Slashdot Mirror
Shuttle Retirement In 2010 Under Review
An anonymous reader alerts us to an Orlando Sentinel report based on a leaked NASA email, indicating that NASA is looking at options to extend the Shuttle program. The fighting between Russia and Georgia has put a strain on plans to rely on Russian boosters until the Shuttle's replacement flies in 2015. Yet extending the Shuttle's life is no sure thing. According to a former NASA program manager, "We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago. That horse has left the barn." And NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has told Congress that if the Shuttle fleet were to fly two missions a year until 2015, "the risk would be about one in 12 that we would lose another crew. That's a high risk... [one] I would not choose to accept on behalf of our astronauts." And then there's the matter of finding the $4 billion a year it would take to keep the fleet operational. The Sentinel mentions that John McCain has called for additional Shuttle flights, but doesn't mention that Barack Obama has made the same point, as the BBC reports.
Not that we shouldn't try and make space travel safer, but the idea that loss of life is completely unacceptable I find very strange when we have no problem sending people who may or may not understand the risks into a myriad of dangerous situations where the loss of someones life is all but guaranteed. War, crab fishing, oil drilling, car driving, and on and on.
--
Find My Ip Address
I think suspending manned space flight for that long would be a disaster. At some point, if we have no space flights going on, the new shuttle replacement becomes "restarting manned space flight" rather than "continuing our manned presence in space". Congress will be a lot more likely to simply cut the program entirely if it's seen as starting an entirely new program rather than an evolution of our existing, and continuing, efforts.
Slightly better than russian roulette uh?
Seriously, you would think that the US would take a more "global" approach to space and start truly cooperating with other countries, say like uh.. Canada, UK, Japan, China, India, etc...
After all the race for the stars should be for humanity's sake, not just one country.
There would obviously be some economic advantages, that's for sure.
Russia, I believe would join in, if a real "space" coalition would be formed, I'm sure of that, if only not to be left behind in any form of discovery.
If you look at the overall federal budget, NASA gets a drop in the bucket compared to Social Services and Defense. The move to extend the Shuttle for a few more years is not a surprise. I don't know, I just get the feeling that if the manned space program ever ends, that will be it. People will start to ask, "Do we really need it?" If there is not something to replace the shuttle, especially if it is 5+ years from flying, politicians and people will start to ask, "What has NASA done lately? Oh just sink billions into that new rocket that is still in development and has another delay to 2018." So the budget shrinks from 15B a year to 10B or stays the same @ 15B a year, yet 15B today will not buy the same amount of stuff next year, things continue to get delayed and eventually, it's the end of the manned space program.
The shuttle is far from perfect, but it's all we got. And until that something better comes along...
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
I think the problem with the space shuttle is that it tried to be one ship to do everything. Ideally, when they send people to space, they should send one with just the people, so it can be small, low powered, and safe, and another that does the heavy lifting, which would be inherently more unsafe just do to the amount of power it has to have.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Ignoring things like military budget, why should NASA get a big chunk of the pie. What is the purpose of visiting space anyway? I know the pursuit of knowledge and all that, but think about it for a second. Where are we headed with this exploration of space thing? We study all the planets in the solar system, and we find empty barren pieces of rock. Or maybe a few microbes. And then what? Unless we make huge, and I don't just mean huge, I mean you can't even comprehend how huge, advances in propulsion technology, then we aren't doing anything outside of this solar system. Voyager 1 lauched in 1977 (31 year ago), and is still only 0.0017 light years away from the sun. In 40,000 years, it'll be 1.6 light years from the first other star it's going to encounter. I don't mind science for science's sake, but there are plenty of much more science efforts that could be pursued, and would probably be much more likely to result in something usable.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Because it's there. It's there, and it's big and unknown, and we're humans. And if we don't explore every bit of space that we can get to, we'll sit around itching to go. We go to space for the same reason we went to the south pole, or why we go up mountains that haven't been climbed yet. Because they're there, and we can.
The insidious lie of the modern space program is that there's more to it than that. That space stations and endless low earth orbit missions provide some sort of useful science, and are worth doing. They're not. The point of space is the unknown. So yes. Take out the solar system. Go to every frozen rock we can reach, and start thinking about the frozen rocks we can't. Because they're there. They're places people have never been. And fundamental to the human spirit is the sense that something that seems utterly crazy and impossible is the most important thing there is to do.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
But it would be a tragedy if Orion replaced the Shuttle's current functionality. The whole point of Ares/Orion should be exploration, not the menial (and uninspiring) resupply of low-Earth orbit. That's where I'd like to see broader use of commercial options, like SpaceX, Blue Origin, Orbital Sciences, or an assortment of others.
The shuttle program is primarily a technology-jobs program. The science stuff they do in space (orbiting grade-school teachers, studying John Glenn's bones) is kind of trivial compared to the 10,000 high-tech jobs created in the USA, paid for by the billions of dollars NASA spends on shuttle contracts. How all that money would otherwise get spent, is what I wonder about.
Who precisely do you think actually builds, services and maintains these craft? Thats right, the OEMs and not NASA. The Shuttle was built by Rockwell, now maintained by Boeing. Orion will be built by private sector companies (Lockheed as prime contractor, with a whole bunch of others as subcontractors), Ares will be built by private sector companies (Alliant and Boeing as prime contractors) - so what do you propose to do differently?
I still fail to see how going back to a capsule instead of an actual vehicle will help improve space travel... It just seems like a step backwards. Surely there's some way to combine the capsule and shuttle designs to come up with something truly reusable that will also allow planetary/satellite(ary?) landings? I dunno, I hate to admit it, but I have not kept up with the space program nearly as much as I wish I would have.
Who precisely do you think actually builds, services and maintains these craft? Thats right, the OEMs and not NASA. The Shuttle was built by Rockwell, now maintained by Boeing. Orion will be built by private sector companies (Lockheed as prime contractor, with a whole bunch of others as subcontractors), Ares will be built by private sector companies (Alliant and Boeing as prime contractors) - so what do you propose to do differently?
A couple things:
* don't use cost-plus contracts, which reward waste
* Instead of specifying a single design and essentially giving one company a monopoly over manned spaceflight, do things like the rest of the transportation market and commercial satellite launches -- just purchase individual rides or payload deliveries. SpaceX , Orbital, and Lockheed Martin are all currently working on orbital manned spaceflight systems. As it is now, it looks like they're going to have to end up competing against NASA's Ares I. Instead of competing against them, NASA should ditch Ares I and just offer transportation contracts to give these companies the financial incentive to speed development of their vehicles.
NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems program is a huge step in the right direction -- it's only getting a fraction of the budget (total is less than a single shuttle flight) that Ares I is getting, but is already showing much more progress and promise.
* Instead of specifying a single design and essentially giving one company a monopoly over manned spaceflight, do things like the rest of the transportation market and commercial satellite launches -- just purchase individual rides or payload deliveries. SpaceX , Orbital, and Lockheed Martin are all currently working on orbital manned spaceflight systems. As it is now, it looks like they're going to have to end up competing against NASA's Ares I. Instead of competing against them, NASA should ditch Ares I and just offer transportation contracts to give these companies the financial incentive to speed development of their vehicles.
If... and that's a big honking huge if, from what I've understood, any of these become actual commercial possibilities then sure. The first one you mention is SpaceX and they haven't made a rocket reach orbit yet, far less deliver cargo to orbit, far less something with a track record and security record to fly people for many years to come. I realize what you want but it sounds a little like the flying car that's always coming soon.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Compared to the cost of the ground support and the space craft. Launch the damn shuttle. If it blows up, it blows up. I bet you could find plenty of Americans willing to take their place, even with a 1 in 10 chance of getting killed, in exchange for a ride into space.
Come on. To many people, spaceflight is worth the risk of death. If astronauts aren't willing to take that chance, fire them, and get someone who will.
This is my sig.
The problem will be that the $4B or whatever will come out of Ares project. Gov't has been stingy with NASA and regardless of your opinion of NASA (I respect all views, honestly, I do work for NASA but have a lot of friends who have valid criticisms of the beast, it is a gov't entity after all), it is a lot more efficient, per dollar, than most government agencies when you look at buying power.
Sadly though it's underfunded when you compare to other agencies, and again compare accomplishments. That $4B, I guarantee you, will come from Ares project dollars, not new funding, if this becomes reality, which further sets back Ares. So we dig our hole deeper, and deeper, and deeper still.
People mention COTS - COTS is great, or will be great, when the COTS members prove they can do it. SpaceX is 0 for 3. I am confident they will hit space, but until they can prove reliability we can't just rely on them as the primary source. We have to see a few Dragon modules go up and dock with ISS, and come back with minor, if any, hitches.
It is clear to me that there is not serious desire to create the next space vehicle. President Bush promised a new Space Age, but failed to fund it. Clearly he has no problem spending money, even money we don't have, so the fact that we have no functioning Orion space craft 4 and half years after he made the promise can only mean that he never really wanted a space program. By comparison, the Shuttle program was formally launched in 1972 and the Enterprise was ready 5 years later in 1977.
McCain has said his major concern is the reliability of the Russians, which me that he will likely push the shuttle program until we have no vehicles left, and even then I see no evidence he will push to fund the Orion. We have no idea what his vice president would do, but I have little hope tha the parent of special needs infant would have any time to do much of anything.
For that matter we don't know what Obama would do, but since we will five years behind by the time he has a chance, the damage will already be done. Four years with no space program, when we have work to do in space.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black