US Urged To Keep Space Shuttles Flying Past 2010

DarkNemesis618 writes "A US Representative has proposed that NASA keep the shuttle fleet flying past its planned 2010 retirement date. The move would help NASA avoid reliance on Russian rockets during the gap between the Space Shuttle retirement and the start of the Orion program. One proposal would keep the shuttle fleet flying from 2010 to 2013 while another would keep the fleet alive until the Orion program is ready in about 2015. 2011 marks the end of the exemption that has allowed NASA to use Soyuz rockets for trips to the Space Station, and they would need an extension to keep using Russian launch vehicles. NASA's other option lies in the private sector; but thus far, the progress from that quarter does not look sufficient to meet the 2011 deadline."

Race goes on

[eebra82]

It's been 60 years since Sputnik took off. You'd think the "who's got the biggest cock" race would be over by now. The current shuttles are getting a bit old now and the most recent problems/accidents/tragedies indicated the very same thing. Maybe Russian rockets is the safest route for now?

Re:Race goes on

[smittyoneeach]

You'd think the "who's got the biggest cock" race would be over by now.

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon"--Napoleon
I submit that Napoleon may have had a better grasp of human nature.
Your question could be recast as: "If ODF is there and all, why OOXML?"

Re:

[nschubach]

Why? He made a valid point. It all boils down to who's format it is. Is it a Russian Rocket or a US Rocket? They both provide you a platform to get to space. (presumably) ODF/OOXML, they both provide a platform to save your documents. If NASA were Microsoft, they'd ignore the "competition's" offering until they can provide an alternative from their own shops so they didn't have to give money to someone else. Either that, or they'd buy Russia so it's not the competition anymore.

Re:

[somersault]

Maybe if they didnt act like such jerks then you wouldnt need all that damn 'rocketry'. In this case there is no point at all to keeping the american rockets apart from stupid national pride. It's not even like you're depending on them forever, you're just cooperating with the russians until you have developed the next stage of your program. Why can't you learn to play nice - never watched Sesame Street? Or do they promote kicking your neighbour rather than sharing on Sesame Street these days? I'm a bit out

Re:

[Hal_Porter]

Why can't you learn to play nice - never watched Sesame Street? Or do they promote kicking your neighbour rather than sharing on Sesame Street these days? I'm a bit out of touch.

The world isn't Sesame Street. There are no mass murderering dictators in Sesame Street. It's an artificial evironment where pure altruism works. The real world isn't like that - there's a tiny minority that regards playing nice as a sign of weakness, but unfortunately they control a few soon to be nuclear states.

Mind you, I suppose Sesame Street morality is a pretty good approximation of how you should behave, since you're unlikely to have to deal with Kim Jong Il type psychopaths in day to day life since

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

The real world isn't like that - there's a tiny minority that regards playing nice as a sign of weakness

In terms of the overall model, I think that playing nice is the more strategic approach.
Decision-making happens in a more tactical mode.
I submit that a good approach is to broadcast nice and expect to receive the opposite; you're right, or you're pleasantly surprised.

Re:

[AaxelB]

I submit that a good approach is to broadcast nice and expect to receive the opposite; you're right, or you're pleasantly surprised.

But if you broadcast "asshole" and expect to recieve the same, you're almost always right.

Re:

[somersault]

Meh, it works for Switzerland. I think when it comes to defense it's fine to develop your technology, but keeping a bunch of decrepit shuttles just for the sake of not being all chummy with Russia is sad. Very very sad :( One of these kids is not like the other, lalalalalalala...

Re:Race goes on

[Shakrai]

Meh, it works for Switzerland

It "works" for Switzerland because they are a landlocked mountainous country with little natural resources surrounded by friendly neighbors. Switzerland came dangerously close to being invaded by Nazi Germany during WW2 and probably would have been (sooner or later) if Barbarossa hadn't turned out so badly.

The Swiss model isn't going to work for nations like Russia or the United States (too big, too much economic clout, too involved in World affairs). It isn't going to work for nations with unfriendly neighbors (Israel, Pakistan, India, Taiwan). It isn't going to work for nations located on natural invasion routes between stronger powers (Poland, the Low Countries, etc).

but keeping a bunch of decrepit shuttles just for the sake of not being all chummy with Russia is sad

It's not about "not being chummy" with Russia. It's about retaining a native space launch capability and not relying on other nations to do it for us. As a random example: Why the hell is Europe deploying Galileo? Shouldn't they just rely on GPS and the United States? Are they trying to "not be chummy" with us?

See the point?

Re:

[somersault]

No, I dont see the point since you are retaining your launch capability. I wasn't saying that countries shouldn't be fully autonomous, but I also dont see the point in this case of keeping these shuttles as a stopgap measure, when an alternative is already available until NASA has their new fleet sorted out.

Re:

[ppanon]

Then why is the US outsourcing most of its industrial capacity? They are losing a lot of the practical engineering knowledge and labour skills along with it. That's gotta be at least as important as losing rocket-building capacity for a few years, but outsourcing is a sacred cow because it's all about corporate profits. The OP is right; it's a dick-size PR contest.

Re:

[Grishnakh]

It "works" for Switzerland because they are a landlocked mountainous country with little natural resources surrounded by friendly neighbors. Switzerland came dangerously close to being invaded by Nazi Germany during WW2 and probably would have been (sooner or later) if Barbarossa hadn't turned out so badly.

Oh, please. Switzerland's citizens were all armed, and they had extensive fortifications and defenses: their bridges were ready to be blown, and they had artillery pieces hidden all over. They were quit

Re:

[Shakrai]

No, I dont see the point since you are retaining your launch capability

We have another vehicle for human space flight besides the shuttle?

when an alternative is already available until NASA

An alternative that relies on the goodwill of a nation with whom we've had disagreements lately. What happens if that relationship sours (for whatever reason)?

It seems like every single time that a story about the shuttle comes around people around here waste no time in trashing it. Yes, the goals of the shuttle program (cheap and reusable) didn't exactly work out as planned. Yes, two disasters out of 120 missions don't exactly f

Re:

[somersault]

I meant that you're going to have the capability again in a few years time.

An alternative that relies on the goodwill of a nation with whom we've had disagreements lately. What happens if that relationship sours (for whatever reason)?

Exactly, what happens? Nothing at all. Why all the paranoia anyway?

Re:

[MightyYar]

Even if you assume that it would be politically impossible for Russia to strand the International Space Station, you still have to consider calamity. What if the Russians have another huge explosion at their launch facility that sets them back months/years? What if they lose a Soyuz and have a large delay until the program is capable of another launch? The Space Shuttle is not the only rocket in history to explode.

Re:

[MetaPhyzx]

I kind of agree. To be honest, this is how we ran into the problem regarding knowledge transfer and the Saturn rocket program, versus having to "start from scratch" now. Being able to have yesterday's engineers work hand in hand with up and coming engineers who will contribute to Orion and whatever comes next is a transfer plus.

The other thing is while yes it is important to think globally in regards to space exploration, it's not in your national security interest, nor national science interest to depend o

Re:

[fotbr]

The shuttle isn't the only launch platform the US has. Its the only one for manned missions, yes, but for launching satellites, the air force has been fairly active over the years out at Vandenberg AFB. Just a guess, but I'd put money on the air force being able to launch most GPS, communications, or spy satellites.

IIRC space.com has a list of launches and their acknowledged payloads.

Re:

[Rei]

The Space Shuttle is not the only rocket in history to explode

You don't say... [youtube.com] ;)

Seriously -- a 2% failure rate after a statistically significant number of launches is actually pretty good by orbital rocketry standards. The real problem with the shuttle is launch costs. Which was largely a design problem, which was largely a budget-cuts-while-mandating-increasing-scope problem. And rather than try and advance the state of the art, and actually put forth the funding for it, our solution is just to go back

Re:

[Arancaytar]

Plus if US politicians know their voters are safe from foreign missiles

So they care?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

His post linked the two things together

I forged no special linkage.
Nationalism and the OOXML/ODF imbroglio are simply aspects of organizational behavior.
This revelation seems to have taken you aback.

Re:

[cbcanb]

The Russian rockets only have similar demonstrated reliability to the shuttle. But still, the shuttle does need to retire. The smart thing to do would be to launch capsules on the EELVs (Atlas 5 or Delta 4), but that has severe political problems (basically, a lot of people would be out of work).

In the meantime, there are essentially a fixed number of shuttle external tanks left. Why not fly those out, whether it takes until 2010 or 2012, whatever, then move on after that?

Re:Race goes on

[mpe]

The Russian rockets only have similar demonstrated reliability to the shuttle.

But have a lot better safety record. Only 4 vs 14 crew fatalities, with Soyuz having been flying longer.

The smart thing to do would be to launch capsules on the EELVs (Atlas 5 or Delta 4), but that has severe political problems (basically, a lot of people would be out of work).

There's also the problem of the US having abandoned manned capsules over 30 years ago.

Re:

[icebrain]

But have a lot better safety record. Only 4 vs 14 crew fatalities, with Soyuz having been flying longer.

That's like saying that the 747 has a worse safety record than the shuttle, because something like 2,000 people have died on it, and it's been flying longer. More have died on the shuttle because it carries more people.

Soyuz has also had two fatal accidents in roughly the same number of flights; there have also been several incidents in the past few years of the reentry guidance failing and the capsule going "ballistic".

Re:Race goes on

[rbanffy]

"Soyuz has also had two fatal accidents in roughly the same number of flights"

I find it unlikely Soyuz had the same number of flights as the shuttles. they have flown since about 68, from the original models to the TMA variant currently in use. I am not sure exactly how many flights were done, but I am quite sure that, being in service for about a decade longer than the shuttle makes it quite sure it had flown more missions. Also, the last failure with loss of crew (during re-entry) happened long ago, a couple design iterations back. I think it's safe to assume Soyouz-class vehicles are a very mature design and, quite probably, safer that shuttles.

There is no dishonor in having a less safe space vehicle. The shuttle is an incredible achievement. It's only unfortunate it was too ambitious.

BTW, since they are expendable, one could argument every mission ends in partial failure, with the loss of the vehicle ;-)

Re:

[agengr]

"I find it unlikely Soyuz had the same number of flights as the shuttles."

That's because they don't. The U.S. Space Shuttle has flown more!

At present time, the 98th Soyuz flight is docked to the International Space Station. Atlantis is sitting on the launch pad waiting to fly the 121st Shuttle mission (STS-122). Despite the fact that the first Soyuz flew 13 years before the first Shuttle, NASA has historically been the more active space agency.

"I think it's safe to assume Soyouz-class vehicles are a very ma

Re:

[UnknownSoldier]

> waiting to fly the 121st Shuttle mission (STS-122)

Fencepost error?

Why don't 121st and STS-122 match up?

Re:

[AJWM]

There were a couple of STS missions planned and designated but not flown. To avoid confusion (hah) they didn't change the mission numbers when one was cancelled.

NASA has never been able to come up with a consistent mission numbering system. (Remember the STS numbering systems up to Challenger (51L - '5' for 1985, although it actually launched in '86; '1' for launch from Kennedy vs Vandenberg (which would have been '2' except the lauach pad was decertified for Shuttle ops before ever used) and the 'L' as

Re:

[icebrain]

There were a couple of STS missions planned and designated but not flown. To avoid confusion (hah) they didn't change the mission numbers when one was cancelled.

They did that not just because of canceled missions, but also re-sequenced ones. The reasoning was that keeping the same mission designations (STS-XX), but flying them out of order, was less confusing than having to go through and change press kits, mission plans, payload specifications, and everything else each time there was a schedule change. Remember, shuttle launch manifests are drawn up well in advance, and crews train for at least a year or two for a specific mission.

STS vs. Soyuz - # of manned flights is similar

[Steve Hamlin]

I find it unlikely Soyuz had the same number of flights as the shuttles...I am quite sure that, being in service for about a decade longer than the shuttle makes it quite sure it had flown more missions

I can't find an exact list, but Soyuz and Space Shuttle flights do appear to be close in the number of missions. Wiki: List of human spaceflight programs [wikipedia.org]

---------------

Soyuz: (approx.)

40 - Soyuz 1-40 (orbits, plus flying to space stations Salyut 1 - 6)
15 - Soyuz T1 to T-15 (flying to Salyut 7 an

Re:

[DerekLyons]

I find it unlikely Soyuz had the same number of flights as the shuttles. they have flown since about 68, from the original models to the TMA variant currently in use.

You are correct - including all the manned variants, the Soyuz has flow about 85 times. The Shuttle has flown nearly 120 times.

I am not sure exactly how many flights were done, but I am quite sure that, being in service for about a decade longer than the shuttle makes it quite sure it had flown more missions.

It's not the leng

Re:

[rbanffy]

While I agree with you that both have about a 2% chance of ending in tears (or flames) per flight, both failures of Soyuz craft happened very early in the vehicle history as opposed to shuttle failures that were recent and caused the grounding of the fleet while the causes were not discovered and repaired. All in all, we can consider the Soyuz security record as improving. The same cannot be said about the shuttles and that makes me say Soyuz looks safer than the shuttles.

There are other factors involved:

-

Re:

[DerekLyons]

While I agree with you that both have about a 2% chance of ending in tears (or flames) per flight, both failures of Soyuz craft happened very early in the vehicle history

Both failures? The Soyuz has a long history of significant failures - from the fatal accident on the first mission, to the computer failure on the most recent mission.

Soyuz are much simpler machines and this makes them easier to understand and remove design flaws.

Soyuz spacecraft share many components with

Re:

[rbanffy]

It's a fact it is too ambitious. What isn't clear is whose ambition caused the design to bloat beyond control

Re:

[homer_ca]

The USAF wanted the shuttle to launch from Vandenberg and land at the same site after one polar orbit. The large cross range requirement dictated the large delta wings.

Re:

[mha]

I am sooooo tired of such statements as yours.

I don't say you are wrong - I don't know. So what I don't like is not WHAT you say but that you fail to even ATTEMPT to submit any justification for your statement. How do you come to your conclusion? It seems to me it is based only on a vague feeling you developed over the years.

Best: link to statistics that support your claim.

Second-best, but still better than "opinion": add at least ONE sentence that shows what you base your statement on.

Thanks.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the guy need to write a 20 page essay on each post just because you'd rather not encumber your critical mind to fill in the blanks yourself? Nor offer yourself any evidence in agreement to or to the contrary above. Seriously. Exercise (or quite possibly, exorcise) your mind. Read slashdot as you would a good book - read between the lines and enjoy the flow of creative thought as you step through another man's ideas. Or do you require fold out pop up pictures and such?

Re:

[The One and Only]

That argument might give a pass to someone whose reasoning is only roughly sketched out, but it doesn't excuse an outright argument by assertion.

Re:

[moosesocks]

The Russian rockets only have similar demonstrated reliability to the shuttle.

No. That's just plain wrong

Soyuz has been flying since the 60s, and the spacecraft has had 5 major revisions. There hasn't been a single crew fatality on the 4 most recent.

There *have* been two major accidents on the more recent models, neither of which resulted in any fatalities.

One of Souyz 18a [wikipedia.org]'s boosters failed to fully separate during launch, which triggered a safety mechanism to fully disengage the capsule from the rocket.

Re:

[AJWM]

What are you talking about? Not only does the Shuttle have an abort mode for the entire ascent,

It has zero abort modes for the first two minutes of flight (while the solids are burning). After that it has the "return to launch site" mode for engine failure -- which nobody really expects to work -- followed by a transatlantic abort (might work, and it least it doesn't involve flying a 180 turn and trying to find the KSC landing strip); and abort-to-orbit (for a single engine failure late in the launch.

It ha

Re:

[Rogerborg]

Counterpoint: the high water mark of human civilisation to date was one man standing aa a podium on September 12, 1962 and saying the words that even today make me weep like a Goddamn Frenchman every time I hear or read them:

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard

Space exploration is, in the short to medium term, an emotional, irrational, prideful folly. I find it very hard to get excited about outsourcing it.

Re:

[CarpetShark]

You'd think the "who's got the biggest cock" race would be over by now.

It basically was, until a big cock was elected.

Re:

[mulhollandj]

http://www.jbs.org/node/5689 [jbs.org] Sputnik was just an excuse to create the Department of Education. What? Government lying to get more power? Never.

Re:

[k_187]

If that's the case, why did it take 25 years for the Department of Education to be created?

Re:

[master_p]

It's been 2,800 years from the Troi war. You'd think the "who's got the biggest cock" race would be over by now. Well, don't tell that to Iranians, Palestinians, Somalians etc.

Re:

[RomulusNR]

Given political developments lately, I for one would prefer that the US avoid being beholden to the Russian space program. It sucks that twenty years after the Cold War no one else has a viable option. The Shuttle is 25 year old technology and it's stunning that no one else (either political or industrial) besides Russia has been able to come up with a comparable solution. (What would Ron Paul say about that, I wonder? Three cheers for government research!)

Re:Race goes on

[mpe]

Well, I have ancient servers running on ancient Linux variants as well, just for showing off to Windows users. But it doesn't mean they are suitable for mission critical data.

But your "ancient servers" probably don't date from the 1970's. Even your oldest server is probably more recent than the newest shuttle.

Re:Race goes on

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I have ancient servers running on ancient Linux variants as well, just for showing off to Windows users.

Congratulations for the most pathetic reply of the day.

"Urged" by whom?

[MollyB]

from TFA:

U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, a Republican whose Florida district includes the Kennedy Space Center, proposed extending the shuttles' lifetime to close the gap until their replacement ships, called Orion, are ready for their first manned flights in 2015.

I think it is natural and logical Mr. Weldon takes this position. However, is crew safety being ignored in this calculation?

Re:"Urged" by whom?

[Cally]

It's faith-based aerospace... as in, when you launch, you pray it doesn't go boom.

Re:

[aadvancedGIR]

Don't worry, if you caused the loss of millions and the death of several highly qualified persons, there will always be a high paying job waiting for you at the FEMA.

Re:

[Kpau]

Short answer: yes... its obvious he has no clue whatsoever as to WHY the shuttles are being retired. The comparison with the Soyuz safety record is hilarious since their system is so matured and the kinks worked out decades ago. The Soyuz and its launch methods are dumb, stupid, and EXTREMELY reliable. Yeah, its a risk letting the Sovi--- I mean, Russians be our gateway to space for a while. Should have thought about that a few years ago? Shouldn't spend our time being such bleeping asses in the world

Perhaps not the brightest of ideas.

[reality-bytes]

TFA seems to suggest extending the STS life while also cutting costs. This sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I know that strapping yourself to a rocket and heading for space is never safe but it would be better not to make it more dangerous. At the same time, I can see that extending the life by 6 months or so would help alleviate the current pressures on the STS for the station-construction mission (but that's not what the article discusses)

I presume the reasoning for not wanting to rely on the Russian crew launch system is that any souring of the American-Russian relationship could make the deal problematic. How about if it were via ESA and the forthcoming Soyuz operation at French-Guiana? Would this side-step some of the possible relationship issues?

Re:

[aadvancedGIR]

Relationship and politics aside, the Ariane launchers and Kourou site are designed for small to medium size cargo (mostly satelites), and even with manned Sozuz, they couldn't (and nothing currently can) replace the shuttle ability to turn into a mobile construction tool for the ISS. So even if it is expensive and bloated, we all need something able to permorm similar tasks, not just lift containers.

Yes, but on the bright side...

[tekrat]

Now they can launch that telescope thingie that was going to be left to wither because all the remaining flights have been scheduled for finishing the ISS -- and with delays, they still won't be done by 2013 anyhow.

Hey NASA can go waste all the billions they want, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to wars which suck up a lot more money and produce even less useful results than NASA.

It's too bad the privatized companies (Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, SpaceX, Armadillo) can't ramp up development to meet the need. Oddly enough, *their* space race will produce the only results that will actually lower the cost per pound to orbit.

It's too bad we're all so scared of failure these days. Consider that during the development of aircraft, a lot of people died. A lot of people died just trying to cross the Atlantic. We didn't halt aircraft development every time some lunatic in a biplane was lost in a storm. But for some reason, we're afraid to blow up the occasional person to get into space. We need to get over that. A lot of people are going to die before we're able to easily leave the planet as easily as we currently visit another continent. That's just a reality and no amount of double checking is going to change that.

Well, for test flights anyhow, we could always use that Humanoid Robot (REEM-B) some guy spent three *whole* years developing! ;-)

Re:Yes, but on the bright side...

[Anonymous Coward]

But for some reason, we're afraid to blow up the occasional person to get into space. We need to get over that.

You first.

Re:Yes, but on the bright side...

[entrigant]

But that's just it, isn't it? There are many, many people who will GLADLY take the risk and be "first". Anyone who wishes to deny us a space program has no right so say no on the grounds of danger if there are people who understand and willingly accept the danger deciding the benefits far outweight it. Me first? Sure, point me to the shuttle.

Re:

[rtaylor]

If there was a 100% chance that the flight would be one way (explosion on return) I would still be very tempted to go for a 6 month stay on the space station.

Since most people that go up do come down, I would be more than happy with those odds if given the opportunity.

Re:

[sexyrexy]

Yes, quite bizarre. It's almost as if we value human life more than our ancestors and predecessors. Almost as if we don't cut someone's head off for insulting the king, stone children for mouthing off to their parents, or slaughtering every woman and child in the heathen city we just conquered because they were, well, heathen. We let people have trials before they go to prison (well, usually).

Re:

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Yes, quite bizarre. It's almost as if we value human life more than our ancestors and predecessors.
Or perhaps we are so risk averse, that humans will soon look like turtles carrying little nerf cottages on our backs so nothing can harm us.
  slaughtering every woman and child in the heathen city we just conquered because they were, well, heathen.
Oh really? [savedarfur.org][insert picture of owl here]

Re:

[Loke the Dog]

Lots of people have died during space missions, especially if you count all those who have died in events surrounding the space missions. In that case, we're up to several hundred.

Finding people willing to go wouldnt be a problem even if the chance of dying was 90%. The problem is finding the RIGHT people. If safety standards are lowered, you'll get more nutcases and people who's brain can't quite judge risks. These are not the kind of people you want to be handling million dollar equipment.

Lastly, space is

Re:

[Rich0]

Or we could just develop these technologies on the ground, and use robots for the actual flights. What exactly do we need to do with people in space anyway, that can't be done with a probe?

Sure, in the very long term colonizing other planets sounds like a good idea. However, there is no reason you have to have people in space to develop the technology to make this possible - go ahead and build a moon base - just don't put any people in it until there is a real reason for them to actually be there. You ca

Re:

[Citizen of Earth]

But for some reason, we're afraid to blow up the occasional person to get into space. We need to get over that.

China doesn't mind blowing people up for the glory of the empire. This is why the next people to step foot on the moon and the first people to step foot on Mars will be Chinese. The US is no longer in the space race.

Follow the money

[mach1980]

Is it that hard to imagine why senators want US dollars to be spent in their home states instead of going to Russia?

My guess is that this is a national economy thing and has nothing to do with flight-worthiness or risk analysis.

An Object Lesson

[DynaSoar]

As long as they didn't use them (or have to use them) for everything, they could maintain them at a slower pace and lower cost, and keep them flying for a long time.

Consider the B-52. It's been flying for over 50 years. It's not expected to perform all air tasks -- there are other planes for specialized work. Thus, the Buff doesn't get worn out because it's able to be kept up. There are more advanced planes flying. But the Buff is still flying too.

The shuttle could be kept flying for 50 years as long as the

Re:

[Firethorn]

I could argue that the B52 is still flying mostly because it's a freakily well designed plane for what it is.

The builders happened to hit the mix just right, and even with 'strip to the frame' refits every so often it's showing it's age. For example, it's not really rated for operation in hostile airspace anymore, instead it's a standoff plane - launching cruise missiles rather than dropping bombs.

The shuttle is much more of a white elephant. We don't have enough launches to obtain the body of knowledge a

Politics as usual

[El Yanqui]

Politics too often trumps science and common sense. Here's a congressman who wants a lucrative deal in his district, that's the story.

I like how the congressman describes it as an "arbitrary" date for decomissioning and that the risks won't increase overnight. I say send a congressman up on every mission after the shuttle's sell by date.

They probably can be used effectively for many years, but that doesn't mean that they should. Every bit of extra maintenance and upkeep performed on an old system, every bit of extra testing to make sure parts still function and every investigation into a failure will slow the space program and new developments. This is pork politics no matter how it's dressed up.

Re:

[Firethorn]

I like how the congressman describes it as an "arbitrary" date for decomissioning and that the risks won't increase overnight. I say send a congressman up on every mission after the shuttle's sell by date.

Given the thrill that space flight still has, such that you do get billionaires buying flights, I think that such a requirement would actually increase the odds of the shuttle program continuing.

Even if only 10% of congress want rides, that's still 73 people wanting to go up.

There will be NO Orion

[gelfling]

So nursing the SS program along to do MAYBE 1 or 2 launches a year is a waste of effort. All it does is stall the inevitable. Whether it's 2011, 2013 or 2015 manned spaceflight in the USA will be over. The Vulcans aren't coming to Montana, sorry.

What about the Phoenix?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Whatever happened to the Phoenix [spacefuture.com]? VTOL, SSTO, and a dollar-per-kilo payload to orbit cost a mere fraction of either the shuttle, the Soyuz, or the Orion.

Re:

[rbanffy]

SSTO on a reusable vehicle is next to impossible with chemical rockets, but not with nuclear-thermal designs. But good luck proposing them to the tree-hugging crowd...

There are a great many possible designs, ranging from NERVA and ROVER-style to nuclear-lightbulb style engines. It's a lot of promise.

Private Sector

[s31523]

NASA's other option lies in the private sector; but thus far, the progress from that quarter does not look sufficient to meet the 2011 deadline.

4 years to deliver a space shuttle replacement, yeah lets bet on that option. If NASA and our government were serious they would have offered some sort of financial assistance, say dollar for dollar matching on R&D or startup capital. I mean, just sitting around 'hoping' for the private sector to bail out your space agency does not seem like a very good plan. All of this worrying, aka planning, should have been done a long time ago.

This one is about jobs, not security.

[WindBourne]

If he was serious, then he would say that the shuttle should continue flying until a replacement is working and in place. That could be oriion, but it is far more likely to be COTs. The reason why he said until Orion is that it is expected to need close to the same amount of ppl as the shuttle (4K+ at Kennedy). OTH, Falcon will have no more than 100 ppl at kennedy, and 50 is likely closer around 2010. In addition, virgin is expected to come on-line around 2011 with their LEO space system, with less than 50. And finally, we have the 2'nd COTs entry. It will most likely be one that is close. I am guessing that it will spacedev (using ULA's launcher, they have an engine for the back, just need the craft, which they are looking to use the H-20 design). Spacedev would possibly be ready by 2010.

But it would make sense to continue flying the shuttle until one of the alternative systems is in place. As soon, as it is in place, the NASA shuttle ppl should be wound down. Quickly. But this pub is simply up to the same tricks as those from 200X; run up a moster deficit.

WOW. U are kidding, right?

[WindBourne]

You are pushing Russian stuff, yet have no idea of what COTs is WRT NASA [wikipedia.org]? Exactly WHAT are you basing your statement that Russia is the closest to this on? The problem is that after America and in particular, NASA funded the Russian space agency for a decade, Russia has pulled lots of little stunts. It is possible that they did this in retaliation for a decade of being pushed around, or it was a mandate from up high, but the simple fact is, that America can not afford to pay the prices that Russia wants. I

Those brave pilots...

[apodyopsis]

Yikes, considering how often my old classic LandRover breaks down, I would not want to fly an old classic Space Shuttle.

Yeah, I know. I cannot compare a rusty old relic with a well maintained shining example of top NASA technology, but even so, hats off to the people brave enough to fly into space in something designed in the early 70s. In real terms is probably not that different to people who fly Sopwith Camels for the hell of it - just more spectacular and better publicized when it goes wrong.

This should not suprise anyone

[rhadamanthus]

Too much money involved to not get the attention of some politicians. In terms of "do-ability", the real question is how the shuttle managers will get around the lack of spares/supplies that have been minimized and/or completely shut down in preperation for the retirement date.

The shuttles *scare* me, and here's why.

[ClayJar]

The thing that most people don't know about the shuttle is the number of pressure modules on it. These are mostly high-pressure titanium-alloy composite-wrapped spheres, with service pressures ranging to 4500 psi or so. Outside the space program, the absolute life limit of a fiber-wrapped composite pressure vessel is 15 years. After 15 years, it must be condemned and removed from service.

They are *well* past the original design lifetime of the pressure vessels on the shuttle. Additionally, there is no m

Back to the past?

[Midnight Thunder]

Why I do get the feeling that its "one step forwards and two steps back" with the Orion program, when compared with the shuttle? This thing only looks good for docking with the space station and any notion of servicing satellites is thrown out of the window.

Re:

[Y-Crate]

The Orion is designed to basically function as the shuttle's crew compartment + SpaceLab module; which will be able to carry out the kind of work the shuttles are doing right now.

Actually servicing satellites is something that (except for rare cases like the Hubble) ends up costing more than it would to just send a new one up there.

Additionally, the limited useful life of the Orion will mean that the spacecraft won't have to be cobbled together from one-off copies of parts that went out of production two an

Allow competition from US launch companies

[Baldrson]

Take the proposed budget for Orion and the current operating cost of the shuttle and use that cash to bid for commercial manned spaceflight [geocities.com]. Change the missions to better utilize the ISS if necessary.

it takes two years to order parts

[peter303]

So extending the shuttle lifetime will be one of the first decisions of the new [Madame] President. The main important parts are the troublesome rocket engines, but tiles etc. too.

Private industry

[FleaPlus]

NASA's other option lies in the private sector; but thus far, the progress from that quarter does not look sufficient to meet the 2011 deadline.

Although it says this in the summary, the linked article doesn't seem to actually have anything to support this claim. In fact, it's looking like according to their current schedule the private SpaceX Dragon crew/cargo capsule [wikipedia.org] will be flying demonstration flights 2008-2010. With an additional purchase commitment from NASA, they could probably finish and be able to transport cargo and crew to the ISS even sooner.

http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php [spacex.com]

Goodbye shuttle replacement program #54.

[heroine]

No surprise here. Now the Goo tube generation can say they thought they were going to get a shuttle replacement and were proven wrong. Every generation guesses wrong the first time.

Re:Spend

[reality-bytes]

The spend is justified simply because (and a certain well known physicist will back me up) if we do not learn to leave this rock we, as a race, will ultimately perish here.

I'm not sure that the STS as it was finally created could ever be called a 'responsible' use of resources but right now, it's the only manned launcher the USA has so they've got to work with it until Orion becomes available.

Re:

[Faylone]

Moreover, the money spent NASA isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the defense budget

Re:Spend

[Shooter6947]

[the STS is] the only manned launcher the USA has so they've got to work with it until Orion becomes available.

This misses the point. The problem is that NASA told congress that they could indeed keep flying the shuttle while developing Orion, for an extra $1B per year. Congress said, "great. keep flying the shuttle, develop Orion, and do it without the $1B." NASA is not getting enough money to do both. The point of retiring the shuttle is to free up that ~$6B/year and spend it on the next-generation launch system, Orion, instead. We can't do both without a significant increase in budget, which is just not going to happen.

As for not having American access to the Station in the interim, we'll just have to deal with paying the Russians. Unless the NASA COTS [wikipedia.org] system works out. Elon Musk over at SpaceX [spacex.com] may very well have his Dragon [wikipedia.org] capsule and Falcon 9 launch vehicle ready about that time to take over from the Shuttle.

Re:

[joe_cot]

1. Tourists. It's already clear that the richest will spend millions of dollars and months of training in order to go into space. Entrepreneurs are betting that slightly-less-rich tourists will spend a great deal (~100k, maybe less) to be able to go into space, which requires more safety and a smaller crew (ie 2-3 pilots and 20 dead weight tourists).
2. Satellites. It currently costs a great deal to launch satellites into orbit, and companies have to look to another country (ie Russia) to launch them for them.
3. N

Re:

[nbucking]

That is a debate that has gone on for too long. Of course space benefits commercial. Think of the money to be made in mining ore from other planets. That is thinking in long term though. Short term it is merely for trucking millionaires into space. Mid term it could mean big money for resort owners to be the first one to rent condominiums in space or even the moon. There are a lot of people who would line up for such things. Probably not practical minded people though.

NASA is like any other government

Re:

[TripMaster Monkey]

You're leaving out a whole bunch of stuff.

Here's just a few money-making ventures available to an orbital station:

• Orbital solar power facilities
• Exotic alloy production
• Culturing of carbon nanotubes and metal whiskers
• Production of large perfect crystals
• Production of extremely thin films
• Platform for launching other craft
• etc., etc., etc.

These are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.

Re:

[Neo Quietus]

"For comparison, NASA's FY 2008 budget of $17.3 billion represents about 0.6% of the $2.9 trillion United States federal budget." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget [wikipedia.org]

0.6% of the federal budget is not a lot of resources to be devoting to the promise of space travel, especially considering the possible rewards.

As for commercial benefits, there are some (and there are other, non-commercial benefits), but why does a government agency have to do things that have commercial benefits? Won't, you know, co

Re:

[Firethorn]

I think that some of the question is, sure, it's used for science and development. But, even for science and development, there are ways to calculate cost effectivness.

Some would ask, what would happen if we took half that and invested it in green energy, such as wind, solar, nuclear, and oil replacement technologies such as cellulostic ethanol?

I personally think that we can and should do both. Arguements will always exist for prioritization.

But then I think that we should of had a replacement for the shu

Re:Spend

[mha]

This questions is invalid.

It comes down to asking "what is the commercial benefit of live"?

This conversation happened and says it all:
Q: Why did you climb that mountain?
A: Because it is there.

What do you live for? What is "the economy" for? No economist would ask such a question. Because the ENDS of the economy are not subject of that science, only how to best achieve it. What those ends are, what people values in life, is NOT a subject of economic debate - at least not as real economists are concerned (sure there are those who want to impose their values on you but that is their personal issue and not subject of the science called "economics").

It comes down to this: If there are enough people with enough power to get their will then whatever it is they want it gets done. Period. That's how everything works. Democracy too. Only distribution of power is different in different societies.

So, if you don't want that anyone goes to space, convince them or become powerful enough to prevent it. But don't ask for the purpose - there is none. Each person has to decide for themselves what they want from/in life. That is true whether you're an atheist or a devoted catholic (I'm an atheist who ended up on two catholic pilgrimages :-) thus far). For atheists that's clear, but also religion teaches that what you do in life is YOUR choice, god doesn't tell you. (It does say you get judged afterwards but more about HOW and not WHAT you did). So if I decide my purpose is to get to Mars then that's it. If I kill people to get what I want I leave human values behind. If I can convince enough people (with enough resources) to help me (or if they want it themselves anyway) there is no use asking the question "why". Because I want it.

Imagine an intelligence waaaaay beyond human capabilities. Of what use is it? It's a great computer, not more! Without feelings, desires, there is NOTHING to drive it towards some end. There is no logical reason to do ANYTHING. You can ALWAYS ask "why", endlessly! At some point you have to decide you don't give a d..., or you never have a reason to act, ever. That's also why very intelligent people, with IQs far above average, are NOT the most successful ones in life. Sure, *some* intelligence sure helps, but at some point it gets much more important to feel the inner DRIVE to live and so things, and NOT ask questions "why"! That's (the main reason) why a dyslexic Richard Branson is a multi-Billionaire and 180+ IQ writer Stanislaw Lem (one of my favorites) only wrote lots of very thoughtful and philosophic books, with an increasing air of skepticism and melancholy.

So maybe you are too intelligent if you keep asking "why" ;-)

Re:

[Colin Smith]

This questions is invalid.

[snip]

So maybe you are too intelligent if you keep asking "why" ;-)

No, you've simply misinterpreted the question. The question is "Why are YOU spending MY money to achieve YOUR ends."

 

Re:

[rufty_tufty]

My guess is the answer is supposed to come down to:
"Because I am the government, and I decide what is best for the people"

I suppose historically this would have come down to:
"Because I am the king (i.e. I am better at fighting than you, or my Ancesters were and therefore I command the loyalty of others who are better at fighting than you are)"

These days I suppose the real situation is:
"Because I've decided to make a living out of playing the power/politics game and this is a piece on my chess board; if you

Re:

[CarpetShark]

Can anybody explain the commercial benefit to space travel?

Well, it means you can go space-shopping with all your space-buddies.

Seriously though... since when has space been about (immediate) commercial benefit? Some of us are still interested in the science way more. That science will (and does) lead to commercial benefits.

Re:

[Ash Vince]

Can anybody explain the commercial benefit to space travel?

There are numerous commercial benefits some of which have mentioned by other people, but one that has not yet is GPS. Maybe this came out of the defense budget but the underlying research into putting satelites into orbit was done as part of the original space race. This spawned a real world benefit which now everyone is coming to rely on.

Given the significant resources spend for NASA, is this monies better off spent elsewhere or is this spent responsibly?

Maybe. But then the US spends far more on defense. Some of this defense budget is about defending the US from foreign attack but an awful lot is just pissed up the wall

Be Carefull

[ghoul]

Its dangerous to make such comments lest you be labelled anti-semite. You can make the same points by talking about US military aid to Egypt or Pakistan without inviting the wrath of the Anti-defamation league

Re:

[OldeTimeGeek]

Can anybody explain the commercial benefit to space travel?

Maybe not a commercial benefit, but one of the least mentioned byproducts of the space program was the creation of hundreds of thousand of well-paying jobs. National prestige is all well and good, but what will get you reelected in November is jobs.

The promise of new aerospace-related jobs and the secondary employment that followed it was the leverage that Lyndon Johnson used to get other Senators to vote for the space program in the first place.

NASA's budget is tiny.

[fahrbot-bot]

Given the significant resources spend for NASA...

"Significant"? NASA's funding is a tiny, tiny part of the budget.
From the following: Putting NASA's budget in perspective [thespacereview.com], July 2007.

• According to budget documents obtained from the Government Printing Office, the national budget for 2007 totals about $2.784 trillion. At $16.143 billion, spending on NASA accounts for 0.58% of this.
• For every $1 the federal government spends on NASA, it spends $98 on social programs. In other words, if we cut spending on

LC-39C

[reality-bytes]

The obvious solution to this problem would be to construct pad LC-39C as an Ares platform.

LC-39C was originally projected as a third Saturn V pad in a line north of LC-39B but was never constructed although a stub of it's intended crawler-way points towards the north from the dog-leg in the LC-39B crawler-way. There were actually a total of three unbuilt platforms to the north as part of an 'Advanced Saturn' program but the other two look like they'd need significant land reclamation.

The existing crawler-transporters should be sufficient to handle both the STS and Ares I as NASA is building brand-new MLPs for the Ares system.

Compared to the total cost of the Ares/Orion system, a new LC-39 pad would like like a bargain.

Something I forgot; the VAB.

[reality-bytes]

I'd forgotten that the assembly platforms within the VAB are tailored to the STS.

It'd be interesting to know how NASA intends to work this as the crew-launching Ares I is a long, thin stick whereas the Ares V is an ostensibly shuttle-shaped two boosters and a central LH2/LOX tank.

The only thing I can think of is that they might crane platform-inserts into position when servicing an Ares I and then use the existing Shuttle platforms when servicing an Ares V.