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."

Comments

Old rule.

[IamGarageGuy 2]

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.

Re:Old rule.

[Ubergrendle]

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!

Re:Old rule.

[PFI_Optix]

Donate it to MIT. They'll find out if it will run Linux.

You know you want to know.

Re:Old rule.

[lowrydr310]

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

Re:Old rule.

[vsprintf]

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.

Don't cobble it up for parts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Place the Atlantis, intact, into the Simthsonian.

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

I can see the SpaceShuttleTrader ad now:

[IainMH]

Space Shuttle, 89,908,732* miles on the clock. Spares or repairs.

Phone: 202.358.0001

*

comments from Atlantis staff

[sammy baby]

Doctor Weir, Atlantis' director, and Lieutenant Colonel Shepard, ranking military officer assigned to the project, were unreachable for comment. Doctor McKay, on the other hand, griped for several minutes without a pause about the "typically boneheaded" move, stopping only to eat an energy bar and mumbling something about low blood sugar.

At half a billion a flight

[everphilski]

... 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.

ISS in jeopardy?

[Gary W. Longsine]

This plan leaves no margin for error at the program level. The flight schedule needed to complete the ISS probably cannot be met by a single vehicle. Suppose a year from now they discover a craft-specific problem with one of the remaining shuttles which requires it to be grounded (while the other flies following inspection which determines it to be free of the hypothetical problem)?

The NASA plan already calls for completing the construction of the ISS and then grounding the shuttles, immediately. This of course leaves no way to get to the newly constructed ISS to do research. The plan also doesn't seem to accomodate lifting new modules to the ISS during its fully functioning research lifetime, which was originally part of the ISS vision for a living breathing station.

NASA is in trouble. The Bush Administration has saddled it with goals that are unrealistic given its funding level. A vague return to the Moon, and eventual trip to Mars, as well as completing the construction of the ISS to kinda sorta meet our international obligations on that project are all likely to fail if we cannot choose between them.

Space research needs a reliable transportation system. This might mean more than one new vehicle. Without a significant increase in funding to NASA, the Space Shuttle should be scrapped immediately and the ISS should be mothballed if possible, scrapped if not. NASA should focus on fixing the problem -- reliable access to space is needed before other lofty objectives can be met.

Re:ISS in jeopardy?

[tgd]

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.

Re:Um...

[crawling_chaos]

My understanding is that Enterprise is pretty much stripped at this point. A lot of Endeavor is actually Enterprise, and Enterprise never carried any propulsion parts as all that was needed was boilerplate parts of the same mass for the drop tests. What is sitting at Dulles is an airframe with some sheet metal and spare tiles slapped on it.

Re:Whats next?

[Himring]

I believe they plan on replacing the Shuttle with the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle). Which they claim will have the best technologies from the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs. There is a moon landing targeted for 2018.

Crew Exploration Vehicle

Bad idea!

[MS_Word]

We can't abandon atlantis while the wraith are still a threat!

Not staying up on news?

[WindBourne]

For the last year, we have been discussing how the shuttle will be relaced by the CEV. It is a semi-disposable capsule (based on the old apollo system). It will have 2 launchers;

1. A Crew Launch vehicle that will lift the CEV and small loads of about 20-25K lbs.
2. A Heavy lift vehicle that will lift very large loads (~200K lbs). It will send in a single launch as much payload as 6 shuttles currently can.

The rockets are disposable.

I would not be surprised to see a future admin use private rockets to get crew and small loads to the ISS. Why? Just to keep us with the capacity to have multiple crew launch systems.

Re:Consequences.

[slashdot_commentator]

but what is it going to do to NASA's ability to launch missions if it only has two shuttles?

Nothing. At this point, having three shuttles probably merely just increases the risks of cutting corners in order to meet launch schedules. Face it, the only significant mission of the US space shuttle program is the same as the TV show Quark; haul garbage from the ISS. To paraphrase a the quote made at the K7 bar in "Trouble with Tribbles". "The Space Shuttle should not be hauling garbage, it should be hauled AS garbage". I will take that back if NASA actually implements a mission to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope. (Me bitter? What makes you think that...?)

Re:They really seem to be winding down manned miss

[Overzeetop]

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.

Re:They really seem to be winding down manned miss

[Detritus]

That's a major issue. For all the whining about pork, it would be a major disaster if the manned space flight program was shut down while a new vehicle was designed and constructed. All of your institutional knowledge walks out the door, never to return. Aerospace engineering never really recovered from the shutdown of Apollo. Central Florida used to have the world's most highly educated cab drivers.

The Sad Thing Is...

[ThankfulJosh]

...that Atlantis is the best-built of the shuttles. I work on all three shuttles, and we all know that Atlantis was the best-built one. The rate of problem reports taken on Atlantis is almost half of Discovery or Endeavor. This is a shame, but these are smart people making tough decisions...you gotta do what you gotta do.

And what about the Chinese?

[kilodelta]

The real question is, will we beat the Chinese to a permanent or semi-permanent manned presence on the moon?

We used to think it would be the Russians. Little did we know how far China would come in 60 years. When you consider it took the United States approximately 7 years to go from the Mercury program to the Apollo program then the launch of Chinese men into orbit is at the Mercury stage.

When looking at that we could estimate that China will reach the moon by 2012. And do not think for one moment that Chinese didn't learn from our Apollo and Shuttle programs. I think they'll be looking to put down a manned presence just to thumb their noses at the rest of the western world.

No, I rather doubt it...

[suitepotato]

NASA To Retire Atlantis by 2008

I think Sci-Fi will keep it at least to 2009 or 2010.