To lay blame on the current administration is a little short sighted. If we wanted flight ready hardware up and running before the shuttles retired, Bush would have needed get that going much earlier than what he did. If we had stuck with the Bush "back to the moon" program the gap between US manned space flight would be much longer than the current idea of using private space flight compainies. And hey, the Soyuz has a much, much better saftey record than the shuttle ever had. Given the failure rates of soyuz vs. shuttle, I would much rather ride on a Soyuz. Sure, the Shuttle was sexier and had a bigger payload, but that came at a price.

If you want to be the first guy to take a launch in a vehicle designed to last 10 years that has been flying for 25+ years,(Space Shuttles), be my guest. The shuttle program was canceled because it was obsolete and too expensive. A new generation of launch vehicles has yet to be voted on. Blaming this on Obama is silly, as the decision should have been made 5-10 years ago to even have a viable launch vehicle now.

Yes - that was Bush who decided to kill the Shuttles. It's a combination of many people that pretty much killed NASA so they aren't really working on anything. Obama had the chance to fix this issue, and didn't.

But too bad about the spacecraft! It would have been nice if this would have been successful.

When NASA was trying to sell the shuttle program to Congress, they made several claims that turned out to be baloney. They said the shuttles would be designed for a life of 100 missions. Discovery topped the list with 39 flights. All five of the shuttles totaled 135 flights. They said that once the program got running, they could send shuttles up every three or four weeks. Didn't happen. They said the shuttle would bring the cost of getting cargo to low earth orbit down to a few hundred dollars per pound. The last figures I saw were between fifteen and twenty thousand per pound. Each launch was costing around half a billion dollars. The shuttles did some good things during their life, mainly the Hubble scope. But when you look at what NASA was singing around 1970, I think the taxpayers got sold a bill of goods.

"Mission Control can't send the commands to reset the software because the fuel tanks are blocking an antenna that needs to be clear."

Perhaps they should try from an angle near the horizon instead of straight-on.

Can they relay the commands through the ISS, or are the fuel tanks blocking that angle also?

As much as I hate to infuse politics into a space discussion, the original poster is actually correct. Under the Bush administration, we were going full steam ahead with the constellation program, which was designed to replace the space shuttle for human space flight. This program was started in 2005 during the Bush administration and would be nearing the testing phases if it was not scrapped.

In 2010, Obama proposed to cancel the program, effectively killing our future manned space flight prospect.

Whether you see the constellation program as a viable alternative to the shuttle program or not, it was at least making steps in the right direction and would ensure the continuation of American space travel without hitching a ride on Russian rockets.

@ Tesla Coil

The problem with Constellation was that it was never properly funded from the start. Even if Obama had not killed the program, it would have had to either get several billion more $$$ to finish than was previously budgeted, or its timeframe would need to have been extended.

The lack of American manned-access to space ended when Bush killed the X-33 "Venture Star" program back in 2001 and refused to revisit it when it was re-proposed in 2003.

Venture Star

Ever since the decision to kill Venture Star happened, there was no longer a program that was going to be far enough along to be able to replace the Shuttle before it was due to retire. Most of these programs take as much as a decade to get fully rolled-out and tested.

Personally, I liked the Venture Star because of its engines and because of its Single Stage to Orbit design. I am however glad that we are aiming higher than before, as simply replacing the Shuttle was not the direction that I think NASA should go in.

I liked Constellation because of its ambition, but I disliked that Bush gave it the "Medicare Part D"-treatment and never properly funded it (his MO I'm afraid). I also disliked Constellation for the fact that it learns virtually nothing from the inefficiencies of the Apollo program, nor the virtues of the Shuttle. It's just Apollo with bigger engines and better tech...not necessarily a bad thing, but very wasteful because of all of the non-reusable aspects, combined with the wickedly inefficient supply-chains that Congress likes to rout through their favorite districts!

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by the incredibly myopic nature of these comments. But I am.

First, Bush retired the shuttles. It happened on Obama's watch but there was nothing he could do to stop it, the wheels were set into motion in 2004 and by 2005 that train was unstoppable. That is not speculation, that is hard facts based on the support system that goes along with the shuttles and the financial circumstances the U.S. has been in since 2007.

Secondly, and this is where the myopia comes in, the United States of America is dead set on creating an exploratory manned spaceflight capability. That's where things were heading under Constellation and that is STILL where things are heading with SLS. A good percentage of you seem to think the U.S. manned space program is dead, but it's merely in a state of transition. It's not the first time this has happened, actually we still have access to space this time. Last time we made the transition from system to system we didn't have ANY access to space. It's safe to say that once the commercial providers are capable of launching human beings into space America will never again be without access to space.

p.s. excellent comment Seriously.

People - please do some research before making baseless claims. To the poster who said that "the Shuttle's replacement has not been voted on yet"... please see: COTS, CCDEV, and SLS/Orion.

There are several vehicles which will be filling the void left by the Shuttle. The new approach offers capabilities that the Shuttle did not have (like deep space exploration, or long duration missions), and at a lower cost overall.

More specifically, see: Falcon 9 / Dragon; Taurus II / Cygnus; Atlas V / CST-100 / Dreamchaser; SLS / Orion (aka MPCV)

Also, Constellation (CxP) was a failure, that's why it was cancelled... The blame for this lies squarely on the shoulders of congress for mandating the most ambitious and expensive space program the world has EVER seen, while simultaneously reducing NASA's budget to is lowest levels since 1960! As a result, CxP was at least 4-5 years behind schedule (per the Augustine Commission) and no longer viable. Cancellation of CxP was the first step towards accelerating the effort to replace the Shuttle's capability.

CJSKS, something that's been bothering me lately.. I've got this nagging feeling that Congress is going to do to SLS what was done to Constellation. I fully believe that SLS will finish a heavy lifter and Orion will launch on it, but I'm worried that it will take until 2018 or 2019. I really don't have any reason for thinking this, it's just that when it comes to congress if they say December 31st 2016 I tend to hear sometime in August 3 or four years later. I hope Congress passes appropriations and see the need to get SLS done sooner rather than later but I can't help but have this nagging sense that they'll falter along the way.

So, my question is this. If SLS gets done by say 2019 then will we be looking back and saying "well, we could have just kept going with Constellation and we'd have the Ares1 and Ares5 and Orion, and perhaps even a trip to the moon on the horizon."? Do you see what I'm saying? If we don't finish SLS by the congress mandated 2017 timeframe then was it a wise choice (or the only choice) to shut down constellation? Any thoughts about that?

Thanks for clearing that up Seriously, interesting details, I'm not too familiar with the Venture Star program.

@ Mob, I understand that we've had gaps in our manned space flight capability in the past, but with so little currently in development at NASA in this area, it seems like it will be a very long time before the American space program returns to manned flight, which is worrying. It also seems that year over year the NASA budget is constantly slashed. The shuttle program will always have a special place in my heart, but I wouldn't trust a 30 year old car to work effectively, let alone something as complex as the space shuttle. It was due for retirement, there just needs to be some next generation vehicle in development.

I know the private sector is growing by leaps and bounds, but their goal is Low Earth Orbit. LEO shouldn't be the goal, but rather a stepping stone to more ambitious heights. I don't see these comments as myopic at all, to use your word. Americans won't have an effective vehicle for manned space flight for several years, and any human exploration beyond LEO won't realistically happen for at least another 25-30 years.

"...oh right, our current one-term President."

Damn. Is there no topic so irrelevant and obscure that someone from the right wing lunatic fringe cannot try to find a way to blame Obama?

Tesla Coil, I wouldn't trust a 30 year old car either, but I would trust the space shuttles and here's why - the oldest of them may have been 30 years old but the maintenance plan was FAR SUPERIOR to any 30 year old automobile. It's really not even comparable. The orbiters were painstakingly maintained between flights. It was never like a car, in which you just get in and turn the key and hope all the valves and belts are in good shape. The support crew for the shuttles went over the millions of components and checked and double checked all parts and pieces. I'm not quite as familiar as one could be with that process but I do know that the space shuttles were maintained and held to an extremely high standard.

As for what's currently happening at NASA.. Work is being done on Orion/MPCV. It is in testing at Langley (I believe). It is not really that far from being ready for flight testing. The thing is though, the congress mandated heavy lifter that NASA will put it on is not nearly as far along. What we have now is basically a race to build the HLV that will launch Orion, and congress has mandated that it be "operational no later than December 31st, 2016" (according to the 2010 NASA Authorization Act). Whether or not that happens according to plan is up for speculation. But it's clear that the American tax payer and members of Congress want an American-government manned space option to accompany the commercial options that are growing out of the CCDev and COTS initiatives. I firmly believe that America will have a new American space access capability in this decade. Private space industry seems on target to meet their 2015 goal and if Congress passes appropriations bill that meet the needs of the SLS program I see no reason why NASA won't be able to finish their own launch vehicle by about 2017.

@ mob_barley

I sure hope so! I think that if the private sector does a good job of taking up the reins of LEO launches and near-earth operations, NASA and Congress both will feel more open towards allocating greater funding towards the more ambitious side of space and away from the routine.

I wish I knew more about the SLS, it looks like a fascinating setup and the HLV-figures being tossed around are impressive. I just hope that something comes of it and it doesn't just end up being what I first feared, which was a Congressional handout to Red-states that made a boatload off of supporting the SST yet don't have the ability to retool to make anything BUT more SST launch components.

Agreed. Congress has mandated it be finished by 2017. I hope they follow through on that mandate an pass the necessary appropriations for it.

SLS is all about capability. It's true that there is no "clear mission" for SLS, but the good thing is that America will be more capable than ever as far as exploring beyond Earth orbit. The goal is to get boots down on Mars. Charles Bolden even said that much in his most recent visit with lawmakers. And having the ability to launch 70 metric tons to LEO will certainly open up new options in terms of on-orbit manufacturing. And the SLS should increase to being capable of launching 130 metric tons, so that's an amazing option for America. Imagine what we could build with that kind of capability.

As I recall, the Shuttle was crippled by Richard Nixon. Nixon hated NASA because it wasn't military. He (and his mentor, Joseph McCarthy) thought the only reason to be in space was to fight the Russians. He didn't have the political capital to kill it completely so he cut the Shuttle budget so deeply that they had to abandon the liquid-fueled boosters for those cranky bottle rockets that only had a 15C safe operating temperature range. Then they had to fire the engineers who objected to the temperature problems with the giant rubber rings. You can blame Congress or Obama or ACORN if you like, but don't forget Nixon's early sabotage of that program.

@ clsgis

Agreed! Nixon was a scumbag. The more we learn about him and his dealings, the more I dislike the guy both as a person and as a leader.

I wonder what we will think of Bush and Obama in 30-40 years? Hopefully FOIA doesn't get reamed and we can actually find out all of the things that occurred in the last 10 years alone!

Anyway. Indeed, Nixon ruined the Shuttle, he also cut NASA's funding tremendously, and supported the Air Force getting a word in on how the Shuttle should be designed.

We could have probably had a leaner, more efficient Shuttle, if it weren't for the Air Force trying to meddle in it with the various 1-time use functions such as delicately returning spy satellites.

Didn't know Walmart sold 13 ton satellites :-)

At least the Russians and Chinese understand the value of training more Engineers as opposed to more fat fast food workers, which is all America, my country, seems to produce these days.

Russian and CHinese children spend twice as much time in school as your foolish child. You're children have much to look forward too. Mainly, waking up early to serve somebody else breakfast.!

Lighten up, rrobeson. Your (not you're) grammar is all the proof we need of the futility of the American education system.

At least the Russians and Chinese understand the value of training more Engineers as opposed to more fat fast food workers, which is all America, my country, seems to produce these days.

If all you see are fat fast food workers then you are simply hanging around in the wrong places. Rest assured that there are still engineers being trained in this great nation and we are working as hard as ever. Rather than sit there complaining why don't you go back to school and become an engineer if it's that important to you. That's what I'm doing. I am current enrolled and am working toward becoming a structural engineer.

I sincerely hope Webb makes it into space, but it's going to be close. They need to stay under that 8 billion dollar mark. Best of luck to them, it will be an amazing space telescope when it flies.

You may see it as lip service, and I certainly understand where you are coming from, but if you look beyond the gaping mouths of the talking heads there is real progress being made towards getting America back to launching our own people on our own launch vehicles. SpaceX is making great strides. Orion/MPCV is testing currently, there are more notable news items out there, so don't get discouraged by the lip service. Look past it and you'll see the progress being made.

we truly live in an enlightened age when exploring the cosmos takes a backseat to bailing out banks, subsidizing airlines, funding corrupt green energy companies, et al.

Just to put things in perspective, NASA receives about one half of one percent of the federal budget. If you want to save money, look at the big pieces of the pie like medicare, social security, and defense.

@ Ron B

So do you think that the technology that you're making use of right now in your pockets, your cellphone, your car, your computer, your energy star appliances, your food preservation, your water filtration, your solar panels (if you have any), your batteries, etc etc etc. came out of thin air? Do you not see the economies that came from the invention of those devices, and all the jobs created there-in? How about the jobs that were first started in the Government R&D wings to create the predecessors of those devices?

Where do you think that all of those came from? Do you not understand the value of publicly funded R&D and how it greatly shortens the time-table for novel inventions and methods rather than waiting to see if the private sector can justify the costs with a profit motive or happens to accidentally stumble upon something?

Please tell me, which private company ISN'T using cold-war-era launch systems to put their satellites in orbit? For that matter, which private company invented a satellite from scratch that didn't borrow heavily from what was learned in the space program, NRO and engineers from as far back as Gemini?

It's up to the taxpayers to blaze new trails and let the private sector expand them. There are NEW economies out there just waiting to be created and new efficiencies that will help us get even more out of the same amount of resources than before.

1. Space mining - This will transform the manufacturing sector (imagine the prices of raw materials shifting wildly and how that would transform what materials are used in fabrication)
2. Space fabrication - There are a lot of manufacturing techniques (and many we don't know of) that could make use of zero-G and a near-perfect vacuum! Not only could such fabrication be useful for products bound for deep space, but also bound for Earth
3. Space-based power generation - This is a no-brainer
4. Etc.

The point is, if we don't explore, we are doomed to stagnate, and with a rising population against a finite resource supply, we are headed towards a similar catastrophe seen on a local level when deer populations grow out of control.

Absolutely excellent comment Seriously!!

^_^

Too bad Ron B probably isn't paying attention anymore

I'm just trying to do my part to get people to understand how space exploration CREATES jobs and CREATES new economies.

The US has many of the advantages that we have economically and militarily because of our early investment into this field, it's foolish to cede it because some people think that the pittance that's spent on it could be better served somewhere else.

couldn't agree more, Seriously, great posts.

Exactly. I think many of the people who talk about the space monies being "wasteful" would be surprised to find that the things they want might be better served by actually increasing spending to space related R&D. You want to help feed people on this planet, well space R&D has done work on that. You want to help people communicate better, well space R&D has done work on that. You want to save the lives of firefighters and first responders, well space R&D has done work on that. You want to make better batteries for you electric cars, well space R&D has done work on that. The list just goes on and on and on... A more robust space program with an eye toward research and development is a VERY good thing for our economy and the world as a whole. People may not see the connection between what NASA does and how we all benefit. I don't understand that, it's plain as day if you look at the facts. I suppose if you just believe the loudest voice in the crowd you may end up getting the wrong idea.

It never ceases to amaze me what people will spout off/believe about the space program/monies spent. If they would actually research the dollars spent vs. wasted in other government programs we wouldn't have to constantly try to teach as per Seriously's(and many others including myself's)post. Perhaps my favorite part is that they are doing it on computer/internet. Just where/what influence did all that miniturization of circuits come from???you got it.;-) --S--

Preaching to the choir is therapeutic, even if it doesn't necessarily change anything ^_^

Thanks for the support mob_barley and Tesla Coil! I think both of your musings are great too! I always learn a lot.

Hopefully there are enough people like us out there that we can use our incremental influence to slowly drag these neanderthals into the 21st century, kicking and screaming if we must.

/I kinda like the kicking and screaming idea...(also therapeutic)!

@ Ron B

You've been silent since your first little post, care to rebut? Or are you just going to move on and continue to spout the same lies and inaccuracies you seem to irrationally hold true?

The maximum time allowed in space for a space shuttle is around 4 weeks. You can't leave them in space longer than that. The space shuttles are not designed to be flown beyond low Earth orbit. Many satellites are in orbit that the space shuttle won't go to. Again you can't leave a shuttle in space. It's not designed for that kind of thing. Enterprise was not built with a heatshield and it doesn't have engines, so it's not capable of spaceflight. It was only used as a glider for testing in the Earth's atmosphere.

The cost of one shuttle mission costs more than the entire Phobos-Grunt program, several times over. It would be cheaper to produce and launch a half dozen more Phobos-Grunt probes than it would be to send a shuttle up to try to save this one.

Tesla is right. Phobos grunt cost somewhere in the 2 to 3 hundred million dollar range. The only conceivable reason to send up a shuttle rescue (if we could) would be to save the time of building a new probe. I think the time would not be considered that important and even if we had the shuttles still active NASA would say, tough luck, build another one.

But I think the main point being made here is that the space shuttle was uniquely capable of on-orbit fixit trips and that's a capability we will surely miss.

@ Tesla Coil

While I'm not disagreeing with you about the costs as they stand. I think you're making an unfair comparison. The costs for the Shuttle launches are mostly fixed, the marginal cost for launching a Shuttle is significantly lower than the Phobos-Grunt program.

The only reasons why the launch costs for the Shuttle ended up as high as they did (e.g. ~1.5billion/launch) was because of 2 aggravating reasons

1. The original number of launches was to be far greater than what ultimately occurred
2. Congress designed a seriously flawed system for outfitting the Shuttle program for launches with a pork-laden, overly circuitous rout through their various districts rather than letting the engineers design an efficient supply-chain.

There were a number of aspects regarding the Shuttle's design as well (the Air Force's influence) that led to higher launch costs, but that is another discussion entirely.

In short, the 1.5billion/launch is the average of the total program cost ($192 billion/134 missions).

String out enough missions, and the average per-launch cost drops closer to the bare-bones incremental cost (incremental launch cost is actually about $450 million according to NASA).

While $450million/launch is still not at all cheap, consider that the Shuttle:

1. Could carry a HUGE amount of payload into orbit in one-go (something no other launch system today can do)
2. Could do so without a standing army of ground-support to make it happen (unlike the Apollo program)
3. Could stay in orbit for a lot longer than most other space craft (even Soyuz)
4. Had a robotic arm (that was pivotal in the ISS's construction) and could repair in orbit
5. AND could also perform a delicate return of other orbiting craft.

The Shuttle offered a lot of versatility, and it was NASA's budget and missions that got cut that ruined much of the Shuttle's advantages from Nixon onward, the Shuttle program itself was fantastic!

insightful comments, thanks!

As a #6 to add to Seriously great list of what the shuttle could do I think it's imperitive that people realize that the shuttle had one more capability that has never been matched by any other space faring vessel... The ability to bring huge cargo BACK to Earth and make a relatively smooth landing. That is a capability that I think is very important.

@ mob_barley

^_^ I stated that in #5

I just referred to it as "delicate return" since I don't know of any specific technical term for de-orbiting another object in space without actually forcing it to experience the same trauma of re-entry as the Shuttle.

oOOPs. suppose I didn't read that carefully enough. My bad.

Sadly that's been the case since the beginning of recorded history. Columbus even had to find a different source to bankroll his trans Atlantic voyage after all.

The more things change, the more they stay the same I'm afraid.

But at least we've moved past burning astronomers at the stake for heresy...so that's an improvement

Right?

Though some among us (who shall remain nameless) seem to vilify those doing scientific research on global warming

But at least the researchers are not being put to death.

I'm an optimist, so I'm going to say we're in a net-positive scenario!

I would also love to see a fleet of Spirit and Oppy twins rolling about but they were designed specifically for Mars and it would take some adjustments to get them to work in say Titan or Enceladus.

The bottomline is that if we just send up 20 of the same rovers we only learn the same things about 20 different places. Curiosity has 10 new tools to examine Mars and find out new types of info. Curiosity is quite literally a rolling laboratory and it can do things that Spirit and Opportunity could never do. Every mission is driven by mission parameters. If your mission parameters call for studying 20 places all at once then it would be a great idea to send up 20 spirits or opportunitys. Curiosity was purpose built and designed for understanding the habitability of Mars.

"Both the US and Russia have had bad luck trying to explore beyond LEO. US has a better overall track record for success. But, the US also has numerous asinine disasters along with the Russians."

Actually, the Russians have done quite well...at the Moon and Venus.

And the US has done quite well, period. Particularly with outer solar system probes, which the Russians haven't attempted. But our most serious screw-ups have also involved Mars...

If I'm not mistaken (which I could be), isn't it easier to land on Phobos than it is to land on Mars? Also, as a sample return mission, Phobos is the primary choice because of the difference in gravity as compared to Mars.

Bob Hamilton in Chicago, why do you think that Curiosity is a waste of money? Actually, your statement is more broad than that. Why do you think America's exploration and study of Mars is a waste of money. Perhaps if you learned more about the missions you would change your opinion. Or do you just have an axe to grind?

Mob, Bob is obviously a troll. Please don't feed.;-) --S--

I don't know if I can stop feeding the trolls. I have a long held desire to bring them over to the light side, away from the dark side. Converted trolls make powerful allies, especially if they start to think for themselves and do the research into these issues. They can cease to be trolls, I have to believe that is true.

Truly, your heart is boundless, Mob. I'm not sure I can say/be the same. After a while, I'm for letting the stupid die.

Lol, I used to be that way. I used to hold some pretty awful beliefs about society in general. I still do, I suppose. But nowadays I feel that it's important to change that paradigm. It's a fine line I think. There is that part of me that will always say "let little Timmy put the fork in the electrical outlet, it's the only way he'll learn". And there's another part of me that is tired of fixing electrical outlets and re-painting the walls. But above all I'm tired of the kind of society that gives trophies to kids because they participated. I realize that competition may not be the best motivation but I also realize that it takes a great challenge or difficulty to become a greater person. And what greater difficulty can there be than wiping out ignorance. Opening the eyes of those who refuse to see is a lofty and utterly difficult chore but through this I become better at laying facts at the feet of those willing to learn. It is my own way of learning. After all, that's what life is all about, learning and making life better in the process. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Through difficulty comes prosperity. What don't kill ya, makes ya stronger. But now I'm off into philosophy...

I'm more of a proponent of processing trolls for their precious, organs and supple edible bits. It's both humane, and ultimately a benefit to society...some people seem to have a problem with this however.

...anyway.

I'm with Bob, fight the good fight! But don't let these trolls get you down, there could be a number of motivations for their vitriol and ignorance. For example, who trolls on the tech thread of MSNBC but nerds and techies, with a sprinkling of the political wackos.

If they don't mention Obama in the first 15 words of their rant, I tend to think they're just baiting and may not actually believe any of the crap they just wrote.

What don't kill ya, makes ya stronger.

Except a stroke, or one's first heart attack ^_^