Shuttle To Carry On Longer?

Originally From Space.com
WASHINGTON — The senior U.S. senators from Florida and Texas are pushing back against NASA’s plan to retire the U.S. space shuttle fleet by the end of the decade regardless of whether a replacement vehicle is ready to enter service by then.

Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), chairwoman of the Senate Commerce science and space subcommittee, and Bill Nelson (Fla.), her Democratic counterpart, introduced a bill June 21 that would require NASA to keep the space shuttle orbiter flying until a new crew transport vehicle has flown.

Two words.....Inviting Disaster!

Why wont these people realise that the shuttle should not be flying now never mind past 2010?

The original completion date for the CEV was 2014 which means the ageing shuttle will have to carry on for 4 years more than expected.

At least NASA know that the shuttle needs to retire, this time its two idiotic Senators who want to keep the shuttle flying way past its best before date.

Lets just hope there is no more accidents from now to 2014, and if there is i hope those senators know it was their choice!

Link To Full Story!!!

I don't want the space shuttle to stop. I like them. Just build new ones. I still say we should go back to the moon. I missed it the first time around.

Originally posted by alias101
I don't want the space shuttle to stop. I like them. Just build new ones. I still say we should go back to the moon. I missed it the first time around.

The shuttles are old and in need of replacement!
The CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) is due to enter service in 2014 at the latest which is just not soon enough!

The shuttles have been great for space exploration but its time for them to step aside for the CEV!

And we are going to the Moon, we will be there by 2020 according to G W Bush!

Mic

We need to scrap the junk piles, we are going to lose more good men and women if they keep them. Pur some money into the CEV and get them out a few years earlier.

Originally posted by Zanzibar
We need to scrap the junk piles, we are going to lose more good men and women if they keep them.

Pur some money into the CEV and get them out a few years earlier.

The shuttles should have been scrapped years ago but unfortunatley we have no other means of getting to orbit because there is no way would the US rely on the Russian soyuz capsules to take men and women to and from the ISS!

Mic

I think the reasoning behind that articale is the ISS, Nasa says to have it completed it needs 28 shuttle payloads...However Nasa admits that from now and 2010 it could only do around 15 ISS payload missions.

Mickeydee...I dont think you've been updated...The CEV is now scheduled for operational service in 2010.

Nasa is looking into other large rockets (Atlas/Delta/& others) that can carry a payload to the ISS...so it wouldn't need a shuttle to get there, but there still would need to be a lot of work for an unmanned rocket to have its ISS payload come close enough to the ISS without hitting it, but close enough for the CanadArm to grab ahold of it.

The US has being relying on the Russian Soyuz for nearly 2 1/2 years...but there small and only good for people...and the ISS needs the shuttle for its construction.

I think the Senators needs to just sit down and shut up on this matter.

I think Nasa needs to review all 28 payload missions...and decide which ones are the most critical for the ISS, and which are the most complex to install. And have the shuttle do those more important missions, while the other ISS payload will go up by another means, If the Falcon V could be done by then that might be a cheap alterative.

Originally posted by MickeyDee

The shuttles should have been scrapped years ago but unfortunatley we have no other means of getting to orbit because there is no way would the US rely on the Russian soyuz capsules to take men and women to and from the ISS!

Mic

MickeyDee is right:
The only way a U.S. citizen can get to orbit right now is on a Russian soyuz. Your hands are tied. Access to space is far too important for the U.S. to have to rely on the whims of another nation.

If we follow the thinking of some members on this thread, we should mothball the U2 and send them all to museums because one crashed yesterday and the pilot was killed.

When a 747 falls from the sky killing hundreds of people an investigation is conducted, the cause is found and we try to correct the cause of the crash so that it won't happen to other 747's. We don't ground the whole fleet...........

I count only 14 dead in the shuttle program. And far more than 14 people will die in auto collisions today, but nobody is screaming to shut down the roads and park all our cars up on cinder blocks.

And don't get me started on handguns, a tool invented to make it easier to kill another person. Should we close up the variety stores and gas stations because clerks get killed in robberies. Just how far do we take this kind of thinking.

The shuttle needs to keep flying until a viable replacement is flown and tested, or America will find itself sitting under a starry sky watching the rest of the world reach for the stars. But at least you'll be safe......................

anxietydisorder
If we follow the thinking of some members on this thread, we should mothball the U2 and send them all to museums because one crashed yesterday and the pilot was killed.

yes...actually though I thought that long before one crashed...because everything the U-2 can do...The Global Hawk can do, yet its unmanned.

I count only 14 dead in the shuttle program. And far more than 14 people will die in auto collisions today, but nobody is screaming to shut down the roads and park all our cars up on cinder blocks.

You have to think in terms of reletivaty.
IF the shuttles have launched and tried to put 200 people in space...but 14 of them died. Thats an 85% chance that you will make it to space un-harmed.

In the US theres an average of 117 deaths per day... but given the fact of millions of people on the road that number doesn't seems so bad.

EVERYTHINGS RELATIVE.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Murcielago]

Originally posted by anxietydisorder

If we follow the thinking of some members on this thread, we should mothball the U2 and send them all to museums because one crashed yesterday and the pilot was killed.

When a 747 falls from the sky killing hundreds of people an investigation is conducted, the cause is found and we try to correct the cause of the crash so that it won't happen to other 747's. We don't ground the whole fleet...........

I count only 14 dead in the shuttle program. And far more than 14 people will die in auto collisions today, but nobody is screaming to shut down the roads and park all our cars up on cinder blocks.

And don't get me started on handguns, a tool invented to make it easier to kill another person. Should we close up the variety stores and gas stations because clerks get killed in robberies. Just how far do we take this kind of thinking.

The shuttle needs to keep flying until a viable replacement is flown and tested, or America will find itself sitting under a starry sky watching the rest of the world reach for the stars. But at least you'll be safe......................

You have voted anxietydisorder for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Excellent point, you made me sound kinda stupid!!

Though I still think they should get rid of them quickly, there getting old and probably need there afternoon nap soon. But that brings me to another mystery, the B52 I know its a class bird, but get with the times!!!

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Zanzibar]

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Zanzibar]

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Zanzibar]

Originally posted by Murcielago
Mickeydee...I dont think you've been updated...The CEV is now scheduled for operational service in 2010.

I know they are trying to accelarate the completion of the CEV, but i was unaware that NASA have set the date as 2010.

If NASA will have the CEV ready by 2010, why are the Senators forcing NASA to keep the shuttles flying past 2010???

Mic

Originally posted by MickeyDee

Originally posted by Murcielago
Mickeydee...I dont think you've been updated...The CEV is now scheduled for operational service in 2010.

I know they are trying to accelarate the completion of the CEV, but i was unaware that NASA have set the date as 2010.

If NASA will have the CEV ready by 2010, why are the Senators forcing NASA to keep the shuttles flying past 2010???

Mic

Probably because they havent got the foggiest idea of what their doing or talking about. They should leave NASA alone and let them get on with it.

MickeyDee
If NASA will have the CEV ready by 2010, why are the Senators forcing NASA to keep the shuttles flying past 2010???

Probably because they want the US to finish the ISS...and dont relize that some of the parts that still need to be attached, could theoretically be done by an unmanned rocket. Such as the Delta IV Heavy / Atlas 5 Heavy / Falcon 5, all three could lift an ISS piece, but the companies Boeing, Lockheed, SpaceX, would all have to figure out all the calculations for the payload to arrive at the right spot at the right time and be able to slowly meneuver it towards the ISS for its Arm to grapple the piece and then have the ISS crew suit up and help put the piece where it belongs.

Look at the states these two are from! How much revenue will be lost when the shuttle retires. I think this is not about the ISS or waiting until a replacement is ready it's really all about $$$$$$$$$$$

Michael

Originally posted by Ark-Angel
Look at the states these two are from! How much revenue will be lost when the shuttle retires. I think this is not about the ISS or waiting until a replacement is ready it's really all about $$$$$$$$$$$

Michael

I never even paid attention to that...yep, I'm sure your right...They just want to keep those federal bucks flowin for a little while longer.
However...maybe someone should tell them that Nasa's CEV has a strong possibility to be on the current shuttle config...meaning: the 2 Solid Rocket Boosters and the External tank. and if it keeps that config, Nasa will use existing equiptment and launch sites...so if they were actually informed on what there yappin about, they should be trying to convince Nasa to stick with there current First Stage (to orbit) equiptment.

Originally posted by Zanzibar
We need to scrap the junk piles, we are going to lose more good men and women if they keep them.

Politics and "money" are those which kill!
For example Challenger accident would have been avoided very easily if shuttle program would have been led by scientists and those who do the real work instead of all money thinking (corporate) bigshots and "accountants".
Go and read Richard Feynman: What do You care what other People think? - Further Adventures of a Curious Character

Same in Columbia accident, problem with insulation of external tank was known but again it was politicians and "accountants" who decided budget and where priorities were.

These NASA government people kill me!

You know damn well that they have new MUCH MORE ADVANCED and safe space craft by now. But making any transittion isn't easy. But the current space shuttle is out-dated to say the least!