Why is NASA stopping the Space Shuttle program?

The Space Shuttle program was originally touted as a cheap and reusable vehicle for low Earth orbit. However, after they actually got one to fly, they found out the vehicle needed to be pretty much completely rebuilt before it could be used on the next mission. It takes several months of nearly non-stop work to turn a shuttle around from "just landed" to "ready to launch". Of course to refit a shuttle for it's next mission is quite expensive. All of those PhD's and other associated high dollar techs, the hand made replacement parts, the $10,000 per pound to orbit price tag, all are contributing factors in Shuttles cancellation. But the biggest of them all is public support. As public support disappears, Congress becomes less likely to spend big money on projects that they don't see as getting any return on investment.

However, isn't this an odd one. The US Military spends more every year providing just air conditioning for our solders in the Middle East than Congress gives to NASA. NASA's budget is right around 7 billion dollars per year. WE"RE SPENDING MORE THAN 7 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR JUST TO KEEP OUR SOLDERS COOL WHILE LIVING IN TENTS!

I hope this helps. Good luck

The shuttles are getting old and need to be retired sooner or later. Their retirement has actually been pushed forward from 2010. Aside from that, they have been subject to several safety concerns, most notably disasters like Columbia and Challenger. Furthermore, they are fairly expensive and take up a large part of NASA's small budget. Ultimately, however, they have fulfilled their mission. The ISS is complete and we have learned a lot from our experiemnts in Low Earth Orbit on the shuttle. Hopefully, we will continue to explore and eventually send people to Mars, an asteroid, or return to the Moon. The plan is to do this while having private businesses take over the more routine tasks of ferrying things to LEO, allowing NASA to research and expand out into space, eventually sending humans to Mars or asteroids. Not having to fund the space shuttle will help free up money for such projects.

New commerical spacecraft are being developed and tested, and NASA is working on the Multi-Purpose Cew Vehicle (MPCV) for opertions beyond Low Earth Orbit. Until these new vehicles are deemed safe to carry humans, the United States will rely on Russia's Soyuz to send astronauts into space.

I think it's two reasons: the shuttle fleet is getting really old. Remember the shuttles were developed in the 1970's or early 1980's. I think there are risks to launching such old vehicles even though they are retrofitted with new ceramic heat shields after their return to earth. I believe that NASA wants to start using another platform for launches that is reusable. Secondly, I do believe some of it has to do with the economy. Don't know how much it costs to launch a shuttle into LEO, but it has to be moderately expensive. The reason that space was solely the realm of government agencies for so long was because it was so expensive that only governments could afford it. If new technologies or vehicles were developed that could cut down on cost of payload into LEO, then space could be privatized. I think Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic is trying to develop a new platform to get into LEO.

They never built the fleet of shuttles they planned on making to be able to send astronauts into space every few weeks as they planned. The ones that they haven't managed to blow up yet are getting so old that there is real danger of failures due to metal fatigue.

These were built in the 1970s and first launched in the 1980s. They are old. They are unsafe (do I need to link to the Challenger and Columbia disasters?)

We need to refocus our space program. At some point, fixing up the broken down Dodge Dart becomes more expensive than just buying a new car. Our space program needs to buy a new car.

The Shuttle technology is 30 years old. The Shuttles are dangerous to fly. Missions are expensive. Challenger blew up shortly after take off because the O-rings had shrunk and didn't seal properly, and the Columbia broke up during re-entry because of damage to ONE heat shield tile during the mission. EVERY SINGLE TILE in the heat shield of a Shuttle has to be replaced EVERY time a Shuttle launches. Making those tiles and installing them costs money.

NASA is already building the next generation of heavy launch vehicles, the Ares rockets. and the next generation of Shuttles, which has already been successfully flight and landing tested.

Shuttle technology is outdated.

http://www.fsu.com/News/Orion-spacecraft-NASA-astr...

Bush decided to end the shuttle program back in 2004, and they've been working up to the end ever since. You can blame him. And the lack of funding to keep it going.

Federal budget cuts.

The same reason the Apollo moon landing program was shut down before all of the planned missions were performed.

.

Because we are funding wars in two countries against other peoples enemies. Let the people decide I guarantee that Americans would rather pull our troops out of unnecessary combat and invest into scientific research.

They're citing cost, and the age of the shuttles themselves.

We do not need low earth orbital vehicles right now.

NASA is planning missions to Mars and even an Asteroid. This requires new vehicles.