POLL: Should NASA Retire its Space Shuttle Fleet?

[doublehelix]

The space shuttle Atlantis is launching on its final mission on Friday, May 14, 2010 – the first of three final flights by NASA's trio of reusable space planes.

But should they be retired? Make your view heard here.

NASA is retiring the shuttle fleet after nearly 30 years due to safety concerns and to make room for future space exploration plans.

But shuttle managers have also said the three orbiters are flying better than ever after learning the hard lessons from two tragic accidents (in 1986 and 2003) that took the lives of 14 astronauts. But only three shuttle missions remain:

• Atlantis' current STS-132 mission to deliver a new Russian module to the International Space Station
• Discovery's STS-133 flight to deliver spare parts, a human-like robot and a space closet to the space station. Launch is slated for mid-Sept. 2010.
• Endeavour's STS-134 flight to deliver the $1.5 billion Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer astrophysics experiment. Launch is no earlier than late Nov. 2010.

Some lawmakers are calling for a fourth, extra shuttle flight on Atlantis since NASA will have the rocket boosters and fuel tank needed for the flight.

7 Cool Things You Didn't Know About Space Shuttle Atlantis
Shuttle Atlantis Flying its Flag for Final Flight
Complete Space Shuttle Mission Coverage

SPACE.com is providing complete coverage of Atlantis' STS-132 mission to the International Space Station with Senior Writer Clara Moskowitz and Managing Editor Tariq Malik based in New York. Click here for shuttle mission updates and a link to NASA TV.

 

[SteveCNC]

There are a few reasons why I would agree with retirement of the shuttle fleet but if none of the reasons are there then I would disagree .

#1 - if there is something better available then yes (presently this would be a no)

#2 - if there is a fatigue problem , stress on the airframe has weakened it to the point of being unsafe then yes (this is beyond my knowledge of where the shuttles are right now)

#3 - anything beyond my current understanding that would make it unsafe then yes

Other than those 3 reasons I don't see why we would want to retire them .

 

[bbfreakDude]

There are a few reasons why I would agree with retirement of the shuttle fleet but if none of the reasons are there then I would disagree .

#1 - if there is something better available then yes (presently this would be a no)

#2 - if there is a fatigue problem , stress on the airframe has weakened it to the point of being unsafe then yes (this is beyond my knowledge of where the shuttles are right now)

#3 - anything beyond my current understanding that would make it unsafe then yes

Other than those 3 reasons I don't see why we would want to retire them .

There is plenty of good reason to retire the space shuttle, especially the aging of the fleet and that the manufacturing of parts/external tanks has essentially stopped (Meaning, it'd take at least two years just to get all that started up again according to an assessment done on the issue). Mostly though the costs in risk and amount of funding needed to keep the shuttle program going don't outweigh the benefits. I know at least Atlantis is the worst off of the three.

NASA announced in 2007 that 24 helium and nitrogen gas tanks in Atlantis are older than their designed lifetime. These composite over-wrapped pressure vessels were designed for a 10 year life and later cleared for an additional 10 years; they exceeded this life in 2005. NASA said it cannot guarantee any longer that the vessels on Atlantis will not burst or explode under full pressure. Failure of these tanks could damage parts of the shuttle and even wound or kill ground personnel. An in-flight failure of a pressure vessel could even result in the loss of the orbiter and its crew. NASA analysis originally assumed that the vessels would leak before they burst, but new tests showed that they could in fact burst before leaking.

Because the original vendor was no longer in business, and a new manufacturer could not be qualified before 2010, when the shuttles are scheduled to be retired, NASA decided to continue operations with the existing tanks. Therefore, to reduce the risk of failure and the cumulative effects of load, the vessels will be maintained at 80 percent of the operating pressure as late in the launch countdown as possible, and the launch pad will be cleared of all but essential personnel when pressure is increased to 100 percent. The new launch procedure will be employed during the remaining Atlantis launches if no other resolution is found. Atlantis will have to fly at least once under this requirement.[18]

We're never going to have a new system if we're spending so much money on the old system, IE the shuttle program. Which never proved to be as cost effective as it was sold to be.

The space shuttle is a remarkable piece of machinery but after the International Space Station is done it doesn't make sense to keep flying such a expensive/dangerous spacecraft. Going to low earth orbit needs to become safer/cheaper, and keeping the shuttle around only gets in the way of that goal and in going beyond LEO.

 

[LandoverLee]

Retire them! Why there should be more of them! We've learned at lot about "routine" space operations over the past 29 years thanks to the STS. We should be applying those lessons to a more evolved Shuttle design, a Block 2 if you will. Shuttles should be allowed to launch and service satellites again now that the ISS is nearly complete. And we should still be on our way back to the Moon with a Cis-lunar craft carried to orbit in a Shuttle's payload bay.

 

[Mattwm6698]

why not build new space shuttles, based on the same technologies, except make changes where we know there is a problem? The technology is sound and useful, it's the equipment that is old. We could build new ones much better and without all the issues we've encountered since the beginning of the program.

 

[HappyTinfoilCat]

Has anyone considered leaving a couple shuttles at the ISS? I'm sure the extra supplies, space and equipment could be of value. In any case, they could be used as escape pods in an emergency. In the end, some day they'll end up in museums but since it costs so much to get them up there, why not let them stay a while? The last shuttle up could have some bus seating for bringing everyone back

 

[Skytreker]

why not build new space shuttles, based on the same technologies, except make changes where we know there is a problem? The technology is sound and useful, it's the equipment that is old. We could build new ones much better and without all the issues we've encountered since the beginning of the program.

Dead on mate. Thats the proper answer that is missing from the poll. Retire yes, but we should have built a leaner, meaner Shuttle 2.0 by now that simply would beat the stuffing out of the old one in every aspect.

*Edit

I still can not believe they cancelled Venture Star on minor issues instead of working to resolve them and secure the next generation of efficient space transportation. :evil:

 

[TheAnt]

why not build new space shuttles, based on the same technologies, except make changes where we know there is a problem? The technology is sound and useful, it's the equipment that is old. We could build new ones much better and without all the issues we've encountered since the beginning of the program.

That is exactly what one dynamic and expanding civilization would do. To build something new and better with the experience gained from a previous model as a model.
But no this wont happen.

Instead they started a plan based on technology derived from the 1960's. So old that they had lost the blueprints of how they actually made it work and had to search for those who participated in the Apollo project in retirement homes.

Same goes for the Chinese, they sent men into space a feat in itself. But it is basically only a rerun of what the Russian did 40 years ago using quite some parts of Russian technology and even spacesuits.

Another example is with the power production, in most parts of the world no new nuclear plants are built.
Old ones are refurbished and upgraded, yes, but new plants are hardly found in the western hemisphere. One of the few exceptions is Finland who build a few and have another new one in the queue.
And there's even some countries where they are so utterly mad as to rely on coal and oil to produce electricity!
(Yes it would be a laughing matter if it wasn't for the fact that we see the end of the age of oil. What is left should be saved for transportation, while we slowly make the transition to other means.
And don't say biofuel, the farms of the world simply cannot provide enough, specially since we have to increase the yield in crops 200% over the next 40 years to provide for the growing population.)
Don't worry, it wont happen tomorrow, this economic crunch and economic panic we see in certain countries is just warning signs of what lies ahead.

Sorry for that diversion from the subject, but those are the reasons that I don't expect anything revolutionary new. But we still have the knowledge and I hope we could make one or two grand journeys of exploration either manned or robotic before our civilization really start on the downhill spiral into decline.

 

[astronomy_fan]

I didn't find the right question which would fit my opinion:

The shuttles were brought as a technical marvel with two big goals - to provide an easy access to space and to cut down the cost of payload. They failed both main goals. It turned out that it was not easy to use them and it was too expensive.

In addition NASA and the political lobby never had guts to use the shuttles for something more radical than circling the globe. Building ISS was useless time consuming exersize which took us nowhere. It consumed so much money, time, and resources that all deep space projects were completely grounded. More than one generation grew up without idea of what is to have plans about going above LEO. The ISS return of investment was negligible and it mostly had political measures. It completely disconnected the society from the space program.

The shuttles must step down and open field for new projects and new ideas. Humanity must have deep space future but the shuttles can't take us there. If they stay more resources would be waisted in vein.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Shuttles are the best example of something that is wrong with NASA.

Back in the 70s the country was looking for a cheaper, more reliable, more responsive way to get into space. The shuttle was created in order to fulfill this role. It was the reason that congress appropriated the money for its construction. The idea was to achieve airplane like reusability, thus bringing down the cost, increasing the reliability, and increasing the responsiveness. It was definitely a worthy venture as the cost of launch was and continues to be a significant expense in the space industry.

However soon after the system became operation it became apparent that it would never fulfill this role. There were numerous problems with it that sure that it would be never be cost effective nor reliable enough nor responsive enough to fulfill its original mission. In fact it proved to be even significantly more expensive, just as reliable, and less responsive than the expendable rockets it was to replace. Commercial satellite companies took their business elsewhere. Then the military developed their expendable rockets to launch their payload, thus NASA was left as the Shuttle's only user.

At this point what NASA should of done was dump the shuttle and start over perhaps with a modified shuttle design. Instead NASA decided to give up the quest for better access to space and stick with the shuttle. The result is where we are now. Its been 30 years since the Shuttle was built, and getting into space is still way too expensive, unreliable, and unresponsive. In the meantime other countries like Russian and Europe invested in their own expendable rockets, and then commercializing them, thus practically taking the commercial launch industry with it.

Had NASA started over who knows where we would be right now. There were a number of technologies and designs for reusable spacecraft that emerged over the years such as the National Space Plane, but they were never fully funded.

So the question becomes do we want to continue to hand over 4-5 billion a year for the shuttle and continue to let other countries and their rockets dominate us, or to we want to take that 4-5 billion and invest in a launch vehicle that will make the US the leader in the space launch market that we were meant to be.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I didn't find the right question which would fit my opinion:

The shuttles were brought as a technical marvel with two big goals - to provide an easy access to space and to cut down the cost of payload. They failed both main goals. It turned out that it was not easy to use them and it was too expensive.

In addition NASA and the political lobby never had guts to use the shuttles for something more radical than circling the globe. Building ISS was useless, time consuming exersize which took us nowhere. It consumed so much money, time, and resources that all deep space projects were completely grounded. More than one generation grew up without idea of what is to have plans about going above LEO. The ISS return of investment was negligible and it mostly had political measures. It completely disconnected the society from the space program.

The shuttles must step down and open field for new projects and new ideas. Humanity must have deep space future but The shuttles can't take us there. If they stay all resources would still be waisted in vein.

I disagree with the ISS being useless. It also has provided us with a very valuable microgravity lab. It has advanced human spaceflight and continues to do so. It serves as a test bed for long duration human spaceflight. The technologies developed for and tested on the ISS, such as the water and air recycling systems, will play a large part in future exploration.

Really the problem with the ISS comes down to the cost, and that is largely the Shuttle's fault. The Shuttle accounted for 50% of the station's 100 billion dollar price tag. The station could of been built for much less had we just used heavy lift expendable rockets or better yet the Saturn V.

 

[Frank1969]

The poll asks a very open ended question of “Should NASA Retire its Space Shuttle Fleet?”. And the answer to that question is yes, but I think the better question should be “When should NASA Retire its Space Shuttle Fleet?”.

I have been very saddened by the current administrations lack of “looking forward” in regards to the United States importance of being a “space faring” nation. I voted for Obama, because it was time for a change, and I felt he was the man to make many of those changes happen. And I know the old adage of “You can’t please everyone all the time”.

No matter what decision he and his administration makes, there will be the pros and the cons, and those that will hail them with glorious accolades and those that will hurl stones. But as to this subject I believe they have really dropped the ball in regards to our great country being the leaders and front runners in relation to space exploration. They just don’t seem to feel it is that important.

And not to sound like one of those “government bashers” because I am not, but come on folks, there is enough waste in our government that if we cut the fat by just a small percentage, that alone would not only pay for our current space missions and agenda, but would allow us to branch out even further even faster.

Our society, humanity as a whole, has based its steps forward and its evolution, on exploration. This is a fact. For as long as there has been written record of our existence, there is proof of our drive to explore and expand. This is part of what defines us as human beings, this is part of what has driven us to some of the greatest discoveries in our history. And this is what will continue to define us and allow us to continue to grow and develop as a species.

And space exploration is just one of our next logical steps, in exploring our existence and continuing our “growth”. There is much science that can and needs to be done here on Earth, that will continue through out our foreseeable future. But, and I want to stress this point, we MUST find our way to the stars.

There is so much science and discovery available to us out there in the great beyond, and we are fools for not reaching out with every asset available. We do nothing but shoot our selves in the proverbial foot when we take away money from these important programs.

So to your question I say no, for now. Because we have no suitable replacement craft. But we must develop and implement replacement craft, to continue to serve our purpose of space exploration. Then when we have those replacement craft, of course we should retire our Shuttle Fleet.

And as a side note to this, by gutting our budget to get back to the moon, we effectively negate so much hard work that has been done thus far. We can not be so naïve as to think we can just go directly to Mars. We must take these very important steps, we need to “work out the kinks” in our backyard, before we move on to a new neighborhood.

Our future must include the exploration of space, there can be no logical arguments otherwise. The question is, how far and how fast. And right now, it seems the government is complacent with just sitting by and letting other nations take the lead.

And I will tell you this, no matter how much I may agree or disagree with actions we as a nation have taken in the past, I feel we are a good and kind nation overall. And that we do try to better the world around us, and use our technologies to help. I am not so young as to be naïve, nor am I so old as to be bitter. I am optimistic!

And I feel in my heart that I would much rather see a nation such as ours, who cares, be the leader in such an important step in our evolution. Because I know that so many of the good things that are discovered will be shared, with much benefit for those around us. Do you really want another nation leading this all important step forward, that might not have as noble of an outlook?

We have the ability to do this, we just have to have the fortitude to see it through. Sorry for the rambling, and such a long post, but just a simple paragraph would not have sufficed.

 

[Ryevgeniy]

Well keeping the Shuttles flying ironically keeps us away from moving beyond low earth orbit. I think we shall not even use the international space station beyond 2025 or build a new space station. I think if we want to move beyond low earth orbit we shall stay on earth and save our money on things like mission to mars. Why continue to stay in orbit, we should only rarely fly to space but if we do it should be long trips like to the moon mars or even the outer planets.

 

[deagleninja]

NASA should retire itself. Sadly, the agency has become nothing more than welfare for US scientists and a PR stunt for sitting presidents. The agency has no direction and no meaningful future. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

But to answer the question, considering that the shuttles should have never been built in the first place....of course they should be retired. Each flight is a horrible waste of taxpayer dollars and that waste only deepens public apathy for the space program.

 

[astronomy_fan]

I disagree with the ISS being useless. It also has provided us with a very valuable microgravity lab. It has advanced human spaceflight and continues to do so. It serves as a test bed for long duration human spaceflight. The technologies developed for and tested on the ISS, such as the water and air recycling systems, will play a large part in future exploration.

Yes, it was not all waste but it was pretty much routine operations yielding results which could be achieved with much smaller price tag. I can't even name one or two experiments which took my attention. What to expect from the average tax payer. In fact ISS was a way to find a job for the shuttles and their personnel.

Building the Space Shuttles WAS NOT A BLUNDER.
IT WAS A BLUNDER keeping them around for so long and building a space program around them.

Instead building a palace in space NASA should put a MIR-like station in orbit and serve it for 5 years achieving all long duration flight goals for no more than 15-20 billion. After that they should have shut the shuttles down unblocking 7 billions per year for more significant deep space projects including new hardware.

 

[Valcan]

Ok i respect everyones opinion but...

Why would you want to spend a billion dollars to launch what you could with a 60 to 100 million dollar private launcher?

The shuttle only takes a cargo of 55,250lbs alright. Really its not that much.

Now to do that you send a vehicle that weighs 240,000 pounds on lift off. Thats just silly.

Falcon 9 heavy is schecdualed to be able to launch around 70,000 lbs or more to LEO. So...

Look the shuttle is awesome. Its also out dated to the extreme and entirely unnessesary. Sending up the cargo with the astronouts only makes the cargo cost 3 times as much or more.

Not to mention you could build a heavly lift system with far more lift capacity (200,000lb to 400,000 lb as well as a wider bay for bigger missions) and have them cost less each lift than the shuttle. And have the Crew just meet the cargo modual or mission modual in orbit.

Its just there time. If they were proven to be emensly reliable after 20+ yrs of operation it would be one thing but there not. There to complicated and costly for what there ment to do.

Its time for the shuttles to give way to a large heavy lift system and a small shuttle system that is based on current tech and and the need to lift people safly and quickly for a lower price.

 

[Kansan52]

Yes, the kapton wiring and tanks make it necessary. All money issues are politics.

The problem began during the designing. The original plan was the tripod of shuttle to LEO, space station as stepping stone, then return to the moon and maybe Mars and beyond. The lower cost was based on a quick launch rate. When the station and beyond was cut, they decided all domestic launches would be on the STS. The keyhole satellites were so large, the orbiter cargo bay needed to grow for them. The original version was smaller and likely to be easier to recycle (and less costly).

The shuttle replacements proposed at the the same time as the X33 were smaller Block 2 systems and likely would have given us the quick launch rate needed. That and an unmanned heavy lift vehicle could really set the stage for access.

Oh well, if wishes were horses....

 

[RyanCole]

I can't believe people would condone wasting NASA's money on the ridiculously expensive Space Shuttle fleet when we far more cost effective solutions just around the corner. We might get one or or two extra shuttle flights in the gap for 5 billion. Forget heavy lift for another 5 years. Forget contingency cash on private manned craft. More shuttle flights is a silly idea.

 

[keonyn]

No, not without a replacement, and I'm not talking about the ridiculous Constellation program that may or may not have been read 5 years (at a minimum) after the shuttle was retired. They should have been planning for this a long time ago, and been developing a new means, not deciding to retire the shuttle while they work on an unsustainable pipe dream to replace it with an unbelievably long development time.

The shuttles should be retiring, and they should have known that long ago, and been more prepared to replace them when that time came. Instead they're replacing them with nothing and removing our only real access to space for an extended period of time. And I don't care if you're Democrat or Republican, because neither side has proven any ability to handle this situation effectively outside of finger pointing in attempts to lay the blame for this lack of foresight that they're both guilty of.

 

[Busterb1959]

The shuttles were originally designed to fly 100 missions each. However, they were also supposed to fly much more frequently, which never actually happened. I believe they were supposed to be retired in the '90's if the schedule had been met. On the whole, shuttles have performed over 100 missions combined, and it's now the year 2010. Even if you baby your 1981 Lincoln Continental through the years, it's improbable that you'd be still be driving it in 2010 without major structural renovations and maintainence.
As sad as I am about these birds being retired, they have done their job, and it's time they live out their remaining years in museums where the public (which paid for them) can enjoy a 'hands-on' experience of getting near a piece of history, much like the Enola Gay, or the battleship Missouri. Farewell STS, we will miss you, but we will never forget you.

 

[kcsl]

As they stand, they are probably now past their use-by date, but untill a suitable replacement vehicle is available that will allow for cargo to be taken up, and brought back down, they should keep the existing shuttle fleet, even if they have to reduce it's workload.

In the mean time, a lot's been learnt from the shuttles; new materials, engineering techniques and safety procedures developed, and with all the data thats been gathered over the years and the progress in technology, I never understood why they just didn't design a Shuttle MK2.

 

[MarkStanaway]

I think the pending retirement of the Shuttles is the circuit breaker that has been needed to develop a replacement.
As long as the Shuttle is still operational there will always be an excuse to put off this long overdue decision.
There is nothing like having no manned space capability to focus the minds of the politicians and bean counters.

 

[spacedengr]

This is a moot point. The decision was made 6+ years ago when Constellation began. The core problem is that a reusable spacecraft as complex as STS is simply too expensive to operate. NASA needed the $400M+/flight to complete Ares-1/Orion development, as well as modifying the facilities. Shuttles were not designed to fly forever. "Modernization" cannot correct the Shuttle's core problems. STS was designed to provide an order of magnitude improvement in CAPABILITY. Safety and cost of operation were not the drivers, although the program was "sold" using a myth that STS would make spaceflight cheap ( based on a rate of 40 flights/year!). The marching orders for Constellation were based on the constraints that NASA would not have much time and money to develop a new system for LEO. It had to be designed on the cheap to be safe and cheaper to operate. That is why it looks like Apollo. That is inherently the safest basic configuration.

 

[RyanCole]

Where have you guys been? We have replacements to the shuttle. SpaceX has the Dragon, Lockheed has Orion "Lite", and Boeing has been developing an alternative craft. That is three, and definitely not nothing. The Dragon and Lockheed Orion "Lite" craft are over 10 times cheaper to launch crew than the shuttle will ever be.

While the shuttle can launch 24 tons of cargo (unpressurized) and 7 astronauts, it still costs around 1.5 billion per launch, which is about 30 Falcon 9 launches (345 tons unpressurized), or 11 Cargo Dragons (up to 72 tons pressurized/unpressurized), or about 10 Crewed Dragons (70 astronauts). Then add in the cost of restarting the shuttle program at ~2 billion. That is like paying $20,000 to fix an old Hummer. Sure the Hummer is cool, but you will be able to carry more with the old pickup you already have (Atlas/Delta) and get way more mileage out of an economy car (Dragon/Orion Lite, etc).

Considering the costs involved to run the shuttle, it makes no sense to try to close the gap with it. For one it hardly closes the gap, as we are likely to only get two flights before commercial comes online. We are clearly better off excepting it at this point, and investing in the next thing to come.

 

[Karl296]

Keep them and "soup them up"! It's way past time we abandon this "throw away the old" mentality. The shuttles can all be upgraded and take advantage of new technologies. This country was once (not anymore) famous for its "Yankee ingenuity". Now is the time to show it again and make the shuttles even better than they ever were! Or, we can all just sit at home and let the Chinese and Russians colonize space. If we don't do it ourselves, we don't deserve to be a great country.