Atlantis WILL be retired in 2008

[jimfromnsf]

New manifest out, reverts back to earlier manifests where OV-104 is retired after two more launches

 

[bobblebob]

So there hoping to complete the station with only 2 shuttles <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" />

 

[nec208]

<font color="yellow"> So there hoping to complete the station with only 2 shuttles</font> <br /><br />Has to be like how many more times to they have to go up to complete the station 5 or 10? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

13-15

 

[roykirk]

I can’t help but think that we are tossing aside three very valuable assets to the space program. The orbiters were not destroyed by faults of their own. The Challenger explosion was caused by a design flaw in the solid rocket booster, Columbia was destroyed because of debris hit from the external fuel tank. I believe the orbiters are safe and reliable space craft and that another means of launching them into space can be developed in fact there were other ways proposed before the current method safer ways but they cost more. Another idea might be using an orbiter, with some modifications as a permanent addition to the space station and it can be used for emergency evacuation from the station. We have invested a lot of money into the space shuttle but money is the reason they are being abandoned not just safety. Also NASA wants to move on from the shuttle and it does not fit into the future plans for returning to the moon and going to mars.Perhapes that is a good reason I’m just not sure.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Another idea might be using an orbiter, with some modifications as a permanent addition to the space station and it can be used for emergency evacuation from the station. "<br /><br />not really a viable option.<br /><br />The orbiters are old. The supply chain is broken and many systems are on the verge of being unsupportable. Once the ISS is finished, there is little need for a shuttle type craft. There are better and more efficient means to do the same tasks. Many of the tasks that the shuttle performed were because there was a shuttle, not that it was the best way to do the task

 

[drwayne]

It is probably not a good idea to take a vehicle, apply it to a mission involving a condition (long term "storage" in space) for which it was never designed, and count on it to perform in an emergency situation.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"I believe the orbiters are safe and reliable space craft ..."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Story Musgrave, who has flown on the shuttle 6 times, said <font color="yellow">"The Shuttle is not safe and it cannot be made safe, no matter how good the team is and no matter how good the engineering and the decisions are. It cannot be made safe."</font><br />

 

[thereiwas]

And don't fly it in the rain. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[jimfromnsf]

Columbia was an orbiter problem. It was not designed properly, the TPS was not robust enough to survive the environment. It is unreal to expect the foam not to shed, which it does on all launch vehicles.

 

[jimfromnsf]

The orbiter is not a standalone vehicle. It is part of a system that includes the SRB/ET stack. The orbiter can't be launched without the SRB/ET stack, therefore it is an inadequate design that can't meet the environment that currently exists. The TPS (RCC) should surivive the entry AND launch environment . <br /><br />"Fixing" the foam is a crutch and there is no guarantee that it won't shed. Debris shedding is an environment of all launch vehicles and includes ice. The LO2 beanie cap and the ICE team are all crutches for the inadequancies of the orbiter's TPS. They just became common place and therefore accepted as SOP. Other launch vehicles don't care about this since they make sure that anything attached to the side of vehicle (SRM, or other core) can survive the debris<br /><br /> Edit:<br />Another point , the RCC is suseptable to MMOD damage, which means it is inadequate for onorbit too

 

[vulture2]

Whether we need a shuttle or not is arguable. The original plan for the ISS included a longer use of the shuttle and had no difficulty manifesting a full cargo. The TPS is hardly an ideal design, but the Columbia damage was caused by a (no longer used) foam block, not the spray-on foam, which despite tens of thousands of impacts, never caused anything approaching a catastrophic failure. It's tragic that the hazard of foam impact wasn't fully recognized earlier, but recent flights with the improved foam have required remarkably little in the way of orbiter tile repair. <br /><br />No system can be maintained forever, but the Shuttle could surely have been kept in service until the COTS concepts were mature enough to support the ISS. <br /><br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

Whose says COTS can even mature? They are not a given. Once the ISS is complete, the shuttle's unique capabilities aren't needed. It is too costly to maintain safely.

 

[thereiwas]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Whose says COTS can even mature?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> We can at least give them a chance without belittling them at every turn.

 

[roykirk]

I agree that shuttle launch system is a flawed design; it was flawed from the start. I will never forget watching the first launch, to be honest I thought it would crash or blowup. But thinking about it now and don’t take this the wrong way, but if something did go wrong on that first flight maybe we wouldn’t have 14 dead astronauts today. Maybe somebody would have stood up and said this is not going to work like what happened with the Apollo 1 fire. The present day launch method will never be as safe as single rocket launch like the atlas or titan there are just too many parts, more things that can go wrong there is no such thing as a save spaceflight . I feel that it’s just sad to just abandon the orbiters. Endeavor has just gone through a complete upgrade; it’s basically a new orbiter. I guess the bottom line is that I am not impressed with NASA’s new spacecraft to me it’s a step backwards it’s just a modern version of Apollo. NASA is sticking to proven technology. But the shuttle orbiter is proven technology that goes back to the X15.We could have built a smaller version of the shuttle but NASA chose not to. I remember a movie called Marooned in it they had a small craft mounted on top of a titan type rocket it was not just science fiction. NASA did a lot of testing of lifting body spacecraft in 60s and 70s. I think it comes down to money. Also people associate Apollo with success so building a modern version of Apollo is good public relations. The Russians have been using the Soyuz space craft for a long time and it has been successful for them but it’s still just an old design. I think we could do better. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.<br /><br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">He is correct that the Orbiter is a very reliable and safe vehicle with a proven record...if you remove the SRB and ET from the system.</font>/i><br /><br />Translation: The Orbiter is a very safe and reliable vehicle if you don't fly it.</i>

 

[radarredux]

>> <i>"Another point , the RCC is suseptable to MMOD damage, which means it is inadequate for onorbit too"</i><br /><br /> /> <font color="yellow"><i>A 777 is suseptable to damage from a mid air collision with a 747 so I guess you say the 777 design is inadequate as well.</i></font><br /><br />Meow -- NASA cat fight. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[roykirk]

And I won’t die in a plane if I never fly<br />And I won’t be attacked by a shark if I don’t swim in the ocean<br />And I won’t get hit by a train if I stay away from the tracks <br />And so on and so on yada yada yada<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"A 777 is suseptable to damage from a mid air collision with a 747 so I guess you say the 777 design is inadequate as well"<br /><br />Way offbase. Wrong analogy. The orbiter couldn't survive a collison with another spacecraft neither.<br /><br />But the correct analogy is that the 777 and 747 can survive bird strikes. The aircraft engines are designed to endure an environment that includes birds because airports can't be made bird free. There is no such thing as shuttle flight without liberated debris

 

[roykirk]

If Man Was Meant To Fly He'd Have Wings <br />Now where did I hear that before?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">And so on and so on yada yada yada</font>/i><br /><br />They key is that the Shuttle system isn't safe <i><b>compared to the alternatives</b></i>, and there is no reasonable means to make it as safe as the alternatives.<br /><br />Why choose to keep flying the most dangerous and most expensive means to LEO?</i>

 

[roykirk]

Let me set the record straight I never said that the shuttle should continue flying. The method of sending a shuttle orbiter into space has been flawed since its first flight in1981and sadly lives were lost because of those flaws. There were other ways of sending an Orbiter into space that would have been safer. Every space flight is dangerous but the shuttle compounded that danger. NASA had to finally admit that the shuttle can never be made safe or routine. I just think that the orbiter itself got a bum rap and that it is a shame that it could not have been used to its full potential. I wish we would have continued development on a space craft that could have taken off into space under its own power and land on a runway, we were on the right track with the X15 but the need to go to the moon and as quick as possible put an end to that. Despite its problems the space shuttle orbiter is a remarkable machine and it will be missed<br /><br />

 

[bobblebob]

Challenger should have never gone up in the first place with the O ring issues under extreme temperatures. But thats another matter.<br /><br />Only 2 disasters out of roughly 120 flights speaks for itself. As sad and tragic as the 2 loses are, baring in mind the stresses the shuttle is put under during takeoff, orbiting earth, docking with the ISS and landing, its a fantastis safety record<br />

 

[willpittenger]

In other words, avionics. BTW: I believe the upgrades included the glass cockpit that Columbia got just before it was destroyed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

RCC? MMOD? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>