Slashdot Mirror
NASA Considering Early Retirement of Shuttle Program
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."
Ever heard of the Apollo program? Saturn-V?
Like this.
+++ATH0
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.)
Freedom of expression includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas expressed in software form.
But are the reusable rockets rated for manned space-flight?
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.
Let me put it this way. The Space Shuttle costs $500 million dollars for each flight. A Delta II costs ~$50 million (with possible bulk discounts bringing the price down from there). The shuttle has a maximum cargo loadout of 28.8 metric tons. The Delta II has a maximum loadout of 10.9 metric tons.
1 Shuttle Flight:
$500m
28.8 metric tons
10 Delta II flights:
$500m
10 x 10.9 = 109 metric tons
Any questions?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"Named after the patterns that stars form in the night sky, Constellation Systems is responsible for developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and related exploration architecture systems. Constellation Systems is the combination of large and small systems that will provide humans the capabilities necessary to travel and explore the solar system. Constellation Systems will be made up of Earth-to-orbit, in-space and surface transportation systems, surface and space-based infrastructures, power generation, communications systems, maintenance and science instrumentation, and robotic investigators and assistants." (source)
The moral of the story is that when you shut down the manufacturing line for a complex product, you shut it down for good.
The shuttles are cool but they've never gotten anywhere near to the cost/lb that the program was started for. I remember as far back as the mid-seventies that they were being critisized for being too expensive as compared to one-shot rockets. It's not really NASA fault, they kept having to scale back the designs due to budget cuts, the origional vision was to have a 100% reusable system built out of titanium alloy instead of the partially resuable alluminum design that they ended up with. The lighter weight of a more expensive alloy and not throwing away the fuel tanks might have made the cost/flight cheap enough to be competative.
This is silly. The modules currently built or under construction won't fit. They are designed specifically to fit in the cargo bay of the shuttle, both in shape and the location of attachment points. This is mentioned in the article.
Not at least until the private sector comes up with a vehicle that is capable of what the shuttle accomplished.
Which was... what? Not live up to the plans for it?
Orbit
* * * --they cant all be your best, that would be confusing
To follow the space election political discussion including the fate of the shuttle from both sides, read this thread on NASA Watch.
The Supersonic Spaceplane was scrapped in favor of the ScramJet Spaceplane, which was scrapped in favor of the DC-X Delta Clipper, which was scrapped in favor of the X-33 VentureStar, which was scrapped in favor of a little ScramJet missile (the X-43). Thus we've come full circle.
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The problem with the ISS as a base, is that it's in the absolute wrong orbit. It only gets a few economical opportunities for lunar launch angles a month, is equally sub-optimal fuel-wise for both the Russians and the US. And space construction techniques are hamstrung by NASA not letting any ISS astronauts even *try* to debug broken modules and by spacesuits that require long pre-breathe procedures and are essentially minor-change versions of the suits from Apollo.
Gentoo Sucks
Thank you Ghost of Wernher von Braun!
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 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? 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
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
References:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/000323.html#more
Read that for the official response from NASA.