Slashdot Log In
Shuttle Retirement In 2010 Under Review
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Aug 31, 2008 01:10 PM
from the no-easy-choices dept.
from the no-easy-choices dept.
An anonymous reader alerts us to an Orlando Sentinel report based on a leaked NASA email, indicating that NASA is looking at options to extend the Shuttle program. The fighting between Russia and Georgia has put a strain on plans to rely on Russian boosters until the Shuttle's replacement flies in 2015. Yet extending the Shuttle's life is no sure thing. According to a former NASA program manager, "We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago. That horse has left the barn." And NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has told Congress that if the Shuttle fleet were to fly two missions a year until 2015, "the risk would be about one in 12 that we would lose another crew. That's a high risk... [one] I would not choose to accept on behalf of our astronauts." And then there's the matter of finding the $4 billion a year it would take to keep the fleet operational. The Sentinel mentions that John McCain has called for additional Shuttle flights, but doesn't mention that Barack Obama has made the same point, as the BBC reports.
Related Stories
Submission: Shuttle Retirement Under Review by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Nothing is 'safe' (Score:5, Insightful)
--
Find My Ip Address [ipfinding.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing is 'safe' (Score:5, Insightful)
The average joe understood the space program just fine in the 60s when it was about doing something. The problem with justifying funding for the space program is that, frankly, the shuttle didn't justify funding. It did virtually nothing of merit in its entire lifespan. If the space program actually became about doing something - exploring, discovering, and pushing our way out into the universe - then it would be trivial to generate support for it. But short of a pretty-looking launch every month, which understandably got boring after 20+ years, the space shuttle does nothing of interest.
Returning to the moon, or going back to Mars, or making a sustained push to research Io, a moon that likely has liquid water? Any of those things would be trivial to justify to the American people.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It did exactly what it was designed to do; launch very large, very sensitive satellites. You all have missed a very large and important part of history.
Re:Nothing is 'safe' (Score:5, Informative)
Io is a volcanic hellhole. You're probably thinking of Europa.
Parent
Re:Nothing is 'safe' (Score:4, Funny)
Guess we're out of luck then - that's the one world we can attempt no landing on.
Parent
Re:Nothing is 'safe' (Score:5, Informative)
It did virtually nothing of merit in its entire lifespan.
That is entirely untrue. It functioned quite well as, shall we say, an "SUV" (Space Utility Vehicle). It carried satellites and other payloads into space, it carried astronauts to perform repair work on, perhaps most notably, the Hubble and the ISS. It hosted a variety of scientific experiments.
To say that the shuttle accomplished nothing is absurd. The problem with the shuttle is that it was too expensive for what it did. The reusable nature didn't reduce costs in the way it was hoped when it was designed.
The shuttle accomplished a great deal. The problem is that most of those things could have been accomplished for less money.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with justifying funding for the space program is that, frankly, the shuttle didn't justify funding. It did virtually nothing of merit in its entire lifespan.
The Hubble disagrees with you. It is unequivocally one of the most important scientific instruments of the past 20 years.
Granted, the hubble didn't *NEED* the Shuttle, but it was certainly instrumental in its launch, and vital to its repairs and servicing missions.
Considering just how monumentally important the Hubble is/was, you could almost justify the entire program based on that. Unfortunately, the rest of the shuttle missions weren't quite as productive...
"Shuttle" and "give up" aren't the only options. (Score:3, Interesting)
Read Mullane [mikemullane.com]'s all too articulate book [google.com] to get some idea of how screwed up NASA's approach is if you haven't studied already.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just average Joe who asks "why... right now?"
Most people support the space program, they aren't completely short sighted. The problem comes with the price tags of manned flights, where the output seems to be far less, and costs are far more, than unmanned flights. Do we really need to spend billions on launches to put people in space so we can do simple experiments with bees and bubbles?
It makes more sense to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides the fact that most societies value the life of their people (generally speaking), you can also think of this from an economic standpoint: these astronauts have a lot of experience and very specific knowledge, and are also physically fit etc. A lot has been invested in them, and they're worth a lot. So risking your crew that way can cost a lot of money.
And then, of course, people have a lot of pride in the space program, and losing people in space gives a big blow to the average Joe's perception of
Re:Nothing is 'safe' (Score:5, Funny)
If we spend billions of dollars to blow people up, it's not going to sell so well to the public.
That's called the war effort. Wrong thread!
Parent
Maybe we could give COTS a try? (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, NASA already has the program in place and already has participants. It would take a hell of a lot less than $4B/year to speed up COTS.
More info: http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/esmd/ccc/ [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't want NASA any more involved in the independent programs than absolutely necessary. These things tend to balloon to meet political objectives. "Project A gets $15 million in additional funding if it builds the engines in Backwater, WY." NASA assigns program managers, the PMs get staff, the staff needs support...
I'm happy to leave the commercial groups to their own means, even if it takes a little longer, to keep government out of it to the extent possible.
1 in 12 odds. (Score:4, Insightful)
Slightly better than russian roulette uh?
Seriously, you would think that the US would take a more "global" approach to space and start truly cooperating with other countries, say like uh.. Canada, UK, Japan, China, India, etc...
After all the race for the stars should be for humanity's sake, not just one country.
There would obviously be some economic advantages, that's for sure.
Russia, I believe would join in, if a real "space" coalition would be formed, I'm sure of that, if only not to be left behind in any form of discovery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the trouble is sending the *right* people in to space. Then again, I suppose we could just start sending oil drillers, they get the job done.
Re: (Score:2)
We're hairless apes, not monkeys
Re: (Score:2)
If we are to get philosophical about this, which could be fun, then I think that humanity's problem will be solved when we stop fearing the unknown and we stop fearing change.
The universe should really be our guide in this, for it is in constant motion and change. Adaptability is the key and therefore, we as humans need to be able to adapt not only in body, but in mind and spirit.
We must be able to understand that there are always new truths to learn, that whatever we know, should always be in question.
It
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bite. What is RIGHT and what is WRONG? Traditionally, for good or ill, we've used religion to define that sort of thing.
Accepting the prin
Ugh. Kill it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Kill the shuttle. Every year we extend the shuttle is a year that it's easier to make excuses for not having Orion ready. The shuttle was a disastrous decision from the start - a joke of a space program that made no progress in exploration, and provides nothing in the way of useful scientific research except inasmuch as it was used to work on the Hubble.
The sooner it is put out to pasture the sooner this country can have a real space program again.
Re:Ugh. Kill it. (Score:5, Funny)
Agreed. Besides, that 4 billion could be spent on extending the war in Iraq by another 1.6667 weeks!
Parent
Mostly true... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is clear to me that there is not serious desire to create the next space vehicle. President Bush promised a new Space Age, but failed to fund it. Clearly he has no problem spending money, even money we don't have, so the fact that we have no functioning Orion space craft 4 and half years af
shuttle industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Doy (Score:2)
Get rid of Nasa (Score:2)
Contract PRIVATE sector companies.
Re:Get rid of Nasa (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. Then we'll need a government organization to manage the contracts. Let's call them, I don't know, "NASA".
Oh, wait...
Parent
Re:Get rid of Nasa (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How to do things differently (Score:5, Insightful)
Who precisely do you think actually builds, services and maintains these craft? Thats right, the OEMs and not NASA. The Shuttle was built by Rockwell, now maintained by Boeing. Orion will be built by private sector companies (Lockheed as prime contractor, with a whole bunch of others as subcontractors), Ares will be built by private sector companies (Alliant and Boeing as prime contractors) - so what do you propose to do differently?
A couple things:
* don't use cost-plus contracts, which reward waste
* Instead of specifying a single design and essentially giving one company a monopoly over manned spaceflight, do things like the rest of the transportation market and commercial satellite launches -- just purchase individual rides or payload deliveries. SpaceX [wikipedia.org] , Orbital [orbital.com], and Lockheed Martin [blogspot.com] are all currently working on orbital manned spaceflight systems. As it is now, it looks like they're going to have to end up competing against NASA's Ares I. Instead of competing against them, NASA should ditch Ares I and just offer transportation contracts to give these companies the financial incentive to speed development of their vehicles.
NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems [wikipedia.org] program is a huge step in the right direction -- it's only getting a fraction of the budget (total is less than a single shuttle flight) that Ares I is getting, but is already showing much more progress and promise.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
* Instead of specifying a single design and essentially giving one company a monopoly over manned spaceflight, do things like the rest of the transportation market and commercial satellite launches -- just purchase individual rides or payload deliveries. SpaceX , Orbital, and Lockheed Martin are all currently working on orbital manned spaceflight systems. As it is now, it looks like they're going to have to end up competing against NASA's Ares I. Instead of competing against them, NASA should ditch Ares I and just offer transportation contracts to give these companies the financial incentive to speed development of their vehicles.
If... and that's a big honking huge if, from what I've understood, any of these become actual commercial possibilities then sure. The first one you mention is SpaceX and they haven't made a rocket reach orbit yet, far less deliver cargo to orbit, far less something with a track record and security record to fly people for many years to come. I realize what you want but it sounds a little like the flying car that's always coming soon.
Why Did the US Partner with Russia? (Score:2)
IIRC the US brought Russia in on ISS support to give the Russian rocket scientists something to do so they wouldn't go work for the likes of the Axis of Evil(tm).
Which makes sense. Has that changed?
As for flying the STS beyond its planned retirement, I think estimates of its reliability don't take account of the tlc it receives. Those things get practically rebuilt by some very big brains every time they fly. I do respect his 1/12 failure probability it's probably a rigorous number, but conservative.
What pu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are complicated internal processes in Eurasia, in the FSU, but you keep your delusion that it is you who calls the shots.
Eurasia is more than twice bigger than the North America by territory and more than 8 times by population.
"The West", the Western Europe against the whole Eurasia is like Vermont and Maryland against the whole USA.
Globalization is turning Eurasia in one giant market, 54 mill
Inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
What does it mean? (Score:2, Informative)
According to Putin it was done to improve chances of one of the candidates, because when the international situation worsens, moves closer to a war, people tend to vote for a conservative candidate. Not for a change.
If it is true then it should not have been a surprise that there was the tension with Russia.
So the real reason then is not Russian pol
Astronauts are expendable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Compared to the cost of the ground support and the space craft. Launch the damn shuttle. If it blows up, it blows up. I bet you could find plenty of Americans willing to take their place, even with a 1 in 10 chance of getting killed, in exchange for a ride into space.
Come on. To many people, spaceflight is worth the risk of death. If astronauts aren't willing to take that chance, fire them, and get someone who will.
Re:the shuttle sucks anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
I think suspending manned space flight for that long would be a disaster. At some point, if we have no space flights going on, the new shuttle replacement becomes "restarting manned space flight" rather than "continuing our manned presence in space". Congress will be a lot more likely to simply cut the program entirely if it's seen as starting an entirely new program rather than an evolution of our existing, and continuing, efforts.
Parent
Re:If the best we can do in "manned space flight" (Score:5, Informative)
Skylab massed 77,088kg; the ISS at present masses 277,598kg, and if ever completed it will mass 419,600kg.
Parent
Re:If the best we can do in "manned space flight" (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, but Skylab was made out of the much less dense aluminum, while the ISS is made out of lead to shield against cosmic radiation. So technically, the guy was right, the ISS is smaller than Skylab,
Oh, FFS.
Skylab's living volume: 10,000 sqft
ISS living volume: 15,000 sqft
(From Wikipedia. Admittedly, not as big a difference as I had expected)
I was going to make a joke in reply to GP about "oh, but it weighs virtually the same" but instead I had to reply to this silly comment. I hope you're happy.
- RG>
Parent
Great - how do you get it done? (Score:3, Interesting)
You show me a battle plan and I'll climb aboard. But for now I'll just continue paying my NSS [nss.org] dues, encourage local kids to get into space-related stuff (spent about fifty bucks and about three hours on that in the past month), and stick to wha
Re:the shuttle sucks anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at the overall federal budget, NASA gets a drop in the bucket compared to Social Services and Defense. The move to extend the Shuttle for a few more years is not a surprise. I don't know, I just get the feeling that if the manned space program ever ends, that will be it. People will start to ask, "Do we really need it?" If there is not something to replace the shuttle, especially if it is 5+ years from flying, politicians and people will start to ask, "What has NASA done lately? Oh just sink billions into that new rocket that is still in development and has another delay to 2018." So the budget shrinks from 15B a year to 10B or stays the same @ 15B a year, yet 15B today will not buy the same amount of stuff next year, things continue to get delayed and eventually, it's the end of the manned space program.
The shuttle is far from perfect, but it's all we got. And until that something better comes along...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the shuttle sucks anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's there. It's there, and it's big and unknown, and we're humans. And if we don't explore every bit of space that we can get to, we'll sit around itching to go. We go to space for the same reason we went to the south pole, or why we go up mountains that haven't been climbed yet. Because they're there, and we can.
The insidious lie of the modern space program is that there's more to it than that. That space stations and endless low earth orbit missions provide some sort of useful science, and are worth doing. They're not. The point of space is the unknown. So yes. Take out the solar system. Go to every frozen rock we can reach, and start thinking about the frozen rocks we can't. Because they're there. They're places people have never been. And fundamental to the human spirit is the sense that something that seems utterly crazy and impossible is the most important thing there is to do.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Many people have thought about it for much longer than a second, more like their whole life and space exploration is for them a natural extrapolation of human life.
It won't be conventional propulsion systems that are going to enable a voyage outside of the solar system and development will take continuous effort.
You are looking for something usable, if it's truly a leap ahead of the u
It could be just us (Score:3, Interesting)
I would like to think I'm not a fatalist but it is my opinion that if the human race died off the Earth and galaxy probably wouldn't care much and may be better off for it. If evolution is to be believed then there will surely come something behind us that is better than we are.
Sure sounds fatalist to me. And the galaxy can't care any more than the sentient beings in it. As far as we know (re likelihood of habitable star systems), we're it--and if we die, there may never be another. And it it wouldn't be better, just empty of any thought, good or bad.
For now, we have to assume that it's up to us and there is no other.
4B comes out of Ares budget (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly though it's underfunded when you compare to other agencies, and again compare accomplishments. That $4B, I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The shuttle is only one way of boosting the orbit. The ISS has thrusters on one of the modules that can do it (eats into the station's fuel supply, though). The Progress resupply vessels can also do it, and the ESA's new supply ship is built to do it, though I don't think they did it with the first one.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There are worse things for the ISS to do than fall out of the sky. Staying up in it may well be one of them.