Why Is NASA "NOT" Continuing It's Earlier Plans For A Next Generation Space Shuttle?

The Space Shuttle got much larger and sprouted wings to satisfy Air Force requirements for cross range capability.

It was the quest for re-usability that turned out to be the weakness of the Space Shuttle. Instead of a launch every week the best record that NASA has been able to manage is 5 in a given year. The engines although highly capable are virtually rebuilt after each flight. The tires which cost $80,000.00 each are only used once. The thermal shield has to be meticulously refurbished after each flight.

.

The new space transportation system will use solid rocket boosters that are recovered but the engines in the other stages will be disposable and based on the F-2 engines of the Saturn V second stage. The new larger Orion command module will hold more people and will be partially reusable.

.

There is no reason why you need to drag wings up into space to be used only in order to land. The new spacecraft will likely land on land or in the water, although the idea of landing on dry land is being addressed at the present time and the system of airbags being developed for it may be scrapped as too heavy.

.

I have asked a similar question an hour ago. Well, NASA is not going to terminate the Space Shuttles. As the Ares program will start, NASA will use its space shuttle as a backup plan. It would be as the Russian Soyuz module that is docked to the ISS. NASA is going with the Ares 1 instead of cheaper rockets because the cheaper ones might not be as well good as the expensive ones and by the way,I don't think that money would be a problem for NASA.

Yes, I think NASA people are corrupt now.

See my question at: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiEOq...

I think you should read the excellent book "Entering Space" by Dr. Robert Zubrin, PhD. It will answer many of your questions. The next generation space shuttle will likely be a "single stage to orbit" vehicle or SSTO for short. This concept has been under research for at least the last 25 years and research is still ongoing. NASA flew a prototype hypersonic ramjet a few years ago that went Mach 10-12 for ten minutes and was said to have performed "flawlessly". It shouldn't be much longer before a realistic SSTO is developed, after which you will be able to board a plane much like an airliner and simply "fly into space". I can hardly wait.

The problem that Columbia had has not been fixed. If the shuttle takes damage on ascent, the craft may not be able to come down safely.

The shuttle may be reusable, but it is more expensive than disposable rockets.

The shuttle has considerable capability to return stuff to Earth, but this hasn't been used much.

The primary reason to dump the shuttle is cost.

It's Congress, not NASA, that dictates these things. NASA advises. I'd like to think that Congress is smart, but it's politics. I'd rather that NASA had a fixed budget and made it's own decisions. I'd get more for my money.

extra fee-effective is extra effectual. of course, this is lots extra secure for those driving on the rocket besides. NASA has continuously been corrupt merely like something of the bureaucracies. Innovation comes from inner maximum business enterprise, not government. Wilbur and Orville wright, and Dr Goddard weren't government workers. if that they have been, guy does not have flown yet.

money, mainly.

experience with the current shuttle has shown just how expensive a new shuttle would be to develop. with only so much money available, they have to go the quick and dirty ares route. ugly, but it works.

what "cheaper rocket" are you talking about?

$$MONEY$$