NASA shuttle replacement question?

Dream Chaser is a seven person spacecraft being developed privately by Sierra Nevada Corporation. It is based on a lifting body design originally developed years ago. It is one of the competitors in the the NASA Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program to provide systems to transport crews to and from the ISS.

The other competitors are:

Dragon: Developed by Spacex to transport cargo to and from the ISS, it has already completed two test flights, and is scheduled to be launched on its first cargo delivery mission tomorrow (10/7). It is being modified under the CCDev program to add systems needed for manned flight, such as crew accommodations, a life support system, and a launch escape system.

None of these spacecraft has anything like the cargo capacity of the shuttle, that is a capability that we have lost and will not be replaced any time in the foreseeable future.

CST-100: Being developed by Boeing to transport up to seven crew members to the ISS.

The X33 was scrapped because the cost of production was sky rocketing. I know that one of the big problems was the fuel tanks and the shapes they had to be.

There was the constellation program but I believe that was scrapped in favor of the Orin because the Orin has the capability of going into deep space. Or I should say allowing the possibility of it.

One project that NASA has been working on iand has been for some time are SCRAM jets. I believe both NASA and the USAF are working on creating one.

There are other options as well there are a few private companies looking into creating commercial space travel. Vrigin Galactic is one of those companies (there is a second).

They could use the 7 passenger SpaceX Dragon capsule instead of their 7 person Orion capsule. The cargo version has already docked with the ISS. Next flight of the Dragon to the ISS is October.

It's interesting how many people keep insisting that billions be paid on a seven person capsule when a seven person capsule has docked with the ISS since May.

to respond to all 4 of your questions: no, NASA isn't shortsighted, that is quite appropriate, and it is not loosing its side. The shuttles are already previous their projected lifespan. NASA grow to be comparing destiny manned vehicles whilst W ordered them to proceed with the Constellation project. Then he began slashing the funds. the persons at NASA did the terrific they could, yet Constellation grow to be quickly falling way in the back of schedule. you in all probability observed a extensive turnover in NASA management approximately then. President Obama then ordered a panel to evaluate the Constellation application and all different NASA projects. the result grow to be that Constellation grow to be killed off, the various different area and and atmospheric projects have been renewed, and a clean directive to *heavily* plan the subsequent manned application grow to be undertaken. The President additionally gave NASA a type of 10% investment improve, reversing quite a few years of cuts on the palms of W. It quite looks like the only portion of NASA which you're attentive to have been the manned missions. NASA does learn into something that flies, or is above the floor, interior the entire universe. have you ever forgotten appropriate to the Hubble telescope? did you understand that there is a much bigger one under shape spectacular now? did you understand that all of us cutting-edge airplane are designed utilising data from NASA learn? The hyperlink under is a sturdy commencing factor to your loss of NASA awareness, and could clarify all the distinctive fields of learn, and the justifications for the present judgements.

Sadly, there is no aerospace plane coming down the pipe at NASA to replace the shuttle. NASA, because it takes its marching orders from politicians who want to keep aerospace people employed in their own districts/states, is throwing all its money at the Space Launch System (SLS), a heavy-lift rocket design. It will lift a Orion capsule (and will probably be capable of lifting a SpaceX Dragon capsule or a Boeing CST-100 capsule too).

Sadly, SLS is ridiculously expensive. From the end of 2011 to the end of 2017 when SLS1 is scheduled to launch, the SLS program will have spent 10 billion dollars. The Orion capsule will have spent another 6 billion and another 2 billion will have been spent on infrastructure upgrades. And all so that NASA can lift 70 tonnes to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The first rocket, leaving development costs aside, is expected to cost 1.6 billion dollars all by itself. By 2025, SLS is expected to have cost at least 41 billion dollars

The private-sector company SpaceX has a rocket named the Falcon Heavy which will enter service in the first quarter of 2013, cost a maximum of 125 million dollars per rocket and be capable of lifting 53 tonnes to LEO. By December 2017, there is a reasonable chance that the FH will have its upper stage upgraded with a Raptor upper stage and so its payload may well increase to match SLS's 70 tonnes to LEO.

The Dream Chaser is designed to be launched on an Atlas V rocket (costing around 180 million dollars per launch) but, aside from Cross Range Capability, will offer nothing that a Dragon/Orion/CST-100 capsule couldn't do. While it will be reusable, it'll still be an expensive way of getting 7 astronauts up to ISS and it'll have little other capability.

SpaceX has the Falcon 9 rocket which can carry a Dragon capsule (up to 7 astronauts) to ISS for only 120 million dollars or so, making it cheaper than any other launch vehicle.

SpaceX is looking at making its rockets at least partially reusable which will radically reduce their prices (already the lowest in the business) but that's about 7-10 years away.

Outside of America, you might want to check out the Skylon spaceplane being designed by the British company, Reaction Engines Ltd. They're talking about lifting up to 15 tonnes to ISS orbit for only 10 million dollars a flight & it'll be totally reusable (200 flights or more before retiring the airframe) and it's expected to enter service in 2021.

In summary:

SLS - Technically feasable but way too expensive - It'll probably be cancelled due to cost.

Falcon Heavy - Technically feasable and cheap too - NASA may not use it due to its competing role with SLS but the private sector is expected to jump on it.

Dream Chaser - Technically feasable but somewhat expensive - NASA will probably fund it just to get a range of launch vehicles going.

Falcon 9 - Already in service and will make its first official (there's already been one test delivery) cargo delivery to ISS on October 7th, a couple of days from now. Between NASA delivery missions & private sector satellite launches, expect to see a lot of this rocket.

Skylon - Technically feasable - it seems to have passed its key tests - but may well die before birth due to funding issues. Personally, I believe it'll make it and it's VERY low cost of operation will revolutionise the launch market.

The Multip-purpose manned space Orion capsules ARE bieng produced as as the new gneration of heavy lauuch for more than a year. . One of the places those rocets are biening built is at Michoud in New Orleans east, and i think at Humtsville AL as well, Your inofrmation is incomplete or outdated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft)

http://www.spacenews.com/