Gas tank, because all that black stuff in space is actually crude oil.

SexCpotatoes

@tucker:

yep. it's like this:

you have this car - it's old, but it still goes. but it's not really safe, and doesn't perform how it used to, and eats up gas, so it's expensive to run.

even though day to day it's cheaper to keep fixing the car, you run a higher and higher risk of it breaking down at any given time. eventually, it becomes neccesary to junk it, even though it still technically works, and get ones self a new car. with power windows. and air conditioning.

nutbastard

From 'dna''s linked article

"The winning concept will be chosen in 2008, and the manned vehicle flown in 2014"

So what do we do until then ? Will the ISS have to rely on the Russians for transport and re-supply ?

Better get set to cruuuuuuuuuuise in the Sooooo-yuuuuuuuuuz...

Seriously though, what is the actual plan ?

OddManOut

@Git Em SteveDave has a new Lego set: A is for Axiom, your home sweet home. B is for Buy N Large, your very best friend.

tucker

@whiteknight: you want sad? the total cost of the shuttle program has been $145 billion as of early 2005.

yet, SpaceShipOne completed the first privately funded human spaceflight on June 21, 2004. It was developed by Scaled Composites and development costs were estimated to be $25 million. 1/5800 the Shuttle budget.

personally, i don't think the Shuttle program has been a very good value. Other avenues should have been explored long ago.

tucker

@HeartBurnKid: The Axiom. Mmmmm, Cupcakes in a cup.

Git Em SteveDave has a new Lego set

@HeartBurnKid: the Orion will be the replacement crew launch vehicle, as well as other vehicles for launching payloads.

@whiteknight: this is not sad, it is a good thing. the shuttle program never achieved the promised cost and utility goals. i.e. it was an extremely expensive way to send stuff into space.

with new types of launch vehicles planned, we stand a better chance of getting some actual missions to the moon or mars.

tucker

This makes me rather sad. The shuttles represented our forward progress towards exploring space and defying the limits of our planet. It's like a very exciting chapter has ended with no hope of progress for the next. NASA is ceasing to be an exciting and relevant enterprise by only sending robots and rockets into space for the near future.

whiteknight

Looks like they're already working on a new shuttle. I doubt we'll be backing out of the space race anytime soon ;)

[www.popularmechanics.com]

dna

what ever happened with that 90 study by NASA were you did nothing but laid in bed? will that study be worthless now?

WesR

@andrewkfromaz: Well the Russian's turned their shuttle into a cafe so perhaps we'll see some new Shuttle Starbucks.

McLucky

So, is this the end of the US space program then? Although I do hope the private sector will one day continue this. If I recall correctly, there are already some private shuttles.

NumberFiveIsAlive

June 1 - Remember stuff totally left up in the ISS, including "that one guy" from STS-132. Call ISS, ask if anyone could drop some of it off on the way back.

June 14 - Start to worry where our stuff is. Think Russians really might keep some of it for themselves.

July 6 - What the hell was that guy's name again?

July 28 - Stuff will arrive from Russians. iPod missing. Zune included. Good try Sergei.

August 15 - Get distress call from ISS. That guy still there. Turns out his name is Bob. Should've remembered that.

October 28 - Should be more worried about Bob, but spending a lot of time trying to get iPod back. Spent a lot of time burning those CDs. Don't tell RIAA. Also just not that interested in Sergei's U2 collection.

November 15 - Bob's wife called. Wondered about holidays. Crap.

December 24 - Merry Christmas.

January 1 - Make New Year's Resolution to remember things better this year. Sure something I forgot. Shit...Bob!

92BuickLeSabre

@HeartBurnKid: Ralph Kramden. "Bang, zoom, straight to the moon!"

yougottabekidding

Where are the shuttles going? Obviously at least one will go to the Smithsonian, but what of the rest? Kennedy Space Center?

andrewkfromaz

So, if the shuttles are going into mothballs, what's replacing them?

HeartBurnKid

@andrewkfromaz

The smithsonian already has one. Its at the Air & Space Udvar Hazy Center located near Dulles Airport. This smithsonian annex is amazing and stomps the longtime one sitting on the mall in downtown DC. The old one pretty much tops out in the 60's/70's. This new one has all sorts of cooler, modern craft on display (with some historic oldies).

Definitely worth the 12$ parking fee.

blackbird001

@tucker: You want really sad? The Iraq war has cost $525+ Billion in only 5 years its been going on. $145 billion over 30 years of space exploration and advancing humans instead of destroying them sounds like a bargain to me.

LastVigilante

If they are going to moth ball them, can I buy one to show off? Maybe make a monument in my front yard, or drive it to school to impress the girls!

ryanobo66

@tucker: Okay, I'll hear your argument. NASA is way to spend-happy. Thrift is a foreign concept to that government entity. For all the money we have spent on space exploration all we get is a few flights a year with a high mortality rate. Yes, that is sad, very, very sad. We could be doing so much more. However, the shuttle program was and is a huge footprint in the timeline of human achievements. It put people in space on a somewhat-regular schedule, and represented what we have accomplished so far. The retirement of the shuttles, like the fleet of Concordes that flew for so many years is still sad.

whiteknight

@Mondoz: "Take it up with Bush....Come hell or high water, he wants it dead by 2010."

Oh, you're just lobbing those softballs out there aren't ya?

92BuickLeSabre

@kaylix: Take it up with Bush.
He's the one dictating the Shuttle's retirement date.
Come hell or high water, he wants it dead by 2010.

Mondoz

@tucker: Let's see Branson get 50,000 lbs to LEO. Better yet, let's see any other launch vehicle retrieve a payload from orbit and return it to Earth.

She may have been an expensive beast, but she could do things no other craft could ever do.**

_

**With the exception of the Russian Buran, but let's face it: they couldn't afford to keep running that thing in their wildest dreams, and it was almost an exact copy of the shuttle with just a few engine modifications.

Mondoz

@LastVigilante:
Just was I was thinking.

Nonetheless, it seems that you would want a viable/proven alternative up and running before you stop using a proven method of transportation - regardless of cost.

kaylix

2 more missions.... 2 shuttles with pilot and copilot in each.
leave 1 shuttle at the station... 2 pilots and copilots come home in the other....
the pain in the azz has been the takeoff and landing. we need to build/keep a PERMANENT spaceship... ever seen the startrek USS Enterprise land on earth???... just send up robot ships with fuel as needed. the shuttles belong in space, not in a museum rotting away.

jimmybenning

@whiteknight: ok, i'll buy that. there will be much to be missed. much like the sadness of canceling the Apollo program (which led to funding the SS program).

tucker

We are absolutely going in the wrong direction. 29 years of this and we are sending Apollo era tech to the moon. Good times. Of course I just read that dirigibles are making a big come back as well. I remember as a kid being told that I'd be walking on the moon in my 30's, not floating in a glorified balloon by 40.

paulnptld

My guess is that the "micrometeoroid debris shields" are probably based on Aerogel technology, wherein a layer of the material an inch or so thick will slow down and encapsulate the micro-meteors without adding any significant weight/mass to the ship.

chonnes

Its really sick when you see how fast Gemini and Apollo advanced. No one takes calculated risks like that. The Shuttle killed 14 people. Apollo only killed 3 and that was on an terrestrial test setup.

If we had moved with the same vigor and risk as in the 60's we'd be on Mars by now. Maybe even further and permanent. So sad. Blame it on Spiro Agnew. He's the one who picked "space truck" out of a list that included moon bases and manned mars missions. For military reasons of course.

Mark 2000

@Mark 2000: Agreed about the pace of the Apollo missions. When you realize that Apollo 8 made the first trip to the moon in December 1968 and then, three launches later, we were on the moon within 7 months. SEVEN FUCKING MONTHS!!! That's a crazy pace. Those boys at NASA were humpin'!! And the Saturn V was the most awesome beast to ever see the light of day...or darkness of space. I still get goosebumps watching footage of one of those launches. Hooray for Discovery HD!!!

yelraf

Howzabout a Giz meet-up at one of the upcoming shuttle launches? I made plans to take my 74 year old dad to see STS-105 back in 2001, to sorta pay him back for all the great things he'd done for me over the years. I owe my love of all things Giz-like to him, so it only seemed fitting. He started getting sick and couldn't make it. I went with a friend, since I already had airline reservations and whatnot. It was an absolutely awesome sight, something I'll never forget. I only wish dad coulda made it. He'd have loved it.

Anyway, shuttle launches are tres cool and there's tons of bars and such in Cocoa Beach. Anyone game? Next year, maybe?

yelraf

You mean one tragic beginning and one tragic ending, right Giz?

AJ_Syrinx

@Mondoz: "He's the one dictating the Shuttle's retirement date. Come hell or high water, he wants it dead by 2010."

I hope to hell you're attempting (in vain) to be funny and don't really believe that. He's leaving office in a few months, and makes absolutely no decisions in the day to day operation of NASA. The shuttle's tired and needs to go to bed, and we don't need to blame anyone, even the Devil Incarnate and the Cause of All Evil in the Modern World.

@Mark 2000: "Blame it on Spiro Agnew."

So now the VP runs NASA? Where do you Nattering Nabobs get this shit?

@92BuickLeSabre: "Oh, you're just lobbing those softballs out there aren't ya?"

They never seem to learn, do they?

GadgetPlay

@GadgetPlay: heh-heh...nattering nabobs...haven't heard that one in a while.

yelraf

I just wanted to be a douche and add this quote from the "NASA Space Shuttle Decision" article [en.wikipedia.org] :

In 1969, United States Vice President Spiro T. Agnew chaired the National Aeronautics and Space Council, which discussed post-Apollo options for manned space activities [1]. The recommendations of this body would heavily influence these directions.

They considered four major options:

* manned Mars expedition
* follow-on lunar program
* low earth orbital infrastructure program
* discontinuing manned space activities

Based on the advice of the Space Council, president Richard M. Nixon made the decision to pursue the low earth orbital infrastructure program. This program mainly consisted of a space station and space shuttle. However funding restrictions precluded pursuing both simultaneously, so NASA chose to develop the space shuttle first and then use the shuttle to construct and service a space station.

Mark 2000

@GadgetPlay: Uh, if the executive branch has no control over the space program then what was Kennedy's mandate to get to the moon by the end of the decade. You think NASA is an autonomous, renegade outfit just spending billions no one has given them? From Wikipedia:

"In 1969 President Richard Nixon formed the Space Task Group, chaired by vice president Spiro T. Agnew. This group evaluated the shuttle studies to date, and recommended a national space strategy including building a space shuttle.[1]"

But I'm sure nothing on Wikipedia is at all accurate even when its referenced.

Mark 2000

@Mark 2000: "I just wanted to be a douche..."

Congrats. You said to "blame Spiro Agnew." The copy you have kindly provided shows that he was at least peripherally involved, if not a decision maker, and certainly not blameworthy. The tin-foil hat crowd here will be happy to inform you that the fix was in long before the first meeting of the council.

Nor did I say that the Executive Branch has no influence on the Space Program. That would be silly.

GadgetPlay

@GadgetPlay:

[www.cnn.com]
"Bush unveils vision for moon and beyond"

Back in 2004, in his own speech, he said he wanted the shuttle to retire in 2010.

[www.chron.com]
"White House rejects call to boost NASA shuttle funding"

Back in January, Bush rejected plans to extend the shuttle's life by even just a few flights.

4 years ago he wanted it to retire, he picked a date, and he's doing everything he can to keep it that way.
He may be on his way out in a few months, but it's going to take a hell of a lot longer than that to undo the damage he's done to NASA over the past 8 years.

Mondoz

@Mondoz: GadgetPlay is just being a troll at this point. Agnew made the recommendation, Nixon carried it out. Even if they weren't in cahoots to begin with their still both to blame. Just as Bush will to blame for any failures (or successes, I'll give him that) of the space program under his mandate.

Come on GadgetPlay, what kind of semantics are you arguing over? Since when is pointing the finger at the people who make the decisions tinfoil hattery? Argue like an adult, please. Note no one else here is calling you names.

Mark 2000

ooo my birthday

trialhero

paulnptld,
A lot of us thought the same thing. We got tired of waiting on NASA to do it (never really their job, anyway) so we're out here doing it ourselves:

[masten-space.com]
[spacex.com]
[xcor.com]
[scaled.com]
[www.armadilloaerospace.com]
[www.spacedev.com]
[www.virgingalactic.com]

We're all about getting all of us up there in our lifetimes, not some mythical future full of our great-great-grand-children.

mmealling

Some facts to help the discussion:

1) All of the Shuttles were up to be re-certified starting in 2010 as required by previous shuttle accident reports. This was going to be VERY expensive and it would have sidelined a Shuttle during the process.

2) Shuttle is being replaced by Constellation:
[en.wikipedia.org]
This is made up of Ares I, Ares V, and Orion vehicles. Ares V is the heavy lift capable vehicle.

3) There is a "gap" between when Shuttle retires and Constellation flies. There is some controversy around this and the hope is that the COTS program will help close the gap.

4) COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) is a program that replace Shuttle's previous ISS service missions with commercial providers. The two current companies in the program are SpaceX and Orbital Sciences.
[en.wikipedia.org]

5) Congress also isn't willing to increase NASA's budget enough to do both at the same time. So the only way to build Constellation is to retire Shuttle early.

mmealling

@Mark 2000:

They considered four major options:
* manned Mars expedition
* follow-on lunar program
(Both of these were prohibited by the alien masters we found on the moon).

Gervy

@Mark 2000: "Just as Bush will to blame for any failures (or successes, I'll give him that)"

Like hell you will.

@Mondoz: "Back in 2004, in his own speech, he said he wanted the shuttle to retire in 2010."

And you think this was his idea? He announced it. If you liked it, you would not be giving Bush credit.

"He may be on his way out in a few months, but it's going to take a hell of a lot longer than that to undo the damage he's done to NASA over the past 8 years."

As long as you're unbiased, and ready to give him credit for the good he's done. (I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're not going to credit him when we colonize Mars.)

@Mark 2000: "Even if they weren't in cahoots"

That would be hard for you to believe, wouldn't it? You can't have it both ways. Oh, wait, I'm sorry, you can. Your type always do.

"Note no one else here is calling you names."

Other than "troll?" I didn't call you a "tin-foil hatter," I said they'd disagree with you. And "trolls" generally start arguments. I try to finish them.

GadgetPlay

@GadgetPlay:
Unless the next president helps out NASA by increasing the manned space exploration division more than Bush's meager scraps, I doubt we'll see men on Mars anytime soon. Certainly not within Bush's timetable.

If he announced it, he endorses it, he wants credit for it, then he takes responsibility for it. If he tried to evoke some kind of Kennedy moon speech, he forgot something essential. Kennedy proposed a huge, lofty goal, then increased NASA's funding appropriately. Bush proposed completion of the station, creation of new vehicles, putting men back on the moon, and going to Mars... with roughly the same budget NASA had for just finishing the station. He's set NASA up to fail, and forces them to cancel existing projects along the way; and I'm not just talking about the shuttle.

I knew he was bad news for NASA when one of the first acts of his new NASA administrator was to kill off the CRV right when it was nearing completion. I had a few friends in that program that are still heartbroken over that tragedy.
That decision pretty much neutered the station and prevented it from ever becoming the science platform it could have been. Without the 7-man escape craft, it's three man crew would only ever be capable of maintaining the station's systems; they rarely have much time for research projects.

His legacy with NASA is going to be the death of many worthwhile projects and the failed beginnings of several more.

I'm going to miss the shuttle. I've worked for the space program for the last 10 years; most of it on shuttle projects. My projects have been used on-orbit, and one was destroyed in the loss of Columbia. I know a lot of people whose lives are going to radically change with the end of the STS program, especially without a replacement vehicle coming for another several years.

Yes, I'm biased. But I have a right to be.

Mondoz