Why are the shuttles being retired?

[rudder]

NASA has exhausted the supply of 8086 cpu's from Ebay.

 

[Chloraseptic]

don't forget that nasa's itinerary is now shifting towards lunar landings and mars landings, something the shuttle is incapable of doing.

i don't understand why everyone is hating on the shuttle so much though. it's the most complex machine man has ever created, and more importantly, nasa wanted a reusable vehicle that could bring payloads into space such as satellites or for construction projects such as mir/iss. the shuttle has done its job beautifully.

also, about ares/constellation requiring less of a work force...that's what it's being designed for, but also, shuttle was supposed to have less of a work force than apollo, and look how that's turned out. it's 3-4 times the size...

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: 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.

I know Ralfie May had a really good bit about "Cooba Divin" sorta related to this .... frickin great comic. Though I think I like Chapelle's humor ever so slightly more.

 

[thehstrybean]

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

The Orion looks kick ass...Can't wait to see that...

The shuttle would be nice if it wasn't so expensive.

Besides, we have the Orion and Prometheus...They can defend us, rail guns and all...

 

[sao123]

Direct 2.0 is a much cheaper and safer alternative to the Aries I / Aries V system. I hope someone at NASA finally pulls their collective heads out of their asses.

Aries isnt even fully designed and it already has problems.

 

[Insomniator]

Are there any statistics about how reliable the shuttles actually were? Of course the accidents are remembered but I'd be curious to know how many total flights the shuttles have made.

Also, if the moon lander was really just as powerful as a calculator or whatever, I feel like we should have something better than the ISS as far as space technology goes. Unless I am underestimating what that station can do.

 

[PingSpike]

I was going to come in here and make a sarcastic remark about the shuttle getting poor gas mileage...but it turns out the remark would not have been sarcastic at all.

 

[nwfsnake]

So far, the shuttles have about a 1% failure rate (catastrophic).

 

[freegeeks]

you guys should do what we Europeans do, buy your space vehicles from the Russians

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mjuszczak
I just don't understand. yes, they are poorly built,

The shuttle is the most complicated vehicle ever built by humans. It is anything but poorly built.

but they are re-usable,

Not as much as hoped for. They have to be fully inspected and rebuilt after every mission, which negates the original purpose of being reusable.

and can do almost anything except land on a planet, right?

They land on the earth.

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?

No. Unmanned rockets are much more efficient for that task.

The fact is that the shuttle is essentially confined to LEO, and we're going back to the moon and beyond.

 

[Brainonska511]

Also, if the moon lander was really just as powerful as a calculator or whatever, I feel like we should have something better than the ISS as far as space technology goes. Unless I am underestimating what that station can do.

Only so much weight can be moved into space at one time, hence the modular construction of the ISS. Additionally, the radiation levels at that altitude are much higher, so it is better to use larger process sized computer chips (and thus, slower chips) since they are more resilient to the radiation.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Also, if the moon lander was really just as powerful as a calculator or whatever, I feel like we should have something better than the ISS as far as space technology goes. Unless I am underestimating what that station can do.

Only so much weight can be moved into space at one time by the shuttle, hence the modular construction of the ISS. Additionally, the radiation levels at that altitude are much higher, so it is better to use larger process sized computer chips (and thus, slower chips) since they are more resilient to the radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...national_Space_Station

Skylab was sent up in one launch on what would be considered the classic heavy lifter rocket (Saturn V) and had 2/3 of the space that the ISS has.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Why don't they just tie a big rope to the back of the shuttle.....send it up to the space station and tie the rope off there? That way, they can simply pull any supplies they need in the space station up with the rope.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: mjuszczak
Topic Title: Why are the shuttles being retired?

Because U.S. has no business being in space anymore.

Third World Countries don't fly.

 

[Baked]

At this rate, no human will get out of the solar system in this century. I think earth will get destroy Titan A.E. style, but w/o any survivors.

 

[Nyati13]

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?

They are really old, and starting to come apart. It's getting too dangerous to keep using them. They aren't being retired early, there was supposed to be a 2nd generation shuttle that would replace the 1st gen about 10 years ago ( or so ), the 1st gen shuttles are serving many years longer than they were designed for.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Why don't they just tie a big rope to the back of the shuttle.....send it up to the space station and tie the rope off there? That way, they can simply pull any supplies they need in the space station up with the rope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: sao123
Direct 2.0 is a much cheaper and safer alternative to the Aries I / Aries V system. I hope someone at NASA finally pulls their collective heads out of their asses.

Aries isnt even fully designed and it already has problems.

Direct 2 would be a conversion of the present ET tank, but no real advance in technology.
It cannot be modified enough to make it more than a minimal lift to ISS service carrier.
We can't reinforce the tank structure without overly costly redesign to even strap on motor sets, and even then you
still have to add a second stage and a capsule, service module, and LAS to make it
semi-functional.
It would take longer to mod all those parts then to build from a clean sheet paper, and even then it woulld cost more.
The stack-up to make it work would be too tall for early flight directional stability, and the resultant payload wouldn't cut it.

Aries has a long way to go, but it would beat any derivative EELV concept into space.

 

[Aikouka]

We need to start getting some ideas from Gundam!

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Why don't they just tie a big rope to the back of the shuttle.....send it up to the space station and tie the rope off there? That way, they can simply pull any supplies they need in the space station up with the rope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

I wonder how long until we build one of these. 2030, maybe?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Why don't they just tie a big rope to the back of the shuttle.....send it up to the space station and tie the rope off there? That way, they can simply pull any supplies they need in the space station up with the rope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

I wonder how long until we build one of these. 2030, maybe?

I'm betting 2050s...

 

[dakels]

Originally posted by: thehstrybean

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

The Orion looks kick ass...Can't wait to see that...

The shuttle would be nice if it wasn't so expensive.

Besides, we have the Orion and Prometheus...They can defend us, rail guns and all...

What is that from? Reminds me of a video game or something.. like wing commander?

Anyways, the new ares platform looks like the old SRB's on the shuttle because... that's basically what they are.

Someone mentioned the catastrophic failure rate for these. You have to admit 1% is pretty good considering we are basically blowing people into space. It's a controlled bomb with an absurd amount of complex parts and dozens if not hundreds of different engineering and mechanical teams and contractors coming together to make a successful launch and retrieval. It's really quite amazing. It's too bad the failures are such a public catastrophe and also bad timing like challenger.

Sort of like air plane crashes. They are rare yet everyone remembers them because they are usually very remarkable catastrophic events.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: dakels

Originally posted by: thehstrybean

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

The Orion looks kick ass...Can't wait to see that...

The shuttle would be nice if it wasn't so expensive.

Besides, we have the Orion and Prometheus...They can defend us, rail guns and all...

What is that from? Reminds me of a video game or something.. like wing commander?

Anyways, the new ares platform looks like the old SRB's on the shuttle because... that's basically what they are.

Someone mentioned the catastrophic failure rate for these. You have to admit 1% is pretty good considering we are basically blowing people into space. It's a controlled bomb with an absurd amount of complex parts and dozens if not hundreds of different engineering and mechanical teams and contractors coming together to make a successful launch and retrieval. It's really quite amazing. It's too bad the failures are such a public catastrophe and also bad timing like challenger.

Sort of like air plane crashes. They are rare yet everyone remembers them because they are usually very remarkable catastrophic events.

Granted, there were many fewer launches, but the saturn V had a 100% success rate.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: 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.

Contrary to popular belief, launching rockets from aircraft doesn't save much fuel at all. In addition you'd be limited to very small rockets.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: 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.

But you said "next gen STS". The STS is the space shuttle.