Future of STS

[smradoch]

I suppose that STS will eventually fly again next year. It's clear that it's not sustainable to spend many billions and fly one shuttle per three years.<br />I think that there are only three possible alternative of STS future:<br />1. Next flights will be OK and NASA will continue flying STS<br />2. There will be problems again, but NASA will continue flying with higher risk or there will be a redesign of STS.<br />3. STS will be immediately retired<br /><br />I think that NASA should be prepared for all eventualities. I'm not sure what eventuality is most likely, but it seems to me that NASA planned last three years only for he first one.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />4. keep alive the shuttle project, upgrade and redesign it to be safer and use it in next 15 years for all space-works that capsule NEVER CAN DO (like 99% of orbital assembly and repair) ...work in next 15 years to design a better, safer and cheaper Shuttle to be a TRUE replacement of the old space-truck... use (big or little) toy-capsules only for moon-rocks...<br />

 

[dobbins]

/* deleted */<br /><br />

 

[carp]

STS immediately retired,and go to CEV soonest. <br /><br />

 

[themanwithoutapast]

I personally feel it will be a combination of 1. and 2. - thus we will see a reduction in scheduled flights from now 19 (or 18?) back to about 10 to 12.<br /><br />However unless something really, really bad happens no retirement before 2010 will happen, and I am 90% sure NASA will not keep flying Shuttle missions beyond 2010.

 

[vt_hokie]

Even if you kill me, I will watch with great interest from beyond, hoping to see something better than the uninspired CEV tin can and antiquated SRB launch vehicle for our next generation crew transport, as our nation deserves so much better! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[dobbins]

What on Earth did we do to deserve a never ending series of paper spaceplanes that never fly?<br /><br />

 

[kdavis007]

I like #5....

 

[vt_hokie]

It wasn't the engineers' fault that programs like X-33, X-34, and X-38 were cancelled. One thing I've learned about engineering is that engineers are nothing more than slaves, with overpaid politicians and businessmen calling the shots. I probably would have been able to do more for the space program by getting an MBA at Harvard than by getting a degree in Aerospace Engineering at Virginia Tech! If I had the influence and/or financial resources, believe me, I would support the development of a worthy shuttle successor.

 

[dobbins]

Oh no! The poor slobs that had to pay the bills wouldn't tolerate endless cost over runs and technical brick walls to keep pouring other people's money into your pipe dreams!!<br /><br />Welcome to the real world.<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

Name one aerospace program that hasn't had to deal with challenges and cost overruns. It's just a matter of which ones have politicians supporting them. Why is the F/A-22 Raptor still getting funding, if we shouldn't tolerate cost overruns?<br /><br />And X-38/CRV was actually progressing quite nicely, and I don't recall any significant cost overruns or technical difficulties on that one!

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I completely agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />and I think that 100% of (non-fanatics) people may agree with you<br /><br />ALL good and bad space choices was a political decision NOT an engineers' decision<br /><br />the amazing Apollo project was a Kennedy's decision<br /><br />the Apollo mission stop was a political decision<br /><br />the completely useless 1975's apollo-soyuz docking was a diplomatic political decision<br /><br />the bad Shuttle design was due to political (lack of funds) and military (crew and cargo) decision<br /><br />the $100 billion international space station was a political decision<br /><br />the Shuttle retirement is a political decision<br /><br />the (near) useless ISS' completion is a political decision<br /><br />all new and advanced spaceplanes (like X-33) was (and will be) only paper-project until politicians' will decide to give funds... when (american or non-american) politicians will decide to give funds, a new shuttle WILL FLY<br /><br />all STUPID space projects may happen if (and ONLY if) politicians will decide to guve funds for it... and this is the ONLY reason why the bad-designed toy-CEV will REALLY fly!<br />

 

[dobbins]

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123013572<br /><br />The Raptor is not only capable of flying, it's operational. That is more than we ever got out of the paper spaceplanes.<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />about burning money...<br /><br />I think that $104 billion (probably $150-200 billion... with inevitable "costs overruns") spent for "12-moon-missions-and-a-few-moon-rocks" ONLY (in next 20 years!) is the GREATEST burning of money of the ENTIRE story of spaceflights!<br /><br />NO COMPARISON with Apollo, Shuttles and ISS!!!!!!!<br /><br />CEV "investment" will be 100+ times more BAD than money spent with shuttles... 25 years of work, 100+ flights, 600+ astronauts in orbit, Hubble launch and repair, satellites, dozens EVAs, ISS assembly and resupply, etc. etc. etc.<br />

 

[mlorrey]

Dobbins sayeth:<br />"What on Earth did we do to deserve a never ending series of paper spaceplanes that never fly? "<br /><br />You lied to us about what our future would be. You made us believe in colonies in space and on the moon, all to convince us to fork over our tax dollars just to give a few fighter jocks joyrides atop ICBMs. You conned us with promises of flying cars and robomaids, the 200 year lifespan and the 20 hour work week. Once you got our money, you made your rockets with the worst possible launcher fuel, in order to justify spending the most possible money to employ the most possible engineers, and then guilted us into paying you more money to keep those engineers out of the poorhouse.<br /><br />You lied in that your goal was not to put men in space, but paychecks in peoples pockets.

 

[mlorrey]

actually, vt_hokie, the SR-71 was built early and under budget.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>The Raptor is not only capable of flying, it's operational.</i><br /><br />And that's after how many delays and cost overruns? It's operational because we didn't say, "This is too hard, let's just bring back the P-51 Mustang since it's easier and cheaper" at the first sign of difficulty. Yet, that's essentially what we're doing today with our space program.

 

[dobbins]

It could fly in 1992 when it was still the YF-22, the Air Force knew it would get a plane that could fly the whole time. The same can't be said for spaceplanes.<br />

 

[n_kitson]

/* deleted */

 

[mattblack]

The Shuttle will be gone by 2010, Gaeto, maybe sooner.<br /><br />Better get used to that fact now! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

/* deleted */<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I can only add that, in last 30 years (from Shuttle design to now) and in next 5 years (before Shuttle retirement), ALL scientists, engineers, astronauts, politicians, space agencies, researchers, NASA, ESA, Russia, space involved countries, journalists, etc. etc. etc. etc. WAS all "(shuttle) spaceplane's fanatics"<br /><br />now "many" have "changed their opinions"... probably because (to-day) "jump on the $104 billion capsule-bandwagon" is the better and faster way to try to earn money... as "caspule-engineers", "capsule-experts", "capsule-advisors", "caspule-propaganda-men", "pro-capsule-forum-posters", "capsule-journalists", "capsule-supporters", "toy-model-capsule-manufacturers", "capsule-fanatics", "caspule-websites", "capsule-friends", "capsule-interviewers-and-interviewed", "capsule-sub-sub-sub-sub-contractors", "capsule-books-writers-and-publishers", "near-Cape-Canaveral-capsule-souvenir-makers-and-retailers", etc. etc. etc.<br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

Post deleted by Nyarlathotep

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />spaceplanes/capsules is NOT a problem of engineers' design or physics' laws...<br /><br />ALL spaceplanes, WITH funds to build them, WILL FLY!<br /><br />ALL caspules, WITHOUT funds to build them, will NEVER fly!<br />

 

[strandedonearth]

Why, thank you for stating the obvious. Obviously, the inverse is also true.<br /><br />That's the only thing you've said that sounded at all accurate.