Why is nasa still being cheap and risking lives of men and women by using 30 yr old space shuttles?

Question

challenger columbia whats the next one to blow up

Answer 1

NASA is being cheap?  NASA can spend only the money that the President and Congress put into the budget.

.

Answer 2

The age of the space crafts has nothing to do with the possibility of them "blowing up".  Brand new shuttles would've exploded just the same if similar problems existed with them.  Space travel is necessary.  Some day we will exhaust the Earth's resources and we'll need to colonize another hospitable planet (or make one hospitable).  It's a necessary evil.  You might as well also ask why do we have firefighters and police risking their lives?  We don't truly need them but to be a civilized society and better ourselves, their existence is crucial.

Answer 3

They have had no money to do anything else. Partly a problem with lack of funding, and partly a problem with priorities, flushing gigabucks down ISS that could do far more useful things.

Answer 4

The first and only thing that came to mind as I read this question is that you shouldn't compare the shuttles with Pontiacs or Buicks.

Answer 5

They're being cheap because congress has not voted them the funding to be profligate, as they consistently have done for the military. If you're interested in changing this sad state of affairs, I recommend that you write to your representatives in Washington.

Answer 6

first, they run checks, and replace parts often

2nd they've designed a new one, they're pretty expensive you know, you want them to double your taxes

Answer 7

there was absolutely nothing wrong with the Challenger.  It was the thrice-bedamned solid boosters that caused the explosion.

Answer 8

Need I remind you that Columbia was an accident?  And that Challenger was an organizational s***w-up?  Neither had anything to do with the flight worthiness of the vehicles themselves.

I wouldn't call it "cheap".  Yes, it's true that the Shuttles are well beyond their projected lifespans.  Victims of their own success, really.  Part of what's up is the Shuttle program has a HUGE amount of inertia - think of it like a big, rolling rock.  It's not something we can just switch off tomorrow.  Well...  we could...  but then there'd be a lot of unemployed people, facilities that we'll need would not be getting kept up, ...  a number of other very undesirable consequences.

It has not escaped people's notice that the Shuttles are old and need a lot of servicing to keep them flightworthy.  Please be assured that it's not like we put them in a hangar somewhere, dust them off and roll them out for each flight.  There is a meticulous certification of flight readiness process that we go through for every single flight.

Answer 9

It isn't NASA that is being cheap, but the U.S. Federal government and, by extension, the U.S. taxpayer!

We're too busy wasting our money on other things to spend it on space.

Answer 10

2 failures in 120 flights is a 1.66% failure rate.

Not bad considering what they're doing.  I'd sure as h**l take my chances with those odds if someone offered me a seat.

Answer 11

They are working on the next generation.  It takes about 10 years to design a space shuttle.

Answer 12

Perhaps they are learning to live within their budgetary allowances.  I realize that would be a novel approach for the government but why ditch an aircraft that is sound and can be retrofitted with the newer electronics that it needs.  The Shuttles were made to be reused and will be retired starting in 2010 with Orion being ready to go in 2014, problems not withstanding.

Answer 13

It all comes down to funding.  No funding until now to produce another manned launch vehicle.  To ensure funding to develop the new vehicle, the Space Shuttle has to be retired in 2010.  NASA doesn't have the budget to develop many large programs and operate them at that same time.

Answer 14

you wanna provide the funds to create new shuttles?

didn't think so...

"Still, I'll go a million miles in a 30 year old shuttle over a million miles in a 2008 Ford car anytime."

lmao i'll remember that one forever....

Answer 15

NASA's not the one to blame here.

Their budget gets smaller and smaller.

Still, I'll go a million miles in a 30 year old shuttle over a million miles in a 2008 Ford car anytime.

Answer 16

Challenger blew up.  Columbia did not blow up.  It disintegrated upon reentry due to a hole in the tiles at the leading edge of the wing. Space flight is always risky.  They have tons of highly explosive fuel just a few feet below them upon liftoff. 2 flight disasters in 45 years is a great record.  NASA does everything they can to limit the risks to the crew, but sometimes not all risks can be avoided.