MnAstro Forums

News article: Stripped Down Discovery rolls towards Retirement at Kennedy Space Center

http://www.universetoday.com/87477/stri ... ce-center/

"Discovery was briefly on public display on Wednesday July 13 as she emerged from the hanger at the Kennedy Space Center where she has been undergoing processing for retirement since her final landing on the STS-133 mission.

"It was a rather stark and sad moment because Discovery looked almost naked and downtrodden – and there was no doubt that she would never again fly majestically to space because huge parts of the orbiter were totally absent." [article continues]

A sad sight, but we'll soon be able to see Discovery in the Smithsonian. I was particularly struck by one person's comment following the article:

"NASA is the only organization in the world that can make me feel real emotional connections to machines. Spirit, Opportunity, Hubble, Cassini, the shuttles, New Horizons, JWST, etc. etc. They're just like living things. You tell them what to do, send them on their way, and they do it without questions until they either run out of fuel, get stuck in a sandtrap, or some government nutcases think it'd be funny to cut funding for it."

They should keep one shuttle left in operational condition just in case. Stripping them all down before we have some form of replacement would be a huge mistake.

I'm sure they will, for the most part, restore the look of the shuttle fleet before they are put on display, but I did get a sick feeling when I saw the images of Discovery.

Despite feelings of nostalgia, we need to realize that the Space Shuttle was holding back progress in human spaceflight. The cost of $3 billion a year plus $300 million incremental per flight was overwhelming. Nobody had a clue about how to improve safety. Engineers expect that a capsule atop a reliable rocket with a launch escape system will be 10 times safer than the Shuttle. SpaceX claims they will be able to launch astronauts for $20 million. If they can pull it off, it will be revolutionary.

True progress in human spaceflight means lowering costs, improving safety, improving life support, and finding useful things for humans to do. It doesn't mean "going farther". That will come later. As long as the budget isn't slashed even more, I am optimistic.

I absolutely agree with you, Dick.

I think the sadness associated with the retiring of the last shuttle is not necessarily a direct result of the end of the shuttle program itself, but more along the lines that we don't have a clear direction going forward.

Those of us that are old enough to remember Mercury and Gemini, were we sad those programs ended? No, because we knew there was a grander program coming along behind it - Apollo and the push to land on the moon. At the end of Apollo we seemed to be floundering a bit. After the moon landings we did Spacelab and the Apollo-Soyuz political flight. But until the shuttle program started in earnest, it seemed like we didn't have much direction.

Here is hoping we get our bearings and get a direction soon, and one that serves science and exploration and the US better than the space shuttle program did.

SEmert wrote:I think the sadness associated with the retiring of the last shuttle is not necessarily a direct result of the end of the shuttle program itself, but more along the lines that we don't have a clear direction going forward.

I think you're right, Steve. Since nobody knows where we are going, let me modestly offer this list of what I think we should be doing in human spaceflight. Are you listening, President Obama?

(1) Privatize astronaut launch to low earth orbit as soon as possible.

(2) As the ISS approaches the end of its life, begin building a "perpetual" space station. This would be composed of large cylindrical modules connected by nodes, just like the ISS. Each module would have its own power, heating/cooling, air supply, and water supply. New modules would be bolted onto one end of the station while old worn-out modules were sealed off and detached from the other end. Like a city, the station would continually renew itself and would never need to be completely de-orbited. The overall station might look like a rectangular grid with a "growing" end and a "decaying" end.

(3) Begin planning a permanent manned base at one of the lunar poles. The primary objective would be to try to develop a water supply. I think the polar areas would be scientifically interesting because many other molecules would have condensed inside the permanently shadowed craters. One NASA concept that I find intriguing is the idea of a "RV on the moon", a large vehicle that would enable long expeditions away from the main base. I believe that the gradual expansion of the lunar base would hold public interest over the long term. Unlike Apollo, it wouldn't be perceived as doing the same thing over and over.

(4) Continue developing technologies needed for trips far from Earth. Tops on my list is the VASIMR rocket which could cut the one-way travel time to Mars from 9 months to a little over one month. Other needed technologies include orbiting fuel depots, reliable life support, growing of food in space, and radiation protection.

(5) Develop a heavy-lift rocket appropriately sized to launch space station modules and lunar base modules. Note that today we are putting the cart before the horse, designing a heavy lifter before we know exactly what it needs to lift.

(6) Finish developing the Orion capsule which will be needed to return astronauts from the Moon or other distant destinations.

I haven't mentioned Mars. Mars is the obvious long-term destination, but I think we need more technology development and better knowledge of the Martian surface. When we start building a Mars base, we want to be sure that it is in an interesting location where we might even find fossils if we are lucky.

I agree with Steve. I think the sadness stems from not having a solution in place at the time of the shuttle's demise.

In 1972, while John Young was walking on the Moon, word came from cap com that Congress had just approved the budget for the shuttle. He replied that it was excellent news, "America really needs that shuttle!" At the time, did he know that 9 years later, he would be on the inaugural flight of the STS? Pretty cool.

Before the end of Apollo, the course for the shuttle had been laid in - the next step forward determined. America had, to that point, always been moving forward. First we need to send a rocket up, then a person, then two people, then EVA, then rendezvous, then the LEM, then the rocket to get it all there and back safely... Ever forward.

Now, we're to mark time, while commercial industry catches up? The Constellation Program had the momentum to carry us through to the next step. They've even already flown the launch vehicle that would get astronauts to the ISS. Had we continued, that would have been forward. We would have understood, collectively, that we've done LEO, and we've got that covered. Now we need to move on to greater dreams - greater heights.

Forgive my license, but how does this read?

First, I believe that this nation should NOT commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to CANCEL the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to NOT develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We DO NOT propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations–explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon–if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will NOT be an entire nation. For all of us must NOT work to put him there.

Or this one...

We choose to NOT go to the moon. We choose to NOT go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are NOT willing to accept, one we ARE willing to postpone, and one which we DON'T intend to win, and the others, too.

Take a look back and learn from history.

Refusing to fund the shuttle was tantamount to admitting “that our best years are behind us, that we are turning inward… and voluntarily starting to give up our superpower status…” 1971, Casper Weinberger, Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget

We look back at Moon landings, 40 years ago, and wonder... Jim Lovell said of Apollo 8, "it was a bold move, but it was a time when we made bold moves." This? This is not bold.

This is not just the end of the shuttle, it is the beginning! The beginning of... ah... well, not much, really. Hmm.. yeah. Guess we'll... What? We'll wait and see, huh? Say, what's on TMZ tonight?

THAT is why I'm sad.