leaked NASA email

[nec208]

<p>An anonymous reader alerts us to an Orlando Sentinel report based on a leaked NASA email, indicating that <font color="#005555">NASA is looking at options to extend the Shuttle program</font>. The fighting between Russia and Georgia has put a strain on plans to rely on Russian boosters until the Shuttle's replacement flies in 2015. Yet extending the Shuttle's life is no sure thing. According to a former NASA program manager, "We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago. That horse has left the barn." And NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has told Congress that if the Shuttle fleet were to fly two missions a year until 2015, "the risk would be about one in 12 that we would lose another crew. That's a high risk... [one] I would not choose to accept on behalf of our astronauts." And then there's the matter of finding the $4 billion a year it would take to keep the fleet operational. The Sentinel mentions that John McCain has called for additional Shuttle flights, but doesn't mention that <font color="#005555">Barack Obama has made the same point</font>, as the BBC reports. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/31/171205</p><p>_________________________________________</p><p>I thought the risk was 1 in every 20? And 5 years is not expectable when you look at the 60's and 70's !! </p><p>&nbsp;And 5 years to build and test come on.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture4]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>, "We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago. That horse has left the barn." And NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has told Congress that if the Shuttle fleet were to fly two missions a year until 2015, "the risk would be about one in 12 that we would lose another crew. </DIV></p><p>Obviously if the Shuttle is unsafe it should be grounded now. If Griffin believes it is unsafe than flying it even once more is inexcusable. The idea that it is safe to fly for two or three years but than will become to dangerous is statistically absurd. Even assuming that no further improvements are made, the chance that a crew will be lost on the next lanch is exactly the same as the chance that a crew will be lost 100 launches from now. If that risk is too high in three years, it is too high right now.&nbsp; </p><p>In reality, since the failure modes that caused the Challanger and Columbia losses have been corrected, the current prediced failure rate is lower than the historical failure rate. Although further undiscovered failure modes are possible, they would now have to have remained undetected in over 125 launches. All launch vehicles become more reliable as they accumulate more launches; the frequently repeated NASA claim that the predicted LOC failure rate of the Shuttle is now 1 in 60 is just wrong.&nbsp; </p><p>Another frequent asserion from NASA is that the Shuttle program is coming to its originally planned end. In reality the Shuttles were designed to fly 100 flights each, and even afer Columbia was lost the plan was to have a new spaccecraft in before the shuttle was retired. Griffin would like to irrevocably kill the shuttle irrevocably before he is replaced, so that the next aministration will have no way to change course and will be forced to build the Ares.</p>

 

[nec208]

<p>That is goverment for you.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>Human spaceflight reflects the technological and governmental abilities of a society as it is so difficult and expensive to do.</p><p>40 years ago today first men to visit another heavenly body landed safely back to earth. Today we can barely make it to orbit. Even russians rely on 50 year old technology. </p><p>Our culture is in shambles, but anybody hardly notices or cares.&nbsp;</p>

 

[windnwar]

I do know one item that is concerning the future use of the shuttle was the onboard pressure tanks, some super light wieght kevlar wrapped design that is nearing the end of their useful lifespan but no one makes the tanks anymore, and it'd be a few years before you could have a new tank designed, built an certified for flight apparently. It's probably one of the highest risk parts to fail going forward, but it was never replaced. I'd be curious what other systems are near end of useable life but with no spares available. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

<p>I think there are dozens of items that are no longer manufactured and the shelves are getting empty, like tires, windshields, various sensors, etc.</p><p>Then there is the issue with items that are nearing the end of their lifespan, like the tanks you mentioned. </p>

 

[Crossover_Maniac]

I think this is would be a great time for Elon Musk and other involved in the private space enterprise field to step up and offer their services to NASA at a fraction of the price NASA is paying right now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Feel the Hope-nosis </div>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think this is would be a great time for Elon Musk and other involved in the private space enterprise field to step up and offer their services to NASA at a fraction of the price NASA is paying right now. <br /> Posted by Crossover_Maniac</DIV></p><p>Indeed. These will be the crazy years for the space companies. <br /><br />Clearly there is mismanagement and miscalculations by the agencies, so anybody capable of stepping up and filling the gap will be rewarded handsomely and will also transform the industry of spaceflight.</p><p>I think we all should get involved somehow. But where to start?</p>

 

[neilsox]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>An anonymous reader alerts us to an Orlando Sentinel report based on a leaked NASA email, indicating that NASA is looking at options to extend the Shuttle program. The fighting between Russia and Georgia has put a strain on plans to rely on Russian boosters until the Shuttle's replacement flies in 2015. Yet extending the Shuttle's life is no sure thing. According to a former NASA program manager, "We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago. That horse has left the barn." And NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has told Congress that if the Shuttle fleet were to fly two missions a year until 2015, "the risk would be about one in 12 that we would lose another crew. That's a high risk... [one] I would not choose to accept on behalf of our astronauts." And then there's the matter of finding the $4 billion a year it would take to keep the fleet operational. The Sentinel mentions that John McCain has called for additional Shuttle flights, but doesn't mention that Barack Obama has made the same point, as the BBC reports. &nbsp;&nbsp;http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/31/171205_________________________________________I thought the risk was 1 in every 20? And 5 years is not expectable when you look at the 60's and 70's !! &nbsp;And 5 years to build and test come on.&nbsp; <br />Posted by nec208</DIV></p><p>Risk numbers are somewhat subjective and higher due to the fact that shuttle support has been shutting down for 4 years.&nbsp;5 years to build another shuttle seems about right, unless cost can be much higher and/or risk to the astronauts increased.&nbsp;An increase in lying makes cost higher and safety lower, and lead time longer.</p><p>It would likely cost Ford a million dollars, and a whole year&nbsp;to build one more Ford Pinto, more if they needed to be sure it was at least as safe as the originals. No one else could make a Pinto more authentic than Ford, for even two million dollars as some parts would not be available except from cars that are decades old.&nbsp; Neil</p>

 

[aphh]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Risk numbers are somewhat subjective and higher due to the fact that shuttle support has been shutting down for 4 years.&nbsp;5 years to build another shuttle seems about right, unless cost can be much higher and/or risk to the astronauts increased.&nbsp;An increase in lying makes cost higher and safety lower, and lead time longer.It would likely cost Ford a million dollars, and a whole year&nbsp;to build one more Ford Pinto, more if they needed to be sure it was at least as safe as the originals. No one else could make a Pinto more authentic than Ford, for even two million dollars as some parts would not be available except from cars that are decades old.&nbsp; Neil <br /> Posted by neilsox</DIV></p><p>I doubt anybody could build a new shuttle orbiter even if there was funding for it. Current engineers aren't as good in tackling complex mechanical issues and problems at structure level as the 70ies engineers.</p><p>It's all designed and tested on software level today. There is more knowledge today, but knowledge itself won't build a flying machine. Knowledge and craftsmanship does.</p><p>There will never be another flying machine as complex in it's design and build as the shuttle. Perhaps it's a good thing, but I'm not sure. </p>

 

[windnwar]

<p>I doubt anyone would ask them to build another shuttle unless it had been majorly redesigned to incorporate everything that has been learned over its flight history. The resultant vehicle might look very similar but it'd have vastly fewer parts, and a much more durable TPS then it currently has, and it'd have liquid boosters instead of the solid ones that we use now. In many ways it'd have more in common with Buran then it does with the current shuttle. It would also need to have a much longer on orbit duration then the shuttle currently has. </p><p>The problem is funding, who would pay for it? While it'd be quite useful to have something like the shuttle for in orbit construction, I don't see it happening anytime soon. NASA can't afford to have the shuttle and Ares, or whatever replaces the shuttle, even if a new shuttle like I described could be built. The only way it could would be to have something like the Buran that has nothing but orbital thrusters and its main propulsion is in the ET. Then it'd simply be a different payload that would be compatible with Ares-V. It could be an interesting option down the road but i doubt it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>

 

[ThereIWas2]

You need the shuttle if you want to bring BACK big heavy cylindrical-shaped things.&nbsp; If all you want to do is get construction and rocket parts up there, you don't need such a huge winged vehicle - there are easier ways to do that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>

 

[chanimanga]

<p>In the current climate everything boils down to MONEY..</p><p>The shuttle was a technological marver, but an economic disaster.</p><p>Sadly, the cheapest way to get stuff into orbit is still to put it on the end of a very big firework ! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++</p><p> </p><p>Join a true space community TheAlphaOrbital.com</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>An anonymous reader alerts us to an Orlando Sentinel report based on a leaked NASA email, indicating that NASA is looking at options to extend the Shuttle program. The fighting between Russia and Georgia has put a strain on plans to rely on Russian boosters until the Shuttle's replacement flies in 2015. Yet extending the Shuttle's life is no sure thing. According to a former NASA program manager, "We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago. That horse has left the barn." And NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has told Congress that if the Shuttle fleet were to fly two missions a year until 2015, "the risk would be about one in 12 that we would lose another crew. That's a high risk... [one] I would not choose to accept on behalf of our astronauts." And then there's the matter of finding the $4 billion a year it would take to keep the fleet operational. The Sentinel mentions that John McCain has called for additional Shuttle flights, but doesn't mention that Barack Obama has made the same point, as the BBC reports. &nbsp;&nbsp;http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/31/171205_________________________________________I thought the risk was 1 in every 20? And 5 years is not expectable when you look at the 60's and 70's !! &nbsp;And 5 years to build and test come on.&nbsp; <br />Posted by nec208</DIV></p><p>The studies mentioned are not secret. They have been on going for many months ar Dr. Griffins order. They want to be ready for the new president incase they as for that information.</p><p>The risk of loosing a Shuttle on any one mission is 1 in 77. Which is better than it has ever been.&nbsp;<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Obviously if the Shuttle is unsafe it should be grounded now. If Griffin believes it is unsafe than flying it even once more is inexcusable. The idea that it is safe to fly for two or three years but than will become to dangerous is statistically absurd. Even assuming that no further improvements are made, the chance that a crew will be lost on the next lanch is exactly the same as the chance that a crew will be lost 100 launches from now. If that risk is too high in three years, it is too high right now.&nbsp;.....Posted by vulture4</DIV><br />"</p><p>&nbsp;Dr Griffin is not saying that the risk of loosing a vehicle increases significantly with time. He knows the risk of loosing a Shuttle is high now (1 in 77 on any one mission.&nbsp;(but much better than it has ever been)&nbsp;</p><p>Posted by vulture4</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_guy]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do know one item that is concerning the future use of the shuttle was the onboard pressure tanks, some super light wieght kevlar wrapped design that is nearing the end of their useful lifespan but no one makes the tanks anymore, and it'd be a few years before you could have a new tank designed, built an certified for flight apparently. It's probably one of the highest risk parts to fail going forward, but it was never replaced. I'd be curious what other systems are near end of useable life but with no spares available. <br />Posted by windnwar</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Most of them are near the end of their useful life and most spares are not available anymore.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Obviously if the Shuttle is unsafe it should be grounded now. If Griffin believes it is unsafe than flying it even once more is inexcusable. The idea that it is safe to fly for two or three years but than will become to dangerous is statistically absurd. Even assuming that no further improvements are made, the chance that a crew will be lost on the next lanch is exactly the same as the chance that a crew will be lost 100 launches from now. <br /> Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>In this case, that's actually not entirely true.&nbsp; The risk today is less than the risk will be in three years.&nbsp; This is because (as other posters have discussed in more detail) they are running out of spares for some parts, and certain components are nearing the end of their operational lifespan.&nbsp; Not yet discussed in this thread is the larger logistics problem -- some contracts have already been terminated, since NASA was directed to retire the Shuttle after ISS core complete.&nbsp; Given that many of these are 30 year old sustainment contracts, there is a very real probability of not being able to reopen them; the companies involved may be either out of business or have moved on into other fields or otherwise not be interested anymore.&nbsp; It would mean either letting the contracts out to other companies (which inserts a certain amount of difficult-to-quantify risk, since the new contractor may not fully understand the original contractor's drawings and specs) or attempting to "stretch" the existing parts inventory, which is risky for obvious reasons.</p><p>So while&nbsp; for most systems, your statement is correct (that the risk today is the same as the risk 100 flights from now), for the Space Shuttle this is not true -- it will become riskier as time goes on.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>