Comments on: So exactly when are we retiring the shuttle?

By: Helen Zimmerman

Helen Zimmerman — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:02:09 +0000

I say the reason they created the space station and is retiring the shuttle after it is done is because they built it for the upper crust of the governments to escape to when the nuclear war starts. Use common sense people!

By: Steven

Steven — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:15:36 +0000

I’ve probably missed it but why are they retiring the space shuttle if anyone who works there knows.

By: Todd Carter

Todd Carter — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:08:22 +0000

It took us less time to create Apollo and get to the moon starting from scratch. And now NASA wants to reuse the old technology to go back but can’t get us there in less time. NASA is getting Stoopid.

By: Dale Loveless

Dale Loveless — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:42:10 +0000

I dont get it…why would NASA want to go to a expendable (throwaway) transportation system when they have and can develop a re-usable system like the shuttle? Hell the only thing reusable on the new “CEV” is the capsule aka Apollo! And they are talking years before they get to the moon again. Hell they made it to the moon on 60’s technology, what is so difficult about it today in our digital era? It seems as if NASA doesnt have the talent and braveness they they had in their glory days! And they blow too much money. I say privatize NASA and, and we would have a new shuttle in a year and be on the moon next year! Typical government red tape.

By: Space Politics » “Why the administration has undermined the Vision for Space Exploration”

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:04:06 +0000

[…] to end the shuttle program in 2010, whether or not the space station is finished.” (See some earlier discussion on differing interpretations of this deadline.) And, they say, Bush isn’t aware his budgets are creating a five-year gap in “U.S. […]

By: DocM

DocM — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:15:06 +0000

They need stop the train wreck in progress called Ares and fly direct launcher instead as it can make use of the same facilities as the shuttle.
The ares I rocket is the biggest waste of money in the history of nasa as it only replicates at higher cost capabilities that already exist in the EELVs and soon falcon 9 and a handful of other private launch vehicles.
Ares I has placed so many limitations on Orion there is less and less reason to build it as many private spacecraft will meet or even exceed it’s capabilities including being able to travel to the moon two vehicles officially can perform lunar missions Dragon and spacedev’s HL20 based vehicle
also dragon can carry a lot more cargo then Orion over 5000lbs..
Also why they never restarted the DCX program is beyond me I feel this would for a far better lunar architecture then Orion and Ares.
We can get DCY flying for the same cost as the highly redundant Ares I and Orion vehicles.

By: anonymous.space

anonymous.space — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:29:12 +0000

“The Shuttle vehicles themselves (most of them) are certified for more flights”

Just to be clear, only the orbiter airframes are certified for many more flight (100 flights each, IIRC). But there’s obviously a lot more to a Space Shuttle mission than the orbiter’s structure. And, according to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, all those other systems and components should only be flown through 2010 without a multi-billion recertification effort.

FWIW…

By: Charles In Houston

Charles In Houston — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:33:11 +0000

The retirement of the Shuttle will undoubtedly be driven by the cessation of production (you can only get away with using phrases like that here) of Shuttle components (such as External Tanks) and loss of facilities such as the OPFs. The Shuttle vehicles themselves (most of them) are certified for more flights, but the logistics that allow a Shuttle to fly are going away rapidly.

Charles

By: al Fansome

al Fansome — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:02:12 +0000

It is interesting that Nelson is now actively joining Hutchison in beating up on Griffin about AMS-02. Dr. Sam Ting of MIT has been doing his lobbying work.

I am wondering when Griffin will ask Nelson & Hutchison “What do you suggest that I kick off the one of the remaining flights of the Shuttle, so that I can deliver the AMS-02?”

– Al

By: CitizenG

CitizenG — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:56:48 +0000

Griffin didn’t use the word “require” either in his written or spoken testimony, perhaps Nelson was previously hit by a bolt of lightning? In any case the VSE makes the retirement of Shuttle by 2010 a directive not a requirement.

The whole hearing was very much a Nelson solo performance with Hutchinson arriving late and leaving early. Nelson’s concern for ISS completion and AMS delivery seems driven primarily by his supporters at KSC wanting to fly more Shuttles.