Just a Suggestion

[bdewoody]

Now that it appears that the Constellation program probably including the Orion Capsule is dead or seriously delayed, why not delay reconfiguring the launch pads and continue using the Shuttles a while longer. Reconfiguring the launch pads was always given as a big reason for ending the shuttle program. But now since it looks like there won't be a launch vehicle to reconfigure the pads for why not wait a while. I'm not proposing that the shuttles be used beyond their safe service life but why cut them off at some predetermined fixed point. It can be determined during the servicing period whether one of the shuttles has developed an unsafe condition. From what I gather a great deal of the hardware is replaced periodically and the airframes are pretty robust. It's not an ideal situation but why burn your bridges before the road ahead is clear.

The B-52's and P-3's have been flying for close to fifty years and while I understand they are not space vehicles they are subjected to a lot of stress and they keep soldiering on.

Also this way the talented people who work at the various NASA facilities dedicated to human space flight will be able to be kept employed. I'd hate to hear that those dedicated guys like the close up crew end up pumping gas at a filling station.

 

[centsworth_II]

...Reconfiguring the launch pads was always given as a big reason for ending the shuttle program....

My understanding is that the fabrication of parts for necessary refurbishing of the shuttles has been stopped and can not reasonably be restarted. Aren't they near the end of their useful lives anyway without major overhauls?

 

[bdewoody]

...Reconfiguring the launch pads was always given as a big reason for ending the shuttle program....

My understanding is that the fabrication of parts for necessary refurbishing of the shuttles has been stopped and can not reasonably be restarted. Aren't they near the end of their useful lives anyway without major overhauls?

Well unless the places they were made were burned down or demolished I'm sure that in the current job climate they could get the work force back on the job. Heck they just recently got rid of the biggest problems that were plaguing the shuttles. They've on average only made between 35-40 flights each. They've been around since the 1980's but what they are made of doesn't deteriorate just with age. I'd rather ride in one of the shuttles than anything else that goes into space or is planned to in the near future.

 

[Testing]

If you go back to Wayne Hales early blogs you will find a post about sustaining the STS.
Some suppliers are gone or absorbed by other entities. No parts.
Five years ago i saw a motor for refurb and the ICD was hand drawn and dated 1976.

I believe a generation is considered forty years. Until our people as a whole get their reps as a whole
to fund a long term system not changed every year we as a space caring people are screwed.
Spacex may save us.

 

[tadpoletriker]

Flying even the two built External Tanks, and the two part built ETs would at least not waste what has already been paid for.

JohnB

 

[Valcan]

For the love of god dont turn the space program in america into a jobs farm like so many of the auto companies. I'd really like to have a space program in the next 20 yrs.

The orbiters cant go on after there withdrawl date. They can fly i think 4 more times. The according to nasa the are actually death traps.

There tech is so old we need something new. And reliable that doesnt take 3 months to reprep for launch. And doesnt require being taken apart and put back together after launch. We dont need a space plane to launch payloads its silly. Why send up 200k worth of orbiter to launch a 30k cargo?

I think we need a small reusable space plane for transportation to and from orbit for people.

 

[SpaceTas]

On the latest "This Week in Space" there is an interview with John Keris (spelling?) of Lockheed Martin, basically saying it is possible to keep the shuttle going and so save thousands of jobs. In the same "This week in space" the president of United Space Alliance (chief contractor for shuttle operations) proudly said 20,000 people were involved in making the shuttle fly safely.

But is it sensible? No

Cost. The estimates are $600 to $750 million per launch. This cost will be higher if shuttle continued due to extra cost of restarting production lines, re-certifying each shuttle as safe to fly (involves inspection of every nook and cranny and mandated by Columbia Accident board, in 2011) ...
RISK: Even though the flights are going very well with the fewest problems ever, there are still many known points for disaster. Its the unknown unconsidered ones that get ya! Currently the shuttle record is 1 in 7o for complete destruction and death of all on board. Not good; How long does to take you to do 70 car trips?
Purpose: The shuttle's sole remaining job is nearly done; building the space station. Over the early years and particularly after the Challenger accident all commercial and science payloads have been moved to other launches. The military gave up doing science missions, life science can be better done on the station .... Resupply and crew rotation to the station is left, but that is like going to the corner store for supplies using a semi rather than a compact.

Recall, one of the reasons for curtailing the shuttle was to free up money for constellation ....

 

[Valcan]

But is it sensible? No

Cost. The estimates are $600 to $750 million per launch.

And that is why using 20,000 people is a fail for a space program. Nasa is not a jobs program. Now really wana freak yourself out? Imagine how much it cost for those people to work on the shuttle. Pay, healthcare, etc.

 

[bdewoody]

Better a jobs program for highly talented people that do a good job than unemployment. Most of the money the government spends is to pay wages, what do you think 90% of the military budget is? Constellation/Ares/Orion is almost dead. The space shuttle like the woman in the cancer commercial doesn't have an expiration date. It's not a system that is flyable one day and unflyable the next. Of coursre it's a death trap, anytime you sit people on top of that much highly volitile fuel there is a risk factor greater than staying home and reading a book. Let the astronauts decide, I'm sure that if they thought they would be committing suicide they would refuse to get in the thing.

Yes we need to build a new space vehicle, I'm all for it, write your congressmen and senators and tell them they are idiots. But until a new system is ready to fly I think we ought to reconsider keeping the shuttles flying.

 

[edkyle99]

Yes we need to build a new space vehicle, I'm all for it, write your congressmen and senators and tell them they are idiots. But until a new system is ready to fly I think we ought to reconsider keeping the shuttles flying.

I suspect that bridge has already long been crossed, from a political decision-making perspective if not absolutely just yet from the logistics side of things, though the Augustine Committee did hint that it would cost a chunk of change to keep Shuttle flying even for just a few more years. It would require restarting ET production, for example.

NASA's best path now, IMO, is to retire the orbiters gracefully and get on with it, whatever "it" is.

- Ed Kyle

 

[bdewoody]

It looks like someone a little more expert than you guys thinks my idea is spot on. Listen to Howard DeCastro's interview. He said exactly what I was thinking. It is possible to restart the production lines to manufacture the stuff needed to keep the shuttles flying.

 

[EarthlingX]

It looks like someone a little more expert than you guys thinks my idea is spot on. Listen to Howard DeCastro's interview. He said exactly what I was thinking. It is possible to restart the production lines to manufacture the stuff needed to keep the shuttles flying.

I wish there would be a chance to make a company, partly owned by NASA, partly private, which would own Shuttle facilities and gear. I wish there would be money to make it happened, but that's politics, i'm afraid. Or not ?

Here is a rationale:
- Shuttle brings 6-7 people to LEO = 50 M$ * 6 = 300 - 350 M$
- 20t = 15 k$/kgLEO * 20 000 kg = 300 M$

Problem is in the fact, which can be seen in the budget info, that it costs 3 G$/year to run it at least, and that means, with only 2 flights/year -> 1,5 G$ per flight, a 8,5 G$ hole ...

You can probably get better numbers, but the point is, it has to fly a lot to make sense, money wise.

 

[bdewoody]

Most of you miss the point. It's the only thing we've got right now. And with every flight we learn more about how to do it better. Also there is no guarantee that the Russians will provide us access after they have completed their contractual obligation. Keeping the shuttle flying until at least a new ship is approved for construction seems smart to me. That part NASA part private partnership already exists. It's calle USA (United Space Alliance) and the president of that company is the person in a high place that I was referring to.

 

[EarthlingX]

To avoid quoting everything, please correct me where i'am wrong, there's a well oiled machine, with 30 years of experience, all sorts of little tricks of trade, work as one, just too expensive under 5 flights per year, or more ?

Bus for tourists might be the best i can think off, just a tiny problem with room on the station, supplies, return vehicles, please continue ..
Or maybe some part of the station still hidden somewhere ?

It will take time to fix all this, but manifest ends ..

 

[EarthlingX]

Some quick info about United Space Alliance, 8 800 employees Wikipedia claims.

Home page : About USA
From GSA Services Provided by USA

Backed by more than a decade of proven success, United Space Alliance is now offering its wide range of capabilities and outstanding record of performance through the General Services Administration (GSA). The only company in the world with experience in all aspects of processing, maintenance and operations of a reusable space transportation system and orbiting space station, USA has experience that applies directly to future space programs.

 

[samkent]

The shuttle has been a jobs program. As far as I know all the parts were on a cost plus basis with no incentive to improve. Thirty years of making the same part in the exact same way for a guaranteed profit. That’s a business owners dream.

Nope, it’s the right time to shut down this jobs program. It’s a shame we can’t do it to a few others.

 

[StarRider1701]

I have to agree with bdewoody. True, the shuttles are not cost effective and they are getting a bit long in the tooth. But they are also the only space vehicle we have right now and they are still capable of flying safely. I say lets keep them flying until WE HAVE something else capable of taking thier place. I too do not trust looking to other countries to taxi our astronauts for us.

 

[Woggles]

Just adding some more info on this topic.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/201 ... e-extended