Why doesn't NASA just replace their crippled fleet of space shuttle with new space shuttles?

Question

besides the fact that US gouverment has cut back on funding on nasa's space program and it cost a lot to construct new ones.

Answer 1

Thats basically your answer with the war in Iraq and money being aided for research and development of newer and better planes and weapons for the military theres not a lot left for the NASA group to get their funding to build a new space vehicle.

Answer 2

You have a 1975 AMC Gremlin.  It is a POS.  Would you replace it with another AMC Gremlin even if it was built in 2008?

The Space Shuttle cost a fortune to develop in the hopes that it would be cheaper to operate.  Not counting the two orbiters lost and the associated loss of space revenue (and not to mention the loss of life), it was more expensive to send up a shuttle and refurbish it than it was to use an expendable Ariane or Delta booster (which pose considerably less risk to life).

Answer 3

The Shuttle is a 1960-70s design and has served it's purpose.  As it is (was) they each cost in the neighborhood of two billion dollars each and that's not even in today's money.  The Shuttle has proved to be unreliable, delicate, very expensive to operate and deadly.  Some say that each flight today cost as much a two billion dollars each just to launch.

.

It was originally to be launched almost weekly by NASA and the Air Force (and launch cost was estimated with these numbers) but the most flights NASA has ever been able to loft was five in one given year.

.

The Shuttle is being replaced by a dual launch system with safety a priority. A launch escape system is included for the manned vehicle.  They will no longer launch people and cargo with the same vehicle.

.

.

Answer 4

Eh, sorry, all terrible things are always about drugs, s*x, or money. It isn't drugs or s*x.

Answer 5

The same reason you don't go out and buy a 747.

Can't afford it.

Answer 6

I think you've got most of your answer there.

Also, the Shuttle was never a particularly efficient or safe vehicle.  I mean both major accidents were due to design flaws which wouldn't have been issues if they hadn't taken the basic approach that they took.  The Shuttle never made sense, and people realize that now.  

It's just that in the 70s it just seemed so COOL.

Answer 7

The shuttle fleet is actually being retired by the end of 2010.  That is one of the main reasons you will see a increase in shuttle launches this year... and in the next two years to come.  After the fleet is retired, there will be a period of time where the US will not have an active space program while the next vehicle is behing developed and we want to complete as much of the space station as we can.

The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL is working on the next generation rocket now, but it is coming under a lot of fire for both technical and budgetary reasons.  Many are saying that we can modify current rocket technology to be used as a launch platform.

Either way they go it appears that they are looking at a layout similar to the origonal Appolo missions as this is both more cost effective and with the crew above the rocket and not attached to the side of it, there is no risk of foam, etc... hitting the vehicle.

I don't know an exact time of the shuttle replacement, but I thought the goal was sometime in 2012.

Hope this helps answer your question.

Answer 8

I think that they're developing a new project to replace their space shuttle fleet. Not Sure though

Answer 9

They are replacing the Shuttle orbiters

with....rockets.

Space exploration will be performed by

the Orion/Constellation Crew Exploration Vehicle.

The shuttle was too expensive to operate.

Answer 10

Because of the fact that US government has cut back on funding on nasa's space program and it cost a lot to construct new ones. Plus I wish somebody could tell me why we even have a space shuttle. It seems to me that we have a space shuttle to service the international space station. And we have an space station so the shuttle will have someplace to go. Ridiculous. We'd be on our way to mars by now with some common sense.

Answer 11

$$$$$

Answer 12

It is both a reason of money, goals, and technology.

The space shuttle was designed to be a "space truck," to ferry payloads to and from low earth orbit. In fact, since that is the only place it can go, they need a new vehicle regardless to get back to the moon and mars. At the beginning, many launches had a primary focus on launching satellites. However, as costs mounted it started transitioning to science tasks as the powers that be started to accept the fact it was just going to be a very expensive program and satellites could be launched on unmanned rockets for much less cost.

The shuttle ended up having a lot of safety issues because of it's position on the SIDE of the launch stack. Nearly every other launch system, save for the Russian Buran shuttle, has the vehicle/payload on top. It doesn't help that many of the shuttle systems are very fragile and require delicate care and the majority of the cost for the shuttle comes from payroll for the large number of maintenance workers.

However, the shuttle does have some unique capabilities that no other vehicle, current or planned, has. Namely returning heavy payloads (like satellites, experiments) from space. The new vehicles will use a combination of Apollo era design patterns with modern and shuttle influenced technology. They also haven't built a shuttle in almost 20 years. Even then when they built Endeavour they used a lot of spare parts and extras, it would be very expensive to restart production basically from scratch.