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

Saturn Vs, Please?

[Simon G Best]

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?

[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:Saturn Vs, Please?

[Alien Being]

The Saturn V was the John Holmes of rockets.

Re:Saturn Vs, Please?

[OldAndSlow]

I worked in a NASA shop 10 years ago. I was surprized to learn that we couldn't restart production of the Saturns. We don't have all the manufacturing specs, prints, etc. And we certainly don't have any of the jigs and special setups that they used to make those birds.

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?

[LWATCDR]

You really would not want to build Saturn Vs today anyway. We can do much better with proven parts.
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?

[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.

Re:Saturn Vs, Please?

[wikdwarlock]

You forget, perhaps, that this is, indeed, rocket science.

Re:Saturn Vs, Please?

[AKAImBatman]

Skylab was actually a little weird. See, the US decided that they had to have a response to Russia's Solyut station. An idea was hatched to take the third stage of a Saturn booster (A Saturn IVB, IIRC) and modify the interior to be habitable. Of course, the problem was that the Saturn IVB didn't have enough fuel to actually get the entire thing into orbit. So Skylab was going to have to liftoff fuel of rocket fuel. This decision resulted in a lot of weird design choices for the station. Chief among them was the grated floor, through which the fuel was supposed to pass.

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. :-)

Re:Saturn Vs, Please?

[vsprintf]

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.

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).

Re:I would hope they are at least "investigating"

[Simon G Best]

Why rely on several decades old tech for long term dependancies?...

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"

[Gentoo Fan]

What I meant was: The shuttle design/tech is a few decades old *now*. The ISS is still not finished, and should hopefully be up there in orbit for a long time. So it seems foolish to assume that the shuttle(s) will still be a viable vehicle for a long time to come when there may be a better approach, just that it needs to be looked into *now*.

Re:I would hope they are at least "investigating"

[Anonymous Coward]

Decades old tech? Like doors, floors, stairs? Old = Good in my book. You can have all the new you want, I'll take proven and reliable.

Re:I would hope they are at least "investigating"

[julesh]

Unfortunately, this doesn't sound like R&D. This sounds like taking a step backwards and losing the capacity for manned flight for the foreseeable future.

Re:I would hope they are at least "investigating"

[kfg]

(except the budget, but that's a separate discussion).

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"

[KyleJacobson]

Well at least we landed on the moon... I dont care what proof others have of it, IM NOT LISTENING!!! *plugs ears and yells loudly while running in circles*

Re:I would hope they are at least "investigating"

[Alioth]

A McLaren F1 is no more akin to 'todays technology' than a new Ford Taurus. If you wanted to do that example, something like, say, a Volkswagen TDi is 'more akin to today's technology' than a Taurus. The VW doesn't cost more than the Taurus.

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.

Why not just....

[elid]

...outsource it to India? :-)

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

i can't help but think

[phaetonic]

could the recent privatization of space travel have something to do with this?

Re:i can't help but think

[goldspider]

In a word: no.

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

[XanC]

My understanding is that NASA is going to be focusing on tasks in which there's no money (or incentive for private investment) at the moment. Basically, that means exploration. The rest (research, tourism) can be done privately.

Re:i can't help but think

[mr_snarf]

could the recent privatization of space travel have something to do with this?

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 beginning at the moment.

Re:i can't help but think

[mr_snarf]

Yes, you have a very good point. NASA and other space-agencies should be at the cutting edge of space-exploration and research. Personally I think this is why safety shouldn't be such a huge issue. The people who sign up for this know the risks. These days we have become too caught up in making everything perfectly safe, so that nothing ever gets done.

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 when explorers were heros?

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:i can't help but think

[plaiddragon]

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

Re:Good!

[Big Mark]

Ever heard of the Apollo program? Saturn-V?

no shuttles

[wh173b0y]

would it be cheaper to use disposible rockets to finish the iss? or are they worried about the possiblity of long term failure of the aging shuttle fleet...

Re:no shuttles

[AKAImBatman]

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?

Re:no shuttles

[ericzundel]

An interesting idea, but I think this equation is a bit too simplistic.

First of all, in a Delta II there's no place to sit!

Second, even if it were unmanned (just use Soyuz to get the people up there) there is no infrastructure to steer your cargo toward ISS and safely rendevous. I think that infrastructure will take a big bite out of the Delta II payload.

So we'd have to spend the R&D on a new third stage with rendevous capabilities, and the total payload would be reduced.

Re:no shuttles

[wing03]

This was covered on a PBS program.... Can't remember the name.

The Russians are doing disposable successfully with the Soyuz and yes indeed, they are cheaper to launch/build and can do far more work for less money.

The one group in the states that insists on reuseable space craft are/were the millitary.

Actually, I think it was the airforce specifically insisting on vehicles that behaved like aircraft in the atmosphere.

I don't recall too much else from the program, but there might have been some mention of opposition to the navy having control of aircraft on their carriers. The impression I got was that the USAF wanted to have their hands at the controls when it came to the future of space warfare and defence rather than some other organization.

Re:no shuttles

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:no shuttles

[AKAImBatman]

That was just an example. There are other rockets they could use, all of which have greater cargo capacity than the Delta II.

Re:no shuttles

[cmowire]

The reason why the shuttle behaved like an aircraft was that it was also intended to launch from Vanderberg AFB, grab a Russian sattelite and/or launch a nuke, and then land. You need crossrange (a.k.a. gliding range) for that. Heck, you need crossrange to hit polar orbit without ending up in the drink in case of abort.

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.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of the Apollo program was reusable, exactly? The astronauts? That doesn't count.

Supersonic Spaceplane

[Anonymous Coward]

What ever happened to the supersonic spaceplanes that they were working on that were to eventually replace the shuttle? I seem to remember reading about them years ago...

Re:Supersonic Spaceplane

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Re:Supersonic Spaceplane

[IdahoEv]

What ever happened to the supersonic spaceplanes that they were working on that were to eventually replace the shuttle? I seem to remember reading about them years ago...

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, pressure, temperature, smaller manufacturing scales, whatever) sometimes bring new problems, and things have to slow down until the scientists and engineers solve them or find workarounds.

At the same time, nobody in 1960 even considered that you might be able to buy a gigaflop CPU for $300 at walmart in 2004. Nobody predicts the future very well.

Re:Supersonic Spaceplane

[RedWizzard]

Just some minor pedantry: DC-X was the name of the 1/3 scale Delta Clipper demostrator. Had the program continued there would have been a DC-Y prototype, and hopefully finally a DC-1 launch vehicle. The Delta Clipper program was aimed to design an unmanned reusable lifter with quick turnaround (the DC-X set a world record turnaround of 26 hours), but it wouldn't have had the cargo capacity of the Space Shuttle (9 tons v 29 tons).

References:

• Wikipedia DC-X page
• Astronautix DC-X page
• Astronautix DC-Y page
• Armadillo Aerospace's DC-X page (with videos)

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.

How they're going to get down.

[StarKruzr]

Like this.

Burt Rutan...

[DigitalRaptor]

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

Re:Burt Rutan...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rutan has been spectacularly lucky. After he blows the fuck out of a few people I think NASA will look pretty good in comparison.

Re:Burt Rutan...

[ZeroGee]

Rutan's accomplishment, while impressive, is a glorified airplane. Doing orbital insertion and orbital return is a far more complex task. The media frequently links "private space enterprise" with the X-prize attempts, but while they are a start towards a burdgeoning industry, we are still miles away from having another realistic orbital option in place.

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no reason to think that Rutan can design reusable orbiters any better than NASA. What NASA does all of the time is far more complicated than what Scaled Composites did. When Rutan can get beyond the Mercury project, you let us know.

Re:Burt Rutan...

[ZeroGee]

Once again, while I do admit that what Scaled has done is good for the "space industry," there is not necessarily a direct correlation between suborbital jaunts such as SpaceShipOne's and true orbital flight. The design skillset and materials required are completely different between the two types of "flight," and Rutan will not be seen as the "Father of Private Spaceflight" -- whoever builds the first private orbital plane will be.

Re:Burt Rutan...

[Mark of THE CITY]

Vostok always went orbital, from the first lauch. It was Mercury that didn't.

Gagarin orbited before Shepherd sub-orbited.

Re:Burt Rutan...

[DigitalRaptor]

While I agree completely with you, we would be giving up far more than you may realize.

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 do what can only be done by the government is sound, and I stand behind it.

When I see the vast waste in the government, and the huge amounts of handouts, it really makes me dislike taxes...

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.

Not really news

[stratjakt]

They've been constantly considering the viability of the Shuttle program since it began in the 70s, and it's always been under the threat of having the plug pulled at any moment.

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

[stratjakt]

I still don't care. The space shuttle is cool as hell. Way cooler than anything you have in your house.

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 the type of boring-ass rockets that you'd see in 1950's sci fi films.

And I can only conclude, you aren't geeks, you're a bunch of poseurs. If high prices negate the "coolness" of technology, why the hell do you all get erections every time you see an iPod?

Re:Not really news

[Skye16]

I hate it because it is a figurehead of a situation I dislike. Let me explain.

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 with the idea of giving up even more money for (a) and (b) to happen in earnest, it's the space shuttles that are holding us back (even as they are our greatest step forward to date). Of course, the X-prize was wonderful and all, but that's nowhere even remotely close to what NASA did with the shuttles 30+ years ago. They are still the pinnacle of space flight. It's just that it costs so much, we can't seem to move past it to something bigger/better/faster/cheaper :(

And that's why I "hate" the shuttle program. It's more frustration than hatred, but after a while, it still boils down to a crappy feeling.

Re:Not really news

[octothorpe]

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.

Re:Not really news

[meringuoid]

boring-ass rockets that you'd see in 1950's sci fi films

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.

Re:Good!

[julesh]

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.

Not necessarily a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily a bad thing... the Soyuz does just fine sending things up and down.

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.

[AltGrendel]

All the more reason to develop the space elevator.

Re:All the more reason.

[Mukaikubo]

And in the 70 or so years until it starts being feasible to people who don't see the world through rose colored eyes?

NASA's honeydew list:

[Thud457]

1. Retire that busted-ass camel of a shuttle
2. Mothball that special-olympics in space the ISS
3. Put out bids for contract for regular scheduled launches
4. Shed all daily operations to contractors and concentrate on research
5. Draw up plans for a real space station
6. stand back and get out of the way
7. ????
8. Profit!!!, errr success!

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.

Re:NASA's honeydew list:

[Solder Fumes]

Profit...yes.

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:NASA's honeydew list:

[OldeTimeGeek]

Maybe more money would have flowed to space science,

Really?

Do you honestly think that NASA would have gotten anywhere close to the same amount of funding without the shuttle than they did with it? I doubt it. A disturbingly large number of the population of the U.S. think the whole space program - shuttle, robots, satellites, etc.) is a waste of money. There may have been some interest, for a while, but this would have disappeared (along with funding) when people got bored and looked away. The only way NASA can keep getting money is to stage high-visibiity projects, such as the Shuttle, which may not do fantastic science, but are interesting to look at and have people directly involved.

A short history of science funding in Congress:

Large science projects get killed in committee

Large science projects with people in them get funded (sometimes).

Large science projects with people in them that benefit large compaines in multiple locations (pleasing multiple constituencies) get funded (often).

Large science projects with people in them which make lots of money for someone that allow us to poke our fingers in the eye of another country get funded (always).

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.

Sad, but understandable

[H_Fisher]

I can understand why they'd want to retire the Shuttles - lots of risks, lots of money involved in not only flying them but keeping them updated, and (now) a lot more questions than before about the safety of them. I wish I had a dollar for everyone who's convinced that the space shuttle ought to never fly again, especially the wave of posts that appear on /. since the Columbia disaster that basically say "good riddance, the shuttles are a liability."

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).

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.

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"?

Re:Constellation class

[slashd'oh]

"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)

Thank you Ghost of Wernher von Braun!

[kippy]

This is a Godsend. The Shuttle was a tarbaby from the get go. In my opinion, they should just halt plan to get the remaining 2 (or is it 3) back in space and work on plans to put them in museums.

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

Re:Thank you Ghost of Wernher von Braun!

[orac2]

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

Think Lewis & Clark

[Thud457]

Well, the base, err, spacestation is a stepping stone for further development. It makes it easier to assemble large vehicles in orbit. Gives you a leg up to get to the moon when you want to build a moon city. Gives you someplace to corrdinate construction of solar power satellites when the oil runs out.

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

[cmowire]

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.

Kaboom!

[1019]

"..and finish the International Space Station with disposable rockets ..."

I thought this meant destroying the station with rockets, which I thought would be sort of moving backwards. After RTFM, it all became clear.

Let me sum up all the posts

[gphinch]

We need a space elevator.

Any craft, not just reuseable

[Grendol]

I hope they develop any sort of manned space craft honestly. It does not have to be 're-usable' in my opinion. The operations and maintenance costs of a one size fits all re-useable space craft are some of the major problems, and potential contributors to the safety problems the shuttle fleet had.

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 mission variety. IE. if you need a people hauler with camping capability, you get an RV, if you need a cargo capable system, you get a pickup truck or moving van, if you need just a small team car pool system you buy a honda civic.

In some ways I feel that President Nixon's mandate that a reusable spacecraft be used has hurt all spaceflight for the last two decades.

If there are cost effective and performance effective single use space craft, should they really not be an option?

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:Good!

[Waffle Iron]

If you think about it, probably the only parts of the entire Saturn V setup that actually made the full round trip from the earth to the lunar surface and back were some photographic film, space suits and the astronauts themselves. Kinda strange.

Getting rid of them... ?

[kkovach]

I'll take one!

- Kevin

NASA - prime the pump of free enterprise!

[Thud457]

I like buying in bulk! Normally, mass production drives down costs due to increasing efficiency.

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.

Retarded Policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok I get it, a few people died publically, caused a media stir but cmon people. They died for a cause more nobel than shooting a fucking iraqi defending his home. How is that nobel but not death in the pursuit of science.

Ask any astronaught if they want the program retired. If the risks are unacceptable to them. You'll get a resounding no.

I mean ffs we have people risking their lives to fish for crab in the north pacific. A whole lot more chance of dying as a crab fisherman or a warzone doctor, but people do it.

Lets stop making policies based on a few lives. I for one would happily die in the pursuit of science.

Funny the russians always had this figgured out. Maybe thats why we're talking about using their dilapidated technology.

I pose, if two russians died to make it safer for one american, is it better or more ethical than two americans.

This administration seems to think so.

NASA is not planning to retire the Shuttle early.

[Nano2Sol]

If the reader had read the MSNBC story they might have understood that NASA commsioned several studies on different scenarios for the Shuttle. Since NASA commissions studies all the time on options for all its programs, so this study shouldn't come as any surprise.

To follow the space election political discussion including the fate of the shuttle from both sides, read this thread on NASA Watch.

A much more accurate comparison

[Teancum]

That really isn't a fair comparison between the Cassini program and shuttle program.

A much more accurate comparison would have been between the Apollo program and the Shuttle program, 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 references to useful science that was produced on the shuttle, there is another very important comparison that needs to be made:

Skylab vs. The ISS

Skylab + Apollo did an incredible amount of pure scientific research, and the internal volume of useable lab space was almost identical to what is now available on the ISS.

The Shuttle + ISS program is incredibly expensive, and while they have proven the ability to do major space construction projects with the ISS (needed if we ever get L-5 going), there has been comparatively little actual science.

Re:A much more accurate comparison

[geg81]

It is also better to send a robot to Antarctica as well, but actual people do go there and live year-round under extreme circumstances.

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 good example (perhaps even better) is deep-ocean exploration.

Same thing: it's an inhospitable environment, arguably more inhospitable than space, but it's comparatively easy to get there and back.

(AI systems havn't become that advanced yet) and change mission parameters on the fly. Not to mention the ability to actually repair equipment on the fly and get it to work correctly. Or even a manual override if it is clear that the automated systems aren't working correctly.

Robotic probes don't mean autonomously intelligent probes. You only need intelligence if there is a frequent need to respond quickly and intelligently, and there has been. For everything else, you can leave the intelligence on earth, with mission control.

None of this can be done with Cassini, and even the Galleleo probe would have worked better had somebody been available to fix the Hi-gain antenna.

For the sake of argument, let's assume the following mission costs (I think that's being pretty kind to the manned mission--it would probably be even more expensive):
(1) Cassini: $4bn
(2) Cassini+Robotic Arms: $40bn
(3) Cassini+Manned Crew: $400bn
It simply doesn't add up: the added flexibility you get from robotic arms or a manned crew doesn't justify the extra expense; you're better off sending 100 probes than 1 manned mission, even if many of the probes fail. And the manned mission would probably be high risk.

ISS will not include China

[amightywind]

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.

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 : )

Can I get my shuttle hater's patch now?

[Thud457]

Errrrm, I'm not sure, but I seem to remember something about NASA originally planning some projects (Skylab, for one, IIRC) based upon availability of the shuttle. Which was then delayed. So they designed the program around using a spare Saturn (1b wasn't it?).

So the Shuttle's been screwing up other programs before it was even built!

Re:OK, so what's next?

[Rob_Warwick]

Contrast this with Scaled Composites winning the X Prize and Branson investing to sell public commercial space flight in 3 years. Yes, this is suborbital and low capacity, but it does show that it is time to retire the old birds and develop something new.

I think you mean to say ..."develop something new, and then retire the old birds."

-Rob

NASA press conference addressing this

[jkondel]

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/000323.html#more Read that for the official response from NASA.

Re:YOU STFU

[khallow]

I mean really, who comes up with this shit...space elevator, so we can fucking crawl our way into space like children.

Yes! Clearly the superior way is to get into space by flapping our arms really fast.