The Space Shuttle is Retired, Now What?

[CWeb Creative]

Now that the space shuttle has been retired by the U.S. government what should we do next? Should we not have retired the space shuttle yet or should it have been done a long time ago? Should we have continued with the constellation program or should it have been scrapped on day one? Should we go to the moon, an asteroid or mars? Which direction should we go in next?

---------- Post added at 01:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

My position is that we should have never scrapped the constellation program. It had already had a successful test flight and it performed better than expected. The only thing wrong with it was that it was going back to the moon again which is not necessary. Otherwise it was a sound vehicle and a sound program that would soon be ready to take up the responsibility of the U.S. space program. What no one realizes is that for all the money we put into the space program the new tech that comes out may not make any money for the government but it sure helps our economy and we can't just stay on earth for ever we need to find other planets and other sources of resources. We can't just look five years down the road we need to look 50-100 years down the road.

[Darkmere]

I think one of the reasons they shut it down is because of commercial companies taking over. There is a company that already has a fleet of spacecraft to take passengers, another company that is a freight carrier will be supplying the space station, and yes the Mission to Mars will be handled by a commercial company. I think it is because NASA cannot really keep up, most of the companies handling the space travel is a lot more equip and better tech. So you know I do not know. I have mixed feelings. I also noticed it is the Commercial district that is more energetic and enthusiastic about it.

[CWeb Creative]

I think one of the reasons they shut it down is because of commercial companies taking over. There is a company that already has a fleet of spacecraft to take passengers, another company that is a freight carrier will be supplying the space station, and yes the Mission to Mars will be handled by a commercial company. I think it is because NASA cannot really keep up, most of the companies handling the space travel is a lot more equip and better tech. So you know I do not know. I have mixed feelings. I also noticed it is the Commercial district that is more energetic and enthusiastic about it.

The commercial companies are only going to be able to ferry cargo to the iss and fly suborbital passenger flights and thats sometime in the next 10 years. They have no plans to go anywhere farther than that like mars because its not profitable, who would pay them. NASA is far ahead and always will be because they don't have to worry about profitability. The eagerness is because no one has brought spaceflight back into the public eye like kennedy did with the moon missions. If a president could do that NASA would have all the funding they need and things would start to get done again.

[Smith6612]

I'm really going to miss the 90s when everything was about Space and Space Travel. Those were the days of good TV shows, movies, and imagination. These days it just seems as though we're caught up in too much of an issue with how things are financed, not so much of an issue involving the technology we have available to us. I'd love to see the push into Space Travel a bit more, as I've always been fascinated by the things Scientists have found out there in the void.

[cybrax]

To be honest I for one was never happy with the design, the meddling of the USAF wanting wings and the PR fiasco of the re-useable boosters were always sore points in the aerospace community. Sure spaceflight is always going to involve some risk but the fact remains both these ill concieved compromises that were forced upon NASA ultimately led to the loss of two shuttles was a hard way to learn a lesson.

Congress was right to bin the constellation program, technology will never advance by repeating previous work and I really do mean repeating. If I recall correctly as part of the conditions for the shuttle funding NASA had to destroy all the knowledge gained building the Saturn boosters and upper stages. Thirty years ago congress wanted something better than big disposable rockets because of the cost and that thinking has not changed, particulary now given the economic problems of the states.


As for the future it's interesting to see that some of the concepts dismissed by NASA over 30 years ago are now at the cutting edge. The White Knight booster/ aircraft is a classic example and SSTO craft are also once again being eyed keenly thanks to lighter electronics and advances in composite materials making them even more viable. Who knows.. NASA may pick up the pieces of the X-33 program where it left off, that aerospike engine is pretty efficient after all.

Speaking of engines another avenue to space may be the early work being done on 'Waverider' hypersonic jet engines. Lets face it if you are travelling at mach7+ over 80 miles up it only takes the pilot to sneeze and they would be in low orbit. If that seems unlikely, ask yourself then why does Boeing have a flight sim for a hypersonic transport.. pure research or being prepared?

Of course if you want engines with real muscle you have to go nuclear but that's going to be a tough sell to the public even if for instance the USAF goes public and reveals they have been flying one two for decades like they did with the stealth bombers. It's sobering to think that if the NERVA program had not been scrapped there could well be a flag on Pluto by now.

[Darkmere]

The commercial companies are only going to be able to ferry cargo to the iss and fly suborbital passenger flights and thats sometime in the next 10 years.

NASA states that commercial freight will be making deliveries to the ISS by next month, they stated the stocked the ISS for one year just in case the freight company has difficulties reaching the station.

[CWeb Creative]

NASA states that commercial freight will be making deliveries to the ISS by next month, they stated the stocked the ISS for one year just in case the freight company has difficulties reaching the station.

Ok, yes SpaceX will be able to do cargo soon but im not really talking about LEO(low earth orbit) we need to move beyond that to reinvigorate our space program. To create a mission that we can set our sights on and really go at not a general lets do something like going to an asteroid or mars. Though spacex will not be able to carry Astronauts for a while yet.

[kcmodc25]

Maybe they could think of a better way to enter space rather than flying straight up. Also, I'd like to see an industrial application of those "bar" thingys that held the space shuttle on to the side of the rockets, man, those brackets must be SUPER strong. In addition, did anyone ever figure out:
01. How a Boing plane was able to both take off, fly, and land, with the Space Shuttle on top of it. Seems as if the cabin would be crushed. Why don't they "double-up" on regular planes and luggage up there too? Put five tanks up there, make it military...
02. How they were able to land the space shuttle exactly at the airbase despite not having any fuel.

I personally would like to see a spacecraft shaped like an ipod with NASCAR endorsements all over it that flys to Venus and back in 5 days and then has all these "neat" pictures on it. Throw in a major disaster (like the spacecraft's AI system goes wacko and kills one of the crewmembers) and I think we have something the world can watch and say (in unison) "That's America..."

[cheesyisgod34]

Since NASA lost the Hypersonic Test Vehicle 2 at the start of the month and have just today announced that the James Webb telescope will be $2bn over budget, maybe they should stick to advancing science alone and leave selling space to commercial ventures.

[jensenajob22]

only last week a breakdown in a russian rocket meant no suplies for the crews- i agree, its not a good situation at all.