Why are the shuttles being retired?

[manlymatt83]

I just don't understand. yes, they are poorly built, but they are re-usable, and can do almost anything except land on a planet, right? So why are they retiring them entirely? Aren't they incredibly efficient for bringing things to and from earth to the ISS, for instance? Why not keep one or two around?

 

[Shawn]

because they suck. they aren't incredibly efficient at all.

 

[yhelothar]

Yup, I was surprised when I heard that the new replacements for the shuttles will probably end up being cheap one time launch rockets.

 

[So]

I just don't understand. yes, they are poorly built, but they are re-usable
and it costs more to re use them, than it would cost to build new, since they have to basically strip them down and inspect every part after every flight
and can do almost anything except land on a planet, right?
wrong, they are much less flexible than a capsule. a capsule is a piece, like a USB drive with your data on it -- attach it to different computers for different jobs. Swap out the mission module attached to it and you have a whole new spacecraft, the shuttle is more like a laptop. one integrated unit and you have to take all that weight everywhere. The shuttles can only make it to earth orbit.
So why are they retiring them entirely? Aren't they incredibly efficient for bringing things to and from earth to the ISS, for instance?
they are far less efficient than disposable rockets. The original planners thought they would be cheap, but due to design compromises forced by a shrinking nasa budget in the 70s, they weren't. They have one thing going for them, they are the only vehicles that can bring heavy things back to earth, it's just that we've found that there is very little use for that mission.
Why not keep one or two around?
For the same reasons that the saturn 5 got scrapped, unfortunately. To keep the shuttle flying you have to keep an army of people who know EVERY little detail about the craft on staff. It's not like garaging a car, and unfortunately, NASA doesn't have the budget to fly the shuttle and anything else manned.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Because it's time to find a more efficient and cost effective way to kill astronauts.

Dude... the program is almost 30 years old. Time to move on.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: mjuszczak
Aren't they incredibly efficient for bringing things to and from earth to the ISS, for instance? Why not keep one or two around?

Why would you think that? Instead of carrying an item to space you've got to carry the shuttle which carries the item, and the shuttle weighs much more than the item itself. You end up burning more weight in additional fuel than the shuttle weighs.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy


Dude... the program is almost 30 years old. Time to move on.

That in itself is a very poor reason. You can't say that it's time to move on just because the program is xx years old.

The new rocket that we'll be moving to is much more similar to the original rockets of 45 years ago than it will be to the shuttle.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Because funding for NASA's space program has been on the chopping block for years....

The biggest problem with the current shuttles is how inefficient they are. Rocket-based systems are way too wasteful. The shuttles are merely orbiters so they'll never venture too far. Because of this, they can be replaced with much lighter, more maneuverable crafts that deploy from high-flying jets.

Things that fly straight up don't take advantage of the principles of lift and flight while within the Earth's atmosphere. They just fight gravity.

 

[Eeezee]

But the shuttle looks so COOL

Yeah, it's time to go back to disposable rockets if what everyone in this thread says is true. There's no reason to continually reuse the shuttles if they're more costly and less effective.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
But the shuttle looks so COOL

O rly?

 

[SeaSerpent]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: Eeezee
But the shuttle looks so COOL

O rly?

lol

 

[0roo0roo]

meh, if obama gets elected it'll really turn to sh*t, he wants to cut nasa funding.

 

[Capt Caveman]

So, do they already have a replacement planned? Last I read, it still was being researched and I would think that they'd have a replacement planned prior to announcing the retirement of the shuttle.

 

[nwfsnake]

2009 NASA budget is about 3% of the military budget! :Q In any case, it costs more to refurb the shuttle and boosters every flight than it costs to buy a new booster for each flight. They never did get the once-a-month launch capability going.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy


Dude... the program is almost 30 years old. Time to move on.

That in itself is a very poor reason. You can't say that it's time to move on just because the program is xx years old.

The new rocket that we'll be moving to is much more similar to the original rockets of 45 years ago than it will be to the shuttle.

We do still fly B-52s, after all

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy


Dude... the program is almost 30 years old. Time to move on.

That in itself is a very poor reason. You can't say that it's time to move on just because the program is xx years old.

The new rocket that we'll be moving to is much more similar to the original rockets of 45 years ago than it will be to the shuttle.

We do still fly B-52s, after all

100 year service life ftw!

 

[dakels]

What So said is pretty much what my engineer friend at NASA told me. It's a 40 year old platform that is terribly inefficient and overly complicated. Cost per pound for deliverable payload is what is important and the shuttle's is extremely high. The next gen STS is supposedly drastically going to reduce cost per pound to space and require much less support crew.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa.../ares/aresl/index.html

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
meh, if obama gets elected it'll really turn to sh*t, he wants to cut nasa funding.

I think it was either Chris Rock or Chapelle that pointed out the simple fact that black people don't do stupid things that might kill themselves like scuba dive or go up in rockets and shit.

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: Eeezee
But the shuttle looks so COOL

O rly?

Man, I was looking through those pictures and I found this. I used to have one of those as a kid... actually I think it still might be in the basement... coolest toy ever.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: Eeezee
But the shuttle looks so COOL

O rly?

:laugh:

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: mjuszczak
I just don't understand. yes, they are poorly built, but they are re-usable, and can do almost anything except land on a planet, right? So why are they retiring them entirely? Aren't they incredibly efficient for bringing things to and from earth to the ISS, for instance? Why not keep one or two around?

when dealing with machines, the following rule holds true... even for the shuttle.


Large complex multirole machines, are inefficient, have high failure rates, and are more costly than a combination of multiple simple single purpose machines.

 

[5to1baby1in5]

Originally posted by: dakels
What So said is pretty much what my engineer friend at NASA told me. It's a 40 year old platform that is terribly inefficient and overly complicated. Cost per pound for deliverable payload is what is important and the shuttle's is extremely high. The next gen STS is supposedly drastically going to reduce cost per pound to space and require much less support crew.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa.../ares/aresl/index.html

Where are the wings?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5

Originally posted by: dakels
What So said is pretty much what my engineer friend at NASA told me. It's a 40 year old platform that is terribly inefficient and overly complicated. Cost per pound for deliverable payload is what is important and the shuttle's is extremely high. The next gen STS is supposedly drastically going to reduce cost per pound to space and require much less support crew.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa.../ares/aresl/index.html

Where are the wings?

Left on the ground, as all unnecessary heavy components should be. You get me a scramjet going and show me a vehicle that's capable of SSTO, and we'll talk.

 

[IGBT]

..more bang for the buck in un-manned exploration.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
So, do they already have a replacement planned? Last I read, it still was being researched and I would think that they'd have a replacement planned prior to announcing the retirement of the shuttle.

You can thank congress for that one.