Nasa Details Shuttle's Retirement

schliz writes "Nasa has announced that it intends to officially retire the aging space shuttle fleet by 2010, four years before it has a replacement craft ready. The space shuttle fleet will make ten more flights, mainly to add modules to the International Space Station and carry out repairs and upgrades to the Hubble orbital telescope. The retirement will leave the US without orbital capacity for at least four years, until the Ares booster programme is complete. European and Russian launchers will service the space station in the meantime."

Comments

Just plain sad

[ShadowRangerRIT]

I'm having nostalgia for when our space program was a national priority. This, despite having no memory of any time pre-Challenger.

Re:Just plain sad

[sm62704]

I think most people don't realize (or have forgotten about it) the danger these men and women face during a mission.

Most people don't realise the danger construction workers face doing their jobs either. Roofers alone are #3 in Wikipedia's list.

A dozen people died building EPCOT's "Spaceship Earth" alone.

The US has had less than one fatal accident per decade since the space program started; the Apollo fire and the two shuttle disasters.

I'd say their safety record is pretty good. I'd rather be an astronaut than a lumberjack.

Re:Just plain sad

[OwnedByTwoCats]

The wikipedia list of most dangerous jobs left off "President of the United States". 9524 out of 100,000 (i.e. 4 of 42) were killed. Another 4 died; one of those was from an illness contracted performing his official duties.

That death rate is way higher than the 122 per 100,000 listed for Timber Cutters.

Re:How come?

[Geoffrey.landis]

How come they're retiring the fleet 4 years before the next craft is ready?

The reason given is that the development of the new launch system costs money. There is no added budget to develop it, so the money to design and build the new system has to come from some other part of the budget. The budget they're using is the budget to fly the shuttle. So, in short, they can't develop new system until they free up money to do so by stopping flying the old one.

Is is actually more economical to pay the Russians or us Eurotrash to send them to space rather than the cost of maintaining and flying the shuttle?

Yes... up until the point when the Russians raise prices because they have a monopoly.

A flight remembered

[eekygeeky]

I'm glad of this: It means that a few years down the road, I can visit the Space Museum and my sturdy young son will see with his new eyes, under the fierce and optimistic Florida sun, another step in the hopes of man to go further than their birth.

He'll be just as mad as I was, all those years ago, smelling the hot dusty grass and the tarmac and sea, looking at those mighty silver birds, purpose built by the best we hade within us, that he can't climb in the real one, and has to go inside to the mockup.

I hope what he sees was what I saw, so far away and yet so close to hand, all those years ago. I hope the shuttle means to him what the moon lander meant to me- untrammelled hope and faith in human endeavour.

Rest in peace, big old bird; even parked on the forever runway, we'll always look at you with untarnished eyes and souls full of wonder.

Re:Decadence

[Big Hairy Ian]

To quote Von Braun on his reasons for surrendering to the American Forces "We were terrified of the Russians, we despised the French, and the British couldn't afford us."

Says a lot really

If you mod me down I'll go and make a cup of tea