TrueDragofox says:

so the Shuttle could live on sept not in its current body if Im getting this straight

spacevidcast says:

@TrueDragofox the orbiter itself would not. So the space plane portion is done no matter what. In a Jupiter DIRECT model as mentioned above the solid rocket boosters, shuttle engines and main tank would all be re-used to create this new rocket. So it would be a shuttle derived vehicle, but there would be no actual orbiter attached.

spacevidcast says:

One could also add to that argument and say that by creating a new industry in space we would be creating jobs and expanding our own economy. This could in turn do more good than the entire bailout as well as help humanity in ways we can’t even imagine right now. So more money here really has little down side, IMO.

mattetjus says:

@Nasiar99
on the other hand, less money might help to force out some newer, cheaper and better ideas – throwing money at a problem only takes you so far…
A seemingly unconstrained budget made the shuttle a reality in the first place but a constrained budget now can’t pay for its constinued usage if NASA wants to do more than LEO maintenance…
I like the idea that they instead encourage and support non-government efforts…

mrmaciejm says:

nasa wastes too much money

CiphersSon says:

The ongoing exploration of space has done nothing but benefited humanity as a hole. From the long passed civilizations who measured the skys in many different ways to Galileo’s scope, Capernicu’s heliocentric universe, Kelper helping Newton’s laws,Humason and Hubble’s red shift and so on…And now The moon,Mars and voyages beyond.
It is vital..critical to humanity that science and astronomy be held in the highest regard.
Billion here billion there Nasa should get a 25% increase every leap year

Maisy5 says:

Amen to that. I don’t think many people realize how much of the thing they depend on to get through a normal day is a result of our space exploration. Be it medical, technological, whatever. Our lives have greatly been improved because of our space program. We as humans MUST continue to explore space – not just to conquer new worlds, but to also continue improving our lives here on Earth.

snoopyloopy says:

@KKM121 bc current nasa plan calls for a return by (maybe) end of this decade and mars by 2040. however, that will be a bit impossible with the shuttle (or an updated design) since it was designed for low-earth orbit, lands on a runway, and needs external fuel to relaunch. the designs now being fielded would enable travel to moon + mars, but also enable use in leo like space shuttle is.

CiphersSon says:

@KKM121 I think every country should have one to some degree and i also think it would be good for all to share there data like say…linux for computers. However i know that is wishful thinking, further knowledge has a way of coming out to all at “the right time” per say. Take Grossmann or Hilbert, have you herd of them? Yet every one know the word Einstein. (never mind the debate i’m just trying to illustrate a point) So more space programs = exponential growth of knowledge for all.

CiphersSon says:

@KKM121 I am no expert in this area by far but if i were to form a opinion on what little knowledge i do possess.Yes and no.China spends far less on space than we do. For military applications that’s good, for science that is bad. As is my opinion for us also. China’s recent attacks on google and others is profoundly worrisome, concerning transparency, Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a science economy rather a military one?World wide?(again wishful thinking) So theirs to much politics involved.

Phillip says:

It is not the budget that is the problem it is the cost of the Constellation Program. As the Augustine Commission noted, even if NASA was given Ares I and Ares V today with no development costs,,,the cost to fly them would be too expensive. People seem to forget that Ares I was meant to be “Safe, Simple, Soon”. If Safe, Simple, Soon, is a 14+ years development then something is wrong with the project. As to it being “safe”? Ares I costs so much that they have had to cut out alot of the safety features of the Orion spacecraft that Ares is meant to be able to lift. In other word–Ares I is so underpowered like a car engine, NASA has gone ahead an taken out the bumpers of the car, etc and they still call it safe???? Well if you only test and travel in it an average of once per year due to the cost anything can be called safe–but I would n want to be the first person flying on Ares I. As to the claim that is shuttle dervived–go back and look and look at all the changes NASA has proposed and is in the process of implementing for Ares I. Yes–NASA can make a PIG fly—but do we really want to fly on that PIG???? Direct on the other hands tries to use as much of the present shuttle as possible–same SRB, same engines, same external tank with some changes. If you look at the National Launch System from the late ’80s you will see that Direct is closely related. Why did NLS get cancelled–NASA had to pick between shuttle, ISS and NLS and 1 was going to be cancelled since NASA did not have the money. While you are at it–look at the Mars Societys’ plan to get to MARS before Dr. Griffen become NASA’s Administrators. Guess what you see–the same two rockets. On the ESAS study that lead to the present POR, go and look at all the assumptions that were made to favour the Doctors plan. It is kind of funny–EELV’s were good enough for the old Dr. before he became NASA Administrator. After the Dr. became NASA Admin–EELV’s are not safe enough. Just maybe it is because the old Dr. had his own plan already made before he became Administrator. So let’s junk the POR and and give Direct a chance. I don’t want to be still here 5 years for now and be telling you–the POR is too costly and people wondering why it costs so much. I will say–you were told that in ‘04-10 and you still did not believe.

ralpher05 says:

Spacevidcast forgot the other Shuttle derived launcher, the side mount throw away launcher (not Shuttle-c)

spacevidcast says:

@ralpher05 No, didn’t forget. The article on NSF mentioned that the shuttle derived sidemount option (NS-C) was all but ruled out. You’ll note the video is quite specific with the Jupiter-241 Stretched Heavy. That’s the vehicle that is rumored to be the next gen shuttle replacement. All rumors though, we won’t know for sure until an official announcement is made.

kurt30001 says:

The ARES projects made sense. The Only thing I would have done is make the Ares V even larger. So it could carry even greater payloads to carry things to to lower Earth orbit.

Ronsmytheiii says:

SVC, I can assure you that the staying of execution for SSME is not the only evidence for J-24x (or Ares-V light), only the most public…….

carpenoctemcarpediem says:

im sad about the abandoning of the ARES…damnit

SlightyDisturbedNBK says:

This proposal looks good, much better than the ridiculous Falcon 9 and Dragon.