NASA To Retire Atlantis by 2008

SirBruce writes "As reported by Space.com, Spaceflight Now, and elsewhere, NASA is now planning to retire the Space Shuttle Atlantis by 2008, after just 5 more flghts. By doing so, they would avoid a costly and time consuming scheduled overhaul, and could still fly the remaining 12 missions (17 total) with Discovery and Endeavour, which are just now completing their ODMPs (orbiter maintenance down period). Atlantis would be kept for spare parts to keep Discovery and Endeavour flying until the shuttle program is shut down in 2010."

Old rule.

[IamGarageGuy 2]

Why fix an old piece of hardware when you can get a new one faster, smarter, more shiny, etc. How about a donation to a university to rip it apart or try to fly it again.

Um...

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Not to be cynical- but keeping Atlantis for spare parts doesn't put money in anyone's pockets. Buying new parts for soon to be retired shuttles from big time political donors seems to be the government way....

Re:Old rule.

[Ubergrendle]

Sometimes old hardware isn't worth saving because it contains too many complexities, or design mistakes, to keep running.

For every DC-3 or B-52 bomber that's flying 50+ years later, there's a dozen lesser models that never made it that far. One of the success factors for these planes were their elegance -- simple but sufficient components that are easily maintained and replaced.

Unfortunately I don't think the space shuttles fit into this category. We've learned alot from them...but probably more of 'what not to do' than 'lets build 20 more!'.

I think canibalising it for parts is a good short-term move, when the program wraps up though I agree they should find a way to preserve the learnings of the shuttle program. Lets hope its replacement is safer, cheaper, and more effective!

Don't cobble it up for parts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Place the Atlantis, intact, into the Simthsonian.

Just make sure all the toxic monopropellants have been thouroughly cleaned out.

Not all news from NASA are bad

[Lord Satri]

In fact, NASA also has good news for us.

Two weeks ago, the important Landsat-8 was confirmed [gcn.com] while NASA also saves a lot of money by simply adopting interoperable practices [geospatial-online.com].

Now, if only NASA [google.ca] Worldwind [slashgeo.org] (and Punt [sourceforge.net]) could get more popularity over Google Earth...

NASA is so 1900's...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

NASA is so 1900's - I think the Chinese will leapfrog the shuttle fleet long before we can figure out what to do about any shuttle replacement. There's been talk about replacements since I was in elementary school. Now my own children are about to enter elementary school and very little has changed.

At half a billion a flight

[everphilski]

... no university could/would spend their **entire budget** to get the thing to fly a single mission, not to mention the price to fix it up, apply for the proper licenses from the http://ast.faa.gov/ [faa.gov] AST, etc. Better to start from scratch and get a real education in things like high speed aerodynamics and propulsion along the way.

Re:ISS in jeopardy?

[tgd]

Yeah, that'd be quite the tragedy if the ISS is never finished.

*rolls eyes*

The ISS will never be anything but a useless pork-barrel corporate-welfare project. Something happening to end it would be the best thing that could happen to NASA. Just imagine the billions of dollars NASA has wasted over the last thirty years on the ISS and Space Shuttle co-dependant welfare programs. Look at the huge success they've had with every other program which have been universally starved for funds because of the Shuttle/ISS debacle.

Re:Um...

[Charcharodon]

You don't know much about flying aircraft then. Even if they wanted to get new parts, the companies that created them most likely no longer exist. Big time political donors usually don't get "big" parts contracts since they are anything but, big. Most components on the shuttles and military aircraft are repairable, so they get recycled rather than pitched.

Re:Consequences.

[sublies]

The plan is to increase NASA's ability to launch missions by removing the albatross of the shuttle progrm from around its neck. The pace is ridiculously slow with the shuttle program because the shuttles themselves are ridiculously complex, ridiculously expensive and ridiculously dangerous to operate. Their new plan to strap payloads to retrofitted SRBs, while a bit Mad Max, is the best idea they've had in years. Still might be too little too late, though.

But what about the space program's future?

[DamnedNice]

Gene Roddenberry must be turning in his grave. If you ask me, the space program needs more support and more money; but less protesters and hippies. Honestly, I don't care if we ever meet alien life. My biggest concern is that once we use up all the resources on Earth, we'll have to start strip-mining other planets instead. Plus, eventually we'll run out of room for people.

Re:So what will they use to launch kids into space

[Anonymous Coward]

Your girlfriend must be good looking if she is that dumb.

Re:They really seem to be winding down manned miss

[Overzeetop]

Actually, that should be just enough time to lose a good portion of our "corporate knowledge" re:manned missions. I'm not sure being an astronaut that is going to be looking at a 10 year (optimistically speaking) hiatus from flight is going to be a real career incentive. These folks tend to be driven and tenacious, but with the schedules the way they tend to slip, I don't think I'd stay in the corps. (I was never a real astronaut-candidate, though I considered it at one point early in my NASA career).

I'm not really sure that getting people into space ius really that big of a deal anyway, unless you plan on doing something other than invesigating the effects on humans in LEO. Most of what is done, that isn't just for show, is controlled remotely. I'm a big "Rah! Rah! Manned Space Flight!" kind of guy, but there really is a limit to the value we're getting for our manned space flight dollars. Right now, I think it's money down the tubes, but if we're really going to be ambitious, we need to be a bit more proactive in getting a replacement vehicle up before we lose the in house expertise in manned spaceflight. I mean, lets face it, the only people with orbital spaceflight experience in this hemisphere are the ones currently doing it at JSC. Lose them, and we'll get to start all over in a couple of decades when the next program is finally ready to get off the ground.

A chance for a change. . .

[wormnet.org]

Maybe, just maybe, when they decide to build another spacecraft they could possibly get around a few of the issues they've had with the current space shuttles. You know, falling foam, bad o-rings, things that tend to make them explode into giant balls of fire! Pretty much though, as long as we're putting satellites into space, we're going to need a way for people to get up there and work on them. We'll at least need to continue finding new ways of putting them up, if we ever get to the point where we just let them fail and replace them with another one.

Either way, there will still be advances in spacecraft technology even if they don't end up taking us to another planet.

Re:Old rule.

[lowrydr310]

The F-117 is set for retirement in 2008 [reviewjournal.com]. Some people wonder why a great technological marvel would be retired while ancient planes like the B-52 still fly, but based on what I've read, the F-117 is a nightmare to maintain.

If you're planning on buying a car and making it last for 20 years or more, which do you think would be easier (and cheaper) to maintain?

1. A basic Honda with manually operated seats, roll up windows, and manual locks or
2. Mercedes with navigation system, auto climate control, power heated seats, power windows, power locks with RF keyfob, traction control, ABS, power sunroof, heated auto-dimming mirrors, automatic headlights, automatic rain-sensing wipers, etc

Re:Old rule.

[iamlucky13]

I would argue that the F-117 was just as much a technology demonstrator as it was a tactical strike aircraft. It showed stealth technology could be used effectively on the modern battlefield, and lessons and technologies learned are being applied to the development of the F-22 and F-35. But then, how does that compare to the space shuttle? We built 5 of those compared to 60 F-117's. I guess the differences between air combat and space flight make the numbers deceiving, since the shuttles were supposed to be a work-horse, and expectation they never fully lived up to. I guess the space shuttle is more like the XB-70, a Mach 3 heavy bomber prototype built in the 60's: technologically very impressive, but ultimately the wrong approach.

History

[Arwing]

I am not sure how many people realize the historical context of these ships. These are the first true space ships, one of the earily milestones for space travel. Imagine, when space travel is as common as air travel today, when a flight to Mars is easy as a flight to China today or when Google actually establishes a moon base. How will we look back to these space shuttle? I dare say these shuttles maybe more important than the Wright brother's KittyHawks. Who knows, these shuttles may even (AND SHOULD) out live United States itself! We need to preserve these machines for the sake of history.

Re:Old rule.

[vsprintf]

I guess the differences between air combat and space flight make the numbers deceiving, since the shuttles were supposed to be a work-horse, and expectation they never fully lived up to. I guess the space shuttle is more like the XB-70, a Mach 3 heavy bomber prototype built in the 60's: technologically very impressive, but ultimately the wrong approach.

Whose expectations? The shuttles had an optimistic schedule that was hyped by some political appointees, when in reality they were experimental craft. There was nothing like it that had flown before. We learned a lot from the shuttles about how things really work in space and reusability. Anybody else recall watching the capture of the Hubble? The Shuttle has been a learning vehicle, not just a space vehicle.

When bad things happened in a very dangerous occupation, we got media hysteria and political grandstanding. Look at all the lives and ships lost during normal early American trade. Our ancestors would be unable to understand our timid response to expected losses and even trivial damage in a hostile environment. I wouldn't call the Shuttle the "wrong approach." It was the approach we chose to test first. We could have chosen to try nothing new, and we would have learned nothing new.

Re:And what about the Chinese?

[kilodelta]

$30 billion or so would be less than 10% what we spend on military misadventure.

Or consider that the Iraq war has eaten up roughly ten years worth of support for a moon base that will serve as a launch platform to Mars and beyond.