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.

Comments

Ugh. Kill it.

[Snowspinner]

Kill the shuttle. Every year we extend the shuttle is a year that it's easier to make excuses for not having Orion ready. The shuttle was a disastrous decision from the start - a joke of a space program that made no progress in exploration, and provides nothing in the way of useful scientific research except inasmuch as it was used to work on the Hubble.

The sooner it is put out to pasture the sooner this country can have a real space program again.

Re:the shuttle sucks anyway

[Snowspinner]

There are worse things for the ISS to do than fall out of the sky. Staying up in it may well be one of them.

Re:Nothing is 'safe'

[Atmchicago]

Besides the fact that most societies value the life of their people (generally speaking), you can also think of this from an economic standpoint: these astronauts have a lot of experience and very specific knowledge, and are also physically fit etc. A lot has been invested in them, and they're worth a lot. So risking your crew that way can cost a lot of money.

And then, of course, people have a lot of pride in the space program, and losing people in space gives a big blow to the average Joe's perception of its value. If we spend billions of dollars to blow people up, it's not going to sell so well to the public.

In the end, to me it's all irrelevant, because I don't see the immediate need to send any people in space. Let's use robots - they don't require life support, they don't have to return, and they don't carry all the emotional baggage.

Re:Nothing is 'safe'

[Anonymous Coward]

It did exactly what it was designed to do; launch very large, very sensitive satellites. You all have missed a very large and important part of history.

Inevitable

[Richard_at_work]

I've been waiting for this to happen - NASAs exemption to the Iran Non-Proliferation Act expires in 2011, meaning they would no longer be able to purchase manned capacity off the Russians (Soyuz), which in turn means no American crew on the ISS. What with the worsening relationship with Russia this past year, getting the exemption extended would essentially be political suicide at the moment. Extending the Shuttles life is the only alternative.

That's An Awful Lot of "Nothing"...

[Anonymous Coward]

>[the shuttle] did virtually nothing of merit in its entire lifespan.

Read the following, and then go read a book. If you can read, that is...

The shuttle has launched:

Department of Defense misions (we know of at least one experiment using the shuttle to test part of the Star Wars system) and an unknown number of intel satellites

the hubble telescope

numerous communication satellites (can you say cell phone/sms?)

notable basic research experiments in microgravity effects on materials science, metallurgy, chemical synthesis, fluid dynamics, electromagnetics, cosmic radiation, crystallography, fiber optics, power systems, mechanical systems, solar-electric energy, tissue/red blood cell growth and other life sciences, bacteriology, semiconductor thin film (can you say computers?)

lots of astronomical research (multiple experiments including Chandra which found some of the most important data in a century), and interplanetary probes like Magellan, Galileo, Ulysses

earth science (atmospheric research [can you say "global waming"?], ozone hole monitoring)

Re:That's An Awful Lot of "Nothing"...

[Anonymous Coward]

>And all that can be done cheaper with unmanned missions

Reality wasn't that simple. As usual, it all came down to money. Which is the cheaper way to do space science: manned missions that happen or unmanned missions that don't?

After Apollo/SkyLab, NASA had no money and lift capacity (manned or otherwise). SkyLab used cast-off Apollo parts and redesigned pieces from cancelled Apollo missions for lift capability. They didn't get Viking off the ground until 1975, and then they used a Titan launch vehicle (from the USAF). That was 3 years after the last Apollo mission.

NASA had almost no money in the early 1970s. Congress cut NASA's funding to the bone late in the Apollo program due to federal budget trouble caused by (among other things) inflation from deficit spending for the ongoing war in VietNam. People hadn't understood the "spin off" benefits from space science (such as every weather forecast you've ever seen). NASA didn't have money to build more Atlas/Titan/Thor/Delta clones or Saturn vehicles, couldn't borrow Atlas or Titan vehicles from the military (not at the height of the Cold War they couldn't!), and had no viable plans for any alternatives.

NASA only got the shuttle built by begging DOD to support the shuttle as a way to launch intel satellites from a vehicle that could alter its orbit to hide what orbit the satellite goes into (a standard lift vehicle telegraphs the orbit where it puts the payload; the shuttle can take off into one orbit, change orbit, then release the payload). It takes a while for the "bad guys" to figure out what the payload is, where it is, and where it went (some satellites can alter their own orbits).

DOD completely redesigned the shuttle and the shuttle cargo bay to fit its intel satellites (apparently for the Keyhole series), otherwise it would never have been built. Go look it up.

Without the shuttle, only the military would have had lift capability (Delta, Minuteman, and the like) and NASA would have been fighting for funds to throw rocks in the air. As it was, NASA made the decision to survive by cutting (not making this up) 70% of its QA budget: this explains things like bad Hubble mirrors, the idiotic shuttle heat tile program, and shuttle SRB problems (nozzle burn-though, O-ring leaks) being ignored or not found.

Without the shuttle, NASA would have been begging the military for payload space on or ownership of "cast off" Deltas/Titans/whatever, begging the ESA for Ariane payload space (only available after 1975), or (ha ha in the 1970/80s) asking the Russians to lift stuff for us.

So, the science got done, the comsats got delivered (can you say internet connectivity?), and the DOD got to watch the bad guys. Without the shuttle, none of that would have occurred.

Also, not to excuse the criminal and idiotic mismanagement that caused both shuttle losses, but every astronaut knows that each space mission is high-risk flight test. Project Mercury astronauts watched God knows how many boosters fail spectacularly in the runup to their rides: none of them quit. And, by the way, the first rides they got were on Redstone rockets built by the US Army to lift ICBMs (Gemini, too: it used the USAF Titan). Just over 10 years later, NASA was in the same place: no money and no independent lift capacity unless they got DOD to back the shuttle.

So, I repeat the question: which is the cheaper way to do space science: manned missions that happen or unmanned missions that don't?

Re:Why Did the US Partner with Russia?

[Max_W]

Absolutely. You (the West, USA) deluded yourself that you "won" the cold war. The cold war just ended.

There are complicated internal processes in Eurasia, in the FSU, but you keep your delusion that it is you who calls the shots.

Eurasia is more than twice bigger than the North America by territory and more than 8 times by population.

"The West", the Western Europe against the whole Eurasia is like Vermont and Maryland against the whole USA.

Globalization is turning Eurasia in one giant market, 54 million square kilometers, 4,6 billion population.

A lot of work is still to be done: autobahns, tunnels, speed railways, etc. "The West" has a role in it, like Vermont has the role in the USA. But forget 18th century, your colonial glory.

You are on among others, not the "master of the world" anymore. It's over. Get over it.

It could be just us

[Svartormr]

I would like to think I'm not a fatalist but it is my opinion that if the human race died off the Earth and galaxy probably wouldn't care much and may be better off for it. If evolution is to be believed then there will surely come something behind us that is better than we are.

Sure sounds fatalist to me. And the galaxy can't care any more than the sentient beings in it. As far as we know (re likelihood of habitable star systems), we're it--and if we die, there may never be another. And it it wouldn't be better, just empty of any thought, good or bad.

For now, we have to assume that it's up to us and there is no other.

"Shuttle" and "give up" aren't the only options.

[RustinHWright]

I don't understand why y'all are accepting the idea that we need to choose between "nothing" and "continue the shuttle" as our only options. Right here on /. a few weeks back we had a thred about options, starting with the ESA crew vehicle and going from there. Add the X-38 to the list and we've got at least half a dozen options beyond that the chowderheaded one of using the shuttle.
Read Mullane's all too articulate book to get some idea of how screwed up NASA's approach is if you haven't studied already. This isn't about spending more money; it's about culture.

The ISS averages about 230 miles up, which is a reachable orbit for any number of possibilities. Just to quote Wikipedia, they list:

Visiting spacecraft
Russian (Roskosmos) Soyuz spacecraft - crew rotation and emergency evacuation, replaced every 6 months
Russian (Roskosmos) Progress spacecraft - resupply vehicle
European (ESA) Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - resupply vehicle
Currently docked As of 2008-06-11:
Soyuz TMA-12 is at the Pirs nadir port
Jules Verne (ATV-001) is at the Zvezda aft port[39]
Progress M-64 is at the Zarya nadir port
Planned
Japanese (JAXA) H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) resupply vehicle for Kibo module (scheduled for 2009)
American (NASA) Orion for possible crew rotation and as resupply transporter (officially scheduled for 2014)
Proposed
SpaceX Dragon for NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (Scheduled for 2009)
Russian (Roskosmos) Space Shuttle Kliper for possible crew rotation and as resupply transporter (cancelled)
European-Russian Crew Space Transportation System (Soyuz-derived) crew rotation and resupply spacecraft (scheduled for 2014)
An additional spacecraft, the K-1 Vehicle manufactured by Rocketplane Kistler, was proposed as part of the NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, and was scheduled to fly in 2009. On October 18, 2007, NASA discontinued its agreement with Rocketplane Kistler after the company couldn't secure further financing and didn't meet a critical design review for the pressurized cargo module. NASA then announced that the remaining $175 million commitment to the project would be made available to other companies. On 19 February 2008, NASA awarded Orbital Sciences Corporation with the remaining $170 million to develop its Cygnus spacecraft for the COTS program.

If we had our act together, the first thing we would do would be to pump a billion or two into expanding the Rocket Racing people's planned races into more vehicle types, thus effectively funding lots of fast work to develop better technologies without having to manage squat. The next would be to have a thousand people or so taking every possible document about space-related technology, including maintenance protocols that NASA's got and bloody well put them into web-accessable PDFs. Will this mean a few more billion buying rights from aerospace firms? Yes. This is their final payment for many of those technologies; from here on in that tech is being open-sourced. They've been paid enough already and afaic they haven't done any too good a job of it.
We don't need yet another centralized, sixties-style project to develop a vessel. We need just the kind of diverse and open approach that the rest of out here beyond the defense/aerospace sealed up culture use very day.
I don't dispute that getting humans to space and back is serious business, but it's also something we've been doing for decades now.
We have plenty of possibilities. We just need to do a rational job of exploiting them.

Great - how do you get it done?

[RustinHWright]

Getting ESA to shoulder more of the burden? Greenhouses? I couldn't agree more. In theory. How do you suggest actually getting that done? How does one get the fractious, miserly, feuding Europeans to actually get that sort of things done? Or, for that matter, Japan?

You show me a battle plan and I'll climb aboard. But for now I'll just continue paying my NSS dues, encourage local kids to get into space-related stuff (spent about fifty bucks and about three hours on that in the past month), and stick to what I can see in front of me.