POLL: Should NASA Retire its Space Shuttle Fleet?

[daveklingler]

The decisions to end Shuttle flights and allow Station to re-enter the atmosphere in 2015 were made five years ago. The Shuttle production lines started shutting down a couple of years ago, and at this point no reasonable amount of money could keep the Shuttle flying. Shuttle is $2.2B a year with zero flights, and it goes up from there. After thirty years it's become a pretty good vehicle, but the fact that we buy parts and launches from a single bidder have made it wicked expensive.

The Russians charge us $50M per astronaut (and that after raising the price a couple of times) versus a little over $1B (real cost) per shuttle flight. Virtually all research into long-duration spaceflight, inflatable habitats, nuclear rockets and anything else connected with Mars or advanced concepts was shut down to leave money for Constellation. Further still, Ares I would be flying astronauts around 2015 at the earliest, with infusions, the same time Station would be making its fiery re-entry, leaving Ares I nowhere to go until around 2025 when Ares V would begin making its first flights.

Earlier this year Dick Shelby inserted a line in the budget that forbids NASA to use any government funding to begin the process of shutting down Constellation, which means NASA is forced to continue development and test flights on Ares I. That means another flight of the Ares I-X, which uses a different casing and different propellant grain from Ares I, making it basically a rocket-shaped Potemkin village, the strangest thing I've ever read in the entire history of the space program. Ares I-X is a mockup to make people think that NASA had enough money to start working on Constellation before shuttle flights ended. Egad.

I'm a space history buff, and I've concluded that the Obama proposed space program is the best program ever proposed, ever, including during the Apollo years. Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan got up in front of Congress a couple of days ago and talked about what a tragedy it was, and how poorly-advised Obama was, but then in the middle of it Armstrong pointed out that Soyuz's 274 straight successful launches weren't a bad record, not bad at all. Gene Cernan went off on Orion, calling it crazy because it couldn't even land on land when the Russians had been doing it since the sixties, and he didn't know much about the budget, but couldn't they find some way of funding Shuttle for a few more years and accelerating Constellation. Augustine pointed out that when they'd done a poll asking people how excited they were that the U.S. was going back to the Moon in ten to fifteen years, people yawned, and he had no confidence that Congress would continue to fund Constellation at sufficient levels even for the next few years at that level of boredom. As a tool to inspire young people to get into math and science, the Space Station, asteroids and Mars fared a lot better.

Unfortunately, they were all three trying to explain all of this to Kay Bailey Hutchison, who made a short-but-impassioned speech about how the space program invented the MRI and it enabled us to do pinpoint strikes on terrorists in Pakistan, that she was going to do her utmost to make sure Obama didn't get in the way of the space program, and that she had to leave early for a vote.

Here are some of the technologies proposed in Obama's 2011 budget:

In-Orbit Propellant Transfer and Storage - the ability to refuel in orbit
Lightweight/Inflatable Modules - lunar and Mars (and Phobos) basing and big new space station modules
Automated/Autonomous Rendezvous and Docking - easier cargo deliveries and in-orbit assembly
Closed-loop life support systems - long duration habitats
Aerocapture and/or entry, descent and landing - another way of returning humans and cargo to the Earth
In Situ Resource Utilization - developing resources from the Moon, Mars and Asteroids
Advanced In-Space Propulsion - specifically mentions nuclear thermal rockets, best choice for manned Mars missions
Extravehicular Activity Demonstrations - new suits!
Radiation Shielding Technology - something you never see mentioned but a very tall pole
Human-Robotic Interactive Systems Demonstrations
High-Efficiency Space Power Systems - Phew, finally.
Entry, Descent and Landing technology
High Performance Materials and Structures

Many of these items were discontinued to free money for Constellation. If you're a fan of space, you need to know this.

 

[Ziggy74]

RETIRE THEM FOR SURE! The shuttles are a space joke with a zillion dollar price tag. Atlantis is flying, what, mission 32. They were supposed to be good for 100 missions each. We were supposed to launch one every other week when they came out. They never lived up to promises and are dangerous riding piggy back, period. Poor design and only affordable to a country that has no money because of teabaggers.

 

[job1207]

If you remember, the Delta Clipper and other SSTO X projects WERE supposed to replace the STS. They were started in the 90's but proved to be engineering folly, at least as SSTOs. A LOT of money went into these craft.

Then a lot of money went into the Ares 1, FAR more money then is going to Spacex, actually.

It is not like NASA stopped throwing money at the issue. They got off track, and now there will be a hiatus, while the Falcon 9 proves itself, or one of the ULA rockets is modified for human use. Falcon 9 was built with THIS task in mind, while the ULA rockets were not.

I would not bet against Musk and his people.

BHO is right to go after the NEXT generation of technology. I NEVER want to see another rocket built from scratch with 40's technology. Seriously. ( At least the interplanetary part )

Dusting off the Saturn V, upgrading the electronics, and then putting a state of the art interplanetary rocket on top of it is fine with me. Anything else should be a waste of money. If the Falcon 9 Heavy can do it, than fine.

Using a Saturn V lifter to go to LEO is also a waste of money. That is essentially what the STS did.

 

[Muldoon]

The enemy of good is better...
That being written, most of the intelligent posters here have it right!
The impetus to retire the only three means we have to travel into space is not valid until we have a replacement that has proven itself better in every way...c'mon political and government leaders of the USA...why must we constantly wait for you to rediscover the wheel (and basic management techniques)???

 

[Valcan]

Guys think about it this way.

Average price of a Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyer when built is 800,000 dollars. That is spent over 2 to 3 yrs time that there building it.

Your spending more than the price of a brand new flight II burke every time you launch.....which is every 2 to 3 months or so.

Or another way to think of it. The cost for cleaning up just the nashville area from the resent flood is 1.5 billon.

THAT is a insanely large amount of money essentually burned up.

You will hem and haw and get your way AGAIN! for what....3 yrs? 4yrs? then it will happen and there wont be a second program. We will be discussing why there isnt a replacment for the space shuttle when its shut down and the US REALLy loses its own access to space.

Cheaper, safer, faster American access to space is more important than a fetish for a vehicle that is too expensive to maintain, operate and fly. Is more important than a congressmens votes for job security.
------------------------------------------------
There should be a shuttle II

All it should be is a light taxi for people or cargo to and from orbit. No missions to the moon for it.

Make the mission space modular. One modual for cargo transportation, not alot very light amount. Another for moving 5 to 6 people into orbit to a point where it can either be met by a tug or dock with the ISS.

Note cargo only things which cannot be done a normal CHEAP rocket used.

Large cargo can be sent up commercial or by a heavy/super heavy conventional rocket.

No month long stays (we have stations now dont need em). No freight train size loads. NO TILES!!!!!!!!!! :evil:

This could be done cheaper and FAR faster than a shuttle.

No one is saying the shuttles arent great. No one is saying they should be replaced only by rockets (or well few) but that the vehicles themselves just arent worth the price in oney or lives (and yes one can still crash no matter what anyone says or does).

Use as much safe proven tech as possible where the +/- dont become to great where new tech is used.

 

[Valcan]

And be honest how many of ya'll voted more than once :lol:

 

[daveklingler]

...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

Howard, back in 2005 I was chilled when I saw this decision being discussed, but it was made anyway, and the production lines have since been shut down. Back then, I was glad to see us making plans to go back to the Moon, but the "gap" (as it came to be called) seemed to me to be a bad idea. Today, the gap has turned into a public relations nightmare. The bad decision of five years ago has drawn attention to all of NASA's recent failures, failures that are not really NASA's fault. As you know, the "gap" came about because at the same time NASA was ordered to go back to the Moon it was given a budget cut. As years passed without any restoration of the budget and very little work on Ares I,

The decision of Griffin to go with Constellation is very much a NASA-style decision. It's big and expensive and it's turned out to be essentially a non-starter. The "shuttle-derivative" Constellation uses no Shuttle technology. It has different engines, different thrust structures, and all new vehicles. Orion is every bit the wart that Gene Cernan said it is; it takes us back to a bygone era and because it's overweight it has to land on water. What's left is Altair, which hasn't been started yet. All this time, all that research and progress, and we can't build a reusable vehicle. And we can't cover that gap.

 

[illinoisfas]

no way, should the shuttle fleet be retired, especially now since we have no low-orbit manned program on the planning board... A HUGE MISTAKE. the best of the fleet remains and have all been updated from previous mission experience, both successes and failures. if nothing else, just pare the pace of shuttle missions down to 2-3 per year until there is a better plan nearly up and running. the USAF kept the B-52s flying or in service for over 60 years, in fact there are some still flying now. the people who design and build our amazing flying machines always over-engineer their products- so their service/performance is always reliable and often above expectation... surely we can keep these remaining shuttles going another 3-5 years.

 

[Valcan]

no way, should the shuttle fleet be retired, especially now since we have no low-orbit manned program on the planning board... A HUGE MISTAKE. the best of the fleet remains and have all been updated from previous mission experience, both successes and failures. if nothing else, just pare the pace of shuttle missions down to 2-3 per year until there is a better plan nearly up and running. the USAF kept the B-52s flying or in service for over 60 years, in fact there are some still flying now. the people who design and build our amazing flying machines always over-engineer their products- so their service/performance is always reliable and often above expectation... surely we can keep these remaining shuttles going another 3-5 years.

Yea theres a huge difference. B-52 is a bomb truck there isnt a whole lot stress. Also there are alot of spare parts and there very cheap. The Buffs are great at what they do and far cheaper than a B-2.

Yes we do over engineer things but. It for me really isnt about the safety problems i figure they have worked out alot of those. ITS COST.

To continue flying for more yrs we have to start up the production lines which means more money. Wheres that money come from? The projects we need for the future. Thats not even counting the Billion dollars 1,000,000,000 we spend every launch.

So in the end its not ability that cancels the shuttle and warants a replacement (though multiple systems could be done cheaper and quicker and safer than a shuttle launch) its the simple cost factor.

Unless Nasa gets say a 20% raise in budget your esentually doing what every administration has done for the last 15 yrs. Lay it on the next guy. Which basicaly just screws over Nasa, the american people, and future generations.

 

[scottb50]

To continue flying for more yrs we have to start up the production lines which means more money. Wheres that money come from? The projects we need for the future. Thats not even counting the Billion dollars 1,000,000,000 we spend every launch.

I would say keep flying until only one is available, then stop. It would be a waste of time to build more and better to build a replacement. Easily another few missions. Even today's news reports allude to further use, so it might not be grounded quite yet. Personally I would like to see the last flyable vehicle in a museum, after it comes back. Hopefully that leaves two others in non-flight worthy condition.

The facilities for Shuttle are what are most important for a next generation, the Mobile Launch Pads Assembly Building and the basic infra-structure could continue for any number of years with evolutionary vehicles.

As far as starting production lines that isn't happening. A lot of components can be replaced fairly easily and the basic airframe seems to be holding up well better then expected.

Probably a lot better to replace it with a vehicle that could use most of it's facilities and increase safety and reliability. A few more flight would be fine, as long as that led to a good alternative.

 

[CapitalsFanatic]

Some great arguments pro and con in the previous posts. Overall, it is probably time to retire the Space Shuttle fleet. They are now 30 years old, the technology is old, and the fleet's age brings hazards and risks of its own. Having said that, is "NOW" the time to retire the fleet; absolutely not! It is generally a good idea to have something ready and waiting to step into the role before retiring the only manned spacecraft system you have.
The U.S. answer, rather, is to abrogate its preeminent lead in manned spaceflight and rely on Russia to get our astronauts and scientists into space. Is no one bothered by that?? We are planning to rely on another nation for $51 million tickets (per astronaut) into space; a nation that could pull the plug, so to speak, at its political whim---on a moments notice. And what if they decide to pull that plug while we have astronauts in space? The U.S. plan to rely on Russia for the next 5 years, while we try and figure out what to do next, is no plan at all. It is a disgrace.
Since Eugene Cernan made that last footprint on the Moon, we have done nothing but take one giant step after another BACKWARDS. Yes, I know, we have ISS and other stuff, but all in low-earth orbit. No return to the moon or beyond. And what is our plan now? Oh...we'll go to Mars or to an asteroid. What we should be doing is returning to the Moon to re-energize, or re-invent as necessary, that capability with new technology. The bottom line is that the U.S. has no real objective in space. We haven't a clue what we want to do or how to do it. But we'll retire the Shuttle for political expedience and shelf our only manned space transportation system. Brilliant!
The Apollo astronauts who risked there lives 40 years ago to help put us on the Moon must be just shaking their heads in disbelief. As for the Russians, they're probably getting a good laugh out of our flailing to.

 

[Rathe]

After browsing the posts, I agree to some extent that the shuttles probably should be retired. . .

Yet where is the replacement vehicle?

Some folks out there keep saying manned space flight is a waste, yet what I don't understand is how folks can really say that.

People are many, many, many more times more able to adjust to problems -vs. - some remote or programmed robot. . . We are also capable of adjusting on the fly should we be in the middle of something and see it isn’t going the way we believe it should. And this will continue to be true until someone comes out with a AI that is self thinking and place it in a vehicle where it can maintain it's self as well as autonomously accomplish various tasks . . . What I'm saying is while we put various autonomous machinery up in space, at some point in time that machinery fails due to a variety of things.

Where do I see the failure? Well the best I can do is speculate. . .

1. Part of the problem is with resources. . . Political backing both internal and external. Money, interest, and lack of effort. Materials? They are not the problem. . . we seem to have plenty.

2. I suspect the problem also rests within the inability of folks to take EVEN SOME RISK these days. Folks seem to spend a lot of time on the bench testing every aspect of objects instead of actually using them. Which tells me that either these new platforms just are not ready for space, or maybe just maybe folks have become so comfortable with just testing and thus taking little to no risk that efficient practical use is just tossed out the window. I’m not knocking the needs for safety, but just examine what the Russian Space Program is doing. . . And look at where our coin is going to go to keep the space station supplied. . . (They are the only other country out there regularly sending manned space flights.)
We seem to be pushing some kind of protected cradle to grave society. And it’s unrealistic and doesn’t exist folks. . .

3. Job security and blunting of others efforts also exists to a great extent out there in a variety of areas, people in this economy I’ve seen have done a lot to each other to keep themselves in this or that job or even justify their job. There is a lot of wasted effort in this area to a great extent. (The reason: regardless if anyone wants to acknowledge it or not boils down to fear and insecurity with a healthy dose of ego.) If you don’t believe me. . . Heh just look at those in political power, examples are in the news everyday. In fact the news itself (is a political animal,) also blunts efforts (whether you agree with them or not) but awards certain points of view.

4. Varying leadership, or changing direction, clear direction, or even lack thereof. Waste exists there to a enormous extent I suspect, and this fault doesn’t lie entirely within NASA’s management. But lies with members in political power up in Washington. Senators and other members have used military bases closings for years as bargaining chips for this bill or that one. And contracting companies have fallen or risen under these efforts as well. And I suspect this has to a great extent effected the development of a vehicle.

5. External agencies influences. . . Whether or not many realize this, the Air Force had a great deal of influence on what vehicle NASA was going to use back when the shuttle program was first started. They most likely have their hands in the next vehicle development as well. Also one could include the influences of contractors as well.

6. This is one I hate to say, but. . . After digging though the various stuff on their hiring practices, I’m left to wonder if they are paying out the nose to have highly educated people doing mundane tasks. Tasks that could be supervised by someone highly educated but done by people who are not, and thusly paid less. I guess I get the feeling of exclusiveness going on out there rather than inclusiveness . . . (Maybe I’m wrong but it’s like hunch or a itch one can’t scratch you know?) I’ve seen this in other agencies in the government and have heard the excuse ‘we want the best people’, but then turn around and assign these folks lesser tasks. In some agencies they seemed to have raised the bar on temporary jobs that makes me wonder how anyone in those jobs can pay off their education expenses. Don’t believe me do some digging and check out the OPM . . . And gov’t hiring sites. . . (no do your own digging I had to. . J)

I also hate to say this but I suspect all of us would still be in Europe and airplane development would have never happened if we had these attitudes we find ourselves with today.

Again all of this this is only speculation on my part, and I’m not saying this fits every aspect of NASA. And regardless of you feelings on this, when these vehicles are retired we will find ourselves in a situation where we don’t have a replacement. And will rely on someone else to get us up there until a replacement is found. . . Or if one ever is. (given the way Obama seems to be going with things.) I suspect he is going to have the Russians fly us up there for sometime to come.

 

[EarthlingX]

The brilliant idea to shut down Shuttle in 2005 was similar as if Russians cancelled Soyuz, because it's too old, without replacement.

Just in case someone could still come up with a solution, they cut effective NASA budget to half, and then started complaining about how much it costs, and how nothing is being done. Of course, they shut down every advanced program possible, and disabled labs to do anything by budget cuts.

Same people now want to keep this death to the human space flight in USA alive, with a lot of help from various media which insists to be blind to facts, and keep following that hollow commercial.

Shuttles should've been upgraded and evolved, replaced with successor, and not replaced with a remake of a Wan Hu contraption.

In any case, there would be at least a 2 years gap, and Shuttle needs to fly at least 5 times per year, to begin to make sense. Money for restarting closed production would be better spent on upgrades and evolution.
Plug RS-68 in the old bird, replace TPS, computers, drop SRBs - comes first to mind.

Who profits from all of this ?

 

[garyegray]

I dont like the wording of the poll, so I did not vote. While I think it is time to retire the Shuttle, I do not like the wording, "a good junking" - to me - that is disrespectful of a program with many more successes than failures.

The Shuttle is a fantastic technology and it will probably not be equaled again in our lifetime. However, it is also very dangerous with no launch escape capability for the astronauts and it is vulnerable to destruction on reentry if there is tile damage. Granted, the later problem seems to have been addressed post-Columbia.

I think in retrospect, the cancellation of Constellation will be seen as a huge mistake. The Ares V vehicle concept could have taken us to the Moon, Mars and beyond. I never did like Ares I and think the Orion should have been launched on a Delta IV Heavy.

 

[NelsonBridwell]

The shuttles have 2 major safety-related design issues:
(1) the total lack of a launch escape system, which probably would have saved the crew of Challenger, and
(2) a fragile Thermal Protection System that is put at risk with every launch because of the sidemount design, which doomed the crew of Columbia.

In addition, maintenance of the shuttle is overly labor-intensive, which is why shuttle retirement is going to have such a major jobs impact at KSC.

Although the shuttle does have unique advantages in terms of downmass and landing, it does not have GEO capability, let alone beyond LEO capability, and does not provide NASA with the needed heavy lift capability. In fact, it's LEO payload is no more than an Ares I.

We need a design that we can use for the next 50 years, and that will provide a useful foundation for lunar and Mars operations.

 

[misner2]

There isn't any difference between retiring them now or two years from now. In fact, I'm willing to bet they have enough
spare parts to last much longer than that. This is about managers wanting to use the money for something else. A president with short sightedness, lack of direction. Congress with it's in ability to make decisions. Politics as usual. so on and so on.
If we had a president with leadership, direction, funding we'd be on Mars by the turn of the decade. Think of the technology that would come out of that. What a boon for America that would be. Instead we are eating socialism three
meals a day. Chow down.
dan

 

[Valcan]

To continue flying for more yrs we have to start up the production lines which means more money. Wheres that money come from? The projects we need for the future. Thats not even counting the Billion dollars 1,000,000,000 we spend every launch.

I would say keep flying until only one is available, then stop. It would be a waste of time to build more and better to build a replacement. Easily another few missions. Even today's news reports allude to further use, so it might not be grounded quite yet. Personally I would like to see the last flyable vehicle in a museum, after it comes back. Hopefully that leaves two others in non-flight worthy condition.

The facilities for Shuttle are what are most important for a next generation, the Mobile Launch Pads Assembly Building and the basic infra-structure could continue for any number of years with evolutionary vehicles.

As far as starting production lines that isn't happening. A lot of components can be replaced fairly easily and the basic airframe seems to be holding up well better then expected.

Probably a lot better to replace it with a vehicle that could use most of it's facilities and increase safety and reliability. A few more flight would be fine, as long as that led to a good alternative.

I dont disagree with you there its that what NO one seems to be saying here is that if you keep the shuttle flying another 4 to 5 yrs your either going to have to take it from many places its needed or increase the budget. The budget needs to increase either way.

I say keep em a few more yrs (be very, very careful) but also increase the budget by well at least 3-5% and begin research and development for a small shuttle like vehicle for surface to orbit transport or people and LIGHT! cargo.

And remember the tiles are in your head we have much better systems now.

 

[Technomad]

...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

Howard, back in 2005 I was chilled when I saw this decision being discussed, but it was made anyway, and the production lines have since been shut down. Back then, I was glad to see us making plans to go back to the Moon, but the "gap" (as it came to be called) seemed to me to be a bad idea. Today, the gap has turned into a public relations nightmare. The bad decision of five years ago has drawn attention to all of NASA's recent failures, failures that are not really NASA's fault. As you know, the "gap" came about because at the same time NASA was ordered to go back to the Moon it was given a budget cut. As years passed without any restoration of the budget and very little work on Ares I,

The decision of Griffin to go with Constellation is very much a NASA-style decision. It's big and expensive and it's turned out to be essentially a non-starter. The "shuttle-derivative" Constellation uses no Shuttle technology. It has different engines, different thrust structures, and all new vehicles. Orion is every bit the wart that Gene Cernan said it is; it takes us back to a bygone era and because it's overweight it has to land on water. What's left is Altair, which hasn't been started yet. All this time, all that research and progress, and we can't build a reusable vehicle. And we can't cover that gap.

Thanks for your comments. One of the things I hated about the aerospace industry(and one of the reasons I left it) is what I perceived as the bias against evolutionary development. Every program seeks to be a new, dramatic start instead of a natural extension. There have been proposals on the drawing board for years about how the shuttle technology could be used to develop a heavy lift vehicle and a seperate manned reusable vehicle. But nooooooooooooo! Now we are going to take giant steps backward to capsule technology and water landings. And if they trash the space station as planned in 2015, we won't even have an LEO destination to go to by the time the next US manned vehicle is ready to fly. Who is in charge of promoting this throwaway attitude? They should be rounded up and put out of OUR misery.

I saw "Mission To Mars" for the umpteenth time last night. I can't describe how sad it makes me feel thinking about the fact that I probably won't live long enough to see humanity set foot on another planet. Well, maybe science will find a way for me to live to 150 with a sound mind. So I guess there is hope. :roll:

 

[sftommy]

The United States will be a weaker nation if shuttle is cancelled.

The Obama-Bolden NASA budget surrenders a unique capability among world nations. It makes NASA immediately a less capable agency and the United States a less capable nation.

Cancellation of Constellation completes that surrender and affirms that that US weakness is recognized and accepted by this administration.

Then again, the last two decades of space history suggests the US will spend the development dollars and other nations will reap those benefits by utilizing those technologies to launch more cheaply.

 

[dssray]

I think it's criminal to leave the US dependent on other nations for manned spaceflight. Until we have our own NASA or commercial manned space vehicles available, we should keep the shuttles availble if needed.

 

[rockett]

The United States will be a weaker nation if shuttle is cancelled.

The Obama-Bolden NASA budget surrenders a unique capability among world nations. It makes NASA immediately a less capable agency and the United States a less capable nation.

Cancellation of Constellation completes that surrender and affirms that that US weakness is recognized and accepted by this administration.

Correction: The United States IS a weaker nation BECAUSE the shuttle is cancelled. (Since we, among all the major powers on this dirtball, now have no HSF capability.)

Then again, the last two decades of space history suggests the US will spend the development dollars and other nations will reap those benefits by utilizing those technologies to launch more cheaply.

I hate to be a pessimist, but until we, as a country really care about human spaceflight more than the latest gadget, or social networking fad, I only see us continuing that downhill slide. For instance:
Aging NASA Labs Need $2 Billion Makeover
http://www.space.com/news/nasa-research-labs-makeover-100513.html

It's all about priorities, and it starts with each individual in this country. Until there is a large scale grass roots movement, the politicians will care more about their next election than this country's leadership in spaceflight.

 

[rockett]

I think it's criminal to leave the US dependent on other nations for manned spaceflight. Until we have our own NASA or commercial manned space vehicles available, we should keep the shuttles availble if needed.

Yes it is a national shame, and yes, we should have kept them flying. NASA studies say the they are perfectly capable through at least 2020.

What's REALLY embarassing though, is that we will be paying for taxi service on a spacecraft that first flew 44 years ago...

 

[vulture4]

>>(1) the total lack of a launch escape system, which probably would have saved the crew of Challenger, and
. That was 23 years ago, and the problem has never recurred. It hardly seems reasonable to ground the Shuttle now. The problem that destroyed Challenger was fixed by the next flight. In half a century of spaceflight, no LAS has ever been used in flight.

A recent Airbus crash killed hundreds because of a serious design problem. The type was grounded for only a few days. Cautions were issued, but the problem does involve some risk. Eventually it will be corrected in the design, but tens of thousands are at risk every day in the interim, and there will be tens of thousands of flights before engineering controls are implemented. The passengers don't even worry about it. The Shuttle would not be flying today except that an understanding of the problem has made it possible to fly in reasonable safety, as the past five years have demonstrated.

>>(2) a fragile Thermal Protection System that is put at risk with every launch because of the sidemount design, which doomed the crew of Columbia.
Again, the problem was corrected by the next flight. It does not make sense to argue that the system cannot work safely when it has worked safely for five years. STS-132 shows NO detectable foam loss and so far no tile damage has been detected either.

 

[paulbee]

I oppose retiring the Shuttle fleet without having a replacement first. It is intolerable to leave America without a serious and reliable independent space capability.

I rue the day when we have to depend on the Russians or the Euros for our space needs.

Shame!

 

[ionjet]

Here's an idea.... with all the sustainability mindset these days how about converting the shuttle for some other task(s). Engineers could probably plan a couple of safety systems for the astronauts and convert their interiors.

Recreational flights.
re-equip the shuttle with ?alternative technologies? for earth science/atmospheric missions.

I am sure there are a thousand and one uses for all the vehicles

Collect space debris.