NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">That price is that I am as certain that the sun will rise tomorrow the the United States will NEVER be able to take place in a cooperative venture with the rest of the world, in space at least!</font>/i><br /><br />"Never" is a really long time. Countries kiss and make up all the time, certainly the cooperation with Russia now is a good example of this.<br /><br />I agree that there will be a price to be paid, perhaps financial charges, and some chilly response from some camps. These would need to be factored into any possible response.<br /><br />Rather than throw up their hands, NASA and their partners should determine what would be a better approach next time. Here are a couple of suggestions:<br /><ul type="square"><li>Let America finish building out their position, sit back to see if they consider it a success and will continue to get support, and only then commit resources. <li>Pay cash and only on delivery -- many countries are doing this for Russia now, paying cash to fly an astronaut on one of the flights to the ISS.<li>Have a backup plan to avoid single point of failure. For example, design their hardware so it can be flown from more than one site on more than one launch vehicle.<li>Work on projects with shorter life cycles, so there is a greater chance that it will be completed. ISS was conceived in 1993 and will not be completed until 2010 -- that spans 5 presidential adminstration. And earlier in 1993 Congress came one vote shy of cancelling funding for NASA's space station effort. Committing to a program that had thin support and spanned 5 presidential administrations before you could use it was probably not a wise plan.<li>The ISS contract <b><i>did</i></b> have an exit clause allowing America or any other partner to pull out of ISS with only a 1 year notice. They should understand exercising this option is a possibility (it wasn't added just to make the agreement longer) and be prepared for it.<br /></li></li></li></li></li></ul></i>

 

[erioladastra]

"NASA through a temper tantrum over Dennis Tito's flight, this does not point to them being a reliable partner. They can't do a lunar base (for instance) with the current budget, but don't play well with others, so have trouble holding coalitions together. "<br /><br />NASA did not throw a tanturm. They didn't handle it well but not a tantrum. NASA had some legitimate concerns and wanted to work things out in protracted talks so that everyone was happy. Russia, as they do with lots of things, do what they want. Both sides had fair points. The sad thing was that things broke down. When Tito was about to be launched, ISS had a serious, VERY serious computer failure. The program asked Russia to wait. However, Russia called it trivial computer problems and pressed ahead.

 

[j05h]

>Even if just barely! <br /><br />Sure, but comsats make money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Sure, but comsats make money."</i><br /><br />Sometimes...unless you get an inept, crooked CEO and board of directors, such as the ones that resulted in me losing every dime that I invested in Loral...but again, I digress! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br /><i>"We need a first generation of pioneers."</i><br /><br />Sure, but unfortunately, we're creating quite a mess for future generations. There is a growing amount of orbital debris that is going to pose a real problem down the road, and much of it is in higher orbits that will not decay very fast.

 

[j05h]

Loral... terrible deal that.<br /><br />On orbital debris: I can see it as a problem, but we also have the tools to remedy it. Tugs/ramscoops could collect debris. Robert Hoyt has proposed using electrodynamic tethers to suck the power out of the Van Allen radiation belts. The remains of satelites could be smelted and the material recast. These are as much business opportunities as impediments to settlement. Earth-side economics are probably a much bigger roadblock to spacefaring than debris. <br /><br />My favorite space debris is the droplets of radioactive sodium (flouride?) that Sov radar sats used to spew over MEO when they finished service. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[tmccort]

<br />There are no international treaties dealing with space debris are there? Maybe it's about time to look into it...

 

[john_316]

Why not ask the Chinese to join the ISS? <br /><br />I mean we arent at war with them and I do think we all can benefit from them aboard....<br /><br />Though I do think we could have a CEV and its logisitics in place in 36 months. Its pushing it but it can be done....<br /><br />Does anyone have any detailed plans for CEV as if yet because all I still see are designer dream machines? I figure the Designs could have been started months or even last year when the President made his speech rather than wait on PR and PC to shape it....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[barrykirk]

Set Sarcasm=On<br /><br />Maybe we could contract for the chinese to finish launching all of the ISS components that we can't.<br /><br />It sure would jumpstart their space program....<br /><br />Set Sarcasm=Off<br /><br />That's almost as bad as a Larry the Cable Guy Joke.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"There are no international treaties dealing with space debris are there? "</font><br /><br />AFAIK no, but the agencies are already co-operating on the issue: Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee has published space debris mitigation guidelines.

 

[dobbins]

Article VII of the 1967 Space treaty.<br /><br />"Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching of an object into outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is launched, is internationally liable for damage to another State Party to the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its component parts on the Earth, in air or in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies."<br /><br />Space debris would be covered by the "componant parts" mentioned in the treaty. The USA, the UK, and Russia are parties to this treaty, China is not.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"The 2 design teams will submit their designs to NASA at the end of March 2006."</i><br /><br />For what, the CEV? Being that it's nothing but an updated Apollo tin can parachute landing capsule, I'd be just as happy if the damn thing were cancelled. Have NASA cooperate on Kliper instead...

 

[spayss]

"Maybe we could contract for the Chinese to finish launching all of the ISS components that we can't. "<br /><br /> Ya, sure.... and they'll also take over Iraq.<br />

 

[barrykirk]

Let the chinese take over Iraq? Let's see that would give the insurgents something else to shoot at. It would reduce government spending by a gazillion dollars. Assuming we now what to do with a peace dividend.<br /><br />It would give the terrists another target other than us. <br /><br />These are all advantages.<br /><br />But.... on the other hand, it would mean we would have less control over the oil supply.<br /><br />I better shut my mouth now before I get into too much trouble.

 

[dobbins]

"For what, the CEV? Being that it's nothing but an updated Apollo tin can parachute landing capsule, I'd be just as happy if the damn thing were cancelled. Have NASA cooperate on Kliper instead..."<br /><br />Yeah ! Lets waste money on Gee Whiz looks instead of using the best engineering solution which happens to be a capsule. While we are at it we can make it gold plated with gemstone decorations so it will look even cooler!<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

Don't forget the biggest problem with NASA cooperating on Kliper -- it's Russian. The Iran Non-proliferation Act was amended very slightly to let NASA buy Soyuz vessels only when absolutely neccesary for ISS. It would go far beyond the spirit of that change to fund new technology development in another country which will bring no financial returns to the US at all.<br /><br />If NASA is going to continue to fly in space, let them buy American as much as possible, please. <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>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Lets waste money on Gee Whiz looks instead of using the best engineering solution which happens to be a capsule."</i><br /><br />A capsule is not the best engineering solution, but merely the easiest and cheapest one.

 

[dobbins]

You are mistaken, a capsule is by far the best engineering solution to reentry, to launch, and to operations in space. The only time wings come in handy is the final few minutes of the mission. Meanwhile they introduce aerodynamic hazards to launch, operational hazards in space, and thermal hazards during reentry. The two most dangerous phases of any mission is reentry and launch in that order and winged vehicles make these two phases more dangerous.<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A capsule is not the best engineering solution, but merely the easiest and cheapest one.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />As an engineer, I have to point out that oftentimes the best solutions *are* the easiest and cheapest ones. After all, as it gets more difficult, that increases complexity and risk, and of course if it's too expensive you're going to run into budget problems which will probably mean cutting corners in the integration phase. <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>

 

[najab]

Well, that all comes down to how you define 'best'. I think everyone at NASA understood faster, and cheaper was pretty self explanatory. I don't think Mars Polar Lander was 'better' - except as a lithobraking demonstrator.

 

[vt_hokie]

A true lifting body design has numerous advantages over ballistic reentry capsules. <br /><br /><i>"As an engineer, I have to point out that oftentimes the best solutions *are* the easiest and cheapest ones."</i><br /><br />It depends on how you define "best", but I guess if this country doesn't have the will to take on difficult challenges anymore, then a 1960's vintage Apollo capsule is the way to go. <br /><br />I guess you probably feel that a Yugo is a better car than a BMW 7 Series!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">A capsule is not the best engineering solution, but merely the easiest and cheapest one.</font>/i><br /><br />I generally agree.<br /><br />Russia can embark on the Kliper in part because they have an existing low-cost and reliable capsule design and a reliable booster. This buys them freedom to take a little risk on the Kliper design.<br /><br />NASA does not have a low-cost and reliable human transport system, so they cannot assume a lot of project risk at this time -- just select the project that has the highest probability of succeeding in time and on budget.<br /><br /><b><i>If</i></b> the Kilper (or any other system) runs into no major unexpected problems during development, can be operationally turned around relatively quickly and inexpensively, and has a substantial amount of reuse, and can achieve all expected mission needs, then great! But there are a lot of "ifs" there, and I don't think NASA has the freedom to take a lot of project risks at this point.<br /><br />There may or may not be a better design, but I just prefer to see NASA spend its "risk capital" somewhere else.</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"NASA does not have a low-cost and reliable human transport system, so they cannot assume a lot of project risk at this time -- just select the project that has the highest probability of succeeding in time and on budget."</i><br /><br />Bring back the Dyna-Soar!

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Well, that all comes down to how you define 'best'.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Exactly my inelegantly expressed point. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Thank you.<br /><br />There's the old expression: "faster, better, cheaper -- pick two". Any two are valid choices. There can be merit in fast and cheap, because it allows you to make more of them, and it frees up money for other things. There is a tendency to think that if something is bigger, badder, and more technologically advanced, it will be better. But that's not neccesarily true. Take the F/A-22 Raptor. It's a truly magnificent vehicle, definitely a major acheivement for the aerospace industry. Stealth, supercruise, supermaneuverability.... It kicks butt, looks awesome, and can outperform everything in the usual measures. But it's hideously expensive and may not have an actual mission. Given it's tremendous dogfighting capabilities, one might question why the Air Force and Navy show no interest in training pilots to dogfight with it. It is the latest and greatest -- but is it the best for the job? That remains to be seen. In fact, it remains to be seen just what it's job will be.<br /><br />Sometimes the old stuff is the best. Look at how devastatingly effective the A-10 Warthogs have been in Iraq. They can't fly supersonic, are straight-winged and famously ugly, they're mainly painted in olive drab or camoflage, making them look woefully out of fashion, they have absolutely no night-vision capabilities (so the pilots make do by using the IR cameras on their missiles as night-vision cameras), they lack the BVR (beyond-visual-range) techno toys of a Hornet or a Raptor, there's no fly-by-wire.... But they are relatively inexpensive to operate (although parts are becoming a problem as the vehicle ages without a definitive contract to keep fabricating replacement parts), fly slow enough to provide effective ground support, can visually id <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>

 

[dobbins]

A Capsule IS a lifting body and it's not purely balistic, the Apollo's slope was originally picked to increase lift and therefore decrease g-forces.<br /><br />It just happens to be a lifting body that is optimized for a volume to mass ratio and reentry traits instead of being optimized for glide slope. These traits are far more important for a vehicle returning from deep space than for one that just operates in LEO.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Take the F/A-22 Raptor. It's a truly magnificent vehicle, definitely a major acheivement for the aerospace industry. Stealth, supercruise, supermaneuverability.... It kicks butt, looks awesome, and can outperform everything in the usual measures. But it's hideously expensive and may not have an actual mission. Given it's tremendous dogfighting capabilities, one might question why the Air Force and Navy show no interest in training pilots to dogfight with it. It is the latest and greatest -- but is it the best for the job? That remains to be seen. In fact, it remains to be seen just what it's job will be."</i><br /><br />The F/A-22 may be its own worst enemy! Its own complexity could be its downfall. It may be difficult for an enemy to shoot it down, but they've already lost one because the rate sensor units weren't functioning after an APU restart, iirc. Maybe that could happen with any modern fighter, but there sure is a lot of fragile and complex hardware and software on the Raptor!<br /><br /><i>"So I guess the point I'm utterly failing to come to is that one shouldn't dismiss a solution just because it's old, low-tech, or otherwise un-sexy. Sometimes those are the best."</i><br /><br />It's good to have an old reliable system to fall back on. A good example would be the old AEM-7 locomotives and Budd Amfleet coaches picking up the slack when the Acela Express fleet was sidelined this past summer. But still, given the choice, I'll travel aboard the Acela Express over a conventional Amfleet any day!