A future for the shuttle?

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>msnbc article on space shuttle retirement? Why&nbsp;are the financial giants like gates or buffet not stepping up to the collection plate? They claim it is the american dream. Come on folks! Something so important to the spirit and wellfare of the u.s. should not be underscored.Allowing ourselves to be under the thumb of other countries that&nbsp; have proved to be unreliable is&nbsp;a mistake. Haven"t we given enough to them all ready. We have no problem dumping billions on foreign policy. Wake up america! <br /> Posted by scribnar</DIV></p><p>The shuttle needs to be retired, it is too expensive.&nbsp; The shuttle&nbsp; would bleed both gates or buffet in less than a year </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bdewoody]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>my opinion is that the future of shuttle will be in museum In fact, inspiring the next generation is very important the retirement of shuttle itself does not mean that they become useless a grounded shuttle will still have its value some parts such as SSME can be used for public display like the starchaser rocket <br />Posted by HK8900</DIV><br /><br />Would it not be wise to keep one of the shuttles in some sort of a stand by mode for several years?&nbsp; They retired the SR-71s only to bring back three several years later when they found they had nothing that could do the job.&nbsp; I have a feeling this will be the case with the shuttle.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>And I know the shuttle and the SR-71 are vastly different but I have read it takes almost as much prep for a SR-71 flight as a manned space flight</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Would it not be wise to keep one of the shuttles in some sort of a stand by mode for several years?&nbsp; They retired the SR-71s only to bring back three several years later when they found they had nothing that could do the job.&nbsp; I have a feeling this will be the case with the shuttle.&nbsp;And I know the shuttle and the SR-71 are vastly different but I have read it takes almost as much prep for a SR-71 flight as a manned space flight <br /> Posted by bdewoody</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Not the same thing.&nbsp; The shuttle takes way more prep.&nbsp; SR-71 could use most airports/runways.&nbsp; The shuttle requires pads, MLP's, SRB's, ET's, VAB, SRB facilities, etc to be kept maintained.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bdewoody]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Not the same thing.&nbsp; The shuttle takes way more prep.&nbsp; SR-71 could use most airports/runways.&nbsp; The shuttle requires pads, MLP's, SRB's, ET's, VAB, SRB facilities, etc to be kept maintained.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_X_1</DIV><br /><br />I know all that, I'm no dummy from hicksville. I live 50 miles from the launch site.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I also know it's expensive to keep a single SR-71, let alone 3 ready for flight.</p><p>But I think there are scenarios where having one flyable shuttle (in mothballs) could turn out to be the cheapest solution to a potential problem</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[j05h]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know all that, I'm no dummy from hicksville. I live 50 miles from the launch site.&nbsp;I also know it's expensive to keep a single SR-71, let alone 3 ready for flight.But I think there are scenarios where having one flyable shuttle (in mothballs) could turn out to be the cheapest solution to a potential problem <br /> Posted by bdewoody</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Howdy. I'd question the cost of this mothballing. It's going to require 10,000 techs at kSC and billions a year because STS is also the unique facilities - might as well keep flying them in that case. <br />The better comparison would be with the B1 bomber - they require air-conditioned hangars. SSME and SRB cabiliities would need to be maintained, etc. Mothballing STS would delay/cancel VSE elements. The best future for the Shuttle is a place of honor in our museums.</p><p>&nbsp;Capsules and mission modules can do everything the Shuttle can. Take the lessons learned (arm, payload bay, etc) and put that into reusable tugs, kit and capsules. <br /> </p><p>&nbsp;Josh</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p>In my opinion, there comes a point that no matter how utilitarian a microwave oven is, you can't turn it into an assault rifle.</p><p>The same is true for the Shuttle.&nbsp; Because the current economics of getting something from Earth to orbit limits design, the Shuttle is ill-suited for doing anything other than what it was primarily designed for. Efficiency is key and turning a very, very specilized tool into a multi-purpose one isn't going to be very efficient.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know all that, I'm no dummy from hicksville. I live 50 miles from the launch site.&nbsp;I also know it's expensive to keep a single SR-71, let alone 3 ready for flight.But I think there are scenarios where having one flyable shuttle (in mothballs) could turn out to be the cheapest solution to a potential problem <br /> Posted by bdewoody</DIV></p><p>If you know all that then you should know that the SR-71 comparison is invalid.&nbsp; Only an airframe and some engines have to be maintained, not a whole launch site and facilities at JSC.&nbsp; FOr the shuttle, the orbiter's airframe maintenance is a minor&nbsp; part of the cost </p><p>It wouldn't save anything.&nbsp; The capability to launch a shuttle costs more than 2.5-3 billion per year whether it flies or not.&nbsp; See budget for 2004, 2005, 2006. each mission only adds a few hundred million. </p><p>There are no mothballs scenarios that are workable much less cheaper.&nbsp; It is all or nothing.&nbsp; </p><p>BTW 50 miles from KSC can be hicksville&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Take the lessons learned (arm, payload bay, etc) and put that into reusable tugs, kit and capsules. &nbsp;Josh <br /> Posted by j05h</DIV></p><p>Those are not need on spacecraft either.&nbsp; Better left to stations. &nbsp;&nbsp; See thread on better spaceflight website </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Cygnus_X_1]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please define those limits. As yet you have failed to identify ANYTHING that is a showstopper! This isn't about being correct for me; its about establishing a self sustaining interplanetary transportation system. That's why I've tried repeatedly(in vain) to get ANY attempt to define what CAN be done. In other words, an approach from a positive direction. What has been offered are fairly unimpressive reasons why things can't be done that have to be modified as I reply. Please pretend that this is YOUR idea or whatever you have to do to make yourself WANT to come up with solutions. You may be unable to figure any way to overcome the difficulties you identify in a way that is reasonable to you, but you would be able to then identify the issues in such a way that someone else could. None of us are omniscient after all. Steve <br /> Posted by stevemick</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Your idea didn't work on USENET and it won't work here </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rubicondsrv]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Your idea didn't work on USENET and it won't work here <br />Posted by Cygnus_X_1</DIV><br /><br />welcome back jimfromnsf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Those are not need on spacecraft either.&nbsp; Better left to stations. &nbsp;&nbsp; See thread on better spaceflight website <br /> Posted by Cygnus_X_1</DIV><br /></p><p>Generally not needed, but I was playing along with his "Shuttle Forever" argument. I can actually see a use for a robotic arm on deep-space missions, too, depending on other hardware decisions. There was a proposal several years ago to make a "pallet" version of Progress, too.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#993366">stevemick:</font></p><p><font color="#993366">Please define those limits. As yet you have failed to identify ANYTHING that is a showstopper! This isn't about being correct for me; its about establishing a self sustaining interplanetary transportation system. That's why I've tried repeatedly(in vain) to get ANY attempt to define what CAN be done. In other words, an approach from a positive direction. What has been offered are fairly unimpressive reasons why things can't be done that have to be modified as I reply. Please pretend that this is YOUR idea or whatever you have to do to make yourself WANT to come up with solutions. You may be unable to figure any way to overcome the difficulties you identify in a way that is reasonable to you, but you would be able to then identify the issues in such a way that someone else could. None of us are omniscient after all.</font></p><p>&nbsp;Me:</p><p>Here are some defined limits as far as using shuttle for an interplanetary system.</p><p>*Shuttle TPS (Thermal Protection System) is not designed for atmospheric entry from beyond leo and the cost to replace the TPS is prohibitive.</p><p>*NASA can barely get enough budget for human spaceflight to do anything more than go back to capsules for the Constellation program but at least that hardware is better suited for deep space operation. And yet, it remains to be seen if even that program is going to make it.</p><p>*There is no historical precedent I'm aware of for any operational vehicle facing retirement in which they are saved from that fate only to do something they were not originally designed to do. To use the SR71 analogy, its almost like taking the SR71 and tasking it with low altitude subsonic only tactical recon rather than design and build a vehicle more suited to that task.</p><p>What can be done?</p><p>Somehow get the idea we can afford human spaceflight out there to the masses who still think we can take care of social problems if we just cut NASA...as Presidential Candidate Barack Obama recently suggested. Then NASA and its contractors can design build and operate vehicles appropriate to the specific task.&nbsp;</p> <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]

<p><font color="#993366">annodomini2:</font></p><p><font color="#993366">But nasa were spending a fortune on developing the X-38 crew return vehicle, why not just attach a shuttle and leave it there? One question I have regarding the shuttle, could the X33 heat sheilding be adapted for the shuttle and use a shallower entry angle (as was intended for the venture star)? Then as a crew delivery vehicle, fill the payload bay with fuel and oxydiser tanks, run 1 engine (much lighter and less aerodynamic drag) and obviously less fuel consumption. Retain solid boosters or mount atop an existing booster e.g. titan or delta etc? and get rid of the external tank.</font></p><p>Me:</p><p>They didn't spend near as much on the X-38 as they did shuttle. It may be possible to put the X-33 heat shield on the shuttle but I doubt it. Even if it is, the retrofit expense would pretty much shoot down such a proposal.</p><p>Filling the payload bay will greatly increase the mass of the orbiter which negates any possibility of running one engine (I assume SSME). Less fuel (Propellant in this case) consumption is not what you want to get heavy mass into space.&nbsp;</p><p>Neither the Titan or Delta boosters have the capability to boost a shuttle mass payload to LEO/ISS and you cant just "get rid of the ET". There are only three operational orbiters, why design an entirely new rocket to do what the SRBs and ET do just fine.</p><p>http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/newsgraphics/122104rocket.jpg</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <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>