NASA says it will ground future space shuttle flights

[frodo1008]

As you know I have always been a strong supporter of NASA and its contractors. I have also supported the STS system and the ISS (and still do). However, I will admit that if this isn't just media hype, that I have about come to the end of the road here! IF, with all of the money that NASA has spent and over two+ years the SAME problem is now occuring, it becomes very difficult to contiunue to justify flying the STS system as currently built!<br /><br />I know that we have to attempt in some way to finish the ISS to the point that we have told our partners that we would. I know that the STS system is the only launching platform that is designed to beable to do this. But I really do not think that this need be frozen in concrete. I think that it would be possible to use either the Delta IV or Atlas V Heavies to launch the rest of the ISS to the correct orbit. Although perhaps this would be expensive, but not more expensive that either throwing more money at a probem that NASA does not seem to be able to solve, or just ignoring the problem and hoping that there is not another accident. <br /><br />I think this might be possible as the payload capacity of the EELV Heavies is at keast very close to that of the STS system. Heck, I even believe that in the case of the Delta IV Heavy the payload shroud is actually larger in diameter than the payload bay of the shuttle. <br /><br />I know that this approach would not be easy, but there do not seem to be many alternatives at this time!<br /><br />I would say that NASA either solves this latest problem (again, if it IS a problem, and not just media hype) and flies again by the end of this year, or support for NASA is going to go down the drain! Not only amoung the more negative people here on these boards but even more importantly amoung the general population! <br /><br />As was once said "THAT IS NOT AN OPTION!!"<br /><br />

 

[dragon04]

Honestly, I think this is an important crossroads in the American manned space program.<br /><br />Maybe we should retire the shuttle fleet. And just admit that it's no longer feasible to fly shuttles or spend more money on the ISS.<br /><br />Those are some incredibly stark short term thoughts. But do we mortgage our future to fund an impractical present?<br /><br />Hard decisions need to be made. The spent lives and dollars don't justify the continuation of current actions in my mind.<br /><br />I say we cut our losses and put our money and resources into the Moon and Mars if that's our ultimate goal. This may be the time to break the chain and move on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[mikejz]

How much weight are we talking about with added a second wall to the ET?

 

[davf]

How did the rest of the tank fare? Were these pieces only from the bipod area? Did any shed from the rest of the tank?<br /><br />Edit: Also, can anyone remind me about the reasonings behind using a containment coating (spray on fibre-reinforced polymer or the like) of some kind in the problem areas was not possible?<br /><br />And sorry for the late questions: I've been in the boonies for the last few days and missed both the launch and the debriefs.

 

[davf]

Insulation in the tank sure was doable for S-II which was also cryo propellants. Also, being inside, I doubt the factors leading to the current shedding of the insulation would be an issue.

 

[rogers_buck]

Sure, that is the other alternative which might be much much better for the American manned space program all around. It would make upwards of $30B available for a new system. The partners might decide to keep the ISS in operation and fund some of the Russian initiatives for doing so - maybe even the Buran+Energiya.<br /><br />But the shuttle might not be a good manned vehicle given the present risk from the foam, but it is still right up there as far as heavy lift unmanned launchers. No point in not using up the inventory fullfilling the ISS commitment. The odds are good that the ISS could be finished off without the loss of a single unmanned orbiter. The launch windows could open up, the vehicle turn-around could be sped up, and it may be possible to end shuttle service by 2010 on a successfull note.<br /><br />Like I said, humans are the one thing that can be safely delivered to the ISS routinely. Soyuz vehicles are cheap and Soyuz-Progress cost is an even better deal. So I think it makes sense to go with what ya got and what ya know how to do and just remove the manned rating and turn-n-burn the shuttles as cargo haulers.

 

[dragon04]

"I know that we have to attempt in some way to finish the ISS to the point that we have told our partners that we would."<br /><br />Honestly, I'd rather see us just compensate our "partners" for the equipment already in the process of being built/completed, and wash our hands of it.<br /><br />It's time to stop funnelling money into the black hole of current dogma and make a clean start with a clear vision. There's no shame in admitting that a certain course of action is no longer feasible.<br /><br />There IS shame, however, in wasting time, lives, money and resources on a lost cause. <br /><br />Let me ask this... What technologies are we advancing that already haven't been tried and tested with Mir?<br /><br />I truly don't mean to be antagonistic, but we already know we can keep guys in space for a year at a time. <br /><br />The next question is given the life expectancy of the ISS and the fact that we've still not been able to man it with the anticipated number of people and that very little science is getting done, how much more money should we spend to achieve the design goals?<br /><br />Please don't get me wrong. I think that we should venture forth into space. I just believe that the fork in the road we are currently pursuing is a dead end on many levels. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[kdavis007]

I guess the Hubble is done.. Oh well...

 

[dragon04]

"I guess the Hubble is done.. Oh well... "<br /><br />It would be cheaper to build a new "Hubble" that was suited to be launched by any booster that the US or Russia cuurently has than it would to repair the one already up there taking into consideration how much more money and time it would take to mount a shuttle repair mission given this bog problem with the liquid tank insulation. Any fix has to be paid for. And that cost in the end gets passed on to every mission any future shuttle will fly.<br /><br />Let me put this in terms everyone can understand. You have a car. You expect to get 5 more years out of it. But something bad just happened and it's going to cost you $40,000 to fix it. You can replace it with something new for $50,000. WHat would you do?<br /><br />I know that's an oversimplification, but while Hubble has delivered some of the greatest science ever, it's the same thing. Again. I say that we cut our losses and work on something newer and better. But we must do it quickly. Indecision and pursuit of current projects are robbing our future of money.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[ldyaidan]

As much as I am upset by this turn of events, I am very glad to see that NASA is serious about making changes. Hopefully, this will help in forcing the development of a new vehicle, and opens a great opportunity for SpaceX and other private companies to show that they can do it better, and probably cheaper.<br /><br />Rae

 

[mikejz]

My line of thinking was that i might prove to be more of a cost savings to upgrade to 5-segment SRBs and add a skin on top of the ET (maybe a carbon fiber slip cover)hopefully the two will cancel each other out and result in the same net payload

 

[davf]

I stand corrected. My mistake (obviously). What happens when I don't have access to 'Stages to Saturn' before posting.

 

[dragon04]

I am not a rocket scientist. I am not a physicist, mathemetician or astronomer. But I AM an American taxpayer.<br /><br />And speaking from that perspective, if our government via NASA continues to follow the road we travel, it will cause a hostile estrangement between the taxpayer and the space program. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[thinice]

<i>4) When a shuttle arrives near the ISS, second crew climbs into the Soyuz and docks with it. A couple of guys climb into the pilots seat and docks the beast with the ISS. The Soyuz returns to an empty dock with one guy aboard. <br />5) Unload the pizzas, beer, clean underpants, etc..</i><br /><br />They need to unload tons of supplies while shuttle's fuel cells are still alive. As I understand, this is why shuttle has a crew of 7, not just 2 pilots.<br /><br />A couple of other random thoughts:<br /><br />How nice it was when no close-up video of launch was available. Blessing times. No foam, no media hysteria. Of course, until one in a hundred times that debris really strikes in the "right" place. On the other hand, nobody presented direct evidence that this was a ET foam that caused CA.<br /><br />We saw a lot of reports about NASA changing the way the foam is applied so that it almost eliminated the risk of the large chunks tear-off. It seems that somebody just lied.

 

[dragon04]

I don't think anyone lied. I think schmidt happens. And will continue to happen. Despite the best efforts of everyone involved.<br /><br />You can change the way foam is applied and still have a bad outcome. Until it's tested in actual flight, nobody honestly knows how things will turn out.<br /><br />The big question is when do you decide to quit trying? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[dragon04]

Part of the blame lies in popular media. Scotty keeps the Enterprise from blowing up at the end of every episode. Chief Engineer La Forge finds a clever fix to save the ship and crew.<br /><br />Real spaceflight in the 21st century isn't like that. It's not a cleverly scripted TV show that comes out perfect every time.<br /><br />And I'm afraid that's the bill of fare that a lot of the uninformed public buys into. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[j05h]

>Launching people into space is pushing our technology. It is dangerious and it will be for a very long time. We take set back in stride. <br /><br />Spaceflight is definitely dangerous but is hardly pushing our technology. It is 50+ year old technology, largely well understood as both science and craft. Shouldn't set backs be taken with reflection and determination?<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[thinice]

My apologies, for all that money it should have been erred, not lied.

 

[j05h]

>I see a TON of NASA bashing on here. What I've never seen but I'm sure it's been posted is that at least THIS poster would like to thank you and all involved for keeping Mankind's greatest quest alive. <br /><br />I don't want to come off as NASA-bashing, and especially not to the old-timers in the trenches. My argument is against a launch system that has been in (essentially) test flights for 30 years. STS is amazing, the people that make it work are amazing. Please, build the next great thing, cause the Orbiter stack needs to be on it's way out.<br /><br />Like Dragon said, on to the moon!<br /><br />We need a first generation of pioneers.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The big question is when do you decide to quit trying?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, certainly not at this point. There's been a lot of 'hysteria' in this thread. Let's see what the engineering reviews turn up before we decide it's the end of Shuttle.<br /><br />It is well worth noting that the rocket scientist who can build and operate a 'safe' space vehicle has yet to be born. And, it seems unlikely to me in the extreme that Shuttle's eventual replacement will do anything to move the safety aspect of human spaceflight even one decimal place.<br /><br />And, that you can take to the bank. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

I'll assume by your handle that you're from New Zealand. No offense intended, but I'm funding this program and you are not.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[sgtbeavis]

As much of a fan that I am of the Shuttle (I cried in 7th grade when the Challenger went up) I have to agree that if NASA cannot resolve the foam issue in a reasonable amount of time and for a reasonable amount of money (a billion is not reasonable) then it is time to turn the orbiters into hangar queens. <br /><br />I like the Big Stick SDLV as a cargo carrying replacement for the Shuttle, but if we need to get something up there quick, to finish the ISS, then the Shuttle C may be a good variant in the short term. <br /><br />Fortunately we now have a guy running NASA that actually know what he is doing. Not a paper pushing accountant. I think Griffin will make the right decision if the time comes.

 

[askold]

frodo1008: "... it becomes very difficult to contiunue to justify flying the STS system as currently built!..."<br /><br />I agree.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Oh, none taken.<br /><br />However as a general comment not directed specifically at you, or even necessarily at the American taxpayers funding NASA's efforts, I am continually amazed at the the level of 'unreality' expressed by what I assume are spaceflight enthusiasts in this forum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[liquidspace2k]

So could it be possible or sensible to wrap a net all up and down the whole ET, the holes size in the net would be up to NASA decision, and of what material the net is made from. <br /><br />I see this as the easiest and cheapest way to stop the foam from falling off, shouldn't put too much weight on the thing either cause it will be a net<br />