We are "downgrading" from the SPACE SHUTTLE to a lousy "rocket"!!! How did we ever go to the moon!!!!????????

Thanks for the laugh.

I drive a Toyota, but see a lot of BMW SUV's and other vehicles that are just way too much for what is basically a lift from A to B and back again.

UH, DUDE?

WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON.

PSYOPS.

Yeah, why would they do that when the Shuttles only blew up a couple of times! Rat bastards...

We went to the moon on a rocket.

taking the stretch hummer to the moon costs too much in gas. Forget about mars.

simplicity is win.. russians knew it.

next step, the space elevator.

The shuttle was nothing more than an atmosphere skipping boat.

sounds cooler than a stupid rocket.....weren't we making those around WWII?

>>The shuttle achieves escape velocity using booster rockets. I don't see what your point is.

because strapping a glider to 3 rockets was so much better?

Uhh... with a rocket?

The shuttle is reusable - doesnt that count anymore?

well this new rocket is supposed to carry the "new" shuttles into space as the old ones are phased on starting next year.

as i said on another thread about this launch today tho, nasa just continues it's lies to the public by trying to get us to believe that the best they can come up with in this day and age is 1940's technology to get into space.

"Hey, NASA, nice rocket you got there! Where do you put your RCA Phonograph in that thing?"

They've got all kinds of super advanced spacecraft but refuse to even let on to the public that they have shit like that. Instead, it's like "here, look at this old piece of shit technology from the 40's!".

>>After a while, everything becomes obsolete. I believe the new craft are also reusable.

Is there any reason why the shuttle can't carry enough fuel to fly to the moon and back once its been boosted into space by a rocket?

Soon we'll be downgrading from human astronauts to monkeys. Call it Reverse Evolution.

This model is reusable, atop an Atlas booster - but unmanned ...

Mum's the Word for NASA's Secret Space Plane X-37B
[link to www.foxnews.com]

These Ares rockets are part of the Constellation: Orion spacecraft - which is a capsule.

Nasa = Goverment funded spaceflight = dead.

The future of spaceflight & exploration (commercial / civilian) will come via spaceport america and maybe the one they are supposed to build in Oklahoma.

[link to www.spaceportamerica.com]
[link to www.okspaceport.state.ok.us]

Hopefully a bridge can be created between the black ops & public sectors.

Actually, when I first heard the space shuttle would be grounded pemanently, WITH NO REPLACEMENT forthcoming, I took it as confirmation the US was going to be permanently dethroned and disempowered by TPTB.

Of course, by now it is obvious I was correct.

next nasa launch:
[link to www.cecilw.com]

That's not the main point. It's not designed to re-enter the atmosphere at the speeds it would be coming from the moon. Apollo was designed for re-entry at those speeds.

What's wrong with a rocket? It's the perfect design for teavel in space where wings and a tail aren't needed. The cone shape is perfect for high-speed re-entry which is necessary for a trajectory coming back from the moon. There's good reasons why Apollo looked the way it did. That's why the new design takes on the form of the old design. It simply works.

How about orbit the moon with the shuttle and carry the lunar lander in the cargo bay. Any reason why this configuration was abandoned in favor of a rocket?

I concur with others that TPTB probably have anti-gravity discs etc however this is NASA we are talking about. They are underfunded and undermanned.

It wouldn't surprise me that any REAL high tech is filtered out before anyone from NASA can get a sniff of it. However they are a nice little cash cow for contractors plus it keeps the public thinking that any technology that could truly change their lives is still hundreds of years away.

The funding for NASA is of course another example of the minimalist thinking that translates to mediocre results. After all, it's more important that corporations rake in huge profits and the sheeple keep their heads down and chewing than having lofty aspirations for reaching for the stars - next they may start to think abstractly and that could be dangerous (sarcasm).

Because Nasa - the privately owned corporations (Front) needs to divert more funds into improving the already 50 year old anti-grav spaceships.

Plenty of reasons. Speed and temperature on trans-lunar re-entry was already mentioned - the shuttle's structure is also limited to 2.5 g's whereas such a reentry produces up to 9 g's. Additionally, the shuttle's orbital engines are woefully inadequate for performing a trans-lunar insertion burn, and her main engines are not designed to be restarted in flight. Her wings are a huge burden to bring on a trans-lunar flight and are a main reason why she would never survive re-entry from the moon. Capsules are superior for interplanetary re-entries.

How did we ever go to the moon!!!!????????

CGI

SPACE SHUTTLE + ISS was a huge farce. It set space exploration back 40 years, our generation.

FINALLY IT IS OVER and we can continue where we left off in the early 70's.


Sad.

Ugh, again, you're bring a bunch of dead weight with you (wings) that will only get you killed when you try to re-enter the atmosphere when returning from the moon. The shuttle CAN NOT survive a lunar trip, primarily because of what will happen when it gets boosted back (which will also require a massive external booster the likes of which has never been seen - it would dwarf an S-IVB).

Right. The mass of the shuttle is far higher than the Apollo CM/SM/LM combination and therefore would require far more thrust to reach escape velocity. All that extra mass is simply wasted in wings, landing gear, tail, etc. that have absolutely no use on a lunar mission. Then, on the way back, you'd have to slow all that mass down again to get it to a slow enough speed to re-enter the atmosphere without burning the wings off of it. Remember that the shuttle orbits at 17,000 MPH whereas a ship returning from the moon will be travelling at around 25,000 MPH. The Apollo capsule had the right shape along with an ablative heat shield designed to burn away that allowed it to directly re-enter without having to slow down outside of the atmosphere.

Add all of this up and you have the reason why the new moonship looks remarkably like the original technology that took us to the moon in the first place. Physics drives the deign.