What is your opinion of the next NASA spacecraft?

Question

Is it just me, or does it seem like a step backward? A capsule spaceship means much more money per launch, as none of the spacecraft will be reusable, and we will completely loose the ability to retreave satelites from space. If major repairs need to be made to the space station, that will be next to impossible, as well. Am I the only one who thinks this is not the best direction?

I'm not missing info. Lockheed Martin got the contract to build the next space vehicle, one that will replace the shuttle. It will essentially be an oversized Apollo spacecraft. It will hos 6 astronauts instead of 3, but it's deployment and recovery will be the same. This will be the spacecraft to take us back to the moon, and to Mars.

I did not realize that making an entirely new rocket each time would be cheaper. I still think, however, that a two vehicle system makes sense. I think we need a vehicle that recover and bring back satelites if need be. I also think the arm of the space shuttle is a tool that we don't want to do away with. Space walks are extremely dangerous, and changing the orbit of a satelite would be difficult. This is the same reason I feel it would make major repairs to the space station impossible.

Answer 1

You are not the only one, but you are part of a very misinformed group.

The new system (Ares I and Ares V) will do every job we need it to do. It is true we are sacrificing some of the versatility of the shuttle, however, you are insanely mistaken about cost.

The shuttle costs about 500 million per launch... far from the promised 25 million of 20 years ago. This is a staggering number when you compare that the entire Apollo program from inception to final launch only cost about 13 billion. The Ares rockets will be cheaper and mostly re-useable. The first stage of Ares I and the strap-on stages of Ares V are actually just 5 segment shuttle RSRM's.

Currently, the solid rocket boosters on the Space Shuttle (the white rockets on the sides) are 4-segment motors. The Ares first stage for the manned rocket will be the Shuttle RSRM with an extra segment. The strap-on rockets on the HLV (Ares V, heavy lift vehicle) will be the same rockets as well. The Ares V will also have a liquid portion of its first stage. Ares I will have a liquid second stage which will burn up on re-entry. However, the capsule will be refurbuished and re-used.

For the most part, the rockets will be re-used. Fairings and the second stage liquid motors as well as the LEM/Service Module will be the largest expense as these will not be fully re-used. However, overall the program will be FAR less costly than the shuttle program, and will do FAR more for us. The shuttle can only launch into Earth orbit and cannot get to the Moon. The new Ares rockets will be able to do orbital as well as Lunar missions, and increase the US's versatility in space.

Damaged satellites, the ISS, and all will be easily repaired and supplied with the new rockets. Sure, it may seem like a step back. But why fix what ain't broken? These systems will be far more simplistic, safer, cheaper, and more robust than the STS systems. Ares is only a first step, and your tech tooth will be satisfied when Nuclear rockets or some other new rocket technology takes us past the Moon and onto Mars.

Answer 2

A capsule does NOT mean more money per launch. Making a spacecraft reusable is much more expensive than simply making one that is intended to be used only once.

For example look at the cost of a Soyuz launch and a Shuttle launch. A shuttle launch is approximately US$600,000,000. A Soyuz launch is US$30,000,000 to US$50,000,000. The shuttle costs 10-20 times more. The Soyuz has proven to be much more reliable as well.

Why on Earth (pun intended) do you think that space station repairs are impossible without the shuttle?

Answer 3

It's anything but a step backwards, nor is it more costly. The space shuttle was the ultimate mistake our space programs has ever made. It's basic premise, that somehow placing your payload on the side of your launch vehicle was somehow going to be a good idea is flawed. Back to the original question. The apollo design was the result of more man hours and then the shuttle was. Its cost benefit lies in it's simplicity. No matter what you discard the result will always be cheaper then designing for reuse. To respond to your other statement, by far this is the best solution to the problem.

Answer 4

They're trying to go on the cheap using old tech

Answer 5

I think you're missing a bit of info there.