3 ms·

There's not going to be a "next NASA space shuttle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29

by byoung2 13y ago

dalke 13y ago
Successor to the Space Shuttle is not the same as being a space shuttle. What makes something a "shuttle"? The original name is because it was supposed to take as little as two weeks to refurbish a shuttle and be ready for the next launch. This of course never happened. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_... ) I think most people consider a "shuttle" to be a spacecraft with wings that can reach orbit. That is SpaceShipOne and the X-15 are spaceplanes, not shuttles. What is your definition of "space shuttle" which includes Orion and the Space Shuttle but doesn't include other existing crewed spacecraft?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
lutusp 13y ago
Speaking as a former NASA engineer who had a hand in its design, the shuttle was supposed to be a bus that went into space, then return by gliding to a landing, and be reusable, and be economical to operate. It failed in nearly all its goals, some of them spectacularly. Your comparison with Orion has no basis in reality. Orion is not reusable, it doesn't have wings, it doesn't land, and in other respects it bears no comparison to the shuttle, remotely, at all.
- byoung2 13y ago
  I'm not saying the Orion is going to be anything physically resembling the former shuttle. In the context of the article, I'm saying the Orion is something that will serve a similar purpose, and for which you can sell naming rights. Even better if it is not reusable, since you can sell naming rights for each mission.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > In the context of the article, I'm saying the Orion is something that will serve a similar purpose, and for which you can sell naming rights. In that case, you shouldn't have replied to my post as though Orion contradicted my claim that there won't be another shuttle. Also, you need to check your facts -- Orion has been cancelled: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35209628/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/nasa-grieves-over-canceled-program/#.UxAz5TldVJw http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35209628/ns/technology_and_science...
    - byoung2 13y ago
      Also, you need to check your facts -- Orion has been cancelled You just missed the entire point of the original article. The Orion was cancelled due to lack of funding. The article suggested that NASA should sell naming rights to spacecraft to fund the space program. Maybe if NASA did sell naming rights, there would still be an Orion, or gasp another shuttle!

There's not going to be a "next NASA space shuttle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29

by byoung2 13y ago

There's not going to be a "next NASA space shuttle" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29

dalke 13y ago

Successor to the Space Shuttle is not the same as being a space shuttle. What makes something a "shuttle"? The original name is because it was supposed to take as little as two weeks to refurbish a shuttle and be ready for the next launch. This of course never happened. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_... ) I think most people consider a "shuttle" to be a spacecraft with wings that can reach orbit. That is SpaceShipOne and the X-15 are spaceplanes, not shuttles. What is your definition of "space shuttle" which includes Orion and the Space Shuttle but doesn't include other existing crewed spacecraft?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

lutusp 13y ago

Speaking as a former NASA engineer who had a hand in its design, the shuttle was supposed to be a bus that went into space, then return by gliding to a landing, and be reusable, and be economical to operate. It failed in nearly all its goals, some of them spectacularly. Your comparison with Orion has no basis in reality. Orion is not reusable, it doesn't have wings, it doesn't land, and in other respects it bears no comparison to the shuttle, remotely, at all.

byoung2 13y ago
I'm not saying the Orion is going to be anything physically resembling the former shuttle. In the context of the article, I'm saying the Orion is something that will serve a similar purpose, and for which you can sell naming rights. Even better if it is not reusable, since you can sell naming rights for each mission.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > In the context of the article, I'm saying the Orion is something that will serve a similar purpose, and for which you can sell naming rights. In that case, you shouldn't have replied to my post as though Orion contradicted my claim that there won't be another shuttle. Also, you need to check your facts -- Orion has been cancelled: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35209628/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/nasa-grieves-over-canceled-program/#.UxAz5TldVJw http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35209628/ns/technology_and_science...
  - byoung2 13y ago
    Also, you need to check your facts -- Orion has been cancelled You just missed the entire point of the original article. The Orion was cancelled due to lack of funding. The article suggested that NASA should sell naming rights to spacecraft to fund the space program. Maybe if NASA did sell naming rights, there would still be an Orion, or gasp another shuttle!