POLL: Should NASA Retire its Space Shuttle Fleet?

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

POLL: Should NASA Retire its Space Shuttle Fleet?

  • YES - The three space shuttles are old, dangerous and outdated technology in need of a good junkin

    Votes: 27 30.0%
  • On the Fence - The shuttles are old, but also icons of spaceflight. Let's see what the Obama admini

    Votes: 6 6.7%
  • Absolutely not! - Despite their age, NASA's three space shuttles are marvels of human spaceflight. A

    Votes: 57 63.3%

  • Total voters
    90
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Again, reality check time. The shuttle program has been shut down. It's over. Finito.

It would cost more that the entire annual NASA budget to revive it for even another 2 flights.

The hardware doesn't exist. The manufacturing facilities to create the hardware don't exist. The skilled workers needed to do it have been furloughed. It's OVER!!!
It will be a miracle if Congress approves the administration's higher budget as it is...doubling it is so far out of reality it's insane!!!


Sheesh!!
 
I

ionjet

Guest
It was just a thought not to be subjected to debate. If the money was there go for it obviously it isnt
 
D

david_ballard10

Guest
I think the shuttle program should be continued and any updates that need to be done should be as the shuttles are very vital to the u.s.a. and we should not pay russia for our transportation we need to be self sufficient!
 
T

TheRevRob714

Guest
"NO" they should not be retired! If anything we should build new one's and update them with the lastest technology so that they are even safer than they have been.
 
P

peteym5

Guest
I believe in the option of building an updated space shuttle program. We know the concept works and where the flaws are. If new shuttles are built from scratch with modern materials and technology, it probably can achieve what was envisioned in the 1970s as a cost effective means to get into space. It can be made more capable as in going into higher orbits. I am not going to go as far as leaving orbit.

The Solid Rocket Boosters are proven to be useful since they were upgraded after the Challenger incident. The Ares and other proposed space crafts are just using larger versions. I always say it is not that difficult to build a main fuel tank that is insulated and won't fly apart on the way up. This can be a contractor issue and NASA probably need to switch over to someone who won't cut corners and make something that works.

For new orbiters, they probably can use a carbon fiber skin instead of all aluminum since that can be made more tolerable to heat and stresses of launching and re-entry. I personally would prefer if they went for a more solid heat shield or composed of less pieces instead of those tiles that are glued on. Use a jigsaw like pieces that lock together so if something hit one, it won't fly off and be held in place. That would make a heat shield more tolerable.

Why not have 2 or 3 versions of the orbiter. Make one with extra crew facilities, and a smaller one for different missions. A smaller version can be pushed further out into space or just be used to ferry crews to the ISS. Of course you can just use that new space plane for that also. Extra crew facilities allow for longer stays in orbit.

I do favor extending the existing shuttle program by one or two flights to maintain a means to get into space if needed and the US needs to have something in case there is a disaster with the ISS.
 
R

rockett

Guest
While I personally think cancelling the shuttle at this time was a HUGE mistake, as meteor_wayne said earlier, it's already done.

What we all need to remember here, is we (the American people) voted the politicians into office that shut it down. It follows that we (the American people) voted to SHUT DOWN the shuttle program, before a replacement was operational.

You may say that "NOT ME! I didn't vote for those people!", but the reality is if not you personally, your friends, co-workers, family, or neighbors did. I'm sure everyone that has posted on this topic knows somebody that helped vote them in office. So what did we as individuals do to educate or encourage them to vote otherwise? I suspect for the majority it was nothing. So in a sense, we all let it happen.

Did any of us raise issues or ask hard questions while they were campaigning? Or did we just accept the platitudes and vague reassurances they offered when asked.

We might as well have voted for them ourselves, and voted to shut down the shuttle as well.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
peteym5":1qo72bfw said:
I believe in the option of building an updated space shuttle program. We know the concept works and where the flaws are. If new shuttles are built from scratch with modern materials and technology, it probably can achieve what was envisioned in the 1970s as a cost effective means to get into space. It can be made more capable as in going into higher orbits. I am not going to go as far as leaving orbit.

The Solid Rocket Boosters are proven to be useful since they were upgraded after the Challenger incident. The Ares and other proposed space crafts are just using larger versions. I always say it is not that difficult to build a main fuel tank that is insulated and won't fly apart on the way up. This can be a contractor issue and NASA probably need to switch over to someone who won't cut corners and make something that works.

For new orbiters, they probably can use a carbon fiber skin instead of all aluminum since that can be made more tolerable to heat and stresses of launching and re-entry. I personally would prefer if they went for a more solid heat shield or composed of less pieces instead of those tiles that are glued on. Use a jigsaw like pieces that lock together so if something hit one, it won't fly off and be held in place. That would make a heat shield more tolerable.

Why not have 2 or 3 versions of the orbiter. Make one with extra crew facilities, and a smaller one for different missions. A smaller version can be pushed further out into space or just be used to ferry crews to the ISS. Of course you can just use that new space plane for that also. Extra crew facilities allow for longer stays in orbit.

I do favor extending the existing shuttle program by one or two flights to maintain a means to get into space if needed and the US needs to have something in case there is a disaster with the ISS.

I would have to agre it would be better to start from a known point then to continuously re-invent the wheel. Obviously a lot of things with the Shuttle could have been done differently and better from the beginning but the pressure from this group and that lead to the final system. I've always considered the Shuttles to be prototypes which supposes you use the prototype to develop the actual product, if that were the case Shuttle 1.5, which is where we are now would evolve into 2.0.

That this couldn't still happen is still open but continuing to fly the prototypes as if they are production models doesn't make a lot of sense. Either way the decision has been made long ago and nothing can change that.
 
P

pathfinder_01

Guest
vulture4":1yeck7eb said:
>>(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.

This is also a reason why they should be retired. There are hundreds of airbus's flying and thousands of other kinds of airplanes. Loss of a single airbus does not impede air travel. Loss of a shuttle shuts down the program and loss of 3 ends it.

I am a shuttle hugging person who thinks they are the best spacecraft ever built. Even so I have to be realistic. There are no more shuttles being built today. I wish they had taken wiser action toward replacing it. I wish that the next craft would land on a runway and I don’t care if it takes 200 years to get back to the moon. However NASA started cancelling the program in 2005 and at the moment there is only 1 flight capable eternal tank left and 3 tanks that could given significant time be ready for flight. It will take 2 years and an infusion of cash to restart the program. This extra infusion of cash and paying the shuttle workers to hang around being less productive than usual is politically distasteful.

At best at the moment you could only fly 2 flights a year for the next two years before running out of tanks. This is a big reduction in flight rate, while the fixed costs of the shuttle would remain the same. In addition one shuttle Atlantis will be in need of its orbiter maintenance period (a down time of a year when they take the shuttle apart and inspect it.). In order to make these flights happen Atlantis would have to act as parts donor. This is not a good position to be in. And the fourth flight could require Soyuz to act as a LON craft!

You will need even more cash or break NASA rules to get Atlantis back to flight ready status after this flight. There are no missions planned after 2010, so you need more funding for missions. Basically the shuttle program was left in a fouled up state by the last administrations failed dash to the moon. When constellation was running late, they did not slow the shuttle shutdown.

Flying the shuttle in this state is a questionable use of money. It is not a matter of patching up an old car. It is a matter of getting funding for missions, parts, possibly fixing Atlantis and paying high fix costs to get a much lower flight rate than usual. It is like paying the car note, taxes and insurance on an old car that needs major repairs and you are out of a job—Something’s gota give. Nasa’s budget will not support it, getting a replacement, r/d work and the ISS.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
>>However NASA started cancelling the program in 2005

If this decision was wrong, we need to point it out. I believe it can be corrected; if we actually cancel Constellation instead of ramming ahead with it we could certainly restart production. but even if it is too late it's important to be clear on whether the decision to cancel the Shuttle at this point was correct or in error. Otherwise we can never improve our strategy for the future.

>>and at the moment there is only 1 flight capable eternal tank left and 3 tanks that could given significant time be ready for flight. It will take 2 years and an infusion of cash to restart the program. This extra infusion of cash and paying the shuttle workers to hang around being less productive than usual is politically distasteful.<<

The lack of productivity trends to be at the management level; most of the engineers and techs would jump at the chance to begin applying their decades of experience to planning new reusable launch vehicle technology demonstrations. Most of the Shuttle shops and labs could be working on RLV technology development in weeks if they had a down period. On the other hand if we fire them all (the current plan) their corporate knowledge (person-centuries of experience in maintaining RLVs) will be lost permanently and in short order.

The Ares-I production line has yet to be started. The alternative is to pour the cash into the Constellation program to build an entirely new (but obsolete) production line for an unending series of "test flights" of 40-year-old technology. Should we pour money into restarting something that works or building a whole new program that, unfortunately, produces no practical benefits?
 
R

rockett

Guest
MeteorWayne":2v5g1x41 said:
Again, reality check time. The shuttle program has been shut down. It's over. Finito.

It would cost more that the entire annual NASA budget to revive it for even another 2 flights.

The hardware doesn't exist. The manufacturing facilities to create the hardware don't exist. The skilled workers needed to do it have been furloughed. It's OVER!!!
It will be a miracle if Congress approves the administration's higher budget as it is...doubling it is so far out of reality it's insane!!!


Sheesh!!
I'm afraid you are right Wayne. If anyone needs confirmation of that, just read this article about layoffs. I'm sure there have been others elsewhere.

Rocket contractor lays off more engineers
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37325443/ns/technology_and_science-space/
 
R

rockett

Guest
vulture4":2qk244rh said:
>>However NASA started cancelling the program in 2005

If this decision was wrong, we need to point it out. I believe it can be corrected; if we actually cancel Constellation instead of ramming ahead with it we could certainly restart production. but even if it is too late it's important to be clear on whether the decision to cancel the Shuttle at this point was correct or in error. Otherwise we can never improve our strategy for the future.

>>and at the moment there is only 1 flight capable eternal tank left and 3 tanks that could given significant time be ready for flight. It will take 2 years and an infusion of cash to restart the program. This extra infusion of cash and paying the shuttle workers to hang around being less productive than usual is politically distasteful.<<

The lack of productivity trends to be at the management level; most of the engineers and techs would jump at the chance to begin applying their decades of experience to planning new reusable launch vehicle technology demonstrations. Most of the Shuttle shops and labs could be working on RLV technology development in weeks if they had a down period. On the other hand if we fire them all (the current plan) their corporate knowledge (person-centuries of experience in maintaining RLVs) will be lost permanently and in short order.

Hopefully some will find their way to other projects, like the ones the Air Force seems to be pursuing.
This is the RFP for the Air Force Pathfinder project, which is aimed at RLVs:
https://www.fbo.gov/download/3bd/3b...thfinder_Pre-solicitation_Notice-20100405.doc
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
I wonder if this stupid debate will end after the last shuttle flies this year (or early next year) or if 5 years from now people will still be beating the long dead and buried horse...
 
R

rockett

Guest
MeteorWayne":32rusflt said:
I wonder if this stupid debate will end after the last shuttle flies this year (or early next year) or if 5 years from now people will still be beating the long dead and buried horse...
They will probably still be beating it. Look at the activity of people on this forum who still bemoan the fate of other past programs, from Apollo on up...
 
S

spacedengr

Guest
This is all moot. The point of no return for STS retirement was passed perhaps 2 years ago. Much of the STS supporting infrastructure has already been dismantled. It's all about development time and $. NASA needs the Shuttle operations $ to fund final development and test of Orion/Ares-1. There was always going to be a gap beacuse Constellation started too late. Constellation lagged further because the budget was less than promised. Now that Orion/Ares-1 is over the hump, $3B will be wasted to cancel them and start over again. This is nuts. Manned space is a long term commitment. It needs a long view (> 1 administration) and consistent funding. Changing direction at the whim of politicians will always result in $10Bs spent for 0 accomplished. Destoying a strategic national asset and thinking it can be rebuilt at the next change in direction is folly. ObamaTrek is a plan without a plan. The Road to Nowhere is paved with technology demonstration programs.
 
B

Becca137

Guest
While I strongly disagree with the retirement of the shuttles, I do understand it. They were dangerous in the first place, and we're lucky they've lasted this long. However, we do need to come up with one thing that will accomplish what we need done-which my generation won't support. Most of us don't even know the shuttles are being retired and don't care. If we retire them, it seems like we may be ending the American space program (at least, the government run portion of it). As for my generation, I'm a high school student.

As for beating the dead horse, can anyone find a live horse to beat instead?
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
I don't understand, how can you disagree with something you understand. As for the rest, look around a bit, you might find something to beat ;)

Welcome to SDC.
 
G

Georgian

Guest
Some people say that Space Shuttles are outdated; their technology is old and etc. This is true, however look at Russians! Their Soyuz spacecraft and Soyuz launch vehicle are even older, they began their performance in 1967 and by the way its first launch was catastrophic since their cosmonaut died. But Soyuz program is still operating very successfully. The Shuttles were built much later, besides if somebody thinks that Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour are old, then it is not problem, because USA can build other Shuttles, just like it built Endeavour after Challenger disaster. I, not being USA citizen was surprised and disappointed when president Obama cancelled Constellation program. This is very strange since the USA, the richest country in the world remains without its own spacecrafts and will have to deliver astronaut to ISS in Russian Soyuz spacecraft. Somehow similar situation was between 1975 and 1981 when USA did not send any astronaut to space, however this country was preparing for launching Space Shuttle program and it was clear. But now it is completely different situation, first of all Soyuz spacecrafts are much less in size and are capable to carry only three persons in space, besides the private American companies can not send astronauts into the orbit (suborbital spaceflight is completely different matter). So, to my mind cancelling Constellation program and retiring Space Shuttles is a very big mistake…………….
 
V

vulture4

Guest
The debate about Moon vs Mars vs asteroid is a false debate; all are versions of Apollo, which was canceled because it was too expensive to have any practical value. The debate about NASA vs private is also meaningless; the Ares, Delta, Atlas, and Shuttle are all built by the team of Boeing and Lockheed (BoLo) while the Falcon is built by SpaceX. They are just different companies working under NASA contracts.

The real debate is whether human spaceflight should utilize expendable vehicles or reusable vehicles. Shuttle and SpaceShip are reusable, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz, Shenzhou, Constellation, and SpaceX are expendables.

A friend sent this letter to a government official; it's a start; feel free to improve upon it if you wish. It may or may not have any effect but I think it is worth trying:

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am contacting you because the imminent cancellation of the Space Shuttle program is a serious mistake that will set back the goal of meaningful human spaceflight by decades.

After nearly 30 years, the Space Shuttle is finally flying amazingly well. Its safety, reliability, cost and performance are actually improving with every flight. No objective evidence supports the widespread claim that after 134 missions the Orbiters will suddenly turn into unreliable deathtraps.

Some see Constellation as a rebirth of the Apollo program, but they forget history. Apollo was canceled for a very good reason; human spaceflight with expendable rockets, whether the destination is the moon, an asteroid, or Mars, is much too expensive to provide any practical benefits for our country. The answer isn't to make unsubstantiated claims about the value of human spaceflight. The real answer is exactly the same as it was in 1974. To make humans productive in space we must reduce the cost of getting there, by at least a factor of ten, so that the work we can do in space is actually worth what it costs.

Surprisingly, the energy that gets us into space costs almost nothing. LOX delivered to KSC is about 60 cents a gallon, LH2 about 98 cents. Rocket fuel is actually cheaper than gasoline! The vast majority of the cost for any launch is in building a new vehicle for every mission. Consequently, the only way to significantly reduce the cost of spaceflight is to eliminate the need to assemble a new rocket for every launch. That’s why the Shuttle was built; as a major step toward the goal of making space accessible to a significant part of the human race.

Reusability works. The shuttle costs less per launch than Constellation and carries much more. Its systems have been vastly improved over the years. The last few flights have seen virtually no tile damage, and many maintenance items are still being improved to reduce cost. Bizarrely, the Shuttle is condemned as unreliable just because it has been in service 30 years. This reasoning has no basis whatsoever in reliability engineering. Rigorous engineering studies show that the reliability of launch vehicles, including the shuttle, gets better with time, not worse. The Shuttles are fully inspected and continually updated, and nothing in service or even on the drawing board can match their ability to carry seven crew and 11 tons of cargo to the ISS, plus EVA and RMS capability.

The Shuttle is much more expensive to operate than originally predicted, but this isn't because it is reusable. The problems in operational cost and safety were largely the result of one fundamental error; we had no prototypes to test the Shuttle's critical new technologies in actual repeated spaceflight before the design was finalized. Consequently design decisions were made that, in hindsight, were wrong, and ultimately proved costly in many ways.

Just ten years ago we understood this. NASA was building the X-33, X-34, X-37 and DC-X as prototypes to test critical design elements for a new generation of launch vehicles and spacecraft that would be practical, safe, and fully reusable. Yet all these programs were canceled between 2000 and 2004, not because of technical failures, but apparently due to the failure of NASA management to recognize their importance.

Most tragically, we are about to disperse forever the only workforce in the world that has hands-on experience maintaining reusable spacecraft. Their knowledge cannot be written down and recreated. These are the very people we need to build a successor to the Shuttle, because they know how to avoid its problems in a new design. Moreover, we will lose forever the real lessons of Challenger and Columbia, which are not in the volumes of findings, but in the minds of the people who learned from these tragedies how to do the job right. It is because of them that the Shuttle is safer than it has ever been, and gets safer with every flight.

Within a month demolition of the LC-39B Shuttle launch complex will begin, with the object of preparing the pad for a reinstated Constellation. This will drive a stake into the heart of Shuttle and all reusable spacecraft. Why not delay this irrevocable step? Constellation, which the administration would like to cancel, is continuing to consume a large percentage of our budget. Politically, its main selling point now seems to be that it will create some new jobs to compensate for those that will be lost when the Shuttle is junked. But obviously the best way to mitigate the massive Shuttle job losses that are about to begin is to keep the Shuttle flying until it is replaced by something better.

We made a mistake four years ago, and we are on the wrong path. Before we pass the point of no return, why not allow a real discussion of our goals? The NASA budget is stable. If we discontinue spending on Constellation as President Obama requested, we can certainly afford to continue flying Shuttle as long as we need it, with SpaceX providing backup access to ISS. We can restart the Reusable Launch Vehicle program and use the lessons of Shuttle to make the next generation of human spaceflight practical and safe. Far from being "trapped in LEO", we can use LEO as a base for a deliberate and sustainable expansion into the solar system.

Time is short. We must choose our course. Our goal should not be to make spaceflight a spectacular for a few, but rather to make it a routine destination for many.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
or in short, add at least 2 000 000 000 $/year for the Shuttle program, to the proposed NASA budget.

I doubt this can pass.

In my dreamland, NASA gets 3 000 000 000 $/year extra for upgrading the Shuttle, to the proposed NASA budget, and 3 year time line, to show something real coming out of it, and no disturbance to other new programs.

Do i have to express this money in aircraft tanker programs ? F-22 ? Need more ?
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
EarthlingX":39dh4mi1 said:
or in short, add at least 2 000 000 000 $/year for the Shuttle program, to the proposed NASA budget.

I doubt this can pass.

In my dreamland, NASA gets 3 000 000 000 $/year extra for upgrading the Shuttle, to the proposed NASA budget, and 3 year time line, to show something real coming out of it, and no disturbance to other new programs.

Do i have to express this money in aircraft tanker programs ? F-22 ? Need more ?

The shuttle needs more like 5 billion just to operate. Secondly people are going to have to stop coming up with solutions that involve spending more money. Our country with its current financial problems simply cannot afford it.
 
S

spacedengr

Guest
vulture4":1jxmoe72 said:
The debate about Moon vs Mars vs asteroid is a false debate; ... The real debate is whether human spaceflight should utilize expendable vehicles or reusable vehicles. Shuttle and SpaceShip are reusable, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz, Shenzhou, Constellation, and SpaceX are expendables.

Don't fall in love with the hardware; it's just a means to an end. It's supposed to be about the missions. Policymakers set the direction and provide the funding. Engineers set the methods, then describe the costs for executing the missions to a particular timeline. The goal is to execute the mission using the most cost-effective method that still guarantees mission success. To have a successful mission, both sides must honor their commitments. The politicians are not holding up their end.

If the politicians say "give me the system that is cheapest/fastest to develop that still provides maximum safety" you are going to get a modification of existing man-rated launcher subsystems to boost a capsule with a rocket escape system.
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
vulture4":27q3v0iw said:
The debate about Moon vs Mars vs asteroid is a false debate; all are versions of Apollo, which was canceled because it was too expensive to have any practical value. The debate about NASA vs private is also meaningless; the Ares, Delta, Atlas, and Shuttle are all built by the team of Boeing and Lockheed (BoLo) while the Falcon is built by SpaceX. They are just different companies working under NASA contracts.

The real debate is whether human spaceflight should utilize expendable vehicles or reusable vehicles. Shuttle and SpaceShip are reusable, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz, Shenzhou, Constellation, and SpaceX are expendables.

A friend sent this letter to a government official; it's a start; feel free to improve upon it if you wish. It may or may not have any effect but I think it is worth trying:

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am contacting you because the imminent cancellation of the Space Shuttle program is a serious mistake that will set back the goal of meaningful human spaceflight by decades.

After nearly 30 years, the Space Shuttle is finally flying amazingly well. Its safety, reliability, cost and performance are actually improving with every flight. No objective evidence supports the widespread claim that after 134 missions the Orbiters will suddenly turn into unreliable deathtraps.

Some see Constellation as a rebirth of the Apollo program, but they forget history. Apollo was canceled for a very good reason; human spaceflight with expendable rockets, whether the destination is the moon, an asteroid, or Mars, is much too expensive to provide any practical benefits for our country. The answer isn't to make unsubstantiated claims about the value of human spaceflight. The real answer is exactly the same as it was in 1974. To make humans productive in space we must reduce the cost of getting there, by at least a factor of ten, so that the work we can do in space is actually worth what it costs.

Surprisingly, the energy that gets us into space costs almost nothing. LOX delivered to KSC is about 60 cents a gallon, LH2 about 98 cents. Rocket fuel is actually cheaper than gasoline! The vast majority of the cost for any launch is in building a new vehicle for every mission. Consequently, the only way to significantly reduce the cost of spaceflight is to eliminate the need to assemble a new rocket for every launch. That’s why the Shuttle was built; as a major step toward the goal of making space accessible to a significant part of the human race.

Reusability works. The shuttle costs less per launch than Constellation and carries much more. Its systems have been vastly improved over the years. The last few flights have seen virtually no tile damage, and many maintenance items are still being improved to reduce cost. Bizarrely, the Shuttle is condemned as unreliable just because it has been in service 30 years. This reasoning has no basis whatsoever in reliability engineering. Rigorous engineering studies show that the reliability of launch vehicles, including the shuttle, gets better with time, not worse. The Shuttles are fully inspected and continually updated, and nothing in service or even on the drawing board can match their ability to carry seven crew and 11 tons of cargo to the ISS, plus EVA and RMS capability.

The Shuttle is much more expensive to operate than originally predicted, but this isn't because it is reusable. The problems in operational cost and safety were largely the result of one fundamental error; we had no prototypes to test the Shuttle's critical new technologies in actual repeated spaceflight before the design was finalized. Consequently design decisions were made that, in hindsight, were wrong, and ultimately proved costly in many ways.

Just ten years ago we understood this. NASA was building the X-33, X-34, X-37 and DC-X as prototypes to test critical design elements for a new generation of launch vehicles and spacecraft that would be practical, safe, and fully reusable. Yet all these programs were canceled between 2000 and 2004, not because of technical failures, but apparently due to the failure of NASA management to recognize their importance.

Most tragically, we are about to disperse forever the only workforce in the world that has hands-on experience maintaining reusable spacecraft. Their knowledge cannot be written down and recreated. These are the very people we need to build a successor to the Shuttle, because they know how to avoid its problems in a new design. Moreover, we will lose forever the real lessons of Challenger and Columbia, which are not in the volumes of findings, but in the minds of the people who learned from these tragedies how to do the job right. It is because of them that the Shuttle is safer than it has ever been, and gets safer with every flight.

Within a month demolition of the LC-39B Shuttle launch complex will begin, with the object of preparing the pad for a reinstated Constellation. This will drive a stake into the heart of Shuttle and all reusable spacecraft. Why not delay this irrevocable step? Constellation, which the administration would like to cancel, is continuing to consume a large percentage of our budget. Politically, its main selling point now seems to be that it will create some new jobs to compensate for those that will be lost when the Shuttle is junked. But obviously the best way to mitigate the massive Shuttle job losses that are about to begin is to keep the Shuttle flying until it is replaced by something better.

We made a mistake four years ago, and we are on the wrong path. Before we pass the point of no return, why not allow a real discussion of our goals? The NASA budget is stable. If we discontinue spending on Constellation as President Obama requested, we can certainly afford to continue flying Shuttle as long as we need it, with SpaceX providing backup access to ISS. We can restart the Reusable Launch Vehicle program and use the lessons of Shuttle to make the next generation of human spaceflight practical and safe. Far from being "trapped in LEO", we can use LEO as a base for a deliberate and sustainable expansion into the solar system.

Time is short. We must choose our course. Our goal should not be to make spaceflight a spectacular for a few, but rather to make it a routine destination for many.

First of all there is not system that is completely reusable. Some systems like the Shuttle, Ares I, and the Falcon 9 w. Dragon are partly reusable.

The shuttle is comparably reliable, but far more expensive than it expendable rockets.
 
R

rockett

Guest
DarkenedOne":4h8eg9rx said:
First of all there is not system that is completely reusable. Some systems like the Shuttle, Ares I, and the Falcon 9 w. Dragon are partly reusable.

The shuttle is comparably reliable, but far more expensive than it expendable rockets.
That's the whole problem. We got stuck on expendable technologies because they were cheap (in terms of development time) and fast to put on line.

Look at the shuttle as more of a first step in an evolutionary approach to reusables. It wasn't perfect, it wasn't cheap, but consider it a prototype. There is a lot of research going on in reusable technology (but NOT by NASA). We have learned a lot from the shuttle program, so lets take a step forward instead of back.

This is a very interesting paper by a student at the Air Force Institute of Technology, evidently for his advanced degree for TSTO concepts:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...tpDdCg&usg=AFQjCNGqpFpOdLar7rODcJnnF4ip2PypMg

This is the RFP for the Air Force Pathfinder project:
https://www.fbo.gov/download/3bd/3b...thfinder_Pre-solicitation_Notice-20100405.doc
 
S

spacedengr

Guest
DarkenedOne":32ah0ji1 said:
vulture4":32ah0ji1 said:
The real debate is whether human spaceflight should utilize expendable vehicles or reusable vehicles. Shuttle and SpaceShip are reusable, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz, Shenzhou, Constellation, and SpaceX are expendables.

I don't see how Spaceship fits into the equation. The others are LEO systems. SpaceshipTwo is designed as the world's most expensive amusement park ride. At best it could be classified as a sounding rocket. Don't get me wrong; Rutan came up with some incredibly elegant engineering. It would just need to have about 100x the mass to become LEO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts