NASA Considering Early Retirement of Shuttle Program 428
Rei writes "While publicly assuring the public that it has no plans to do so, leaks have indicated that NASA has been quietly investigating plans to get rid of the Space Shuttle as soon as possible, and finish the International Space Station with disposable rockets, even as NASA works on achieving Return to Flight in 2005."
Good! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
a) The story says disposable, not reusable
b) Doesn't look like it -- the article mentions relying on Soyuz (and potentially Shenzhou) for manned flights in future.
Goddamit, put that damn myth to bed! (Score:5, Insightful)
- Manned - requires 99.999% success rate EXPENSIVE(think aircraft / ICBM building)
- Unmanned - requires "only" 99.9% (99%?...) less expensive (think ship building. No, really, that's how the Soviets looked at it.)
Obviously, need a two-tier system, not one do-everything, do nothing well system.As far a reusable/disposable, for the time being, whichever is more economical. Be sure to show your work calculating continuing program costs for reusable designs.
Re:Goddamit, put that damn myth to bed! (Score:3, Insightful)
Saturn Vs, Please? (Score:5, Funny)
Aren't Saturn Vs just magnificent? They're magnificent! I reckon it's time for them to make a come-back. Please?
Re:Saturn Vs, Please? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oops, I mentioned nu-cu-lur. Mod down -5: Evil.
Re:Saturn Vs, Please? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Saturn Vs, Please? (Score:3, Funny)
The Saturn V was the John Holmes of rockets.
The Saturn V died from AIDS? I thought it died from lack of aids from NASA.
Re:Saturn Vs, Please? (Score:5, Informative)
The moral of the story is that when you shut down the manufacturing line for a complex product, you shut it down for good.
Re:Saturn Vs, Please? (Score:5, Interesting)
The RD-170 motors "Pratt already builds a development of it as the RD-180 for the Atlas V" puts out more thrust than the F-1 did and is a more modern desgin. The RS-68 "used in the Delta V" puts out more thrust then the j-2. Throw in LiAl structure "used in the Shuttle ET" and modern electronics "used in your desktop pc" you could have a Better heavy lifter than the SatrunV with not that much development and no new engine programs.
You would have to build a new launch pad but then you would have to do the same if you brought back the Saturn.
Re:Saturn Vs, Please? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Saturn Vs, Please? (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, with the aerospace components we've got now, with the alloys and welding techniques, it would be about as smart to restart Saturn V production as it would be for Porsche to dig up the plans for the 914 and restart that production line. I mean, sure the 914 was a cool little machine at a good price, but when Porsche decided to make an "economical" sports car, they started over and made the Boxter instead.
It stopped making sense to restart the production lines after 1980. By that point, all of the non-custom components were completely obselete, the electronics were dated, etc. By 1984, we had all of the Saturn V-related facilities completely repurposed for the shuttle, so even if we could build a Saturn V, we'd have nowhere to launch it.
It's OK that we can't make a Saturn V anymore. It'll cost just as much to redesign the Saturn V around more modern parts than it will be to make a brand new design, with a few microcontrollers instead of heavy 60's vintage computers, more optimal aerodynamics and staging, etc, some ability to recover portions of it, etc.
We can still make J-2 rockets (they re-used everything but the nozzle to make the X-33's rocket engines) and a F-1-performing rocket isn't that hard to get started, either. Remember, part of the reason why the SSME is so damn expensive and tempremental is because it's got staged combustion. The F-1 was much simpler.
The problem is, people are far too attached to the *machine*, instead of the *idea*. I mean, sure, the Saturn V was the last machine that NASA has built that really lived up to its promises. The shuttle is a *beautiful* machine that has some nice properties, but has been strung along for the past 20 years and really never lived up to its promises. So, instead of asking why we can't build the Saturn V, we need to be asking why we can't get stuff up to space cheaply and safely.
Re:Saturn Vs, Please? (Score:5, Interesting)
Before Skylab was ready for launch, however, a Saturn V became available from the cancelled Apollo missions. Thus Skylab went up dry, but the population had to suffer through Star Trek TNG's grates-for-flooring ships.
I would hope they are at least "investigating" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I would hope they are at least "investigating" (Score:2, Informative)
Well, after a few years, technology tends to be more than just a few years old. (Yes, it is now time to slap yourself on the forehead.)
Re:I would hope they are at least "investigating" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would hope they are at least "investigating" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I would hope they are at least "investigating" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would hope they are at least "investigating" (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but it's the discussiont that must be held before your primary query can be addressed.
Look to your own household for examples, do you, for instance, drive a car that is the embodiment of Saturn V era technology (such as a Ford Taurus) or something more akin to today's level of technology (like a McLaren F1).
My guess is that budgetary issues took primacy before you even went out car shopping.
KFG
Re:I would hope they are at least "investigating" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I would hope they are at least "investigating" (Score:2, Funny)
Im not surpised (Score:5, Insightful)
There's alot of brilliant people over there that don't make it a habit of ignoring all the options, and all the possibilities. Thats what lets them acheive such great heights. I'd be sorry to see it go though.
Re:Im not surpised (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Retire the Shuttle [slashdot.org] and use Soyuz, which works just fine.
2. With the money saved, build ships [slashdot.org] to go somewhere new. Or even somewhere we went FORTY YEARS AGO.
The Shuttle was a neat idea that didn't work out. There's no shame in admitting that. Russia ditched Buran because of the cost and continued to run a fine Earth-orbit operation for years based on Soyuz tech. Let's use American technology to take mankind further, rather than just duplicate what's already there.
Re:Im not surpised (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got to disagree with you, COMPLETELY. The shuttle worked out very well, and has done so for a very long time.
It's under a cloud now, and it's politically a bad-word, but it was an incredibly successful project. Wouldn't have anything like the hubble without it.
Now, I will concede that the Shuttle is past it's prime, and a re-design is in order. Not because it doesn't or hasn't worked, but simply because we can do better. Also because a newer craft would require less per-trip investment, and pay for itself.
Why not just.... (Score:4, Funny)
Ermm, actually its not funny... (Score:4, Insightful)
India has the neccesary "intellectual" labour and which it doesn't, the US can easily transfer the skills; and technology
The cost definitely can be lower.With good discussions, I'm sure the Indian government can be easily persuaded to chip in.
Make that with any discussions,which country does not want the glamour of "space pioneers".
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the scrapping is in lieu of nothing... that's not so great.
I do think a vehicle capable of re-use is important to the goal to get us off the planet; if they need to use rockets to get the ISS done while a new vehicle is built, so be it.
-- james
Re:Well... (Score:2)
BTW: "In lieu of" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
i can't help but think (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:i can't help but think (Score:4, Interesting)
Not at least until the private sector comes up with a vehicle that is capable of what the shuttle accomplished.
The X-Prize was a good start, but they are still a long way off.
Re:i can't help but think (Score:4, Insightful)
Which was... what? Not live up to the plans for it?
The shuttle was a dog from day 1. Its payload wasn't big enough and there really weren't as many missions that required humans to be present as it was originally thought.
Re:i can't help but think (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:i can't help but think (Score:2, Interesting)
No, I wouldn't strap myself ontop of several hundred tons of fuel which is on fire, but there are plently of people out there willing it. Remember the days
Re:i can't help but think (Score:2, Insightful)
No.
Since when has space flight been privatised? As great and important as Burt Rutan's team's achievment was, it was only sub-orbital, can't really be considered space travel. In 10 years time privitised space travel maybe be a reality, but we still need something in the mean-time.
Note: I think the winning of the x-prize was truely an important event. More privitized sub-orbital flights are sure to follow. But its only the
Re:i can't help but think (Score:2)
no shuttles (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:no shuttles (Score:5, Informative)
1 Shuttle Flight:
$500m
28.8 metric tons
10 Delta II flights:
$500m
10 x 10.9 = 109 metric tons
Any questions?
Re:no shuttles (Score:2)
Re:no shuttles (Score:2)
Re:no shuttles (Score:2)
Yes, what are these metric tons of which you speak, are they related to these? [thefreedictionary.com]
Also 500 Million a flight is worth it to get treasured moments like the inaguration of the Columbia where Ronald Regan almost brought a tear to my eye telling me about the all current evil terrorist Afghanis were wonderful brave freedom fighters battling for good against the nasty evil empire Russian terrorists who are now our friends.
NASA - prime the pump of free enterprise! (Score:3, Interesting)
PLUS, IF ALL OUR MIL-IND COMPANIES ARE BUSY WORKING TO PUT US IN SPACE, WE"RE NOT FOMETING IDIOTIC, WASTEFUL FOREIGN WARS TO KEEP THEM BUSY. Think of it as UN resolution 35397, "The US Aerospace full employment act so they stop bombing the rest of us" act.
Re:no shuttles (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:no shuttles (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is, both groups wanted reusable, but congress wanted NASA and the airforce to do *Everything* (even stuff that is launched on Atlas, Delta, and Titan launchers) on the shuttle. When, had they just made something for exploration of space and space station logistics, they could have made some different (and, in retrospect, better) design decisions.
The USAF has *always* been chomping at the bit to take over space. Since the 50s. One of the main reasons why the Russians orbited the first satelite is because we wanted the first satelite to be a civilian satelite, for a variety of political and international relations reasons. The USAF *could* have launched something sooner, but was told not to.
On the other hand, we did cause Russia to waste a similar amount of money to ensure they had strategic parity. Buran was just as much, if not more, of a military vehicle as the shuttle.
Supersonic Spaceplane (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Supersonic Spaceplane (Score:4, Informative)
The real problem is that NASA has been trying to build craft out of untested technologies. The end result is that each program (with the exception of the DC-X) failed due to delays and cost overruns. For example, the VentureStar HAD to have hydrogen slush, composite tanks, linear aerospike engines, and new thermal protection systems all working perfectly the first time. There was no room to change out anything that didn't behave as expected.
As a result, we've been kind of chasing our tails around a bit instead of building craft out of proven technology.
Re:Supersonic Spaceplane (Score:3, Informative)
References:
Re:Supersonic Spaceplane (Score:3, Insightful)
An equivalent question: "What happened to the rapid adoption of 90nm wafers that was going to bring us all 6GHz processors by late 2003?" Or "what happened to fusion power, which has been 20 years away since 1960?"
The answer to all of them: it turned out to be a shitload harder than we expected.
New operating regimes (higher speed,
Good and Sensible (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA is irresponsible if they DON'T do this occasionally (just not constantly) and such an investigation doesn't mean anything with regards to the formal "plans". If you have any knowledge of a strategy team or executive in a large company, you'll know just how often weird things that are "out of plan" are considered and subsequently dismissed... I guess it gives the rumor mill something to do.
Burt Rutan... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Burt Rutan... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Burt Rutan... (Score:4, Insightful)
You are of course, as is normal in these discussions, forgetting the people who weren't astronauts but who also died because of their jobs [wordiq.com]. Look under Ground Staff Fatalities, for the US the total comes to 8 people who also died in space-related industrial accidents, but who didn't get buried in Arlington. You could make an argument that several of these individuals died in generic construction snfaus, but on the other hand, the list doesn't include the people who died of heart attacks from sheer over work and stress during the Apollo crash program.
So far, the only memorial these people have is a small statue stashed in the visitor's center beside JSC, and they only got that after legendary pad leader Guenter Wendt kicked up a fuss. I think that's uncool.
Re:Burt Rutan... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Burt Rutan... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Burt Rutan... (Score:4, Interesting)
Gagarin orbited before Shepherd sub-orbited.
Re:Burt Rutan... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe few outside the industry. Rutan's accomplishments were not exactly "revolutionary." Other X-prize teams with far less expertise and less manpower came quite close to succeeding, as well. This was just not an area of much research prior to the "X-prize" -- which is the main reason why the X-prize was such a great thing for science. All the participants were going for the notoriety and the fame, not for the $10 million bonus. (See actual development costs of SpaceShipOne for more details).
Burt already has plans made for a 7 man orbital rocket, and even space station for the common man.
So do lots of other groups. Orbital travel is far from just over the hill, however. Going from current private airplane technology (where Rutan already had years of experience) to what SpaceShipOne achieved is nothing compared to going from what SpaceShipOne achieved to being able to cheaply and easily transport people and materials into orbit.
I think the trend is far more important than where we are in the trend. And if you follow the trend out 10 or 20 years, I think you'll see groups and companies surpassing NASA and other governments in terms of complexity, success, usefulness, and efficiency.
Agreed 100%. The future of space travel will be run by multi-national private industry, and will be far more efficient and successful than what NASA could justify to Congressional Committees. Just don't throw your life savings into Rutan's corner just yet. There's a long way to go, and lots of other people to lead us there.
Re:Burt Rutan... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd rather my tax dollars weren't spent except where absolutely necessary (say, for defense). Everything else, leave to industry. A free market economy can make far better decisions about how to spend money than can politicans.
"How should the government spend my money" is the wrong question. How little of my money can we get away with the government getting is the right question.
Re:Burt Rutan... (Score:3, Insightful)
The internet, for instance, couldn't have been done without the governments of the world, and the American government in particular.
GPS, OnStar, satellite TV, any many other technological and medical advancements are the direct result of government spending. It could be argued that all or most of these would have come about eventually, but it may have been a very long wait.
But the principle that government should only
Re:Burt Rutan... (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as the space program is concerned, the problem with this is that "industry" is typically only interested in things that can be done for financial gain. Now, there are certain things associated with space that are (or will be) profitable; space tourism is an obvious example. Additionally, the aerospace industry (i.e., Boeing) already sells its services to the government in the form of launch vehicles to put satellites into orbit, and competing for various technical contracts.
The problem is that not everything that involves the space program is done for (or will result in) financial gain. For example, consider the recent Mars rover missions. By all accounts, these missions have increased our knowledge of the Red Planet by several times more than all of the previous missions combined. Are these missions profitable? Is anybody making money off of them (aside from the private sector contractors that won the bids to do a lot of the work that went into them?) Probably not.
CEOs in the boardrooms of private industry would never say "I know! Let's build a spacecraft to explore the Saturn system and a probe to land on Titan!" They would never undertake such a mission because there would be no financial reason for them to do so. This is not a "slam" against corporations; it's just a basic statement of fact. The fundamental role of the corporation is to earn profits for its shareholders, and there is nothing financially profitable about building a complicated probe to explore the moons of Saturn.
But does that mean that such a mission is not profitable in other, less tangible ways? Aside from the more zealous libertarian types who only want to see their tax dollars spent on tanks or the extreme fundamentalist types who view exploration of the heavens as blasphemy, most people would probably agree that expanding our knowledge of the universe that we live in is a Good Thing (TM). It's profitable from an intellectual and scientific (if not economic) standpoint. And it's hardwired into our very being; curiosity (and the desire to satisfy that curiosity) is one of the things that makes us human.
So I'm all for expanding the role of private industry in space, but there will always be a role for publicly-funded missions as well. And that is how it should be. Space is an awfully big place; there's plenty of room for both the public and the private sectors.
Henry David Thoreau, is that you? (Score:5, Insightful)
For that matter, why are you using a computer? Stick to your log cabin and complaining about the new railroad : )
Constellation class (Score:2)
Re:Constellation class (Score:5, Informative)
Not really news (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know why it's so "hip" to hate the shuttle program around here. If you look past the cost, the shuttles are pretty damned cool, and have a better safety record than any commercial passenger jet.
It's just so sci-fi. The shuttles are honest-to-god spaceships, everything else is just strapping a tin can onto a big bottle rocket.
They just needed to shoot lasers and have a socket to mount an R2 utility droid and they'd be teh coolest EVAR!!!1!1!!!
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
Re:Not really news (Score:2)
The shuttle does have an advantage in that it can easily allow the ISS to install equipment straight out of the shuttle's bay, but other than that, the shuttle isn't very special.
If you took an airplane completely apart and put it completely back together before every flight, then you would have a point of comparison. But for the amount of effort
Re:Not really news (Score:3, Interesting)
The Shuttles we have now are pretty much ancient. They're not cutting-edge technology anymore, not by a long shot. On one hand, it's great to have a reuseable spacecraft that has a relatively large payload. On the other, it's so very expensive keeping our fleet that most of the money allocated to NASA gets spent on shuttle maintenance and not on a: exploration and b: Research and Development. Since Congress is not thrilled
Re:Not really news (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not really news (Score:2, Funny)
I mean, really, it has a GIANT ROBOT ARM sticking out the back of it. How friggen Star Wars is that? Do the Soyuz capsules have GIANT ROBOT ARMS? No. They barely even have windows.
Here we are, with a fleet of space ships with GIANT FUCKING ROBOT ARMS STICKING OUT THE BACK OF THEM, and all these so called "geeks" on slashdot can't do anything but bitch about it and moan how much they'd rather see th
Re:Not really news (Score:4, Funny)
Hey! I resent that! 1950s sci-fi rockets had a chequered band around the middle! A CHEQUERED BAND! Is there a chequered bit around anywhere on the Shuttle? No. A nice two-tone design with the heat tiles, I'll give you that, but no cool-looking chequered bit. Dan Dare wouldn't go up in a Shuttle if you had him at gunpoint. Hell, if you get Dan Dare at gunpoint you're the villain anyway and you're going to get a kicking but that's beside the point. Any cool rocket needs a chequered bit, robot arms come a distant second.
Not necessarily a bad thing (Score:2, Interesting)
NASA can focus on more far-reaching projects and crafts.
Still, I group up with the shuttle and will miss it.
All the more reason. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All the more reason. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:YOU STFU (Score:3, Funny)
Yes! Clearly the superior way is to get into space by flapping our arms really fast.
Dump the NASA for manned space flight. (Score:5, Insightful)
They rocked the world back in the 60's and early 70's.
They still rock the world with their unmanned space exploration.
But for about the past 20 years it seems that their manned space flight plan consists of very expensive (and sometimes deadly) joy rides.
I say we (US Tax payers) Give Burt Rutan 500 Million (the cost of a *one* shuttle mission) and stand back.
Sad, but understandable (Score:5, Interesting)
But like it or not, I think scrubbing the shuttle program without a clear choice for a reusable replacement is a bad idea. Yes, disposable rockets might be more cost-effective in the short-term, but I don't trust NASA (as a bureaucratic US gov't agency) not to turn any project into a bottomless pit of money over time - even a rocket program built on a combination of proven technology (the type of rockets used for Mercury or Apollo missions) and modern tools would still carry the temptation to slowly inflate pricetags if the corproate architecture of NASA doesn't change - not to mention the everpresent risks of death due to, as they so coyly put it, a "mishap."
Disclaimer: IANAAOA (I am not an astronaut or astrophysicist).
Private spaceflight (Score:2)
SS1 is at 1963 level (Score:2)
The shuttle was designed by a comittee (Score:4, Insightful)
What would really be a great thing would be for NASA to get out of engineering, and just let contracts for delivery of pounds or people to orbit. Let the vendors figure out the details.
Thank you Ghost of Wernher von Braun! (Score:3, Interesting)
But what about all the skilled labor wasted? Well, there are multiple plans I've heard of to build a new class of rocketry largely based on the shuttle launch stack (or bundle). That whole workforce would still be valuable and employed and the shuttle derived vehicle could be capable of launching to Mars directly without pointless pit stops at the ISS, L5, moon or wherever: Mars Direct [wikipedia.org]
Re:Thank you Ghost of Wernher von Braun! (Score:4, Informative)
Hmmm... I'm not sure Von Braun's ghost is the best entity to summon here. Von Braun had more than a little to do [nasa.gov] with putting the shuttle on NASA's technology roadmap. Mars Direct is called Direct partly because it deliberately abandons a big chunk of the Von Braun architecture, which is that you have a space station, serviced by shuttles, where you assemble your outward bound spaceships. Even when you take out the station, Von Braun's 1969/1970 Mars architecture relies on shuttles to cover the gap between LEO and the ground. This article entitled The Von Braun Master Plan: National Dream or National Nightmare? [spacedaily.com] sums up the objections to Von Braun's architecture -- and NASA's long term adherence to it -- concisely.
BTW, Here's Von Braun's 1950's vision [toad.net]
cool and not cool (Score:2, Interesting)
This is not. [nasa.gov] It costs about $2.4 billion / year and kills a few people occasionally.
A much more accurate comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
A much more accurate comparison would have been between the Apollo program [nasa.gov] and the Shuttle program [nasa.gov], both of which involved manned spaceflight.
The Apollo program achieved an incredible goal, namely that of putting a crew of two on the moon, and was both an incredible engineering accomplishment as well as accomplishing some very useful science that is still being sorted through to this day.
While you can cite some very good
Re:A much more accurate comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely not. If you're on a budget, you can probably get to Antarctica and live there more cheaply than you move to and live in a nice Manhattan apartment: the air is breathable, you can get food if you must, you can get there with comparatively small amounts of energy (sail and on foot). You don't even have to worry about recycling your water or your waste.
Another
Kaboom! (Score:2, Funny)
I thought this meant destroying the station with rockets, which I thought would be sort of moving backwards. After RTFM, it all became clear.
Lots of replies for Burt Rutan (Score:4, Insightful)
Let the flaming begin.
NASA is not planning to retire the Shuttle early. (Score:3, Informative)
To follow the space election political discussion including the fate of the shuttle from both sides, read this thread on NASA Watch [nasawatch.com].
ISS will not include China (Score:3, Interesting)
If the Chinese are invited into the partnership, they also can transport personnel aboard their Shenzhou manned spacecraft, whose second orbital flight is expected next year.
This is absurd speculation for a country that has recently hijacked an American surveillance plane from international airspace. The US has already balked at space collaboration with China. It is unlikely to make gratuitous gestures like this until they institute democracy and stop threatening to invade Taiwan.
As for retiring the shuttle, it would be moronic to do this without identifying the new launchers and spacecraft to take its place. The point wasn't addressed in this rather superficial article. I don't think a repeat of the 6 year stand down from manned spaceflight that occurred between Apollo and the shuttle is acceptable.
How they're going to get down. (Score:5, Informative)
NASA's honeydew list: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:NASA's honeydew list: (Score:5, Insightful)
All the real science is done by uncrewed satellites and probes. And may I preempt the usual argument, which is that the Hubble could only be repaired because of the existence of the shuttle. If the shuttle hadn't existed, we would have been in an entirely different alternate history. Maybe more money would have flowed to space science, if the vast majority of NASA's budget hadn't been going to nationalistic propaganda exercises like the shuttle. When communications satellites are launched, the owners simply assume there's some risk of failure, and they insure against it.
Think Lewis & Clark (Score:4, Interesting)
All the plans I've seen for L5 colonies assume a lunar base shipping construction materials.
Those people have to get to space somehow. Currently, it's cheaper for them to be born there. (Err, raising / educating them until they're useful may sink that assumption...) So yeah, a spacestation isn't currently needed, but it's basic infrastructure for further development.
Re:Think Lewis & Clark (Score:3, Informative)
Re:NASA's honeydew list: (Score:3, Interesting)
Once we get to the point of people actually working in space, and using the weightless environment and resources to generate products, there will be insane profit. A space-based economy will make some of today's biggest companies look like a kid's piggy bank.
Re:fp! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:fp! (Score:2)
Any craft, not just reuseable (Score:3, Interesting)
I think a mix of craft, with different mission designs, some re-usable and maybe some not, some cargo and people haulers, and some pure passenger craft should be our new approach. It would allow for greater miss
Re:Who cares. (Score:2)
Indeed. (Score:2)
After all, there's clearly no future [virgingalactic.com] in space [translunar.org].
Re:OK, so what's next? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you mean to say ..."develop something new, and then retire the old birds."
-Rob