It is by no means a last-generation spacecraft. It incorporates all we know about the business. The shuttle, ultimately, is too expensive. Re-usable, yes, but a great expense. Modern rockets can lift heavy weights relatively cheaply.
I would love to see man make it to mars, but I don't think Nasa will get there first. In the past few years, many other players have become serious contenders for advancing space travel. The Chinese have successfully launched their own people into space on their own rockets. Also, the EU's automated Jules Verne vehicle may show a way to make a space program self-sustainable. Not to mention the Russians are still sending up cosmonauts every few months and viable commercial space fight will probably happen by the end of the decade. Of course, if one or more of the above mentioned programs announce that they are going to mars, it could start a new space race. That would certainly make it easier to get funding ("Do you really want Mars to be a RED Planet?" etc.) Isn't that the main reason we went to the moon in the first place?
The F-4 Phantom was the principal air superiority fighter for the USAF until the 70's, when it was replaced by the F-15 Eagle. This happened at the same time (the 70's) that NASA went from the Apollo-style spacecraft to the fleet of Space Shuttles. Since then, the USAF has introduced the next-generation B-2 stealth bomber, and the F-117 stealth fighter, and even the F-22 Raptor (which replaced the F-117). If the USAF had gone from the F-15 back to the F-4, sure, you could say that it was "by no means a last-generation [air]craft. It incorporates all we know about the business," and you could talk about how such a decision saved the USA some money, and it would all make sense to me. But, you wouldn't sell me on the idea that going back to the F-4 with everything we know about the business was the best idea in the world. Of course, we seem to know more about making the best aircraft than we do about making the best spacecraft. Is it possible to wonder (in hindsight) whether the USA should have entrusted our spacecraft program to the USAF in the first place, instead of NASA?
We may be going back to an earlier spacecraft, but we're going to be using newer technology in doing so. It's not like we're going out to the boneyard and refurbing those rockets and capsules that were used in the 60's and 70's.
Your premise would hold up if you bothered to think of the basic difference between deep space travel and orbital missions with a reusable aircraft. The shuttle is a glider(and not a very good one), which enables it to land and be reused. You may have noticed that this glider has wings. Wings have absolutely zero benefit in space. Not a whole lot of drag out in space. Making a lighter, cheaper, more powerful, more versatile vehicle devoted to long term occupation, instead of the expense of a reusable re-entry vehicle is the consideration. Besides all that, the shuttle does not even come close to producing enough power to get to the moon, much less beyond. It also is incapable of vertical landings. Last time I checked, only Earth has those convenient runways for a shuttle landing. Somehow I'm guessing that the most talented engineers in the world are not "dusting off" an old spaceship to accomplish a new mission. Every mission has been a stair step, not a repetitive dog and pony show.
They're calling it Orion and they want to be on the moon by 2020 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/index.html
Well, that was a long and detailed metaphor, but I still don't know what your point is. Can you just state it plainly? I'll tell you one thing, your notion that the next NASA spacecraft is akin to the Air Force going back to the F-4 is absurd. You can't back it up with engineering evidence. They are not using old Saturn rockets, they are using advanced new Ares launch vehicles. The new Orion spacecraft and Altair Lunar lander may look vaguely familiar to old Apollo command and lunar modules, but that's because those shapes are the most effective, it's a matter of physics. The size is much bigger and the technology is cutting edge. It's possible to wonder. But I think there are two important jobs and deserve specialist agencies to conduct each effectively. The Air Force is military and needs to be focused on military action against our enemies here on earth. NASA needs to be focused on space exploration. NASA and the Department of Defense have always worked closely and they share data and contractors and should continue to do so. But the Space Shuttle itself is an example of trying please both agencies with a single spacecraft. It became huge and expensive to operate and it never fit the specific needs of either agency. The Air Force found out quickly that it was too expensive to use for all of the military satelltes that need to go up. NASA had its own problems with the shuttle all these years, too. Better that the military stick to efficient military rockets and satellites. Better for NASA to stick to efficient space exploration vehicles and satellites.
Good thread. I am strongly opposed to curtailing the space program for five years in order to solve social problems. In the 19th century Daniel Webster stood before congress and said there should not be one dime spent on developing the land west of the Mississippi until the country had solved all of its social problems. If we had followed his advice, today the west would be a vast wasteland and we would still have all the social problems we had in the 19th century. In the long haul, continued progress is all areas of endeavor is best for the nation. Also, by its very nature the space program has to remain largely a government operation. But the private sector already has gotten involved in the space program to a limited extent. For example, communications companies have put up their own satillites. There is certainly room for a private/government cooperative effort. For example, private companies could provide supplies and equipment for space stations and in the far future lunar or martian communities. In fact, they are already doing that.
The main problem with the search for the next space vehicle is the government bureaucracy. Instead of building several different launch vehicles to achieve different goals they are trying to come up with a launch vehicle that does absolutely everything. Hell even the Space Shuttle would not fit into the target goals of the search. They want cheap launch cost, reusable -but not always, large payload capacity, small footprint, etc. Some of the guidelines for the X-33 or X-34 (i can't rememeber) were completely out there.
So the Apollo-style system has always been the best thing we know of for missions outside of low earth orbit, and we always knew that the Space Shuttle was only intended for missions in low earth orbit?
