NASA plans to retire the Space Shuttle as soon as the ISS (International Space Station) is completed in 2010. Then we won't have any ability to reach Earth orbit until 2015, when the Orion CEV module is ready for liftoff on the Ares rocket. The five year gap could significantly slow the US space program, and our position as the world's foremost space power will erode further. In order to reach the ISS, NASA will fund commercial space companies and the Russian Space Agency to give its astronauts rides up into space. The gap is mainly caused by NASA's fear of the Space Shuttle- two accidents have already occurred, and one may happen again soon. However, we will end up depending on the Russians, whose Soyuz modules actually aren't as safe as the Shuttle. To lose an American astronaut because of a Russian spacecraft would be an embarassment to both countries and would fuel tensions.

So, should we cancel all shuttle flights after STS-140, as planned? Or should we spend more money to extend the Shuttle's life and bring the Orion's launch date closer at the same time? $4 billion would shorten the 5-year gap to just a year or two, and is a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions that the government owns.

Me, I say close the gap as much as possible. Maybe we'll only need to extend the Shuttle to 2011 and bring Orion's first flight to 2013 or 2014, but we can certainly to better for the thousands of workers that have made the United States' space program the envy of the world.

Kyle:

$4 billion would shorten the 5-year gap to just a year or two, and is a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions that the government owns.

 

Did you mean owes? 

The STS system needs to be retired as soon as possible.  These birds are tired out and it is only a matter of time before we have another catastrophic anomaly.  We need to remember our history.  There was a significant gap in the United States Manned program between Projects Gemini and Apollo.  The rush to get the Apollo I into orbit resulted in a frenetic schedule that resulted in three dead astronauts.  We will be fine not sending anyone into space until we are ready to do so with a modern and fully tested spacecraft.

Think of it this way.  Would you be willing to fly in a 30 year old airliner with a 33% record of fatal crashes?  The dedicated men and women of NASA deserve better than what we currently provide.

 L

Yeah, but keep in mind that the Shuttle is still safer than the Russian and probably the commercial launch vehicles. I agree somewhat with your ideas but 'as soon as possible', for me, is STS-150, not 140 or 130. So far, the Shuttle program has resulted in a 1.5% failure rate. Besides, both shuttle failures were caused by irregular management. The faults lie with the leadership, not the Shuttle.

One more thing: We've invested tens of billions of dollars in the ISS, and I don't think many people intend to see that put at risk due to a relative lack of U.S. presence.

Kyle:

One more thing: We've invested tens of billions of dollars in the ISS, and I don't think many people intend to see that put at risk due to a relative lack of U.S. presence.

I for one would be perfectly happy severing our ties with that space ghetto once our commitment is over.  Why should we continue to fly a rickety old space truck to the ISS anyway?  The Russian Soyez would be adequate for personel and the unmanned cosmos deliveries don't risk humans at all.  I would rather not see us mucking about with human spaceflight until we are ready.  In the meantime lets keep those robotic probes and the solid science behind them fully funded.

L

Kyle:

Besides, both shuttle failures were caused by irregular management. The faults lie with the leadership, not the Shuttle.

 

That is not strictly true.  While management did not act sufficiently and fully on restricting the use of the shuttles during adverse conditions the STS system failed because it is flawed.  The o-rings are a weak link in the solid booster system and their failure resulted in the destruction of the ship and the death of her crew.  The falling insulation and its impact on the shuttle is a design defect that has still not been fully rectified either.  I am sure there are many more defects on this aging system that are checked as often as possible but humans are not perfect and flying an elderly piece of equipment that is subject to immense aerodynamic stresses beyond their design lifetime is playing with fire.  NASA is right to be afraid to fly them for much longer and I trust their judgement in this case.  Another failure would be far more destructive to our manned space desires and would end the program on a terrible note.  It was a good system for its day but it is time to let the old ladies retire.

L

The STS was never a good system.  It was a series of compromises from the word go and should have been retired long, long ago.  Abandoning the Saturn V, the most powerful booster ever built, was a colossal mistake. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V 

The STS and later, the ISS (in its ridiculous orbit), cost so much that NASA spent three decades doing junk science in LEO, to the detriment of a great many meaningful science probe missions and any chance of returning to the Moon. 

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=3745

Dave Mitsky

I think that any follow-up system to the STS will be even more compromise than the current system. Apollo had been working successfully because all parties involved had been pulling one string. That cannot be said of NASA today. The aparatus is oversize, slow and torn apart. One does not need to be an insider to feel what's going on.

With the ISS it is even more complicated. With all the different nations involved, none of them is able to pull back alone. Reasons are national pride, contracts, and whatever. Result: The system is dragging on and on and.... Financial disaster is not just looming somewhere, the whole thing IS a financial disaster (just like the Shuttle).

If it wasn't for the military's space related projects, STS might be buried already. How many % of programs on STS are military? 70...? 80...?

I agree with Dave. The Saturn V was the best thing that happened to NASA. However, the ISS is still an important project and I believe that it is worth the money. Man must explore; the solar system is our property, not that of robots.

"The Earth is the cradle of humanity, but mankind cannot stay in the cradle forever."                                                                                                                         -Konstantin Tsiolkovskii

The ISS: celestial white elephant or cosmic blunder?

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zn1.html

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5sjg9t

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1282806.html

http://www.spaceprojects.com/iss/

Dave Mitsky

 

DaveMitsky:

The ISS: celestial white elephant or cosmic blunder?

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zn1.html

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5sjg9t

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1282806.html

http://www.spaceprojects.com/iss/

Dave Mitsky

 Those are some very interesting articles Dave. Thank you for posting the links. This is somewhat of a revelation for me; I have not been keeping up with the progress of either the ISS or the Shuttle missions. After reading them I would opt for the White Elephant. Cutting the numbers staffing the ISS, thereby drastically reducing the time spent on research, should be at the heart of any future opposition for further funding

Yeah, it could've been better managed and operated, and the Shuttle is very expensive. NASA's got itself in a bad position, partly its own fault and partly the government's. If Nixon hadn't slashed NASA's funding after Apollo 17 because of Vietnam, we could have had a moon base by now(maybe). There are a lot of reasons why our entry into the Vietnam War was unsuccessful, and a big one was that our troops were actually not allowed to fire upon enemies unless they attacked first. We lost plenty of men, equipment, and time that way.

Anyway the ISS was a worthy project, even if it was expensive. I think that pioneering near-Earth space is more important than building 25-meter telescopes and sending space probes to other planets. What's the use of determining conditions on other planets if nobody's planning to send major manned missions to them?

Kyle:

I think that pioneering near-Earth space is more important than building 25-meter telescopes and sending space probes to other planets. What's the use of determining conditions on other planets if nobody's planning to send major manned missions to them?

 

Sorry but I couldn't disagree more.  I think exploring space in person is a great adventure but one has to accept the limitations of doing so.  Are you really saying that we should not have sent probes anywhere but where our technology could send humans?  By that reasoning we would not know 99% of what we have learned about our solar system.  Exploration and the seeking of knowledge is what is important.  I for one think we have gained a far greater understanding of the cosmos from our ground based instruments and robotic space probes than we ever will from the manned space program. 

Does this mean I would junk manned space projects.  No.  I grew up with Mercury and will never forget the impact of Apollo 8.   But I would junk political posturing and idiotic planning that have led to a shuttle to no-where and an ISS that is worthless as a scientific platform.  Lets stop wasting precious lives and funds on this and redirect our efforts to going back to the Moon and Mars. 

Given a choice between cutting back on our deep space probes that can go wherever we want and return awesome science and vivid vistas that no human will ever see in person or taking a break from manned flight till we have firm goals and adequate funding I would choose a robot/rover over Buck Rogers without a second thought.

L

Well, I'm sure someone will enlighten me, but why worry about Mars right now?  Seems as though the Moon is a lot more attainable and get us started on a path of exploring and settling our solar system.  The moon is closer, of course and we DO have some knowledge of how to get THERE!  Let's put our time and resources on one thing at a time.  Seems as though things are getting lost in the name of science.  Science isn't to blame! 

There are many factors that went into scrapping the moon missions of the '70's.  That's a shame.  A lot of science was lost.  I have lived through a good chunk of the Cold War and I'm taking the chance of incurring the wrath of the rest of you, but this period in history maybe wasn't so bad in one aspect.  We did make it to the Moon.  It created competition which breeds innovation.  The country came together for a single purpose.  Landing on the Moon instilled a sense of pride in ALL Americans at a time of severe unrest due to the Vietnam Conflict.   Granted, I was young at that time and some of you can correct me if my assessment is wrong. 

Now, greed, NASA's vanity and personal power have severely compromised our possibility of manning anything anywhere outside our own planet.  No way of discovering things that may only be found when living in space.  This greed, vanity and power issue have lead to watering down the collective enthusiasm of our country to a point where only a handful of us really care about ever getting back to the Moon and hopefully further.  Very few could give a hoot about our space program and skip over news accounts unless a shuttle blows up or something.

Technology also plays a role in the lack of interest, I feel.  We have gotten so used to all the great and wonderful advances that have been made, advances not only in space exploration, but also in normal life. I realize the Space Shuttle has problems and always has.  But, it has flown so much, many are under the assumption that we could stick a few astronauts in a glorified tomato can and shoot them off to the Moon tomorrow.  Ah, it's no big deal.

I like the idea of farming the space program out to private industry.  I think there's quite a bit of up-side there.  If the program stays under government control, you can bet we'll get nowhere fast.

As always, just my !

Interesting subject I am just a youngin and kind of lost interest in astronomy and space awhile back but starting to renew it. Anyhow I have too say that yeah its time too retire the shuttles and make the monuments down at kennedy space center.

 My reasoning is yeah 1 too many accidents and theres been issues with big red on every launch shakin and falling debris bumping inot the shielding. Also it is pricey but the whole space program is. Im all for the exploration of space but not with tax dollars i think they could use that money elsewhere. Also dont think the way its currntly designed it will make the moon or beyond as old Georgie wants nasa to do.

But yeah i would like too see humans on Mars in my lifetime think that be pretty cool...

Oh sorry, I got to ranting and forgot to answer the poll question.

Yes, retire the shuttle program.  Too expensive, too dangerous, very little reward.  Put some time and effort into a better craft and create a space program that's actually for the exploration of space.

Leo731-

I agree to some extent but all I'm saying is that planetary exploration isn't as important as manned exploration. Once we have sufficient ability to readily reach at least the moon safely with existing technology, a new era of space will grow, driven by the private sector with orbiting hotels, lunar mines, etc. that will lead us to a truly new age of mankind.

 I hope so, or even sooner. There has been enough lives lost so far and another disaster is probably just around the corner.

  Surely we can come up with another safer way to do the shuttle missions. How many lives must be lost before someone says, "Humm...think it's time to make some serious changes".
 

The first disaster was not Shuttle related. The o-ring that failed was on the rocket. As a former mechanical nuclear inspector I was stunned to find out NASA brass caved in to President Reagans insistence to send the mission even tho' inspectors were telling the brass not to.

This was known in inside circles because one thing an inspector at this level must have is a certain level of integrity - no matter what the politics demand.

Reagan wanted to look up to the sky that night when he was giving his State of the Union speech and make a reference to the mission.

I just get racked every time I think about it.

Now, having brought that up, yes, the ships are getting old. Inspections and replacement parts can only go so far. Surely they have life limits on all components.