Launch the Orion with Ariane5

…Russian shuttles could be completed…

I doubt the Buran technology can be used now (since it’s too old) nor parts can be exchanged with the Shuttle

…not too sure about the Orion anyway…

probably the Orion’s timeline will be different than planned, but I’m sure it will born someday

…vehicle as versatile as the shuttle is also required…

yes, a new, safer and cheaper Shuttle may be useful, but NASA has no money to build (both) the Orion and a new Shuttle while privates lack of (both) funds and experience

I heard some musings that perhaps the Buran and the other close to completion Russian shuttles could be completed, using the other shuttles for parts, using NASA components perhaps and so on. The idea was in case NASA could no longer continue shuttle flights after the Colombia was lost.

I’m really not too sure about the Orion anyway. I think that if rockets are the way you want to do things then this is the best solution for years, and anything that allows us to get back to the Moon can only be a wonderful thing.

But Just how reuseable is it, won’t it be just a basic vehicle to transport astronauts from A to B and little more? A vehicle as versatile as the shuttle is also required.

Does anyone have figures or any infromation about the Soviet space shuttle? Was it cheaper to run, etc?

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

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

however, the Buran program died 15 years ago
.

Does anyone have figures or any infromation about the Soviet space shuttle? Was it cheaper to run, etc?

…$500M…thermal protection system alone requires 20,000+ manhours to inspect and repair…shuttle needs to be retired…

you’re right, the Shuttle costs over $500M per flight, its thermal shield is the worst possible for maintenance and the whole ships must be retired as soon as possible since they are too old and too dangerous to fly… but… ONE Shuttle flight can send in orbit up to EIGHT astronauts and up to 24 mT of cargo… to do the same thing we need to launch TWO (3-4 astronauts each) crew-Orions and EIGHT (3 mT each) cargo-Orions with a total “price” around $8 billion…

The idea behind Shuttle was good, but the execution was flawed.

It takes a minimum 6 months and $500M to perform turnaround maintenance for the next flight, and that doesn’t include the cost of the payload and payload interfaces that have to be custom-built into the payload bay. Many shuttle systems fly with negative design margins and must be rebuilt after each flight. Especially expensive reworks include the engines, orbital maneuvering thrusters, reaction control thrusters, and fuel cells and ammonia boiler system. The thermal protection system alone requires 20,000+ manhours to inspect and repair.

No, shuttle needs to be retired. Unfortunately, too many NASA rice bowls are tied to it. The NASA bureaucrats refuse to acknowledge their baby has a dirty diaper.

I agree with the shuttle idea wholeheartedly, the principle was good.

But what we really need now more than anything is a cheap, safe and fast way to move heavy loads into orbit. Once we get that right, all other things can follow. If we can do this then assembling a new generation of craft designed to fly only in space can be designed, allowing for the exploration of nearby planets much more easily than current plans.

…NASA would never have stopped the Apollo program, and would have had its budgets increased…

stop the Apollo program (clearly) was a big mistake (since capsules are the simplest vehicles for moon exploration) but I don’t agree with the peoples who claim that also the Shuttle was a bigger mistake
in ’70s the Shuttle was expected to have reasonable (R&D and flights) costs and a very high flight rate (up to 60 flights per year of the full fleet)
also, its design was not so bad (like thousands critics say to-day) since it was (and STILL is) able to do things a capsule can’t never DREAMS to do!
unfortunately, its R&D, hardware and maintenance costs increased very much and its flight rate never was so high like planned
so, to-day the Shuttles are too expensive and too dangerous to fly (due to their age)

Fingers crosseed then, but again I am not hopeful. Today’s public has no ambition when it comes to space exploration, they focus too much on the costs and not on its benefits, which is an incredible shame.

If I had my way, NASA would never have stopped the Apollo program, and would have had its budgets increased so that it could fund the space station and other activities all at the same time. Ah well…

…National pride…

you’re right… national pride and politics may be the main problem of the Ariane5 choice
however, if ESA will buy/use the Orion (or build its ACTS) can use the Ariane5 as launcher

An interesting idea, but I’m not hopeful. National pride often gets in the way of even the best ideas.