I saw a similar poll on cnn.com and was just wondering what y'alls opinion is...

Look, here's my two cents.

The shuttle program is great.  For all of you who may see it as pointless, it's not.  They do a lot of very importand research in space.  We need to send human beings up to carry out this research, so the program is important.

However, I believe it should be scrapped. The shuttle is old.  Grant it, it's not that old years wise, but If you look at the progress made in aerospace technology, it is far behind.  Yes, the columbia disaster was a horrible tragedy, but people are making way too big a deal.  Columbia was the first shuttle, the oldest shuttle, and a problem was bound to happen.  It is just very unfortunate that the problem led to what it was.  The shuttle has a very good safety record, only two have had a fatal error in it's 30 years of service.  Some of the things that were changed for the return to flight had been happening throughout the shuttles history.  Tiles fall off all the time, foam comes of the tank, etc...  I do believe that the shuttle was grounded for too long.

In discovery's flight, problems came up again. Foam fell off, and now the shuttle is grounded...again.  It is clearly too old, and like all old things, it needs to be retired.

However, the whole manned space flight should not be stopped.  I think that once discovery returns, it should not be grounded but it should be retired.  Now that technology has improved, I believe that nasa should forget the shuttle, and begin designing a new craft.  They should figure out a way to do without that huge fuel tank,  design a new heat resistant covering, as well as put in new, more advanced computers.

This won't be quick and easy.  The ISS might have to be scrapped because it is gonna take a long time to build a new shuttle.  I plan on being an aerospace engineer, possibly work for nasa.  Im going to be a junior in high school this year, and when I am ready to start my career in at least 6 years, thy still might be working on the shuttle.  In fact, if all goes well for me, I could actually see myself designing the new shuttle as part of a team working on it.

Two years of repairs and changes, and now the shuttle is grounded again?  It is clearly time to start anew.

Here's my two pence for what it's worth. I've mentioned before that I have little interest in space exploration & it doesn't worry me whether they continue or not. This means I can look at this impartially.

I've read that the Shuttle is the most complex aircraft ever built. I use 'aircraft' for want of a better word but age doesn't doesn't affect it any more than a conventional aircraft, providing it's maintained properly. Many airliners & military aircraft remain in service for decades although they might be outdated as far as technology is concerned. Take Concorde as an example. In regular service for something like 30 years & since it was retired there's nothing to replace it. The similarity with Concorde goes a little further. It had one fatal accident during the time it was in service & this was not directly caused by a fault with the aircraft. A terrible chain of events exposed a weakness in the basic design that had existed since it first entered service. A foreign object on the runway was thrown up into the wing, puncturing the main fuel tank. You should know the rest. In hindsight it was an accident waiting to happen but that foreign object should never have been there in the first place.

From what I've read (& remember I'm no expert) the main difference between the Shuttle & a conventional aircraft seems to be the maintenance schedules & the way NASA itself operates. Some parts on other Shuttles were found corroded after inspection following the Columbia tragedy. These had never been inspected since first being fitted & on investigation some had even been fitted the wrong way round. That smacks of carelessness, if not downright incompetence. If this had been Concorde or any other airliner heads would have rolled. I get the impression they allowed themselves to become complacent with the inevitable results. Ozzy mentioned in another thread that they need "some negative attitude engineers to dream up worst case scenarios and then solve any possible problems". I tend to agree with that & the whole attitude needs to change. Space exploration is dangerous enough without safety being ignored.

Another thing occurred to me. Academics & scientists aren't usually the most practical of people. They exist on a plane above ordinary folk but most of them couldn't put up a shelf or change a wheel on their cars. NASA seems to be full of these types but do they have any ordinary practical employees? It's quite possible there's a simple solution to this problem that a good "old-fashioned" practical engineer could solve quickly & with little expense or inconvenience. Maybe it's time for a rethink, not on the Shuttle itself but the whole organisation from top to bottom.

Quote:


...they finally woke up, and realised that "Star Trek" is really a fictional Movie, and USS Enterprise NCC 1701 doesn't actually exist....and Alpha Centauri is a really, REALLY! long way away...
...(except in George's mind)... ...!
LOL......!
Paul...feet firmly planted on Mother Earth, where "we" were designed to be... ...!

My idea of a shuttle program:

Start using varying composites and stuff like that to reduce weight and save fuel.

Use four-people crew instead of like 6. A pilot, an Engineer, a Navigator, and a researcher. The first three must all be trained for everything [what if the pilot gets injured?]. The reseacher is there as a passenger so that he-she can switch places with another. Over time, the ISS crew is switched completely instead of bringing the whole gang all at once.

Everything must be digital [computers are getting small and lighter].

Just to let you all know, I'm not that knowledgable about space flight.

Quote:


I wouldn't say the Shuttle program is any more dangerous than when it started, if fact its bound to be a lot safer. However, what has changed is the public perception of events such as Challenger/Columbia, and the 24/7 global coverage of these things. The same applies in the case of Concorde. If the 2000 crash had happen 25 years earlier I think it would have had similar effects in the short term, but the aircraft may well still be flying today (depending on the full extent of 9/11 - if Concorde had been in full service in 2001 it may have survived...)

Quote:



Imagine, a pilot saying that... tsk, tsk.

I'm afraid my question still stands