Can the remaining shuttles do 16-17 flights in 4 years?

[willpittenger]

I personally doubt it. Remember, extra precautions mean more time between flights. Last time they flew at that kind of pace, we had 4 orbiters. We now are down to 3 and in 2008 will have only 2. This may require flights in 2011 if ISS is to be completed. Over the 4 year period, this will require an average of at least 4 flights. Most of the construction will have to be done before Atlantis retires. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

I'd say the shuttles could fly 4 missions per year with 3 orbiters but at the same time, the liklihood is equally possible for shuttle operations to extend beyond 2010 if ISS completion requires it. One things for certain. The retirement scenario will not play out exactly as planned today even if they make the planned retirement year. <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>

 

[spayss]

The shuttle will not fly beyond the retirement date. Look for 3 or 4 more meaningless missions max 'if' nothing else goes worng.

 

[lbiderman]

I really believe they could actually pull it off. NASA engineers seem really focused on making those flights happening, and they are making progress on the safety part. However, everything depends on the next flight. We should have this conversation again AFTER the shuttle has landed.

 

[lampblack]

Yeah... if things work out with the next flight, they oughtta be able to do four per year without stretching things. But if another big-arse chunk of foam comes flying off during ascent, all bets are off.<br /><br />It's really just that simple. And you're right -- the question can only be addressed in a meaningful way after the next flight has rolled to a stop. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

From what I've heard, NASA and USA have made provisions for 5-1 year extentions, should the need arise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

I think they can do it. During the early '80s, NASA flew four missions in one year with two orbiters and once did nine missions in one year with three orbiters. Discovery alone flew four times in 1985.<br /><br />During the 1990s, NASA had four orbiters, but one was usually out of service for overhaul. <br /><br />- Ed Kyle

 

[qso1]

If it were to be 3-4 missions max, they could retire before 2010 but since the missions are largely ISS completion missions, I'd say the original estimates are about on target. <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>

 

[scottb50]

I have always been a Shuttle suporter, but evenually you have to pull the plug.<br /><br />Spending the fundings on a sucessor would be a better bet. Too bad we have spent the last 6 years trying to denyt it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

I agree, the shuttle should be retired at the earliest possible opportunity which for now is 2010 or thereabouts. The shuttle has been utilized to do many tasks and has been able to do them admirably. Its only real fault was that its a system that was overpromised due to the cost barrier politics of the Nixon Administration and the public that drove his Admins decision to develop a space truck with no infrastructure to service.<br /><br />On spending for a successor, thats been the problem. Inadequate funds for something as advanced as a winged or lifting body type successor to shuttle. This is the major reason why NASA is going back to capsules, the other reason being the nature of the missions NASA will be undertaking. <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>

 

[mattblack]

Will they get the "full" 16-17 flights by 2010? Doubt it. The weather and typical small, niggling engineering issues will irritate and scratch at the schedule. But prior to Columbia, those Shuttles were roaring into space just FINE with near-routine monotony, safety and PERFORMANCE. And the key here is monotony -- there is true potential here to convert and ameliorate the most powerful rocketry in the world into equipment to break that monotony and GO SOMEWHERE. Anywhere but here. <br /><br />But I'll be rooting for Nasa to accomplish as much as possible till the CEV is ready. You know, I've recently been transferring all my old videotapes of newsclips about Shuttle and other space issues to DVD for posterity. So I repeat, not that long ago, dozens of Shuttle flights would roar upwards, again and again and again in (apparent) safety for year after year. <br /><br />We CAN see that again, especially if STS-121 flies safely with no major issues. Let us all remember that except for the PAL ramp shedding, STS-114 could be considered an overwhelming success and a true poke in the eye to the naysayers and critics. <br /><br />GO DISCOVERY!!! <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>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

[OT] Hi again Matt, Please don't rely on the DVDs for archiving. Apparently CD and DVD media will not last a lifetime, so it might be a good idea to hang on to the tapes as well. Maybe even copy the finished "DVD" contents to VHS for prosperity.<br /><br />And now back to our regular programming <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> [/OT] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

1985 was also prior to Challenger. NASA still believed that they could fly 20+ times per year. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

If your videos are public domain, you might share them with Grouper. It's free, has no adware or spyware, and does a really good job with p2p sharing within group. You can also share videos publicly now. Go to www.grouper.com for more information. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[steve82]

"From what I've heard, NASA and USA have made provisions for 5-1 year extentions, should the need arise."<br /><br />My guess is the "STS Program" will end on schedule in 2010, and they'll wind up having to fund some sort of "Interim Contingency ISS Logistical Support Program" to come up with enough flights to get the ISS "finished" whatever that is. But they seem dead serious about that 2010 date and NASA managers are heading to the CEV program in droves. <br />Somebody else mentioned the weather and there are also a lot of scheduling constraints just on launching to ISS in the mix in addition to engineering squawks.<br /><br />

 

[vogon13]

Sadly, in my estimation, 16 to 17 flights will take up to 34 years.<br /><br />We are destined to have a show stopper of some kind on every flight from here on out.<br /><br />About the only practical way to speed up the manifest would be to have simultaneous launches of 2 shuttles at a time. This way neither launch would be delayed by a show stopping anomally seen on the other launch. Also, all safety stops and breaks for redesigns and requalifications could be done 2 at a time.<br /><br />This would get your flights in by 2023.<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>

 

[edkyle98]

I seem to remember that we were aiming for something like one dozen flights in 1986. I'm not sure that the post-Challenger NASA was any less capable of running shuttles through KSC. It launched eight STS missions in 1998 with only three orbiters active. It launched six in 2001, also with only three orbiters on-line. NASA can do the same again, if needed, once it licks this foam shedding problem and starts the processing flow. <br /><br />Seventeen divided by six is less than three - years that is. I think that KSC is going to send shuttle out in style, flying out the string with panache.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[SpaceKiwi]

NASA have backed themselves into a corner by making such an Everest out of the foam issue. If anything more than packing peanuts is seen during the next launch it's going to perceived by the media as a disaster, even if there was/is no legitimate danger to the Orbiter. Afterall, RTF1 was possibly the 'safest' launch ever, given all the data and contingency built in, (and the important fact that Discovery wasn't hit by a huge chunk of foam) yet we have been in stand-down mode for a year.<br /><br />If they can't get the next mission done without a similar foam 'incident', they are either going to have to move the goal-posts on foam or simply think seriously about flagging it away. Given that they have an international obligation to the ISS partners, I would vote the former will happen. I'm sure that idea doesn't sit well with those that want to scrap the STS altogether and move onto the next vehicle ASAP, but a deal's a deal.<br /><br />In my view they should fly regardless, and worry about a critical debris strike if that bridge needs to be crossed. Statistics suggest they won't have to face such an eventuality, and they are equipped to identify and resolve the problem now anyway. Time for some pragmatism, though it's going to be a very hard sell now that they have nailed their safety 'over-compensation' to the mast. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

edkyle98:<br />I seem to remember that we were aiming for something like one dozen flights in 1986.<br /><br />Me:<br />That was the plan, driven in small part by Gallileo and Ulysses launches which were dependant on Jupiter launch window alignments and were to have been launched a week apart (Pad "A" and "B"). And as you pointed out, NASA after Challenger conducted shuttle missions as frequently as possible. They did decide not to do 10 or more missions per year, 6 seeming to be the ideal. <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>

 

[edkyle98]

"NASA have backed themselves into a corner by making such an Everest out of the foam issue. If anything more than packing peanuts is seen during the next launch it's going to perceived by the media as a disaster, even if there was/is no legitimate danger to the Orbiter. "<br /><br />NASA didn't "make an Everest" of the issue. The media may have, but probably for good reason after having reported the Columbia catastrophe. But the media doesn't determine safety specifications. NASA (and physics) does. Foam above a certain mass can kill an orbiter. Foam below a certain mass can't. The next launch will either meet the specs, which allow for some small amount foam to fall off, or it won't. <br /><br />"Afterall, RTF1 was possibly the 'safest' launch ever, given all the data and contingency built in, (and the important fact that Discovery wasn't hit by a huge chunk of foam) yet we have been in stand-down mode for a year."<br /><br />Discovery's tank shed a sizable piece of foam that violated the safety specs, requiring a redesign. Such changes take time.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[dragon04]

Personally, I'll be shocked if NASA completes 8 missions in 4 years let alone 16. Or 10.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[gsuschrist]

Vogon:<br /><br />"Sadly, in my estimation, 16 to 17 flights will take up to 34 years."<br /><br /> So true. It's unfortunate that some who are otherwise so well well grounded in science are in polyanish 'La La Land' when it comes to the reality of the Shuttle. <br />

 

[edkyle98]

""Sadly, in my estimation, 16 to 17 flights will take up to 34 years."<br /><br />So true. It's unfortunate that some who are otherwise so well well grounded in science are in polyanish 'La La Land' when it comes to the reality of the Shuttle."<br /><br />Perhaps it is the science-minded types, those who really understand the technical issues, who are being realistic when they say that shuttle can make the schedule. Perhaps it is the naysayers, those who only seem to find comfort in pessimism, who are in "La-La-Land". <br /><br />We'll see soon enough.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Prepare yurself to be shocked.</font><br /><br />If I am, I will be shocked and impressed. Not shocked and disappointed. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[qso1]

gsuschrist:<br />"Sadly, in my estimation, 16 to 17 flights will take up to 34 years."<br /><br />Me:<br />Referencing a chart I did in 2000, these are the stats I compiled then on shuttle flights. 8 flights per year was probably a bit optomistic on my part but that was the state of affairs in 1999.<br /><br />There were 9 flights in 1985, 6 flights in 1984, 1990, and 1991. 7 flights from 1993-96, 8 flights in 1992 and 1997 and 9 flights in 1985. The chart goes to 1999 and I realize there hasn't been quite as high a flight rate after 2000 but, 4 flights a year is supported by data, not "La la land".<br /><br />Now, if NASA morale is so bad they don't think they can pull that off, that's another matter entirely and could be called "Go fever"...a fever of a different kind which is go into retirement shuttle. <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>