I saw the UT story about the Constellation program having the usual administrative birth pangs -- delays, over-budget, etc. I'm a fan of the shuttle and always have been, but I'm not opposed to upgrading our capabilities. However, I have one issue that I wanted to put on the debate table just to see how other space enthusiasts feel...

Should we keep the Shuttle system operational until Constellation is ready?

I think we should. It's proven, reliable and we know it works. Why stop our exploration of space, the maintenance of the Hubble and ISS and other "shuttle projects" while we work the kinks out of the new system? I feel we should keep the shuttle going while we work on Constellation. I know that would be double-budgeting, but we may be able to overcome that if we slow down on shuttle missions after 2010 and use them to do necessary things like ferry people and cargo to ISS or deliver probes into space. I'm sure I'm missing many facets of the discussion which is why I wanted to see how others view this. Thanks.

I agree with you with a different twist. If the Constellation is slowed down, we should continue to use the shuttle.

Right now isn't really a good time for double budgeting it seems...

Although we've gotten away with moving faster in the past, I think doing so now could prove disastrous. The shuttle IS due for replacement. But not if the replacement isn't ready- it's as simple as that.

Part of my concern is the delays that almost seem inevitable may hinder future prospects. If the shuttle is retired, and set backs and delays continue to push Constellation back year after year... It may cause a gray period for our exploration. With no shuttles going up and no Aries going up, funding my end up taking Huge Cuts when certain people see that the world hasn't ended with the retirement of the shuttle and think that the money should be spent on social programs while we let other countries explore space. (hopefully this isn't too political- I've tried to keep it simple, matter of fact and space related).

Good points, Neverfly. You are right about keeping a hand in the cookie jar - if we pull our hand out and starve our sweet tooth, we'll begin to not miss the sugar. Space exploration is vital and we should keep it in the budget.

And we DO want to make sure the replacement is safe even if it takes a little longer to finish. I had a couple of pieces of the Columbia land on my property in 2003.

Although many may not agree with me, I think the phrase "space race" should cease to exist. Space doesn't "belong" to any particular nation or country. It belongs to all of us, collectively. (After all, we're all floating in it.)

Thanks for the input.

Actually I do disagree about the "space race."

Space does not belong to anyone, but it isn't about space belonging to anyone. We cannot exactly plant a flag in space.

Economics Is a large and important factor. I cringe to mention it- but it is a reality.

In addition, the Space Race is a motivator. It is not just the goals being reached and the benefits of exploration, the knowledge gained... But also the competition helps keep the machinery moving. It helps to provide the drive.

If nations start saying, "Well, it's all global now... Someone ELSE will get around to doing <that>" then our journey into space will suffer some sloth and procrastination while each nation pulls its goals back onto the ground.

I think the Space Race is still very important to getting us out there. We've not even been back to the Moon! Still! The shuttle missions have almost become routine. People just aren't as excited as they used to be. If we backpedal, sloth out or pass the buck now, public interest may just fade very quickly.
It's a shame really, what we really need is something to galvanize us into action. It's topics like these that make me really wish we DID find BigFoot on Mars!

I'm sure other can expand on this, but I was under the impression that the Shuttles have to be retired, if not by 2010, then soon after. Various parts are almost worn-out, and for some of these, the original manufacturer doesn't even exist anymore!

It would thus be outrageously expensive to refurbish the Shuttles, and too darn dangerous to keep the running for much longer!

Russia has good deals going on Soyez rockets so I don't see the need to keep a more expensive system going.

I've been known to quite often machine or fabricate a part from metal or plastic in order to do my job. One customer exclaimed, "You're not one to be messed with are you?!" after I had custom created several missing fittings required for an inline water heater on a jacuzzi that were no longer available.
I don't KNOW about the shuttles, but it seems to me that making a new part would not be difficult if you have an existing one to play with (Which I didn't even have). I could be wrong on this.

Yeah, Go ahead, I'll wait on the shuttle

You're braver than I am.

This lady is braver than I.

Yes Soyez would be cheaper. I'm NOT American but spending dollars on the Americans at NASA returns the public wealth to the American people tax dollars do the rounds and the nation benefits. Fewer American dollars spent on Soyez is a false economy in my opinion.
I have always thought that the shuttle was fantastic, way out there. Spending on it is astronomical but the science is done, it works. The problems have been ironed out. The original O Rings which were not elastic enough for low temperature launches have been replaced, hard lessons have been learnt.
To retire such a magnificent piece of engineering due to budget cuts and timetables is in my opinion bureaucratic madness.
The decisions however have been made. Petition against them if you are American, write to your congressman. Good Luck!

Petition against them if you are American, write to your congressman. Good Luck![/quote]


I read recently somewhere that former astronaut and congressman John Glenn is against the shuttles retiring, at least before we have something else operational. I can't recall where I saw that, though. I guess he'd be the guy to write to.

Besides, Max, even though you're not American, you could probably still voice your opinion to the American Congress if you'd like to see the shuttles stick around. I'm sure they'd be proud to know that the American Space Shuttle has such an impact in other countries too.

orrery66,

One problem with continuing to fly the shuttles while Constellation is developed is that there are systems, such as the Solid Rocket Boosters, that are used by the shuttle and are being retooled for Constellation. So there needs to be a gap for the retooling. Same goes for support systems and the pads at Kennedy.

Anyway, if you look in the Space Exploration forum, you will find tons of past debates on this issue. And that's probably a better place for a debate on this, rather than Q&A.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

Any money given to Russians in return for Soyez would have to be spent on US exports which are produced by members of the American public. If this didn't happen Russia would be giving the launch services to the US for free and this is unlikely to happen as they've become rather fond of capitalism over the years.

Scale back the Shuttle, yes. But we should get at least three good Ares launches during any given year with a mission success rate of greater than 80% before we scrap the Shuttle.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that.

I am human. Fully human.

We shouldn't expect protectionism to work in the space industry any better than anywhere else. If we can outsource cheap flights until a homegrown, better, cheaper system is online, that's a good thing. Anyway, Russia imports $12,480,000,000 USD worth of goods from the US anyway (2007 CIA Worldfactbook), which is more than the US buys from Russia, I'm pretty sure.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin

Overlap can't work that way - as has been stated, there has to be a gap for retooling.

__________________
WANTED:

Schroedinger's Cat

Dead And Alive

Then pre-build the requisite external tanks and a couple extra SRBs, which are not only re-used, but are nearly identical to the newer ones used for Ares I's first stage.

My point is that there should be almost zero retooling required provided you line up the few parts that do need to be tooled for each flight.

Secondly, there's a more DIRECT approach, developed independantly of NASA which would allow manned and unmanned missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond while employing the same components as used with the Space Shuttle.

No retooling required.

Nor is it new - it was originally prosed by NASA itself in 1986 after the Challanger disaster.

While DIRECT 1.0's proposal came up short, the DIRECT 2.0 proposal, released just last year, answered most of the arguements, and demonstrated areas where 2.0 will exceed Constellation's mission cape.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that.

I am human. Fully human.

There is also the Falcon / Dragon private launcher that is getting ready for human flight, perhaps they will fill the gap??

The Falcon/Dragon private launcher is one possibility - and very intriguing, given their upcoming launch schedule, particularly the ones involving the US Government.

On a lighter note, I don't think this option will go very far, they sure seem to enjoy thinking about the possibilities.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that.

I am human. Fully human.

It does seem intriguing and an interesting one to follow, but I'm not sure the timeline is really going to change too much.
If the first orbital flight of Orion is going to be in the 2010 time frame (assuming no delays) then it seems to be on par with Dragon.

Advantage for Dragon would be different avenues of funding, and a ship already in development fully designed