US Urged To Keep Space Shuttles Flying Past 2010

DarkNemesis618 writes "A US Representative has proposed that NASA keep the shuttle fleet flying past its planned 2010 retirement date. The move would help NASA avoid reliance on Russian rockets during the gap between the Space Shuttle retirement and the start of the Orion program. One proposal would keep the shuttle fleet flying from 2010 to 2013 while another would keep the fleet alive until the Orion program is ready in about 2015. 2011 marks the end of the exemption that has allowed NASA to use Soyuz rockets for trips to the Space Station, and they would need an extension to keep using Russian launch vehicles. NASA's other option lies in the private sector; but thus far, the progress from that quarter does not look sufficient to meet the 2011 deadline."

Comments

Race goes on

[eebra82]

It's been 60 years since Sputnik took off. You'd think the "who's got the biggest cock" race would be over by now. The current shuttles are getting a bit old now and the most recent problems/accidents/tragedies indicated the very same thing. Maybe Russian rockets is the safest route for now?

Re:Race goes on

[smittyoneeach]

You'd think the "who's got the biggest cock" race would be over by now.

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon"--Napoleon
I submit that Napoleon may have had a better grasp of human nature.
Your question could be recast as: "If ODF is there and all, why OOXML?"

Re:Race goes on

[rbanffy]

"Soyuz has also had two fatal accidents in roughly the same number of flights"

I find it unlikely Soyuz had the same number of flights as the shuttles. they have flown since about 68, from the original models to the TMA variant currently in use. I am not sure exactly how many flights were done, but I am quite sure that, being in service for about a decade longer than the shuttle makes it quite sure it had flown more missions. Also, the last failure with loss of crew (during re-entry) happened long ago, a couple design iterations back. I think it's safe to assume Soyouz-class vehicles are a very mature design and, quite probably, safer that shuttles.

There is no dishonor in having a less safe space vehicle. The shuttle is an incredible achievement. It's only unfortunate it was too ambitious.

BTW, since they are expendable, one could argument every mission ends in partial failure, with the loss of the vehicle ;-)

Re:Race goes on

[Shakrai]

Meh, it works for Switzerland

It "works" for Switzerland because they are a landlocked mountainous country with little natural resources surrounded by friendly neighbors. Switzerland came dangerously close to being invaded by Nazi Germany during WW2 and probably would have been (sooner or later) if Barbarossa hadn't turned out so badly.

The Swiss model isn't going to work for nations like Russia or the United States (too big, too much economic clout, too involved in World affairs). It isn't going to work for nations with unfriendly neighbors (Israel, Pakistan, India, Taiwan). It isn't going to work for nations located on natural invasion routes between stronger powers (Poland, the Low Countries, etc).

but keeping a bunch of decrepit shuttles just for the sake of not being all chummy with Russia is sad

It's not about "not being chummy" with Russia. It's about retaining a native space launch capability and not relying on other nations to do it for us. As a random example: Why the hell is Europe deploying Galileo? Shouldn't they just rely on GPS and the United States? Are they trying to "not be chummy" with us?

See the point?

"Urged" by whom?

[MollyB]

from TFA:

U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, a Republican whose Florida district includes the Kennedy Space Center, proposed extending the shuttles' lifetime to close the gap until their replacement ships, called Orion, are ready for their first manned flights in 2015. I think it is natural and logical Mr. Weldon takes this position. However, is crew safety being ignored in this calculation?

Perhaps not the brightest of ideas.

[reality-bytes]

TFA seems to suggest extending the STS life while also cutting costs. This sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I know that strapping yourself to a rocket and heading for space is never safe but it would be better not to make it more dangerous. At the same time, I can see that extending the life by 6 months or so would help alleviate the current pressures on the STS for the station-construction mission (but that's not what the article discusses)

I presume the reasoning for not wanting to rely on the Russian crew launch system is that any souring of the American-Russian relationship could make the deal problematic. How about if it were via ESA and the forthcoming Soyuz operation at French-Guiana? Would this side-step some of the possible relationship issues?

Re:Spend

[reality-bytes]

The spend is justified simply because (and a certain well known physicist will back me up) if we do not learn to leave this rock we, as a race, will ultimately perish here.

I'm not sure that the STS as it was finally created could ever be called a 'responsible' use of resources but right now, it's the only manned launcher the USA has so they've got to work with it until Orion becomes available.

Yes, but on the bright side...

[tekrat]

Now they can launch that telescope thingie that was going to be left to wither because all the remaining flights have been scheduled for finishing the ISS -- and with delays, they still won't be done by 2013 anyhow.

Hey NASA can go waste all the billions they want, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to wars which suck up a lot more money and produce even less useful results than NASA.

It's too bad the privatized companies (Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, SpaceX, Armadillo) can't ramp up development to meet the need. Oddly enough, *their* space race will produce the only results that will actually lower the cost per pound to orbit.

It's too bad we're all so scared of failure these days. Consider that during the development of aircraft, a lot of people died. A lot of people died just trying to cross the Atlantic. We didn't halt aircraft development every time some lunatic in a biplane was lost in a storm. But for some reason, we're afraid to blow up the occasional person to get into space. We need to get over that. A lot of people are going to die before we're able to easily leave the planet as easily as we currently visit another continent. That's just a reality and no amount of double checking is going to change that.

Well, for test flights anyhow, we could always use that Humanoid Robot (REEM-B) some guy spent three *whole* years developing! ;-)

Re:Yes, but on the bright side...

[entrigant]

But that's just it, isn't it? There are many, many people who will GLADLY take the risk and be "first". Anyone who wishes to deny us a space program has no right so say no on the grounds of danger if there are people who understand and willingly accept the danger deciding the benefits far outweight it. Me first? Sure, point me to the shuttle.

Follow the money

[mach1980]

Is it that hard to imagine why senators want US dollars to be spent in their home states instead of going to Russia?

My guess is that this is a national economy thing and has nothing to do with flight-worthiness or risk analysis.

Politics as usual

[El Yanqui]

Politics too often trumps science and common sense. Here's a congressman who wants a lucrative deal in his district, that's the story.

I like how the congressman describes it as an "arbitrary" date for decomissioning and that the risks won't increase overnight. I say send a congressman up on every mission after the shuttle's sell by date.

They probably can be used effectively for many years, but that doesn't mean that they should. Every bit of extra maintenance and upkeep performed on an old system, every bit of extra testing to make sure parts still function and every investigation into a failure will slow the space program and new developments. This is pork politics no matter how it's dressed up.