS was compromised because of the shuttle? Perhaps the original glamour of a flying space plane helped NASA but it sure turned into a Spruce Goose pretty damn quickly.

    I really like this new direction. Getting the moon is the first step. While we might not reach Mars from there we never will have any chance if we just putz around in Earth orbit.

    Perhaps the next habitation in space can be built on the moon. That can put the glamour back into the space age in a more practical method than a space plane.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  4. I, explorer by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Robots are all well and good, but contrary to the popular conceit, you can't explore with telescopes and probes. To do anything truly worth the effort, you need to send people there, and there'll never be a shortage of willing souls, so why not go for it?
    Actually, robots have been great explorers, and will only get better. What's more, they are an order of magnitude cheaper than humans because they don't require food, water, or air, they don't defecate, you don't have to return them to earth (astronauts are picky about that one), and they eat sunshine. As well, they don't mind being sent on multi-year missions (being far more patient than us apes) and if things go horribly wrong, it's a disappointment but not a tragedy.

    Because of the difference in cost and risk, you can do vastly more exploration with robots than with people. I think sending people is the real conceit, and one that costs lives.