WASHINGTON (AFP) - The final flight in NASA's space shuttle program will take off on May 31, 2010, four months before the fleet is retired after 30 years of service, the agency said Tuesday.

The last mission is one of 10 flights that NASA has planned for Endeavour, Discovery and Atlantis before they are taken out of service in September 2010.

Two of these are planned for this year -- on October 8, Atlantis heads on a service mission to the Hubble Space Telescope, and on November 10, Endeavour will deliver supplies and service parts to the International Space Station.

Another five flights are scheduled for 2009 and three for 2010, said NASA spokesman Rob Navias.

Endeavour will take off for the ISS on May 31, 2010, for the final flight of the shuttle program, which began with the launch of Columbia from the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral in Florida on April 12, 1981.


Click Here

so is there plans on replacing them with much more modern version of the shuttle?

Not at this time, Legatus.

The spacecraft in development to replace the Shuttle is the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle.
Orion will be re-usable, as the Shuttle is, but will be an all-purpose, high tech, versatile and reliable design based, in essential design, upon the Apollo CM.

It will carry a crew of 6 on ISS missions, and a crew of 4 on missions to the Moon in the future. It will not be a space plane, as this vehicle will re-enter the atmosphere using a vectored lifting blunt-body type of re-entry as Apollo did, and will land on parachutes. It is designed to accomplish all of our long term goals in manned space flight for the forseeable future, unlike the Shuttle, which was designed for LEO missions exclusively.

I think another space plane will be far in the future, with far different technology than that of the present Shuttle.

You can read about Orion, and the Constellation Program plans at the NASA website, and Waspie has a continuing update thread on this site about the Constellation program, in the Space News section, which is probably as good as going to the NASA pages!

thanks for the info.. yeah heard about the Orion Project too.. but we'll see what may happen to NASA after 2010.

The USA is committed to the Constellation programme (the Orion spacecraft and the Ares launchers) now. Work is a long way down the line, with the first unmanned test launch scheduled for next year. There are only 2 possibilities at this stage, NASA will proceed with Constellation or the US will pull out of manned spaceflight altogether. With the Russians and Chinese maintaining their manned spaceflight capability I suspect that the 2nd option will be unthinkable to both the US public and government.

I 'hope' the second option is unthinkable. Seeing as the UK seems to be somewhat complacent with their efforts in space exploration, the US program is the UK's adopted space program now.

You're welcome!

What I hope to see is the same level of impeccable work and intensity that I've been watching at NASA for years.
The reconfiguration of LC 39 at the Kennedy Space Center, the test flights of Orion, the Ares V, the return to the ISS, an immense shakedown of Altair, and finally...well, not finally, but eventually, a landing on the Moon, followed by space exploration as we haven't ever seen it.

It all sounds wonderful.

great news! will the moon base be a part of it? xD

I'm sure that eventually, a manned presence on the lunar surface will follow...but we've got a long way to go before serious action is taken in that regard. Getting there will be the first thing...and that will take anohter 10-12 years.

Good riddance. The space shuttle was a massive albatross hanging on the U.S. manned space program that prevented other good possibilities of launchers, including an Orion-equivalent earlier on. I look forward to ultimately getting a space plane that is actually what the STS was originally going to be - a "space truck", designed to carry a small amount of crew and cargo into orbit.

That said, I'm rather sad about the fact that there is going to be a five-year period between the last shuttle launch and the first Orion launch in which the U.S. has no means of launching manned spacecraft into orbit. Looks like we'll be riding with the Cosmonauts up to the ISS.

I understand your sentiments, Guardsman.
For a long time, I would be inclined to somewhat agree with your assessment...although I wouldn't exactly put it in the same way you have.

The STS was originally designed in principal to be a fully re-usable space truck, yes. It was originally conceived to be exactly what it is now, capability wise, a heavy lift vehicle designed to support earth orbital projects like the ISS...and adjunct to manned space exploration projects...not the program itself.

You are likely aware that the compromise vehicle we have today was the product of budgetary cuts and modifications that resulted from those constraints. You may also be aware that for a long time, and as a result of not only administration cuts, and demands (starting with Nixon), but the lack of enthusiam of the American people, which is somewhat typical (unfortunately), we found ourselves with a seriously compromised vehicle without a mission...until the ISS, which even throughout the Reagan years ( a staunch supporter of manned space exploration) was virtually impossible to get going on.

We also saw a decline in the NASA paradigm as pertains to upper management...an infectious and detrimental thing which resulted in what we saw in 1986 (Challenger), and to a certain degree in 2003 (Columbia).

Three years ago...we returned to flight with STS-114. From that point onward, the Shuttle has been doing...impeccably, exactly what it was supposed to be doing all along, with the full support of the US Government and a NASA team in place in upper management positions that was like the one in place during the 1960s.


Always, the people at the operational levels at NASA have been the best of the best. That's been apparent, and the potential of the Shuttle has been illustrated to an amazing degree.

There hasn't been anything but amazing, outstanding accomplishments in the past three years.

This is a credit to the people who operate her, who prepare her and launch her, and to the exceedingly good people who fly and control her from Houston...they are, today, allowed to do so without constraint, and we have two people to thank for allowing the best to operate as we've known all along they can:


President George Bush.
Director Dr. Michael Griffin, perhaps the best NASA administrator to come along.


We are, at present , doing incredible work with the Shuttle, and I have full confidence that we will be able to continue this pattern until the bittersweet retirement of her in 2010.


Yes, it shouldn't have been what I've viewed as almost two decades of waiting for a mission, and an execution plan which meant something and allowed NASA to be what it can be, but that's not the people at NASA's fault. They have done the absolute best they can with what they were given to work with. Now, they're allowed to be what they can be without constraint, and the results are amazing.




Looks that way.

However, that is to be expected given the situation as it exists. We will develop Orion according to the impeccability inherent in the NASA scheme, and that takes a bit of time, because it has to be right.

There is no choice in the matter...no compromise.

This of course will depend entirely upon continued support by future administrations, and the American people.


If we don't have it...expect more of what we experienced years ago.


But that will not be the fault of NASA. It will be the fault of those who don't put their support behind the organization and allow it to do what it's completely capable of doing...the adminsistrations that follow George Bush's and the American people, who frankly, allowed Challeger and Columbia to happen, and who can prevent things like that in the future...with their political voices.

The retirement of the Shuttle will not be the retirement of an albatross. It will be a tearful farewell to a magnificent flying machine that spent only a few years of her lifetime being what she was supposed to be.

It will be a lesson, for those who wish to learn; a lesson about what can happen if we, the American people, don't do our jobs and thus allow Government to screw things up in a huge way, as they've done before.

Fund NASA, fund the programs, and allow these magnificent people to do their jobs, and the future looks bright.

Don't do that, and continue to be a bunch of morons, and we'll see in the future what we saw in the past. Death and destruction and America looking like space fools instead of the world leader in space technology and ability and accomplishment, which we were, and which we are now.

I thought it was originally supposed to be a more "stripped-down" re-usable launch vehicle, until during the Nixon Administration they started adding all these whistles and bells about making it the "do everything, be everything" device. I agree that it was idiotic that it ended basically being the manned space program, rather than simply one of multiple ways of getting stuff into orbit.



It's utterly *******ed, too, that we had to wait until the ISS came along before the thing really found a decent mission. I mean, come on, we launched Skylab I in, what, 1973? It basically sat in orbit for six years, unoccupied, until it came crashing down. We could have used it, or launched another one. We've had the ability to send up space stations for decades.



The stupid thing is still as expensive as hell to operate, with significant down time. What's the point of using a re-usable space plane if it's cheaper to just launch expendable manned rockets? This makes me wish that DynaSoar hadn't been canceled.



I don't think it's bittersweet. The stupid thing should have been junked years ago, or at least reduced to a less important role. We could have just bought Energia rockets off the Russians for cheaper, or done our own equivalent of the Soyez.



It's not their fault, of course. I just wish their administrative heads had not tried to make the STS the end-all, be-all back in the Nixon Administration.

Oh no...It was originally supposed to be a completely re-usable vehicle...and an economical method of getting things on orbit which would reduce the prevalent cost per pound of launching hardware into orbit. Of course, it wasn't that at all. It didn't substantially reduce any costs, and would up costing much more than originally bargained for.




You sound alot like I did ca. 1986-87!


Yep, 1973 was the launch of Skylab. But it didn't sit "unoccupied for six years". It was in fact occupied three times in the next year or so...for as much as 84 days (Skylab 4). We did in fact have another Skylab vehicle in dry-dock during that time, but that too was scrapped (along with all Apollo Applications projects).
It might interest you to know that the Shuttle's initial purpose was to boost Skylab into a higher orbit...but, of course, she didn't get "airborne" until after Skylab had re-entered the atmosphere and disintegrated itself...due to re-designs and compromises necessitated by budgetary shortfalls...


But it did sit on orbit for almost 5 years before increased solar activity deteriorated it's orbit. It de-orbited two years after the original Shuttle was to have flown, and two year before the real Shuttle actually did...


There's no room for that in manned spaceflight.






Dyna Soar was an Air Force project concerning lifting bodies and a potential spaceplane which would've been launched on existing Titan rockets (mostly for military purposes with a very limited capability as pertains to cargo...) which was cancelled in 1963...it certainly was a precursor of the Shuttle, but it never left the ground, and members of the test piloting crew assigned to this project were leaving...including Neil Armstrong, who got a job with NASA...





Bought rockets off of the Russians? I imagine that would've been an option in the middle of the Cold War! Remember what the time frame is we're talking about here....
We already had medium to heavy lift boosters of our own...superior in most ways to anything the Russians had to offer at the time (or today).

The program was to develop a whole new class of vehicle, and recall that the Soviets attempted to imitate it (Almost to the detail), a failed project called Buran...





Understood and agreed. Understand that Nixon scrapped Apollo prematurely. There was a reason for that.

He wanted his own legacy (not Kennedy's, which Apollo was, and he knew it) and appeased Congress and the American people with his compromised Shuttle incentive (it wasn't his exactly...it was the next thing in line in an extensive manned program...under him it became the only thing we had, and nothing like the original).


It's history, it's a reflection of the often skewed way the political winds blow. It happened, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. We can only hold out hope for the future and trust government to do the right thing in successive administrations...and alow NASA to do the job they're qualified and trained to do!

I hear you Mid! ITs really up to the parents of todays youth to stay in coherent relationship,I.E working together to raise the next generation of space caddets.We need to not loose track of how and where we get these brilliant people.Not here lately,but for a few I admit. My thinking is that we can and better start now voteing into power Educated people to run this country,and actually ask of our government to reach out to explore the cosmos.Now Im sounding like Dr.Carl Segan,but He did more to spur on the drive we need than anyone that I can recall since VonBrown did when He helped start this Dream of Mankinds New Future. Dream Big and teach your children well. IMO DONTEATUS

Well, D, y'all stay together and raise us a couple of space cadets, now!

And feed 'em real food as well...Texas food! That helps alot.
been there, ate it..it's mighty fine!



I think Drs. Von Braun and Sagan might appreciate that alot...

The Space Shuttle is a great example of the wisdom of realizing that just because something CAN be done, is not itself a reason to DO it.
We'd be MUCH further along now if we just stuck to shooting people up there if and when they were needed, with a capsule like we did in the 1960's. All the componenets of the space station could be shot up there on large booster, by themselves, THEN shoot the men up there to bolt it together.

But creating a huge heavy lift vehicle to take it all up together? Whats the point??? To make space travel 'seem' ordinary, routine, like a plane ride to the public?? What was the point of that? Sounds like Walt Disny-think rather than practical reality.....

It sounds to me like you haven't read much of the Shuttle-related popsts placed on this thread, and others...


The ISS has been "taken up there" by both Russian boosters, and American Shuttle missions. The fact is, the ONLY heavy lift capability of any substance is American (Shuttle), and it is doing it's job quite well as of the moment.

The point is to do it all at once...it's the best mission the Shuttle could have, and it's doing remarkably well at it.

It's 2008. If you think that the Shuttle is demonstrating that manned space flight is ordinary or routine...you haven't been paying attention.


And if you think that practical reality is not demonstrated by the recent effective use of the STS system...well, ditto!

There is, and never has been anything "plane ride" like on a Shuttle mission. It is not ordinary..it is extraordinary. In fact, to me, an old seasoned aviator...a plane ride is still outside the realm of the ordinary!


p.s...we don't "shoot" anyone up there...we launch them, a painstaking and detailed process involving intricacy, high-end mathematics, and intense concentration.

You really ought to pay attention to what happens when a Shuttle launches. Spend a day watching wehat NASA actually does when they launch a Shuttle, and if you understand at all what's going on, you'll be impressed. Spoend 10-14 days watching what happens what they get "shot up there" , and you'll be more impressed....

If one were to watch the NASA channel and then read a few books about the program ,one could not be a Non-beliver in the wonderful Job of the ISS and Shuttle missions they are Mind Bending Grand examplies Of mankinds Highest Level accomplishment. And I too have been luckie to fly in a great many of our Flying machines and Like MId every time I look up higher than the last time at what must be out there? Never Stop beliveing in Mans ability`s

Quite an excellent example of delusional rationaliztion of large sums of misspent money...

Ah, I see.

Avoid the issues presented and make a nonsensical comment...reflecting perhaps one of the most uninformed concepts accessible to the ignorant today:

The money we spend on manned space flight is a) too large, and b.) mispent.

The money is not misspent. It is probably the most bang for the buck that the Federal Government has mustered (the computer you type such nonsense into is a direct result of that money misspent...and so is your cell phone, and your microwave, and the advanced diagnostics that can detect the anomolous part of the brain that creates such ideas...).

The money we actually spend on the manned space program is a pittance, a mere pittance, relative to the Federal budget. It always has been, and it doesn't cost a taxpayer more than a nickel a day when NASA's manned exploration budget is high!


You really ought to read up on these matters...

Please turn in your cell phone. You do not qualify. Oh, the gps goes, too.

And...return your P.C., unplug your microwave, throw away your blue tooth...etc...

Don't forget that plasma screen TV.

Yea, I've probably forgotten lots of things!

He really needs to worry about the inner self, mispent? This may be truth that there are Aleins here on earth? LoL Well Its not easy to please everyone all the time.Maybe not Him any time? Sad to be left out of the Space Race. Gentlemen start your Rockets!

'MANNED' space flight is the nonsense I refer to... I'm ALL FOR satellites, cellphones, GPS, etc. "MANNED' spaceflight is nothing but a dead-end romantic indulgence

That dead end ,Romantic Indulgence is what got the first ape like creature out of the trees and onto the Two upright and walking into our present day! Mankind is a gift to the entire Universe to boldly go where ? Well Where ever we think fit to explore. This is why we are not still hideing in dark caves and eatting roots and grubs. We spend as many in here have stated pennys on the dollar for space exploration, manned and un-manned. All to the total benefity of ? Yes you and Me! Its not like the thousands of troops we seem to think we need to send around this world for what? Nobody can even come close to telling me that one! Its like we never get it all on the same page on what to do with the money. But complaining about Manned Space travel is not the real problem. Trillions have been spent killing man on this planet in just the last year! Is that productive?I`ll get off the soap box for Mid to commit.

I am guessing you haven't realized the gist of what's been previously said...

If not for that dead-end, we wouldn't have GPS, or cells, or microwaves, or advanced medical technology, or fiber-optic networks, or digital anything...including the computer you sit at...or velcro, or advanced plastics, and a thousand more things you wouldn't believe.

And those things constitute the benefits derived as an extension of manned space flight; secondary, yet significant developments to the primary knowledge we gained and continue to gain through the endeavor.

Far from a dead-end, manned space flight is the living edge of human development.

p.s.
It's also a romantic endeavor--and that's a good thing too.

The lack of breatheable air, tolerable temperatures, food or resources makes life for humans in space, or on any other body we can reach in the universe, impossible without bringing eveything you need with you, and living in a restricted, sealed environment.

Wrong on several counts. Water ice is known to exist on Mars and thought to exist at the Lunar poles. This means you don't have to take water to either of them. Water is easy to break into hydrogen and oxygen so you have fuel and breathable air too. It has already been shown that lunar soil can be used to make a form of concrete so you don't need to take all your building materials with you.
With plentiful water and sunlight growing your own food shouldn't be to difficult either. As for tolerable temperatures have you heard of these amazing inventions we have these days? They are called heaters and refrigerators, very useful things.

Care to raise another objection? You line them up and we'll knock them down.

maybe rideron would like to know that latex,and polyurethane was a space age development? we could use a little more of there uses with attitudes like those.less negitive people and more positive thinkers are raised in a world of unlimited potentials. Dreamers alike are why we are where we are today.

Air is for losers, man! - Confidence, Red Dwarf

Aside from the air, every objection you raise applies to antarctic bases, too.

OK, so you say I'm wrong.

But 30 years ago, in 1978, if you would have said that in 30 years we'd have outposts or colonies off the earth' not just in orbit 20 miles up, but actually off the earth on another body., I would have disagreed.

"Not practical, never will happen, romantic nonsense" I would have said back then, and today I'd be proven right.

So today, if you say that in 30 years we'll have outpost, or colonies off the earth, I'd say the same thing.

And in 30 more years, I'll still be right....

20 miles up!!! you do realise that space doesn't start until 62 miles up don't you? You do know that the ISS (which has been permanently manned since November 2000) orbits between 173 and 286 miles up? Clearly not. So we are being told what can and can't be achieved in space by someone that doesn't even know where space is.


Only in your mind. Never is not the same as "in 30 years" at least not when I was learning maths.


No you'll be just as wrong as you were 30 years ago. One day we will have those colonies, and the moment we do your whole the only nonsense will be your nay saying.

Just because we can't do something yet doesn't mean we should continue to strive forward. One constant in mankind's history is that there have always been the nay sayers, the Luddites. Those that lack the imagination and ambition to look forward but would rather try to hold back man's progress. Another constant in history is that these are the forgotten people, it is those with the bravery to move forward that are remember and invariably proven correct.

Hmm. I always wondered what I was scraping my fin tips on when I used to do the 'odd' flying job for the western world, it might also have explained my breathing difficulties and the fact that my flying controls were ineffective if indeed, as you are so certain, low earth orbit actually started at 20 miles

(Thinks........ if thats the case, was I the first Welsh astronaut?)

If only I had looked up I could have seen such outposts and colonies at just 20 miles up!

Indeed.



Ok that just made my day.

Here's a.... quite rough representation:



kowoma.de

Woops...

I suppose it's been pointed out to you by now that 20 miles up is no place for an "outspost".
And of course, we do have a whale of an outpost today, on orbit some... oh... 220 SM above the planet...




You were proven wrong 10 years ago.




We certainly hope not. If the same reasons for us not having say, a lunar presence now, exist 30 years from now, we are a lost race...