Priorities in government and space

sorry, but not even the capsule is reuseable. its all a one use
throwaway. its just that the capsule gets returned to earth for
displaying.

what i dont understand is why they dont leave the capule in earth
orbit. they can live and travel in the same space the used for
landing, which could then be left docked at the space station, for
refit and reuse for the next mission. that way they would not have to
carry the capsule to the moon, and back, losing all that fuel. they
would also not have to waste the fuel to get the carrier into space
on the next mission.

they could even save more fuel buy sending the lander itself out to
the moon unmanned using solar sails (light). it would take about a
month to get there, but with no one on board and the food, o2, water
and fuel properly stored, there would be no hurry for it to get
there. they could also send a return stage by the same method. they
dock with it when ready to return, it fuels the engines, then is
dicarded.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "the_gunfighter_45acp"
wrote:
>
> A very good point. Apollo is not better, but its also not really any
> worst. And the fact Apollo got us to the moon says more than the
> shuttle has done for us. Reason being the shuttle cost so much just
to
> go low eath orbet would run cost to that of Apollo if not more if
NASA
> wanted to go back to the moon useing the shuttle in some way.
>
> Your good point is, Orion is kind of like the waggon pulling the
> horse. The largest and costly part of it is thrown away after every
> launch but the capsule is reuseable. I have to say this has been
> bothering me as well but as it stands Orion maybe the best NASA can
do
> before the shuttle is moth balled. A totally reuseable launch system
> thats cost effective may take NASA 15 to 20 years before its ready.
> We all know NASA these days takes its sweet time.
> I do not mean to be so hard on NASA. And I believe NASA has its roll
> in the future of manned spaceflight...
>
> Reason why we should look more to privet space launch ventures.
> They can take a lot of NASA low earth orbet launches off their
> sholders and let them save their ever smaller budgets for bigger
> things such as moon missions so on..
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote:
> >
> > if it had been done as origianally planned it would have worked
fine.
> > but the military insisted that anything the goverment used had to
be
> > a military vehecle, then the bean counters insisted on cutting
cost.
> >
> > how is it better if it gets rid of 2/3 of its size in launch, how
> > about the saturn 5 that got rid of 90 + percent of its size in
> > launch. is that better? the orion will use two rockets to get
> > everything into space and then only thing that returns is a tiny
> > capsule. with everything else thrown away.
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "the_gunfighter_45acp"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Well Im no fan of the shuttle. I can remember learning about it
as a
> > > kid and thinking hows this better than any other rocket if it
sheds
> > > 2/3 it self on launch and cost far more than any rocket that
has the
> > > same lifet ability.. One can say that the shuttle was a failure
in
> > > management as a whole.. Responsibility? responsibility is
shared by
> > > all that has a hand in the space program. government, business
and
> > the
> > > people alike. NASA has brought alot of this upon them selfs as
far
> > as
> > > budget constraints. 30+ years after Apollo and billions spent
and
> > what
> > > do they have to show for it. But all this is pointless really
what
> > has
> > > been done is done. Real question is getting past it and finely
> > moving
> > > forward in space.. I believe we all can agree on this..
> > >
> > > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:
> > > >
> > > > gunfighter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And it seems if NASA wants to keep ISS up and running, and
get to
> > > the moon with a new heavy lift rock They're going to have to get
> > > little tougher with there contractors......
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A greater danger is confusion regarding responsibility. The
poor
> > > show of the space shuttle is more a management failure than a
> > > technical one. Boing, who were the subcontractors for the main
> > shuttle
> > > would have thought that NASA was keeping tab on all the
> > technological
> > > issues, while NASA would have thought that Boing had full
control of
> > > the ball.
> > > >
> > > > There is also another related problem in such programs. A
failure
> > to
> > > clearly enunciate goals. ( Both the Space Shuttle and the ISS
have
> > > been designed without any clear goals - without their being
tied to
> > > ambitious projects). President Kennedy's goal to put a man on
the
> > > moon was clear to every one (even the cook would have
understood it
> > > and come up with useful suggestions : - ) As of now it is still
not
> > > clear to anyone what NASA's plans are regarding the Moon and
Mars. (
> > > There should have been a publicly acknowledged flowchart by
now: if
> > we
> > > find water on the Moon, this is what we will do.... if
not ... ).
> > > There is some vague assertion that ISS will be a stepping stone
for
> > > Moon and Mars. But what if ISS is not the right thing (any way
> > > depending on just one critical hardware is dangerous).
> > > >
> > > > Planning is also 'hogtied' by the budget constraints. NASA is
> > afraid
> > > of opening it's mouth too wide. One way to get out of this rut
is to
> > > assume that you have all the budget available. Say three
trillion $
> > > over the next 25 years. What would NASA do with it? It is always
> > > safer, design wise, to have an ambitious goal in the beginning.
It
> > > will be easier (and safer) to scale the project down than to
scale