The Beginning of the End of the Space Shuttle

The Beginning of the End of the Space Shuttle


The Space Shuttle Atlantis had its final launch on Friday, May 14. Mission STS-132 will be a 12-day flight to the International Space Station, leaving behind a Russian Mini Research Module, a set of batteries for the station’s truss and dish antenna, along with other replacement parts. The mission patch features Atlantis flying off into the sunset as the end of the space shuttle program approaches.

In September, Discovery will take its final launch on Mission STS-133. Then in November, the space shuttle Endeavour will take its final launch in Mission STS-134. Yes, the “134″ stands for the 134th space shuttle flight.

Then the space shuttle program will be over.

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/05/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-space-shuttle/

--------------------------------

I am glad to see the end of the Space Shuttle program. It cost too damn much and didn't deliver what it originally promised it would. I look forward to the future with smaller, less dangerous, cheaper space flight to cover the mostly mundane tasks the Space Shuttle Program did.

It really puts a perspective on things when you realize the shuttles were built in the 1970's... the 1970's! We have been shooting dinosaurs into space for the past decade and shame on us for falling into that trap.

I would like to see more from Branson and from China in the coming years... I am still waiting for space travel to become practical for the layman.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, I agree. I was quite excited about the Space Shuttle when I was a kid, running home to watch the first launch, only for it to be delayed, and eventually, convincing a teacher it was history in the making, and allowing us to watch it as it finally launched during school hours, ... but yes, it never was what it was supposed to be, and that was a shame.

I recall coming back from an interview for a place at Sheffield University, and my dad asking me if I'd heard the news about Challenger. I remember being sat in in the 'Cactus Bar' apres ski, in Meribel, seeing the footage of Columbia on Sky News. I met one Shuttle astronaut, and he beat me at bar skittles. I had huge respect for that guy, not only was he a PhD, liked English beer, and was very good at skittles, but he took that ride several times, knowing how it could end.

But yes, 70's technology, and it's now the 21st century. We need smarter solutions, and hybrid engines, composite materials, and piggy back launches seem to make a lot of sense. Let's hope there is some future vehicle that delivers what the shuttle aspired to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would love to see Space Shuttle Mark II arise from the wreckage of the lost hopes and dreams. As already stated, the current shuttle did not achieve what was required. It may be that we simply did not have the basic technology at the time. A successor craft is needed. Maybe with our improved technology we can design and build one that meets some of the objectives.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What's this about the "beginning" of the end of the shuttle? The shuttle's been doomed ever since they started making bootstrap procedures to make sure the tiles were not breaking off, adding to the already unimaginably large safety inspection procedures that span to every corner of any industry making any bolt, code, or spot of carpet going onto the shuttle and it's auxiliary boosters and fuel tank.

Now the Constellation program's been scrapped, despite the numerous companies that have turned themselves over and backwards to get most of the way through the development processes for the new systems (who now of course are thoroughly screwed).

I've awaited the end of the shuttle program so that it may be replaced by something simpler, more efficient, and more redundantly safe so that expenditures on quality and safety can be brought down to reasonable levels while performance and reliability improves. Unfortunately, this may perhaps be the end of not just the shuttle, but America's space program for at least the next few years.

philogistician, I totally agree, shuttle pilots are some of the most extraordinary people on Earth, but maybe what I want to say here is that I'm looking forward to a future where a person who has been to space is about as interesting as a guy who has just done a transatlantic flight. I want it so easy and reliable that it's just another flight. Then, folks like yourself would be awestruck at the guy in the bar who just came off a 12-month assignment on a lunar station instead.

 

"Then the space shuttle program will be over."

Why don't they dust off the ole Saturn 5.

 

How come NASA isn't taking this idea seriously?

 

Amazing as this may sound, we aren't able to build a Saturn V today. Astonishingly, much of the technology was never documented properly. And most of the engineers who designed it are retired/dead. We really don't know how, at least without a huge reverse engineering job. That's if we can round up samples to reverse engineer, lot's were scrapped.

 

Saturn 5 would be a step in the wrong direction, anyway. Technology is much better today. What is needed is a new system. Fortunately, the new technologies needed are being worked on.

For example : imagine something like a giant Boeing 747, designed to carry a new variety of shuttle. It lifts the shuttle to 15 kms. Shuttle detaches and dives to pick up velocity to ignite scramjet engines, which accelerate it to Mach 15 (Mach 25 is escape velocity). The scramjet module is discarded and rocket engines kick in to complete acceleration to orbit speed.

Since the carrier aircraft and the scramjets use atmospheric oxygen, the amount of rocket fuel carried is a lot less than in current shuttles. This means the launch is cheaper and less fuel weight means more mass carried into orbit.

It may not work out exactly like that. However, this is an indication of what is possible with 21st Century technology - way better than Saturn 5.

 

Not to mention we don't have the money to do it, To get the Saturn V and the moon mission required at its peak 6% of the nations GDP, nasa present budget of .5% is the reason we never went back to the moon and have been stuck with a failure like the space shuttle. Money is all the prevented us from going to the moon, from making a better space shuttle, etc, etc. Giving up to private companies to try to garner the money is a wise move on Obama part, from Reagan to Bush Jr. all attempted to put nasa back on a glories track failed because congress never gave the money to actually do those things, instead of making a third failed revitalization attempt Obama just said "fuck it, nasa dead, it was dead since Nixon."

As for reverse engineering the Saturn, the Ares V would have used a modernized J-2 engine. The Ares V would have been superior to the Saturn V life capacity and technology, but it never had enough money to be developed.

Skeptical,

There to very different philosophies about rockets. The small smart rocket philosophy as your proposing, things like single stage to orbit rocketplanes like the skylon but this require huge amounts of R&D, the spaceshuttle was to be a two stage, with both stages having fly back re-usability, but nasa budget was not up for it so we got the high compromised failure instead. The big dumb rocket philosophy on the other hand has worked out better, the Saturn V was depending on how you do the cost analysis costing less per pound to orbit then the space shuttle, if we had only kept with the Saturn V! I think ultimately fully reusable water landing rocket between the two philosophies will allow be the most viable option, its something I think space X is aiming for.