Kennedy: Griffin wants Shuttle to stay

[shuttle_rtf]

Just spotted this in the Florida media:<br /><br /> http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050602/BREAKINGNEWS/50602011/1007/NEWS02<br /><br />“It’s looking more and more like the vehicles of the future will be derived from the shuttle. There was some talk of getting away from shuttle and moving to expendable launch vehicles,” but new NASA Administrator Michael Griffin “strongly believes in capitalizing on the investments that have already been made,” Kennedy said.<br /><br />It’s possible the new ship could use an external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters similar to the shuttle system, he said.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

He's right, too. It would be foolish to just cast the entire system onto the scrap-heap. Manufacturing and support, etc, is already in place. Why reinvent the wheel in the short term? <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>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

I totally agree, with Mr Griffin! Sure, there needs to be some upgrading of the hardware, but the technolgy works. <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>

 

[grooble]

Wasn't that the plan anyway? Launch the CEV and modules on a shuttle derived rocket?<br /><br />I hope T/space can be the crew transporters.<br /><br />Maybe this is a good idea, NASA could have bigger CEV and modules and launch themselves, which will improve capability, surely it will save costs, jobs, expertise.<br /><br />So is this a good or a bad thing overall?<br />

 

[mattblack]

Without Heavy Lift, it'd be like trying to mount an Antarctic expedition by lashing together a bunch of rowboats: It can't be done. <br /><br />**I DID say in earlier posts that I'd prefer a clean sheet design capable of lifting 140+plus tonnes. Trouble is, it would probably cost $20 billion dollars and a decade to develop such a thing. <br /><br />***I HAVE said that it would be ideal to have the CEV capable of being launched on an Atlas V, Delta IV, one-stick SRB AND Shuttle C. To insist that all the eggs go into one basket (Shuttle C) would be a bad mistake, akin to once abandoning all expendables to launch satellites on the manned Shuttle orbiter!! Sheesh... <br /><br />**I DID say that a 7-core Atlas V would be a good launcher because it has similar lifting power to the basic Shuttle C concept. Also, if a big quantity of booster cores is manufactured the sheer economy of scale would make the 7-core Atlas Heavy cheaper to build and operate than Shuttle C. <br /><br />***BUT: Cost & design time comparisons (rough): Develop a Shuttle derived HLV: 5 years and $5-to$7 billion. <br />CLEAN SHEET: $20 billion and 8-to-10 years. <br />ATLAS V & DELTA IV SUPER-HEAVY: $12-to-$15 billion and 5-to-7 years. <br /><br />The ayes have it: Shuttle Derived it should be, for all the reasons I outlined. You just can't argue with that rationally, unless you've really got a hard-0n for little version Atlas and Deltas. A fetish even!! <br /><br />BUT WAIT, I hear some of you say: Shuttle derived is expensive and dangerous, outdated technology with a bloated workforce and infrastructure. Keeping a Shuttle-derived lifter will bankrupt Nasa, or worse the U.S.A. Also, you MUST have a sexy Lifting body CEV, because capsules are passe, crappy old technology, heavy lift launchers are wrong, wrong, blah, blah, blah... <br /><br />Well, I'm sorry but you guys are dead WRONG. This isn't a case of: "My Grandpa didn't go to the Moon that way, so we wont do it your way". New ideas are good. But laws of <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>

 

[grooble]

Good post. Everything is coming together, Shuttle heavy lift for big ships, CXV for cheap ISS / LEO manned trips and drop offs, CEV specialised for space only mission,<br /><br />Poifict.

 

[nacnud]

Simple, build the CEV/Constellation in 20 tonne blocks and launch on commercial launchers like Delta, Atlas, Ariane etc which would be expensive or launch multiple block simultaneously on a SDV HLLV which should be cheaper. Any problems with a vehicle and the others can take up the slack.<br /><br />Once you’re confident in the SDV you could merge blocks to produce weight savings and increase capabilities.<br />

 

[redgryphon]

Griffin was in Michoud yesterday saying similar things. Frankly, if the new roadmap NASA is developing over the summer does not have a SDV, I'll be shocked. What's more uncertain is whether the CEV will launch on a modified SRB or on an EELV. Both options require the development of an upgraded upper stage, and some changes to pad infrastructure. Both options have good and bad points. The SRB is already "man rated" however one defines that term, and has a superb flight record since 51-L, but a failure of an SRB is not easy to anticipate and escape from. EELV is not "man rated", but has some nicer engine shutdown options and may benefit from lower costs due to economies of scale, as MattBlack suggests.<br /><br />Personally, I'm enjoying the anticipation of these fabled architecture reviews, both for the VSE and ISS assembly. Griffin has said he'd trust his life to the people working on them, and so far, his trust is good enough for me.

 

[lycan359]

<br />I have a question about man-rating vehicles...<br /><br />If you can design a reliable escape system that can get you away from the rocket in the event something bad happens, then why spend all the time and money to man-rate the EELV itself?

 

[nacnud]

There are the acoustic and gee loads to take acccountof aswell

 

[drwayne]

Because even a reliable escape system frequently does not cover all of the flight timeline and there are failure modes for boosters that might not allow successful escape. (The main reason fins were on the 1st stage of the Sat 5 was to deal with certain failure modes by the way)<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>You can't write the story everytime somebody opens his yapper. Pretty soon all the pieces are opposed to each other and you don't know anything.<br /><br />Case in point, Griffin wants Heavy Lift. He also wants multiple launch paths to avoid debacles like we have now.<br /><br />Which is it? there will be a lot of rags sold before we know.<<br /><br /><br />You have issues with that Florida paper for reporting what they did?<br /><br />I can't for the life of me think why - it was a very relevant and worthy story, imho.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Now that same Florida paper is saying the comments relate to the CEV. The CEV will be Shuttle derived...it claims.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Wasn't that the plan anyway? Launch the CEV and modules on a shuttle derived rocket?</font>/i><br /><br />It certainly has been something Griffin has promoted since the Planetary Society's report last year.<br /><br />But in theory, NASA was open to all plans, and they provided contracts to a number of companies (including t/Space) to come up with Lunar architectures. I remember reading earlier presentation by Boeing which developed their architecture around the Delta launcher; I think LockMart had their's around the Atlas; t/Space developed their architecture (for humans) using smaller rockets developed by groups like SpaceX and their own air-launch system.<br /><br />Draper Laboratory developed a tool to analyze 1,200 exploration architectures. Draper's director of the study, Darryl Sargent, predicted NASA may require the CEV go all the way to the Lunar surface (AW&ST, May 16).<br /><br />Some PDF presentations can be found at:<br />http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_midterm/<br />and<br />http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The ayes have it: Shuttle Derived it should be, for all the reasons I outlined.</font></i><br /><br />There are at least two issues: a shuttle derived human booster (SD-HB?) and a shuttle derived heavy launch vehicle (SD-HLV?). There are good arguments for both of these, and Griffin et al. outlined many of them in the Planetary Society report.<br /><br />However, there are concerns to both, and I am sure Griffin is very aware of them (he seems like the smartest guy to lead NASA in a long time). Here are two:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b>(1) Reliance on a unique SD-HLV capability will result in the program being grounded for several years at some point.</b></font> In the early 1980s there was a push to launch all space missions on the Shuttle (satellites, planetary missions, etc.), so when Challenger exploded, the US essentially lost all access to space. For example, Galileo sat in storage for two years. Then in the 1990s NASA developed the ISS plans such that components could only be launched on the shuttle, so when Columbia broke apart, ISS construction ground to a halt for approximately three years.<br /><br />The SD-HLV will have an incident at some point, so I hope NASA has a plan so that everything doesn't grind to a halt when it does.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b>(2) Shuttle-derived systems would be owned by the government and provide barriers to commercial development.</b></font> I have heard this in a number of areas and have been involved in both sides of the problem: when the government provides a service or product it dissuades investors and entrepreneurs from developing something similar. Griffin says that when the commercial vendors provide a capability, NASA should "step down", but history has shown that is unlikely.<br /><br />There is a philosphical question: Does NASA get America to the Moon, or does NASA serve as a catalyst to get America to the Moon?

 

[wvbraun]

Sounds good.<br /><br />"A major announcement regarding the next-generation ship is expected in July, he said."<br /><br />That would be the completion of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study now underway at NASA HQ. I can't wait!

 

[wvbraun]

<i> Although Griffin's comments suggest Michoud would continue as one of NASA's pre-eminent manufacturing facilities, he pointed out that there may be a gap of two to four years between the end of shuttle tank production and the beginning of tank production for the next-generation cargo vehicle, known in NASA circles as a "shuttle-derived vehicle."<br /><br />During the gap, NASA will make sure the plant stays open and that its work force remains intact, the administrator said.<br /><br />"If the shuttle-derived architecture is the direction that we go in, NASA will do what ever is necessary to preserve (Michoud's tank-manufacturing) capability. We will not allow that facility to go out of production if it is to be part of our future, because the restart would be too expensive," he said. </i><br /><br />Ok, does anyone know when ET production for manned Shuttle flights is planned to shut down? 2008? 2010? With "a gap of two to four years between the end of shuttle tank production and the beginning of tank production for the next-generation cargo vehicle" this means the sdv won't start flying until a few years after Bush and Griffin leave office. I'm a bit worried about this... At least start the development program as long as Bush is still president.<br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

All I have is this:<br /><br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=5<br /><br /> />NASA is ending of the contract for the supply of Al-Li used to construct the External Tank (ET) - the largest of the non-reusable elements of the Space Transportation System - with enough of the material already in stock to complete the launch mandate. No more Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) canisters will be produced for the same reason, with orders for the SRB fuel, Aluminium Perchlorate, ending in 2008.<

 

[wvbraun]

"The CXV already being tested would get you to the ISS or to your favorite hotel once someone gets around to boosting one into space."<br /><br />From what I have read Griffin has made it clear that he won't fund a parallel development effort for the CXV. T/space will have to win the main CEV contract and this is very unlikely given the incompatibility of the requirements Griffin will set for the CEV (30 ton spacecraft that will possibly land on the Moon itself) and the t/space design (small Earth to LEO capsule). <br />Steidle (the head of ESMD) wanted a parallel development effort and under O'Keefe it would probably have come to pass. Then again, under O'Keefe there would have been no HLV. <br />Hopefully t/space can find the money to develop their capsule regardless.

 

[lycan359]

<br />I have an idea. All t/space has to do is included some kind particle beam cannons to destroy ICBMs in it's vehicle design spec, then they will get all the funding they need from DoD.<br /><br />Once the thing is built you can either make up some excuse why it has no capability to destory enemy warheads, or just hope nobody asks about it.<br /><br />It's so perfect, it has to work!

 

[gladiator1332]

I honestly can't see how they will let the t/space offer pass. You really have to be on some crazy mind altering drug to not see the benefits of the CXV. If NASA over looks that one, then that is all the proof I will need to convince myself there is something wrong over there. <br />It isn't like the CXV is going to cost a lot. Like we said before, doesn't the budget of the newest Harry Potter movie nearly match the budget t/space requested for the CXV? If the CXV were a fortune for NASA to fund, then yes, I can see how they could turn it down, but it really is inexpensive, and it has widespread support. <br /><br />I also think T/Space has somewhat of a shot for the whole thing. Their CEV goes all the way to the Moon and looks like it might be pretty heavy. <br /><br />Can i ask why NASA is going for something really heavy, I always thought in the world of spaceflight "lighter is better" was the key phrase in designing spacecraft.

 

[gofer]

"...(rough): Develop a Shuttle derived HLV: 5 years and $5-to$7 billion "<br /><br />(assuming these figures are correct) , NASA doesn't seem to have that much money in its coffers for an HLV. I've read the budget plans over and over, I can't figure out where this money would come from. The next year's CEV budget is $753mil or so (from memory), this year's - $438mil. That's for everything CEV related. The STS & ISS would have to be completely canceled (won't happen ) next year for enough money to free up, and even then it wouldn't be clear NASA will have a free hand in moving such large funds at its discretion. My guesstimate is that NASA can gather about $1 billion as the total budget for its rockets until 2010 (by canceling science projects, and other stuff as they've been doing). Otherwise, it just won't have any money to build anything to launch with it. So, I hope Mr. Griffin has a magic wand or something and can do an HLV for $1bil and in 5 years no less. (I'm assuming he doesn't just want to blow NASA's money on his pet tech. projects)<br />

 

[gofer]

"Can i ask why NASA is going for something really heavy, I always thought in the world of spaceflight "lighter is better" was the key phrase in designing spacecraft. "<br /><br />Old precocieved notions (see Mr. Griffin's/Zubrin's Planetary Society document) which are hard to change, pressure to gain political favor with keeping most jobs untouched (as you can sense from this article), ATK Thiokol et al.'s lobbying their produce (yes even in Congress), using Apollo as the role-model for the VSE, the rush to "close the gap", perhaps even some technical merits.