NASA says it will ground future space shuttle flights

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">" I'd put money on Atlantis in the November window. "</font><br /><br />Talk to grooble. He might want to bet $20 to try to make his money back plus interest. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[ravenslair]

Whatever happened to the American drive that was part of Gemini, Mercury and Apollo? We used to take risks for the big rewards in the end. Now, we scrub flights at the drop of a hat, ground a whole fleet because of foam that probably has dropped off every launch to date. We have become pampered and expect no risk for each launch into the harsh environment of space. I live for the days of American risk-taking.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Heh, well the exchange rate makes it worthwhile if I lose <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I mean people are running around with a "The Sky is Faling. The Sky is Falling!" attitude.</font>/i><br /><br />I think this generally reflects the precariousness of the situation. Following Challenger and Columbia there was generally good public support for the Shuttle program, so while the accidents were painful, there was no serious long-term risk to the shuttle program in part because there was no alternative.<br /><br />Today this is not the case. The discussions on the boards, the headlines in the general media, comments by Congressmen (e.g., House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert) show that patience is running thin.<br /><br />I think it is fair to say that the Shuttle program faces its greatest threat ever.</i>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"We have become pampered and expect no risk for each launch into the harsh environment of space."</font><br /><br />In this, NASA has been hoist by their own petard. They marketed the shuttle as the 'truck to space'. With it, spaceflight was routine and safe. No longer is spaceflight restricted to fire-eating risx-taking test pilots. Look -- it's even safe enough to send a regular schoolteacher into space... <br /><br />No, it wasn't.<br /><br />However, it was too late by then to undo their marketing. The world had been told that the STS was safe and NASA then had to *make* it safe. But it's not and *this* system will never be 100% safe. Nor will the next syetsm, or the one after that. Possibly three generations of spacecraft from now will be as safe as airplanes (still not 100% safe, of course). However, you asked where the risk-taking went... NASA killed it by shooting their mouth off.<br /><br /><br />AS a semi-related side note, I was curious about the origin of 'hoist by their own petard', so I did a bit of useless research.<br /><br /><i>pe·tard ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-tärd) n. <br />A small bell-shaped bomb used to breach a gate or wall. <br />A loud firecracker. <br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />[French pétard, from Old French, from peter, to break wind, from pet, a breaking of wind, from Latin pditum, from neuter past participle of pdere, to break wind. See pezd- in Indo-European Roots.] <br />Word History: The French used pétard, “a loud discharge of intestinal gas,” for a kind of infernal engine for blasting through the gates of a city. “To be hoist by one's own petard,” a now proverbial phrase apparently originating with Shakespeare's Hamlet (around 1604) not long after the word entered English (around 1598), means “to blow oneself up with one's own bomb, be undone by one's own devices.” The French noun pet, “fart,” developed regularly from the Latin noun pditum,</i>

 

[rybanis]

I have to agree with Shuttle_RTF, this thread is the biggest wet dream for shuttle bashers I have ever seen.<br /><br />Most of you still do not understand, and this has been mentioned before, that if NASA just says "OK! We're done with the shuttle!", a government accountant will be on their doorstep the next day asking when NASA will be sending back those billions to congress to re-assign. Just because they got money for the shuttle, doesn't mean that they can just re-assign the money to the CEV/CXV/whatever. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

If indeed Dr Griffin cannot go to Congress itself and get the funds reallocated, so be it. Although with the eyes of the entire planet on us and Congress endorsing a Moon/Mars initiative, I find it difficult to believe that it is impossible.<br /><br />And "use it or lose it" sure isn't justification for the continuance of the shuttle and ISS programs anyways. I refer back to the danger of NASA creating a hostile estrangement between itself and the taxpayer.<br /><br />And I believe that is a far more important concept to understand.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[rybanis]

I'm just saying there has to be a better way than just shutting down the shuttle program. Perhaps slowly converting it over to SDLV or something. The word "Cancel" is what bothers me the most. Cancel is also what makes Congress lick its chops. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gpurcell]

Some of us have a better understanding of government budgeting than you might think....<br /><br />And let me tell you this--no one on the Hill is going to be too keen to spend ANOTHER billion dollars redesigning a system that is intended to be retired after 10-15 flights.<br /><br />NASA needs to get the CEV/HLV designs finalized and begin funding them ASAP. As soon as that happens, shift as much as possible from the Shuttle account to CEV/HLV.

 

[BReif]

Exactly! Asking Congress to "cancel" the shuttle program, I beleive, will be exactly the same as asking Congress to "cancel" the future of manned spaceflight. If Congress pulls the plug on STS and ISS, I think they will also be pulling the plug on CEV, and the Vision for Space Exploration at the same time. I have no problem with never flying the Shuttle again, but I would like a renewed commitment by Congress, in light of this current situation, to utilize Soyuz to ISS to do the Long-duration Zero-G research we need for Moon/Mars, and to move forward with the CEV and the Vision. Otherwise, I am afraid we will lose manned spaceflight altogether.

 

[rybanis]

I'm talking about SDHLV, which is kind of needed for the CEV program. By funding the CEV, you'd also kind of like the HL booster to launch its compliments on.<br /><br /><br />Also, NASA just can't "shift" money from one account to another. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rybanis]

12, they didn't exactly ignore the CAIB. If they did, they would have been flying much sooner than 2 1/2 years after Columbia. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[davp99]

CrabGrass...Grrrrrr <br /><br />Lets use some Super Strong Shrink-Wrap for that ET... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="4">Dave..</font> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I would like to think that NASA has at least until the end of this year to either correct the problem, of simply show that it has the necessary gumption to take whatever continuing chance that is necessary to at least finish the ISS to what we have told our partners that we would finish it to. If the word of the United States is not going to be honored in this instance, how would we ever expect that any other countries would ever cooperate with the US in any other large projects?<br /><br />Eventually, space is gong to prove to be too much of an operation for ANY one nation, and international cooperation is going to become essential. If we in the US have obtained the reputation of being unreliable then we might just find ourselves on the outside looking in! And we would have nobody to blame but ourselves!<br /><br />So even if the shuttle can't fly again, some way is going to have to be found to properly finish the ISS to the level that we told our partners we would finish it to. After that, it is anybodies ball game!

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Sorry, been biting my lip whilst reading this wet dream of a thread for Shuttle bashers .....<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Don't worry SRTF, I'm here with you brother.<br /><br />I imagine some ways down the track, we'll both get unsatisfying 'amusement' out of the same crowd hankering for the 'good old days' of Shuttle when the CEV doesn't turn out to be the stuff of a mad man's dreams in either the safety or reliability department.<br /><br />In much the same way as they hanker for the 'good old days' of Apollo now. Although we'll conveniently sweep under the carpet the number of times they barely pulled the gonads out of the fire on Apollo, okay?<br /><br />As you say, let the engineers work the problem and let's get these birds flying again. If polystyrene foam is capable of getting the better of some of the smartest technical brains on the planet, then I seriously fear for the up-coming CEV and the undoubted head-scratchers it will present. <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>

 

[lunatic133]

SRTF and Kiwi, I greatly respect you both, but I disagree with you in this instance. Continually appologizing for the shuttle really isn't going to do much good. The shuttles are cranky and old and were never meant to be in service for as long as they have. NASA just speant the past two and a half years pouring their blood, sweat, and tears into fixing the shuttle, and for what? All that money, time, and effort, and how is it any different now than it was before STS-114? There's still a foam problem. The fleet's still grounded. NASA is back to square one. This could continue again and again unless we simply move on to something new. It will be difficult and painful but at least it will give NASA the chance to GO somewhere again, instead of constantly hobbling along in a 20+ year old vehicle held together with duct tape and chewing gum (that's an exaggeration, but it's true they spend a LOT more time being fixed than being flown). You don't tell congress that you want to cancel the shuttle, anyway. You tell congress exactly what you plan to do -- focus your efforts on the CEV and ask for the appropriate funding to do so.

 

[askold]

lunatic133 - you're absolutely right: the problem is not the "bashers". The problem is on the front page of every newspaper today.<br /><br />This stuff is engineering - it's not a popularity contest. If the shuttle can't be made to perform within NASA's budget and launch criteria, it's gotta go.

 

[nacnud]

In the press conferance they mentioned a metal PAL fence rather than a foam ramp

 

[erauskydiver]

Well said Kiwi. I agree with you 100%. I guarantee that the next vehicle will have its share of critics and engineering flaws. Every aerospace vehicle does. <br /><br />I think that moving on with a new vehicle is the right thing to do. And I'm glad that we are doing it. But I also believe that it will be a road that is just as bumpy.

 

[erauskydiver]

Well said Kiwi. I agree with you 100%. I guarantee that the next vehicle will have its share of critics and engineering flaws. Every aerospace vehicle does. <br /><br />I think that moving on with a new vehicle is the right thing to do. And I'm glad that we are doing it. But I also believe that it will be a road that is just as bumpy.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">This stuff is engineering - it's not a popularity contest. If the shuttle can't be made to perform within NASA's budget and launch criteria, it's gotta go.</font><br /><br />if engineers had their way the world would be a much better place <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"The data from STS-114 shows that there is at least a 80% reduction in the number of tile hits from ET foam."</font><br /><br />Since this is the first flight where they have good data on foam impacts... how have they calculated what the baseline is that the current flight has 'reduced by 80%'?

 

[tap_sa]

They have checked the tiles after every flight and counted the impact signs in them?

 

[nacnud]

Thats exactly what they said in the press conferance.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"They have checked the tiles after every flight and counted the impact signs in them? "</font><br /><br />And after landing they can tell foam pings from on-orbit micrometeoroid pings from unfortunate bird pings, from stray birdpoop pings... how?