Simviation Forums

I saw a similar poll on cnn.com and was just wondering what y'alls opinion is...

Look, here's my two cents.

The shuttle program is great.  For all of you who may see it as pointless, it's not.  They do a lot of very importand research in space.  We need to send human beings up to carry out this research, so the program is important.

However, I believe it should be scrapped. The shuttle is old.  Grant it, it's not that old years wise, but If you look at the progress made in aerospace technology, it is far behind.  Yes, the columbia disaster was a horrible tragedy, but people are making way too big a deal.  Columbia was the first shuttle, the oldest shuttle, and a problem was bound to happen.  It is just very unfortunate that the problem led to what it was.  The shuttle has a very good safety record, only two have had a fatal error in it's 30 years of service.  Some of the things that were changed for the return to flight had been happening throughout the shuttles history.  Tiles fall off all the time, foam comes of the tank, etc...  I do believe that the shuttle was grounded for too long.

In discovery's flight, problems came up again. Foam fell off, and now the shuttle is grounded...again.  It is clearly too old, and like all old things, it needs to be retired.

However, the whole manned space flight should not be stopped.  I think that once discovery returns, it should not be grounded but it should be retired.  Now that technology has improved, I believe that nasa should forget the shuttle, and begin designing a new craft.  They should figure out a way to do without that huge fuel tank,  design a new heat resistant covering, as well as put in new, more advanced computers.

This won't be quick and easy.  The ISS might have to be scrapped because it is gonna take a long time to build a new shuttle.  I plan on being an aerospace engineer, possibly work for nasa.  Im going to be a junior in high school this year, and when I am ready to start my career in at least 6 years, thy still might be working on the shuttle.  In fact, if all goes well for me, I could actually see myself designing the new shuttle as part of a team working on it.

Two years of repairs and changes, and now the shuttle is grounded again?  It is clearly time to start anew.

The best thing the shuttle can do right now is carry a final Hubble repair mssion.  Unless they do that, its not worth keeping the shuttle around, imho.

Here's my two pence for what it's worth. I've mentioned before that I have little interest in space exploration & it doesn't worry me whether they continue or not. This means I can look at this impartially.

I've read that the Shuttle is the most complex aircraft ever built. I use 'aircraft' for want of a better word but age doesn't doesn't affect it any more than a conventional aircraft, providing it's maintained properly. Many airliners & military aircraft remain in service for decades although they might be outdated as far as technology is concerned. Take Concorde as an example. In regular service for something like 30 years & since it was retired there's nothing to replace it. The similarity with Concorde goes a little further. It had one fatal accident during the time it was in service & this was not directly caused by a fault with the aircraft. A terrible chain of events exposed a weakness in the basic design that had existed since it first entered service. A foreign object on the runway was thrown up into the wing, puncturing the main fuel tank. You should know the rest. In hindsight it was an accident waiting to happen but that foreign object should never have been there in the first place.

From what I've read (& remember I'm no expert) the main difference between the Shuttle & a conventional aircraft seems to be the maintenance schedules & the way NASA itself operates. Some parts on other Shuttles were found corroded after inspection following the Columbia tragedy. These had never been inspected since first being fitted & on investigation some had even been fitted the wrong way round. That smacks of carelessness, if not downright incompetence. If this had been Concorde or any other airliner heads would have rolled. I get the impression they allowed themselves to become complacent with the inevitable results. Ozzy mentioned in another thread that they need "some negative attitude engineers to dream up worst case scenarios and then solve any possible problems". I tend to agree with that & the whole attitude needs to change. Space exploration is dangerous enough without safety being ignored.

Another thing occurred to me. Academics & scientists aren't usually the most practical of people. They exist on a plane above ordinary folk but most of them couldn't put up a shelf or change a wheel on their cars. NASA seems to be full of these types but do they have any ordinary practical employees? It's quite possible there's a simple solution to this problem that a good "old-fashioned" practical engineer could solve quickly & with little expense or inconvenience. Maybe it's time for a rethink, not on the Shuttle itself but the whole organisation from top to bottom.

Don't end the shuttle program, but for cryin' out loud, design a new shuttle already!

Sure, many planes have been in service for far longer than the shuttle.  Many of those planes get used a hell of a lot more, too.  Look at the DC-3s and the Cessna 172s still flying around!

But those planes don't take nearly as many g-forces or mach numbers as the shuttles.  Those poor old birds get strapped to a pair of missles, blasted into space with tens of thousands of pounds of force, fly around in zero-g for a couple weeks, and then get to go at Mach 26 thru the atmosphere, reaching extremely high temperatures in the process.  It's no wonder they're starting to fall apart.  The poor things should be grounded and turned into museums or sumtin'.

But before that, we need a replacement.  NASA has the minds to make that replacement.  It's time to put those minds to work.  Make something that does what the shuttle does, but does it cheaper and better.  We have the technology; we can make such a machine.  But NASA has to get it together and act.  Maybe it's like Hagar said, NASA needs to be reorganized, streamlined.  Do whatever it takes to keep mankind in space.

Just my two cents.  I've supported the space program since I first visted Kennedy Space Center with my old cub scout group!  And where is that damned Mars mission we all had dangled in front of us back in the 90s?

...... And where is that damned Mars mission we all had dangled in front of us back in the 90s?

...they finally woke up, and realised that "Star Trek" is really a fictional Movie, and USS Enterprise NCC 1701 doesn't actually exist....and Alpha Centauri is a really, REALLY! long way away...
...(except in George's mind)... ...!
LOL......!
Paul...feet firmly planted on Mother Earth, where "we" were designed to be... ...!

If you asked me this very minute, I would answer 'no'... we should not end the shuttle program.  But that doesn't mean they should keep the shuttle program forever.  

As mentioned before, there should have been a new craft in development and perhaps even built by now.  But we can't cry about what hasn't happened.  Still, there needs to be something in the works now.  But I don't think the shuttles should stop flying until that day.  However, I do feel they people at NASA really do need to get their acts straight with safety.  

Someone in this thread mentioned that the people at NASA can think of the wildest things in the world, but can't come up with the most simple of solutions and I think that's where these 'failures' are coming from.  Wasn't there a problem with one of the window covers coming off and falling while the shuttle was sitting on the bad?? Come on... you can build the worlds most complex 'craft' but you can't build a simple WINDOW COVER???

As far as I know... there are no plans to build any more shuttles.  Perhaps we should take that as a sign that the shuttles will be retired.I just hope there are no more losses.

BTW, GNX... nice car.

My idea of a shuttle program:

Start using varying composites and stuff like that to reduce weight and save fuel.

Use four-people crew instead of like 6. A pilot, an Engineer, a Navigator, and a researcher. The first three must all be trained for everything [what if the pilot gets injured?]. The reseacher is there as a passenger so that he-she can switch places with another. Over time, the ISS crew is switched completely instead of bringing the whole gang all at once.

Everything must be digital [computers are getting small and lighter].

Just to let you all know, I'm not that knowledgable about space flight.

Automated and/or ground piloted craft should be used.
The shuttle program has become too expensive and dangerous.

I wouldn't say the Shuttle program is any more dangerous than when it started, if fact its bound to be a lot safer. However, what has changed is the public perception of events such as Challenger/Columbia, and the 24/7 global coverage of these things. The same applies in the case of Concorde. If the 2000 crash had happen 25 years earlier I think it would have had similar effects in the short term, but the aircraft may well still be flying today (depending on the full extent of 9/11 - if Concorde had been in full service in 2001 it may have survived...)

I think that NASA should get a design and a fresh new spacecraft. I know, I know, costly and the taxpayers don't like it. But the fact is, if they keep repairing and grounding the shuttles, it will probably end up costing the same amount. But the fact is, those things have been flying for a long time.

Paul...feet firmly planted on Mother Earth, where "we" were designed to be... ...!

Imagine, a pilot saying that... tsk, tsk.

I voted "no" for the simple reason that it is the best thing we have.