What is the future for NASA?

[Nathan F]

Exactly, the brave souls who put their lives on the line every time they do this know the risks. And they accept them.

[Enlightenment]

NASA will continue to hang around like an albatross around the US taxpayers' necks, sucking up money into mismanaged and ineffective programs that accomplish little more than enrich the stockholders of US defense-aerospace industries. NASA is a very good way for Congress to launder public money into the hands of the defense biz; the Columbia disaster is by no means a large enough event for Congress to cut off one of their preferred kickback channels.

The Shuttle followon/partial replacement (OSP; Orbital Space Plane) is still going ahead as far as I know. The OSP is basicallly Shuttle-light, intended to carry crew/passengers but only limited cargo. It's not a heavy lifter, can't be used to complete the ISS, and will very likely be decades late and billions over budget (see: defense biz pork, above) but the OSP is what NASA might be flying in the next twenty years or so.

Restarting the Shuttle production line is not possible at this stage. The tooling no longer exists and most of the parts used in the thirty year old design blueprints are obsolete and out of production. There will be no more Shuttles built.

If the ISS is to remain permanently manned it will likely be necessary for someone (either the US or the ESA) to give the Russians enough funding to keep up Soyuz and Progress flights as well as crew training. Another alternative would be to allow/encourage the Russians to take up multiple tourists. Given Russian costs and a $20million per head fare it's actually possible for the Russians to cover their costs from tourism revenues alone.

If the ISS is to be completed, however, the Shuttle will need to be reactivated--within months rather than years--even if only as a remote-controlled crewless heavy-lifter. The remaining ISS components are simply too heavy and too large to be lofted into orbit on other launchers.

[jaeger115]

1) NASAs budget IIRC has been cut several times over the past several years.

2) Those men and women know the risks of space flight and they know that a trip on the shuttle can very well be their last. For people to demand NASA be dismantled because of the inherently risky nature of spaceflight is, in my opinion, blatantly disrespectful to those who have already died in getting where we are today.

Oops. I take this back. I am wholly in support for a space program (I also want to be an astronaut) but I think it would be a much bigger service to these who died that we redesign the shuttle.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

The Shuttle is now officially in the opening throes of its' demise, with a successor nowhere to be seen (at least from the Aerospace Megacorps). Nasa is almost certainly going to have to either delay further construction of or freeze the ISS at current levels. There are a number of places to go from here -- some go forwards, some backwards (to the basics), and some sideways -- here are a few possibilities:

1) NASA seeks to fastrack an in-house shuttle successor (possibly 2... 1 strictly for non-perishable 'hard' cargo & 1 for personnel, research & perishables like ISS supplies) using SotA Technology, with a deployment deadline no later than 2008. In addition new on-orbit support systems are developed -- vehicles akin to the Workbee pods of Trek for example. This option would be an example of the 'Forward' option.

2) NASA sets out a massive 'reward' offer for the first private organization to field a suitable replacement -- no government funding of vehicle development, rather more along the lines of how the military used to procure aircraft. NASA would eventually hold a fly-off of those fully operational prototypes that meet the deadline, and the winner gets the procurement contract. This would be a potential 'sideways' option.

2) NASA splits into 3 entities, and 1 new agency would be created from scratch. One would focus solely on technological research, much the way NACA did before it became NASA -- any developments would be released into the public domain for all to see and build upon (potentially opening the door to true civilian space access. The second would continue to perform the sole operational role NASA currently does truly well: (Inter)Planetary science missions and Earth science. The third body would merge with the FAA, and lend its' expertise to properly regulating the high frontier in much the way the current FAA does for air travel. A new (para?)military arm, similar to the coast guard, would handle the rest of what NASA currently does operationally (government funded delivery services etc). This would be the 'back to basics' approach.

there are many other possibilities, but I wanted to paint with large strokes... My favorite would be option 3, as it removes one of the things I see as NASA's achilles heel: too many things on its plate, with far too many chefs trying to stir the pots.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

In the light of the Columbia disaster, what is the future of NASA?

NASA's a big ravenous zombie. Mostly because it operates almost exclusively at the convenience of Congress and the schmucks that vote them in. When they have some sort of exciting program, people come out in droves to support them. Otherwise the typical Joe Blow would rather see his tax dollars go towards something of "tangible" benefit, like education and Social Security.

Here's what's likely to happen as a result of the Columbia tragedy:

A) There will be a big investigation.
B) This investigation will produce a set of results that will bring a bunch of naysayers out of the woodwork.
C) NASA will make some change to it's policy (likely maintenance.)
D) Die-hard space-heads will wistfully wish that America would get off it's ass and actually build a replacement for our aging fleet of shuttles.
E) The confidence of the typical schmuck in NASA will decline further. (NASA was doing a marvelous job of killing it by themselves before this. For example, the ISS is being criticized by increasingly skeptical lawmakers, especially as it continues to experience delays.)

Really, as sad as it is, something like Columbia was bound to happen eventually. The shuttles are old and are subjected to conditions that put them right at their design limits. Space is a risky business, and NASA never gets the funding it really needs or deserves.

With that being said, I still think that NASA will eventually fall over and die. Large-scale space exploration and exploitation will likely be carried out by private interests, or a government that is really comitted to space, not just comitted when it's using space as a cover for some pet project.

I think we will have our first Mars landing in the early to mid 2020s, incidentally.

[BenRG]

In my view, NASA is going to end manned spaceflight for years. The investigation into this latest tragedy will probably conclude that the space shuttles are now completely un-spaceworthy due to age, ill-conceived and poorly carried out upgrades and poor maintenance. As no replacement is imminent (or even being actively planned), the whole manned space program will be put in mothballs. The ISS will probably be abandoned and de-orbited as a wasted investment. It will seem as if the era of manned spaceflight will be over.

Then the Chinese will land on the moon. This will be a 'Sputnik Event'. China is America's most obvious long-term strategic rival. It will be unacceptable for any American government to allow a foreign power (especially a potentially hostile one) gain uncontested control of space. NASA's manned space program will be hastily reactivated and have money thrown at it by a hysterical congress. In many ways, NASA will have to philosophically and logistically start from scratch again. However, we can only hope that, this time, they will keep true to the vision of humans in space, rather than turn into a political football for keeping the Millitary-Industrial Complex happy.

[Lord Pounder]

I think it will be back to the drawing board for NASA for a while. This accident has drew a lot of attention to the age and frailties of the Shuttle design. Given we are about to go to war things may be slow from now but as soon as the Iraq situation is sorted american can do what it always does in this kinda situation and throw money at the problem untill it's solved.

[ArmorPierce]

This will just bring the demise of the shuttle quicker than it would have had happened on its own.

[Defiant]

I just saw a news interview with a former NASA engineer who was reprimanded twice because he suggested installing escape-pods in the shuttle.

Some people never learn. NASA should be disbanded and a new organization, with a better structure should be put in its place.

[Nathan F]

What NASA needs is another world power to give them some competition. Look what came out of the space race with Russia. The first men in space, the Mercury and Gemini projects, the Apollo moon landings, the first space station, and even the Shuttle. With the fall of the Soviet Union, we got lazy. We took the shuttle and we haven't improved on it. Other than some avionics upgrades, the STS is basically the same thing that it was 22 years ago. We have the full capability to make something newer, safer, and better. The least that can be done is a full rebuild of the STS incorporating new materials technology and building methods.