Apollo 11 capsule on top of the Saturn V rocket launcher.
http://iwanticewater.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/apollo-11-launch.jpg

The unique Apollo program was a one shot try. After the Moon, there was no clear objective ahead for NASA. Their administrators had admitted that the space shuttle program was not the right path to take after the Apollo Moon effort. In the beginning they lied to themselves believing they could operate the shuttle cheap, fast and safe. In reality, NASA was never able to deliver their original dream of sending a "space truck" to Earth´s orbit twice a month. One of the reasons was because of the low flight frequency; shuttle missions were incredibly expensive with an estimate of $750 million per flight.

The shuttle's complexity was an achievement but also a liability. The program was too expensive and too risky. So many engineers working on for a quarter-century in what turned out to be a technological dead end. NASA went with the "all things to all people" approach in the 1970's when Nixon vetoed their plan to set up Moon bases and the flight to Mars. NASA was not ready in 1972 (and is not ready in 2009) to build a vehicle that combined carrying people and carrying cargo, with a high degree of reusability and could serve to any kind of mission.

That´s why NASA is returning today to the old path with the Constellation Project which is heavely influenced by the Apollo program. Constellation is taking old technologies and proven platforms to build the Ares I and Ares V rocket launchers, using a combination of Shuttle´s solid propellant Side Rocket Boosters (SRB) and ventral External Tank (ET) with the J-2 and RS-68 rocket stage engines and Space Capsule derived from the Apollo program.

Diagram of Saturn V and Shuttle heritage vehicles with the derived components to be used in the Constellation launch vehicles.
http://www.tallgeorge.com/images/projectconstellation/DerivedComponents_HiRes.jpg
Source(s):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11013986/

Asker's Rating:

Permalink | Report