NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Developing a new concept like a lifting body is dead certain to run into cost over runs and increase the profits of the company that is making it."</i><br /><br />Gee, then I guess we'd better not ever pursue a new concept again, and make sure that humankind does not advance beyond where we are right now. Taking risks is just too...risky!

 

[dobbins]

How much money has NASA already squandered on these stupid space planes?<br /><br />Every one of them ran into massive cost over runs. Enough is enough, we need something that works, not some sci-fi fan's idea of what a spaceship ought to look like.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

What cutting edge aerospace program doesn't run into cost overruns? Maybe for once we should suck it up and see a program through to completion, rather than giving up and starting over at ground zero at the first hint of technical or budget problems. <br /><br />Lifting body spacecraft are not sci-fi, and they have numerous advantages over the capsule that NASA wants simply because it's easy and relatively cheap. In the long run, NASA's "CEV" hardware will do nothing to increase flight rates over what is possible with the shuttle, nor will it significantly reduce launch costs. As long as NASA insists on this approach, access to space will be limited to a handful of NASA astronauts each year at a cost of many billions of dollars.

 

[dobbins]

We did suck it up once, we did develop a super duper space plane. It grounded NASA's maned program for 6 Years, or longer if you don't count that stupid Apollo Soyuz political space stunt. We got a deeply flawed vehicle that costs more to operate than using expendables.<br /><br />We need something that works and need it ASAP, not another paper plane that might or might not work out.<br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">What cutting edge aerospace program doesn't run into cost overruns?<br /><br /><font color="white">Why does the new program have to be cutting edge? The research has already been done to the extent that these new systems will use mostly existing technology all be it in a new way. Thats the difference between the pipe dreams of previouse and the real chance there is now of actualy builting a working vehicle.</font></font>

 

[vt_hokie]

Well, while NASA gives up on advanced, cutting edge technology, watch the rest of the world pass us by as we play with our 1960's inspired "Apollo II" using 1970's shuttle hardware.

 

[dobbins]

Watch us wind up with no space program because of sci-fi buffs chasing space planes that never work.<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Gee, then I guess we'd better not ever pursue a new concept again</font>/i><br /><br />However, you should not put new, unproven technology in the critical path of a large project. NASA (or any organization) should pursue advances, place them in small X projects, increase their maturity level, and then place them into a critical path.<br /><br />On the flip side, NASA (or any organization) should not pursue plans that preclude the integration of new capability later on. This also includes avoiding major projects that consume all the resources and thus precludes paying for research, discovery, and development of new technologies. That is, don't eat your children.</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Watch us wind up with no space program because of sci-fi buffs chasing space planes that never work."</i><br /><br />The space shuttle has worked, what, 112 out of 114 times? And it's a system that represents 1970's technology, and not even the best of 1970's technology. Had it been funded fully, NASA wouldn't have settled on so many compromises in its design. A little foresight and additional investment up front could have saved billions in operational costs down the road. The same will be true of the "CEV", which is a compromise from the very beginning, using outdated shuttle hardware and driven by politics and a desire to protect jobs more than by technical superiority.<br /><br />How many people has the Soyuz killed? I don't see you using that as evidence that capsules don't work!

 

[dobbins]

Let's see,<br /><br />The STS was susposed to lower launch costs. It didn't. It was susposed to fly 10 times a year. It can't. It was susposed to be safer, it isn't.<br /><br />That is a failed design. We don't need to waste any more time on failed design version 2.0. We need something that works.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"That is a failed design. We don't need to waste any more time on failed design version 2.0. We need something that works."</i><br /><br />And I predict that if NASA pursues the "CEV" as it's currently envisioned, it will also fail to significantly reduce launch costs or increase flight rates. And I have a feeling that other nations and perhaps even private enterprise will develop LEO transport systems that will quickly render this multi-billion dollar Apollo inspired relic obsolete.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It was susposed to fly 10 times a year.</font>/i><br /><br />The last estimate NASA used to show the cost savings of the shuttle over existing expendables was that it would fly about once every four <b><i>days</i></b>!</i>

 

[dobbins]

It isn't designed to have a high launch rate. It's designed to do something that your winged wonders can't do, actually explore space.<br /><br />You remember space? The place all those winged paper planes couldn't get to, the point of the program.<br />

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">And I predict that if NASA pursues the "CEV" as it's currently envisioned, it will also fail to significantly reduce launch costs or increase flight rates.<br /><br /><font color="white">Quite probably. At its height the STS 6-8ish flights a year, I think the new system will have simmilar numbers however 2-4+ will go to the ISS while 2 more will go to the Moon. Thats a big difference.</font></font>

 

[dobbins]

10 times a year is based on the projected lifetime of the system, 100 flights over 10 years.<br /><br />None of them will come close to that 100 flights, unless we keep flying them for about another 30 years. Assuming that they don't all crash before reaching the 100 flight level.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"It isn't designed to have a high launch rate. It's designed to do something that your winged wonders can't do, actually explore space."</i><br /><br />It's designed to go to the moon, with the benefit of a separately launched departure stage and other separately developed expensive hardware launched on the far off "Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle". What that amounts to, really, is a higher Earth orbit. Heck, even walking around on the moon, you're still just sitting on a desolate rock that's orbiting Earth. So, really, we're still going around in circles even with your beloved "CEV", and forget about Mars. It will take a lot more than the currently planned hardware before we can even think about tackling that challenge!

 

[nacnud]

Yep but at least there will then be boosters capable of launching the payloads needed for Mars.

 

[wvbraun]

"And I have a feeling that other nations and perhaps even private enterprise will develop LEO transport systems that will quickly render this multi-billion dollar Apollo inspired relic obsolete."<br /><br />What is your problem then??? Private companies will give us CATS, I agree. So why exactly do we need NASA to waste billions on the development of your unworkable spaceplane designs? To drive these very companies out of existence? You don't make *any* sense here.

 

[dobbins]

That "rock" consists of a bunch of raw materials that was "pre-launched" at no cost.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

NASA should collaborate with one of them, or design an advanced vehicle of its own, rather than pouring billions into an obsolete system.

 

[gsuschrist]

"What cutting edge aerospace program doesn't run into cost overruns? Maybe for once we should suck it up and see a program through to completion, rather than giving up and starting over at ground zero at the first hint of technical or budget problems."<br /><br /> Hey, buddy. I sure care. Those are MY taxes. NASA's manned space budgeting has the credibility of Paris Hilton in a convent.<br /><br /> I demand results . They work for me and I want to know the costs up front and not some fuzzy math. NASA is shooting itself in the foot if it believes it can keep fudging the math and get the funding to do anything meaningful.<br /><br /> As for 10 flghts a year. Excuse me but I recall it was going to be 50 a year. Our expectations are so low that we cheer when there's any mission. It's like praising your kid for getting a D minus because he got an F on the last report card (forgetting that his teacher says he's capable of straight A's). We expect and receive mediocrity from NASA. <br />

 

[wvbraun]

"I demand results . They work for me and I want to know the costs up front and not some fuzzy math. NASA is shooting itself in the foot if it believes it can keep fudging the math and get the funding to do anything meaningful."<br /><br />Care to elaborate? Where exactly is NASA "fudging the math" with regard to ESAS?

 

[barrykirk]

Why is everybody assuming that a capsule is inherently not as re-usable as a lifting body or winged vehicle.<br /><br />Correct me if I'm wrong, but a capsule in and of itself is inherently re-usable.... Sure it doesn't include the tanks and the engines.<br /><br />But the shuttle doesn't re-use the tanks either.<br /><br />So as I see it... Is there any way to get a capsule to return the engines?<br /><br />How about a stretched capsule?<br /><br />On a typical launch vehicle, the capsule is at the top the fuel tanks are in the middle and the engines are at the bottom.<br /><br />What if we tied the upper stage engine to a stretched capsule with a cable and a reel? Jetison the tanks to the sides and reel in the engine to a protected spot. Then the capsule could return the engine too.

 

[wvbraun]

"NASA should collaborate with one of them, or design an advanced vehicle of its own"<br /><br />Guess what: NASA tried that already (X-33, SLI). It didn't work and it never will. <br />If NASA independently tried to develop a new RLV it would ruin the private companies who want to lower the cost of access to space because investors would be scared away. It has happened before (Beal Aerospace vs. SLI). And if NASA collaborates with the private sector the program will be as inefficient and expensive as if they (NASA) did it alone or even more so.

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"That "rock" consists of a bunch of raw materials that was "pre-launched" at no cost. "<br /><br />Yes, but to use them to make anything remotely more useful than oxidiser, you've got to launch a few hundred thousand tons of heavy machinery. Using the current single use SDHLV, EDS, and lander, you're looking at about $60M/ton to move it there.