This article about redundant fuel gauges on the Space Shuttle highlights many of the reasons why the aging behemoth should be cancelled and its budget reallocated towards newer technologies and contracts for private space developers.
Deputy shuttle program manager Wayne Hale said the fuel gauge problem has been a vexing one - engineers still don't know exactly what caused it - and he's asked himself, "Are we taking care enough to do it right.""Based on the last 10 days' worth of effort, the huge number of people and the tremendous number of hours that have been spent in testing and analysis, I think that we're coming to the right place," he said. ...
"These are rather arcane matters, I would admit. They're rather difficult and sometimes they don't always present well," Griffin said. "But in the long run, I think if it's the right thing, we can explain it to you and you want us doing what's right, not what necessarily is obvious or popular." ...
"My observation is that when the weather is good, you have vehicle problems. If the vehicle works, you have weather problems," he said, smiling. "Since we have some weather concerns, I'm confident the vehicle is going to be OK."
The Shuttle is 1970s technology and it had always been precariously balanced between nail-biting success and horrendous disaster. For $5 billon per year our country could fund 500 prizes similar to the Ansari X Prize -- or hundreds of larger prizes for more difficult accomplishments -- and allow the private market to select the best, most promising technologies. Everything the government runs is wasteful and inefficient, and the Shuttle Program is no exception. By redirecting our tax dollars towards private research, the public would be assured of funding only the best and most successful technology, and humanity would be assured of actually returning to space.
I disagree with your opinion:
"Everything the government runs is wasteful and inefficient, and the Shuttle Program is no exception. By redirecting our tax dollars towards private research, the public would be assured of funding only the best and most successful technology, and humanity would be assured of actually returning to space."
Private research is typically about lowest-cost, most specialized service (or most broad). Cost doesn't always assure quality, and "humanity" returning to space would then become relegated to the goals of the private funder, not necessarily "humanity" in general.
What would you rather see in place of the "aging behemoth?" Your tone implies you'd just rather see it gone.
MF: That's why the prize system is so great! That way, NASA can clearly define the requirements for winning the prize and target specific technologies that will assist man's eventual return to space.
So then do you scrap the space station too? The space shuttle supplies much needed components.
And if they scrapped the shuttle, how long would it take to create and implement new and better technologies? Then what about the space station in the mean time? Give the space station over to the allies on the project?
With the competition and prizes theory, do you limit it to U.S. Companies only for security reasons?
I agree that there could be and probably is better technology to be utilized.
The prize system does nothing to guarantee safety nor does it help better balance nail-biting success versus horrendous disaster (I'd say also that the shuttle has had more success than disaster). Better technology doesn't mean squat if people don't utilize it effectively.
Technology is also not the only answer -- people are there as well. The current infrastructure has many engineers: what happens to them?
The prize system is based around capitalism and greed, not about growth. Give me something better to chew on.
TF: Obviously the shuttle needs to continue as a legacy system to some degree for a short period of time.
As I'm sure you all know, the Shuttle is due to be phased out by 2010, and my main concern is that I don't want to see it extended.
MF: How can you say that the prize system won't result in safety? In the only instance in which it's been used, the X Prize, the result was orders of magnitude safer than the Shuttle. Furthermore, if you design the prize to reward safe designs, then that's what you'll get.
As for the current engineers, I'm sure their knowledge will be very useful in the provate sector, and they'll probably get paid a lot more than they do working for the government. After all, there isn't a huge pool of rocket scientists other than at NASA.
Give you something better to chew on? I don't understand. Are you seriously arguing that the a centrally run bureaucracy (the government) can accomplish space exploration better than a private market turbo-charged with an influx of guaranteed revenue (prizes)?