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

[j05h]

> Try 99.999999999<br /> /> Billions wasted on the ISS so a filthy rich few can get their kicks.<br /><br />Bollocks. The rich always adapt technology first, which drives the price down. Automobiles, telephones, televisions, jet air travel, all were used by the wealthy before Joe Sixpack. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mattblack]

>>Billions wasted on the ISS so a filthy rich few can get their kicks.<<<br /><br />No, that's a leftist media invention that some people have adopted and explains what Nasa was afraid of when Dennis Tito was the first tourist to visit ISS: Nasa had spent a lot of money trying to establish in peoples minds that it was a serious scientific outpost. Then, rightly or wrongly (I'd go if I had the money), Mr Tito's trip was used by Anti-spacers as an example of the "gold-plated boondoggle used as a plaything for richboys". <br /><br />Not my words -- a quote from an anonymous blogger I remember from around the time of Tito's flight. By the time Mark Shuttleworth flew, a whole new spin, partly based on science experiments was used to partly undermine this negativity. Perhaps all future Soyuz tourist passengers should submit to space medical procedures to help pay the piper and do something of use? Just a thought...... <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>

 

[qso1]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, isn't it the Russians who got $20 mil a pop for Dennis and Marks 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>

 

[frodo1008]

True, spayss usual negative remarks are not even applicable to NASA at all! However, if there is extra capacity on the Soyuz flights, and the ISS itself is capable of such support, I see no personal reason why such a realtively cash poor agency as the RSA shouldn't do this!<br /><br />My original remarks shoud NOT be taken as some kind of diatribe against the wealthy. I am neither liberal nor conservative in my own political outlook.

 

[mattblack]

They sure do get that kind of money. Also, I have no problem with tourists on Soyuz. But I was stating that I understood Nasa's objections which have now been ironed out to some degree. <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>

 

[qso1]

I linked to you by mistake, I was meaning to link to Spayss, sorry. <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]

I agree with your stance. I see no reason why the Russians or NASA shouldn't get private rich people to fund their own joyrides. I'd want this ability if I were rich. BTW, I'm neither lib or conservative, I just consider myself moderate. <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>

 

[frodo1008]

JO5H, please don't take any of my posts as negative to your main thrust here. I am a full supporter of these private developments. But neither am I going to use just rose colored glasses when it comes to such. SpaceShipOne and its efforts we indeed inspirational. But they were a long way from an actual space operations. Please pay attention to what Burt Rutan himself says (ignore the anti established company and NASA satements, that is just his way of drumming up more support, and should not be taken seriously). Rutan is enough of a realist to know that it is still at the very least some three years from establishing even his first full efforts at taking relatively wealthy people into even sub orbital space. Then he must establish the reliability and profitability of such operations before even attempting (although this does not preclude early design work) to build a craft capable of reaching LEO.<br /><br />And NASA is NOT spinning its wheels. NASA is under the direct budgetary control of congress, so if anyone spins its wheels it is they! Griffin does not impress me as a wheel spinner. Even now NASA is in the process of firming up the designs and letting out contracts for the CEV project. At this time with the limited funding that congress will allow them that is all that can be done. But as the shuttles retire there will be more and more funding available. It is however, going to take at least some two years before such funding is fully available to NASA for the CEV to get the first hardware off the launch pad. This is one of the main reasons why NASA can't go off on some redical change to what it can possibly do, there just isn't the funding to do so!<br /><br />Why don't we at least give Griffin and the good people at NASA (and even Rutan has never been negative on NASA's experience and people, he as a qualified engineer knows better) at least the courtesy of giving them a chance before we consign them to an early grave on the shuttle, ISS, and the CEV

 

[frodo1008]

Good for you! I sometimes feel that moderates like myself are an endangered species, especially over on free space!

 

[j05h]

Frodo- I don't discount how much hard work needs to be done, or has been done in the past. I also don't think Mr. Rutan is going to be the first "next gen" provider of Earth-to-Orbit services. My bets are on SpaceHab, SpaceX or a current unknown. <br /><br />We'll have to disagree on NASA's wheel-spinning. THey have tens of thousands of highly skilled civil servants, and can't seem to build any new manned hardware. They've had 25 years and 10s of Billion$ to produce something. I won't go through the litany again, but think of all the cancelled projects. In the current situation, those civil servants should have been building new "X" hardware and flying it over the past few years, instead they have produced exactly what I can make in 3D Studio Max: pretty pictures. <br /><br />NASA already had it's chances w/ Shuttle and ISS, it's not a future event, but a series of past events, and it's not an "early grave" - the Shuttle is past due for retirement, IMHO. ISS is proving significantly harder to maintain and they haven't really started work on CEV, despite years of knowing it was absolutely necessary. Why no droptests? Where are the results from this can-do Agency? <br /><br />We designed, built and flew Mercury in almost the same time as has elapsed since the Columbia crash. I understand who NASA's masters are, but this is shameful. <br /><br /> /> even Rutan has never been negative on NASA's experience and people, he as a qualified engineer knows better<br /><br />Ah, you've obviously never heard Mr. Rutan speak. He's good natured about it but savage towards NASA. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

OK JO5H, in repect for your opinions, some of which I disagree with and some of which I concur with, we will just have to agree to disagree, and await events!<br /><br />Just as a by the by: spacex is not aiming for placing people into LEO for even longer than Rutan is. They first have to overcome a somewhat negative first launch of even Falcon I, and then have enough launches to prove their own reliability with a small rocket before going on to build larger systems. <br /><br /> I always understood SpaceHab to be an outfit working on habitats for the shuttle, perhaps I have them confused with somebody else. As I have stated I would very much like to see someone at the very least take on the pure private efforts of placing large numbers of relatively ordinary people into LEO at the very least within the next decade or so, but I have too much experience and knowledge of this business to just expect it to be done!<br /><br />I can however at the very least hope that NASA can finish off the ISS and retire the suttle with at least some degree of dignity by 2010, and then build the shuttle's replacement and go back to the moon. Private industry is not going to be able or even have the funding to do this in any kind of reasonable time frame (where would be the profits in that?). <br /><br />As for Mars, even the enthusiastic Dr Zubrin knows that even Mars direct is going to cost billions (thats billions not millions). This is absolutely far, far more money than any private concern is ever going to want to invest in something as risky as Mars. I am really very sorry about that, but it is truth. Perhaps if governmental efforts become stable enough and some actual profits can be found then once again private industry will indeed take over, but not until then.<br /><br />In the Earth-moon system however I have every bit as much confidense as yourself, that quite possibly even in my lifetime, private interests will find it profitable to exploit the resouces of space. That alone

 

[j05h]

>NASA has some 18,000 employees spread out among several centers and sets of infastructure. They do R&D and prototyping on anything from aviation,electronics,robotics to material science, rocket enginnering, and manned spaceflight systems. <br /><br />So where are the prototypes and drop test vehicles? "If we can put a man on the Moon, then why can't we put a man on the Moon?" 18,000 people should have been able to come up with something other than pretty pictures in nearly 4 years. <br /><br />As I mentioned above, private droptests have occured recently, from those companies employing several tens of people. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

> Just as a by the by: spacex is not aiming for placing people into LEO for even longer than Rutan is. They first have to overcome a somewhat negative first launch of even Falcon I, and then have enough launches to prove their own reliability with a small rocket before going on to build larger systems.<br /><br />Elon said at ISDC that they'll fly the Dragon capsule in 2009 if they make the NASA COTS contract and 2011 without. That would be first launch in only 3 years, potentially. That is the same timeframe as test flights for SS2. He definitely has a near-term view of increased human activity in space, and I fully support it. <br /><br />Of course Mars will cost billions for any single manned flight, however the costs can come down significantly for any single group. See my new thread in Space Biz & Tech. <br /><br />I totally disagree that the government will somehow blaze the way to profitability, past history shows otherwise especially with regard to high technology businesses.<br /><br />I'd like to see Shuttle retired with some dignity as well. ISS will be able to support 6 crew soon, with the new air system going up on STS-121 and Soyuz/Progress factory ramp-up. I don't think the 16+ flights will all happen at this point, but would be pleasantly surprised to see.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[askold]

Speaking of NASA's standing army of engineers - I've always wondered why most of them haven't been working on the next generation of space vehicle during the last 3 years while a handful of engineers fiddled with the foam.<br /><br />The entire shuttle standing army couldn't have been working on the foam. What could they have been doing for 3 years?<br /><br />This sort of thing makes it clear that commercial space utilization should be transfered to private industry. I think NASA should only do science.

 

[j05h]

> This sort of thing makes it clear that commercial space utilization should be transfered to private industry. I think NASA should only do science.<br /><br />There is no "transfer" involved. NASA has no say over private spaceflight, the FAA's AST does. NASA, FCC, etc are sometimes part of the process, but NASA couldn't (openly) stop a passenger space project. Besides, NASA doesn't do any "commercial space utilization". NASA can be a very valuable partner in this (TransHab to Bigelow), but by nature does not lead commercial space development. NASA, per their charter, exists to explore and enable. <br /><br />The barriers aren't political or technological. They are all economic. The people that figure ways to work around the problem (like Space Adventures and ZeroG) are already proving how successful the market can be. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I think NASA should only do science. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Blame Kennedy for repurposing NASA. <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]

Correct. However, NASA provides "safety" training for free since Tito. Putting up with tests might be the price of that safety training and tours of the non-Russian areas. <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>

 

[frodo1008]

Since your tone here is one of a respectable seeker of information, I will try to impart some to you instead of just rendering opinions.<br /><br />I was not there during the latest Columbia down time, but this information also applies to that as I still have good contacts at rocketdyne.<br /><br />During the Challenger (and now the Columbia) down times, what happens is that many of the other systems that were not responsible for the accidents themselves are also taken a very hard look at from the standpoint of safety and other improvements. <br /><br />The SSME's were not responsible for either accident, but at Rocketdyne they were still improved vastly during those down time periods. During the latest time the Block I and II changes to such important items as the turbopumps and the larger throat diameter were accomplished. This means a great deal of additional engineering design work. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in the case of the SSME's, just as much design work has gone into the newer engines as went into the original design, and that is a WHOLE lot of engineering work! <br /><br />Then of course, this design work must be translated to actual changes for the engines themselves, which in turn results in a whole lot of manufacturing. Again, in fact, these engines have basically been totaly rebuilt several times in their very useful lives.<br /><br />Finally, and from a time and money standpoint , possibly most importantly. These engines are not only reuseable, but are also man-rated. This requires that every change (and there have been many) must be as totally re-tested as much as the original engines were tested. This results in literally thousands of addititonal hours of test time on the engines.<br /><br />Now mind you this is just the result if everything goes perfectly, but as is usual with such changes it does not. So the whole process must continue until such near perfection as can be possible is reached!<br /><br />And this is just one (very im

 

[qso1]

The standing army of engineers is more myth than reality. There is a lot of overtime work at KSC because there is not an ideal staff of technical personnel number wise to cover tasks at all times, all shifts. When there is downtime, there are layoffs. Those who remain are busy reworking whatever changes are required to make the shuttle fly safely again. The other reason these engineers don't work on the next generation of vehicle is because NASA has to mandate such work before engineers go off and work on it. KSC is not a design center, the engineers work on vehicles per direction Marshall Spaceflight Center/vehicle contractor. The bulk of engineers at KSC are contractor engineers who are overseen by NASA engineers and the SR&QA folks.<br /><br />As I understood it, to give an example. It was generally believed each orbiter had its own dedicated team of workers (Engineer, QA, techs etc.) but from what I've researched, this turned out not to be true. Each team could find itself working on different birds depending on scheduled tasks. And of course, the same people do not always work together on a regular basis.<br /><br />As for next generation, this task would fall to contractor design engineers following the general requirements laid out by NASA. An example here would be NASA design centers laying out the requirements which are specified in an RFP. The contractor and various subs who are selected to design and build a new vehicle, do so per the RFP in order to get selected to begin with.<br /><br />With all that being said, it will hopefully be much more efficient to turn the whole LEO access thing over to private enterprise where more efficient operation should be achievable. IMO, NASA is actually a bargain where government spending is concerned. But even NASA could be more efficient although my main concern at this point is whether we can build a second generation shuttle type vehicle, SSTO or even TSTO economically. I say this because of what is pointed out in the <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]

Offsprey5:<br />18,000 people should have been able to come up with something other than pretty pictures in nearly 4 years. <br /><br />Me:<br />Another myth. All 18,000 people working for NASA would not be assigned to work on landing on the moon. When NASA was working to go to the moon, 25,000 or more were employed. That figure reflects the 2-4% GDP NASA got in the 1960s. NASA gets right at 1% GDP today and every year since 1973-74. Expand the Apollo effort beyond NASA, something like 400,000 people (Various NASA contractors and subcontractors) ultimately were employed to get us to the moon. <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]

JO5H:<br />The barriers aren't political or technological. They are all economic. The people that figure ways to work around the problem (like Space Adventures and ZeroG) are already proving how successful the market can be.<br /><br />Me:<br />There are political barriers since politics is directly tied with economics. Technically, IMO, we may have found out something nobody wants to admit. The cost of follow on shuttles, SSTO, or TSTO vehicles may well be more than what can be economically achievable. On this, I hope I'm wrong. But to point out an example.<br /><br />The simplest stuff is being done by private industry. That is, vomit comet rides that Zero G didn't have to spend years designing and building the airplanes for. Not sure what company does the Russian tours to ISS and/ or LEO but they basically just pay Russia to send up space tourists in craft already designed and built by the Russians decades ago. While I'm on the Russian thing, I have seen on other threads how much cheaper Russia does space, how much better Soyuz is than the shuttle. If all this were true, why isn't Russia leading the world by sending space tourists up on a far greater basis than just a few multimillionaires every couple of years? As for the current discussion, private industry has not sent up anyone to LEO on their own vehicles economically so far. Getting tourism into LEO on a regular basis has yet to be done and is at best, a decade away. A long way from proof of anything.<br /><br />Technically, it may be doable but at a cost which gets one into the political fray. Cost too much, NASA gets no budget for it, cost and politics go hand in hand. <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]

Sorry, I been screwing up these linkages lately. <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>

 

[j05h]

>(2) Give Dr. Griffin the freedom and support that Mr. Rutan and Mr. Musk enjoy in their respective efforts. <br /><br />I'm all for that. They gave him a mission but also told him how to do it. Not so sure about the budget part.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

> There are political barriers since politics is directly tied with economics. <br /><br />Of course the lines get blurry. My point, colloquially, is that there is no Commitee of Space Exploration or Space Planning Board. Even Russia doesn't work like that now. As technology has advanced, access to space has come down in cost, witness CubeSats and other microsats, the new launchers, etc.<br /><br /> /> Not sure what company does the Russian tours to ISS and/ or LEO but they basically just pay Russia to send up space tourists in craft already designed and built by the Russians decades ago. While I'm on the Russian thing, I have seen on other threads how much cheaper Russia does space, how much better Soyuz is than the shuttle. If all this were true, why isn't Russia leading the world by sending space tourists up on a far greater basis than just a few multimillionaires every couple of years?<br /><br />Space Adventures brokers the current flights to ISS. Russian industry is building new Soyuz/Progress factory, they are doubling capability over the next 3 years. This is to support both ISS and any commercial opportunities that fly. They'll probably keep building out the line for the near future. I would expect Soyuz to keep flying for another 40+ years - it'll get cheaper, but it is the worldwide standard for spacecraft, IMHO. I think it will continue to fly even after Kliper flies.<br /><br /> /> Technically, it may be doable but at a cost which gets one into the political fray. Cost too much, NASA gets no budget for it, cost and politics go hand in hand.<br /><br />I know this was a Shuttle thread, but I was talking about businesses offering services, not NASA's budget. Even now, some commercial passenger space is profitable. Some of it isn't profitable but does satisfy the other needs of their backers. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"You have no idea of our business. Launches do not take much man power. The Shuttle processing does and we have been working all 3 Orbiters. "<br /><br />S_G is correct, plus you add in the man power for operations for planning and operations once on orbit and you have a large amount of people tied up. We are being pressed VERY tight to support ISS, Shuttle and CEV as it is.