We need to fire the builders of our space shuttles?

Question

What baffles me is over the years since Men/Women have gone on space shuttles there has been an unflattering amount of shuttles that seem to have similar problems. The last 5 years worth of shuttles have all had insulation or contruction problems that really shouldn't be reoccuring. Maybe we should get a new blue print on how these are made, hire new builders, and retrain, hire or fire inspectors. I am baffled on how the same problem can be reoccuring over the years.

I am sure like many "fine" things made by the government w/it's tight budget I am sure has something to do with it. Yet come on wasn't there insulation problems before?

Answer 1

The space shuttle is a great beginning, I asked this question years ago, we did not have the big problem that this foam is seeming to have now. I have watched most of the flights since the beginning. Do not know if this is true or not but was told, that in the old days in the beginning the foam was made of an oil based material and would fragment in real small pieces, then some wiz got the idea of protecting the environment and made the foam out of a water based material which unfortunately breaks off in big chunks. Big chunks cause big problems! Made sense to me, sometimes we overdo things.....

Answer 2

No, the builders of Space Transportation System did a really good job. Shuttles served for years with only 2 accidents in about 120 launches. It served for much longer than in the plans.
In the future the only manned space vehicle in the next years will be the Russian Soyuz and lanched by Arianspace at Kourou (French Gujana).
Nasa seems to have abandoned the option of a system similat to the shuttle and turned back to a rocket launcher more similar to Saturn 5 and Soyuz.
In my opinion the also a new production of the russian design Buran-Energia or a derivate of it would be an interesting and already made solution, but this solution is impossible for some reasons, in fact americans have difficoulties to admit that also foreign designs can be good as, and sometimes better, than American designs.They are still not able to accept that Airbus quality is equal to Boeing, and Airbus are products arriving from a west-world company based in traditionally(at least since the end of WW2) friendly Nations(France, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain). Imagine the public opinion reaction to Nasa choosing a Russian spacecraft(Russia can not be considered a traditional friendly nation and space programs are much more full of national proudness than civil air transport).

Answer 3

A lot of the problem with the insulation is a matter of chemistry, rather than finances or engineering. There aren't really any good adhesives that can bond both the ceramic plating of the heat shield to whatever is underneath, plus the tiles are pretty fragile to impact in the first place. Tiles probably were damaged all the time before Columbia, but the crash made NASA really worried whenever any problems come up.

Answer 4

They are going to stop flying the space shuttle in a few years. Current plans are to stop completely by 2010. There is a new rocket being built that will replace it, but it is a more traditional rocket with a capsule on top that will land by parachute, like the old Apollo. It is supposed to be ready to fly by 2013. That will leave us with no U.S. way to get to space for 3 years. We will rely on Russian Soyuz capsules to service the space station for those 3 years.

Answer 5

The shuttle should never have been built. The whole design is absurd. None of the rocket engines are in line with the center of mass, so thrust constantly has to be vectors off at a different angle, as fuel is consumed.
It is also way to large and heavy, because the cargo is combined with the passengers. They should never be together because you can't develop escape modules for something that large and heavy. Things like the crane should have been left in orbit instead of being taken back down every trip.
Lets face it, the shuttle was not designed for science, but as a weapons platform for SDI.
It sucks for science.

Answer 6

What we need to do instead is increase NASA's budget, so they can build a new reusable spacecraft instead of maintaining the same one 10 years after it was supposed to be retired. Either that or just go back to expendible rockets. Either way, technology has better things to offer than a launch system that's over 25 years old.

Answer 7

maybe you haven't heard, but the space shuttle will be obsolete in a few years and we already have a replacement.but keeping the others in shape, till they're decommissioned is tricky. You have to remember that the technicians that keep the shuttle going are gov. workers and once you have that job, you have it for life, no matter what your work performance is.