Is it true that when N.A.S.A. retires the the space shuttle in 2010, that there going back to rockets?

Question

Is this just a rumour or is there any truth to this?

Answer 1

True.
Unlike the Shuttle, the new rocket is supposed to have the ability to go to the Moon, but that part is optional and Congress may still cut funding for it. But NASA doesn't have enough money to develop the new vehicle and keep the shuttle flying at the same time, so they will retire the shuttle as soon as the space station assembly is complete.

Answer 2

That's about it, I'm afraid. BTW--the Shuttle is a rocket--all spacecraft are. but I get your point. NASA is pretty much going back to the staged rockets like the Apollo program used.

Here's what happened (I'm NOT making this up): Following the Columbia disaster, President bush proposed that NASA develop a replaceent for the Shuttle. Which was fine with NASA; they'd been trying to get funding for that for over a decade. However, Bush and Congress rejected NASA's proposal to develop an advanced second-generation Orbiter using the latest technology and what we'd learned over 20+ years with the Shuttle.

Instead, bush directed NASA to cancel most future Shuttle flights, and use the savings to develop a replacement. He did suggest a token amount--about $1B, to be added to NASA's budgent, but Congress cut this.

Amazingly enough, NASA has come up with a workable design--sort of. It sues a solid-fuel booster of the same type the Shuttle uses. The second stage is a rocket engine of thetype the Shuttle uses as well, with a fuel tank adapted from the Shuttle's external tank. The third stage is an enlarged version of the 1960's Apollo capsule (or an unmanned cargo rocket), built using composites and modern electronics, but otherwise it's a capsule (supposedly it can be sued up to 10 times). The payload for the manned version is abut 3000 pounds, for the unmannedup to 6000 pounds (the Shuttle can lift up to 47,000 pounds).

Basically, this amounts to this: we are using the equvalent of a propellar airplane. Instead of building a jet, Bush and Congress decided to go back to wood-and fabric biplanes.

BTW--just to add insult to injury, Bush's so-called "Return to the Moon" pledge was bogus. NASA is doing studies, but Bush never even asked for Congress to fund a new lunar program. Finally, the above iswhy NASA is so focused on completing the International Space Station. Once the Shuttle is retired, the United States will no longer have a spacecraft capable of launchingthe larger components. And--at this time, there are no plans to develop one.

Answer 3

And just what do you suppose powers the shuttle, pixie dust?
NASA is not going BACK to rockets, because they are still using them, have been all along, and will be for the foreseeable future.
Those two white cylinders strapped to the sides of STS? Rockets. The big orange cylinder between them? Full of rocket fuel. All that smoke at launch? Rocket exhaust.
I would suggest that you do at least a minimal amount of research before posting questions here, in order to avoid appearing EXTREMELY STUPID.

Answer 4

There is SOME truth, but c'mon, by 2011 inflation will have made everything so expensive that no one will be able to afford another project. Perhaps Japan could put a man on mars, but it would be a kamikaze mission because a round trip would cost too much.

Answer 5

Yes, it's true, "Orion". There's been shows on regarding it semi-regularly, on Discovery or Science Channel. As a matter of fact, I just did a search for it and it's on again: Thurs 9/13 2:00-3:00 CST, on the Science Channel "Starship Orion". And here's a website regarding it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Answer 6

The Orion crew vehicle, yes. A larger version of the Apollo space capsule that can hold about 4 people.

Answer 7

It's true.

And in my humble opinion, they should have retired them 20 years ago.