It was scheduled to be retired in 2010 due to the age of the shuttle fleet and the costs associated in maintaining re-usable space vehicles. There had been criticism that the shuttle program was overly expensive, unsafe (due to age of fleet), and wasn't as productive as earlier space programs like Mercury and Apollo.
The shuttles were already slated to retire in 2010 well before Obama took office. Bush gave the initiative for NASA to plan a successor program, however the program was over budget and behind schedule before it was cancelled in 2011.
NASA shut down their shuttle program, because the whole process would be time consuming. In a nut shell, the equipment and time to hire and test astronauts would consume a lot of time, which they thought might be a waste of time and quite costly for space ships, space shuttles and space. Normally, stations need lots of money in order to orbit and to be created the way it is.
President Obama is calling on NASA to cancel the program that was to return humans to the Moon by 2020, and focus instead on radically new space technologies.
Mr. Obama?s 2010 budget proposal for NASA asks for $18 billion over five years for fueling spacecraft in orbit, new types of engines to accelerate spacecraft through space and robotic factories that could churn soil on the Moon ? and eventually Mars ? into rocket fuel.
Plans for a new mission to leave Earth?s orbit will probably not be spelled out for a few years, and the budget proposal makes it clear that any future exploration program will be an international collaboration, not an American one, more like the International Space Station than Apollo.
NASA Shut down their shuttle program because President Barack Obama had to make budget cuts and he decided to cut the space program budget. So they shut down because they didn't have enough money to keep going.
The shuttles are way too old. They were designed in the late 1970s with the first test flight in 1981, the same year that IBM released it's first PC. That PC ran on an Intel 8088 processor running at around 5MHz and came with 64KB memory (expandable to 256KB). Iran still held 52 Americans hostage at the beginning of 1981 while Jimmy Carter was president but quickly released them minutes after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. If you can read between the lines you can probably figure out why. (Hint- Tehran would still be glowing in the dark.) Since when does not having money stop the federal government from spending?
1 - The age of the shuttles. 2 - The increasing number of private "space-launch" companies, as well as competing gov'ts around the world, make using the shuttles overly expensive (compared to other available options). 3 - The push for NASA to use its resources for exploration/research beyond Earth's orbit ... especially to Mars and other bodies in our solar system, in search of resources we can use on Earth.
because most of the shuttles being launched for most reasons are being launched from the base on the moon. it takes less fuel to leave the moon then from earth. the base has been there since operation harvest moon ended. They were looking for superconductors and setting up endgame missile silos. the moon never spins and is harder to destroy than satellites. tactically there are more nukes on the moon than in all of north Dakota, South Dakota and northern Canada.
I've always wanted to know how 14 million dollars was called "too much" when Payton Manning (think i spelled that right) gets pretty much 17 Mil for just a 1 of 6 games a year. (my numbers might be off a little) OR how here in MN our office just passed a bill for the Vikings to have 1 BILLION dollars for a freaking building. But yet it costs to much to fuel a shuttle? Let alone something that floats around in orbit only needing engines to dodge incoming meteors or space debris. Either way I'm all for the Space Program. And running NASA is probably a hell of a lot cheaper than paying the salaries of most of our government officials..
1 year ago
Last edited at 10:46AM on 5/18/2012
Because we would rather hand billions of dollars in bail outs to banks to screw us over. Then to continue a space program that could possibly benefit us in the future. Yes it is a gamble but we have came along ways with satellites ect., All because of the space program...POKEMON!
We lost the shuttle program when we lost a second orbiter, not because it was too expensive. It's main job was to help build the ISS. The program's efficiency was based on having at least three operating shuttles at any given time. All three remaining orbiters were long overdue for a complete overhaul. The amount it takes to fund NASA doesn't even register in the budget. There is more Medicare fraud in one year than the entire amount it has taken to support NASA for half a century.
I know the real answer. They have more missions coming such as the James Webb telescope. they need more money for future projects. It is so sad that they cancelled it. in the future, they could sart it up again!
because they already know and did all they neded to do and up there is Ready for the top and Elite beforeit all starts to go down --- they will be gone and we will b e left to fry .... plus there is other ways they go up and down
I do not think it was because of expenses, I think it was because he did not think it was relevant to have something he "thought" NASA had already figured out. I do remember Obama saying that he was going to spend the money on school and childens' bennifits, but I do not see a change in the them. This is my opinion, though
It takes a special fuel for the rockets and the USA is out of it and it takes 14 plus years to make. stop assuming and look up the facts im tired of you stupid people always blaming others and you dont know the facts.
I believe it is a combination of Money vs Reward. As a society America has previously feverishly pursued, with no regard for cost, things that will provide the greatest Reward for its governing body (Not always its people however).So why the change? There is an ever-decreasing reward at this time for expansive scientific development, especially when you consider the increasing dominance and sway of the religious sects. Science will never prevail in times of perceived, manufactured, or true hopelessness. The direct opposite effect that it has on religion. With an unending war that could've been wrapped up in a few months, an economic model crumbling and a government footing the bill for years of corporate neglect, a simple choice had to be made. Keep the fanatics happy, or the guys with their heads in clouds.. hmm.. which is which?
Americans weren't willing to pay the half a penny of each US dollar on understanding the vastness of the universe because their priests already seemed to know all the answers. They closed NASA shortly before their country is torn asunder from the removal of government likely brought on from the disgusting lack of both scientific as well as general education for their populace (but hey, why not have Wal-mart overlords & owe china massive amounts of debt rather than "believe" in science & have a stable or prospering society like Japan or Denmark?). You can't generate wealth without innovation & you can't generate innovation without science & engineering; you want to make up the difference in spending in a way that won't damage your economy at all then start taxing your churches.
Because it was outdated and could be used for the sole purpose of putting a spacecraft in orbit. It did that very well, allowed us to build an international space station and to repair and maintain the Hubble telescope. It would not, however, take us beyond earth orbit or help us do the things that are now being planned, for example launching a new multi-member crew vehicle to the moon or beyond. NASA didn't shut down. That's silly. We have a good program with many facets including the Mars Curiosity and the planned James Webb telescope as well as new initiatives in manned flight. If you could maintain a 1970 pickup truck or a 2013 Mercedes, but couldn't do both, what would you do? No brainer to me.