Video: The Next American Space Vehicle Gets Dunked

I am surprised at how many people think that NASA has ended along with the shuttles.

Looks like its ready to go...strap a rocket on that bad boy, pack it full of Astro-knots and twinkies and send'er to the red planet!!!

You have to love our bureaucrats. It's not simply a million gallon pool....no.....it's a "Hydro Impact Basin". Funny how the more things change the more they stay the same. This is using technology developed somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 years ago. But hey, if it works right? No need to reinvent the wheel.

this is far more advanced than Apollo, just the same basic shape that works very well and is cheap, i believe it is also alot roomier than Apollo, the space shuttle was not that roomy compared to it's size, compared to this? not sure

Splash! 1 million for a day, ka-ching! I am curious in real numbers. For 1 day of testing, how much did it cost. This way we will know how much it will cost for 30 days, 6 months and so on. So what is the average projected cost EACH day of testing?

I really don't think this "next-generation spacecraft" will be at all efficient, as the time it takes from landing to launching this thing has to be days (not including maintenance) because it takes so long to retrieve it in the ocean. Meanwhile, space planes like those from XCOR or Virgin Galactic (the "exception") are essentially planes with rockets strapped on, so theoretically they could have turnaround times comparable to commercial jets.

Merce1 wrote: Meanwhile, space planes like those from XCOR or Virgin Galactic (the "exception") are essentially planes with rockets strapped on, so theoretically they could have turnaround times comparable to commercial jets.

The space planes of which you speak do not go into orbit, they simply fly very high, in a slight arch, barely skimming into what it considered "space". That doesn't require nearly the power and complexity of achieving orbit, which requires speeds in excess of 17,000 miles per hour. So any comparisons in cost or turnaround times aren't even remotely valid.

MPCV is a rebadged Orion, the 4-passenger crew vehicle for the canceled Constellation program. NASA has sunk $5 billion into this pig and it's still 6 years, and $billions more, from flying - 2017 at the earliest. This is because its launcher, the Space Launch System, won't be ready until at least then - if ever because of its high costs.

Meanwhile, SpaceX's Dragon has its booster (Falcon 9), can carry 7 crewmembers, is also capable of going beyond Earth orbit and will be carrying people about 2014. Cost: less than $1 billion, and most of that is SpaceX's dime.

As for Lynx being suborbital, yes - but XCOR is leveraging lessons learned there into h horizontal runway launched orbital vehicle with a fly-back reusable booster.

DocM

NASA still has the potential to be great, just not as great as SpaceX.

This is garbage. We had this technology back in 1965. How far we've come - not. Just like everything else we are doing, a step backwards. I have a new motto for NASA - how do you like "NASA - Reinventing the past!"? It's OK though because the REAL mission of NASA is to make Muslims feel better about themselves and I'm sure they are ahead of schedule in doing that.

get informede before you post, the only tech that is from the past is the shape and the boost system (chemical rockets, which will be around awhile longer), Orion is getting a cheaper launch system (hopefully) seeing that the Aries program has been cancelled, Orion has 2.5 times the interior space vs Apollo and obviously (to some) much more advanced equiptment, there is no way SpaceX will take 7 out of earth orbit, it will carry 7 in crew only configuration, seeing how it is intended to resupply the ISS i doubt this will happen, Orion has plans to take 4 to the moon and 6 to Mars, the mars mission will have an unmanned capsule for storage, the moon mission will take more cargo to the lunar surface than the Apollo Lander itself wieghed, please quit posting hysteria, there is no way Orion will cost as much as the shuttle, the most complicated Mechine ever?, probably, Orion is the KISS of space flight( and SpaceX), hopefully simpler means cheaper

oops, informed...dave is a dip sh#t

@drchuck1.

Are you ten?

Btw, SpaceX is pretty cozy with Bigalow who is developing inflatable hab modules for their orbital hotels.

As in a simple cheap way to increase a dragons volume by an almost arbitrary amount. Independent of launch stage diameter and heat shield size.

Or NASA could just pay for the bigger heavier option and just develop another flying Winnebago. Good luck with that.

Dave might be a r@cist dipsh1t though. My mistake.

Space planes are fine if they can catch a space tether. Otherwise, in terms of rockets, we are still dealing with fundamental limitations in terms of weight and materials. Advanced materials, advanced manufacturing, and new power sources are the main things that are going to make a difference. The superficial shape of the rocket, or where it lands will not have a major bearing on cost or efficiency.

a capsule has got to be cheaper than the huge shuttle and is suited for what NASA has planned for the near future, a breakthrough in propulsion is needed for anything outside Mars or to reach outside the solar system, a moderately sized spaceplane would be nice but unnessasary unless a better propulsion system comes about, @MrJohnA...i realize you are a big fan of SpaceX (so am i) but it seems you fail to realize that without NASA's huge amount of help it probably would not exist (and they are still recieving help until they are profitable), for now they are only tasked to resupply the ISS, but hopefully will go beyond earth's orbit in some capacity (i believe they will)

Hopefully they will complete the craft soon so we don't need to borrow Russian spacecraft. And in the long run I see Skylon as being the number one space plane of choice for shipping people and cargo into orbit [unless we complete the rail gun/scram jet launch assembly].

i like the potential of Skylon, but i have not seen any serious science articles about a rail gun/scram jet launch assembly, i have only read about it on comments on popsci, do you have any further info/websites?

drchuck1 & MrJohnA

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly you liberal intellectuals revert to profanity, lies and slander in an attempt to win your arguments. All I did was make a few truthful statements. This IS old technology, the ballistics, structural integrity and buoyancy characteristics of the NOSE COSE have been known for decades. The test shown could have been accomplished at 1/1000 of the cost using simulation on a super computer or simply and more realistically by dropping it in the ocean from a helicopter, but no NASA spent tens of millions on a pool the hardware to throw it into the pool.

I certainly hope the electronics inside the capsule will be more sophisticated than that used in Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, after all it’s 50 years later. The Apollo flight computer had integrated circuits but they only contained a half dozen transistors each.

Last I heard the funding for the entire Orion project was up in the air, Obama cancelled it and will totally dismantle it if reelected. It too is old technology. I think the engineers were channeling Von Braun when they proposed this. It will burn a million pounds of fuel before it lifts one inch off the launch pad. For a project as massive as Orion, Von Braun himself would have opted for smaller launch vehicles and final assembly in space. I want to know where is the SPACE PLANE, where are the SCRAM JETS? Where is the technology that promised to cut the costs of launching a pound into space by a thousand? Orion isn’t it and it never will be.

As far as the Muslim feel good thing is concerned, it’s the TRUTH. Google “NASA MUSLIMS FEELING GOOD”. President Barack Obama thinks NASA’s mission should be to reach out to Muslim nations and make them “FEEL GOOD” about themselves.

So guy’s when the facts aren’t on your side just revert to name calling and slander it shows you for what you really are.

first, dumb as#, i am not a libral, typical fox news bullsh#t comment...straight from The Christian Science Monitor "That was not his task, and that's not the task of NASA," Gibbs said during Monday's daily briefing. (Gibbs is the Whithouse Press Secretary)
NASA confirmed that Bolden misspoke.
"NASA's core mission remains one of space exploration, science and aeronautics," NASA spokesman Michael Cabbage told SPACE.com. "Administrator Bolden regrets that a statement he made during a recent interview mischaracterized that core mission. The success of NASA's efforts is increasingly enhanced by mutual cooperation with dozens of other countries around the world that are also committed to these efforts." Reagon tasked Vice President Bush to put a Saudi Prince Sultan into space. Reaching out to other cultures is not new, but not a core goal of NASA then or now, get your head out of your as# and you might see the light

drchuck1 what a nasty mouth you have. Not clever enough to express your feelings in words, to bad. The link I reported was in that right wing rag the Los Angeles Times and it showed Bolden on Al Jazeera saying exactly what I reported. Christian Science Monitor? drchuck1 are you a bigot in addition to being a left wing stooge? And referencing Gibbs as some kind of credible news source is laughable. The only person in the administration who has consistantly lied more than Gibbs is Obama himself. Nice try though maybe someday you'll get something straight.

Christian Science Monitor is left wing? you are truly an idiot, it is both depending on the writer, who else would say he got it wrong than NASA and the administration? he even said he got it wrong, are you so cynical you don't believe anyone, easier to believe that a space agency would actual reach out to muslims over doing space stuff, that is obsurd and totally unbelievable, much more believable that he made an honest mistake and nut jobs jumped all over it, by the way dumb as# and bullshi# and as# are all words that describe you quite nicely, dic#

drchuck1 - Google “NASA MUSLIMS FEELING GOOD” - find the latimesblog link and watch the thing for yourself. He seemed pretty convincing and SURE of his mandate to me.

http://www.tellscience.com/nasa-proposes-the-scramjet-rail-gun-to-launch-spacecrafts/
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/09/advanced-space-launch-system-would-use.html
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=3013