[Bobboau]

I'm not blind, I see the post where he says the constellation was just a more modular Apollo using modern techniques.

[General Battuta]

I'm not blind, I see the post where he says the constellation was just a more modular Apollo using modern techniques.

Which is exactly why it was an excellent design.

[Bobboau]

for a 40 year old design yeah, I suppose that makes it pretty good, but in the last 4 decades I would have hoped that they would have come up with something a little better.

[General Battuta]

They did. They designed something better than the Apollo, a more modular design using modern techniques.

[Bobboau]

but it's basically the same thing, a bazzillion ton rocket to put a thimble sized capsule into space. it might not be quite as extravagantly wasteful as the original, but it's still the same basic concept.

[Klaustrophobia]

that's pretty much the only way to do it.  unless you prefer they employ the staged nuclear detonation method.

[Mr. Vega]

the mantle that Eisenhower took from them back in the 50's when he created NASA

Yeah, things were so much better when they ran the show! None of that Moon landing and Voyager probe crap!

[General Battuta]

but it's basically the same thing, a bazzillion ton rocket to put a thimble sized capsule into space. it might not be quite as extravagantly wasteful as the original, but it's still the same basic concept.

Manned spacecraft design is inherently pretty conservative.

[Mongoose]

for a 40 year old design yeah, I suppose that makes it pretty good, but in the last 4 decades I would have hoped that they would have come up with something a little better.

The car you're driving right now is essentially a 100-year-old design that's more technologically refined, but I don't see many people complaining about that.

[mxlm]

****ing hovercars, how do they work?

[redsniper]

for a 40 year old design yeah, I suppose that makes it pretty good, but in the last 4 decades I would have hoped that they would have come up with something a little better.

The car you're driving right now is essentially a 100-year-old design that's more technologically refined, but I don't see many people complaining about that.

Man, I'll complain about it! We're ten years into the 21st century. I should by all rights have a flying car and a robot to do my dishes.

[watsisname]

...and a robot to do my dishes.

There are these things called dishwashers, you might consider getting one. 

[Klaustrophobia]

for a 40 year old design yeah, I suppose that makes it pretty good, but in the last 4 decades I would have hoped that they would have come up with something a little better.

The car you're driving right now is essentially a 100-year-old design that's more technologically refined, but I don't see many people complaining about that.

Man, I'll complain about it! We're ten years into the 21st century. I should by all rights have a flying car and a robot to do my dishes.

we've still got 5 years according to Back to the Future

[Kosh]

I'm not blind, I see the post where he says the constellation was just a more modular Apollo using modern techniques.

Which is exactly why it was an excellent design.

Not really, it's a dinosaur that has some serious fundemental limitations that, in the future, ultimately make it a poor choice for getting people into orbit (going to the moon was not the only thing it was intended for). This is worth getting excited over, not only because it's a revolutionary design but it also because it makes space planes practical.

[Kosh]

What you said here contradicts what you said in the last quote.

Also, wrong.

Care to elaborate on that?

Was it as "inspired" as the Shuttle? No. It was a basic application of all the engineering work done in the 60s, with added flourishes due to new materials and better design software.
As such, it promised to be very, very solid.

It's hit and miss.

NASA does not control its own funding.

Yeah but they can make better use of what they have, as in no more cost overruns

No.

Yes. It isn't completely reusable so you have to rebuild parts of it and the parts that are reusable you need to go fish out of the ocean, it needs completely different, specialized facilities to launch from that are completely incompatible with existing airport infrastructure, most of the rockets mass is just fuel, and those are the ones I can think of right away.  


EDIT: And as for going to the moon/mars/asteroid belt/whatever other planet or planetoid we're going to go, a much better system is to have launch vehicles specifically to put things and or people into orbit, and a different vehicle design specifically to operate in space (this would allow for such things as nuclear engines that get you to where you want to go faster but would never be allowed to be used in the earth's atmosphere). The original plan didn't do that.

EDIT2:

The car you're driving right now is essentially a 100-year-old design that's more technologically refined, but I don't see many people complaining about that.

Actually yeah, plenty of people are complaning about it now that gas prices have gone so high and oil, you know, starts declining. You'll see more *****ing about it in the near future.

[castor]

but it's basically the same thing, a bazzillion ton rocket to put a thimble sized capsule into space. it might not be quite as extravagantly wasteful as the original, but it's still the same basic concept.

As long as rockets are used, getting off this rock will probably never be something to be considered elegant -- no way around that bazzillion ton rocket, whatever decorations you'll have with it. So why not just bite the bullet and do it as simple as possible?

[Liberator]

I'll define what I meant by ossified and arthritic now.

Ossified means they are unwilling or unable to change their way of thinking to fit into new situations or new paradigms.

Arthritic means they act like a bunch of old women about every little detail. 

The level of "cowboy" is for all intents and purposes zero.  Space is an inherently hazardous environment for humans to be in.  The goal should be to minimize and mitigate the risk where possible, but you can't accomplish anything if you are unwilling to take chances.  I'm not saying be stupid or reckless, but it should NOT take 7 hours to insert and tighten 26 pre-fit bolts to hold an ammonia tank to the space station, then have to go back out and do it again because it's not right somehow.  Unless of course you are wearing a spacesuit glove that has fingers the size of an average sausage link instead of something that actually lets the wearer use they're fingers for more than gross grasping.

[Flipside]

I will agree with Liberator on one main aspect, we need to stop re-hashing the same old techniques over and over, and start thinking at right-angles with regards to how we approach the exploration of Space itself, rockets were fine in the 1950's and the following decades, but we need to stop looking at brute-forcing our way into Space and start looking more seriously at the other options available, magnetic accelerators, space-elevators, the theories are there, but so much is being spent on rockets that realising these theories, or even testing them in real life applications is being held back through lack of funding.

To my mind, stepping back for 5 years, and re-evaluation our approach could save untold billions of dollars, and be far less harmful to the environment in the long run. And we really need to start thinking in the long run.

[bobbtmann]

Space elevator!

[Mongoose]

Teleporter!