Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Scraps Shuttle And Returns to Rockets

Posted by Zonk on from the you'll-be-missed-old-girl dept.

nathanh writes "NASA is building a launch system that they've informally dubbed Apollo On Steroids. It's a hybrid design of the Apollo capsules and the Shuttle's booster rockets and engines. Crew and cargo are lifted by two different rockets: the crew use a single-booster/single-engine rocket and the cargo is lifted by an awe-inspiring two-booster/five-engine rocket. NASA reckons this craft will take humanity back to the Moon and then to Mars. Has NASA realised that the old designs were better? Or is this all a ploy to recapture the hearts of the public?"

3 of 553 comments (clear)

  1. Did You Know? by distantbody · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Japan intends to build an orbiting solar station by 2040. The planned satellite is to be equipped with two giant solar panels, each being 1*3 km in dimension, and will weigh about 20,000 tonnes, thats impressive

    Back to the topic, i wonder how much cold-war flaunting the shuttle represented at the cost of practicality...

  2. Safer design by zenst · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Having 1 thruster active with directional nossels is safer than two either side as per the shuttle design. As if one booster/rocket fails on the shuttle you would lose directional control.

    If one thuster fails on a standard rocket then you end up without it going anywere.

    Now a normal rocket also offerers better stremlining and as such less fuel needs over the larger front surface profile of the shuttle.

    Also the possiblities of having the top command capsule capable of having a seperate jetison detach rocket and parachute landing system incase of failure enabling the crew to for all effect eject and and be recovered does seen alot more viable over any modification to the shuttle design.

    So basicly it will be cheaper/simpler/safer and for some....sexier.

    Now what I would like to see is a way to send all the old space junk into a pile or crashing onto the moon ready for one day when we do eventualy go back and stay there. Scrap metal/floating space junk is afterall probably the bestest concentrated form of resource up there at the moment that is already past the hurdle for getting to the moon with regards to breaking out of earth's gravity.

  3. Still ignoring Feynman by threeturn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Having read Richard Feynman's comments on the Shuttle report I am amazed they chose to use the Shuttle booster and the Shuttle main engine, both of which he specifically comments on. To quote:

    On the solid rocket booster: A more reasonable figure for [reliability of] the mature rockets might be 1 in 50. With special care in the selection of parts and in inspection, a figure of below 1 in 100 might be achieved but 1 in 1,000 is probably not attainable with today's technology.

    On the main engine: Engineers at Rocketdyne, the manufacturer, estimate the total probability [of shuttle main engine failure] as 1/10,000. Engineers at marshal estimate it as 1/300, while NASA management, to whom these engineers report, claims it is 1/100,000. An independent engineer consulting for NASA thought 1 or 2 per 100 a reasonable estimate

    So, how exactly does this make a safe, reliable launch system?