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?

[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. :-)

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"

[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

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

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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...

[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...

[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...

[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.

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.

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

[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.

All the more reason.

[AltGrendel]

All the more reason to develop the space elevator.

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?

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: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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

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 : )

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