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."

Comments

I would hope they are at least "investigating"

[Gentoo Fan]

Why rely on several decades old tech for long term dependancies? Some R&D never hurt anyone (except the budget, but that's a separate discussion).

Im not surpised

[deft]

I'd be appaulled if they DIDN'T consider retiring the fleet as an option. To NOT do so would be pig headed. There could very well be a better way, regardless of how great the shuttle program has been, and how much it means to me as someone who grew up having the best "show and tell" pictures because my dad worked on the shuttle.

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

[meringuoid]

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, especially since I keep getting +5 Insightful for this :-)

1. Retire the Shuttle and use Soyuz, which works just fine.

2. With the money saved, build ships 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

[evilviper]

The Shuttle was a neat idea that didn't work out.

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.

Well...

[hype7]

if the retirement (what a lovely euphemism) is in lieu of a new program, great.

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

Good and Sensible

[thpr]

It's called "business sense" in my book. Occasionally analyze your largest components of spending to determine if they are necessary in their current incarnation. Look at alternatives, weigh risks, do cost/benefit and all that.

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...

[DigitalRaptor]

I'd much rather my tax dollars were spent with Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites...

Re:Burt Rutan...

[WayneConrad]

I'd much rather my tax dollars were spent with Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites...

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...

[ZeroGee]

I think the point is that Burt Rutan and Scaled did something that few thought possible, and more importantly they did it using an ingenious design and with incredible efficiency.

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...

[cje]

I'd rather my tax dollars weren't spent except where absolutely necessary (say, for defense). Everything else, leave to industry.

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.

Re:Burt Rutan...

[orac2]

NASA hasn't blown the fuck out of that many people, when you get right down to it...Seventeen deaths in over thirty years.

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. 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.

All the more reason.

[AltGrendel]

All the more reason to develop the space elevator.

Re:Saturn Vs, Please?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even as magnificent as they are, it would take a Saturn V 30 years to go to Neptune with a Holmann Transfer. Considering that the planets won't align for a Voyager-esque event for another 150 years, we need to work on something similar to NERVA. Its probably not feasable to make rockets too much larger than the giant Saturn V's (360 feet tall).

Oops, I mentioned nu-cu-lur. Mod down -5: Evil.

Re:fp!

[BinxBolling]

Why reusable? Every kilogram of the craft that is "reused" is a kilogram of payload that it couldn't take up and leave in orbit.

Dump the NASA for manned space flight.

[zorkmid]

Really.

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.

The shuttle was designed by a comittee

[RealAlaskan]

The shuttle was designed by a comittee, and its politics was always its strongest point. I'm not surprised that NASA thinks they can do better than that today, 30+ years later.

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.

Re:NASA's honeydew list:

[bcrowell]

I love it, except for #5. At this point in history, the only good reason to build a space station is, perhaps, to serve as a hotel for space tourism; and that's something that should be considered by private industry, not a government agency.

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.

Goddamit, put that damn myth to bed!

[Thud457]

• 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!

[timster]

Absolutely and of course, let's not forget the Shuttle, with its 98% success rate. Can you say "not good enough"?

Ermm, actually its not funny...

[Tracer_Bullet82]

its 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".

Lots of replies for Burt Rutan

[joeytmann]

Seeing that there are lots of replies about giving Burt Rutan 500 million or what ever and see what he can do...kinda silly. No disrespect to Mr.Rutan but he just did was NASA had done 50 years ago. Their sub-orbital flight went what 328KM? Sorry can't remember the exact figure. Some one care to look up the elevation of the orbit of ISS? I don't think even Burt Rutan can make that leap on $500 million....but I do have to admit it would be cool to watch him try. Anyways, I say let NASA do its thing. Atleast they are looking at all the options..

Let the flaming begin.

Re:i can't help but think

[Yunzil]

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?

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:Saturn Vs, Please?

[cmowire]

See, I don't think there's a point in restarting Saturn V production.

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.

Henry David Thoreau, is that you?

[guet]

What are you doing posting on a forum hosted on the internet - whose infrastructure is supported mostly by US Government funded institutions? Using HTML, created in an institution ( CERN ) funded by many governments. Dialling in on a telephone/ADSL line, the infrastructure for which was created by the Govt.?

For that matter, why are you using a computer? Stick to your log cabin and complaining about the new railroad : )