Shuttle retirement ushers in new era

Shuttle landing

The cheers and the tears. The Atlantis shuttle returned from space on Thursday, book-ending the 135-flight sequence of Nasa's re-usable spaceplanes.

People will debate long and hard on the value of the shuttle. There's no denying its iconography; its story is inextricably linked with that of Hubble; and it gave us the space station.

And as Valerie Neal, the space history curator at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, points out in her assessment article for the BBC, the shuttle made possible "our continual, expanding presence in space".

The ISS has been occupied permanently now for more than 10 years. That would not have been possible, certainly on the scale we see today, were it not for those big orbiting trucks.

But there's also no denying the heavy cost, financially - $200bn from beginning to end seems to be the figure with most currency - and it was inevitable that some other, more affordable approach would have to be found.

CST-100 Boeing's capsule will carry up to seven, but those astronauts need somewhere to go

Nasa is now inviting the private sector to take on the role of ferrying astronauts to and from the space station.

Just like a major corporation that contracts out its IT and payroll needs, so Nasa is going to contract out space transportation.

Instead of owing spacecraft, the US space agency will in future just buy the "taxi service".

Nasa hopes the commercial sector can find methods of operation that are substantially cheaper but, crucially, no less safe.

Already, four companies believe they have what it takes.

Boeing, Sierra Nevada Corporation, SpaceX and Blue Origin are working on a range of vehicles.

Most are "standard" capsules; one is a winged ship.

In part, what these companies are doing is going back to tried and tested ideas, but bringing them up to date.

Shuttle wheels Programme's end: The shuttle runway is marked where the main landing gear stopped

As Dr John Logsdon, professor emeritus of the Space Policy Institute at The George Washington University, says: "We're not asking industry to do anything cutting-edge here; what we're asking US industry to do is replicate the capabilities that were developed in the 1960s to do the relatively simple task of carrying a few people to orbit. That doesn't require new, or emerging or breakthrough technologies."

Private industry will deliver very capable machines. If you look at Boeing's proud history, there is every reason to expect its proposed CST-100 capsule to be top-notch.

The more interesting question may surround the viability or strength of the commercial market for space transportation that Nasa now seeks to establish.

If you speak to the contenders, they are very bullish about the prospects, of course. You'd expect that.

But it was interesting to hear a couple of weeks ago from the chairman of the Orbital Sciences Corporation, David Thompson, when he expressed the view that the level of demand over the next decade might support one, maybe two, commercial operators. That's all.

Nasa shuttle budget (Nature)

I remember talking to Bernardo Patti, Europe's International Space Station (ISS) manager, when we were at Kennedy in April.

I suggested to him that the European Space Agency could purchase regular seats for its astronauts on the new crew taxis when they came into service.

He shook his head: "Going to the ISS is simple; living there for six months is much more complicated. You need resources and the systems onboard are not really sized for more people.

"I can go to Mr Boeing, get a capsule, and knock on the door of the station, but you need the agreement of the Americans and the Russians to stay there. It's not just about having the plane ticket; you need the hotel room as well, and in a hotel which is already fully booked."

Shuttle Into retirement: Atlantis is towed back to the Orbiter Processing Facility at the Kennedy Space Center

This is why the issue of destinations is going to become a hot topic in the next few years. For this emerging market to support more than one player, there needs to be more than one destination. That or a wider range of uses for these commercial space taxis.

It's no surprise therefore that Boeing, for example, has allied itself closely with hotel entrepreneur Bob Bigelow. He has been investigating the possibilities offered by inflatable space structures.

He's already flown test articles in orbit and plans to loft the first of several inflatable space stations around the middle of the decade.

Sensibly, the other would-be taxi services are shaping their operations so that they are not dependent solely on Nasa income.

SpaceX is looking to grab a sizeable share of the satellite launch market. The Sierra Nevada Corporation, which proposes to sell Nasa astronaut seats in its winged Dream Chaser vehicle, talks about the market for servicing satellites in orbit.

It will be fascinating to see how the "business" of human spaceflight evolves over the next few years, and the extent to which it is able to operate without overarching subsidies from government. We'll see.

Last word goes to the optimists and the commander of the last shuttle, Chris Ferguson: "Given everything that I know today, I think that we'll be traversing back and forth in low-Earth orbit with one of the four or five vehicles that are being considered right now," he told reporters on Thursday.

"I think that we're going to have people spending either short or perhaps long periods of time in orbit, who have paid for a trip there.

"You know, I don't think it's too much unlike the airlines. You recall the whole aviation industry got started with Naca. They designed aerofoils, they enabled aviation to take off. And Nasa, I think, has really laid the foundation for spaceflight, for commercial spaceflight to take off. So I think in 10 years, we'll see that."

Jonathan Amos Article written by Jonathan Amos Jonathan Amos Science correspondent

Philae comet lander: Sleep well little probe

European Space Agency controllers will continue to listen for Philae in the days ahead, hopeful that the comet lander will somehow become active again.

Read full article

More on This Story

Space shuttle


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 37.

    On several occasions In the Great Lakes area an exploding light appears with a faint puff, a small elongated object burst through it. The object very quickly slowed, flew back up and headed mid west USA. In 2 minutes there was another identical incident which followed the first one. These were not UFO'S, but new American Techno Space craft. Before you disclaim this come look around yourself.

  • rate this

    Comment number 36.

    Article :
    600 posts and blocked comments.
    Article does not mention that proof against time travel fundamentally weakens relativity because it casts the idea of time as dimension & extended space time into doubt, without which GR falls to pieces. Actually increases need for an FTL version. - Too complex to explain in 400 char :)

  • rate this

    Comment number 35.

    The shuttle biggest fault was that it was a overambitious plan that never received the money to fulfil that plan no funds to continually developed the shuttle during its life time. money was ever spent on improving the shuttle was after NASA lost one. Imagine where we be if NASA put in the same kind efforts to improve the shuttle all the way through it life, that it did after it loss a shuttle.

  • rate this

    Comment number 34.

    22. Kev
    24TH JULY 2011 - 21:42

    The best way is to use Earth to Moon as a short term temporary solution, to build and establish infrastructure on the moon, just enough to manufacture fuel and get it off the moon. Then switch to using in orbit ferries between the Earth and Moon, that is able to make repeated journeys backwards and forward between the two.

  • rate this

    Comment number 33.

    @Jonathan 200 billion is one fifth of this years US total defense budget.

    How many jobs have been supported by the Shuttle over 30 years?

    The Shuttle is still the only vehicle which could be used to construct below earth orbit vessels; to carry sensitive payloads and collect space junk. Shuttle needs to be made simpler for performing these tasks, Scrapping it is a costly long term waste.

  • rate this

    Comment number 32.

    There is no doubt that the shuttle was an amazing machine and will live on in infamy.


    It is my understanding that the design of the shuttle was compromised from the start by restricted development funds from Nixon's whitehouse. It could have been safer, cheaper and ultimately sustainable to operate if only the Politicians had been as talented as the Engineers.

    Same old story.

  • rate this

    Comment number 31.

    Hi Mike,

    Actually the moon is rich with resources, it's just waiting for someone to invent a way of getting there cheaper than the value of said resources.

    As NASA famously once said, if the moon were piled high with gold bars it wouldn't be worth going there to get them.

    Cheap is the watch word here, and the Chinese are masters of cheap.

  • rate this

    Comment number 30.

    #28 Kev
    Always best to be sure:)
    As to the treaty yes the Chinese could pull out but my own take is that if there's anything there that would make that worth doing the US commercial outfits could beat them to the punch, and the lawyers would get rich arguing over whether the treaty covers them.

    And can I say how nice it is that the last page or so of posts have been about actual spaceflight?

  • rate this

    Comment number 29.

    And political shortsightedness didn'tt help either. Thing is Constellation suffered from both if those in spades. Had they simply elected to manrate an existing launcher for Orion and focused on the Ares V it might have been a better program but those inherent issues with cost control keep reoccurring as with the JWST recently and I suspect it would still have ended badly.

  • rate this

    Comment number 28.

    Hi Mike,
    That's very interesting, I though the Outer Space treaty simply limited use of Atomic devices in orbit, and rules out the best way of leaving LEO, which is atomic engines. However it's interesting to note that:

    "signatory states are free to withdraw from the agreement within one year of giving notice"

    Also I was not being literal when I said 'kick over the flag'!

  • rate this

    Comment number 27.

    Imagine lifting a space station four times bigger than the ISS into orbit in one launch. A second launch lets you boost it into a high orbit or one of the Lagrange points or even the moon.
    And this would all cost less than the current ISS.

    For passengers a 1000 ton payload class gives a cost per passenger of £1 million or less, and up to 1000 passengers per launch. (5000 in 'cargo' class : ) )

  • rate this

    Comment number 26.

    If we are really serious about space the first thing we should be focusing on is machines that can can put payloads of on the order of 1000 tons into LEO on each launch. This would let us to put heavy things into LEO like the large capable engines needed for maned missions to the planets, large fuel stores, and much larger structures like space stations and factories. [cont]

  • rate this

    Comment number 25.

    #8 Mike, yes but all those projects failed with poor management by NASA a major factor. Also after canning, several years often passed before a new project started. For all it's faults Constellation was probably the most coherent space plan America has come up with since Apollo but the budget to develop it properly was never put in place so it never really stood a chance.

  • rate this

    Comment number 24.

    Oh and Kev did you look up the Outer Space treaty? The US never claimed the moon and the notion of anyone kicking over the US flag would be redundant anyway, they long since disintegrated owing to the effects of sunlight on the nylon of the flags.

  • rate this

    Comment number 23.

    #22 Kev
    Going back to the moon doesn't mandate a really big rocket, there are alternative approaches which would greatly exceed the character limit here to go into but try looking up the ULA lunar plan on Google.

  • rate this

    Comment number 22.

    #19 Mike Mullen
    I assume your talking about comets asteroids and even the moon, none of which exist in LEO. There is no water there, and therefore nothing to make fuel with.
    Any fuel needs to be shipped from the earth, and rather than waste fuel docking with the ISS, you might as well just go for broke and plot straight for the moon.
    Instead of the ISS a moon base would have been more useful.

  • rate this

    Comment number 21.

    If the private providers DO succeed in providing reliable, economic - services for humans and cargo to ISS, who knows what it might lead to?
    SpaceX are now looking at a new Falcon rocket, to get 50 tons to LEO.
    It was, ironically, a Florida newspaper that thought opponents to the new program might prevent the Space Coast from being a space silicon valley rather than becoming a new 'Detroit'.

  • rate this

    Comment number 20.

    Shuttle era was outstanding inspiring people to support space programs over worldwide. I hope development of new space technologies comes up soon to continue encouraging space exploration.

  • rate this

    Comment number 19.

    #18 Kev

    You can make fuel in space, water is proving quite abundant. And unlike oceanic vessels there is no great economy of scale with rockets. It's the cost per kilo that's the key, which Arthur C Clarke was was quite aware of, and medium sized launchers offer the best prospects of lowering that cost. Oh and no one has claimed the Moon, or is likely to, look up the Outer Space Treaty.

  • rate this

    Comment number 18.

    However the Clarksian method does not work! Because the limiting factor is fuel (you can't make fuel in space) it's more efficient to build a bigger rocket and attain more speed in lift off. Once you've achieved that speed there's no point stopping to visit a space station.
    The International Space Station should have been the international space ship.


Page 1 of 2



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.