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

radarredux · May 17, 2006

> He says it's a firm date, alright, but he also says that 2010 is 4 1/2 years away.......it's 3 1/2 years away./i> The end of Fiscal Year 2010 (when the Shuttle is to be retired) is September 30, 2010. Which is slightly less than 4.5 years from now.

rocketwatcher2001 · May 17, 2006

Yep, I just came back to re-edit my post. But, there are still provisions for extensions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

radarredux · May 17, 2006

> Yep, I just came back to re-edit my post. But, there are still provisions for extensions./i> The following are just speculative thoughts of which I hold no strong conviction (is that wishy-washy or what?): (1) Griffin set a hard deadline (end of FY 2010) because without a deadline things will limp along forever. (2) Griffin then drastically reduced the number of flights so that achieving them was highly likely (assuming the shuttle is certified to fly). Remember when the the Shuttle and ISS supporters were saying "no fewer than 28 flights", and anyone mentioning those rumors of 18 or fewer were just ISS haters? (3) Griffin has positioned the Shuttle so it has fewer and fewer supporters. To cover the Shuttle cost overruns, he took the money not from VSE (the other manned space program, and therefore a relatively logical place) but from space sciences. Now the Shuttle (and to a lesser extent ISS) looks like the naughty boy in Congress and many scientists' eyes. (4) For the Shuttle to fly less than the 16-17 more flights over the next 4.4 years, the Shuttle would have to experience some more serious set backs. In other words, if they can fly, there should be no problem with 16-17 more flights. If they cannot make 16-17, it just points out that the Shuttle shouldn't fly. To summarize: (A) Griffin has set the bar so low for the Shuttle (16-17 flights should be easy), that if they cannot make that it will be hard to argue for a continued stay of execution; and (B) Griffin has positioned the Shuttle program so that it has few supporters left.

lampblack · May 17, 2006

To summarize: (A) Griffin has set the bar so low for the Shuttle (16-17 flights should be easy), that if they cannot make that it will be hard to argue for a continued stay of execution; and (B) Griffin has positioned the Shuttle program so that it has few supporters left. Well... nobody has ever accused Griffin of being a stupid man. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

askold · May 18, 2006

I saw the 4/28 shuttle briefing on NASA TV - Griffin sat there glumly, practically ordering people not ask him questions about the shuttle. He came alive at the end when somebody mentioned something about the moon program and he went on for quite some time about planning and creating objectives for what to do on the moon. Griffin really hates the shuttle.

SpaceKiwi · May 18, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Well, the US has only had 1 flight in over 3 years. That is pretty close to no active manned space program. I also doubt that it would take 5-6 years for NASA to get the CEV / CLV flying to ISS if that was its primary focus (i.e., it did not have the distraction of flying the shuttle and constructing ISS). If that was truly the case, I would say shut NASA down now.<hr /></blockquote> Regards current flight rate, yes, it's only 1 in 3 years but that is largely a 'voluntary' situation. The hardware exists and could have been flown at any time and rate during the past three years, were they prepared to compromise on 'safety'. (a rod they have made for their own back as I have previously stated) Regards the replacement vehicle/s, I'm not at all confident they can meet any kind of development/construction schedule at the moment. This is irrespective of whether funding is pulled from a cancelled/abreviated STS program and ploughed into CEV/SDHLV or not. It's simply too far out at this stage in my view. The 'recycle elements of STS' plan is simple in statement only. I question whether the final products will arrive anywhere near the 2011-14 time-frame. Personally I would like to see them take as long as it takes to get a kick-arse launch system. Griffin saying things like "we need it sooner than later" kinda scares me. I don't want to see compromises made in order to meet a production deadline. We all know how that panned out with Shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

j05h · May 18, 2006

>Griffin really hates the shuttle. Then the question becomes: Can Dr. Griffin create a situation that terminates STS and satisfies most of the interested parties, simultaneously? I tend to think the answer is No, because of the entrenched nature of the system. josh Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

askold · May 18, 2006

Griffin is already creating the situation. By setting an impossibly high safety standard he hopes to delay launching long enough to kill the shuttle. Then he can move on to the moon program.

radarredux · May 18, 2006

> Griffin is already creating the situation. By setting an impossibly high safety standard/i> I think CAIB and O'Keefe set the safety standard.

vogon13 · May 18, 2006

After 2 Loss of Vehicle accidents, disregarding CAIB and Rogers recommendations is going to be pretty unlikely. Surprised to see any support for that level of irresponsibility, here, at America's premier space message board . . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

askold · May 18, 2006

Then we should put the shuttle in a museum today because the CAIB said: "Recommendation 3.2-1: Initiate an agressive program to eliminate all External Tank Thermal Protection System debris-shedding at the source ..." Griffin and Hale have said that there is no way to eleiminate all sheding, so according to you - they are acting irresponsibly.

vogon13 · May 18, 2006

It still ain't flyin' . . . . And remember last years rollback? A demonstrably defective shuttle was put on the launch pad, yanked back for modifications, and was then launched with a defective foam insulation covering, that but for the grace of Providence, would have fatally damaged the shuttle again, on a consecutive flight. Fix the goddam foam! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

frodo1008 · May 18, 2006

Congress has so far supported NASA, the space shuttle, and the ISS. Dr. Griffin may indeed wish to cancel both the shuttle and by implication the ISS. Of course, there are going to then have to be lots of questions about all that already bought and paid for ISS equipment sitting at the cape! It makes no difference what Dr. Griffin's personal feelings are, he has a boss, and that boss is congress. Congress has given him the mandate to finish the ISS with the space shuttle, and then retire the shuttle. THEN go on to the CEV! There is still some acceptable level of foam getting free. It is this level that needs to be reached not some absolute level of zero foam loss. Remember that there were well over one hundred space shuttle flights without this foam problem being so overwhelming. However, Griffin knows that the support for NASA funding (even for the CEV, and the scientific projects) depends to a large degree on showing congress that NASA can do its job here. If the shuttle dose not fly this year I would indeed suspect that not only will the shuttle program be cancelled (as you seem to hope), and the ISS remain unfinished, but NASA itself could become a victum. There are some on these boards that would evidently welcome this. But even the scientific projects could very well be cancelled (after all, congress has a tendency to take a meat ax approach to these kinds of things). Basically, this would leave the space enthusiasts here with just the hope of pure private profit making efforts. There is no room in such efforts for any pure scientific efforts (they don't make immediate profits). And even Burt Rutan has already stated that it will at least be a decade before even his leading efforts will get us back to LEO, let alone the moon and beyond! Perhaps other countries such as China can then take the lead in space. But without NASA the US will not have much to build its efforts on!

askold · May 18, 2006

I don't consider myself a negativist - I'm a realist and a positivist. If the shuttle were cancelled tomorrow, it would be front-page news for a day and then life would go on. NASA would go on. The Europeans would go on. Most importantly, space research would go on - probes would be launched to distant worlds, etc. Frankly, I’m a little tired of the shuttle (figuratively) holding a gun to its head, threatening to shoot itself (and by extension NASA) if we don’t do its bidding. I say – go ahead and shoot.

j05h · May 18, 2006

Frodo- Has the government ever offered to fly you into space? I know of several commercial firms that want to fly you, personally, into space. That is the difference, and that is what is making the new space age better than the old one. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

SpaceKiwi · May 19, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Surprised to see any support for that level of irresponsibility, here, at America's premier space message board . . . .<hr /></blockquote> I don't think it's an 'irresponsibility' at all, it's simply being pragmatic about the whole situation. They thought they had nailed the foam problem on RTF1, utilising all the wind tunnel and computer modelling resources at their disposal, not to mention some pretty useful human brain-power I would imagine. Turns out it didn't cut the mustard. They could spend years shaving a section off here and there with unforseen consequences. The launch variables are simply too great, even within the commit criteria they have. The reality is that while foam fell off on RTF1, it didn't hit the Orbiter and, more importantly, they saw the foam didn't hit the Orbiter. They also checked the foam didn't hit the Orbiter in numerous inspections. NASA has built the original CAIB foam molehill (okay, bigger than a molehill) into a virtual insurmountable mountain. I'm not sure they are ever going to get to a point where they are happy with the level of shedding, either in quantity or size. I hope as much as anyone that they have nailed the problem with the latest mods, but what are the realistic chances that everyone's going to be happy with the safety come wheels-stop on RTF2? The more likely scenarios are either that they admit defeat and shut STS down because they cant solve the problem sufficently well within the Program time constraints, or they fly with the foam still a potential hazard knowing that they have the facility to pick the problem up. Running third at this moment would have to be that they've fixed the problem sufficently good with the latest mods. I hope I'm wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

john_316 · May 19, 2006

Will... I meant if they cancel the CEV and continue with the Shuttle they should build a Shuttle-2 and they shouldn't be completely the same as the current shuttles and as they come online retire the current fleet one per one. That is if the CEV fails in future administrations but that is highly unlikely. CEV is here to stay at least for 20-30 years... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

willpittenger · May 19, 2006

Your new shuttle variant could easily cost as much as Venture. <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>

radarredux · May 20, 2006

> Then we should put the shuttle in a museum today because the CAIB said:/i> /> "Recommendation 3.2-1: Initiate an agressive program to eliminate all/b> External Tank Thermal Protection System debris-shedding at the source ..." (emphasis added) This is an example of where I think O'Keefe messed up. I think there are parts of CAIB that cannot be implemented, and O'Keefe should not have blindly committed to completely addressing all of them. Is the Shuttle design fundamentally flawed? I think so. Can you ever get 100% of risk out of launching into space? No. This is what the top guys are paid to do: make decisions in the face of uncertainty. The best you can hope for in any situation is to minimize the risk to the greatest extent reasonably possible and promote an environment of transparency so everyone can make informed decisions. While Griffin may not like the Shuttle, I think O'Keefe is the person who boxed NASA into a corner with his blind acceptance of CAIB.

mattblack · May 20, 2006

>>Fix the goddam foam!<< They can't. What they have now is about the best they can do; restricting foam shedding to the size of potato chips or thumbnails. And they could fly another 100 times and NOT have a foamstrike of significance. I say just fly the damn 17 missions and get on with it. The Astronauts aren't afraid and neither would I be. The Auckland Southern Motorway where I live is statistically less safe. If they can't fly, even with the now GREATLY REDUCED foam issue, then how are they going to fly to the Moon?? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

askold · May 20, 2006

"While Griffin may not like the Shuttle, I think O'Keefe is the person who boxed NASA into a corner with his blind acceptance of CAIB." That's exactly why Griffin hates the shuttle - because he's been put in a box. He can't fly the thing "safely", yet he's been given the mission by his boss to fly 17 more times. So, he's going to dawdle - flying as few missions as possible (approaching zero) until the clock runs out (2010) or his boss gets tired of the charade. Either way, Griffin gets to move on to his moon program with his legacy intact.

frodo1008 · May 20, 2006

There are just as many people on these forums that hate the CEV and the moon program, that hate the shuttle, so why do anything with a manned US program in space at all? If you remember that was the essense of your very first thread on this forum! Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it! Your support for distant probes is not shared by every American either (or quite possibly by even a majority of Americans). It certainly has no value to profit making private industry either. So if there is no manned program, then I can also see a very real end to the robotic programs also. That only leaves the communication and Earth Observing satellite programs, and possibly the space tourism manned programs. These do generate profits (in the case of the satellite programs) and could possibly generate profits (in the case of the tourism programs). Of couse, the toursim programs have not yet generated any direct profits, so the time frame for such programs is going to be even slower than NASA ever was. If you think that congress is going to maintain an agency such as NASA without any manned programs then your so called realism is just so much fantasy also! Perhaps the National Science Foundation could take over some of the robotic probe programs, but even here I have doubts! Remember even for robotic programs it still costs at least $10,000 per pound to send material into spece, it still isn't very cost affective! Even though you and I and quite a few scientists and others find such information as such projects generate to be facinating, the average American really isn't affected or interested enough to invest his tax money in such efforts! I am just as sorry as you would be to see the demise of such efforts, but it would indeed happen anyway! Even Burt Rutan has stated that it would be some 10 years (or probably even more) before pure tourism private for profit efforts could even get the US back to LEO for manne

frodo1008 · May 20, 2006

Affectively, I am not going into space as I am not rich anyway, so your point does not apply in not only my case but in the case of some 99% of people! However, I would agree with you that eventually pure private for profit making efforts in space will indeed dwarf any governmental efforts. This is indeed the route for mankind to both exploit the resources of space, and to continue to explore well beyond the Earth-moon system! The problem for those of us that want to see something done by humans in space is the time frame. Even Burt Rutan and Virgin Galactic (who are far and away the leaders in this effort) are a long way from even attempting even LEO! Their first real private toursim effort isn't going to fly before 2008, and as is usual with such effort perhaps not even then. If it is successful then it is going to take at the very least several years before such efforts can prove to be reliable and (even more importantly) profitable. Until this happens there is not gong to be enough funding to even think realisitcally about LEO flight by such efforts. I would have to say that it is going to take at the very least some 10 years before such flights even start, let alone become routine. And all of this is predicated upon there being no serious problems. The business of putting people into space is always going to be a very dangerous affair. If you think that the shuttle accident held up the government programs, wait until the same thing happens to pure private for profit effots. Years of profits could very well go into the trash can if a killing accident were to happen. No, the real reason for supporting NASA's efforts is that NASA at least has a chance of doing what it says it can do in the time frame of even my life (I am 63). Such efforts as finishing up the ISS, retireing the shuttle, and going on to the CEV and the moon. Mars is quite possibly even beyond my remining years. Oh well.. But eventu

j05h · May 20, 2006

>Affectively, I am not going into space as I am not rich anyway, so your point does not apply in not only my case but in the case of some 99% of people! That's what we're all trying to change. My point stands, however: NASA is never going to fly private citizens, whereas if you have the cash, you can pay a for-profit company, right now, for a week in LEO or lunar flyby. Money talks. />But eventually, the exploitation of space will be the domain of profit making companies. I have no doubt of it. But in the meantime NASA's efforts are what we have (at least in the US)! You will be amazed how fast development can happen. The "Giggle Factor" on private space ceased when SpaceShipOne flew. People with deep pockets noticed. At ISDC, there were Angels watching and people talking openly about underwriting space elevators. Even without mavericks such as Sir Richard, there is a profitability case to be made in manned space. The recent wealthy entrepreneurs speed the process up. All this while NASA seems to spin it's wheels. There are bright spots (Challenges, JPL rovers, Dr Griffin) but the general impression is of a stuck agency. Here's the deal: I think NASA should have already had a capsule fly-off. Instead of standing-down OSP/CTV/ACRV pre&post-Columbia they should have siezed the opportunity. It's been almost 3 1/2 years since Columbia, we should be droptesting and getting ready for alternate access. Build a couple of different boilerplates and fly them. Instead, nothing. Some viewgraphs and Andrew Space's mockup. We've had private capsule droptests (t/space) in this time, but nothing but RTF1 and what from NASA? Where's the hardware? Since you view it as a long shot, I'm going to start a thread in Business&Technology for a nearterm private Mars mission. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

spayss · May 20, 2006

"Affectively, I am not going into space as I am not rich anyway, so your point does not apply in not only my case but in the case of some 99% of people!" ??? Try 99.999999999 Billions wasted on the ISS so a filthy rich few can get their kicks.

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

radarredux

Guest

rocketwatcher2001

Guest

radarredux

Guest

lampblack

Guest

askold

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

j05h

Guest

askold

Guest

radarredux

Guest

vogon13

Guest

askold

Guest

vogon13

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

askold

Guest

j05h

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

john_316

Guest

willpittenger

Guest

radarredux

Guest

mattblack

Guest

askold

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

j05h

Guest

spayss

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page