So do you think N.A.S.A. is taking a step back in technology when they retire the space shuttles in 2010?

Question

Or do you think going back to rockets will be better in the long run?

Answer 1

The shuttle followed a concept that looked great on paper, was hyped as commercially viable, but ultimately failed to achieve much of what it was intended to do.  It did not make space travel cheap and accessible.

It is a rocket.  For the 1970s it was a very advanced and radically new way of thinking about rockets.  Now after years of experience, we realize that the risks of radical design outweigh the benefits.  There is a limit to how much reusability improves space flight.

Its computers are not really old.  The shuttle avionics have been steadily updated throughout its lifetime, including replacing its AP-101 flight computers with the AP-101S.  The principal criterion for critical spaceborne computing is reliability, not modernity.

The real problems with the space shuttle are those that have always been its problems:  its sheer complication, and its delicate thermal protection system.  As part of NASA's compromise to get the shuttle, all the military launch vehicle programs were canceled.  That mean the military had to use NASA's shuttle.  So they imposed lots of requirements and constraints on the shuttle's specifications in order to make it suitable, if necessary, for military missions.  The short, stubby wings, for example, to provide cross-range landing capability in the case of a once-around abort with a sensitive payload.  Although the military never really used the space shuttle, and its expendable rocket programs were restarted, the design compromises and cost-cutting really doomed the shuttle to being forever expensive and dangerous to operate.

Although the problematic orbiters will be retired, the STS propulsion systems will live on in the Aries rocket family.  These are the only human-rated rocket elements in the U.S. fleet right now.  They've been carefully refined to be quite reliable, powerful, and safe.

Answer 2

I have very mixed feelings about this decision. I do agree that it probably wasn't in NASA's best interest, but because of budget cuts. And there were problems with the space shuttles, but I don't think rockets are the future of space exploration. We need a durable reusable space exploration vehicle, and although I haven't read that much into the new ships, I am not impressed with what I hear.

And I would hardly call NASA an over-funded agencies. It takes about .06% of the budget, and look at what it has done with the money! Don't get me wrong, they get a lot of money, but they do amazing things with it.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "stick with the shuttles we have now!" but I am saying that instead of going into an entirely new space vehicle, they should research the new technologies, and upgrade the shuttles they do have. Although this might cost as much if not more than just making a new rocket.

And to be clear, the space shuttle is still a rocket, but it is a reusable vehicle unlike the rockets used during the Apollo missions. And the Columbia dissaster and Apollo 13 do not give NASA a very good record for saftey. Seeing as they are going through with this, I would really like to see them test this new craft extensively.

Answer 3

no.  i think they need a new generation of shuttles.  too many problems with the ones they have now.

Answer 4

Science is about constant learning.  The space shuttle did some things right and other things wrong.  It's time to try something different.  

Answer 5

Nope.  NASA is not a commercial endeavor.  They are there to focus on science and to spur engineering.

They can now focus on furthering rocket technology, as the commercial space tourism ventures can focus on the manned part.

Shuttle technology is old and outdated.  Let's make room for the manned flights of the future.

Answer 6

The shuttle was sold to the public as a cheap and reliable way of carrying astronauts and cargo into space.  It was neither.  It was expensive and deadly.  It should never have been built.  

Answer 7

NASA's long term goal is to have a successful manned mission to Mars. Today's technology cannot safely transport man to Mars. The human race will develope new rocket technology and a variety of advancements to travel to Mars.  

Answer 8

The "space shuttle" is a rocket.  Two solid fuel tubes and one three-engine one with an external fuel tank that's shaped like an airplane for gliding characteristics.  

But the technology that makes up the space shuttle was designed in the 1970's.  The computers are old, tried and true, but old.  Newer materials, computers and technology will be a huge advance in both safety, cost and efficiency compared with the shuttle system.  That is to say....safe and efficient in terms of NASA, a bloated, bureaucratic, overfunded, government organization that has a very poor ability to change directions, respond to new innovations, and take advantage of new technologies.

It is difficult and dangerous to get humans into space and back alive.  17 dead NASA astronauts can attest to that.  Close calls, other than Apollo 13, are so numerous that they are just considered part of the territory and risks that just have "to be endured."

But looking at the ideas and capabilities of private companies with relatively limited budgets and resources makes you wonder....If they can do so much with so little, what could they do if they had NASA's billions???

In response to the other answers, NASA is retiring the shuttle fleet because they were ORDERED to do so by the Congress, not because of Bush's "budget cuts".  NASA's budget NEVER gets cut. They may not get as much as they want, but what government organization does?  Congress does not want to see another seven astronauts and multibillion dollar shuttle coming apart in the atmosphere as two of the 5 shuttles have done.  NASA has to be forced to move forward.  The shuttle NEVER lived up to its promise of being a "space truck", capable flying 100 flights apiece and of being launched every two weeks.  At that rate, the international space station could have been built in a year, not the decade plus that it will take.  The shuttles were supposed to be cheap, in the range of 25 million per flight since they were "reusable".  The actual cost per flight is somewhere between one half and one billion dollars.  The number of flights is more like 4 to 5 a year rather than 26 a year, as was promised.  AND, after 35 years of development, they STILL haven't gotten something as "simple" as the insulation on the external fuel tank right.   The shuttle should have been retired by 1990 when it was obvious it would never do the job that had been expected.  Billions of dollars of shuttle money could have gone into new technologies and new, better ideas.  We could have already had the ISS complete.  We could be back on the Moon now and ready to go to MARS.

Over a decade ago, NASA started making a number of their science launches "fast and cheap", using new technology and giving up the desire to put everything, including a kitchen sink, on every science satellite that went exploring.  Had that kind of thinking, along with a primary concern of safety, gone into human space flight, we could have been much further along in a number of areas, for the money we've spent.

Answer 9

Trust me. They have suppressed much higher level and efficient aerospace technologies.  

Answer 10

Yes, its sad, but they didn't had the choice due to their budget cuts since Bush is at the head of the state

Answer 11

the space shuttle set us back in tech. we should have kept going to the moon and set up a base.

Answer 12

1) The space shuttle IS a rocket.

The SST is not like an airplane.  The SST requires rocket power to boost it into orbit. The SST engines are used only to boost it into orbit, and as retro rockets to stop its orbit and allow it to return to earth.  Other than that, the SST is a GLIDER when it is in the earth's atmosphere. The SST does not "fly" using it's own power.

2) The Space Shuttle is based on 1970's technology, with upgrade when and if technology permits.  Because of this, the SST is WILDLY outdated.

3) The use of rockets to supply the Space Station is based on robotic technology -- the rockets fly themselves and dock to the space station automatically.  This has already been done!  This is absolutely a step forward.

4) Moon and Mars missions will require significant advances in rocket technology.  Rockets are REQUIRED to get there.  Of course, to fly in space requires a rocket.  But the moon has no atmosphere, and Mars has very little, so an airplane-like ship is useless.  An updated version of the Moon Lander is much more appropriate.

At this point, the Space Shuttle is approaching 40 years old.  Without a serious redesign, it is approaching the point that safety is a major concern.  But future mission objective don't support the need for an aitrplane-like craft, so spending the money to re-develop the SST is a waste of taxpayers' fund . . .  and the taxpayers are already complaining that NASA spends too much!