NationStates Jolt Archive

So the space shuttle was due to launch yesterday, but it got set back a day due to bad weather. This is gonna be the second shuttle mission in a long time by the Discovery. The first one had slight problems but made it back fine.

Will this be another Columbia?
Do you think NASA has learnt from its mistakes and made the craft safe?

I think something minor will happen, but noone will be hurt

I think the space shuttle is long, long overdue for retirement.
Idea: why not donate them to Iran in return for them stopping the nuclear program ? A space programme is just as impressive after all.

Although there haven't been enough space shuttle diasters to get accurate estimates, I'd say there is a 1-2% chance they will all die. Which is pretty good odds compared to slamming a car into a wall at 70 miles an hour with a live Bengali tiger in the back seat that isn't wearing a seat belt.

god i hope not. i still havent been able to deal with the last time one exploded.

I'm afraid they're not very well put together. Parts of the shuttle are miracles of engineering, but I don't think that overall it is safe enough a system for crewed flights.

god i hope not. i still havent been able to deal with the last time one exploded.

How so? From an abstract perspective, the human tragedy of the last one was less tragic than say, most airline crashes, particularly the ones involving either significant technical or human failure.

In most cases, the loss of human life was far greater and just as tragic than a shuttle disaster. Certainly, the financial lost represented by the destruction of a multi-billion dollar investment is not easy to absorb, but that should not be overly traumatic. Unless one is recieving the bill of course.

How so? From an abstract perspective, the human tragedy of the last one was less tragic than say, most airline crashes, particularly the ones involving either significant technical or human failure.

In most cases, the loss of human life was far greater and just as tragic than a shuttle disaster. Certainly, the financial lost represented by the destruction of a multi-billion dollar investment is not easy to absorb, but that should not be overly traumatic. Unless one is recieving the bill of course.

Well yes, the deaths of the astronauts were insignificant compared to the number of people who die from malaria each day, but humans don't quite work like that. We don't "do the math" before feeling an emotional response. Perhaps, for whatever reason Ashmoria feels keenly about the sucess or failure of the space shuttle. Or perhaps Ashmoria sells O-rings to NASA.

How so? From an abstract perspective, the human tragedy of the last one was less tragic than say, most airline crashes, particularly the ones involving either significant technical or human failure.

In most cases, the loss of human life was far greater and just as tragic than a shuttle disaster. Certainly, the financial lost represented by the destruction of a multi-billion dollar investment is not easy to absorb, but that should not be overly traumatic. Unless one is recieving the bill of course.
Yes, but the number of people that die from some diasese in some remote part of Africa are not repeated on prime-time television to the extent that the columbia was, most of the time they are not shown at all.

I sure hope it doesn't blow up.

We need a new line of safer spacecraft if you ask me.

As a general rule, I don't fly in anything built by the lowest bidder. I want optional accessories! :p

god i hope not. i still havent been able to deal with the last time one exploded.


You still haven't gotten over Columbia? Hell, I still haven't gotten over Challenger. I still get nervous for the first 73 seconds of a launch.

I sure hope it doesn't blow up.

We need a new line of safer spacecraft if you ask me.
i belive a new line is being made for 2010, or maybe thats when the shuttles are decomissioned

How so? From an abstract perspective, the human tragedy of the last one was less tragic than say, most airline crashes, particularly the ones involving either significant technical or human failure.

In most cases, the loss of human life was far greater and just as tragic than a shuttle disaster. Certainly, the financial lost represented by the destruction of a multi-billion dollar investment is not easy to absorb, but that should not be overly traumatic. Unless one is recieving the bill of course.
well you know how when there is a big news story like the space shuttle blowing up on reentry you follow the story, learn the names of the people involved, discuss the theories of what went wrong?

about the time they started looking for body parts in albuquerque, i had to stop paying attention to the story. just typing that up made me start crying.

You still haven't gotten over Columbia? Hell, I still haven't gotten over Challenger. I still get nervous for the first 73 seconds of a launch.
you must have been in school that day.

the challenger disaster scarred a whole generation of school children. im glad i was already an adult.

I was a High School senior. We watched it live. I also remember when I thought that was the worst thing I'd ever witness live. Then 9/11 happened.

Don't you think its morbid to be discussing, and voting(kind of like taking bets) on if the space shuttle will explode, killing all those on board?

I was a High School senior. We watched it live. I also remember when I thought that was the worst thing I'd ever witness live. Then 9/11 happened.
i wish they would never show either video on tv ever again. both are burned into my memory as clearly as if they had happened yesterday.

As a general rule, I don't fly in anything built by the lowest bidder. I want optional accessories! :p

And don't forget, it's a government contract, too!

Although there haven't been enough space shuttle diasters to get accurate estimates, I'd say there is a 1-2% chance they will all die. Which is pretty good odds compared to slamming a car into a wall at 70 miles an hour with a live Bengali tiger in the back seat that isn't wearing a seat belt.
If you count all the deaths and all the missions for both the United States and the USSR, there is a 1 in 100 chance the crew will die. Ninety-nine in 100 is good enough odds for living that I'd go ride the Shuttle.

As a general rule, I don't fly in anything built by the lowest bidder. I want optional accessories! :p
What do you think you're riding every time you get on a commercial airliner? They sure didn't go with the high bid.

Don't know if you've ever looked at a government contract, but they're designed to put each and every vendor out of business by placing incredibly burdensome requirements on a contractor.

We do a pretty good job of building antenna systems, but there hasn't been a United States government project that has really made money. The best we can seem to do is break even and then get another contract.

So the space shuttle was due to launch yesterday, but it got set back a day due to bad weather. This is gonna be the second shuttle mission in a long time by the Discovery. The first one had slight problems but made it back fine.

Will this be another Columbia?
Do you think NASA has learnt from its mistakes and made the craft safe?

I think something minor will happen, but noone will be hurt
They havn't learnt shit. Their solution to the foam not falling off is going "boy, I sure hope some foam doesn't fall off."
Even though the shuttle keeps getting deleted they are fuck ups. I read in the paper today that they found out that one of the heaters in some system or other wasn't working and they wern't going to worry with it because they figured it will be corrected in flight.

As a general rule, I don't fly in anything built by the lowest bidder.
More like don't fly Air NASA. They should just repaint the foam so it doesn't come off. It will add weight but so what? It's not aero-fucking-dynamic, you are burning rocket fuel to launch a ton of metal into fucking space.

I suggest we buy the old Soviet shuttles and just use those.
I read in a magazine that the Soviet shuttles got higher government crash test safety ratings in both side-impact and frontal collisions.

I suggest we buy the old Soviet shuttles and just use those.
I read in a magazine that the Soviet shuttles got higher government crash test safety ratings in both side-impact and frontal collisions.

The old Buran/Energia? The only one thats left is a empty hulk left in a childern's amusement park in Gorky!

I HOPE they will crash and burn, I don't care where... Well... If the hit the control center, that would be nice. :)

If you count all the deaths and all the missions for both the United States and the USSR, there is a 1 in 100 chance the crew will die. Ninety-nine in 100 is good enough odds for living that I'd go ride the Shuttle.

These specific statistics (that rhymes) were compiled during the era of capsules, non-reusable one-off space vessels. The likes of Voskod, Soyuz, Gemini and Apollo. Two Soyuz craft have been lost with a dead crew (1 and 8 if I remember correctly). Apollo 13 was the American close-call. Damn, I'm drifting off point.

There has been 2 incidents of loss of vehicle and crew in the 114 Shuttle manned flights ... so far. Thats more along the lines of 1.7%. (17 out of 1000 times) That doesn't include the fiasco with colloiding with Mir.

It'll be fine.

I HOPE they will crash and burn, I don't care where... Well... If the hit the control center, that would be nice. :)

What...The....Hell? :upyours:

Goddamn, man what is this - NASA or NASCAR? This notion of betting whether Discovery will make it out and back without incident is as morbid as watching cars endlessly turning left, in the hopes of a pileup.

There was the same hype before the last return-to-flight mission and they were fine.

I think that the Shuttle launch and mission will pass without a hitch. If there is a hitch it will be a very minor one, albeit vastly over-hyped by the blood-thirsty media and the vultures in Congress who are just begging for another disaster to give them the excuse to shut down NASA.

Everyone made such a fuss over the foam debris on the launch last year, but if you took even five seconds to watch the footage, you'd see it didn't go anywhere near the Shuttle. Nevertheless, the media were all over it, hoping against hope that it would be something serious so that they could crucify NASA. Its like Apollo 13. No-one gave a shit about that mission (going to the Moon was 'routine'). Then there was a problem. All of a sudden the media were interested again. Blood-thirsty vultures, all of them.

Has anyone noticed that the new CEV/Cargo Lifter goes back to the good old days of capsules and rockets? It even uses technology from the old Saturn rockets. It was a system proposed instead of the Shuttle. Now, we've had 25 years of space flight with Shuttles (which by rights should have been scrapped when the Space Station they were designed to service was cancelled) and to replace it we go back to the old rockets and the very design that the Shuttle was chosen over. Thank you very much Richard Nixon!

As an aside, rockets and capsules are far safer than the Shuttle will ever be. The capsule sits on top of the rocket. The heat shield is protected, no risk of it being damaged by loose foam. It also has an escape tower, so (God forbid) there was another Challenger-style accident where the rocket exploded, the crew could be taken to safety by the escape rockets.

We should have stuck with the original plan (ie CEV and Heavy Launch rockets). God only knows where space exploration would be if we had.

*As an aside, I love the Shuttle as much as anyone. Its a fantastic feat of technology and was a giant leap in Manned Space Flight. My rant is about how it has become an apparent anomoly in space flight since we are going back to rockets and capsules as its replacement, thus wasting 30 years of development and a shitload of money.

Far greater tragedies than the Columbia and Challenger accidents happen everyday, but hardly anyone notices. It's all about publicity, media coverage. I'm surprised that some people "haven't got over" the shuttle disasters. What about the tsunami that took over 200 THOUSAND human lives in many countries in 2004? Not in the US, not important?

Far greater tragedies than the Columbia and Challenger accidents happen everyday, but hardly anyone notices. It's all about publicity, media coverage. I'm surprised that some people "haven't got over" the shuttle disasters. What about the tsunami that took over 200 THOUSAND human lives in many countries in 2004? Not in the US, not important?

I think that man-made disasters tend to have more impact than natural ones. I'm not sure why, it just seems to be human nature. Its probably something to do with "how can we stop this from happening again?" that makes events like Challenger, Columbia, and 9/11 (to give 3 examples) stick in people's heads. Its also probably to do with the fact that people actually witnessed these events as they happened, whereas natural disasters you tend to hear about afterwards on the news.

I for one still get a lump in my throat watching the Challenger or the Columbia footage. Hell, I get a lump in my throat during the re-entry sequence at the beginning of Star Wars Episode III because it reminds me of the Columbia (its clear that ILM based that effects sequence on the Columbia). This doesn't diminish in my mind the loss of all the people in the Tsunami, or elevate the Shuttle crews or 9/11 victims above the victims of the Tsunami. Its just the way each of us reacts to certain things. Like I said, for me at least its to do with the "how can we stop this from happening again?" mentality of a man-made disaster.

Did it even launch?

Goddamn, man what is this - NASA or NASCAR? This notion of betting whether Discovery will make it out and back without incident is as morbid as watching cars endlessly turning left, in the hopes of a pileup.
It all takes place in the South. Daytona is just up the coast from the Cape, ya know.

Did it even launch?

No. Weather has postponed the launch until 14:38EDT on Tuesday. If it launches then it will be the first Shuttle launch ever on Independence Day.

As a general rule, I don't fly in anything built by the lowest bidder. I want optional accessories! :p

You just want those fuzzy dice don't you?

Yes, but the number of people that die from some diasese in some remote part of Africa are not repeated on prime-time television to the extent that the columbia was, most of the time they are not shown at all.


well you know how when there is a big news story like the space shuttle blowing up on reentry you follow the story, learn the names of the people involved, discuss the theories of what went wrong?

about the time they started looking for body parts in albuquerque, i had to stop paying attention to the story. just typing that up made me start crying.

So then it was a matter of exposure and continual impact to the emotional state that causes it.

No. Weather has postponed the launch until 14:38EDT on Tuesday. If it launches then it will be the first Shuttle launch ever on Independence Day.
If that doesn't sound like some kind of propaganda waiting to happen I don't know what does.

I think the shuttle will blow up....

I read an article on the BBC a few months ago when NASA decided the launch date that even some of NASA's head engineers said it was not going to be safe enough or ready enough for the launch date...

Plus the heater stopped working and NASA just think "Oh well, maybe it will fix itself".... Stuff doesn't just suddenly decide "Oh Shit, time to start working!" when you need it to most.... Murphy's law.


if I had a million bucks, i would probably be betting it all on the shuttle blowing up.... It's not that I don't care, it's just that NASA fucks up too much

If that doesn't sound like some kind of propaganda waiting to happen I don't know what does.I thought the same thing when I first heard the new date. Nice to know that I'm not the only one.

No. Weather has postponed the launch until 14:38EDT on Tuesday. If it launches then it will be the first Shuttle launch ever on Independence Day.

it's reassuring to know that a shuttle built to deal with the outter most reaches of space cant launch due to bad weather

HA

....IF it ever takes off - yes it'll come back - maybe not in one peice, things have a tendancy to fall off shuttles - but it will come back with crew in tact.

With all the attention to safety that's been going on this shuttle should be less likely to blow up than most previous trips. Unfortunately even all the attention to safety won't lower the chances by a great deal as the system is more or less inherently unsafe. To send a crew up on cargo runs for satellite launches is an inherently bad idea. It adds to the payload weight and puts lives at risk for no real return.

it's reassuring to know that a shuttle built to deal with the outter most reaches of space cant launch due to bad weather

HA

Apollo 12 was launched in bad weather and was hit by lightning. No harm was actually done, but aparently they had to do a lot of work cleaning the seats in mission control.

Apollo 12 was launched in bad weather and was hit by lightning. No harm was actually done, but aparently they had to do a lot of work cleaning the seats in mission control.

lol.. I bet

I suggest we buy the old Soviet shuttles and just use those.
I read in a magazine that the Soviet shuttles got higher government crash test safety ratings in both side-impact and frontal collisions.

That's so not funny.

(Never mind that it flew in space only twice, and never with a human onboard...)

Two total losses of five orbiters in about 120 launches is not acceptable. Cancel this program!!

For those that WANT the shuttle to blow up: I hope it does so in such a manner that a nice, big chunk of debris lands on your house and kills your mother, dog, wife, whatever you care about most. Because you actually WANT TO SEE people die, I hope that karma bitch-slaps you.

No, it will be fine on this trip...

Well, if i was that crew, I would certainly like to go out in a spectacular explosion instead of just one giant chunk of debris

btw, Crack Found in Shuttle Tank Foam (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5137462.stm)

If it wasn't for the bad weather, the crew might have already been dead.

For those that WANT the shuttle to blow up: I hope it does so in such a manner that a nice, big chunk of debris lands on your house and kills your mother, dog, wife, whatever you care about most. Because you actually WANT TO SEE people die, I hope that karma bitch-slaps you.

I would just like to say that I don't nessicarily want it to blow up, but I know it's going to happen anyways....You can't stop the inevitable

Well, if i was that crew, I would certainly like to go out in a spectacular explosion instead of just one giant chunk of debris

btw, Crack Found in Shuttle Tank Foam (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5137462.stm)

If it wasn't for the bad weather, the crew might have already been dead.
A) They need to paint the god damned thing, I don't care if they paint it hot pink, it needs to be painted. Who gives a fuck if it's heavier? It's not supposed to fly around in the air and conerve fuel, it creates a fucking controlled explosion to launch shit into space.

B) The incessant sitting the thing out there for three weeks because of bad weather is going to cause problems because of fluctuations in heat and cold and wet and dry. It's fucking retarded. Get your god damn weather predictions in before you plan something, like every other dipshit does.

Frankly, I hope it gets struck by lightning sitting on the pad waiting out bad weather and falls apart.

i think Nasa has become a littel too crazy over safety. they have launched shuttles many times before and they have only had two of them not come back.

if we want to continue with space exploration we need to stop looking in on the past and start advancing forward.

Frankly, I hope it gets struck by lightning sitting on the pad waiting out bad weather and falls apart.We've had a shuttle get hit by lightning before, while being launched... nothing was wrong with it...


NASA is just fucked up though

I would like to post another link, article dates June 17 Safety fears as shuttle date set

Nasa is to launch the space shuttle Discovery on 1 July, despite warnings from senior safety officials and engineers that it is not safe to fly. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5091308.stm)

i bet something will be claimed to of happened. but its really nothing but they will make a huge deal about it anyway. something like "astronaut lost his fork and Nasa is in fear of bringing the shuttle back to earth with missing fork."

Well, if i was that crew, I would certainly like to go out in a spectacular explosion instead of just one giant chunk of debris

btw, Crack Found in Shuttle Tank Foam (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5137462.stm)

If it wasn't for the bad weather, the crew might have already been dead.


12cm long thats like OMG 12 inches. and its 3 mm deep hold on........

guess NASA gave the press its a foot long and 1/8" deep and then the press runs away with it
and as for the NASA engineers opposing shuttle launch story.... if the reporter had bothered to watch the news conference fully, the engineers said the risk was to the shuttle itself, not the crew because in the event of damage to the shuttle the crew could take refuge in the ISS.

The biggest problem with any of these stories is not the content of the stories , but the way they are reported with omission/inclusions depending on the media company concerned and whoever is writing up the story.

You only have to look at media stories from other parts of the world re Israel/Palestine or North Korea , to see idiot journalists making a complete and utter fools of themselves.

12cm long thats like OMG 12 inches. and its 3 mm deep hold on........

guess NASA gave the press its a foot long and 1/8" deep and then the press runs away with it
and as for the NASA engineers opposing shuttle launch story.... if the reporter had bothered to watch the news conference fully, the engineers said the risk was to the shuttle itself, not the crew because in the event of damage to the shuttle the crew could take refuge in the ISS.

The biggest problem with any of these stories is not the content of the stories , but the way they are reported with omission/inclusions depending on the media company concerned and whoever is writing up the story.

You only have to look at media stories from other parts of the world re Israel/Palestine or North Korea , to see idiot journalists making a complete and utter fools of themselves.


Its being luanched...if nothing else goes wrong on July fourth...an omen perhaps ?

12cm long thats like OMG 12 inches. and its 3 mm deep hold on........

guess NASA gave the press its a foot long and 1/8" deep and then the press runs away with it
and as for the NASA engineers opposing shuttle launch story.... if the reporter had bothered to watch the news conference fully, the engineers said the risk was to the shuttle itself, not the crew because in the event of damage to the shuttle the crew could take refuge in the ISS.


First off, if something goes wrong with the shuttle, the crew is most likely going to be dead seconds later....

Second... 12 cm is quite a lot, considering that thing has to keep superheated gases from blasting through the atmosphere out, and you are missing a chunk of the foam in a spot... now the gases could possibly get in there.... or the speed of the shuttle could rip the foam off from that part since it's already weakened

if I had a million bucks, i would probably be betting it all on the shuttle blowing up.... It's not that I don't care, it's just that NASA fucks up too much

The chances of the Shuttle actually exploding are minimal. Problems with cracked foam insulation will not cause the Shuttle to explode (Columbia broke up, it didn't explode).

it's reassuring to know that a shuttle built to deal with the outter most reaches of space cant launch due to bad weather

The Shuttle can launch in bad weather perfectly well. The problem comes if they have to do an abort and return to Earth before going into orbit. Then the weather becomes a serious problem because the Shuttle is designed to glide to Earth. Storms and strong winds are not ideal gliding conditions!

Apollo 12 was launched in bad weather and was hit by lightning. No harm was actually done, but aparently they had to do a lot of work cleaning the seats in mission control.

No permanent damage was done, however it shorted out all of the electrical systems on the spacecraft and almost caused the mission to be aborted. It was only sheer luck that Al Bean knew where the obscure switch was to reset the electrics. Its because of this that NASA refuses to launch in another thunderstorm.

Two total losses of five orbiters in about 120 launches is not acceptable. Cancel this program!!

That's two losses over 25 years. I think that's a pretty good record considering how dangerous space flight actually is and the extra risks of the exposed heat shield on the Shuttle as opposed to the concealed heat shield on a capsule atop a rocket. No programme of this kind can be expected to be 100% safe, and it doesn't need to be cancelled for that, although they certainly need to speed up the development of the CEV.

I would just like to say that I don't nessicarily want it to blow up, but I know it's going to happen anyways....You can't stop the inevitable

How do you know? Are you Nostradamus? Do you have a time-machine? Don't believe everything you read in the media about the Space programme. I certainly don't. The media are just gagging for another accident as it gives them headlines and the chance to get one over on NASA. There are a lot of Congressmen who are the same. They desperately want another Shuttle disaster so that they can cancel the programme.

Get your god damn weather predictions in before you plan something, like every other dipshit does.

Considering Shuttle launches are planned months, sometimes over a year in advance, its impossible for them to predict the weather beforehand.

12cm long thats like OMG 12 inches. and its 3 mm deep hold on........

guess NASA gave the press its a foot long and 1/8" deep and then the press runs away with it
and as for the NASA engineers opposing shuttle launch story.... if the reporter had bothered to watch the news conference fully, the engineers said the risk was to the shuttle itself, not the crew because in the event of damage to the shuttle the crew could take refuge in the ISS.

The biggest problem with any of these stories is not the content of the stories , but the way they are reported with omission/inclusions depending on the media company concerned and whoever is writing up the story.


Here here. I hate media coverage of NASA. When things go well, the media doesn't care. When something goes wrong, the media are all over them like a rash desperately trying to make NASA look bad. By the way, 12cm is actually 4 inches, not 12. The piece that broke away isn't large enough to do any damage to the Shuttle at all.

Also, for everyone who only listens to the media, the foam that broke away on the Columbia mission was the size of a suitcase and a very rare case indeed (as in the first time a piece that size had broken off). Tiny ickle bits of foam are not going to do any significant damage to the Shuttle at all.


Second... 12 cm is quite a lot, considering that thing has to keep superheated gases from blasting through the atmosphere out, and you are missing a chunk of the foam in a spot... now the gases could possibly get in there.... or the speed of the shuttle could rip the foam off from that part since it's already weakened

The foam has nothing to do with keeping the superheated gases out, its to do with keeping the fuel cool. Apart from the engine exhaust, there are no superheated gases on launch, only on re-entry. The chances of a significantly large piece of foam breaking off AND hitting the shuttle AND causing fatal damage are miniscule. Also, a 12cm x 3mm piece of foam is not a large piece of foam, and is not big enough to cause any damage to the Shuttle's thermal tiles.

Poor people. It's not safe.

Poor people. It's not safe.

Its as safe as space flight is ever going to be.

I would just like to say that I don't nessicarily want it to blow up, but I know it's going to happen anyways....You can't stop the inevitable

Tell that to the Apollo boys. They saved 13.

That's two losses over 25 years. I think that's a pretty good record considering how dangerous space flight actually is and the extra risks of the exposed heat shield on the Shuttle as opposed to the concealed heat shield on a capsule atop a rocket. No programme of this kind can be expected to be 100% safe, and it doesn't need to be cancelled for that, although they certainly need to speed up the development of the CEV.


One explosion every 13 years is acceptable to you?!? :eek:
The US space program had ZERO from 1960 to 1986. That's 26 years, and there were: 6 Mercury, 10 Gemini, 11 Apollo, & 4 Apollo Application (Skylab, Soyuz) flights (total: 31 missions).

That's a better record, IMO. No explosions with 3 different vehicles, vs. the Shuttle, which is the same vehicle (should be NO surprises after 30 years of R&D/use!) yet we've lost one per 11.4 flights per vehicle! (114 flights /5 shuttles /2 losses)

Two total losses of five orbiters in about 120 launches is not acceptable. Cancel this program!!

I think that's an acceptable level of risk. Astronauts aren't conscripted. Let them choose.

If it was one loss in 60 launches, I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem with that. But because it's two, you think the figures are unacceptable? One fuckup isn't statistically significant, but TWO is?

Look at satellite launches. Plenty of owners choose Chinese rockets to launch their satellites, because the launches are dirt cheap. If your payload is a little more valuable, you go Russian, more reliable but more expensive too.

Holding to the highest standard of safety in the world, will lead to the US having the most expensive launch system in the world. And not having anything in the class of the Shuttle for maybe ten years!
And even then: the next generation of US launchers are going to need dozens of faultless launches, over a year or more, before they'll seem like an acceptable level of risk for human cargo. If it was my life on the line, a large quantity of low risk (tested) is going to beat a small quantity of no risk (untested, but certified by NASA) every time.

A launch system that works, with a degree of risk, is preferable to one that works perfectly but is too expensive to use.

One explosion every 13 years is acceptable to you?!? :eek:
The US space program had ZERO from 1960 to 1986. That's 26 years, and there were: 6 Mercury, 10 Gemini, 11 Apollo, & 4 Apollo Application (Skylab, Soyuz) flights (total: 31 missions).

That's a better record, IMO. No explosions with 3 different vehicles, vs. the Shuttle, which is the same vehicle (should be NO surprises after 30 years of R&D/use!) yet we've lost one per 11.4 flights per vehicle! (114 flights /5 shuttles /2 losses)

Like the numbers on the early space launches. Numbers, mmm.
Don't get carried away with the statistical analysis, though. If your maths works, then 114 shuttles flying once each would have had a loss rate of 2 per flight per vehicle.

31 missions, no losses. 114 missions, 2 losses. No statistician would touch that.

Like the numbers on the early space launches. Numbers, mmm.
Don't get carried away with the statistical analysis, though. If your maths works, then 114 shuttles flying once each would have had a loss rate of 2 per flight per vehicle.

31 missions, no losses. 114 missions, 2 losses. No statistician would touch that.

Sorry, for me it is a ZERO deaths in space vs. a 14 deaths in space thing.

I don't find people dying to be acceptable for something so well funded. The only thing which is giving us a poorer bang for our buck is the Department of Education.

I think that's an acceptable level of risk. Astronauts aren't conscripted. Let them choose.

If it was one loss in 60 launches, I'm guessing you wouldn't have a problem with that. But because it's two, you think the figures are unacceptable? One fuckup isn't statistically significant, but TWO is?

No, it's more along the lines that we build a space Cadillac instead of a space truck. NASA flat out lied about the number of launches per year expected, and it's too expensive for what we've got. That, and they've scrapped THREE successors to it.
Get rid of the white elephant and go to the Moon and Mars. Keep a presence on the ISS, but either pay the Russians or develop a better way to get there.

Look at satellite launches. Plenty of owners choose Chinese rockets to launch their satellites, because the launches are dirt cheap. If your payload is a little more valuable, you go Russian, more reliable but more expensive too.

Holding to the highest standard of safety in the world, will lead to the US having the most expensive launch system in the world. And not having anything in the class of the Shuttle for maybe ten years!
And even then: the next generation of US launchers are going to need dozens of faultless launches, over a year or more, before they'll seem like an acceptable level of risk for human cargo. If it was my life on the line, a large quantity of low risk (tested) is going to beat a small quantity of no risk (untested, but certified by NASA) every time.

A launch system that works, with a degree of risk, is preferable to one that works perfectly but is too expensive to use.

That's fine and makes perfect sense. Indeed, I agree with it. All I'm saying is that the Shuttle is NOT that vehicle.

One explosion every 13 years is acceptable to you?!? :eek:

For a start there has only been one explosion (Columbia broke up, it is a very different type of accident). Secondly, of course fatal accidents are unacceptable and should be avoided if at all possible. However, accidents do unfortunately occur. What I am saying is that 2 fatal accidents over 25 years and 114 missions is a relatively good record considering the inherent dangers of space flight.

The US space program had ZERO from 1960 to 1986. That's 26 years, and there were: 6 Mercury, 10 Gemini, 11 Apollo, & 4 Apollo Application (Skylab, Soyuz) flights (total: 31 missions).

This is factually incorrect. The period for these programs is in fact 1961 to 1975, as the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project was the last manned space launch before the Shuttle (which you haven't counted). During this period there were 4 serious emergencies, one of which resulted in the deaths of 3 crew. They are:

Liberty Bell 7 (Mercury) suffered a blown hatch on splashdown that sunk the capsule and nearly drowned Gus Grissom (who later died in the Apollo 1 fire)

There was a serious malfunction on Gemini 8 that nearly led to the loss of the crew (when the OMS system malfunctioned causing the spacecraft to tumble out of control).

Apollo 1 - Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee were killed on the pad in a fire during the plugs-out test.

Apollo 13 - There was an inflight explosion almost leading to the loss of the spacecraft and the crew.

These are all emergencies, equally as serious as any of the Shuttle emergencies (I and NASA class as 'serious' any emergency that either causes death or could easily have caused death). What we actually have statistically is Mercury/Gemini/Apollo - 31 Missions and 4 serious emergencies in 14 years, vs Shuttle - 114 missions and 3 serious emergencies in 25 years (I include the collision with Mir as a serious emergency as it could very easily have been a fatal emergency). These facts put everything in a bit more perspective. The preceding missions had an accident rate of 13%, whereas the shuttle has an accident rate of 1.75%. If we're going to talk statistics (which, quite frankly, are meaningless in my opinion) then the Shuttle comes out on top by quite a margin.

Before people start talking about the number of deaths, bear in mind that the Shuttle carries more than twice as many crew as the Apollo capsule, so naturally there will be more killed in a fatal emergency.

I'm sure that something impossibly minor will happen, like a tiny scuff on the paint job.... the media will blow it completely out of proportion and have us fearing for the astronauts' lives....

And it will turn out to be relatively nothing. Just a bit of drama for the media.

Before people start talking about the number of deaths, bear in mind that the Shuttle carries more than twice as many crew as the Apollo capsule, so naturally there will be more killed in a fatal emergency.

Best point of all: scale. The shuttle is big, and the payloads it delivers with great accuracy dwarf those early missions (Apollo excepted.)

On a lighter note, perhaps it's a good idea to name space programs after obscure gods, rather than science-fiction icons. If there are real gods, it might just break our way :)

you must have been in school that day.

the challenger disaster scarred a whole generation of school children.I dont agree.
Most do not think about that..

Don't you think its morbid to be discussing, and voting(kind of like taking bets) on if the space shuttle will explode, killing all those on board?Actually it is a bit morbid.. But far less morbid than other subjects discussed in the forums.

I HOPE they will crash and burn, I don't care where... Well... If the hit the control center, that would be nice. :)would't you prefer it crashes on GWB office ??

The Shuttle is up, safe and sound. There was no visible loss of foam on launch and everything went smoothly.

Bloody fantastic!

It launched. It launched perfectly, in fact. People were literally hugging each other in the Kennedy Space Centre. All things considered, they've been lucky.

Things were so perfect that this will most assuredly be spun into some kind of "God is watching out for Americans on this special day" type of thing by religious fundies and George Bush alike.

Sorry, for me it is a ZERO deaths in space vs. a 14 deaths in space thing.

I don't find people dying to be acceptable for something so well funded. The only thing which is giving us a poorer bang for our buck is the Department of Education.
You are assuming it's well funded. It's not.

Plus there were deaths in the early space program. Remember Apollo I. The shuttle has been flying longer and harder than any other space vehicle, and space travel by its own nature is a very risky proposition. Don't want anyone to die? Don't send anyone, easy as that.

There was debris 45s after launch. Also, something (possibly ice) came off 2min 45s and 4min after launch.

There is also a malfunctioning alternative engine on the left side. It is one of six on the shuttle. It isn't a real big problem though, since it's not that important.

^^^^ that was said during the post-launch briefing

Remember, Columbia blew up during reentry, not launch....

-----------
Radio report right now between shuttle and command center
(this is what i typed in an IRC channel, summarizing what was being said at the time)

> debris report right now
> 2min 50 sec
> 5 pieces came off near a fuel line
> no contact
> 4m45s
> piece came off near mid part of tank
> appears to strike the midbody
. . . . .
> 4-5ft long stitch material...maybe.. looks like straps and squareish material.. looked like frizzy insulation
> guy on the shuttle said that ...
> floating away from vehicle during the pitch....
> between them and the tank

They are now reporting that the material might have been insulation or pieces of ice.....

There was debris 45s after launch. Also, something (possibly ice) came off 2min 45s and 4min after launch.

There is also a malfunctioning alternative engine on the left side. It is one of six on the shuttle. It isn't a real big problem though, since it's not that important.

^^^^ that was said during the post-launch briefing

Remember, Columbia blew up during reentry, not launch....

For the umpteenth time, Columbia did NOT explode on re-entry. It broke up, there is a BIG difference.

The malfunctioning 'alternative' engine was one of the RCS thrusters, used for orbital maneuvering. It is one of many and one malfunction is not a mission-critical problem.

The one piece of debris that did appear to hit the Shuttle was not large enough to cause any significant damage. The other pieces were mostly very small and fell safely away from the Shuttle. The largest piece was soft stitching material and came away when the external tank seperated. It did not appear to hit the Shuttle and it is debateable whether it would have caused any damage had it done so.

The doom-mongers who want the Shuttle mission to fail are really grasping ever more desperately at straws to try to make NASA look bad. First of all it was 'definitely' going to explode on launch, now a few pieces of non-dangerous debris and a non-critical RCS malfunction and all of a sudden the Discovery is going to break up! Why don't you people stop being so pessimistic and think positively about the Shuttle for a change?

You are assuming it's well funded. It's not.

Plus there were deaths in the early space program. Remember Apollo I. The shuttle has been flying longer and harder than any other space vehicle, and space travel by its own nature is a very risky proposition. Don't want anyone to die? Don't send anyone, easy as that.


16.5 Billion USD for 2006 is quite well funded, IMO. It's not the 4% GDP that Nasa got when we were landing on the moon, but then it's not like Nasa has done anything impressive in 20 years or so anyway.
(note: I consider the Martian missions as great! It's also what they're SUPPOSED to do.)

Yes, there was Apollo 1. And that was tragic. And had the shuttle had problems on the first launch or so, I'd agree. However, this is an aging machine that never delivered on promised capibility. Time for it to go.

For a start there has only been one explosion (Columbia broke up, it is a very different type of accident). Secondly, of course fatal accidents are unacceptable and should be avoided if at all possible. However, accidents do unfortunately occur. What I am saying is that 2 fatal accidents over 25 years and 114 missions is a relatively good record considering the inherent dangers of space flight.

Semantics. A 40% loss rate for a vehicle is still not acceptable, and it is certainly NOT good.

This is factually incorrect. The period for these programs is in fact 1961 to 1975, as the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project was the last manned space launch before the Shuttle (which you haven't counted). During this period there were 4 serious emergencies, one of which resulted in the deaths of 3 crew. They are:

Yes, I counted all the way up to the Challenger loss. My bad.
And there have been many close calls with the Shuttle.
Consider:
How many tiles were lost on the first mission? :eek:
A launch pad fire with six astronauts aboard a fully fueled shuttle in 1984.
A brake failure and blown tire during a 1985 landing with a U.S. Senator aboard.
An orbital debris strike in 1992 that caused the type of wing damage that doomed Columbia and seven astronauts in 2003.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ft_050702_shuttle_closecalls.html

Liberty Bell 7 (Mercury) suffered a blown hatch on splashdown that sunk the capsule and nearly drowned Gus Grissom (who later died in the Apollo 1 fire)

An "accident" caused BY Gus.

There was a serious malfunction on Gemini 8 that nearly led to the loss of the crew (when the OMS system malfunctioned causing the spacecraft to tumble out of control).

But they recovered. Note that it was a manufacturing defect, not a bad decision that was the cause.

Apollo 1 - Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee were killed on the pad in a fire during the plugs-out test.

It was a manufacturing defect, not a bad decision that was the cause. The door didn't open, and they were in a pure Oxygen environment.
Not the same as launching below the specs of the O ring or not watching the thing during liftoff.

Apollo 13 - There was an inflight explosion almost leading to the loss of the spacecraft and the crew.

And proof that the vehicle was superior and people at Nasa back then were MUCH better at their jobs. The crippled thing still did basically the same thing as Apollo 10, and everyone lived! Again, it was a manufacturing defect, not a bad decision that was the cause.

These are all emergencies, equally as serious as any of the Shuttle emergencies (I and NASA class as 'serious' any emergency that either causes death or could easily have caused death). What we actually have statistically is Mercury/Gemini/Apollo - 31 Missions and 4 serious emergencies in 14 years, vs Shuttle - 114 missions and 3 serious emergencies in 25 years (I include the collision with Mir as a serious emergency as it could very easily have been a fatal emergency). These facts put everything in a bit more perspective. The preceding missions had an accident rate of 13%, whereas the shuttle has an accident rate of 1.75%. If we're going to talk statistics (which, quite frankly, are meaningless in my opinion) then the Shuttle comes out on top by quite a margin.

Before people start talking about the number of deaths, bear in mind that the Shuttle carries more than twice as many crew as the Apollo capsule, so naturally there will be more killed in a fatal emergency.

This is true, there are more folks on the shuttle. All the more reason to be careful.

I would just like to say that I don't nessicarily want it to blow up, but I know it's going to happen anyways....You can't stop the inevitable


So, when it returns to earth and the crew steps out of the orbiter whats your stupid excuse going to be? I'd also like to know how you KNOW this is going to happen. Can you predict the future? How will I die? When? Where?

16.5 Billion USD for 2006 is quite well funded, IMO. It's not the 4% GDP that Nasa got when we were landing on the moon, but then it's not like Nasa has done anything impressive in 20 years or so anyway.
(note: I consider the Martian missions as great! It's also what they're SUPPOSED to do.)
16.5 Billion is a lot if you are making home renovations. It's not that much for what's supposed to be a space exploration program.

Yes, there was Apollo 1. And that was tragic. And had the shuttle had problems on the first launch or so, I'd agree. However, this is an aging machine that never delivered on promised capibility. Time for it to go.

I agree. It's aging technology and needs to be replaced, but there's very little money allocated to do that. There was money, and Boeing had a very impressive prototype, but funds where cut in the early 90s. Now it's beign revived again, but it'll be years before we can see something, if there aren't any more cuts.

The shuttle was the victim of slashing funds. It's main purpose was to take people and cargo to build an orbiting space station and serve as transition point between Earth and Low Earth Orbit where other ships would take charge of delivering stuff to higher orbits, to the space station and from there to the Moon.

When NASA's funding was mercilessly cut in the late 70s and 80s the only thing left of all these plans was a crippled shuttle program which became a vehicle with nowhere to go. And even so, it's accomplishments have been outstanding.

Semantics. A 40% loss rate for a vehicle is still not acceptable, and it is certainly NOT good.

It is much better and more accurate to look at accident rates rather than loss rates. By your reasoning, a programme can have dozens of accidents and no losses, and technically be safer than a programme that has 2 accidents which both lead to a loss. This is ridiculous. This is why I refuse to listen solely to statistics of losses, because they are very distorting and do not take into account timescale or other serious accidents.

And there have been many close calls with the Shuttle.
Consider:
How many tiles were lost on the first mission? :eek:
A launch pad fire with six astronauts aboard a fully fueled shuttle in 1984.
A brake failure and blown tire during a 1985 landing with a U.S. Senator aboard.
An orbital debris strike in 1992 that caused the type of wing damage that doomed Columbia and seven astronauts in 2003.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ft_050702_shuttle_closecalls.html

Yes, there have been a lot of close calls, so I will revise my statistics accordingly. Pre-Shuttle programs - 13% accident rate (NOT loss rate), Shuttles - 7% (the 3 I mentioned, plus the 5 in the article you quoted). Still a better accident record in my book.

(Liberty Bell 7) An "accident" caused BY Gus.

Actually, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Gus Grissom did NOT cause the hatch to blow.

(Gemini 8) But they recovered. Note that it was a manufacturing defect, not a bad decision that was the cause.

But all the Shuttle emergencies you and I have mentioned (barring Challenger and Columbia) had successful recoveries. Surely if they count as serious emergencies then this does too. Also, the Columbia loss was primarily a manufacturing defect, not a bad decision.

(Apollo 1) It was a manufacturing defect, not a bad decision that was the cause. The door didn't open, and they were in a pure Oxygen environment.

Actually, it was both. It was poor design that left the explosive bolts off of the hatch (not door) and had it open inwards rather than outwards. it was also a bad decision to test in a pure oxygen environment and to include large amounts of Velcro in the capsule, despite being warned that it explodes in a pure oxygen environment. However, like I said above, the Columbia accident was caused primarily by a manufacturing defect and not a bad decision.

(Apollo 13) And proof that the vehicle was superior and people at Nasa back then were MUCH better at their jobs. The crippled thing still did basically the same thing as Apollo 10, and everyone lived! Again, it was a manufacturing defect, not a bad decision that was the cause.

If the Apollo 13 explosion had taken place within an atmosphere, it would have destroyed the spacecraft, as the oxygen would have been able to burn more easily than it would have in space. Also, it did not do basically the same thing as Apollo 10, or even Apollo 8. They both stayed in orbit for several days. Apollo 13 went into orbit and immediately went home again. It did not stay in orbit. Again, Columbia was caused by a manufacturing defect and not a bad decision.

This is true, there are more folks on the shuttle. All the more reason to be careful.

This is what I never understand. People seem to have this illusion that NASA are cowboys who don't care about the safety of their astronauts. This simply isn't true. Yes, bad decision have been made, but they always have and always will. Unfortunately, NASA officials, along with everyone else on Earth, are human beings and they make mistakes. At the end of the day NASA has to take risks, otherwise it would never send people into space (which, no matter what vehicle you use, is inherently dangerous). They need to balance risk management with productivity, like every other organisation in existence.

As for the bad decision versus manufacturing defect issues, I don't see that this makes much difference. Yes, poor decisions were taken with Columbia. Yes, NASA had become complacent. However, it was still a freak accident caused, ultimately, by a manufacturing defect. Bad decisions do not blow up spacecraft. All of the above examples of maunfacturing defects by Markreich can also be attributed to bad decisions in some way, so IMO this argument is spurious.

I also believe that the Shuttle needs to be retired. Not because of safety (we could argue for years about its safety record) but because its an ageing design that is not cost effective enough to fit NASA's future plans. The new CEV is a much more sensible proposition, with its associated heavy launch vehicle for cargo launches. This will allow manned space-flight to continue in a much more cost effective way, and is adaptable for NASA's longer-term, long distance manned space ambitions (ie the Moon and eventually Mars).

16.5 Billion is a lot if you are making home renovations. It's not that much for what's supposed to be a space exploration program.

They'd get more if things actually worked. 3 Shuttle successors cancelled after billions spent. Then we have: The ISS. The Hubble. Skylab.
Seriously, has anything worked right since Apollo 17? (Aside from the Rovers?)

I agree. It's aging technology and needs to be replaced, but there's very little money allocated to do that. There was money, and Boeing had a very impressive prototype, but funds where cut in the early 90s. Now it's beign revived again, but it'll be years before we can see something, if there aren't any more cuts.

Budgets were cut because they were skyrocketing (pun) out of control. I was in an office in VA where they were doing X-34 work. My point is that Nasa should have long ago started phasing out shuttle flights in favor of a new system. 15 years was enough. 30 years is criminal.

The shuttle was the victim of slashing funds. It's main purpose was to take people and cargo to build an orbiting space station and serve as transition point between Earth and Low Earth Orbit where other ships would take charge of delivering stuff to higher orbits, to the space station and from there to the Moon.

No kidding. It also had a budget computed on a launch every 3 weeks. That's why Nixon signed off on it.

When NASA's funding was mercilessly cut in the late 70s and 80s the only thing left of all these plans was a crippled shuttle program which became a vehicle with nowhere to go. And even so, it's accomplishments have been outstanding.

I'd call them adequate, not outstanding. Yes, I agree it really had nowhere to go until the ISS went up.

I can't wait until the CEV finally gets up. We'll get back to the glory days of large, tall, phallic rockets with small little capsules on the top. Plus, the CEV has a nice escape system, and we won't have to worry about this damn foam problem anymore.

It is much better and more accurate to look at accident rates rather than loss rates. By your reasoning, a programme can have dozens of accidents and no losses, and technically be safer than a programme that has 2 accidents which both lead to a loss. This is ridiculous. This is why I refuse to listen solely to statistics of losses, because they are very distorting and do not take into account timescale or other serious accidents.

That's your perogative. I'm still pointing out that the shuttle has killed people, never lived up to it's hype, is way overbudget, and is an out of date dinosaur.

Yes, there have been a lot of close calls, so I will revise my statistics accordingly. Pre-Shuttle programs - 13% accident rate (NOT loss rate), Shuttles - 7% (the 3 I mentioned, plus the 5 in the article you quoted). Still a better accident record in my book.

That's fine. How would Apollo have turned out if they'd gone 3 more times to the moon? One has to wonder. Or heck, not cancelled the project.
Even if you want to take it as a better accident record, it's still not a good number no matter how much lipstick you put on it.

Actually, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Gus Grissom did NOT cause the hatch to blow.

Say what? AFAIK, the subject has never been settled.

But all the Shuttle emergencies you and I have mentioned (barring Challenger and Columbia) had successful recoveries. Surely if they count as serious emergencies then this does too. Also, the Columbia loss was primarily a manufacturing defect, not a bad decision.

I disagree. They'd seen this type of damage before and ignored it.

If the Apollo 13 explosion had taken place within an atmosphere, it would have destroyed the spacecraft, as the oxygen would have been able to burn more easily than it would have in space. Also, it did not do basically the same thing as Apollo 10, or even Apollo 8. They both stayed in orbit for several days. Apollo 13 went into orbit and immediately went home again. It did not stay in orbit. Again, Columbia was caused by a manufacturing defect and not a bad decision.

True, but the Apollo 13 explosion occurred in orbit for a reason -- the defect. It wasn't like they stirred the tanks on a whim, it was standard procedure.

Ok, fine. Apollo 8 orbited for 20 hours. 13 also did so at 100km greater than usual. Either way, they got the crew back. With Challenger, Nasa knowingly gambled, and with Columbia was just plain lax.

This is what I never understand. People seem to have this illusion that NASA are cowboys who don't care about the safety of their astronauts. This simply isn't true. Yes, bad decision have been made, but they always have and always will. Unfortunately, NASA officials, along with everyone else on Earth, are human beings and they make mistakes. At the end of the day NASA has to take risks, otherwise it would never send people into space (which, no matter what vehicle you use, is inherently dangerous). They need to balance risk management with productivity, like every other organisation in existence.

Oh, I know that they care. I also know that they have pressures.

As for the bad decision versus manufacturing defect issues, I don't see that this makes much difference. Yes, poor decisions were taken with Columbia. Yes, NASA had become complacent. However, it was still a freak accident caused, ultimately, by a manufacturing defect. Bad decisions do not blow up spacecraft. All of the above examples of maunfacturing defects by Markreich can also be attributed to bad decisions in some way, so IMO this argument is spurious.

I still think it's time for the shuttle to go. As yet, nothing you've said has moved me. The shuttle is still old. It's still killed more people than any other space vehicle, its never lived up to its alledged potential, and it is eating up valuable funds that could be better spent elsewhere.

As for the "bad decisions": you're telling me that the 13 problem was decided upon? :rolleyes:

They'd get more if things actually worked. 3 Shuttle successors cancelled after billions spent. Then we have: The ISS. The Hubble. Skylab.
Seriously, has anything worked right since Apollo 17? (Aside from the Rovers?)
Er, Skylab had nothing to do with the shuttle. That was a leftover of the Apollo program and one that worked out pretty well, even if there was a bad issue going up (which you've forgotten to mention in your run down on the glories of pre-shuttle flight)

I'd call them adequate, not outstanding. Yes, I agree it really had nowhere to go until the ISS went up.
Adequate? Hubble alone probably paid for the worth of the shuttle with all that it has discovered, and the shuttle even fixed the damn thing in orbit, a number of times.

Not to mention other activites carried out.

No, the shuttle may not have been what it was supposed to have been, but it has done some remarkable things. Give credit where it is due.

Well I hope the shuttle lands safely. The Commander is my current Sunday Morning Bible Study teacher. I know his kids.

Say what? AFAIK, the subject has never been settled

The astronaut office at NASA, Gunther Wendt and numerous independent studies of the mission (both before and after the raising on the capsule) have all indicated that Grissom did not blow the hatch. It is still a contested issue, but there is more evidence to say he didn't than that he did.

I still think it's time for the shuttle to go. As yet, nothing you've said has moved me. The shuttle is still old. It's still killed more people than any other space vehicle, its never lived up to its alledged potential, and it is eating up valuable funds that could be better spent elsewhere.

As for the "bad decisions": you're telling me that the 13 problem was decided upon? :rolleyes:

The bad decisions thing about Apollo 13 was a typo! I know I'm not going to move you on this, I'm just trying to provide an alternative view to the discussion. My perogative on the statistics was to try to make them a little bit 'fairer', as only counting fatal emergencies whilst ignoring non-fatal accidents and the timescale of the programmes does skew the data somewhat.

I also think that its time for the Shuttle to go. Its old and needs replacing with the new CEV as soon as possible. It would have happened sooner had it not been for the cretins in Congress repeatedly cutting NASA's funding. That's the main reason why the Shuttle is still flying, because the budget cuts at NASA have made it cheaper to keep the Shuttle than to design and build something new.

I think the Shuttle programme has achieved a lot over the years, but its time passed a long time ago. Its time to look forward, towards the CEV and man's return to the Moon.