Slashdot Mirror


NASA To Retire Atlantis by 2008

SirBruce writes "As reported by Space.com, Spaceflight Now, and elsewhere, NASA is now planning to retire the Space Shuttle Atlantis by 2008, after just 5 more flghts. By doing so, they would avoid a costly and time consuming scheduled overhaul, and could still fly the remaining 12 missions (17 total) with Discovery and Endeavour, which are just now completing their ODMPs (orbiter maintenance down period). Atlantis would be kept for spare parts to keep Discovery and Endeavour flying until the shuttle program is shut down in 2010."

8 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Old rule. by IamGarageGuy+2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why fix an old piece of hardware when you can get a new one faster, smarter, more shiny, etc. How about a donation to a university to rip it apart or try to fly it again.

    --
    Stay tuned for new sig...
    1. Re:Old rule. by Ubergrendle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sometimes old hardware isn't worth saving because it contains too many complexities, or design mistakes, to keep running.

      For every DC-3 or B-52 bomber that's flying 50+ years later, there's a dozen lesser models that never made it that far. One of the success factors for these planes were their elegance -- simple but sufficient components that are easily maintained and replaced.

      Unfortunately I don't think the space shuttles fit into this category. We've learned alot from them...but probably more of 'what not to do' than 'lets build 20 more!'.

      I think canibalising it for parts is a good short-term move, when the program wraps up though I agree they should find a way to preserve the learnings of the shuttle program. Lets hope its replacement is safer, cheaper, and more effective!

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    2. Re:Old rule. by lowrydr310 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The F-117 is set for retirement in 2008. Some people wonder why a great technological marvel would be retired while ancient planes like the B-52 still fly, but based on what I've read, the F-117 is a nightmare to maintain.

      If you're planning on buying a car and making it last for 20 years or more, which do you think would be easier (and cheaper) to maintain?

      1. A basic Honda with manually operated seats, roll up windows, and manual locks or
      2. Mercedes with navigation system, auto climate control, power heated seats, power windows, power locks with RF keyfob, traction control, ABS, power sunroof, heated auto-dimming mirrors, automatic headlights, automatic rain-sensing wipers, etc
    3. Re:Old rule. by vsprintf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess the differences between air combat and space flight make the numbers deceiving, since the shuttles were supposed to be a work-horse, and expectation they never fully lived up to. I guess the space shuttle is more like the XB-70, a Mach 3 heavy bomber prototype built in the 60's: technologically very impressive, but ultimately the wrong approach.

      Whose expectations? The shuttles had an optimistic schedule that was hyped by some political appointees, when in reality they were experimental craft. There was nothing like it that had flown before. We learned a lot from the shuttles about how things really work in space and reusability. Anybody else recall watching the capture of the Hubble? The Shuttle has been a learning vehicle, not just a space vehicle.

      When bad things happened in a very dangerous occupation, we got media hysteria and political grandstanding. Look at all the lives and ships lost during normal early American trade. Our ancestors would be unable to understand our timid response to expected losses and even trivial damage in a hostile environment. I wouldn't call the Shuttle the "wrong approach." It was the approach we chose to test first. We could have chosen to try nothing new, and we would have learned nothing new.

  2. Don't cobble it up for parts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Place the Atlantis, intact, into the Simthsonian.

    Just make sure all the toxic monopropellants have been thouroughly cleaned out.

  3. At half a billion a flight by everphilski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... no university could/would spend their **entire budget** to get the thing to fly a single mission, not to mention the price to fix it up, apply for the proper licenses from the http://ast.faa.gov/ AST, etc. Better to start from scratch and get a real education in things like high speed aerodynamics and propulsion along the way.

  4. Re:ISS in jeopardy? by tgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, that'd be quite the tragedy if the ISS is never finished.

    *rolls eyes*

    The ISS will never be anything but a useless pork-barrel corporate-welfare project. Something happening to end it would be the best thing that could happen to NASA. Just imagine the billions of dollars NASA has wasted over the last thirty years on the ISS and Space Shuttle co-dependant welfare programs. Look at the huge success they've had with every other program which have been universally starved for funds because of the Shuttle/ISS debacle.

  5. Re:They really seem to be winding down manned miss by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually, that should be just enough time to lose a good portion of our "corporate knowledge" re:manned missions. I'm not sure being an astronaut that is going to be looking at a 10 year (optimistically speaking) hiatus from flight is going to be a real career incentive. These folks tend to be driven and tenacious, but with the schedules the way they tend to slip, I don't think I'd stay in the corps. (I was never a real astronaut-candidate, though I considered it at one point early in my NASA career).

    I'm not really sure that getting people into space ius really that big of a deal anyway, unless you plan on doing something other than invesigating the effects on humans in LEO. Most of what is done, that isn't just for show, is controlled remotely. I'm a big "Rah! Rah! Manned Space Flight!" kind of guy, but there really is a limit to the value we're getting for our manned space flight dollars. Right now, I think it's money down the tubes, but if we're really going to be ambitious, we need to be a bit more proactive in getting a replacement vehicle up before we lose the in house expertise in manned spaceflight. I mean, lets face it, the only people with orbital spaceflight experience in this hemisphere are the ones currently doing it at JSC. Lose them, and we'll get to start all over in a couple of decades when the next program is finally ready to get off the ground.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?