Where do you stand on commercial spacelift? Did the Shuttle retire too early?

2014-10-28T22:07:35-04:00

The first flight test of NASA's new manned spacecraft (replacing the Shuttle) is planned for December 2014. The Orion Flight Test will evaluate launch and high speed re-entry systems such as avionics, attitude control, parachutes and the heat shield. In the future, Orion will launch on NASA’s new heavy-lift rocket, the Space Launch System.

SLS will be capable of sending humans to deep space destinations such as an asteroid and eventually Mars.

The December trial is a vital proving ground, since NASA plans just one more flight test (in 2017) before the capsule's first crewed mission lifts off in 2021.

Currently, we spend $60M per astronaut for Russia to send us to the ISS.
Do you you have confidence that we will have successful manned space flights in 2021? Did we retire the Shuttle too soon and do you worry about our dependence on the Russians? What are some alternate solutions we should consider? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

Response by PO3 Shaun Taylor made Oct 28 at 2014 10:13 PM

2014-10-28T22:13:39-04:00

I think we ended the shuttle program too early.

Response by Maj Walter Kilar made Oct 30 at 2014 12:29 AM

2014-10-30T00:29:18-04:00

The space shuttle program should not have ended without some overlap, American capability. I agree that it was time to move forward, but not at the risk of mission assurance by surrendering control of assured spacelift with known risks. Not only do we depend on Russia for spacelift, but also for rocket parts. The Russian RD-180 is still the first stage of the United Launch Alliance Atlas V, and the Russian NK-33 is being used in the Orbital/ATK entrant into the NASA commercial contract. I am a big fan of the SpaceX Merlin stage 1, because it is made in the U.S. of A., and is doing well so far.

It annoys me that the Air Force is still spending money evaluating how to copy the Russian design, and not incentivizing an all-American design.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2014 11:43 AM

2014-10-30T11:43:53-04:00

Capt Brandon Charters - Neither answer provided is correct. The story is much larger than the decisions of the last 20 years.

The Space Shuttle was conceived in the late 1960s and envisioned a fleet of 50 shuttles that would be taking off every two weeks. This would make the massive infrastructure needed cost-effective because they would be kept busy on an ongoing basis *and* it would facilitate the development of mass production techniques that would lower the cost of each shuttle.

In the early 1970s, President Nixon opted to massively cut the Space Shuttle budget and effectively eliminated a program to begin development of a follow-on vessel. This relegated the shuttle to a boutique program, with each shuttle essential hand-made. The massive infrastructure that supported launches was essentially dormant for much of the year.

When President Reagan "revived" the space program, there remained little effort to develop new platforms - after all computers and electronics weren't changing much, right?

By the late 1990s, when my wife worked on putting payloads (science experiments) onto the Space Shuttle, the shuttle was hopelessly out of date. More modern computers had replaced the 1970s "state of the art" models that had been originally been the pride of the platform. This was replacement was somewhat successful, but the new computers had endless difficulties interfacing with the shuttle's electronics.

The Columbia disaster highlighted how far beyond their lifespan the shuttles were persisting, the original program expected to replace the shuttle in the 1980s. No real effort had been made to develop a more advanced space platform from the 1980s until the last few years. The decision to terminate the program was made by President G.W. Bush based on sound, although difficult, analysis of the growing risks of launching and landing a platform that was in excess of 30 years old.

Consider adding this answer:
"The termination of the Space Shuttle program was the end result of 40 years of decisions that failed to develop a replacement for an aging platform."

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2014 2:20 PM

2014-11-09T14:20:36-05:00

We probably should have kept it going, based on the private space launch failures. I am concerned about the ISS dependence on Russia.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2014 11:09 PM

2014-11-09T23:09:24-05:00

The shuttle was using technology, that was ahead of the time when first conceived in the 70's, but there were not any significant technological gains over the span of time that the Space Transportation System was operating.

The need to replace the aging fleet of our satellite constellation is growing more urgent, and we need to get another system in place soon.

Response by Sgt Randy Novak made Nov 11 at 2014 4:48 PM

2014-11-11T16:48:06-05:00

Well I now work at SpaceX. So from where I stand or work. Space travel is far from over. We are just beginning to scratch the surface.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2014 2:43 PM

2014-11-12T14:43:55-05:00

I think we ended the shuttle program prematurely. For the time being, we are completely dependent on Russian space lift...either renting space on their rockets, or using their 60s-era rockets to power our own space craft. While I support commercial space lift, the Antares explosion and the recent Virgin Galactic crash show that it isn't quite ready for prime time, in my opinion. Although, the shuttle wasn't without it's own high-profile failures, so I'm willing to entertain counter-arguments.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Nov 12 at 2014 2:58 PM

2014-11-12T14:58:22-05:00

I think there's merit to continuing space travel/exploration, however, I also think that the (old) shuttle program ended at the right time. My sense is that with the shuttle airframes and technology being built on a 35-40 year old platform and technology, NASA money was better spent on calling a halt and starting fresh.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Nov 12 at 2014 3:02 PM

2014-11-12T15:02:20-05:00

Bring on the commercial development, hooray SpaceX!

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2014 3:05 PM

2014-11-12T15:05:57-05:00

While I disagree with giving up our ability to put a man in space, the shuttle wasn't the best way to do that. I only wish we had spent more time and money before hand getting a replacement up and running.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2014 3:41 PM

2014-11-12T15:41:33-05:00

Believe they probably could have continued with the shuttle until they had a replacement. Not really thrilled with the dependence on Russia but what alternative do we have right now. We are still able to keep the B-52 flying so maybe we could have figured out someway to keep the shuttle going.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Jan 4 at 2015 12:48 PM

2015-01-04T12:48:47-05:00

A few thoughts on commercial spacelift.
- Look at the development and progression of any technology (railroad, air, telegraph, telephone) and expansion away from public/governmental to the private always happens (assuming it did not start out private in the first place).
- The gap between the shutdown of the Shuttle and a US based replacement is more than the two options list above. It could be shutdown of the shuttle too soon, did not start a replacement soon enough, a combination, or something else.
- The US made a strategic mistake in the 1970s. There is a huge cost differential between manned missions and unmanned missions because of the added safety factor required for manned missions. The US developed a manned mission capability (Shuttle) without enough investment in unmanned capability. We therefore used the Shuttle to push things into space that did not have to be manned and therefore paid a far higher cost throughout the 1980s-2010s.
- The nation or company that is able to develop a method to get things into space at a significantly reduced cost (manned and unmanned) from current rates will have a strategic advantage over everyone else that will most likely not be overcome.
- Unfortunately, I do not see the US being the one to develop this method above because we and NASA are not investing what is needed to do so.

Response by CAPT David Bryant made Jan 4 at 2015 5:36 PM

2015-01-04T17:36:25-05:00

The underlying problem in the 60's and 70's was that our country's space exploration was politically motivated as part of the cold war competition with the Soviet Union - a very poor future vision of armed camps extending the cold war to moon and mars colonies that came to an end with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. We in the West won but with this win our political motivation for investment in space exploration evaporated (except for the booming commercial satellite services demand). The Space Shuttle program started with this background and floundered with no lasting support or long term goals.

We as a people are now ending a 30 year hiatus in true space exploration. Great things have been accomplished in these 30 years The real excitement is that the innovators like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Paul Allen and others that have driven and benefitted from other areas of innovation are now investing their time, capital and innovative drive into a new era of space exploration with a much better motivation - creating enduring and sustaining businesses through space exploration. There will always be true cutting edge efforts without a near enough return on investment to attract private capital. But to be long term sustaining, there needs to be commercial pay back generating the "seed corn" for further exploration. This is a truly exciting time. Arguably, what should have started in the 80's, but it is happening now and will transform the world(s) of the future.

Response by PO2 Patrick Prichard made Jan 7 at 2015 12:28 PM

2015-01-07T12:28:39-05:00

I still miss the shuttle program and think it was shut down prematurely by the current administration but I currently work at Spacex and know for a fact that we can do it cheaper,safer and more reliable as we progress with our missions.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Jan 8 at 2015 12:32 PM

2015-01-08T12:32:33-05:00

As much as I tried, I couldn't lift the Shuttle Discovery yesteday while at the Smithsonian. Guess it will have to stay there a while longer.