Space Shuttle again, doing what it does best

[Dont Hurt Me]

News are reporting that the shuttle managers are backing up its schedule once again. Turns out it has some faulty fuel tank sensors that is going to set it back "again" How can you have a space program when your ship cant ever fly? If we dont drop this thing its going to keep us on Earth forever. There are so many things wrong with shuttle its getting pretty silly. I wonder how long it will take Griffin at Nasa to figure out they wont get close to the 10-20 flights they need to complete the ISS. At this rate we have 1 launch per 2 years? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11825869 Shuttle is draining the Nasa budget while sitting on the ground, you would think as long as these things have been on the ground Nasa would have them in perfect shape sense they almost never fly.

[iGary]

Originally Posted by Dont Hurt Me

News are reporting that the shuttle managers are backing up its schedule once again. Turns out it has some faulty fuel tank sensors that is going to set it back "again" How can you have a space program when your ship cant ever fly? If we dont drop this thing its going to keep us on Earth forever. There are so many things wrong with shuttle its getting pretty silly. I wonder how long it will take Griffin at Nasa to figure out they wont get close to the 10-20 flights they need to complete the ISS. At this rate we have 1 launch per 2 years? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11825869 Shuttle is draining the Nasa budget while sitting on the ground, you would think as long as these things have been on the ground Nasa would have them in perfect shape sense they almost never fly.

My Dad worked with the shuttle program back in the early 80s when he was "making stuff" for NSA as he put it. The NSA used it extensively as a launch platform for their "military payloads." I remember him saying what a waste of money the program was and that they could put stuff into space with the Titans much more efficiently.

I think the shuttle is a good thing, certainly a lot has come out of the program, but it is time for it to be retired and for us to come up with an efficient disposable rocket program.

[Lord Blackadder]

They need to keep moving on that shuttle replacement - but in the meantime NASA will have to bring back some semblance of normality to the shuttle program in order to keep the ISS going....unfortunately the ISS is proving to be not-so-successful project.

[Dont Hurt Me]

If you think about it shuttle has kept us out of space and away from the moon,mars and other planets. I still think we need to complete the space station but then need a real space craft to explore space. Apollo 2.0 isnt a space craft its just another capsule shot off from the earth and will be "limited" again with chemical rockets that are good for orbit but little else if we are ever going to space. Its time for a nuclear power ion drive space craft that can actually go somewhere. More chemical rockets put us back in the 60s. Who would have ever thought when they cancelled Apollo in the 70s that they would be going back to for the most part the same darn thing? this isnt progress this is beaucracy with no vision,no plan but to spend money.Todays NASA. man spaceflight not included.

[Kingsly]

I have to imagine that with all the time and money spent keeping the shuttle [semi]operational NASA could make some crazy cool and efficient CEV or something as a replacement that would run on a Quad G5 instead of an Apple II.
To NASA: RETIRE THE SHUTTLE ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GOT A GOOD 20 YEARS OUT OF THE THING, MOVE ON!!!!

[calebjohnston]

Ahhhh, we are still centuries and centuries away from real means of travel in space.

[BornAgainMac]

I agree, it should be retired. Perhaps a shuttle can't be too much like the ones on Space 1999, Star Trek, or Star Wars. Perhaps the rocket design of the 1950's is the best that can be done that is inexpensive and reliable.

Having the shuttle is as dumb as converting the International Space Station into a Starship complete with bridge and phasers.

[Kingsly]

Originally Posted by BornAgainMac

Having the shuttle is as dumb as converting the International Space Station into a Starship complete with bridge and phasers.

Though you must admit, that would be awesome.

[BornAgainMac]

Space Station Bird of Prey. lol

[calebjohnston]

NASA is probably full of star trek nerds, you never know what could happen.

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE.

hm.. that's x-files.

A LONG, LONG, TIME AGO...

..nope.

BEAM ME UP SCOTTY

=)

[uaaerospace]

Actually, NASA made this decision long ago. They are currently and have been developing a new craft for some time.

Progress report

They are going back to a craft similar to those used in the Apollo program. There will be different rockets for payload and crew.

[Thanatoast]

Aren't the usual suspects (giant military-industrial firms) the ones bidding to build this thing? How will that make it cheaper? I'm all for a better, cheaper design (assuming they actually decide to follow KISS), but I don't trust the current corporate culture of any of the players enough to do it right.

Let's have the new space start-ups have a go at it. Even if they blow tens of millions of dollars, it'd still be cheaper than having Lockheed or Boeing provide a single o-ring.

[Nickygoat]

Originally Posted by iGary

I think the shuttle is a good thing, certainly a lot has come out of the program, but it is time for it to be retired and for us to come up with an efficient disposable rocket program.

Like HARP?
RIP Gerry Bull. A genius brought down by greed and short term planning :-(

[Kingsly]

Originally Posted by Thanatoast

Let's have the new space start-ups have a go at it. Even if they blow tens of millions of dollars, it'd still be cheaper than having Lockheed or Boeing provide a single o-ring.

Couldn't have put it better myself.
There is a thread floating around concerning a G3 processor running the Mars Recon satellite. Apparently the shuttle runs on old (and I mean OLD) technology and yet they are spending so much to keep it in the air (using eBay to purchase replacement parts!)
Spending the RD on building a new tech filled ship would actually SAVE money in the long run.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Having a ship that could actually fly without killing its crews would save money. We need a new space agency for space exploration and leave nasa to to do science, not run the space program. Shuttle is sucking billions while sitting on the ground, and when it does fly its only a low orbit machine. I wonder how many more astronauts will loose their lives in the beauracratic money looser. At the rate the shuttle flys we will have the ISS done in about another 20 + years. Plus it will suck out so much money from Nasa they wont be able to do much science. I have to wonder if any shuttle has ever taken off on schedule Its pathetic we have to get trips to the iss with the russians because Nasa cant get us there. Maybe we can outsource Nasa, we have done it with everything else.

[FireArse]

Originally Posted by Dont Hurt Me

Maybe we can outsource Nasa, we have done it with everything else.

The chinese are on their way i think! Wonder where the Indians are?

The British & French made Concorde, the USA made the Shuttle. One has been retired, the other can be said to be needing retirement. Are there any direct replacements?

Bit of a shame really, 1969 to 1975 were great scientific years in my opinion. We actually did stuff. Nowadays its all coding for the Internet and making energy efficient crap. Who wants to drive a £15,000 milk-float? http://www.tfla.us/photos/Honda's%20hybrid.jpg

Google, MS and IBM should get together to make a supersonic liner that can go into orbit!

[iGary]

Having a ship that could actually fly without killing its crews would save money.

How many Gemini, Mercury and Apollo missions were there?

How many shuttle missions have thee been?

The rate of failure is about the same...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Mercury,Gemini didnt kill anyone,Apollo killed 3 due to the rocket scientist using pure oxygen?
Shuttle- 14 and counting.........
Maybe its good 70s tech Shuttle cant get back into space.
How long wil it take Nasa to get it? 4.5 billion a year and the darn thing still cant get off the ground.
Its just more Govt wasting billions but doing little.

[iGary]

Originally Posted by Dont Hurt Me

Mercury,Gemini didnt kill anyone,Apollo killed 3 due to the rocket scientist using pure oxygen?
Shuttle- 14 and counting.........
Maybe its good 70s tech Shuttle cant get back into space.
How long wil it take Nasa to get it? 4.5 billion a year and the darn thing still cant get off the ground.
Its just more Govt wasting billions but doing little.

Right; now add up the number of flights, the average number of people aboard and the rate of failure is about the same.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I guess you can look at it that way. My problem is Shuttle is sucking down all of Nasa's money while...............................sitting on the gound? This news is standard operating procedure for shuttle. As long as these things have been sitting on the ground the engineers at Nasa should have them in 100% top notch shape but they dont. Its allways delay after delay, year after year. I mean we have had 1 shuttle flight in the past what 3 yrs? You just cant have a space program if your spaceship cant fly. Thats the whole problem.
I can imagine what someone like Burt Rhutan could do with just 1 year of shuttle's operating cost of....4.5 Billion We would be back on the moon, but with Nasa we are still on Earth having the Russians ferry us to space.

While talking Space i like what the russians are doing with Klipper, i like the design and the look and i bet its flying years before the Apollo redo. So we are back to capsules that cant really do much. Chemicals and capsules arent going to take man to Mars, Saturn or anywhere else in the solar system.

I wouldnt be surprised that the military out Groom Lake are operating some type of space craft rumored to be named Aurora. I saw on a special the otherday i very strange contrail that was phot'd by a civilian infared satellite that showed the contrail from Groom Lake across the U.S over to Europe. Very unusual contrail to say the least and sonic booms were reported. Nothing like those Top Secret black projects.

[iGary]

Originally Posted by Dont Hurt Me

I guess you can look at it that way. My problem is Shuttle is sucking down all of Nasa's money while...............................sitting on the gound?

This is where we agree.

The program should have been cancelled a long time ago. It served its purpose. Move on.

[Kingsly]

I nominate Burt Rutan as new director of the manned space flight program. Whats amazing is that when they finally do launch the shuttle they spend all the time up there making sure that their still up there. Seems kinda pointless unless they get some work done.
"Houston, YOU have a problem"

[uaaerospace]

Originally Posted by Kingsly

Apparently the shuttle runs on old (and I mean OLD) technology and yet they are spending so much to keep it in the air (using eBay to purchase replacement parts!).

You are correct. The computer technology on the shuttle is considered ancient by G5 and Core Due standards. However, space vehicle computer technology will always lag behind because of the nature of research and testing. Every operation, no matter now short or simple, must be tested multiple times to ensure that it will work properly on the installed hardware. If you install new hardware, you have years of testing before the vehicle can fly again. Sure, it would be nice to stick a P4 in the shuttle, but what of extreme temerature consequences? Humidity? Moisture?

Designing an air or spacecraft is not like designing a car or a computer. If something faults, lives will most likely be lost. Who cares if your new Core Duo crashes because of a bug from lack of testing. With flight, especially space flight, things are a bit different. If the old technology is stable and gets the job done, then there is no reason to risk using newer technology (not to mention the cost of the new tech). Will new technology find its way into space vehicles? Sure, but by the time the new vehicle actually flies, desktop computer technology will have advanced beyond what was used.

Also, please check the source for your ebay statement. This article, although old, says otherwise.
Shuttle program seeks computer parts on eBay

Edit: I don't want to appear picky but it's NASA, not Nasa. Just like it's Mac, not MAC.

[susato]

uaaerospace wrote:

Sure, it would be nice to stick a P4 in the shuttle, but what of extreme temerature consequences? Humidity? Moisture?

Radiation as well - all the components on the shuttle/ISS are "radiation hardened" so they won't be taken out by a stray cosmic ray or solar flare.

I agree that an alternative to the Shuttle is necessary - but let's not forget what we're losing. The Shuttle was designed as a multipurpose vehicle. Its flexibility accounts for some of its inefficiency as a transport-only vehicle. In losing the Shuttle we also lose an alternative to the space station for research projects up to 15 days duration, and a platform for in-space construction and maintenance (e.g. of the Hubble) Thousands of fine scientific experiments have been conducted onboard the Shuttle in the last 20-odd years. It also played a major role in assembly of the ISS. The CEV, an Apollo capsule on steroids, is a crew transport vehicle plain and simple. Yes it will get our crews into space more efficiently, and will be able to leave low earth orbit, but will be vastly LESS effective as a place for doing any kind of useful work in space.

Another drawback of the CEV is that unlike the Shuttle and ISS, its life support system is designed for short trips only and uses Apollo-era life support technology. No water recycling; no oxygen generation from CO2; no stabilization of solid wastes. And NASA has lifesupport technology just about ready for ISS installation (urine and graywater recovery) and ISS testing (advanced air revitalization schemes) which may simply be discarded as all available funds are funneled into CEV. Nearly all advanced life support projects at NASA are being mothballed. A flight ready water recovery system was to go up to ISS 1 or 2 shuttle flights after Columbia. It's still waiting, and may never fly.

When work begins on the lunar outpost in 2015, where will the technology be to support people cost- and mass-effectively in a closed system for periods of 30-90 days? Where will they get the technology to support a Mars mission in which crew will remain in transit for half a year in each direction, and stay on the Martian surface for 600 days or more, using Martian atmosphere and ground ice as raw materials for manufacturing return propellant, air and water? The Shuttle and ISS can provide excellent testbeds for life support development but no, the Shuttle is to be abandoned and the ISS program further downsized. NASA's whole knowledge base in life support is being trashed, along with much of its scientific program, in order to support development of the CEV. When NASA picks up life support development in 10 years, who will do the work? All of today's life support development experts will have moved on or retired and there will be no one in the pipeline.

So yes, we need to develop the CEV and replace the Shuttle, but don't forget the inevitable losses as you're counting up the anticipated gains.

[Kingsly]

Their using Apollo era life support systems? Thats just plain stupid. You mean to tell me that there will be better oxygen scrubbers in deep sea submersibles than in space!!!
<sarcasm>Woo I love government research</end sarcasm>