No NASA!!! WHY!?!?

[tenguzero]

DAMMIT! It's being reported now that NASA has again grounded all upcoming planned flights, including one scheduled for September. Why? You guessed it... issues with the F'ing foam. Again. They're disclosing now that they have footage of foam blowing off the fuel tank during the takeoff of Discovery. Two and a half years and a BILLION dollars later, and they're seemingly back to square one. What was all that money spent on? It doesn't even look like they addressed the damn problem. It's obviously THE FUEL TANK that is the major concern, not the shuttle. If this foam is obviously a major threat, why in the hell are they still using it? Is there no other material that would do the job? Why wasn't this a problem in the past? Obviously this one is a troubling failure at best.

Face it NASA -- the end has come for the current shuttle fleet and its aging design. The X-prize has been taken, small ventures have proven they have the ability to succeed, and nothing short of a complete and thorough overhaul will be acceptable to get the space program bacl on track. At this rate, they'll still be "testing" new shuttle redesigns when the 2010 retirement hits. Space exploration is vital to 21st century science, and it's time we get our heads out of our asses as a country and move on. New space vehicles, new alternative fuels, and new avenues for scientific and medical exploration MUST be realized.

To put it bluntly: We (the U.S.) need to stop bullshitting ourselves with fossil fuels, outdated shuttles, and handicapped stem-cell research programs. Evolution is the key to our future success in these scientific endeavors, and right now, we're just a T-Rex watching like an idiot as the Meteorite closes in.

[Gotti]

How come they're still using the same old like 30-40 year old shuttles?

Isnt it about time to redesign those bitches, and make new ones?

[MagicRat]

There are several problems here.
1. The shuttle will be scrapped; this has been scheduled already.
There are several alternatives; a better vehicle or another technology, such as 'space elevators' nanotube ribbons linked to orbiting platforms, where a load can be elevated into space. It can be done right now, its just hugely expensive.

2. Why do we need people in space? The fabulously successful space probes (Cassini, Deep Impact, Hubble, the Mars Rovers, and before that the Voyager, Pioneer, Viking and Mariner series) have proved that putting people in space is not necessary; its just an expensive publicity stunt....like the International Space Station.
People in space is far too dangerous and expensive to be pratical.

[KustmAce]

Lets just let the nerdy billionares with a lot of free time do the work. Save the government a few bucks.

[sivic02]

We have freaking civillians making things that can send people into space and bring them back safely yet a government organization cant do the same?

[Rally Sport]

I dont get how this stuff fails when its suppost to be superior to the first ones that went up (With people and made it back) Hell the first ones suceeded more than these do it seems.

[Broke_as_****]

The importance of having people in space is largely scientic, having them there to conduct experiments on how zero gravity and an isolated environment affects, just as an example, cancer treatment. It is also valuable as a study of how zero gravity affects humans and how to create safe, sustainable environments in space, both of which will be vital for any sort of larger step out into space. The problem with vehicles such as the Mars Rovers is that they can't really do that much in comparison to humans. They have been designed to do a hell of a lot and are exceeding all expectations but a geologist on the ground could accomplish in a week or two what would take the rovers months or even years. And then humanity could say "Yeah, we got dibs on three astral bodies now" which is pretty cool.

The comparison of NASA and other government space agencies vs the privateers is hardly apt. The only private rocket that has made it to space, that I am aware of, was the one that won the X-prize a while back for doing so. Even then, it barely scrapped the outside of the atmosphere before returning to earth, while NASA has had sustained research labs in space all the way back into the 70s I believe with the Skylab series of space craft. Comparing a massive endevour like the international space station vs a private rocket is like comparing a top fuel dragster to a friday night hot rod.

While I whole heartedly agree the shuttles need to be replaced with new air frames (space frames?) or new designs, the sad fact of the matter is that NASA for all it's billions is still vasty underfunded for what they are trying to accomplish.

As for who shoot foot the bill? I say Haliburton, surely Cheney has made enough money by now to buy a space shuttle or two.

[tenguzero]

There's so many factors here, and yet it's obvious that whatever we put forth, has most likely already been considered in some way or another over the last half a century.

The private companies indeed can't compare to NASA in respect to getting the job done themselves -- it's in concert with NASA where I'm saying they will shine. Why let an organization like NASA, who's obviously too big and seemingly too cumbersome, particularly over the last generation, do all the heavy work? Farm it out to the private firms! With their lower profiles and closer knit working communities, you can be sure they'll put a lot more TLC into whatever it is they produce, plus it creates jobs and injects some always welcome funds into the private sector. This has the added benefit of a natural responsibility system: If a part fails or won't play ball, the individual who produced the piece can be called to task, and they'll have a very intimate knowledge of the equipment. Obviously NASA's own engineers will be just as privy to specs and design plans of the whole ship as they are now, the difference is the private company who constructed a system is now an added bonus in terms of inspection and repair, since they know it in and out. Additionally, by farming jobs out to private companies, NASA is distributing funds in a way that is more palatable to the public at large.

As far as why these newer systems seem far more glitchy than the older ones, the answer lies in the equipment we're utilizing. A shuttle, its fuel tank, and the solid boosters that propel it skyward, then disconnect to parachute back to Earth for reuse is a system that's inherently more involved than the older designs. Before the shuttle program, American astronauts were sent into space strapped into a tiny pod mounted to the front of a Saturn rocket. We were, for all intents and purposes, strapping a couple human beings to the front of a missile and shooting it into space -- as long as the boosters maintained stability and the stages fell apart when designed, they were headed straight up regardless. On re-entry, their job was, for the most part, to sit there and plummet back to Earth, being able to do little more than monitor the descent, and insure that various automated systems were responding when they were supposed to. During space flight, the astronauts concerns lay with maintaining trajectory, adjusting the ship as necessary and, when there WAS a guided landing, it was essentially a mission to plunk a craft down onto an extraterrestrial body with a third the gravity of Earth and no atmosphere. Obviously none of this was easy, but compared to today's missions involving moonwalks, a multi-system launch design, performing controlled somersaults and rolls to precisely dock with another body travelling tens of thousands of miles per hour, and then bringing the whole vessel screaming back into the atmosphere while maintaining the stability and velocity required to land the thing on a runway, now the missions of old seem a bit less involved.

This brings me back to my last point: why is NASA still wasting their time and resources with the aging and soon-to-be-retired shuttle fleet? I think (HOPE) this nagging safety issue is the kick in the pants they need to retire the fleet half a decade early and begin work on new vehicles. Unfortunately, the catch is that they can't just up and retire it all, as we'd be left with a multi-billion dollar international investment orbiting above us, and no way to get our people there. So, they really HAVE to limp on with the program, because either they continue on, spending more money on addressing concerns for a fleet that only has half a decade left (and getting badgered by the public for it) or abandoning the whole thing and starting early on the new program -- leaving the incomplete and under-utilized massive financial investment that is the ISS floating around up there doing nothing (and getting badgered by the public for it.)

My solution? NASA immediately gets to work in solving the problem with the insulation for the fuel tank in order to get the fleet back in action as soon as possible (and AT LEAST give us a tentative deadline, instead of the highly discouraging "grounded indefinately") it seems to me that this foam issue is the chief concern, and with it out of the way, they can continue on. Meanwhile, they start collecting design ideas from private companies, shopping around to see who can produce what for what price in what period of time. The result of this is two-fold: first, NASA is at least making progress in a forward direction (not to mention it doesn't cost much to brainstorm and gather propostions) and second, NASA "shopping around" is still giving the taxpayers SOMETHING, which is better than NOTHING -- and that helps maintain a good face with the general public, not to mention the fact that by involving private companies, NASA is in essence involving us, the public.

[DVS LT1]

The space shuttles were designed to complete/last through 100 missions, each.

I don't think a single shuttle has even gotten up to 25 missions. This fleet does seem awfully out of date. I've heard of replacement through attrition but this is getting rediculous... one blows up two decades ago, one disintegrates upon re-entry a few years back, now a third looks dangerously close to following the same fate.

Imagine what the astronauts are feeling right now. I would have been shitting bricks just going up that first time since the last accident. But now that they have to "fix" the shuttle before coming down???? I'll say a prayer for those people before they come back.

[AlmostStock]

Now NASA is saying shuttles will be grounded at least until March.

They also are planning to cut back on the number of flights expected before shuttle retirement, down from about 28 to about 15. If nothing else at least this should save us some money.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4163908.stm

[fredjacksonsan]

I won't quote all of the references, but:

Shuttles are better than the old Apollo/Gemini capsules for 2 very big reasons:

Payload and Reusability. The shuttle has been likened to a space truck, hauling large and heavy items to space.

It's also reusable, which saves billions.

Turning things over to private enterprise is a good idea, but it's quite a bit early to do so, considering that so far private enterprise has only put one person with NO payload, into space. (Kudos for that, gotta love the Rutans!)

That's the upside. The downside is that the shuttle is, and has to be, quite complex. This complexity is contributing directly to the lack of durability we're seeing. Reducing the number of missions each shuttle will be used for shows that they are not aging or lasting as well as hoped. Remember that each space flight is really a test flight, and although there is much data collected each time, there are still elements of each flight that are very very new.

Another downside, is that the shuttle is the most complex machine ever made by man. Each part is precision crafted and made to order. The bad part is that many of the parts used are supplied by the lowest bidder. It's not like your car...if the AC fails in your car, you open the windows. In space, you have to have backup systems for everything, and sometimes backups to backups for a system.

So complexity, lowest bidder, and durability issues are the things that are cutting the shuttle's time short. But at present, it's still the best tool for hauling stuff into space.

[tenguzero]

Very true about the advantages to the shuttles (they are currently the only platform capable of completing the ISS.)

I honestly feel though, that private enterprise could really outpace NASA if handled correctly. Yes they've only put on person into low orbit, but they did it on a shoestring budget (compared to what NASA has at their disposal.) Could you imagine the possibilites combining NASA's existing body of half a century of knowledge, with the spirit and less complicated management/engineering structure of a small enterprise? It's like I noted earlier -- if you have smaller companies each tackling individual parts of the overall project, which itself is overseen by NASA, then you've essentially got TWO sources for production and analysis of the new shuttle's parts. Sure, the thing will still be complicated-as-all-hell, but at least you're breaking that one large complicated thing, all of which is essentially under the analysis of one large body, into one large complicated thing, broken up into smaller sections that are independently maintained (the individual enterprises) but yet still tied together by one unifying body (NASA.) And of course, a new design will (by default) be at once more complicated, and yet more simplified, as the suttles are really based on a 30 year-old platform. I mean, just look at the difference between probes scheduled for upcoming launch, and their predecessors of just a handful of years ago. Moore's Law at it again!