Some thoughts on the nautical origins of the symbolism of the Space Shuttle. I agree with some commenters, though — a true space ship would never enter the atmosphere. And it’s where NASA’s focus should be, not on a giant rocket to nowhere.
6 thoughts on “What’s In A Name”
Comments are closed.
a true space ship would never enter the atmosphere
Yes. Yes. …and we could put the first one in orbit in the next two years for less than $300m.
Interesting article about the “optics” of space and spacecraft design, naming, etc.
I think I’ve said it before, but the only good to ever come out of the awful Griffin Years were the names Ares and Orion.
Those are/were good, solid space craft names in the best, mid-20th Century tradition.
Also, while the current Orion MPCV will probably never see the light of day (well, space), the latest all-black BEO MPCV mock-ups are rather snazzy looking, and even appear futuristic and powerful in the right lighting.
Arthur C. Clarke once said that if humanity manages to hang around for a million years, the word ship will always mean spaceship.
Alex, for me Orion will always stand for the Freeman Dyson/Ted Taylor Project Orion.
A symbol of the path not taken, a lack of will and imagination, the loss which is still deeply regretted.
What fun it must have been to work on Orion in the warmth and light of southern California in the late 1950s, a time of optimism for the future and the questing human spirit.
And Pluto is the nuclear cruise missile, not the dog?
I’d accept the nuclear shuttle from 2001 as an acceptable Orion.
FOX news had the last shuttle astronauts on this AM just before 9 o’clock. They beat all around questions of 3500 people leaving NASA. And they just gushed about our “business partner” Russia ferrying us to the ISS.
I had no idea Kool-Aid had replaced Tang at NASA. Who knew?