POLL: Should NASA Retire its Space Shuttle Fleet?

[bbfreakDude]

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.

All three of which are still in development, not to mention Orion "Lite" wont fly with a manned crew during launch. Only being used as a lifeboat for ISS. We don't have a proven launch system, or a proven spacecraft to replace the shuttle which is the point.

Heck, the Falcon 9 was delayed again, for all the hoopla about Space X you'd think they'd be more commercially viable now. Yank the government funding away from them, and they'd go nowhere. Which is kind of sad, considering that they really are the best hope we've got. Even if who knows when or if they'll ever fly a Dragon spacecraft with humans aboard. After all their main goal thus far is just to launch the Falcon 9, and help keep ISS flying via cargo/supplies etc.

Considering the costs involved to run the shuttle, it makes no sense to try to close the gap with it.

I do agree with this point, we can't go forward unless we retire this spacecraft. I love the shuttle, but its an over complex spacecraft that never was what it was sold to be. Not that I blame the space shuttle it self, it did exactly what it was designed for and has for the past 29 years. Problem is, we made unrealistic goals despite the limits of the spacecraft. So, I'll be sad to see it go, but it must go to ensure a more sustainable future of spaceflight.

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.

I think you're too optimistic here, I just don't see it. Sure, the launch systems/spacecraft may be online by then but there is a difference between that and putting actual humans aboard and expecting them to survive the journey. Again if you're putting stock in Space X, I'm going to have to say don't hold your breath. Space X has failed to make a commercial business out of launching payloads into space just yet. Only one such launch thus far, with no set date on the next. Not to mention the Falcon 9 has been delayed countless times, was suppose to launch last year.

Thus far they really will go nowhere if they keep with the delays, and lose government funding as a result of not being able to fulfill their contract. So, we'll see what happens but I'm not hopeful. Oh, it isn't all doom and gloom but things couldn't be more uncertain.

 

[_110501_]

Every advance in Human survivability/cultural evolution/pursuit of autonomy has been produced by harnessing technology to carry weight over distance. Then consider the mind that destroys it. (Suicidal). Honest Ballot/Honest Vote. Leaders of the emerging space companies should and ought to create a Private-joint public consortium ( with NASA help), and buy the shuttles/create new ones, more modern and capable. Own and operate the whole event. Own the NASA location in Florida and expand the company. There is enough room for Private and NASA Etc. Let NASA get on with its' most important event yet to come. Especially, once the obummers/demos are voted out. I want everyone that reads these words to go to NASA.gov, then in search write bpp. Read and research every single word. This can and will be done. Non exhaust thrust-faster than light, net-ftl, is not difficult. You, who read these words are intelligent above the masses. YOU work on the questions that you raise after reading bpp. There is a necessary niche for all propulsion systems. One is not more endowed that the other. They are all the same. Safe delivery of Human over distance. Some are close in and others are far out. I made a pun........When considering net-ftl, bio-saftey is number one. The machine in operation must produce those events that protect Life......New thoughts will evolve as net-ftl is used. Since no quantum wave can exceed c and you are travelling at c+1....n, then by quantum technologies you cannot be observed. There, is the next step in All Human cultural behaviour, being an American. Liberty/Freedom/Trust/Entrusted/Endowed/Applied, as a Normal Behaviour. Government of/for the People, by the People, not Government by/for the Government by Enslaved People. Statism is slavery.Truth never ever has a problem with innocence, and innocence never ever has a problem with truth. The guilty always are embarrassed because they acted wrongly, when knowing the difference between right and wrong. A thing is what it does, and did is the past tense of does, so a thing is what it did and does. As is true for all actions and states and people. An absolutism. ad infinitum.....A hint for net-ftl.....measure.

 

[Clobicshy]

Retire the shuttles AFTER a suitable replacement is operational. What NASA is doing makes as much sense as the military grounding all prop-driven fighter planes during the late 40's and then start developing fighter jets.

 

[BurgerB75]

I'm on the fence with this one. On one hand I agree with the poster that stated that we will have a hard time developing a replacement as long as we have the shuttles to fall back on. On the other hand thay are getting a bit long-in-the-tooth and upgrading them, as far as I know, would probably cost as much as, if not more than, a replacement.

I know it is nowhere near the same category or complexity but take a look at upgrading computers for an idea. Try upgrading an 8 year old PC to the latest and greatest without completely stripping it bare and starting from scratch. I just don't think the shuttles would be able to be completely upgraded without starting from scratch.

 

[none12345]

They need to be retired.

For every launch of the shuttle we could have 1-2 rovers sent to another planet. Or launch up a couple of space telescopes. Or toss out a probe or 2 to another planet. All kinds of cool things we could do for the price of each launch.

I long for manned space flight. BUT manned space flight to LEO is just an utter waste. We have wasted 40 years, FOURTY years in leo. 30 of that under the shuttle program. Its time to move on.

Note i dont think we can do manned space flight at all under the curernt budget. If i was in charge id allocate 10% of the millitary budget to space instead. That's enough to do it. And we would still be outspending the top 7 largest millitaries in the world COMBINED with a reduction of 10%, so not like it will hurt our defense any.

 

[ablebravo]

Should we retire the Shuttle fleet (as in the current set of vehicles)? Maybe. As others have said, it is possible that airframe fatigue and other issues will soon make continued operation of the original machines increasingly unsafe.

Should we totally discontinue the entire Space Shuttle project? Absolutely not. I think funding should be provided to build new machines (say, three new shuttles which would be good for another 2 or so DECADES) to continue their good work of running people and supplies to the ISS and continue maintainence of the HST.

I mean, look: During the 1960s, the US was at war in Vietnam. I don't know how much was spent annually on that mess, but we had enough to spend on all the research which went into the Apollo project as well. Not only did this contribute to the "national pride" factor, it created hundreds of thousands of jobs. The combined spending on 'Nam and Apollo certainly didn't break the country! Granted, the US really wanted to put *Americans* on the moon first mainly because our scientific community was still stinging in embarrassment having not been the first to put a human in space in the first place. So, we had the WILL to do it. The money is there; it is only whether or not we are willing to apply it to an aggressive manned space program that is the issue.

 

[davoyager]

It is shear folly to retire this fleet of space planes. Just like when we retired the Saturn V we will lose all the knowledge and experience and capability that has been so hard won. It was Nixon who killed the Saturn V and it was Bush who killed the Shuttle. When will we stop throwing out our successes and setting ourselves back to square one. At this rate China, India, and who knows who will achieve our dreams for space travel while we fall further and further behind. I was 6 when John Glenn first flew in space and I will die of old age before a human walks on Mars all because Republicans totally lack vision and poetry and America it seems is turning away from science and exploration and back toward the mythology they call religion.

 

[Galacticexplorer]

No they should not.Maybe trim down their missions until the next generation of vessels can be built.

 

[sywuz]

President Obama's lack of vision and his desire to stop America's return to the moon and to end manned space exploration by the United States has truly disappointed me.

"Robotic missions are much cheaper and may provide more scientific information, but they don't catch the public imagination in the same way, and they don't spread the human race into space, which I'm arguing should be our long-term strategy." Stephen Hawking, Cambridge University.

I think Hawking is right, and President Obama is wrong. We don't want more 'data' on Mars, we want colonies on Mars .

 

[KeplersThirdLaw]

Shuttle 2.0 would've been the answer. Why develope technology, use it, learn how to use it, improve upon it, and then moth ball it after 30 years? Auto manufacturers dont scrap a vehicle after it's first generation run, they improve it and make additions, changes, upgrades in the next generation. Sure, the shuttles have been upgraded with the latest and greatest, but that doesn't change the core design of the vehicle. Imagine a shuttle 2.0 that uses more refined manufacturing techniques for it's frame and body. We could've built a lighter and stronger space ship. Or perhaps, it could've been built for a modular purpose or even had a single piece heat shield. There are so many upgrades and refinements that could've gone on had the higher ups decided to improve on what they had instead of spending money to create something entirely new. We've shut down all the supporting equipment contracts when we didnt have to. What would've been wrong with building a new stripped down shuttle heavy lift launcher?

Too many why's and not enough answers... We don't see the Russians scrapping their Soyuz any time soon. Those are continuously manufactured and upgraded, even though the launch hardware used to lift the Soyuz are one shot deals.

 

[EarthlingX]

It seams anti-space move started in 1998. I will avoid speculation as to what happened, check history. This are results :

Wiki : NASA Budget

Please notice more or less stable 1.0 - 0.9 % until 1998.

Consequences, an example, you all know about Constellation :
http://www.nap.edu : Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research

abcnews.go.com : NASA'S Outdated Labs Jeopardize Research: Report

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor
May 11, 2010

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Many of NASA's research labs are old, and budget cuts have seriously jeopardized scientific research at the space agency, according to a National Research Council report released on Tuesday.

Bureaucratic changes mean that staff running the labs have to spend an inordinate amount of time asking for money while their facilities disintegrate, a panel of experts appointed by the council said.

"The fundamental research community at NASA has been severely impacted by the budget reductions that are responsible for this decrease in laboratory capabilities, and as a result, NASA's ability to support even NASA's future goals is in serious jeopardy," they conclude in the report.

This might explain :

Wiki : Monetary inflation

 

[what4]

I have always admired & will deeply miss NASA's remarkable STS. The U.S. Space Shuttles are the most complex machines ever constructed so far in human history. But i agree that its retirement is due. The Shuttles inherited complexity puts unnecessary high risks on its crews lives. Humans should only be launched aboard much safer & less complex rocket style spacecraft in our future. Sin: Mr. Wall

 

[docm]

Cool: yes

Beyond their planned lifetime: also yes

Needlessly complex: yup again. Put up a 100 ton vehicle to orbit a 25+ ton cargo? Puuhllleese.....

Bad initial concept & operations: hell yes, otherwise we wouldn't be scanning those delicate tiles & leading edges for foam impacts after every launch & lost 2 of 5 vehicles!

People belong on an inline launcher where foam isn't an issue, the TPS is covered and escape is possible, not a pipe dream.

Slide ropes? Bailout bars? No parachute for the crew cabin? What brand of Tequila were they drinking when those came up :roll:

Sorry, but the shuttles are an accident looking for a place to happen. Better to move on and separate heavy cargo and crew. Capsules and/or a DreamChaser type vehicle can do the up/down LEO taxi service while someone grows a brain and decides to build BLEO reusable real spaceships with habs and for the purpose RV's. Use a "space dock" and refueling station? Why not?

 

[elroy_jetson]

The venerable old birds should have been replaced and retired long ago, and we should now be flying a third or fourth generation of shuttles and heavy lift vehicles. Retiring Atlantis, Discovery, and Endeavor without replacement is short sighted, narrow minded, foolhardy, ignorant, arrogant, and spitefully irresponsible.

 

[cas190]

The Shuttle fleet should absolutely NOT be retired!. Michael Griffen was wrong about the shuttle's safety issues. And NASA, well they just want to make the contractors rich without ever producing anything useful again. How did we waste 10 billion on Constellation and never get anything but a dummy test flight?. Anything with the usefulness of STS is a long way off. This nation needs this capability. The STS is not unsafe, The NASA managers were unfit, and that is what caused the accidents.
Our politicians need to be thrown to the wolves for their cowardly decision to retire STS. I'm fed up with the management of NASA and think Bolden is an absolute idiot who I would not trust to walk my dog. He needs to be sent to the affirmative action reject pile, not the STS. The previos idea of using shuttle for a CIS translunar vehicle has a lot of merit. Better yet, lets rehab the fleet for even more on orbit capability and a smaller crew size. If NASA thinks its a program for supporting commercial contractors then lets retire NASA permanently!

 

[vulture4]

>>Cool: yes
>>Beyond their planned lifetime: also yes

Not true, the orbiters were designed for at least 100 missions each.

>>Needlessly complex: yup again. Put up a 100 ton vehicle to orbit a 25+ ton cargo? Puuhllleese.....

You are forgetting why Apollo was canceled in 1974. The limiting factor isn't mass, it's cost. The simple truth is that sending people into space with rockets and spacecraft that have to be replaced or rebuilt after every flight is much too expensive to be of any practical value to America. The energy that gets the 100-ton orbiter into space is almost free; LOX costs 60 cents a gallon delivered to KSC, LH2 is 98 cents. All the fuel that puts the Shuttle in orbit is less than $850K, and most of that is for ammonium perchlorate for the SRBs. Less than 1/2 of 1% of the mission cost. Most of the cost is in building a new vehicle for every flight.

The answer isn't more nonsense about the existential value of spaceflight. The real answer is that we have to reduce the cost of getting into space by at least a factor of ten before the work we can do there is worth the cost. That's why we built the Shuttle.

>>Bad initial concept & operations: hell yes, otherwise we wouldn't be scanning those delicate tiles & leading edges for foam impacts after every launch & lost 2 of 5 vehicles!

That's two losses in nearly 30 years, a better record than Apollo. The V-22, a much smaller leap in technology, lost four vehicles and 30 crew in a shorter development program. Although scanning the foam is a good idea, there has been no significant tile damage since changes were made to the foam after Columbia. The problems that caused the loss of Challenger and Columbia were each corrected before the next flight. Moreover, the Shuttle was the very first attempt ever to make a reusable spacecraft. Obviously operating cost was higher than specified, but that wasn't because Shuttle is reusable. The central problem was the lack of real prototypes to test the new reusable technologies in actual spaceflight. As a result there were numerous unanticipated costs and failure modes. In the 90's we understood this; that's why we had the X-33, X-34, X-37 DC-X programs, to test each aspect of reusable launch vehicle technology so that the next generation Shuttle could be practical in cost and safe to fly. But all these programs were cancelled By O'Keefe and Griffin.

>>People belong on an inline launcher where foam isn't an issue, the TPS is covered and escape is possible, not a pipe dream.

Obviously if we build a new fully reusable space transportation system we should incorporate all the lessons of Shuttle. But the people who can implement those lessons aren't the new-space entrepreneurs. or the NASA administrators who have never torqued a bolt. They are the only people in the world who actually put their hands on the shuttle other than the crew; the hundreds of contractor engineers and technicians who have decades of experience maintaining reusable spacecraft. Those are the only people who really know how to safely fly reusable spacecraft, and their knowledge cannot be learned from a book. They should be deeply involved in developing the next generation of reusables in parallel, so we can capture all those lessons and not repeat the mistakes of the past. But instead they are the only group that is to be fired and dispersed forever. That is the greatest tragedy of the path NASA has chosen; that once more we are about to forget all we have learned.

 

[Technomad]

More years ago than I care to remember, as a young engineer in the aerospace business, I attended a seminar where a young lady from NASA spoke about the Russian Space station Mir, the Shuttle and the coming International Space Station. In the Q and A session at the end of her presentation I asked her the following, "We spent billions of dollars to develop a transportation system to get us to the moon(Saturn V) and then we just threw it away. What assurances do we have that NASA won't make the same mistake with the Space Shuttle?" She hemmed and hawed and gave a very non-committal answer about how she hoped the Shuttle would not have the same fate as the Saturn V. Well, here we are years later and low and behold we see NASA about to repeat its billion dollar moon transportation system mistake with the Space Shuttle. And what is even more galling is that there is NOTHING to replace it with at this point. We're going to have to depend on our "friends" the Russians to get our astronauts into space! Is it just me, or does anyone else think another bad decision is being made here?

--Howard Hendricks, Jr.-- cyberchateau@yahoo.com

 

[vulture4]

>>Is it just me, or does anyone else think another bad decision is being made here?<<
I Agree. On our current course reusable spacecraft and launch vehicles will be forgotten for generations.

>>it still costs around 1.5 billion per launch, which is about 30 Falcon 9 launches<<
Because of NASA's total cost accounting, a large part of the total NASA budget that has noting to do with the actual Shuttle launch is charged to it. The total of all costs charged to the Shuttle program over its entire history, adjusted to current dollars and divided by the number of flights, is $1.2B per flight, however this includes many payloads, all the development, facilities built long ago and the periods of recovery from Challenger and Columbia, all sunk costs today. The direct incremental cost of adding an additional flight is only about $60 million. The total cost of an additional flight, including the overhead, is about $300 million, still less than the cost of the Ares I-X test flight. Because Constellation requires most of the Shuttle facilities but has a lower flight rate, and will have to take over a lot of organizational overhead if Shuttle is eliminated, Constellation will actually have a higher mission cost than Shuttle.

SpaceX originally intended to complement the Shuttle, not to replace it; Falcon could provide alternate access to ISS and greatly reduce our dependence on Soyuz. But no ELV, even Falcon, can fly at a cost that actually makes human spaceflight practical. That can only be achieved with a new generation of fully reusable launch vehicles. The greatest value of Shuttle is that its contractor workforce (not the civil servants) are the only people in the world who have decades of experience actually maintaining reusable spacecraft, and the only people with the knowledge to apply all the lessons of Shuttle to make a new generation of fully reusable vehicles. Logically the next generation of Shuttle should be developed now, while the first is still flying, so that knowledge and personnel can be shared between the programs. Instead we are on the verge of dispersing forever the very people with the person-centuries of experience that could finally achieve the goal, not of making human spaceflight spectacular for a few, but of making it routine for many.

 

[happyhopi@austin.rr.com]

It has taken so long to build the ISS that it is a shame that the the program is coming to an end. If the shuttles are still safe, it would seem prudent to use them to bring up supplies, etc and to use our current astronauts. I believe that we have no further human launches planned for many years. It is hard to believe that the ISS itself is only scheduled to be serviced until 2020, I believe. I know the Russians will be bringing up folks, 3 at a time, but the shuttles can bring up 6 or 7 plus a lot of cargo. What will the current astronauts be doing in the meantime? I know it is a complex problem, but it seems like to program should be extended several more years.

 

[EarthlingX]

http://www.spaceref.com : Mainstream Media Websites Failing to Adequately Cover end of Shuttle Era

Jason Rhian
Saturday, May 15, 2010

In reviewing where yesterday's launch of space shuttle Atlantis and the crew of STS-132 'placed' in regards to importance on the assorted media outlets websites provides a startling insight as to how we as a nation view manned spaceflight.

There is a disturbing trend to 'bury' space stories, forcing viewers to search for them. This trend is even more jarring when one realizes that today's launch of space shuttle Atlantis - will be the last time that this orbiter will fly. Here are where the 'big three' cable news outlets ranked in their coverage of Atlantis' final launch they are ordered from best to worst.

 

[Galacticexplorer]

Unfortunate :evil: :evil: ly the Federal Government wants to put the money where they can steal it. :twisted:

 

[steve_the_deev]

The MPS/SSME Helium tanks (there are 10 on each Shuttle) are a fiberglass composite over wrap design originally built by Brunswick. They will not explode when they fail, that is a misnomer. These tanks are "Leak before Break" in design philosophy. When Challenger occurred we found our helium tanks still intact and those that did separate from their high pressure tubing were found floating on the Atlantic ocean, no explosions occurred of any tanks during Challenger. Now that is one heck of a testament to that pressure vessel design. Yes there is concern about the life of the tanks but we worked around them all the time at 2000 psi and were not a safety concern. We even worked around them for some crucial leak tests at their flight pressure of 4400 psi. Once again I want to say these tanks (if they ever reach the fail state) will leak loudly and continue leak (Helium only folks) until all pressure is released. The most likely failure mode would be a pressure life cycle, fatigue issue, causing a small crack to breach the tank's Titanium inner liner, but I reiterate they will not explode. The tanks were proof pressure tested to 9000-10000 psi and leakage did not occur as part of acceptance testing. There are 10,000 psi helium tanks used on many rockets like Atlas and Athena however they are one time use, non-composite tanks. If we go for a Heavy Lift Vehicle, a hi tech material and safe design can be had without much trouble. Remember the Shuttle tanks use fiberglass/epoxy over a thin shell Ti liner. That is an old design compared to newly available materials such as Carbon, Boron, Kevlar, Spectra and some newer Military spec IED preventive materials that are exceedingly stronger. Some fishing lines today are good enough to use as an over wrap material compared to old Fiberglass! By the way I supported the Shuttle 2020 Project which we showed (from a Main Propulsion perspective and logistical support) that the Shuttle's were viable to the year 2020 from the Main Propulsion System's point of view. Yes the Shuttles should continue flying until we have a new vehicle, we reach 2020 or which ever comes first. steve_the_deev

 

[docm]

>>Cool: yes
>>Beyond their planned lifetime: also yes

Not true, the orbiters were designed for at least 100 missions each.

A figure that contemporaries criticized as overly optimistic, and they were right. A cynical attempt to justify a huge jobs program, along with the enviro wacko's of the day who thought everything should be recyclable.

>>Needlessly complex: yup again. Put up a 100 ton vehicle to orbit a 25+ ton cargo? Puuhllleese.....

You are forgetting why Apollo was canceled in 1974. The limiting factor isn't mass, it's cost.

Yes it is, and no matter that H2 is cheap the solids, each nearly the mass of a Naval destroyer, and shuttle refurbishment drive the real cost of a shuttle mission out of the troposphere before the candles are even lit.

The real answer is that we have to reduce the cost of getting into space by at least a factor of ten before the work we can do there is worth the cost. That's why we built the Shuttle.

And we failed. The shuttle is too expensive to operate vs. launching the same payload(s) on one or two EELV's, which along with the foam vs. tile situation is why the concept was flawed from the get-go.

>>Bad initial concept & operations: hell yes, otherwise we wouldn't be scanning those delicate tiles & leading edges for foam impacts after every launch & lost 2 of 5 vehicles!

That's two losses in nearly 30 years, a better record than Apollo.

Looking at it another way; 40% of the shuttle fleet has gone down in flames and there were very few Apollo missions, so the comparison isn't really that enligntening or encouraging. Now amortize the additional costs to the program of not having 40% of the fleet.

 

[job1207]

OK i respect everyone's 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. That's just silly.

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

This.

PLUS, the Shuttles need to be re certified for future launch, according to the experts. While B-52s and other planes are still flying, they are also re certified. This involves tearing things out and replacing them.

Technology for making the Shuttle system inexpensive does not yet exist. It is MUCH less expensive to use throw away, or partially reusable launch systems.

In the end, the Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy WILL be more expensive than advertised, but it will still be less than the Shuttle System.

 

[Spiritwalker]

Knowing their age and the risks with age and outdated technology, I still possibilities for their continued use. I see that there are many changes that can be done to the shuttles technologically as well as structurally. Unfortunately, the powers that be are going to shutdown these spacecrafts before the next space craft are ready for use and these newer craft cannot do what the shuttles can but they don't even offer a way to replace them with similar craft. With the world economy in the shape we are told it is in too many of our future endeavors in space are in doubt and are at multiple risks. This NASA is now only a shell of its former shelf thanks to cut-backs by government officials sending NASA's funds to other projects which include questionable ones.
I grew up with the space race when, even as a child, I thought that it should have been an international endeavor. We as a people, a species of a small planet, have made big advances in a minuscule amount of time. Maybe it is time for the "private sector" should make the next leaps, because it appears that governments and some people have lost the drive, the curiosity, and maybe the nerve which have made our species advance so quickly in relation the time we have started. I acknowledge the risk factors are there and have to be figured in and death can be a deterrent to advancement, but even though I do not wish for anyone's unnecessary death we must press forward lest we become stagnant or ever begin to move backward.
Now someone will say something about there wars, terrorism, and the imbalance we have caused to the environment are more important issues. They are important indeed, but we are the ones who caused them and we need to fix them together as one people. This does not mean we give up one for another but to keep on working on all of them including our shuttles with the rest of the space program. For those who wish to detract me need to know that I am a veteran from a long line of warriors, a person who strongly cares for this planet we call home and that I care for all my relations throughout the world as we are all one people. Peace and Blessings, Spiritwalker.