This is why I'm down on NASA, they have a 30 year old vehicle (Yahoo news says it 20 years old, but the first shuttle rolled out of Rockwell's plant in Palmdale in 1976... so it's 30 frickin years old) and they keep pouring billions of dollars into it when they should be putting every resource available into building a replacement vehicle. We got that International Space Station thing up there (and what purpose does that serve again?) and NASA need a cargo up/down vehicle to service it (hell, finish building it). The Iran Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act prohibits NASA from purchasing Russian Progress and Soyuz flights (I have no idea why, but it does) so NASA is up shit creek without a paddle and I'm willing to bet that they de-orbit that white elephant up in space (what purpose does that serve again?).
In case anyone forgot, this is your tax money at work.
Link: NASA Halts Shuttle Flights Over Foam Issue - Yahoo! News.
The loss of a chunk of debris, a vexing problem NASA thought had been fixed, represents a tremendous setback to a space program that has spent 2 1/2 years and over $1 billion trying to make the 20-year-old shuttles safe to fly.
I agree! Since it is mandatory to make a t-shirt for every issue you advocate, here is my take on NASA: http://www.cafepress.com/nada2show
Posted by: Ian Ward | Jul 28, 2005 at 11:21 PM
The shuttle is 20 years old not thirty a crafts age is based on when it enters active service. Active service is only reached when all design principals and new equipment are test and deemed working the shuttle reached this stage in 1982 the first prototype which could not leave the ground under its on power was in 1976. But you are right in the fact that the shuttle should be retired do to system wear and age. The no longer make most of the techonolgy the shuttle is build on and most of that is late 60's early 70's computing and mechanical systems. And to that the design of the system envisioned a life span of no more that 15 years. So do be so pissed when it cost more money every year after life span to launch and maintian. But do come up with the conclusion that all out replacement is best. Full replacement would cost billions more than the 5+ years of extra life we have gotten out of the shuttle with serveral year validation testing. Instead an complete rebuild of shuttle might be cheap scrap the stuff that didn't work, improve design with new information, and replace with modular upgradeable components.
Posted by: From A REAL ENGINEER | Aug 01, 2005 at 01:24 PM
re design a replacement vehicle, a point I made in my later post on NASA priorities:
http://sapventures.typepad.com/main/2005/07/nasa_priorities.html
In my view of things, NASA is best suited as a R&D organization and I would be much more enthusiastic to see the operations side of these programs contracted to the private sector.
Posted by: jeff | Aug 01, 2005 at 02:11 PM