Comments on: NASA’s Plan B

By: Grand Lunar

Grand Lunar — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 01:59:03 +0000

Having looked at Direct 3.0 not long ago, I feel NASA ought to also seriously plan to use that. The way I see it, being an inline design, it’s safer.
It returns to what we had with the Saturn 1B, which was also good.
And it uses the same booster and engines that have used for over 20 years now. I see no excuse for NASA not to use the Direct 3.0 idea, even if it is a bit more than the current Plan B.

By: Marcel F. Williams

Marcel F. Williams — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:05:58 +0000

If the shuttle external tank were transported into orbit and then crushed and shredded my a solar powered orbital metal recycling machine, then the crushed and shredded metal or melted into blocks, they could be used as mass shielding for space stations to protect astronauts against galactic radiation and micrometeorites.

By: Petrolonfire

Petrolonfire — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:00:54 +0000

@ 25. aubreycohen:

I’m just annoyed that the animation has the rocket making noise in space. What is this, Star Wars?

Nahh that’s the other govt space project where theyhave lots of “death ray” space satellites blowing up ICBM’s ..

As for noise in space – well, just imagine your listening to the noise from inside the ship
okay?

Its just an audio cue to let us Earth-bound viewers see somethings happening anyway.

By: Petrolonfire

Petrolonfire — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:47:38 +0000

@ 16. tacitus:

According to the designers, “Plan B” (isn’t that some sort of contraceptive?) …

I look forward to seeing NASA’s new RU 486 rocket project …

… But I fear that its launch may get aborted!

(Sorry couldn’t resist.)

So plan A was the Orion-Ares Apollo reheat … Plan B is this intermediate shuttle-Apollo cross …

Will plan C be replacing the extra components here with the old shuttle orbiter again and taking us right back to how we are today?

Nice video & I guess a reasonable idea but … well … its a bit of a let down. I’d like to see something a lot better & more capable. Plan B if we must be please lets try plan A a bit harder first!

By: Mooney

Mooney — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:55:31 +0000

@Buzz Parsec and T.E.L., I am aware of how impractical trying to build such a thing right now is. I wasn’t seriously suggesting that that’s where our money should be sunk into at this particular moment in our technological development.

It was more about the way NASA is constantly taking two steps forward by first taking two steps back. They don’t spend any money on potentialities that might someday be far, far, far cheaper ways into space; and really, given their funding level, I can’t blame them at all for that.

But the end result is that, forty years after Man walked on The Moon, we’re still plugging away at launch systems that are designed around letting large portions of their structure drop off and burn up in the upper atmosphere. We’re essentially stuck with the “be wasteful and expensive, there’s money to burn!” conceptual framework of the Moon Shot days while there’s just a fraction of the national will to spend oodles of cash on space that those days enjoyed.

It’s the same complaint I had long ago about the STS in general: as cool as it is, it’s a really damn expensive and inefficient way into space, especially considering that the whole shebang is completely and totally limited to LEO.

By: JB of Brisbane

JB of Brisbane — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:21:25 +0000

Err, NASA, it’s for you. It’s the Russians – they want Energia back.

By: OldGuy

OldGuy — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 05:19:07 +0000

Lies. Man will never go to the moon. Today, men marry too young and their children are as weak as worms.