Should the Space Shuttle Fleet be retired?

[LCBOY]

There is an interesting editorial in the new issue of Discover magazine. The magazine takes the position that the Space Shuttle fleet should be retired because of safety and cost issues. They also argue that the fleet is stifling the design and production of the next generation of reusable spacecraft. Any opinions? Should the Space Shuttle fleet be retired?

 

[Agammamon]

Yep, The space shuttle was a good idea at the time but NASA is stuck on the idea of a grand human adventure in space, so they keep going for big ticket headline grabbing items. What will get us into space faster and with less cost to the taxpayer would be to remove the hoops that private industry has to jump through to put a payload into orbit. Right now in the US space industrialization/exploration is tightly controlled by the gov.

 

[daver]

Right now the main use for the shuttle is to build ISS. If we cancel the shuttle, we cancel ISS. That would piss off any of our international partners who still trusted NASA to carry out its commitments, but i don't think any of our partners are that deluded.

But maybe NASA will convince congress that they have to live up to this commitment. They could do so by automating the shuttle, and using it as a big unmanned freighter.

I think that what will happen is that NASA will find some sort of bandaid to apply and will continue business as usual until another shuttle crashes. Good odds that when that happens the manned spaceflight program will be shut down.

I think that what should happen is, in addition to whatever bandaid NASA comes up with, the shuttles should be automated. The flights that need to be manned should be flown manned. The flights that don't, shouldn't. Any manned flights that don't go to the ISS should carry the minimum crew necessary, and should only be launched if there is a shuttle standing by that can be quickly converted to a rescue mission.

So, i'd vote No, it shouldn't be retired, but it should be modified.

I'd also suggest that NASA and congress should decide, immediately, whether they want to continue to support manned space flight, and what the overall goal of manned space flight should be.

The feasible goals i can see are exploration and settlement. Exploration right now seems to be pretty much a non-starter. All bodies except for the moon are out of reach of our current capabilities. Which leaves settlement.

So, if NASA wants to stay in the manned space flight field, it should start directing its efforts to determining if lunar or martian human settlements are possible. Which means starting to investigate the long-term effects of low (not micro) g fields on humans. Which means a rotating space station (150 meter radius, 1 rpm gives about 1/6 g at the rim).

I think it would be a good idea if whatever ferry design they come up with next would have the docking hatch and some sort of latches at the top such that the ferry could dock, ceiling to floor, to a rotating station. They may as well design the connections to support the full weight of the ferry under 1.5 g's, just to allow for future expansion. The ferry should be launchable on commercial launch systems, although if NASA wanted to do a parallel development of, say, a reusable flyback booster that would be ok.

 

[RichardR]

The feasible goals i can see are exploration and settlement. Exploration right now seems to be pretty much a non-starter. All bodies except for the moon are out of reach of our current capabilities. Which leaves settlement.

I'm interested in why you think settlement should be a goal.

 

[garys_2k]

I figured that tourists would be the first commercial application for space travel. A bit off topic, sorry, but THAT would get people dreaming of space travel.

 

[Captain_Snort]

I remember hearing a few years back that NASA was looking at the russin space shuttle with its much larger payload capabilities. I guess nothing came of that. face it, the shuttle is mid-70's technology, it works, and I think the idea there is, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

2 accidents in one hell of a lot of missions considering what they have to go through is pretty good going. The astronaughts new risks, so I assume do NASA, but substantial reseach into next-gen space vehicles should have been started at least a decade ago, ideally with joint international space agency funding and expertise, like the ISS

Anyway, I don;t think they should be retired, but fully overhauled. (as if they aren't every mission)

 

[shecky]

Settlement?!? Of what? By whom? Why?

 

[bangdazap]

Settlement?!? Of what? By whom? Why?

Settlement on the moon and Mars by humans. Don't know why though. Some say we need to spread out across the solar system to survive. I have no idea if that is the case.
I wouldn't wan't to live on the moon or Mars though.

 

[FutileJester]

Settlement on the moon and Mars by humans. Don't know why though. Some say we need to spread out across the solar system to survive. I have no idea if that is the case.

The success of the human species, I think, can largely be attributed to our ability and inclination to spread to virtually any environment. When we were confined to the African savannahs, a single environmental crisis could have wiped us out; now it would take far more than a local crisis to do that. But a big enough catastrophe (meteor strike or the like) could still do it. It's to our collective benefit not to have all our eggs in one basket.

There's no immediate pressure to leap out there right now, but we inevitably will. People will demand our expansion into space, for reasons that are as basic as our sex drive.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

There is an interesting editorial in the new issue of Discover magazine. The magazine takes the position that the Space Shuttle fleet should be retired because of safety and cost issues. They also argue that the fleet is stifling the design and production of the next generation of reusable spacecraft. Any opinions? Should the Space Shuttle fleet be retired?

Good question to pose.

My personal emotional response is no because I have fond memories of the excitement of watching launches and investigating the space program and getting information on the missions.

The space program is relatively young (NASA formed in 1958, the year after the launch of Sputnick). The program was an extension of rocketry (which humans have been working on for almost 1000 years now). Improving military capabilities made the space program possible.


The spin-offs from the space program have been numerous. Scientists have gained great insight into the natural events that occur on earth and has been helpful in developing some technologies we take for granted currently.

The orbiters may not be the most effiecient vehicles to do scientific research from anymore, but NASA and the world community may have recognized this and thus decided to invest in the Intenational Space station and other platforms. While the orbiters do continue some scientific research (remote sensing is still done to some extent I think) the research can carried out from the platforms.

http://www.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca/ccrs/homepg.pl?e

It appears that the orbiters are more and more becoming cargo vehicles to supply and to continue transporting military or commercial payloads into orbit. The orbiters are expensive to maintain and launch. The trouble is they are needed to continue a commitment to the world community and contracts for delivering payloads.

In the short term, 10 to 20 years, the orbiters will still be in use as they can not be retired unless they can be phased out by more efficient vehicles. NASA and the world community have a challenge if they want to continue an ongoing commitment to an international space station, research and remote sensing.

The international space station poses a challenge too as it needs maintenance so some sort of vehicle is needed from a logistical aspect.

Speculation: Perhaps the commitment will go beyond more than one space station as the international community becomes concerned that so many resources are pooled into one platform. If so this will increase the pressure to develop more efficient vehicles.

Is the question should the orbiters be retired or is it: Can the orbiters be retired? I have mentioned some considerations (admittedly limited in scope as I am not an expert) and there may be others.

 

[Kilted_Canuck]

This same sort of think happened with the Concorde super-sonic jet a few years ago. People heard of the crash in France, and demanded that the plane was unsafe, and eventually it was retired. People neglected the fact that the Concorde had (and still has) the absolute best safety record of any airplane in the world. (nearly 40 years of service, 1 crash).

The shuttle has worked for many years, with only two accidents. The first could have been attributed to human error, while the second happened due to lack of safety inspections inflight. This is now being rectified with the new Canadarm 2 on the ISS, to give full inspections of the shuttle's heat shield.

I would think that a full overhaul of the ships computers would vastly reduce weight, and increase speed of the ship's computer systems, even though it is totally unrelated to the Columbia disaster.

 

[daver]

I'm interested in why you think settlement should be a goal.

My post was pretty weasly--I intended not to say that settlement should be a goal, but that for the near-term it's the only reason i can see that NASA could use to justify a manned space flight program.

For now, the only economic reason i can see for manned space flight is tourism.

If the cost to orbit would drop dramatically (orders of magnitude) that could change.

 

[daver]

2 accidents in one hell of a lot of missions considering what they have to go through is pretty good going. The astronaughts new risks, so I assume do NASA, but substantial reseach into next-gen space vehicles should have been started at least a decade ago, ideally with joint international space agency funding and expertise, like the ISS

Anyway, I don;t think they should be retired, but fully overhauled. (as if they aren't every mission)

Two accidents in a bit over 100 missions.

The orbiters are old, they are reaching the end of their designed lifetime (not in number of missions flown, but in years). We're finding some age-related deterioration. My guess is that the odds of failure are going to increase.

If you have a pair of dice, roll them. If you roll snake-eyes, flip two coins. If any of them come up heads, you and your crew die. Or, cut a deck of playing cards. If it's the ace of spades, you and your crew die. Those are roughly the odds. You'd have better odds flying missions over Iraq.

That said, the astronauts are volunteers. They should know the risks, and there are millions of people who would eagerly take their place.

You mention that work should have been started a decade ago into a next-generation orbiter. Maybe an international effort, like the ISS. NASA has had several next generation orbiter probjects; they've uniformly spent billions of dollars and failed in i believe all their stated objectives. The ESA had drawn up plans and then abandoned them for an expendable-launched spaceplane. Germany has proposed a couple of shuttles, England a few, Japan at least one. Frankly, i think an international venture would be doomed from the start--after years of study and billions of dollars of investigation, they'd perhaps finally settle on the CAD system to use to develop their viewgraphs.

Regardless, I agree that work should have started. It hasn't. That does not bode well for the future of US manned space flight.

 

[daver]

The shuttle has worked for many years, with only two accidents. The first could have been attributed to human error, while the second happened due to lack of safety inspections inflight. This is now being rectified with the new Canadarm 2 on the ISS, to give full inspections of the shuttle's heat shield.

Something was spotted floating away from the orbiter. It may be that a close-up inspection would have revealed the problem. During the investigation, other problem areas have been identified that could not be identified by visual inspection (some were said not to be detectable by non-destructive methods).

Eyeballing the shuttle from the ISS won't help missions that don't go to the ISS. Admittedly, that's not an awful lot of missions nowadays.

I would think that a full overhaul of the ships computers would vastly reduce weight, and increase speed of the ship's computer systems, even though it is totally unrelated to the Columbia disaster.

I think the savings here would be minor--maybe a few pounds. The shuttles computers and flight deck have been upgraded since the program started. They may not be state of the art, but they work.

 

[RichardR]

The success of the human species, I think, can largely be attributed to our ability and inclination to spread to virtually any environment.

Strictly speaking, this is not true. We have not yet spread to the sort of environment we find on the Moon or Mars.

When we were confined to the African savannahs, a single environmental crisis could have wiped us out; now it would take far more than a local crisis to do that. But a big enough catastrophe (meteor strike or the like) could still do it. It's to our collective benefit not to have all our eggs in one basket.

I’m not sure that majority of humanity that is left on Earth to die would agree with the collective benefit argument.

When humans left home to explore “new worlds”, they were still going to a place on planet Earth – a planet ideally suited for human life. No matter how big a disaster strikes Earth, I’d care to bet it would still be a much more hospitable place than Mars or The Moon. It seems to me we should concentrate on protecting this planet and the six billion plus on it, rather than looking for a lifeboat for a small number so that “humanity” can survive.

 

[RichardR]

The orbiters may not be the most effiecient vehicles to do scientific research from anymore, but NASA and the world community may have recognized this and thus decided to invest in the Intenational Space station and other platforms. While the orbiters do continue some scientific research (remote sensing is still done to some extent I think) the research can carried out from the platforms.

Very little science is done on the ISS. If I have understood NASA’s own figures correctly, they are performing only 19 man hours of science per week. That’s only six hours per week per person. The rest of the time is taken up in maintenance – ie keeping the ISS habitable for the people who are doing the maintenance.

The international space station poses a challenge too as it needs maintenance so some sort of vehicle is needed from a logistical aspect.

Which begs the question, why do we need the ISS?

 

[RichardR]

settlement should be a goal, but that for the near-term it's the only reason i can see that NASA could use to justify a manned space flight program.

Which begs the question, why do we need a manned space program?

 

[daver]

Which begs the question, why do we need a manned space program?

Does it? Perhaps i don't understand the phrase "begs the question".

There is very little that people can do in space that robots can't do cheaper. People are more flexible, they can improvise and tweak things, and get an experiment that would have failed running. It is almost always going to be cheaper to just redesign and relaunch the experiment, though.

The primary rationale for people in space is international prestige. I believe this is the purpose the US congress is funding, and that NASA doesn't really want to admit that this is the raison d 'etre for its manned spaceflight program, and why it keeps coming up with rather flimsy life science excuses.

A secondary purpose but one that NASA won't buy into, is tourism.

A third purpose is to prepare for life in space. NASA hasn't bought into this, but i think it could.

Beyond that, it's hard to justify. If you have a once-in-a-lifetime (or once in several decades) event that just has to go right, it might be worth sending people to do it. A rendezvous with an extra-solar artifact might be one such event. I can't think of any others off hand.

 

[EdipisReks]

A rendezvous with an extra-solar artifact might be one such event. I can't think of any others off hand.

investigating intersolar artifacts of non-human make (improbable) or non microbial life on a feasible location also jumps out at me.

 

[daver]

investigating intersolar artifacts of non-human make (improbable) or non microbial life on a feasible location also jumps out at me.

I was thinking about adding asteroid deflection, but didn't really want to see another load of Br*c* W*ll*s posts. Asteroid deflection would only work given at least two decades lead time. It'd probably require an Orion platform carrying dozens of investigators to determine which if any of the suggested deflection strategies was workable.

Non-human artifacts or non-microbial life would be sufficient if they were on Mars or closer--beyond that, we'd have to use nuclear propulsion to get there, and that's probably only going to get the nod if the alternative is the destruction of the species. There's an unreasonably large number of people who'd opt against it even then.