NASA's New Spacecraft and Rockets

Another famous Stunny Pharouk quote: "The rockets they blast into the sky for a lark didn't cost any money because they print it and you pay taxes for a state of thought! If you didn't realise what that is, its because you didn't realise why; - They have to leave our planet really fast!".

Interesting you mention the money saver, as the shuttle has actually been more expensive than Apollo was.
The Orion can be reused 5 to 10 times.
Given that all it's mass is used all the time, it's the more cost effective method. For now.

fusion power wtf is that?

its better than having to build a brand new spacecraft every time they want to do a mission though, it has wings so they dont have to dash it into the ocean or desert every time they re-enter, good money saver.

We do have a plane-like spaceship; the shuttle.
There really is no benifit of using a winged spacecraft. The wings only work in rentry. Other than that, they're dead weight.

What's really neat is to see the developement of the Constellation project.
The first test flight of Ares 1 is just over a year away. It will carry a "boilerplate" version of Orion.
I imagine feelings are running pretty high with those involved as we get closer to the new ship taking flight.

NASA's budget is less than 1/2 of 1% of the ENTIRE federal budget. I doubt their budget has any effect at all on STATE transportation issues such as bridges and highways.

Oh one bidge falls down and that means we are all going to hell. get real.

NIXON. He hated JFK and wanted to kill the Apollo program and give NASA to the airforce. He only saw reconspy sateillites as the only reason to spend on space science. He O.K.ed the Shuttle but at the cost of Apollo 18,19,20. He also killed Skylab 2. The Space shuttle was over sold to Nixon as an inexpencive space truck to build space stations. Russia showed you do not need a shuttle to build space stations. Pres Carter paid for only 4 shuttles when Nasa asked for 8.

Actually, there were plenty of funds. But interest as you say fell to a bare minimum. A hostile congress wanted to cut funding and nasa was top on the list. So funding was cut for the Saurn 5 program, :( Anyways, plans to go to mars were cut short in the early 70's when NASA designers started to devolop a an improved saturn 5 that would go to mars and back.

Adding to what Flyinfighter said...
The Nixon administration wanted to end Apollo, as it was asscociated with the Kennedy administration. Nixon wanted his own project to call his own.
So, as you mention, it was short sightedness, as well as petty thinking that ended our missions.
I only hope that the next person in office doesn't end the plans to go back to the moon. It remains a sad fact that no matter how much has been spent, the project can be canceled.

mdb4360- the thing is there was not enough funds to do it again, and america was losing interest after that. right on that H3 too... but the thing is theres the problem of getting it back to earth in a large enough supply-the only good to us out there is for the ISS and the future moonbase

not to mention we're going back in 2020, but we're going to mars (humans) in 2030-i plan to be on that flight

C/2d Lt. Jim Norton, CAP, USAF Auxiliary

Perhaps the better question is why did we ever stop going to the moon and beyond? Many short sighted people want our nation to be nothing but entitlment programs. Without superiority in space and defense our nation will become a second rate country that doesn't have the economic power to sustain their beloved welfare programs. If no other reason the prospect of Helium 3 on the moon justifies our space program. Let other nations squabble for oil...we will have fusion!

No, that is an example of poor planning of expenses.
Space exploration does not keep good infrastructure from being built.

The amount spent on space is small compared to other national projects. Social programs get about a trillion dollars.
If our country is going down the tubes, space exploration isn't the reason. It is leadership.

for what??????????? We have F**king bridges collapsing in this country!!!! We dont know how to control fires....we have failed levee system in place!!!! This is another scam to launder lots of money.....

why do we spend millions determining why pluto isnt a planet while our infrastructure in this country is deteriorating....big money laundering scam...

Es lo maximo, la NASA

Why the use of two sucessive parachute systems?

The GE Apollo d-2 design which may have inspired the Soyuz pretty much out classed the in house Langley design.
Also pure O2 atmospheres were out of date by 1969 the Russians had been flying 1ATM pressure N2O2 atmospheres since 1961.

I believe they'll crash it into the moon or use any remaining fuel to boost it into a solar orbit for disposal like they did the apollo LEM upper stages.

It burn out in the atmosphere, like in the Apollo.

what happens to the lunar module when the transport capsule is released before re-entry (time 4:42)? Does it remain in low earth orbit (for use at a later date) or burn out in the atmosphere?

"After all these years, THIS is the best we can do?"

You were expecting hovecrafts, maybe?

Define "modern spacecraft".

Apollo was good. It should never have been scrapped.

Don't let the looks fool you.
It's the stuff inside that's better. Touch screen controls instead of switches and keyboards. Four people to go to the surface instead of two. And a week long stay on the moon instead of 3 days.
And there's more to come after all THAT.