2010

[bushuser]

We now have 2 important shuttle missions behind us... important in that the problems with foam shedding/thermal protection are now addressed with proper concern, and there's now a couple of contingency plans if serious damage occurs.<br /><br />In light of this, is NASA being too rigid to declare the STS program dead in 2010? <br /><br />I'm not saying we should fly shuttles indefinitely, but this decision was made, in part, as an emotional reaction to tragedy. I think 4 years without a man-rated alternative is sad, and who will bet me $10 that the new CEV will be delivered on schedule?

 

[nacnud]

It wasn't NASAs decision, it was Bushes. It would have to be a political decision above NASA to change the STS retirement date now.

 

[qso1]

As nacnud has pointed out, its not NASAs decision but having said that. I don't think they are being too rigid and they may end up going past 2010 for reasons we cannot foresee right now. But most likely retirement will come in 2010.<br /><br />This is appropriate IMO because number 1. While the shuttle has been a stunning technical success, it has not been an economical one. The shuttle has proven we can build one h**l of a reusable machine but that were still a ways from getting one thats almost as economical to operate as an airliner which was the original intent behind having the STS.<br /><br />Assuming the CEV is not killed by an incoming Presidential Administration. It actually might be delivered on schedule for 2 reasons. One, the Congress and public will probably not tolerate another program that has any significant delays or cost overruns. Two, CEV is development of largely proven technology. Shuttle was largely unproven beyond what was learned in the X-15 and lifting body research programs. The shuttle was also much larger than NASA originally wanted because of DOD requirements which included the shuttle replacing ELVs. These were major factors in its delays.<br /><br />Lastly. And hopefully it won't occur, but being realistic, we have to be prepared. Another accident could occur, maybe not even a fatal one. An RTLS perhaps. But whatever it is, if serious enough, that will shut the program down IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

The important thing now is to fly the damn things as fast as we can push them through maintanence. <br /><br />If we're going to take a two year break after every tiny piece of foam falls off, we may as well cancel the program now. Atleast we'll save money on operations.

 

[henryhallam]

The shuttle didn't have too huge a delay in its development, only two years. Which isn't bad for a project on that scale.

 

[nyarlathotep]

For a technology development program run as backward as the STS was, it's a testament to the calibre of NASA's engineers that they weren't ten years over.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">In light of this, is NASA being too rigid to declare the STS program dead in 2010?</font>/i><br /><br />Don't forget, a lot of these decisions are made in Congress and not NASA. Here is a portion of a press release today from the IFPTE union:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The workforce protection language put forth by Senator Mikulski to defund any layoffs in FY07 is an essential component of the bill's effort to protect NASA's long-term institutional knowledge and capabilities from short-term expedient budget planning. The key to NASA's future success is to retain its current workforce while it recruits and trains the next generation of the best and brightest young scientists and engineers. This will only be possible if the Administration ceases its divisive and counter-productive layoff threats and shows the nation's youth that NASA is a great place for a stable, productive, and exciting career as a scientist or engineer.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=20393<br /><br />When reading things like this, I am reminded that to a significant extent NASA is a jobs program, and Congress-people will protect the jobs in their districts. When the Moon2Mars commission was developing recommendations for the VSE, they were told that closing any NASA facilities was off the table and could not be considered.<br /><br />Never forget, NASA operates in a very political environment.</i>

 

[qso1]

I agree two years is not unreasonable. A few folks at that time thought the shuttle would actually never fly. One journalist, IIRC Gregg Easterbrook projected turnaround times of 280 days minimum which turned out wrong. Some other things he turned out right about but overall, IMO the shuttle was a great technical success. It just was not an economical one from a strictly cost point of view. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

True, NASA operates in a very political environment.<br /><br />All jobs are political to some extent. When Ford lays people off, each of those folks can think of some reason they shouldn't be layed off even if its been shown its in the companies best interest to close a plant and lay the workers off. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[youngblood]

Off-Topic Post Removed

 

[mattblack]

You are SO not helping... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[kane007]

Woops, wrong forum. Please keep rants to freespace.

 

[alokmohan]

I think this is improper discussion.It may hurt religion of others.It is not connected to the topic.

 

[jtkirk1701]

i feel that if the shuttle record is good untill 2010 that they will move the decommision date back<br />

 

[geminivi]

I have read that shuttle Atlantis will be retired in 2008 if NASA gets its way. I also understand that long lead contracts are no longer being issued for such things as SRB's and ET's. I think by 2010, NASA won't be able to keep them flying even if they wished too.

 

[qso1]

What cutting edge technology programs do you consider to have been run per schedule, or near perfectly? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

That date can only move back if long lead item contracts are still in effect. But as some others here have already mentioned, this won't be the case by 2010. Add to that, the unpublicized concerns of the effects of another accident and the completion of ISS. Once ISS shuttle missions are completed, the shuttles mission will go away. This because over the years, the shuttles mission was reduced to just ISS assembly/completion flights. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[halman]

qso1,<br /><br />The reason that the shuttle has failed to be an economical launch vehicle is that our people in Washington, Congress, choose to ignore the requirements that NASA made when proposing the shuttle. The only way that the shuttle would be able to meet the projections used to sell the program to Congress would be if the shuttle fleet consisted of no less than 7 orbiters. Economies of scale would reduce the per launch costs far below what they were with the expendable launch vehicles. And a fleet of that size would allow for frequent launches even though the individual orbiters took several months to turn around after a flight.<br /><br />But we let Congress, our elected representatives of our government, cut the size of the fleet to 4 orbiters. We continue to let Congress ignore the demands of realistic space exploration, instead of being vocal enough to get our way. Someone called NASA a jobs program. During the same period of time that the shuttle was designed and built, and in its lifetime, we have funded the design, construction and deployment of submarines able to carry 16 rockets that each lift a pack of warheads into space. These submarines are able to stay submerged for months at a time, and are the size of a typical freighter. If these weapons are ever put to use, the world as we know it will end. But would we call such a weapons system a 'jobs program'? Which of these programs is most likely to assure the future of the human race?<br /><br />Congress responds to input from the people, which is why elder Americas and the religous right have had such an impact on policies in this country. Space enthusiats are like pot smokers, they talk a lot about what they would like to see happen, but they never do anything about it. Write to your people in Washington! Let them know what is important to you, and what you think the future should be. Stop letting them jeopardize space exploration in the name budget balancing and defense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

halman:<br />The reason that the shuttle has failed to be an economical launch vehicle is that our people in Washington,<br /><br />Me:<br />I agree, and to that I would add that NASA originally wanted a much smaller orbiter in terms of payload. The USAF drove the shuttle up to its 65,000 payload to LEO capacity because it wanted the shuttle to do its tasks and not have to pay for its development. 7 Orbiters would have made two to three week turnarounds possible. In the early 1980s, the projected flight rate was 24 per year. Shuttle Discovery actually achieved the six per year necessary during one year, to have 24 flights per year between 4 shuttles.<br /><br />halman:<br />But we let Congress, our elected representatives of our government, cut the size of the fleet to 4 orbiters. We continue to let Congress ignore the demands of realistic space exploration, instead of being vocal enough to get our way.<br /><br />Me:<br />Again true, but the vast majority of folks could care less what we do in space until some media pundit criticizes the cost. We don't really have any control beyond voting. And once elected officials get elected, they may not always do as we wish. What is needed is for someone to be a spokesperson of sorts for human space exploration. A kind of John Walsh for NASA. Someone who would be vocal enough to get whats needed to rectify the underfunding situation for human spaceflight.<br /><br />I have even heard NASA called welfare for engineers.<br /><br />halman:<br />These submarines are able to stay submerged for months at a time, and are the size of a typical freighter. If these weapons are ever put to use, the world as we know it will end. But would we call such a weapons system a 'jobs program'? Which of these programs is most likely to assure the future of the human race?<br /><br />Me:<br />Trident submarines and missiles.<br /><br />halman:<br />they talk a lot about what they would like to see happen, but they never do anything about it. Write to your people in Wa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[skyone]

Someone like Carl Sagan?

 

[qso1]

Too bad he's gone but yes, thats an even better analogy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[halman]

qso1,<br /><br />Certainly it would be wonderful if NASA could make pitches to the public in support of increasing spending on manned space exploration. Unfortunately, that would be considered lobbying, which federal agencies are supposed to be prohibited from doing.<br /><br />But the problem is much deeper than that. Where is the law that says that NASA has to accomplish such-and-such in manned space exploration? Where is the executive directive authorizing NASA to spend federal funds to explore space? NASA is in the position of having to set its own goals, and then justifying them to Congress. Even Bush's Vision for Space Exploration is merely a suggestion, not an Executive Order. No politician has been willing to face the flak of putting specific goals in writing to guide NASA, because that would lock up billions of dollars on a mandated program.<br /><br />Until Congress can be motivated to establish set goals in space exploration, and create the timeline that they are to be accomplished on, NASA funding is completely unpredictable. The only way that we might push Congress into doing something like that is by letting them know that there are many voters who believe that space exploration is more than just scientific research, which can be set aside at any time without serious consequences. We built the space shuttle, but then we refused to give it any place to go, any job to do, until the program was in its twilight.<br /><br />I keep hammering away at letter writing because it has been effective for pushing Congress into action. A person willing to spend the time to write a letter is a person likely to take the time to vote.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

It actually dosn't really have to be NASA doing the pitching. The National Space Society should get a spokes person who would better inform the public of NASAs goals and activities. There is no law as you say, that mandates NASA to accomplish goals. Even in the time of JFK, his call to the moon was't written into law. I'm sort of in the mindset that had Kennedy not been assassinated, we might not have gone to the moon in a race.<br /><br />IMO, it would be difficult to get Congress to set the goals and programs simply because they are mostly non technical people outside the technicalities of business and law.<br /><br />I remember after Challenger, the Secretary of transportation asked then NASA Administrator James Fletcher why Spacelab wasn't manifested to fly on expendable rockets? It was bad enough the secretary didn't know that spacelab depended on the shuttle to get back to Earth. But the secretary had nobody on his staff to advise him that.<br /><br />Letter writing is an effective way to get Congress to action, especially if a letter writing campagn could be mounted to let Congress know its time to get human spaceflight moving outward again.<br /><br />Ultimately, I think its gonna take private industry to get in and lower the cost of getting to LEO. This will enable almost any other spaceflight goal to be accomplished more effectively and economically. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[hansolo0]

I posted this in another thread but it never got answered, does anyone think it likely that someone in the private sector might buy and attempt to use the shuttle? Is this even possible? Perhaps they could improve on its design or revamp it, etc?

 

[vogon13]

Paging Richard Branson,<br /><br />please report to the registrars window to pick up the title and keys to Atlantis.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>