E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The shuttle Discovery is lit up just after this week's arrival at the launch pad at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Discovery is slated for retirement after its next launch, but there's talk that the other two shuttles in NASA's fleet could be kept for commercial purposes.
Is there really a chance that at least a couple of space shuttles will stay on as commercial spaceships rather than going to museums this year? That's what United Space Alliance, the venture that currently takes care of the shuttle fleet for NASA, is suggesting in its proposal for resupplying the International Space Station in the, ahem, "post-shuttle era."
The reactions to our story about the proposal run the gamut from "it's a dream come true" to "it's a pipe dream." It's not a totally loony idea — in fact, retired senator-astronaut John Glenn threw his support behind the idea months ago, and made his pitch for keeping the shuttles flying to President Barack Obama during a White House meeting.
"Why terminate a perfectly good system that has been made more safe and reliable through its many years of development?" Glenn asked.
But when you consider all the concerns that have been raised about the risks and costs associated with the space shuttle, along with the fact that the shuttle infrastructure is already being literally dismantled, does the plan really make sense?
The forum at NASASpaceflight.com, which is frequented by a fair number of space agency insiders, is generally bullish about the idea: One commenter observed, "Technically, the orbiters are in great shape. There are no concerns there. Politics will likely dictate and outweigh the logic process on if this is required or not. Two flights a year is very doable. ..."
On the other hand, NASA Watch's Keith Cowing, who is plugged into the talk within the space agency as well, is bearish: " NASA is not 'considering' or 'weighing' anything other than whether or not they want to pay someone to do a study that challenges a decision the agency has already committed to."
When the idea of keeping the shuttles flying was raised to Wayne Hale, who retired from NASA last year after managing the space shuttle program, it was quickly shot down.
"What if United Space Alliance were to buy the three shuttles?" a commenter asked Hale.
"This is nonsense," Hale replied. "United Space Alliance would need about $3 billion to operate the shuttle fleet for six flights a year. You do the math. It's not feasible."
Now USA is proposing doing two flights a year, using Endeavour and Atlantis, for $1.5 billion starting in 2013. That may be more feasible, and it may be an attractive proposition for job-conscious members of Congress. But the plan still may turn out to be too costly, risky or wrong-headed. Here's how the pros and cons line up:
Pros:
- The system has already been flying for 30 years, so we know it works.
- The shuttle has more cargo capacity than anything on the drawing boards. So at the same time that NASA is flying crew, it could deliver 25 tons of supplies as well.
- The plan bridges the gap until next-gen spaceships are built and fully tested.
- It keeps the shuttle workforce employed, eases transition to post-shuttle age.
- It reduces dependence on the Russians for human spaceflight in the near term.
- It gives NASA a chance to consider future shuttle-derived heavy-lift space vehicles.
Cons:
- How would transfer of shuttles to private sector work? Should USA pay?
- Shuttles are seen as having a 1-in-100 risk of loss of crew, which would be unacceptable under NASA's proposed safety standards for future flights.
- Some of the replacement parts for the shuttles are already becoming difficult to procure (via eBay?). More external fuel tank
- Next-gen spaceships for carrying astronauts are likely to be cheaper to build and operate, and may be ready as soon as 2014. Between now and then, it may make more sense to rely on the Russians.
- Shuttle workforce is already starting to disperse due to the expected end of program.
- Wouldn't it be preferable to fund new technologies rather than keeping 30-year-old technology going?
Maybe you have more pros and cons to offer. Or maybe you just have some thoughts about the approach of the post-shuttle age, or the prospect for the commercial-shuttle age. However you see it, feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
I'll be out of the office for a few days, but my colleague John Roach will keep the Cosmic Log fires burning while I'm gone.
Leave a Comment:
ok best way is to fund new technology and fund our science fore building strong powerful unbreakable electric generated space crafts"ore the ones with gas that planets are made off imagine space craft fly's to Jupiter inhaling gas with anti gravity shield barriers ore other new technology that immune s us"!(In mind but never will be true-ANTIGRAVITY lifts ore gravity killing BARRIERS fore space crafts leaving earth.2if you will fly in space your space craft could be cached by other planets, stars even deep bad blackholes GRAVITY so barrier ore strong immune shields would help)WE NEED strong generators fore never ending fuel, humans have to move on! FAST!! We need more scientists!!! Imagine space surfcraft!!!(the one that easily surfs space reaching unimaginable speeds radars fore object avoidance!!! People plz think!!!!Ore some kinds of spaceship like the ship in the sea with anchor that could hold us if needed in space to not get pulled in from gravity with fast surfing technology ore jumping to leave the spot fast...
LIFE FORMS EXCHANGES WITH NEW BORN LIFE FORMS!! INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE UPDATED, INVENT DONT STOP. OLD THINKS NEED TO BE UPDATED LATER NEW BORNS WILL TAKE PLACE. NEVER WAYT EVER ALL AND ALL PEOPLE NEED TO CONCENTRATE TO SIENCE INVENTIONS EXPLORATION OF SPACE! MOVE ON SPREAD WE NEED MORE PEOPLE NOT LESS!! POPULATING SPACE AND SPACE PLANETS (LANDS) RESOURCES NEEDS TO BE OURS DONT KILL MAKE IT BORN TO INVENT SPREAD INVENTIONS EXPLORE SPACE BY TOUCHING IT FEELING IT STEPPING ON IT BUILDING ON IT USING IT FORE EXPLORATION AND MORE AND MORE POPULATION!!! 2 posted comments and 2 last ones to understand fore human kind human brain wee need u all leave this planet have your own planet and never forget HOME PLANET if asteroid meteor ore other peace of sh will kill it some day Please Please Please watch that Moment from Manny Planets and say we born we live we die! we try to survive...No human have to die from other humans hands! the god is somewhere high in space waiting fore us to meet him!!!
I fully support the idea of keeping shuttle flying... I think our country MUST maintain its lead in space transportation to OUR ISS.. it might be an international, but its our 100 Billion up there.. We don;t need to drop our guard to other countrys, it will be very very hard to restart a new heavy lift program when all the experienced workforce has left... the learning curve is long, intense and expensive.. no one had every estimated the extreme cost of retraining an new workforce.. the American tax payers already have paid this cost, we have the people here NOW that can fly this space craft, Shuttle needs to stay until we have a viable replacement that will take heavy payloads to LEO or out to where ever we decide to go...
In the meantime, Commercial will still invest in there project and small rockets, NASA should "partially" funded to keep it going.. BUT if they want to make the money in the end, then it needs to be their investment that makes it happen... then they deserve it.. As a 30 + year United space alliance employee, former Rockwell.. I have had the prevledge or working on every orbiter with the most dedicated and specialized workers in the world.. we make dreams come true, like our fathers and mother before us on Apollo.. lets not throw us out like rotten trash..
Killing space shuttle is the same thing as is we were to stop driving cars because a new means of transportation "might" be coming out that is better and cheaper... in the mean time we take the bus till that happens.. this is just silly.. we keep driving our cars and "when" the new system comes out, it "proven" and its as good as they say it was going to be... then we park the cars and start using the the new way to get around...
Lets us not forget what the original 2004 Bush era shuttle ending intent was based on.. 1.) funding, 2.) a new vehicle in place and ready to go by 2010... then and ONLY then, would we end shuttle.. well as we all know, NONe of this ever happend as planned..
Funding was never properly in place.. and we ended up using other funds to develope constellation which was a NASA directed program.. the contractors like USA wanted to see us go Shuttle derived but that idea got shelved by NASA... only now has it been recognized as a real way to move forward... I think USA can do a fine job we have so far.. give us a try.. let us keep shuttle alive..
I am a 67 year old commercial pilot with almost 20,000 hours cover most all areas of aviation, fom flight instruction, ag-flying 9,000 hr. charter, business, personal, etc. I have owned several aircraft from single engine to heavy multi engine. My son and I have developed several patented and FAA Approved modifications in aviation over the years, I have test flown all of these mods., from new design turbine engine installations to patented non shimmy tail wheel design. I have flown Senators, Presidents, and other VIP personal, I have trained military pilots, and have designed special projects for the State Department, and USDA. I FULLY SUPPORT THE SHUTTLE, BOTH ACCIDENTS WERE HUMAN FAULT - FLYING IN FREEZING WEATHER, AND THEN TRYING TO LAND A DAMAGED CRAFT WITHOUT PRE-FLIGHT INSPECTION. Someone should have gone to jail for allowing the last shuttle loss, they knew full well that there was serious damage. THEY made the decision to "Take a chance" - THEY were not in the commanders seat, in fact the crew were not even made aware of the danger! Imagine if an airliner were allowed to fly with damage to a wing, it is not going to happen, BECAUSE the crew makes go-no go decisions. THE SHUTTLE is not dangerous the PEOPLE IN CHARGE are DANGEROUS. The shuttle program should continue, it is the greatest space vehicle ever conceived. Don't be totally STUPID, we don't scrape the jet airliners when there is a crash, and hundreds of people are killed. PLEASE don't insult our intelligence by spouting the danger of the Shuttle. LIFE is filled with risks, this one is NO GREATER THAN DRIVING OUR CARS. If the crew makes the call, there will be very little chance of a repeat of the past STUPIDITY that killed those two crews! As far as expence, the LOSS OF FACE, will be FAR GREATER than the cost of maintaining our leadership in SPACE! Wake up CONGRESS, your listening to so called experts, that don't know their rear from a hole in the ground about flight SAFETY, and you can quote me on that!!!
I fully support the idea of keeping shuttle flying... I think our country MUST maintain its lead in space transportation to OUR ISS.. it might be an international, but its our 100 Billion up there.. We don;t need to drop our guard to other countrys, it will be very very hard to restart a new heavy lift program when all the experienced workforce has left... the learning curve is long, intense and expensive.. no one had every estimated the extreme cost of retraining an new workforce.. the American tax payers already have paid this cost, we have the people here NOW that can fly this space craft, Shuttle needs to stay until we have a viable replacement that will take heavy payloads to LEO or out to where ever we decide to go...
In the meantime, Commercial will still invest in there project and small rockets, NASA should "partially" funded to keep it going.. BUT if they want to make the money in the end, then it needs to be their investment that makes it happen... then they deserve it.. As a 30 + year United space alliance employee, former Rockwell.. I have had the prevledge or working on every orbiter with the most dedicated and specialized workers in the world.. we make dreams come true, like our fathers and mother before us on Apollo.. lets not throw us out like rotten trash..
Killing space shuttle is the same thing as is we were to stop driving cars because a new means of transportation "might" be coming out that is better and cheaper... in the mean time we take the bus till that happens.. this is just silly.. we keep driving our cars and "when" the new system comes out, it "proven" and its as good as they say it was going to be... then we park the cars and start using the the new way to get around...
Lets us not forget what the original 2004 Bush era shuttle ending intent was based on.. 1.) funding, 2.) a new vehicle in place and ready to go by 2010... then and ONLY then, would we end shuttle.. well as we all know, NONe of this ever happend as planned..
Funding was never properly in place.. and we ended up using other funds to develope constellation which was a NASA directed program.. the contractors like USA wanted to see us go Shuttle derived but that idea got shelved by NASA... only now has it been recognized as a real way to move forward... I think USA can do a fine job we have so far.. give us a try.. let us keep shuttle alive..
Quote “Killing space shuttle is the same thing as is we were to stop driving cars because a new means of transportation "might" be coming out that is better and cheaper”
Not entirely true. Cars (and other vehicles) are an essential part of human day to day life. We cannot survive in our modern world without them. If a new means of transport were to be development we MUST develop it while still being able to use cars. We cannot stop using cars at any time until a better transport method is proven to be functional and practical.
The same doesn’t hold true for space-travel and especially for the LEO-only space shuttle program. It is NOT an essential part of our day to day life. Our lives would not be effected in anyway if the ISS (or the shuttle fleet or the infrastructure) was destroyed this minute. Therefore the whole shuttle program and ISS fits more adequately in the recreational non-essential field of sciences.
On the same note, what is actual advantage to the US tax payer of supporting a continuous US based space program till a new gen space vessel arrives. Is it a question of egoism that we are not 'dependant' on the russians? (the cold war ended long ago and we won already - the russians are more cooperative nowadays and the chances of them funding another space race with the US is next to nil)
Also it would be a hard sell to say to the taxpayer that the ISS can perform ‘science experiments’ and the space shuttle is needed to transport these ‘science experiments to and from the ISS. Only real issue is the lack of continuous employment for the shuttle workforce. Would it be more logical to set up a support fund (similar to the displaced of hurricane Katrina) for these lost group of workers to help them find employment in other areas?
why not put shuttles in space take out main engines and install vasimr engines and make it
a spaceship to carry supplies to moon or mars cargo bay has great potential solar panels
could be put on wings and maybe fold out panels to supply more power why have such a
great craft wasting away in a museum would it be more sense than designing a space tug
This was studied. Apart from the fact that the airframes are coming up against their age limit. There are various internals: hypergol tankage, wiring; hydraulics, that I understand would need refurbishment.
That being said if private industry thinks that they could refurb and maintain them as commercially lightweight lifters (say 30 tns assuming an entirely automated space truck) ...Go for it! But I fear that the horse has already bolted. As the redoubtable Wayne Hale has already stated the entire supply train would have to be reassembled as well. This would have made sense 20 odd years ago but not now. Its time for the next gen space planes. Eg SpaceDev, Reaction Engines,...
@kiwitrekee
Alas not possible. Shuttles have a very limited time on orbit. Batteries. Integrated LSS. Etc. The entire vehicle would have to be redesigned and re-engineered. It is WAY cheaper to design a deep space vessel from scratch. However a modular approach would be my best guess.
As a museum exhibit they will provide an inspiration to design the next generation of RLVs and a lesson in KISS!
Maybe someone should point out that the Russians are using a proven delivery system that has been in existance and use for >40< years, not 30... and that's what we're planning to rely on during the interim. The answer is moderately easy: don't keep the 30 year old shuttles flying: build two more new ones. It's not like there would have to be a tremendous amount of design time....
If certain people at NASA (including a particular ex-director who still holds sway) would just stop the "Not Invented Here" attitude, and learn how to accept the fact that they don't know everything, then the agency could just get on with building DIRECT's Jupiter vehicles, and the problem would be solved. If you totally eliminate the cost of maintaining, repairing, overhauling and flying the orbiters, and concentrate on fitting the RS-25 and future RS-25e engines to the bottom of the ET, keep the 4-seg RSRM's, and make a collar to mate the Orion to the ET, then you've got a vehicle with NO major development items in the path. Save all that buckage concerning the orbiter, and put a reliable heavy-lift system on the pad in less than two years, for 2/3 the cost. It seems pretty simple, but all those Rocket Scientists at NASA keep saying they can't do it. Well hell, their grandfathers put men on the moon 40 years ago, why can't they do this? It saves money, and the system is so flexible that with a little extra effort, they can develop the Centaur upper stage, mate it to the Jupiter core, and then you have a Moon/Mars rocket in 5-7 years.
If DIRECT could think of it, and do all the engineering, cost analysis, and mission profiles, why can't NASA?
Why don't you do an article on that, Mr. Boyle? I'm sure those DIRECT guys would be happy to show you all their data. In fact, it's right there on their webpage. Wonder why no one is asking NASA why they keep saying it won't work, when it's clear that it will, but that NASA has "Build The Most Ginormous Rocket" on the brain and won't even consider the fact that it just might work, because they didn't come up with it~!
Of course, they really did... It's the National Launch System that NASA began developing in the post-Challenger era.
Get DIRECT Jupiter 130 on the pad NOW!!!
I agree on the Direct concept.. it is ready.. has been ready, its been NASA that has poopoo'ed it from the start.. Griffen had constellation on the brain.. and everyone marched to his orders.. all of this was based on the basic non-funded directive of Buch in 2004..
Direct will work very nicely.. and we should be doing that right now.. As for the Russians.. well good for them that they have been flying that rocket for 40 years.. its not like they have not lost crews either.. I say keep this in America.. keep Americans employed.. Downsize NASA... and keep the real workers and engineers on the job.. USA can do all of this, but you got to stop the bleeding now..Why are people so ready to just send our pride overseas, what happened to build it in America.. where is your pride..
As for the supply chain being cut.. well that is exactly the effect that the left wing congress and NASA wanted to do.. if you stop supply then is makes their case to end shuttle... It would not take as much as anyone is saying to reopen the ET plant, all the equipment is still there, now run by jacobs engineering..
And as for the condition of the SHuttle fleet.. unles you work directly on the program and know the refurbs that have been done.. then you might want to stop quoting facts spewed by the fingers of the media.. its just not true.. these were all built for 100 missions each, we have done countless upgrades and refurbs on all systems.. these vehicles can go as long as we want them too..
Personally, I think the proposal to keep two shuttles going for two flights a year is a workable proposal until commercial spacecraft can fill the gap. Even if it's only for 3-4 years, having something to fly to the ISS is better than nothing to fly to the ISS. What I don't know is if this proposal would take funds from developing commercial spacecraft and slow down replacement, or would it be in addition to?
And I would have agreed - 2 years ago. However as the previous POTUS and previous NASA Admin. shut down the program & supply chain: the costs to start it up again would be extensive. Then there is the 'standing army': $200 million/month whether you launch or not IIRC. So reducing the number of Shuttles or Flights does not save any money. Indeed the drain on finances prevents the development of a replacement! Another heritage of Apollo: NASA can only afford to design a new launcher by not operating its precursor. Indeed under Constellation you were going to ditch the ISS as well!
In the final analysis: 1 chance in 100 of LOC (Loss of Crew) and no POTUS will live with those odds even if the Astros will!
With respect to DIRECT from my understanding the SRMs are the sticking point:
a/ Cost
b/ Safety
c/ Peroxide
d/ Weight (5 seg.)
Hence the interest in a Kerolox 1st Stage!
Then there is the ongoing cyber-debate over payload. Ultimately do we really NEED Heavy Lift? Sometimes I think the only reason your Senate is insisting on the 70-130 tonnes is to 'beat' the proposed Angara Launcher. However the latter manages that using a CCB and clustering same. IMHO Saturn has tainted your space program with the BFR meme. Which, in the medium term, is just not needed and therefore a drain on finances at the very point NASA and America can least afford them. The Shuttle had great promise. Unfortunately your Government locked NASA into operating it as a State carrier and now seems intent on repeating the mistake.
Personally I would advocate a radical rethink to the future rather than the various attempts to relive the past.
Why not remove the risk of loss of human life by converting the shuttles to remote piloted vehicles?
There are only so many things you can do with a joy stick, never mind how much control, and quick action it requires to pilot during re-entry. Not doable if you want my opinion. And there is the aspect of having to do space walks. You think you can do something like the hubble repair from a computer screen in Houston, TX and not have to worry about buggering up the whole thing?
750 million dollars per flight!?!
I sure hope any study of this idea also calculates how many tons we could launch by just spending that much buying Falcon IX, Delta IV, or Atlas V flights.
To indulge the paranoid faction. We get into some kind dispute with the Russkis, maybe over NATO, or Cuba, or Venezuela, the Caucuses. Who knows we've had all manner of disputes with them over the years, sometimes serious. They get really pissed and we lose our only way to the space station. It's seems ridicules. The space station orbiting the earth empty or, totally unacceptably, with an all Russian crew.
A couple of corrections:
1. The shuttle DOES NOT HAVE more cargo capacity than anything on the drawing boards. Delta IV Heavy can put the same mass into LEO, and Atlas V Heavy (awaiting customer orders) could put 25% more into LEO. The SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy, can put 40% more in LEO (70,000 lbs) and only costs $95M for the launcher (awaiting customer orders too). Besides, the ISS supply needs already being taken care of by five different supply systems, with three being our ISS partners (ATV, HTV and Progress) and two future U.S. providers (Orbital and SpaceX). The Shuttle is not needed to support the ISS.
2. It DOES NOT REDUCE dependence on the Russians for human spaceflight in the near term. The Shuttle can only stay in space for two weeks max, so it can not provide the same long-term lifeboat service that the Soyuz can. I'm as anxious as everyone else to get an American alternative to Soyuz, but Shuttle never has been, and can't.
3. The plan DOES NOT BRIDGE the gap until next-gen spaceships are built and fully tested. Without a defined mission for the Shuttle, extending the Shuttle program only siphons off funds from NASA that can be used for buying crew services from U.S. commercial providers. Instead of paying USA $6B to run the Shuttle for four years, that $6B would allow NASA to buy/fund human rating three U.S. launchers (Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V, Falcon 9), buy/fund at least two capsule systems (Dragon and CST-100), and partially fund the development of a next generation crew system like Dream Chaser. So instead of one crew system waiting to retire yet again, we could have a completely redundant U.S. crew transportation system that will ultimately SAVE NASA money compared to operating the Shuttle and buying seats on the Soyuz.
The Shuttle has been a great program, but it's time to praise all involved, and throw a big retirement party. Time to move on.
I really do not think that it is economically feasible to restart the production lines to fly the shuttle for a just couple more years. I think that horse has already left the barn, but I have no objection if there is a company out there that is willing to take on 100% of the cost and give it a try. Rather, I think we need to fast track a NERVA-type solid core nuclear thermal rocket capability to leapfrog over all of the inefficiencies of chemical rocket engines and move aggressively toward permanent occupation of the moon and the first human Mars expeditions within a decade.
Dude, PLEASE take your meds.
There is no way in hell.
These birds have antique computer systems and on top of that, they have no support structure or logistics any longer.
Finding parts for these systems would be a logistical nightmare.
And if a private company tried to manufacture these parts a crew would be impossible to find foolish enough to attempt a flight.
Put them on the side of the road in Houston and charge admission for tours.
One day, they might pay for themselves.
something tells me that as soon as there are no more "invoices" due after the last flight, that money will be bye-bye. putting that cash to work on a newer system with new goals would be great. but i wouldn't hold my breath. Never forget, Americans spend over 3 billion a year on potato chips alone. Space is fun, but potato chips are a life essential.
How about one last ride up with just two astronauts then have them some home in the Russian capsule and leave the shuttle at the ISS as an emergency escape vehicle? Kind of a free extra bedroon, with toilet too.
Despite it's flaws, I am the biggest fan of the shuttle. Over the last 30 years it has done its job. It proved the concept of re-usable launch vehicles, brought scientific experimentation into space, built the largest artificial object to orbit the Earth and gave us Hubble, the greatest achievement since Apollo.
The Shuttle gave us capabilities that nothing else at the time could. When Hubble was launched with a defective mirror, it required the Shuttle to send up a repair team to fix it. And over the last 20 years Hubble has been pushing the boundaries of astronomy and our knowledge of the universe with some of the most amazing photographs.
But now with the production line shutting down and the supply chain drying up, I don't see a way for the Shuttle to continue. As much as I would like the shuttle to continue flying, it should be retired with dignity and we should move as quickly as possible to build its replacement with an eye to supporting the ISS.
If the United Space Alliance could come with a cost effective plan to keep it operating without disrupting future manned vehicle development, I would be first to support keeping it flying.
Why not dock the fleet in orbit and attach them to the space station to be used for satelite retrieval and repair vehicles and as a potential lifeboat for a one way trip home in an emergency. Even if they are not safe to reenter the atmosphere, they could at least be used as a self contained "life boat" that could remain in orbit with a crew in the event of a fire, breach, or other catostrophic event on the station. Their useful lifespan would be extended without the wear and tear of lift off and reentry. When they are not being used for satelite repairs their bays would provide a protected environment to "spread out" any other work (or recreation activity ) that is too cramped in the station. With a little investment in additional docking facilities there should be room to accomodate the fleet, or is there not eneough "space" available in space.
A certain catch phrase 'Let bygones be bygone' comes to mind. I personally think the shuttle program has gone way past its use by date (first designs in October 1968!!! even before the first moon landing) and the US has failed to come up with a suitable replacement for this unnecessarily complex machine in due time (Its shear complexity being part of the reason why a good percentage of the shuttle workforce has employment).
A common erroneous reason given for keeping the shuttle alive is that 'the shuttle's were designed and built for up to 100 missions and that the current shuttle has done only approximately ~30-40 missions'. This reason is fact but is misleading the reader. It is true that the initial designs allowed each shuttle to be launched upto 100 missions BUT a key factor which should be quoted on the same line is often omitted. It should read 'up to 100 missions within a maximum time period of 10 years!!!'. In the early 90's as it became apparent that NASA could not have a replacement ready in this 10 year time period the shuttle's had some extensive modification done to extend the useful lifetime up to 15 years. Unfortunately we have now reached nearly double that time period and NASA is yet to come to the drawing board on a suitable replacement craft. If anything, NASA has failed to make maximum use of the shuttle's useful period as the current/previous number of missions/year has been nowhere close to what is required to reach the 100 mission limit
A second reason given is that 'amazing repairs like repairing the hubble telescope would not have been possible without the shuttle'. It's true but we need to look at things in context. Is it really a reason to keep an aging shuttle program alive any longer in to the future. Sure it did the repair when it was needed (it's supposed to do it) but hubble is FIXED now and the repair equipment should still be kept alive in running condition because??? To fix hubble again? Obviously hubble has some serious design flaws if this is the case and we may have to think about a replacement for hubble also.
And finally 'The system has already been flying for 30 years, so we know it works. '. Sure it does. That's certainly enough time to figure out the do's and don't's of this machine (but it still may not be enough time – can we still guarantee prevention of a another shuttle disaster, similar to another o-ring failure scenario, or design flaws in positioning insulation foam or the adhesiveness/impact-strength of crucial heat tiles –these are all critical design flaws of the shuttle itself and cannot be fully blamed on human error as one poster mentioned above) Steam engines have been in use for so many years but it doesn't mean we should all divert all our resources and infrastructure into keeping steam engines running. Invest those resources in developing a better far more sustainable machinery. Technology must and will advance as it is always does and I think we will see the end of the shuttle as planned no matter how much nostalgic atttachment we may have for it. And the shuttle workforce –its time to move on, the tax payer does not owe you lifetime dues to feed your families forever.
Your entitled entitled to your ill informed opinion.. you base many statements on speculation for the uninformed reader to adopt to your opinion of indifference.. and complacency.. Are you even an American.. Your insensitivity to the Space program work force is truely special... again you have not grasped the factors that surround the workforce...
I'll try to paint you a picture of the reality we face as dedicated space program workers.. In the begining of this program, the contractors for NASA's space shuttle program (Rockwell/ Lockheed) hired hundreds of kids right out of high school, they trained them with highly specialized processes and procedures that would be used on these vehicles, did this in many feilds of expertise.. All of us grew with the research and developement of these vehicles making us the ONLY people in the world with these specialized skills. The program made sure they retained us through better and average pay and benefits for the area. Of course we all bought homes here, raised families and created large employment in support of our being here.
Throughout the program's 30 years of processing, NASA always talked about how impportant everyone here was to the new upcomming programs that would evolve from Shuttle and how we would all be apart of these in the future..
All this made sure the majority of the workforce would always stay around to do NASA's work via a contractor.. Many people never went to college and even those that did get their degrees, remained here with this program as their only employment on the resume.. Now you can say shame on us.. but hindsight is 20/20... if any of you were here with us, you would have done the same.. there was NEVER any thought or reason to think that NASA and the government would completly kill NASA manned space flight programs.. We knew there would be flexable changes to the employment levels, but to go to zero!.. never..
We all are trying very hard to find new employment paths.. Transferable skills etc.. but we have been so specialized and our experience base so narrowed by the unique nature of this program for so long it has been a tough thing to do.. Add the economy issues and we have the perfect storm...
Our problem is so acute that it has been recognized by the adminstration and extra funding has been provided to the state to assist us in training and employment efforts, however our area has been so dependant on the space program, that there is little other employment here other than the small support businesses and gerocery stores.. The state does not want us to leave the area, and most are look everywhere... Unfortunatly, only the highly educated engineers are finding jobs eslewhere.. this leaves the majority of the 9000 being terminated here at KSC on our own.. many are forced into early retirement withdraws, but most are in very bad shape.. we have mortgages and families built on and dependant on our employment standards of the past 30 years, and now it all gone with nothing to replace it.. nothing!
This president continues to preach about his desire to inspire and educate our people, be the leader in inovation and science.. his campagin speech here in 2008 "promised" to keep manned space employment intack and moving forward.. Now that he is in office.. it all turned out to be just a lie.... He had no intention of keeping us employed, no recognition of our special and unique skills paid for by the American Tax payer..
We are infact being discarded as so much trash or broken furniture... So thank you Sir for your highly educated and sentitive comment for to "get over it" to "move on" and the "American tax payer does not owe" comment... We have never asked America to pay us forever thats not what we want, we just want to continue to be the folks that lead our country in Space progress, doing the things people dream of, performing the science of miracles... NASA asked us to come work on this program.. and we trusted NASA... and our goverment.. Political winds dont care if they kill programs that take people out with them...
How's that for motivating the next generation of space workers.. How is that for building trust in your goverment... Oh before I finish... out of the 2100 NASA goverment employees here at KSC... not a single person will lose their job... NOT ONE!! So before you or anyone else points the dirty end of the stick at us, the contractor employes... ask yourself what all those NASA employees will be doing after Shuttle is dead and gone... there is your waste...
I understand your concerns for the members of the highly specialized shuttle workforce and my post was more aimed at pointing out that the reasons given for keeping the shuttle alive were either erronous or does not make sense from an engineering and an economical perspective.
Apologies for any insensitivities in my previous post as it does not take into account the difficulties faced by the shuttle workforce as you point out. I full sympathise with you and the shuttle workforce and the unfortunate circumstances that has led to the shuttle program being shut down without any suitable replacement which integrate the shuttle workforce into the new program. I agree from the point of view of the shutte workers it would be difficult to find employment in other areas. The fault should be completely blamed on NASA administration/government funding for not having allowing for a suitable replacement for the shuttle program ready in time.
As much as we would like to see a new program (similar to the shuttle) come into place while the current shuttle fleet continues to operate draining on all resources, the chances of that happening with the current circumstances is highly unlikely. Although we can hope for the best for the sake of the unfortunate shuttle workers.
clr4theapch-Sounds like you care, I wish our government did.
I sure do care.. just as NASA cared that we got the right training to keep shuttle flying... I care about my friends that have devoted and depended on this program and the promise of follow on programs to come..
So yea the costs will drop when shuttle retires, but somewhere the US Gov has to add back all the costs and impacts to the economies this has affected.. the programs to cover enemployed, welfare programs and medical costs we will saddle on the tax payer because we no longer have health insurance and cant afford Obama's plans.. I can assure you.. if the damage to the human element could be calculated.. the cancellation of the shuttle program without a replacement will cost the tax payer WAY MORE had the programs been kept alive...
For those critics, just stop for a while and think about these costs doe to cause and effect and short sighted politicians...