The Space Shuttle is Retired, Now What?

[CWeb Creative]

Now that the space shuttle has been retired by the U.S. government what should we do next? Should we not have retired the space shuttle yet or should it have been done a long time ago? Should we have continued with the constellation program or should it have been scrapped on day one? Should we go to the moon, an asteroid or mars? Which direction should we go in next?

---------- Post added at 01:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

My position is that we should have never scrapped the constellation program. It had already had a successful test flight and it performed better than expected. The only thing wrong with it was that it was going back to the moon again which is not necessary. Otherwise it was a sound vehicle and a sound program that would soon be ready to take up the responsibility of the U.S. space program. What no one realizes is that for all the money we put into the space program the new tech that comes out may not make any money for the government but it sure helps our economy and we can't just stay on earth for ever we need to find other planets and other sources of resources. We can't just look five years down the road we need to look 50-100 years down the road.

 

[Darkmere]

I think one of the reasons they shut it down is because of commercial companies taking over. There is a company that already has a fleet of spacecraft to take passengers, another company that is a freight carrier will be supplying the space station, and yes the Mission to Mars will be handled by a commercial company. I think it is because NASA cannot really keep up, most of the companies handling the space travel is a lot more equip and better tech. So you know I do not know. I have mixed feelings. I also noticed it is the Commercial district that is more energetic and enthusiastic about it.

 

[CWeb Creative]

I think one of the reasons they shut it down is because of commercial companies taking over. There is a company that already has a fleet of spacecraft to take passengers, another company that is a freight carrier will be supplying the space station, and yes the Mission to Mars will be handled by a commercial company. I think it is because NASA cannot really keep up, most of the companies handling the space travel is a lot more equip and better tech. So you know I do not know. I have mixed feelings. I also noticed it is the Commercial district that is more energetic and enthusiastic about it.

The commercial companies are only going to be able to ferry cargo to the iss and fly suborbital passenger flights and thats sometime in the next 10 years. They have no plans to go anywhere farther than that like mars because its not profitable, who would pay them. NASA is far ahead and always will be because they don't have to worry about profitability. The eagerness is because no one has brought spaceflight back into the public eye like kennedy did with the moon missions. If a president could do that NASA would have all the funding they need and things would start to get done again.

 

[Smith6612]

I'm really going to miss the 90s when everything was about Space and Space Travel. Those were the days of good TV shows, movies, and imagination. These days it just seems as though we're caught up in too much of an issue with how things are financed, not so much of an issue involving the technology we have available to us. I'd love to see the push into Space Travel a bit more, as I've always been fascinated by the things Scientists have found out there in the void.

 

[cybrax]

To be honest I for one was never happy with the design, the meddling of the USAF wanting wings and the PR fiasco of the re-useable boosters were always sore points in the aerospace community. Sure spaceflight is always going to involve some risk but the fact remains both these ill concieved compromises that were forced upon NASA ultimately led to the loss of two shuttles was a hard way to learn a lesson.

Congress was right to bin the constellation program, technology will never advance by repeating previous work and I really do mean repeating. If I recall correctly as part of the conditions for the shuttle funding NASA had to destroy all the knowledge gained building the Saturn boosters and upper stages. Thirty years ago congress wanted something better than big disposable rockets because of the cost and that thinking has not changed, particulary now given the economic problems of the states.


As for the future it's interesting to see that some of the concepts dismissed by NASA over 30 years ago are now at the cutting edge. The White Knight booster/ aircraft is a classic example and SSTO craft are also once again being eyed keenly thanks to lighter electronics and advances in composite materials making them even more viable. Who knows.. NASA may pick up the pieces of the X-33 program where it left off, that aerospike engine is pretty efficient after all.

Speaking of engines another avenue to space may be the early work being done on 'Waverider' hypersonic jet engines. Lets face it if you are travelling at mach7+ over 80 miles up it only takes the pilot to sneeze and they would be in low orbit. If that seems unlikely, ask yourself then why does Boeing have a flight sim for a hypersonic transport.. pure research or being prepared?

Of course if you want engines with real muscle you have to go nuclear but that's going to be a tough sell to the public even if for instance the USAF goes public and reveals they have been flying one two for decades like they did with the stealth bombers. It's sobering to think that if the NERVA program had not been scrapped there could well be a flag on Pluto by now.

 

[Darkmere]

The commercial companies are only going to be able to ferry cargo to the iss and fly suborbital passenger flights and thats sometime in the next 10 years.

NASA states that commercial freight will be making deliveries to the ISS by next month, they stated the stocked the ISS for one year just in case the freight company has difficulties reaching the station.

 

[CWeb Creative]

NASA states that commercial freight will be making deliveries to the ISS by next month, they stated the stocked the ISS for one year just in case the freight company has difficulties reaching the station.

Ok, yes SpaceX will be able to do cargo soon but im not really talking about LEO(low earth orbit) we need to move beyond that to reinvigorate our space program. To create a mission that we can set our sights on and really go at not a general lets do something like going to an asteroid or mars. Though spacex will not be able to carry Astronauts for a while yet.

 

[kcmodc25]

Maybe they could think of a better way to enter space rather than flying straight up. Also, I'd like to see an industrial application of those "bar" thingys that held the space shuttle on to the side of the rockets, man, those brackets must be SUPER strong. In addition, did anyone ever figure out:
01. How a Boing plane was able to both take off, fly, and land, with the Space Shuttle on top of it. Seems as if the cabin would be crushed. Why don't they "double-up" on regular planes and luggage up there too? Put five tanks up there, make it military...
02. How they were able to land the space shuttle exactly at the airbase despite not having any fuel.

I personally would like to see a spacecraft shaped like an ipod with NASCAR endorsements all over it that flys to Venus and back in 5 days and then has all these "neat" pictures on it. Throw in a major disaster (like the spacecraft's AI system goes wacko and kills one of the crewmembers) and I think we have something the world can watch and say (in unison) "That's America..."

 

[cheesyisgod34]

Since NASA lost the Hypersonic Test Vehicle 2 at the start of the month and have just today announced that the James Webb telescope will be $2bn over budget, maybe they should stick to advancing science alone and leave selling space to commercial ventures.

 

[jensenajob22]

only last week a breakdown in a russian rocket meant no suplies for the crews- i agree, its not a good situation at all.

 

[Darkmere]

only last week a breakdown in a russian rocket meant no suplies for the crews- i agree, its not a good situation at all.

Not all that bad ... the last shuttle mission stocked the station with supplies to last one year just in case something like this happened

 

[fdmamo70]

I think one of the reasons they shut it down is because of commercial companies taking over. There is a company that already has a fleet of spacecraft to take passengers, another company that is a freight carrier will be supplying the space station, and yes the Mission to Mars will be handled by a commercial company. I think it is because NASA cannot really keep up, most of the companies handling the space travel is a lot more equip and better tech. So you know I do not know. I have mixed feelings. I also noticed it is the Commercial district that is more energetic and enthusiastic about it.

Yeah, I think the commercial companies are better at what NASA does than what NASA is currently capable of doing itself.

I know of at least ... oh, maybe 5 companies that have functional (if not operational, which is a whole different level, my friend) systems that can sustain ultra-long-haul space flight operations (I'm hoping they're manned, but they could be unmanned) to out-planet destinations like Mars or Jove:

• SpaceX, which have Falcon and Dragon rockets
• Armadillo, I believe literally named after the "boy scout mobiles" from Armageddon.
• Scaled Composites has a functioning prototype that of a SS1 like spaceplane that can hit escape Vees.
• Rocketdyne. Yes, THAT Rocketdyne, from Apollo-era fame. They built the Saturn V after all.
• and Lockheed Martin is working on yet another black-budget USAF spaceplane, I've been told.

Don't ask me where I got the info from. This conversation never happened.

By the way, Darkmere, you have an awesome website. I wonder what CMS you used?

I digress.

In any case, NASA should either get with the (commercial) program or get out of the way altogether. I'm not a big fan of big gov't, but I'll keep politics to a minimum. Thank you.

 

[theone48]

The problem with commercialization is exploitation. Our modern world is domineered by big business and see where it has got us? We've built a world where wealth of material posessions decides our standard of living. And yet, no matter how rich we are, our troubles and life worries have grown instead of decreasing.

There is nothing wrong with commercial companies venturing into space, what's wrong is when companies are allowed to do as they feel, unregulated. Businessmen are no different than politicians, they only love money more and unlike politicians, they are not controllable by popular vote. Politicians themselves appear controlled by them.

As to what's going to happen now that the shuttle is gone? It's the moon, then mars I guess. Which is all well and good, but let's not forget in the meantime that there is still earth and while we go spending billions trying to figure ways to make other planets habitable, we recklessly pay little heed to the value of life on this planet. Let's face it: no matter how we may be able to live on any other planet, there is no place else in the known universe to date where we can to go outside, strip ourselves down to our swimsuits and splash into an ocean of water, all while breathing true (unfiltered, untanked) air, feeling the real sun (not an artificial UV source) on our skins, and drinking fresh water from a cloud (not refiltered urine). It becomes hypocrisy to me when we'd admire living in a prison (which is what a biosphere/space station environment is like) where we'd scrimp for the tiniest scrap of earthly life-sustaining necessity; while at the same time degrading the freedom of a planet where we truly have everything at our fingertips, yet seem to take it for granted.

While other planets may exist for us to habitate and exploit, this is the only planet where we can live life as we know it. I'm all for exploration, but not exploitation; not by commercial companies, politicians, or the inebriate neighbor that litters beer cans in the middle of the night on the other side of neighbors' fence because having no sense of responsability, he thinks he's a big shot and wants to spite his neighbor, any time he can get away with it. Sorry, for digressing from the topic but I've put in my two cents; now back to you.

 

[zeldaprajihd45]

I think that NASA is the example of how bad taxes are spent thanks to them many companies that tried to compete in putting satelites in orbit went broke because NASA can loose money it has a huge budget right? Well I bet telecom companies LOVE NASA BECAUSE SATELITES PUT IN ORBIT BY NASA ARE 5.% CHEAPER.

 

[fdmamo70]

I think that NASA is the example of how bad taxes are spent thanks to them many companies that tried to compete in putting satelites in orbit went broke because NASA can loose money it has a huge budget right? Well I bet telecom companies LOVE NASA BECAUSE SATELITES PUT IN ORBIT BY NASA ARE 5.% CHEAPER.

May I ask a favor of you, please, sir? I'd hate to be disrespectful, but please take an English language class, and at least attend any dates when they discuss syntax and grammar (especially the punctuation parts). I'd hate to be the first to admit having such a conception in my mind, but when I read some of your forums postings, I get the willies because (a) the three posts I've read, which were of yours, were all attacking some US government office, if not the US government itself (I'm a patriotic citizen of the USA whom was barred from service for only the dumbest reason: I have high-functioning autism. Good for those loonies who wrote that BS rule that autistic folks can't serve. Heck, even homosexual people can serve...); (b) your English is really bad on some of your postings; and (c) You're replying with searing sarcasm to practically all the posts in crossfire. From a casual observer on the outside, looking in, it appears the forums are being spammed by a guy whom can't write straight...

Now for my other reasons for replying to the posting (the second time through): NASA is not an investment. It's an endeavor, and exploration into the unknown. Anyone who's been through business school or started and run a business startup knows that there is a difference between a copycat venture and entrerpeneurism. NASA is like the second. In copycat ventures, you take a tried and true system (known as "turnkey") and plug in certain custom variables, and then make fast money for a short period of time and then closing shop and starting over in another tried and true standardized industry. (That's why these are known as "fly by night" operations...)

On the other hand, explorations, endeavorers, and entrepreneurs all have one thing in common, if not more: they take something that's never been done, do it, and if they can get a reward, good, if not, they lose money. And some explorers also lose their lives, so I woudn't want to be the first to slander the E jobs. (Plus I happen to be an entrepreneur myself...)

So, NASA is an exploere; functions much the same way as an entreprneurial venture that will take centuries to ROI.

So, furthermore, don't smack NASA, because their startup phase just so happens to require a longer and (smaller?) IRR and a profit margin that is currently very puny.

But if we keep them around, in 2500 CE they might bring back knowledge of another advanced civilization in the far reaches of the Milky Way, or at least such civilization's technological prowess, and we'll all benefit.

Besides, NASA also happens to be a massive beta tester of the very technologies we take for granted... You're using a NASA tech to read my posting, right now. It's your computer.

Have a nice day.