I personally would like to see what the private sector would do with space exploration...I think we might see how inept government really is, as we board the Mayflower 2.0 on it's madin voyage to the mining colony on the moon and mars (and beyond)

I agree that this is the beginning of the end for NASA. While they may do many other things, their primary mission has been exploration of space and how to get there and without a program of making trips into space that will be one budget line item gone to help reduce the budget.

I know it would be great if the private sector would step up but in these times its highly unlikely and then when the big corporations finally do get it going there will only be one or two so the gov't will step in and fund other private companies so there is a competitive market.

Worse will be when the EU, Russia or China funds their programs and leaves the US behind so we play catch up or give up all together.

We should just keep the shuttle program going and evolve from there.

First

Let me reassure everyone that Mankinds Presence in Outer Space is not ending... Hardly even close to ending. Russia, China and India are slated to land people on the moon by 2025 and by 2035 India and China have stated that they plan on having colonies on the moon.

Unfortunately I have to ruin the good news with some bad.

Yes the Space Age is over for the United States thanks to Obama, (You know, the President who will be known for throwing Grandma into the street just to get advantage in his child like spat over the debt ceiling (Remember President William Clinton made sure that people got their SS Checks when the Government shut down in 1996) and who will be known as the man who destroyed NASA). The USA will be forever dependent upon Amateurs and their sub orbital toys. Thanks to Obama NASA has thrown away almost 60 years of experience just to do some unclear space adventure... And NASA doesn't even know what they will be doing... All NASA knows is that they do not want to go to the moon.

Whats a matter NASA? Afraid that little green men from mars are up there on the Moon?

NASA is over, finished. They should had kept flying the space shuttle, approved Constellation and gone to the moon back in the 1980's. What a dissiappointment!!!

Politically biased much? The shuttle program was slated for retirement long before Obama got into office and the cost of going back to the moon (something the public got bored with back in the 70's) would have sucked up precious funds for more ambitious goals. I'm just as disappointed as you that we don't have a platform in place to take over from the Shuttle but to argue that it's Obama's fault just undermines your credibility.

... and get astronauts beyond Earth orbit for the first time since the Nixon administration.

Alan,

The Moon orbits the Earth. We have never actually been beyond Earth orbit.

Also, the US Manned Space program is alive and well. I don't know where people come up with this ludicrous notion that NASA and US manned space flight is over. This is a transition period, one which may be shorter than anticipated.

NASA rightly decided to have private aerospace companies compete to develop manned vehicles for LEO, while NASA focuses on bigger objectives like a huge launch vehicle based on the Shuttle propulsion system to carry unprecedented size payloads to ISS, the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere. Putting the payload on top of the red tank instead of piggybacking it on the tank is a safer way to go.

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), and a few other companies are already to or very close to testing stage with their manned vehicle designs.

If the next SpaceX Falcon 9 launch in September goes well, the following unmanned flight in October will attempt to dock with ISS. When SpaceX gets their manned Dragon capsule to flight ready status, we don't need to hitch rides with the Russians anymore.

It wasn't the Republicans who shut down Constellation it was Obama and Bolden. How do I know. I used to work on the Shuttle Program for four years before I was laid off because Obama had enough of our space program. That's right Obama canceled thousands of good paying jobs in Utah "shuttle boosters"(where I live) Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, and all of our subcontractors nationwide. The reason was simple Constellation was signed by President Bush. Sure my name is Vote out Pelosi. That woman needed to get out of the House Chair, she costs too much. Look it up Libs if you doubt me, you my not like what your messiah has done if you complain about the Russians ferrying our astronauts then complain the the right person he is the one in the oval office but hopefully not for too much longer Nov. 2012 Seems most of my countrymen have short term memory loss At least Bush did something to improve our space Programs. Now we had better learn Russian or even North Koran if we want a ride to space. We have the technology ready, proven and we could be on the moon tomorrow if our leaders want it. I left it in a building in the Utah desert with 30 years behind it. It works and its reusable.

Bush is the one who came up with the plan to end the Space Shuttle Program. You have a short term memory.

As I understand it concerning the new program, which is based on Constellation's Ares I and V launch vehicles, it is going to utilize the same Shuttle propulsion parts as they were.

The new program was chosen because it has a faster turn around time than Constellation would have by not having 2 separate Ares vehicle designs. The folks in Utah need to sit tight because it's still using those solid rocket boosters.

The fact is that the Bush Constellation Program was fundamentally retarded.

I would never put people on top of one big solid propellant rocket. They are dangerous enough as it is with them off to the sides. You can't stop them once you've ignited them, and there's no way you are going to be able to separate a capsule on top of a solid rocket in an emergency even at Mach 2 let alone faster than that.

The only useful purpose for solid rockets are as side mounted boosters on a heavy lift vehicle.

"NASA is over, finished. They should had kept flying the space shuttle, approved Constellation and gone to the moon back in the 1980's. What a dissiappointment!!!

Yes such a disappointment.

Such a disappointment to have a 400 million dollar rover still roving on Mars 7/8 years passed it's 3 month warranty date while a new rover is preparing to go there itself.

Such a disappointment to have a telescope preparing to be launched that will be able to see so far into the past it will make Hubble look blind.

Such a damn disappointment an idiot who thinks he/she/it (I prefer "it") knows everything can't spell DISAPPOINTMENT or go onto NASA's website themselves, look at the 2011 Strategic plan, and see all the things NASA has lined up pass the Shuttle program. They are just too busy blaming Obama ONCE AGAIN just to blame him because they know they have no idea what they are talking about. What next, Obama's the reason Humans blink their eyes?!?!?!?!

Magnum if I were you (thank God I'm not) I would keep my mouth shut about any "amateur suborbital toys" because one could easily fire back and remind you of Challenger and Columbia since you want to go to that despicable level. A shoestring has more competence than you.

Still you are right. NASA is kaput................

Jasmine,

Just as one example to back you up, SpaceX's Falcon 9 with Dragon Capsule is definitely not a suborbital toy. They have already proven that twice.

Scaled Composites' current vehicle is, but that system could evolve into a LEO vehicle in a later iteration.

GendoIkari,

while I appreciate that you are completely in the bag for some reason when it comes to Elon Musk, the fact is that the pace of testing with SpaceX's Dragon system is much slower than any publicly funded testing program. September's launch date makes 9 months since their last one - and it still hasn't proven it can successfully lift one pound of payload.

The second consideration is that when it is a private commercial enterprise, it's just that - private, commercial, and able to go anywhere - thus, if the ownership decides to head to another country, then the US is still without any domestic launch capability.

We used to be the nation that gave astronauts from other countries rides into space. Now we're in the same boat as England, Austria, Israel and Mexico - sticking our thumb out and hoping someone will let us ride piggyback on their efforts.

Face it, G - the manned space race turned out to be a marathon and the US pulled up lame and lost the race,

Eric-2189088- Obama is shutting down NASA, not the republicans.

I know it would be great if the private sector would step up but in these times its highly unlikely and then when the big corporations finally do get it going there will only be one or two so the gov't will step in and fund other private companies so there is a competitive market.

This is where, in my thoughts, we come to a problem. NASA is expoloring space for scientific reasons. Private companies are getting into space exploration, for PROFITS. How is a company with profits as its reason for existing, supposed to take the place of govt funded program that isnt motivated by money?

thus, if the ownership decides to head to another country, then the US is still without any domestic launch capability.

These private companies are going to have us by the short hairs if it ever comes down to it. So now our options become pay thier jacked up price or pay other countries to take our astronauts into space. Does that sound like a world leader?

I would never put people on top of one big solid propellant rocket. They are dangerous enough as it is with them off to the sides.

GendoIkari are you kidding, you have heard of the Apollo missions? So tell me how many accidents have they had with that method and how many accidents has the space shuttle method happened. I completely disagree with you in that both methods are just as dangerous as the .

Putting a capsile onto of a rocket is no more dangerous then the method used by the space shuttle.
Until we dont used solid or liquid propellant to break the bonds of the earths gravity space travel will be dangerous.

By the way all you Obama bashers need to wake up, it was Bush and all prior administrations that have lead to the steady demise of NASA. Stop being morons as this was long coming once the USSR no longer was a threat to the USA's reputation. .

Mark my words, it wont be long before China surpasses the USA, give it a few years, once the actively start planning missions to the moon the USA will get the kick in the pants it needs. All we need is a little Red scare and Shame on the US for its lack of progress.

It will happen its just a manner of time. Hell the USA may outsource its Space missions to China.

NASA is NOT dead. They've just taken a hit. The future of manned space programs in the US isn't over, it's just stumbled a little. Only the future will tell whether that stumble will lead to a fall or just missing a step.

To be clear, Bush was right in ending the Shuttle Program. Actually, it probably should have been done sooner. The shuttles, wonderful machines that they are, are old. We can do better now. We can do safer now. Bush's problem (and his predecessors' problem) was that the replacement for the Shuttle wouldn't be ready in time.

Obama's problem was killing the replacement for the Shuttle and tossing it to the free market. The free market may be able to handle it, and may do it well. Or, they may botch it. Only time will tell, but we should have known whether they could handle it or not before killing our own efforts on that front.

NASA's problem is that it has become a favorite punching bag for the left, right and center. NASA has a PR problem. It's done incredible things and developed technologies that have completely revolutionized the way modern society works, on an average of about 1% of the national budget for the last 50+ years, but no one notices it.

Think NASA is a waste of money? Think the best thing we've gotten out of it is Tang? How about modern telecommunications that allow this forum, streaming internet videos, and live broadcasts from the Olympics... in CHINA! How about advanced satellite weather tracking for hurricanes and blizzards? How about GPS? Global climate monitoring? Solar weather forecasting? Oh, and they need to confirm some results, but they may have just found A CURE FOR OSTEOPOROSIS!

NASA needs you to call your representatives in Congress and tell them to fund NASA more.

"NASA is over, finished. They should had kept flying the space shuttle, approved Constellation and gone to the moon back in the 1980's. What a dissiappointment!!!"

There is not, and never would have been enough money in the NASA budget to do both, neither were efficient, especially Constellation which would have cost multiple tens of billions to get three guys to the Lunar surface in the late 2020;s, with little more capability than Apollo.

Is that what you really want?

"The Moon orbits the Earth. We have never actually been beyond Earth orbit."

Correct. And hair splitting. We all know what we mean.

In any case, I'm not surprised that many people in this threat ace confusing evolving with dying...

Did anyone ever think the Shuttle would be the last US spacecraft?

"Obama is shutting down NASA, not the republicans."

Where were you last year? Obama increased the NASA budget as he cancelled Constellation, not Republicans. The latter, however, want to fund a large launcher the agency neither needs, nor wants, has no payloads for, and will suck away money beter spent on other projects...

GendoIkari "I would never put people on top of one big solid propellant rocket. They are dangerous enough as it is with them off to the sides."

Pirate C "GendoIkari are you kidding, you have heard of the Apollo missions?

You appearantly missed "solid propellant ". The Apollo missions used liquid propellant engines. Solid propellant engines typically don't shut off until all the fuel is gone.

stupid error, double post!

Obama could had signed an order that would had saved the Space Program. Instead he revealed his true colors and destroyed NASA. As one person said, these amateurs could easily go to Australia or somewhere else which would then leave the USA with-out any slight chance of getting back to space.

A friend of mine in India said they should be testing their manned space capsule soon and he expects the first Indian to fly into orbit on a Indian ship by 2016. China is already getting ready to make a practical space station to be used as a way point on trips to the Moon and then later to Mars.

Even Europe and Japan have re-started their manned space programs again.

Meanwhile, the USA is dependent upon Amateurs and their toy space ships that have not flown further than Sub Orbit.

Russia has a very nice ship, which has lasted over 40 years or more. Its funny that the USA could still be flying Apollo if not for policy decisions in Congress.

IF I were Russia, I would charge a high price to ride on a Soyuz ship for the USA. Maybe that will get us to re-think mothballing the Shuttle and get us to making Apollo Or Orion Capsules.

Magnum, do you know how long it takes to manufacture the fuel tanks for the space shuttle? It would have taken at least a year, or more, after restart, to produce another fuel tank. Atlantis rode up on the last tank NASA had, which happened to be a spare tank. And, again, given the current funding climate in the House, do you think they would have allocated further funding to the shuttle program, in tandem to the development of the SLS, and the MPCV? I don't think so. Even if production would have started in 2009 we would have, at most two more flights we could do with the tanks produced, and then, I am willing to bet, Congress would have defunded the shuttle the same way they are trying to defund the JWST. There is more to this than just signing an order, recinding the Bush mandate from 2004, most of is either politically related, manufacturing related, or funding related.

I personally am excited for our future.

US spaceflight is hardly dead; we are still the primary owners of the ISS, right? We still conduct the most science and provide the most patents than any other nation regarding space exploration and flight.

We have new missions going up each year exploring our solar system and its moons.

Commercial Spaceflight is the key to the future. The commercial sector will focus on driving down the costs of individual load and crew carrying capabilities while allowing NASA to innovate further and develop the technology and plans for exploration of foreign bodies or other planets.

This is how exploration happens throughout history. first there are government exploration programs which provide initial trailblazing and then after a while the privet sector perfects the craft and enables further growth and expansion.

If you compare space exploraton to say, exploring the New World in the 14-1800's I would say were doing pretty damn well time wise.

The commercial sector will come through and provide more flights for far cheaper than what we are experiencing now. I predict that within ten-fifteen years we could have rocket launches of 20-30 Tons for no more than $10 million, probably less. This will enable us to build structures in space including space hotels, research stations, telescopes, advanced hospitals, manufacturing platforms, space staions and interplanetary vessels.

We could have ten-twenty launches per month across the Nation in ten years!

Eric:

Well I would be shocked if NASA didn't go over budget on most of their programs. If they didn't, I would be saying that they weren't trying hard enough to break the state of the art and progress. The problem with predicting NASA's cost projections is that in order to make an accurate cost estimate, you need to base your estimate on previous efforts. If you have never done something before, well you can't really estimate it. This is also the same reason why fixed bid contracts really don't work for NASA either, because the risk is either too high, or the risk is too low and NASA should probably not be doing it in the first place.

Mr.PheaNiques.

When there is enough of a market out there, then that will happen. Until then, it is going to take some really brave businessmen because the cost projections right now do not support the industry.

Magnum Serpentine:

The decision to end the Shuttle Program was not Obama's. It was President Bush's. Whether you agree with that decision or not, you have to attribute it to the right person. Otherwise you are just playing partisan politics.

GendoIkari:

Going to the moon takes us out of earth's orbit and into lunar orbit. If we just launched a vehicle that would orbit earth and the moon (well that would be earth in an elongated orbit that would sometimes orbit the moon), you would be right.

And it won't be shorter than expected. I have yet to see SpaceX (the closest to launching a manned capsule) even coming close to starting the logistical infrastructure to support the launching of manned spacecraft. (It isn't just the rocket, it is also the ground facilities).

vote out pelosi:

Constellation was cancelled as a program (the capsule is still being constructed) because a critical part of it, to land on the moon, was already cancelled and in general congress wasn't giving enough funding to properly support the program. It becomes a safety issue.

GendoIkari:

The issue with an SRB isn't as simple as that. Because of its simplicity, the risk of an event that would require an abort is reduced significantly, however if such an event were to occur, you can't shut the rocket down. If you were to replace the SRB's on the space shuttle with Liquids, your launch risk changes, because now you have different abort modes, which improve flexibility, but you also have an increase in the chance that you need to use those abort modes.

PerfectImp,

I agree, SpaceX has yet to prove that they are operationally competent.

I disagree though about SpaceX being able to go anywhere. As a company that manufactures items that are covered under ITAR, Musk is restricted where he can go.

Eric-2189088:

When I did look into it, the supply chain for the ET production is more than 3 years in duration. That doesn't include the loss of skills as a result of that shutdown, that is while they were in production.

I'm primarily upset that the Bush Administration killed the X-33 program over not wanting to replace the composit fuel tanks with aluminum ones (even though it would be lighter) and chose to start the Constellation program, which was underfunded from the word go!

If Bush at least allocated enough funding to Constellation, I wouldn't have been terribly miffed about his group's decision as it had more mission capability than the X-33, which was strictly LEO but had the novel feature of being Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) and use the incredible aerospike engines. Constellation had both Lunar orbit penetration as well as Ares V being able to lift incredible amounts of mass into orbit.

In general, I'm not concerned about NASA disappearing, or yielding the US's lead in space any time soon. What I am concerned about is that each changing presidential administration is going to change NASA's focus and kill off a bunch of previous projects because each president wants their own damn legacy in space and throw out the previous admin's project(s). Forcing NASA to constantly refocus its goals is both ridiculously expensive and wasteful in half-finished R&D that gets mothballed (see the X-33's capabilities and level of completion for details).

If anything, as soon as India and or China manage to put a person on the moon, it's going to light a fire under the butts of conservatives everywhere to put more credence in the NASA mission rather than find creative ways to gut the agency!

neither entity is even remotely close to putting a man on the moon.

The moment they actually show their intentions though, then funds will more than likely show up for a return.

"Obama could had signed an order that would had saved the Space Program. Instead he revealed his true colors and destroyed NASA."

What would this 'order' have consisted of? There is no line item in the budget called 'The Space Program.' Thee is one for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He did increase that budget, while cancelling Constellation.

Neither 'the space program' nor 'US manned space flight' nor NASA = The Space Shuttle.

"As one person said, these amateurs could easily go to Australia or somewhere else which would then leave the USA with-out any slight chance of getting back to space."

'One person' is flat wrong. Have either of you heard of ITAR? Go ahead, try to leave the US with rocket technology. That knock on the door you hear, will be Federal Marshalls. Even if they were inclined, Boeing or Lockheed-Martin would be stopped just as cold. (And would Australia want it?)

"A friend of mine in India said they should be testing their manned space capsule soon and he expects the first Indian to fly into orbit on a Indian ship by 2016"

2017 is what i heard (also from an Indian source). Why are you worried? Granted, new spacefaring nations don't have to re-invent the wheel, they don't have to prove that it's possible to put people in LEO, but they do have to prove they can put people in LEO. (currently SpaceX has done more than India, and will likely be flying humans 1-2 years sooner...as should the other CCDev partners)

And it's still a long way from LEO with a capsule, to going anywhere beyond.

"China is already getting ready to make a practical space station to be used as a way point on trips to the Moon and then later to Mars."

It's true that China (currently doing one LEO flight about every other year) will orbit a station in the near future...which will be smaller that the Soviet/Russian Salyut. It will let them test long-term life support, since anything you want to do benefits from that, but it's not much of a staging point to go elsewhere. Maybe they think there's still something useful to be done in 'tired, boring, stuck, round-and-round' Low Earth Orbit?

And it's still a long way from that, to going anywhere beyond. If you think nothing will happen in the US during that time, you've not been paying attention.

"Even Europe and Japan have re-started their manned space programs again."

ESA seems about to approve an interesting unmanned Italian re-entry test vehicle...show me what else. I see even less from Japan. Show me some specifics, please.

"Meanwhile, the USA is dependent upon Amateurs and their toy space ships that have not flown further than Sub Orbit."

I'm sure Elon Musk and his three-orbit Dragon capsule would be surprised to hear this. (and with satellite launch orders in hand...what separates 'amateur' from 'professional' is whether someone pays you to do what you do. Boeing has yet to fly its CST-100 to...are they 'amateurs?')

"Russia has a very nice ship, which has lasted over 40 years or more. Its funny that the USA could still be flying Apollo if not for policy decisions in Congress."

A 40 year old deign can be a feature or a bug. I submit the Russians are overdue for a technological upgrade, themselves. More than once, I thought it was going to happen (Almaz, Klipper, MAKS) but it never does. This is good? And you would prefer we were flying mission 'Apollo-60' now?

"IF I were Russia, I would charge a high price to ride on a Soyuz ship for the USA. Maybe that will get us to re-think mothballing the Shuttle and get us to making Apollo Or Orion Capsules."

News Flash: They are doing that. And, essentially, we are doing that. Orion is still in development (I can live with that, as long as it goes to orbit on existing, reliable Delta IV-heavy, and not anything with 'Ares' in its name). Dragon is a capsule. Blue Origin's unnamed vehicle is a bi-conic capsule. CST-100 is a capsule (and,like Orion, it even uses the familiar 'Apollo moldline,' though neither will have 60's technology inside) Dream Chaser is...a lifting body. Are you okay with that?

But the Shuttle will stay mothballed. I'll miss its cargo capacity as well, but purely as a people mover, even the Russians are cheaper.

Frank

What obamath giveth, congress taketh away. (with regards to increasing NASA's budget).

china has a plan for a trip to the moon and to build a space station. let them take over deep space travel while we focus on putting satellites in orbit. this is a cost effective plan for the usa and I know I'm right!!!!!

The "space program" is alive and well.

It is. It's just that the Mass Media doesn't report on it much. Alan's the only writer here who writes stories on the space program. I'd like to see him write more.

china has a plan for a trip to the moon and to build a space station.

I wish them all the best on those endeavors. Some competition isn't a bad thing, and it may in fact get US more motivated to show them up, to really demonstrate who's the real master of the craft.

Wow....

Obama kills a five-year-old Shuttle replacement development program in favor of "private contractor spacecraft" getting Americans to LEO. Of course, one of the leading companies, SpaceX, is owned by a man who was one of Obama's major campaign contributors, but hey, that had nothing to do with the choice, right?

Meanwhile, SpaceX takes between 7-10 months between flights to turn around its test vehicle, Heck, in his article above, Alan cites a date of 2015 for the first productive flights - yet another slip of delivery date. The Dragon looks a lot less like vapor trail and a lot more like vapor ware every day.

Somewhere along the way, we lost President Kennedy's call to action about NASA - you know, that we as a nation choose to do these things because they were hard. Now, the only thing space related that the words "WE CHOOSE TO GO" apply to is a ride at Walt Disney World.

@Imp: Your reading comprehension skills need work.

Alan said that SpaceX could be carrying cargo in *2012*, and humans by 2015. Or apparently you don't consider cargo to be "productive," but I'd say the astronauts living on the ISS will consider it *very* productive.

This will be *at least* two years earlier and several *billions* of dollars cheaper than Constellation would have provided, per the Augustine Commission report on human spaceflight. Google it and read it yourself. If you can. Constellation was a jobs program rather than any kind of technological challenge, and six years' worth of Bush administration budgets kept gutting funding for it.

Finally, the hiatus between the final Shuttle flight and the next US manned flight was determined by...wait for it...President *Bush*! Back in 2004!

@ PerfectImp

Obama killed an underfunded boondoggle called Constellation whose lofty goal was to replace the Shuttle and take us to the moon and build a lunar base. It didn't even have enough funding to build an adequate prototype rocket. Instead a frankenstein rocket using basic refurbished shuttle launch assembly was chosen as a very crude proof of concept.

Give credit where credit is due if you're going to whine about not having a shuttle replacement. Bush killed the X-33 "Venture Star" program over a technicality with the fuel tank. Not only that, his administration refused to revisit the program 2 more times even when the initial problem was solved and ended up deciding to go with Constellation, which was doomed to failure from the very beginning!

X-33 had an 85% complete prototype, the aerospike engines were magnificent performers, the aeroshell was proved out and ready for work and the whole damn thing was single stage to orbit, AND it could lift as much as the space shuttle to boot!

Bush ended the program probably because it was the Clinton legacy as far as I can tell considering the bogus reason for initially ending the program didn't fit when that same administration refused to revisit it 2-subsequent times after the fuel tank issue was resolved.

I hate when politicians meddle in NASA's programs.

Seriously,

The CAIB investigation requested a complete Shuttle Recertification process after 2010. This is what the Bush administration, along with Griffin who I think had no use for the shuttle, used to justify retiring the shuttle. The only reason why it is still flying today is because the mission manifest was created to end in 2010 and due to delays, is ending now.

Going back to the CAIB recommendation, what has happened over the years is that on paper, a system on the shuttle would have an original requirement of X. Whether that requirement was not reasonable, or for cost reasons, a LOT of systems are just not meeting those requirements. The impact of this is that some of the elements of NASA's risk assessment group are actually using the requirements as the basis of their calculations, not the actual performance. So the reason to 're-certify' is not to bring the shuttle in line with some non existing standard of certification, but to rejig the requirements to actual performance, and if that performance is acceptable, then realign. If the performance is not acceptable, then redo the system. The situation prior to Columbia was not acceptable, but retiring the Shuttle was NOT the objective of that recommendation.

By the way, the MIT OpenCourseWare course 16.885 Fall 2005 has as one of the lectures, one of the people on the CAIB investigation team and she goes over all of this. It really is a very interesting lecture (actually the entire course is, but that is outside the comment).

I agree, constellation was still born, was completely devoted to one person's vision (Griffin) who had an unfeasible vision of going back to the moon, and onto mars. Something that just isn't politically attainable then, or now.

I say that as a BIG supporter of the space program. I thought Constellation was repeating the exact same mistakes that Apollo made. That is, you couldn't use the deliverables (rockets, vehicles, etc... ) for much other than what it was intended for. You take that intention out (killing the Antares moon lander for example), and the rest of it just makes no sense.

Your figures on the X33 were wrong though. The aerospike engine has so far under performed though I think it is getting better in subsequent developments, and ALL the SSTO vehicles I have seen have a throw weight that is FAR LESS than the shuttle, but the intent is that you make up for that by being able to fly many more missions in a given time frame.

OH! Ok, I see what you mean about the Venture Star's load capacity vs. the Shuttle's...I should have looked more closely. Per launch, the Shuttle can haul 53K lb to LEO, Venture Star would (supposedly) haul 45K lb. It was the ability to rapidly relaunch the Venture Star by comparison to the Shuttle that I got tripped up on.

However, I thought the XRS-2200's engines were actually good performers

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2000/00-21_pf.html

also:

"Three XRS-2200 engines were built during the X-33 program and underwent testing at NASA's Stennis Space Center. The single-engine tests were a success, but the program was halted before the testing for the 2-engine setup could be completed."

I didn't find any info about underperforming linear aerospike engines...the material seems to have been positive. Perhaps you have some links?

And agreed about Constellation. I was pretty excited about the Ares V engines though! Too bad those have been mothballed just like the aerospikes for the most part...but at least there's some teroidal aerospike testing still being done ^_^

are you sure that isn't 4.5K? (my concerns about the program were the same as the original HOTOL proposal in the UK) and it was that in my mind it just wasn't a practical vehicle.

If there was already an infrastructure up there, sure, but in that case the heavy lifting would largely come from lunar bases, but I don't think we are there yet.

As for Ares V, first off, the Russians couldn't find a use for Energya, why would there be a use for Ares V. (I personally could do with a rocket that big, but hey, I got plans, just don't have the money to execute them lol), and once Antares was cancelled (that was cancelled I believe within a year of Constellation was started), there just wasn't a point to the Ares V.

You probably won't find any info about under performing linear aerospike engines because I don't believe they were published. I have a book that goes into them, but that book is not with me so I couldn't give you the exact reference. The book was also published around the 2000 time frame so maybe the information is not current anymore, (though that alone could be modified expectations or increased performance, or both).

A last point I would like to make though is that it is pretty hard to directly comment between two figures when only one of the vehicles exists, the venture star never having actually been produced, and with the scram jet tests that have been built subsequent to the venture star, the technical problems probably would never have been corrected to make it work.

Hrm, this is annoying. Wiki states 45K lb to LEO and everywhere else states 50K lb to LEO

Also, Wiki's reference to 45K lb leads to a link that doesn't say how much the Venture Star was supposed to haul.

http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/rlvs/venturestar_sum.shtml

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

A last point I would like to make though is that it is pretty hard to directly comment between two figures when only one of the vehicles exists, the venture star never having actually been produced, and with the scram jet tests that have been built subsequent to the venture star, the technical problems probably would never have been corrected to make it work.

Very much agreed on the comparison-front. The only thing ever having lifted up Venture Star was pixy dust and unicorn farts

not magic unicorn farts, because those are super potent, oh wait, it is the pixie dust that does that.

Well at least they aren't those donkey farts from the donkey in schrek lol

In all seriousness though, so many people make these comparisons about what can life what, and shuttle this and X33 that etc... and they forget is that the only thing that really matters is what can we reasonably do. The shuttle was built the way it was for a reason, they didn't make a mistake in that design. Was it ideal, no, but nothing really is. If I were to design a vehicle today, guess what, I would design something very similar to the shuttle. Why? to save money. If we were to design a new vehicle now, why would I throw away 30 years of operational data. I start from scratch, and I may spend 10 times as much and have the exact same operational problems that the shuttle did. Well sorry if I am just not creative enough for some people, but I have been an engineer long enough to realize that people need to utilize the experience gained from the past, and move forward gradually in most cases. The 'sin' of the shuttle is that we didn't move forward, we have been stagnant for 30 years, and that is a shame.

Ares/Orion, complete waste in my mind, because it was single tasked, revisiting the mistake of the Apollo program, and could NEVER realistically be funded. The Space Shuttle, you served us well. We didn't know what we would use you for, but girls, you gave us all you could ever give us. May the three of you rest in peace. I will never forget them. (hmmm did I just get weepy eyed there lol)

@ Jonathan-2055273

Agreed! I totally would not throw away what we learned with the Shuttle. It was aggravating when Constellation was introduced because it was such a huge step backward.

It would be like tasking Lockheed to make a faster propeller plane as an interceptor for the Air Force! The tech itself is incredibly outdated, in fact, the design itself is outmoded for that purpose.

Apollo did what it needed to do at the time with the technology we had then. We've gotten A LOT better since then and learned A LOT from the Shuttle.

That's why I was originally thrilled with the X-33, because it seemed like the next logical step in space-plane tech was to reduce the number of stages and utilize better engine/materials concepts while trying not to compromise much on payload.

At least Dream Chaser is spiffy! I'm getting a kick out of it already! Hopefully it lives up to its hype and actually starts taking a decent sized group of personnel to and from LEO and the ISS

Well I don't know if you got what I was saying, I would build something that is similar in size to the shuttle. In other words Shuttle 2.0. My reasoning is basically this. If space enterprise is going to succeed, we need to actually start making products in space. Well with EVERY new system that is being described, one capability that the shuttle has, but unfortunately has only shown a glimpse of its potential, is that she can bring back 35,000 pounds of cargo (more if the landing gear were redesigned as that is the limiting factor). From an economic viability standpoint, THAT is the defining factor for me. Without this 'return' capability, we are only ever just be playing experiment games on the station.

@ Jonathan-2055273

What exactly would we need to delicately bring back? Aside from crew that is.

I thought that one of the major problems with the original Shuttle's design was that hauling hardware back from orbit was overvalued as an original mission capability, and thus, too much of the design was oriented in a mannor to support such an effort.

Shuttle 2.0? What major design changes/upgrades would you suggest? To meet what mission capabilities?

product.

Look, I am not talking about current capacity in space, I am talking about what it would take to make a space industry viable economically, for companies to really start to have a reasonable chance to make a profit.

I don't particularly care about bringing stuff back, but more about bringing 'manufactured/produced' product back. In order for an industry to succeed, there needs to be a product to sell. The launching is just a means to an end, not the end. The end is what can we do in space to justify that expense. So if you have nothing to do up there but float around an enjoy the scenery, even if you could manufacture product up there, we have no way of bringing it back. It could be pharmaceuticals, it could be ceramic turbine blades that can handle even higher heat loads for turbine engines, the possibilities are yet to be seen. That is the point though. We are now hamstrung in that we can't bring it back.

And serviceability is what was overvalued. Most satellites are such long lived that there is no real need to service, by the time they fail, they have lost their economical retrieval value.

Most of the changes would be subtle actually, I would take the main engines, put them on the external tank. That would make them non reusable, but I think that part was oversold, and even today, those engines can't really be reused in the truest sense.

A lot of the changes I would make would rely on the experience of the shuttle, taking a look at what could be done to make the system operationally more efficient. This would include making sure that the things that need servicing every flight, would be positioned in a way that made it easy to service. No more removing something that doesn't need to be serviced, to get at a part that does.

I would put the ET insulation in between the tank shell and the outer tank structure, for obvious reasons.

There are a lot of things that I would do that would be on that order of things, but nothing would be radical, because the more you make changes, the less you learn from the experience.

On the paper side, I would have a much more realistic expectation as to launch volume. I know we could never do 50 launches a year, so I wouldn't build the economics model that depended on that launch rate.

Oh I see! Yeah. I totally agree. As you noticed from our conversation on the other thread about Elon Musk's comments, I'm pro space-fabrication as well.

What we would need to do first is to build an unmanned (or minimally manned) orbital factory that is capable of autonomously building all sorts of products in space from raw/almost raw materials, both in a vacuum+micro gravity and also in an atmosphere, but with micro gravity (different products I figure would need different environmental conditions for fabrication).

I'm sure there would be all sorts of applications for items back on Earth as well as many applications for further exploration in space. But as you most certainly recognize, being able to build components in space with basic and raw materials should greatly reduce the cost of space operations and should also improve mission capabilities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyqLTdcMKig

Seriously,

And don't get me wrong on my comments, There are some 'risk' factors that in the end are not ideal for the Space Shuttle. But there is no guarantee that by going to new designs, you are going to reduce your risk. All you may end up doing is just changing the risk factors.

Also, the Space Shuttle has successfully completed 135 missions (after Atlantis Lands) in her life. That is actually I believe greater than the number of flights that Soyuz has had (it is definitely far more people launched). Now part of that quantity has to do with the breakup of the soviet union, but that isn't really the big picture. Yes the Shuttle has some issues, but, as with ANY high risk venture, you shouldn't just pack up and go away. There is an ENORMOUS operational data base that the shuttle program has created. That is INVALUABLE, and if someone were to create a new Space Shuttle, it would be completely retarded to ignore it. The reason why most of the private ventures are creating either capsules or another lifting body form of vehicle, well that is because the data is there. So these companies really aren't doing anything new, they are just doing a variation on a theme.

Now as I have said, going to a capsule, it doesn't actually lower your 'cost', it just lowers your capabilities. (When I say cost by the way, I don't mean the price, but the cost from an economic viewpoint). It is like saying, I am going to buy a truck that can only take 1 ton of cargo because it is cheaper than the one that can take 5 tons. Well if you don't need the 5T cargo capacity, then that is fine, the cost incurred is appropriate, BUT if you needed the 5T cargo capacity, then your cost increases significantly because now you need to do 5 trips to carry the same amount and if you have any single item more than 1T, you just can't do it. (yes I know this sounds condescending but if it was that obvious, then people should understand that).

The 'COST' of a shuttle flight was actually computed through an actual launch. There was a spacelab flight that had to be reflown within the same year because of a fuel cell problem. That reflight cost NASA about 120 million dollars in late 90's dollars (FY97 I believe). That is the flat out knock down cost of a shuttle flight. It is the cost of a MISSION that is expensive, and that is because of the work that is done to actually make a mission plan, test all the components etc... This price is VERY similar to the 'cost' of a Falcon 9 launch. The difference is that the Falcon 9 Heavy CAN'T even come close to doing what the shuttle can do. You lose that flexibility, so you lose out on a lot of activities that could otherwise be done. Your idea about an unmanned reentry vehicle (in the other post), ok, that is fine, but again, you are even there reducing flexibility. It isn't a bad idea by the way, someone could build a shuttle with the same or similar planform as NASA's shuttle and make it unmanned, but then I ask, why? Why make a manned capsule and do all the testing, and then create a shuttle that is unmanned with all its testing. The ONLY reason I can suggest is that it allows you to spread those development costs, but you are still paying more.

Agreed about your analysis of cost. The term is referred to as opportunity cost. Meaning the net intrinsic value that is not realized by virtue of making one decision over another and being limited to the choice(s) made and other opportunities bypassed. In business, opportunity cost is treated monetarily as WACC (weighted avg. cost of capital) meaning that if I spend a dollar on project X, and my business's WACC is 10%, project X needs to generate at least a 10% return (i.e. positive NPV) for me to consider commencing it because that's the average cost/return of a dollar in the company as a whole.

Mission flexibility is a big opportunity cost as a rule, that you and I are in direct agreement about! When it will cost significant sums in general to send people and infrastructure into space, being able to do more with it while in orbit without having to design, test and transport new specialized vehicles to accomplish the same task(s) that a versitile vehicle could, then that is especially when the opportunity cost becomes a realized cost, either through not doing such a mission of great importance, or spending additional sums to create/launch new devices that weren't anticipated when the original (less mission-flexible) craft was designed.

However. There's also the opportunity costs that are instantly realized by utilizing a craft of compromises and complexities, all of which are hauled into orbit even when not all facets of this versatility are utilized in every mission.

I think we've come to the point that we see that there's more value in sending cargo up in dumb tin cans and transporting people up in nifty space planes. That's why I'm hopeful about the SLS and DreamChaser, as there's very little need (if any) to have to send crew+cargo up in the same vehicle, or even on the same platform for that matter now that space rendezvous are so commonplace now.

Well in terms of opportunity cost, I touch on that when I talk about spreading the development, however a proper analysis would be determined by the specifics of the business model itself. And I still don't think it really makes much of a difference in terms of launching cargo because to me that is not relevant. Yes it is cheaper, but I am not saying that we shouldn't do both. All I am saying is that we have now lost a HUGE potential game changer in terms of the industry by retiring the shuttle and not having a replacement that can do something similar. That something is to bring cargo back. Something that we unfortunately have NOT taken advantage of, but is a capability that to me, if we don't have, it just doesn't matter, space industry is not viable.

http://fischalgebra1011.blogspot.com/2011/03/space-shuttle-flights-and-probability.html

Oaktree

And that article just illustrates that those estimates are to be used as tools but have no real bearing on the actual risk (measuring risk is not what they are created for).

1) Measuring the risk over 100,000 flights is statistically meaningless for a vehicle that was never going to fly 100,000 flights. It is an engineering statistic and when used within those constraints it is a useful tool. Not to be used by managers.

2) statistically, the risk of an early flight is always going to be higher than the risk of a later flight, and possibly due to air frame life etc.. the risk may rise again. The point being that while illustrative, a risk rating for the entire program is pointless.

I am not all that sure of why anyone other than engineers pay attention to the figures anyways. The figures have very limited usefulness in the grand scheme of things.

You say these numbers don't mean anything? Then how do you create a qualification thermal cycling and vibration test for any subsystem that would properly characterize the integrity and life of that subsystem if you don't use these numbers?

That was one of the main issues when we did the initial design, how many cycles do we test to because we had no history. Now that we do you say that they are not applicable?

My bet is if NASA performs qualification testing again on the STS subsystems (as designed) to the present events count, the majority of the systems would fail.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

They mean something to the engineers, but they don't really mean anything to the general public. I, as a systems engineer, would use them, (well not the big picture number, but the different systems numbers), to indicate exactly where potential cost and operational issues would arise.

The problem with the number from the initial design is that there was no experience that was used to validate the numbers. So it was a SWAG number (in my opinion).

And you don't use an overall risk number to determine the risk rating of a specific subsystem. You only use that number to determine if the risk analysis of all the different subsystems meet a certain objective. That is all.

The original number itself was also useless as well because NASA's methodology in risk was FS/FS/FA (Fail Safe/Fail Safe/Fail Abort). That was a paper determination. But if you look at the sub systems in detail, they really weren't FS/FS/FA, they were more FS/FA. Just so you know, FS/FS/FA is quad redundancy. if you have 4 truly redundant systems, then your first FS is the failure of one, your second FS is the failure of the second, FA is the failure of a 3rd with the 4th used to abort the mission safely. Well even though many parts of the shuttle had 4 redundant systems, they never could operate as a single unit, most of the systems requiring at least 2 to function. The APU's was an example. There were 3 APU's, but the shuttle needed 2 of them to operate the control surfaces on reentry. The computers are another example. There were 4 GPC's, but they had to be operated in pairs, (the 5th computer was a backup that only had enough computer software to safely abort the mission). So you had to have at least 2 computers running to be able to complete a mission.

And yes, you are correct, but the reason isn't what you think. The reason is that the shuttle systems requirements have never been normalized to what is actually needed to operate safely. So the requirements are all the same as in the early 70's. For example, The SSME's on paper are required to be used for 50 launches prior to replacement and overhauled after I believe 12 launches. Well SSME's are essentially overhauled after every launch and the turbines are replaced after every 2 launches (IIRC). So those 'requirements' were never changed to reflect the reality of what they were capable of doing, however OPERATIONALLY, they were treated in the way that they needed to be.

You missed my point completely, let me try again. As a design engineer on both shuttle and space station subsystems, my concern always was that the levels and number cycles we life tested these systems are in no way close to what the STS life cycle induces. You and NASA can dream up of all sorts of different criteria to come up with some acceptance criteria and hence operational logistics program to keep the damn thing flying. But, unless you update the qual levels and number of cycles and retest the systems to these levels no one will really know how much life remains in existing inventory and at what confidence we are flying at. You cannot deduce these important parameters by a numerical analysis of the anomalies of the various systems after every mission.

If they were to continue the STS mission there is no way of knowing when then next catastrophic failure will occur.

I didn't miss the point, but the reality is, there is no way that you can make that determination with the shuttle program OR the space station. There just isn't enough flights to make that determination with enough accuracy. And if you think that engineering statistics is going to tell you when the next accident is going to occur, then you have missed the point of it.

And coming out with life cycles is pointless because the shuttles were essentially completely stripped and rebuilt after every flight. So for each flight, the 'clock' is essentially reset. (there hasn't been any structural wear and tear on any of the shuttles due to flight because of how they are treated, and flown) There has been some aging concerns but nothing that would come close to even approaching margins. Your comment seems to give the impression that you don't know why it takes 3 months to cycle the shuttle for the next launch. The systems are ALL retested.

Now as for statistics in general. If I make a thousand units of a widget, All statistics is going to tell me is out of that thousand widgets, approximately how many are going to fail. It doesn't tell me which ones are going to fail. So statistics isn't there to tell you when the next catastrophe is going to happen. It can't do that.

As for your last comment, you can say that for ANY low volume system. Space Shuttle, Apollo Moon mission, Dragon launch, until you get the launch volume up. there isn't enough information to create an appropriate database to be able to feed into your parametric analysis systems. It is all based on assumptions. If those assumptions are correct, you are fine, if those assumptions are not correct, then your final numbers will be off.

My main point is that you seem to misinterpret what those numbers are for. They aren't for you (the general public) to digest, they are for the engineers to digest, because they not only have those high level numbers, but the numbers that created the high level numbers. From that, they can see what the individual system risk points are.

Again you missed.

All systems are retested at acceptance levels NOT QUAL. LEVELS.

I am talking about performing delta qualification on the STS to a more representative account of the life cycle.

And of course there is aging, that was one of the causes that destroyed Columbia, rusting rivets on the carbon-carbon plates of the leading edges of the wings.

and I am saying that BECAUSE THE VEHICLE DOES NOT FLY ENOUGH, YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH FIGURES THAT ARE ANY MORE ACCURATE.

Is there a part of that which is not understandable?

And 'rusting rivets' had NOTHING to do with Columbia. That was a softball sized hole in the carbon-carbon plate. You could have had brand new rivets in there and the ceramic tiles behind the carbon-carbon structure would still have not been able to do their job, which would STILL have allowed plasma to enter into the wing structure, which STILL would have allowed that aluminum to melt and the wing still would have disintegrated. If you think that rivets caused that accident, then you really need to reassess whether your engineering degree (if you have one) is worth the paper that it is printed on.

No need to respond, I am done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFpregq5eJ4

Taking cargo back from space is a capability that doesn't really have a purpose at the moment.

I think that drilling down into such a mission capability, one quickly sees that there are so many other missions that would have to happen first, that by the time even a true shuttle successor would have come on line (i.e. had one existed), it too would be long in the tooth and outdated in many ways by the time all of the ancilary missions were completed for the "delicate-return" feature to really be utilized, and by that point, would we really need to send people up to do a delicate return?

Why not just use automated systems? I think a similar mission feature could be done with an X-37B type of Space UAV that could just collect and truck back completed products, utilizing most of its space for cargo capacity rather than also having to carry lifesupport and crew quarters on it as well.

I love versitile craft, and I love the Shuttle because of its versatility, but I think that the delicate return feature was overly valued when the craft was still in design phase. I think in the case of delicate return as an objective, there's no real need at this point in general other than for supporting completed big future missions like space fabrication and picking up returning explorer craft-samples that we don't want to risk losing in re-entry (as we saw with the Genesis_Mission). And again, by the point we have returning explorer craft and space fabrication, why would we need a manned craft for a delicate return when we could do the same mission for less than 50% the cost and no risk to human life with one that's automated?

Personally, I think that a Shuttle successor (i.e. Manned+Cargo Space-Plane) should focus its versatility not on delicate return, but on something more that ties directly to bringing people+cargo into LEO. Things like longevity in space (solar arrays) or more capacity for experiments and labs when the ISS isn't suited

Seriously,

I am not saying it does 'AT THE MOMENT', however without the capability to bring back payload, nobody is seriously going to take the risk of developing any industry up in space.

And to be honest, the 'return capability' was never really pushed beyond the initial studies. What I am saying is that without that capability, there quite seriously just isn't a business case to actually try to conduct business in space other than what is already done, which is a mature industry (satellites).

We need the ability to expand our abilities in space, and the shuttle provided that. Am I complaining about retiring the shuttle, not really, I am more pissed off that we weren't working on a true replacement 30 years ago after the first few flights where we determined what the limitations of the shuttle were. If we did that, we would be in a completely different position.

And even during the design phase, the 'return' capability was never what I am describing. NASA envisioned it as a return of satellites for servicing, but even before the first flight, that was pretty much scrubbed because satellites became much more reliable. Economic use of a satellite is pretty much gone after the 10 or 15 year life span of the bird. The military request was for launching and NASA's change was for launching station components after Nixon killed the two big stations that was part of Paine's plan. NASA never really thought of 'returning cargo' the way I am thinking of it.

Every single discussion that I have always seems to forget that if you have an enterprise in space, there needs to be a way for the customer to get the product. That for manufacturing requires a return vehicle. How that comes about, no issue, but the cost of making a manned shuttle and an unmanned shuttle plus a manned vehicle really isn't that different. The latter ended up costing slightly more but did have the advantage that you could stagger the development so that the more expensive shuttle (more expensive because the flight cycle is FAR more complex) could be developed later. Now my personal concept would have standardized containers that would store this manufactured product so it would not require that much to logistically support it, (think how shipping works for trucks trains and ships) which would simplify operations lowering the cost. Remember, the huge cost of the shuttle isn't the shuttle, it is the flexibility and the cost of supporting that flexibility.

But the Shuttle had return capability all this time and it was rarely utilized and no missions came about to routinely make use of it. I would say that such a feature as a delicate return could be given to a specialized craft given the frequency thus far.

I agree that we need to think 4th dimensionally, that without allowing for such capability, there won't suddenly be a mission to require such capability. But I think that if space fabrication were to be seriously pursued, part of its mission requirements would be to have a delicate return feature as one of the initial pre-requisites. I'd rather have a new Shuttle that was even better at supporting a crew for longer periods and building crap in space than one with a specialized cargo hold that could re-couple hardware after it was deployed in orbit.

From my standpoint, I think that NASA got a lot of great data on the best/worst features of a flexible space plane. I'd rather that they expand on the features that they wished they had more of, than to repeat mistakes made during the initial design phase by trying to make the craft do things which can be replicated by specialized craft more cheaply and frequently.

Why tie up Shuttle missions trucking loads of cargo back from a space fabricating station when the limited time in orbit could be spent conducting missions that make use of all the crew that are on board.

The X-37b shows that we can complete orbital missions and delicate returns without people. Why should we risk human life and 7 people to accomplish the same tasks that an expendible computer and airframe can accomplish?

For me, an improvement to the Shuttle would be to have greater longevity in orbit and a cargo hold that could support more remote-operated contruction equipment. Then dock with a bunch of orbiting containers and piece everything together like Legos. I felt that had the original Shuttle been outfitted with more construction capabilities and longevity in orbit, the ISS wouldn't have needed to wait for its own robotic arm to complete the bulk of its goals in initial construction.

And the reason it never got used is because we haven't even tried to make anything in space, because we didn't, until recently have a space station. I am NOT saying that the shuttle was most effectively utilized, I am saying that we have lost a potential game changer in the future. Not because we were ready for it with the shuttle, but because we will need it in the future if we are really serious about investing in space.

Ok for this, here is my point. If we don't create an industry that CAN utilize that capability of the shuttle, there IS NO economic use of space. We didn't use if for the shuttle, but hey, space hasn't directly made any money yet. So this talk about 'private' space industry. Without that capability, there is no point, there is no hope of making a profit.

The talk of Elon Musk going to mars, well exactly who is going to fund that? Exactly how is he going to make money off of that dream. He needs to start thinking practically as to what it will take to make a profit, and finally detach the private industry from the government. Without A return capability, there is no industry. It is just government subsidy for rich people to play. (now I am not saying that we shouldn't have a space industry, I am just saying that the economics of it changes from one where you can actually sustain a business, to one that will always be dependent on government funding).

That is my only point with that.

And the specialized is what will force us to rely on government funding because every specific vehicle has to go through the same testing. So if I now have to rely on two vehicles instead of one, I now have to test both vehicles. If you have not seen the amount of testing that goes on, even for unmanned vehicles, it might change your mind.

And the reality is, the cost of a Shuttle Flight is not all that expensive. There was a repeat mission in the late 90's (otherwise 7 astronauts would not have been the only 7 astronauts to have flown twice in the same year). That particular flight cost NASA approximately 120 million dollars. It is the entire mission that costs the money, not the shuttle flight itself.

So who was Rockwell (now Boeing)? Sure looks like private sector to me. They built the Shuttles, and operated them under contract from NASA. How much more commercial can we get? No one else can afford manned space travel except a government or some insanely rich eccentric. So government is the customer, but it was, and still is, private sector companies bending the metal.

JohnCarter, it's not private sector if government sets the direction and goals and pays the bills.

Rob-Seattle

And NASA is setting the requirements and is essentially assuming all the risk. (actually it is who assumes the risk that to me is the defining factor, not who makes the detailed plans).

It's not so secret: It's called the Space (aka "Senate") Launch System. It's even more super expensive than the Space Shuttle, it will feed lots of states and congressional districts with thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of aerospace money, and many experts are convinced that billions will be wasted on the whole project before Congress eventually cancels it without it ever even getting off the ground. But hey, all those jobs and all that money means lots of votes come election time.

So much for your super secret Mars base.

The Space Launch System is not a secret. Since the plans will not be formalized until the fall nothing is definite. You can see the preliminary plans on many sites.

Ugh, the SLS was nothing more than a means to keep a couple of Red-State contractors from going under after Bush canned the Shuttle and any of its potential replacements :P

It doesn't make sense to me to utilize a hybrid of liquid and solid fuel rockets to launch crap into orbit. Wasn't the only reason for the center hydrogen tank to fuel the Shuttle's onboard engines after SRB separation? Why should that be continued if the Shuttle itself is not even attached?

This is such a porky project...just like the bridge to nowhere

Not much of a navigational wizard, that Columbus. This country has lost its way.

Are you trying to say that Rockwell didn't turn a profit when they built the Shuttles? Are you trying to claim Rockwell wasn't a commercial company? How about Morton Thiokol? Were they some sort of non-profit public service organization? Or how about Hamilton Standard? I could go on through several hundred commercial for profit companies who built and serviced our manned spacecraft. They did it under contract to NASA, of course, but who is paying SpaceX?

Who is paying SpaceX? Well, Elon Musk fronted the start up money for the company. They have some contracts with NASA to transport cargo to the ISS, and more than likely astronauts as well once they get the Dragon capsule crew rated. There are also a number of corporations and other companies that have a flight lined up with SpaceX, full list here: http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

Most exciting to me on that list is Bigelow Aerospace's scheduled 2014 launch. Once completed, Bigelow's space station will have double the capacity of the ISS for a fraction of the cost (.5 % to be exact, assuming Bigelow Aerospace ends up spending 500 million). Private space companies are where the future space age is at.

elon only fronted a small percentage of it, but the Falcon X money has pretty much all come from NASA, the Falcon 1 came from the private investment.

There was a point to Mir and ISS. We had to know how long people can live in a zero gravity environment, and develop techniques to counteract the deterioration of the body in that environment before we attempt long stays on the Moon, or long trips to Mars or an asteroid. I think we've mostly achieved those objectives.

There are still some unknowns concerning being outside Earth's magnetosphere for long periods, and exactly how to fully protect crews from that Solar and cosmic radiation exposure.

The Moon does have a lot of potential. If we can find the raw materials and fuels we need there, and develop ways to manufacture interplanetary vehicles there, then it would be more economical in the long run for missions to other destinations.

The question is whether or not the United States of America still has the balls to take on and commit to that kind of monumental challenge as we did 40 years ago.

Our nation needs a new direction. Our nation needs an Apollo Program on steroids. We need something big to focus our efforts on. Otherwise, this country is just going to fall apart and turn to @!$%# over the next decade.

The real question is if we can find a way into space that doesn't cost us $2,000/lb. As long as that cost is still there, space will only ever be small potatoes on big budgets. Still, the impact on Earth has been huge, and vastly beneficial.

Mr. Walker is correct on "Our nation needs an Apollo Program on steroids". I had worked for Rockwell and then Boeing for almost two decades. I've been wondering if these space station experiments will save earthlings in the future from huge asteriods collisions with earth.

Although I personally do not like Pres. Obama, he and the Congressmen are in the right track in phasing out this NASA space station's insanity. He redirected the U.S. attention and fundings to expand the research on landing robots on wayward asteriod to redirect its path away from the earth.

Another worhtwhile projects should be teaching and helping the Africans and the third-world countries to "learn how to fish" by creating modern fisheries and water resources for farming. NASA scientists had been wasting American tax dollars for decades. Their talents on engineering can be redirected to improve the lives of poor Africans and other third-world countires.

I'll see your protest and raise you one: the cost of the three wars dwarfs the space program budget.

I'll see both of those concerns and raise you all the real-world, life-changing technology that NASA has developed for you: things like modern telecommunications and a truly WORLD-wide-web. The UAV work NASA is doing may allow us to better predict the start and spread of wildfires, and the atmospheric work may help us predict floods and tornadoes. The materials work has led to better medicines, safer cars, and cheaper food. The aerodynamics work has lead to safer, faster, and cheaper flying.

To put it simply, funding NASA saves more lives than the military and medicaid.

I'm amazed that with all the wasteful spending in government, NASA is the one to get chosen as something that should be cut apart!

• How about we end oil subsidization - $4 Billion/year
• How about we end agricultural subsidization - $25 Billion/year
• How about we require companies that offshore billions in profits_before_tax report it net of deferred tax liability - $60 Billion/year
• How about we investigate and prosecute the fraud_in_Medicare claims made by medical establishments - $60 Billion/year
• How about we end the war_on_drugs - $1 Trillion to date (does not count foregone tax revenue and legitimate industry growth)
• How about we end the war in Iraq and or Afghanistan - $1.23 Trillion_to_date and Approx. $3 Trillion_by_2017 (the supposed complete withdrawal)



These are just a couple of items that would actually serve a valuable purpose in resolving compared to stripping NASA of its comparatively paltry sum.

I sure hope that the private sector shows they're more than capable of doing the LEO-busing of people and hardware!

I'm kind of glad that NASA is now moving on from the Shuttle, but it's disappointing that its replacement, the X-33, was canned over a technicality that was solved.

The Shuttle couldn't rise above low Earth orbit. It lacked the mass ratio to make it higher. Not a chance of making it to lunar orbit, much less to then soft land on the Moon.

Shuttle was a fundamentally dumb spaceship design. It drags way too much dead weight into space. Wings are stupid on a spaceship. It is overly complex, and costs too much to reuse. We made it work to LEO after a fashion by throwing boxcar loads of money at it and supporting it with a huge standing army, but the truth is it was much worse with respect to performance, cost, and turnaround than Saturn, Apollo, and Skylab.

A Constellation type launcher was the right choice to replace that failed detour called Shuttle. Constellation was the logical next step after the wildly successful Saturn. Orion the logical next step after Apollo. We've wasted nearly 40 years, but Constellation offered us a chance to get back on track. Well, Obama killed that chance. Congress is trying to revive parts of it, but without a coherent plan and program, it is just pork.

Americans will one day soon look up and see a Chinese Moon. They will curse the politicians responsible for frittering away America's dominance in space. We should have colonies on the Moon and Mars by now. We could have done it. But we blew it on a totally ridiculous winged space truck.

John

That assertion would be correct if the shuttle were in fact intended to leave low earth orbit. But it never was. There was, as part of the original vision before Nixon killed it, an OTV (Orbital Transfer Vehicle).

A tractor trailer is a fundamentally dumb vehicle design to take your family on a drive through Manhattan. But that is a matter of how you use it, not the design.

To launch one space shuttle costs ROUGHLY $1.2 Billion.
To fight those three wars costs approximately $87 Billion per year.

2 different pots of money from two different committees...You cannot touch one to feed another...

O.o

Correction, to conduct a "space shuttle mission" cost approximately 1.2 billion (based on the total cost of the flights divided by the number of flights). The flight itself was FAR less than that (estimated at about 120 million in late 1990's dollars). Why the discrepancy? Well the shuttle could do things that no other vehicle could or can do today. It is now a lost capability. But that capability was a double edged sword in that it was expensive.

Only time will tell how much we have lost by retiring the shuttle.

Fair enough, but still you cannot touch one pot of money to feed another...

Concur on your assessment that it was a double edged sword; There should have been various vehicles to accomodate what the mission called for rather than having a massive workhorse that was underutilized in many aspects...I believe retiring the shuttle was short-sighted...Time will tell what the future lies for the U.S.

The only thing Obama is good at is killing, pirates bin laden, he's justba gangsta not a leader of the federation of planets.

It's spelled, "Ivanski"

:-)

Sounds more like an excuse to be stupid than to explore the unknown. Sounds like shear cowardice to me.

How would you know if humanity is not ready for space? Or that space is ready for man? Still playing your godhead role of determining what will benefit your live in the moment ego as opposed to venturing into the darkness to bring about a new destiny for humanity?

Sorry to say people like you live a life going in circles hoping that if you circle enough times that you might come to the beginning of time and start all over again.

Another person trapped by the Einstein Paradox.

You also said that space was not ready for man? By this I am assuming that you fear humanities interaction within another species where that species might be destroyed. Sounds to me like you believe in extra terrestial life.

Oh the notion of humanity not being able to endure space travel has already been taken care of. But then again if you knew anything about the shuttle systems and I.S.S. environmental systems you would know this fact already.

Nothing more than general vacuous rhetoricc innuendo.

Mankind is also unfit for ocean travel. He gets seasick (ok, many of us do :-)), his lungs can't breathe water if he falls overboard, his skin can't take the UV, etc.

The reason government is involved is that no one else is willing to put up the money. The private sector doesn't like pouring money down a rat hole, but that's government's favorite thing to do.

Here's the bottom line. As we all know the sooner we get WW3 over with we can develop warp technology and the vulcans will see it and voila gene roddenberrys federation of planets is born.

YEAH! Wait, wha?

Oh yeah:
"Gozer the Traveler will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii the Traveler came as a very large and moving Torb. Then of course, in the third reconcilliation of the last of the Meketrex supplicants they chose a new form for him, that of a sloar. Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you..."

:-/

Do me a favor and go here:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons and scroll down halfway to read the part about folding a one hundred dollar bill and you get the same thing...COINCIDENCE? YOU DECIDE!

LOL!

Apollo was not the peak of the space exploration program where the program has been down hill ever since then. Tyson is trying to create an air of innuendo based upon his attempts of employing his poly-science of ups and downs.

Apollo was the foundation of the space exploration program. The Shuttle Program was the boards and timbers of the hull of the space exploration program. The programs that come about as a result of the Shuttle Programs ending will the be interior of the space exploration program. With each new stage of space exploration the entirity of the vessel called Sol Endeavour will be completed. When the Sol Endeavour is finally completed she will break free from the slips of your yard and launch humanity into the greatest and most challenging venture of all. Exploring the unknown like the ancient mariner's did many years ago.

That's because all politicians are concerned with is making good in front of a camera to turn x amount of profit for the newspaper and drama shops taht are only out to make quick money for theirself. How difficult is it to twist an expression on a politicians face to make a group of people think differently about him or her so that they will be drawn back to your tabloid? Not very difficult.

Space exploration takes intelligence and many forms of math and history to understand, drama just takes someone saying something ti make x amounts of dollars.

Business ALWAYS looks for the easiest way to do something without to much intelligence or thought being involved. Humanity is rather quickly driving itself to extinction by not being mindfull of those who live the simple minded and dumbed down life just because a math might have come from another culture. "Don't read about their culture or learn their maths because it will let their demons into out lives."

The more America continues to dumb itself done telling children that only the basics of math are needed for life and never allowing the child to learn higher forms of math to become more intelligent is actually making America more and more a slave to the rest of the intelligent world just because one math came from a Muslim and learning such math would then make the person a Muslim and not a Christian.

Not even wrong.

How does it feel America to be looked at by the rest of the planet as being stupid just because people capitilised and lived in the moment during 9.11.01 to make people think that the math's that Muslim's created were as evil as the Muslim's theirself?

The real enemy in America are those who stand around with a Bible in their hand saying that all that is important is in this book while everything outside of this book is evil including math that was created by what Christianity deems as Satan.

Just wish everyone in congress/Obama reads what you just wrote....

GCV, I just have one point of content with what you had posted, about the Constellation program. It wasn't axed because of being overbudget. It was axed because it was behind schedule and severly underfunded. Thing is, Obama kept the capsule system, and instead put NASA to work developing a more capable launch system for said capsule. Whether or not that was a better purpose remains to be seen, but right now, the House Appropriations Commitee is stacking the deck against NASA because the program is still behind schedule, and is being undercut by reduced funding. Keep in mind the head of this commitee is working to kill the JWST, to make an example, and to punish NASA for cost overruns in program development. Obama is trying to appropriate increased funding to NASA for program development, although I do not know if he realizes that there are going to be cost overruns anytime you are trying to develop something new, like a new flight system, new launch system, ect, ect(though I think it would be pretty interesting looking at DoD cost overruns for developments for their new systems, simply because of of your highlights regarding the development of new fighter jets, yet I don't see them getting "punished", as it were, for their cost overruns). Simply put, Obama made a judgement call on Constellation, which is as yet to be determined whether or not it was good judgement or bad judgement, scrapped the launch system for the Orion Capsule(which was probably a good idea, the Ares was pretty shakey, in many ways), but retained the capsule its self, and is developing a new SLS for it, based on the shuttle launch system. Time will tell whether or not this was a good idea, but right now the blame would lie squarely on Congress for any programs that are eliminated due to cost overruns. They are the ones that are trying to drop that .5% down to .4% of the Federal Budget.

GCV:

Actually the cost estimate of the Shuttle program as originally estimated was pretty much bang on. That was IIRC 5.6B dollars in FY1971 dollars. The OMB changed that to 1973 dollars. Inflation had already started to set in the economy.

The operating cost projections were way off, but that had more to do with lack of launch frequency than anything else.

Eric:

Underfunded, over budget, same problem when it comes to politicians. (that was sarcasm, not arguing with you lol). I agreed with the decision to kill Constellation as it was ill conceived from the start.

Commercial space is not the issue. We had commercial space contracting out to the biggest most corruptible outfit around, all on the back of the biggest sucker out there, the tax payer.

The shuttle was a failed single stage to orbit design, and all other designs just mean diminished payloads to orbit.

This new version of commercial space puts the risks and rewards where it should be. Here's to < $1000 per lb. Have you not noticed the sensible manufacturing and organizational structure already in place?

Nasa really needs to get back to developing a space plane. Nothing technologically advanced (eg liquid H2 foolishness), just strap some short wings to a falcon 9, build a carrier large enough and drop it at 30,000 ft.