NASA: Keeping shuttle costs $3 billion yearly

I just wanted to comment on this article from a few weeks ago about keeping the shuttle running for a few more years.

I don't think it's a good idea. In fact, I think it's a terrible idea. The only reason I would be for keeping the shuttle running would be so that my friends at Michoud in New Orleans could keep their jobs. Even ignoring cost, here are my reasons:

1) I don't even know how feasible it is. Building an external tank takes many months, maybe even years, I'm not sure. If I remember, they only had one or two spare tanks at Michoud, and they had already been loaded and unloaded and dissected to see what effect loading has on the foam. We had already sent up one tank (ET-123 or ET-125 I think) that had been loaded previously and repairing the foam was a big pain in the butt. And if we were going to build new ones, well, the process probably would have had to already started. And chances are the workers from the very beginning of the process have already been moved elsewhere.

2) It would be dangerous. The technology freeze for the shuttle and its components was in 1973. Yes there have been improvements since then, but the fundamentals of the system are very old. The shuttles also were not meant to have so much internal maintenance done. (I wish I had a source for this, but sadly it came from a video we watched in one of my classes.) I don't think I'd want to drive a car that old, much less be propelled into space.

3) We need to move on. The new program is well on its way, and even though I don't think it will go to the moon (really we should just skip the moon and go to Mars anyways) and needs the manpower, money, and manufacturing capabilities. They want to maufacture parts of the Orion at Michoud. Well, you can't be building tanks and the new parts with the same tools at the same time. I'm pretty sure they're going to have to modify the current tooling before building Orion components (I think the diameter is larger, and the stack is taller).

4) It's the *International Space Station*. Isn't the point supposed to be collaboration? So what's the big deal that we have to use the Russian launch system? There's cosmonauts on the ISS, so we have to get along with them anyways.

As an engineer, I'd rather be without immediate space access for a few years, rather than prolong the life of a dangerous vehicle, or rush the development of the new one. But politicians run the world and not engineers, and display of power is important to them. So chances are we'll do both and have a meh space program for another decade. Ah well, there's always the private industry. ;)