How many are concerned about the Shuttle-Orion gap?

[willpittenger]

It will be at least 5 years after we retire the shuttle to when Orion first flies with humans. How many really see that as an issue and what options do we have? There was a recent Popular Mechanics article listing stop gaps — but one won't be ready until 2020. By then we might be back on the Moon!

If you vote, please reply with an explanation. Vote changing is allowed, but please reply again to explain your change of stance.

 

[frodo1008]

You know, my being concerned (and that is how I voted) does not really mean anything. In actuality what we debate about on these boards really does not have a very large (if any at all) affect on. and changes to be made, in anything. Especially something that has such political implications as our having to hitch a ride with the Russians to just get to the space station (ISS) that the American taxpayers have paid just about 80% (if not higher) of the costs to even bring into existence in the first place!

What will really count is the opinions of our elected Congressional representatives. And I can almost guarantee
that even the relatively liberal Democrats are not going to like that situation one little bit. And as for the more conservative Republicans, I guess that anybody here could tell just what their opinion is going to be!!!

NASA is like the proverbial little boy, sitting in the middle of a very flammable carpet, playing with a box of matches!

Now, the people that control the funding levels of NASA, are not going to admit under any circumstances that they are a principle part of NASA's problem here. It would not be politically expedient for them to do so, so it isn't going to happen.

Besides whatever happened to the NASA types that used to stand up and say, "Yes we can!" They are coming up with every excuse they can to make sure the shuttle is shut down, and I find that to be stupid. If we can not possibly continue that program until the already terribly flawed Ares I is finally ready to fly, then just why are we now seeing such terrific performances by the STS system as we saw today? Is it really that bad a system? Sorry people, but I do NOT think so!

The only real hope that I can see on the horizon is this independent committee appointed by president Obama. Norman Augustine is noted to be a hard nose no-nonsense type of guy. It is my hope that such a group {that is not beholding to NASA for their paychecks) will be able to tell NASA that they must continue to fly the shuttle at least until there is a space craft capable of taking our people reliably up to the ISS and back. To me there just IS no other way!

If we as a nation can come up with hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on wars in countries where the majority of the people do not even want us there at all, and if we can manage to rescue the banks, Savings and Loans, mortgage firms, and even insurance companies with over a $trillion dollars over all, then certainly the few extra $billions for a few years for NASA to enable our people to get into space without being at the tender mercies of a government that could turn hostile at any moment, is more than justifiable! Besides which, if they are the only way for our people to get into space, just what is to stop them (even if they remain relatively friendly) from just charging us even more money that it would take to keep the shuttle flying anyway? After all, isn't that the essence of capitalism that we have been trying to teach them since the end of the cold war?

Where on Earth is a Wernher Von Braun when we really need him?

I wish I knew!!!

 

[dragon04]

It will be at least 5 years after we retire the shuttle to when Orion first flies with humans. How many really see that as an issue and what options do we have? There was a recent Popular Mechanics article listing stop gaps — but one won't be ready until 2020. By then we might be back on the Moon!

If you vote, please reply with an explanation. Vote changing is allowed, but please reply again to explain your change of stance.

SpaceX will be flying guys to the ISS before the end of 2012. Certainly no later than 2013.

 

[chitown]

The first order of business is to designate an Nasa administrater. Obama seems to have forgot about the thousands of employees that work on space projects. Besides the illegal drug sales community the space industry probably employs the most people in this country.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I think almost everyone who comes to SDC is concerned about the gap.

The more difficult question of course, is what can realistically be done about it considering where we are now.

The answer to that won't fit in a poll

And in fact there are quite a few threads that have been discussing this issue.

 

[CalliArcale]

I put down "Mostly". But I feel my concern is moot -- there's really not a lot that can be done about it. Shuttle's shutdown is a done deal. It would be a grave mistake to rush Orion just to close the gap; we'd wind up with more dead astronauts if we did that, and I'd rather go all robotic than have that happen. Besides, NASA survived the Apollo-Shuttle gap; it'll survive this. It's not what I'd like to see, but I'm afraid it's what we're going to get.

 

[vulture4]

If we can give up the Shuttle, and do without it for five years, the public may begin to wonder why we need anything at all to replace it.

 

[astronaut23]

Its a shame that we have decided to do the same thing all over again. Throw away all the hardware and the people and experience that was gained. Just like throwing away all the Apollo stuff. Its a shame this country can't do any better than this. Oh we could but the fact we don't is the shameful part of all of it. NASA's budget is so small compared the overall Federal budget. That we can't keep manned access to space going without gaps is truly unacceptable.

 

[samkent]

Beyond the Hubble repair, I am still waiting for a justifiable reason to have humans up there. There has been a lot of money spent on the ISS with very little return that affects the lives of those who have spent it.

I think we jumped on board merely because we were afraid of being left out of “The Grand Space Station”.

As it turned out we spent most of the money needed for that stinky metal tube filled with stinky astronauts so they can play with so called “vital experiments”.

 

[ihwip]

I am starting to think that this 5 year gap is a ruse to get Americans to start paying for private industry space flights. Sure the government may create the Orion but by the time that comes around there could be something better out there. Is it possible that they created this gap on purpose to fund the private industry just long enough to scrap Orion altogether?

 

[vulture4]

It's highly unlikely that anything in this arena was done for a good reason. If the objective is to accelerate private industry development of technology for human spaceflight, than NASA should cancel Constellation and provide additional funding to the COTS teams, Virgin Galactic, Bigelow etc. instead.

 

[ihwip]

I believe the most likely reason they would fake the Orion project's plan would be for public relations. Nobody wants to admit that the government is getting out of the space business. This way the politicians can save face while funding private industry as a 'stop-gap' and then when/if it turns out to be reliable they can just abandon the Orion project.

 

[tanstaafl76]

I am starting to think that this 5 year gap is a ruse to get Americans to start paying for private industry space flights. Sure the government may create the Orion but by the time that comes around there could be something better out there. Is it possible that they created this gap on purpose to fund the private industry just long enough to scrap Orion altogether?

Don't overestimate the intelligence of the federal government. They are busy putting all their effort into finding new and crafty ways to tax the populace whilst increasing their own power and influence to ensure re-election. Most politicians really don't care about space or private space flights.

 

[dragon04]

The interesting question is if SpaceX proves out its launch hardware and its Dragon capsule, does that mean that NASA should throttle back or terminate the Manned component of Ares/Orion?

I think there's fair argument on both sides, and as I stated in a previous post, it's likely that SpaceX will be Spacing well before 2015. Should NASA continue Ares/Orion, that puts them in more or less direct competition with private American enterprise and would also leave SpaceX with a monstrous revenue gap.

I personally believe there is a lot more riding on the Falcon9 and the Dragon than we know.

 

[samkent]

While SapceX has a lot riding on each of it’s missions, it will likely succeed putting a man in orbit. But once they are both operational I suspect Orion will get the majority of manned traffic. It will come down to a perceived quality/safety issue.

Who would you place your son or daughter on? Myself it would be Orion because I feel Nasa done more testing than SpaceX.

 

[elguapoguano]

While I know that Falcon 9 is supposed to fly this summer and Dragon is under development. Delays are going to happen, it's just a part of the game. I would not be surprised to see Orion Fly before a crewed Falcon 9 w/ Dragon does. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[frodo1008]

I was just over making a post on the Space Business and Technology forum when a somewhat crazy idea occurred to me!
From my post there.....

"Heck, if a private concern wanted to use the space shuttle to place some four 12,000 lb (48,000 lbs total, which is well within the total capability of the space shuttle orbiter bay). for the current launch cost of some $500 million, which would mean a launch cost to LEO of $125 million for each satellite (just about the current launch costs), such a system would be feasible! But nobody is currently launching anywhere near that many satellites!

In fact one of the things that troubles me about the upcoming retirement of the space shuttle, is why doesn't NASA at least try and find somebody that might try to make such private a use of such a system? They could even then provide a service to launch all the people and the materials up to the ISS (and also bring materials and people back) at a cost at least as good as the Russians are now quoting NASA for the use of the far less capable Soyuz!

Heck, if NASA would be worried about somebody with too little experience servicing and launching the space shuttle, why not just give them to ULA (which has been servicing and launching the shuttles all along anyway), and purchase such services form ULA! Each of the remaining shuttles has more then 50 flights left in its capability, and therefore would last far longer then the ISS anyway! How is that for thinking outside of the box?"

After all, NASA is just going to give (not sell) the orbiters to museums to sit around and gather dust anyway, so why not give them to an American Company such as ULA (which has truly vast experience in servicing and launching the shuttles anyway). I read somewhere that the new price of getting an American astronaut up to the ISS by the Soyuz is going to go to at least $50 million, and that does not include materials and supplies either!

I must admit that I can not understand why ULA and its parent companies of Boeing and LM are not already jumping up and down lobbying Congress for just such an opportunity? I can just see them telling all the current Shuttle suppliers, "Hey fellows, we have a fantastic opportunity here!"

Anybody want to buy a slightly used space shuttle orbiter?

I know it sounds crazy, but it would be so very capitalistic and American!! :twisted:

 

[propforce]

"Heck, if a private concern wanted to use the space shuttle to place some four 12,000 lb (48,000 lbs total, which is well within the total capability of the space shuttle orbiter bay). for the current launch cost of some $500 million, which would mean a launch cost to LEO of $125 million for each satellite (just about the current launch costs), such a system would be feasible! But nobody is currently launching anywhere near that many satellites!

It is not that simple when it comes to the Shuttle, if a private concern takes over the Shuttle hardware, it would still need to own all the engineering analysis 'heritage' of Shuttle. That would be the tricky part, how to transfer this army of people to support this newly 'privatized' Shuttle? This cost is fuzzy math at best, NASA spends billions of $ per year to keep this army going whether the Shuttle launches or not. A private concern will not be able to afford that.

In fact one of the things that troubles me about the upcoming retirement of the space shuttle, is why doesn't NASA at least try and find somebody that might try to make such private a use of such a system? They could even then provide a service to launch all the people and the materials up to the ISS (and also bring materials and people back) at a cost at least as good as the Russians are now quoting NASA for the use of the far less capable Soyuz!

I think NASA is doing that with COTS for cargo and Ares I for crew (hence the gap). I don't understand why NASA excluded mature, proven launch vehicles such as the Delta IV from competing in COTS and as the 'people shuttle' to ISS instead of using Russian Soyuz?

Heck, if NASA would be worried about somebody with too little experience servicing and launching the space shuttle, why not just give them to ULA (which has been servicing and launching the shuttles all along anyway), and purchase such services form ULA! Each of the remaining shuttles has more then 50 flights left in its capability, and therefore would last far longer then the ISS anyway! How is that for thinking outside of the box?"

You mean the USA? But this way NASA will be spending the same amount of its budget or more (+ profits for the new company) on the Shuttle. How will it find the money to do other things, such as building the next generation vehicles, funding for science missions, space exploration,etc.?

 

[job1207]

Spacex is racing to it's first launch. I am betting that they will launch before Ares 1. OTOH, there is a lot of testing going on. Interesting schedule. If this were NASA, you would think the launch is a year away.

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

Also, Scaled is going ahead with flight testing of SS2 later this year. To me, that means that they are going on with SS3 to orbit after that. That probably will not impact Ares 1 in the short term however. Looking at Scaled's version of development times, they will probably do something in the early teens, say 2013 or so. ( Just a guess )

 

[bobble_bob]

If it can be safely done, id like to see the shuttle program extended so we can at least finish the construction of the ISS. Its looking less and less likely we will get all remaining flights up by the 2010 deadline, and it would be a shame to have bits of the ISS on the ground because we ran out of time by a few months.

Obviously i cant see this happen, as havent they started to close down production facilities etc now?

 

[StrandedonEarthsince1970]

I don't see why they couldn't extend the Shuttle's drop-dead deadline a little just because they couldn't get the scheduled missions up in time. The big problem would be adding more missions to the manifest because there would be no more spare parts.

 

[job1207]

I would be surprised if they stop before flying all the planned Shuttle flights. Afterall, the hardware is there, and what not.

 

[frodo1008]

It would seem from the pol itself that by far the greater majority here ARE concerned to some degree about the Shuttle-Orion gap. Especially as it is now far from clear that there will even BE an Orion at all!

On another thread I made the following post about this very subject in response to anothers' post, and so as not to have to do it all over again, here it is in cut-and-paste mode:

"As to your second point, this really has a tendency to upset me! It is total unmitigated Bull that the shuttle is totally dead. That is what the pro Ares I and such bean counters at NASA WANT you to think! And once again, even if the Congress people themselves are not technologically conversant, their staffs are! The only point that the shuttle is now even somewhat dismantled is the main tank! Here is why stating that the shuttle is so dead is just baloney!

(1) If ATK can do design work on the new five segment motors, then is it not possible for them to still produce the same four segment motors that they have been producing all along? Of course it is! And keeping the shuttles flying on those four segment motors just might somewhat mitigate the loss of the Ares I to ATK, and keep their congress people relatively quite over that loss, ever think of that as a political ploy by NASA?. And all that at a far lower cost than developing the new motors.

(2) The orbiters themselves were designed for a lifetime of 100 flights each, do you or anybody else even begin to think that they are anywhere near that limit? Not only are they not, but as recently as only a few years ago a large amount of taxpayer money was spent in totally upgrading the cockpits to newer digital standards! Should that investment now be wasted? Oh, I am well aware that the shuttle is a difficult and dangerous system to keep flying, but guess what, so will anything else be that is going from a standstill on the launch pad up to 100+ miles high and some 17,500 mph in the bargain! And the astronauts are even more aware of this than anybody!

(3) Rocketdyne is still very capable of maintaining the current crop of SSME's, which like the orbiter cockpits have recently been rebuilt for greater safety margins that even before. And these engines have never been responsible for bringing any shuttle down!

(4) The ONLY main segment of the shuttle system that has to some extent been been shut down is the main tank. And just why could even that not be started up again?

(5) Yes, the shuttle IS expensive to fly, but just what makes anybody here think that the Russians (who we have made excellent capitalists of) are just going to sit still and not soak us totally to get our people up to the ISS for at least several years, if the shuttle is truly killed off? That is, if some kind of political tensions do not just have them stop us from going up to the ISS at ALL!! To the very space station that we the US taxpayers have paid at least some 80% of!! And once again, if an old ex aerospace worker such as myself can see this, do you not think it possible for congressional staffers (whose very job it is to see these things) to not also see it???

(6) Besides this, even if each shuttle was to only fly once per year until another system is capable (dragon, Orion, I really do not care what system, as long as it is an American system) of taking astronauts and materials to the ISS, (and remember that the shuttle can carry many times the amounts of materials up to and back from the ISS than ANY other system now, or even contemplated to the ISS) it would only mean some three flights per year of the shuttle system. If we can afford the six flights or so that we have been making for some time now, then only three should not be that difficult!!

(7) And finally, while the Russian equipment itself is very good, I as a patriotic American do NOT want us to have to just go on our knees to the Russians. Russians that may just not always be even as friendly towards us as they now are (and relations are not at this time even that good)!! Does it not seem possible that might just be one of the reasons that Congress does not seem to be so enthusiastic about just taking the shuttle off line before we have something else that is a proven system for doing what it now does so very well? I do hope that this new committee chaired by Augustine can see this, because if they can't, then I am very afraid that some congressional committee may very well see it, much to the detriment of NASA!!!

So, in total, while I can go along with killing the Ares I (at least partially, saving what can be saved), and giving additional funding to the COTS program. I can not go along with killing the STS system until a suitable replacement is actually launching successfully! If that means that the same Congress that I am almost certain is going to feel the same way, giving NASA a reasonable boost (such as a continuing 10% increase over inflation as an addition to their budget each year) then I am reasonably certain that they might just do so!

However, I must admit that nothing is totally certain in this life, except death and taxes......

The ONLY reason that NASA's current bosses want the shuttle out of the way is to be able to use every cent for the Orion project. But that project, and the Ares I rocket are already so bloated as to budget that I think this special committee under Augustine might just be there to legitimize getting rid of it! NASA is NOT going to want to admit that they have basically wasted some $7 billion on such a turkey as the Ares I however, and quite frankly understanding the mood of a very recession weary America, I can't really say as I blame them. So, they are going to state that at least they can save the work on the second stage (such as the Orion Capsule , and the J2X Engine), and then also state that the work on the five segment SRB is also going to eventually be useful perhaps? This might just be the origin of their statements that if they kill the Ares I then they also kill the Ares V, which is another smoke screen by none engineering types of administrators for pure political reasons.

You know, it is really sad to me, but back in the 1960's under such greats as Wernher Von Braun and George Webb NASA truly was a great organization! They actually gave their contractors far more freedom in design and building the rockets that got us to the moon the first time around. But now I must admit to no longer being so sure anymore.....

 

[Safir]

I really liked what the Constellation program has to offer. I've seen the DIRECT plans too. The problems aren't exactly all to do with NASA, its the budget! Asking NASA to design, test, develop new launchers & spacecrafts for ISS & moon journeys without any significant budget increase is just crazy!

One point about the space shuttle, it also serves as a platform to launch/release, repair satellites. None of the new spacecrafts would offer that advantage. What happened to plans of making a scramjet shuttle replacement? It'll be very useful to have two or more types of heavy spacecrafts for different purposes.

My suggestion is NASA should team up with ESA & others. Not just a 10-20 year treaty but a 50 years one! From ISS missions to Moon/Mars to all unmanned missions outside Earth's vicinity. I'm not sure if there will be any political hindrance from ESA, JAXA, NASA teaming up. Think about the money saved & collaboration always wins in the long term! Private sector is opening up and governments should subsidize them heavily for the short term. Get them to speed up their programs.

To be safe I'd go with the current NASA program while I know NASA can do much better than this!

 

[wildwildmars]

I have a two word solution to the gap, and it's probably been said before: SpaceX Dragon. Their Falcon 9 rocket is expected to be launched sometime this year, actually into space, versus the Ares 1 which will be doing an atmospheric flight test. I say give private enterprise a chance to do some of NASA's work until Orion is ready. Could probably even call it the NASA Stimulus Package. It would sure give a boost to the private spaceflight sector!