NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

vt_hokie · Oct 21, 2005

"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." Sure, but then you have some people here arguing against reusability. I think reusable vehicles are the future, but my problem with capsules is their limited crossrange capability, high g-loads, and primitive parachute landing. My problem with CEV in particular is that it will eat up a huge chunk of NASA's budget for years or even decades to come, thus killing any chances for major advances in propulsion, materials, etc. We won't ever have anything like NASP as long as our leadership says, "That's too difficult, let's pour billions into this instead." But if we are content to limit spaceflight to a few select individuals each year at a cost of billions of dollars, then I guess the CEV approach works! I just hoped for something more at this stage of our development.

vt_hokie · Oct 21, 2005

"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." Heck, I'd rather see $5 billion spent on a functional X-33 than $1.2 billion spent on a program that produces nothing. Or, take X-38. It could have led to a functional "CRV" by now for a reasonable amount of money, but instead, we abandoned it so all the money spent on the program was in vain. Basically, I'd rather spend a lot of money and get something in return instead of spending slightly less and getting nothing in return! NASA has a long history of not following through on programs. Relative to what we're wasting on the bloodbath in Iraq, it's all chump change anyway! And who knows how many billions get poured into "black" programs with no oversight or accountability. For all we know, the United States has a functional scramjet working on some classified aircraft right now!

barrykirk · Oct 21, 2005

When I was in collage 20+ years ago. I had a conversation with the collage president, George Low, who was an ex NASA guy. I asked him how long was it going to take for us to get back to the moon, it's taking way to long already. This was around 1982 or 1983 that we had that conversation. He told me that we couldn't get back to the moon for at least 25 years. I was shocked!!! But we've already been there? He just laughed. Now I understand why. I too hoped for something more by this point. I wanted a fully operational moon base by 2005, but it just didn't happen. Now as for the problems with capsules. 1) Limited crossrange capability. Who cares? That's needed for a mission which wouldn't be needed by the scientific/commerical community. That was only a concern when your doing a snatch and grab of an enemy satellite. 2) High G-Loads. Why does that have to be the case? From what I understand, capsules do have some limited lift, they may have enough to control the G loading to a certain extent. If not, I'm sure the shape can be slightly modified to 90% capsule, 10% lifting body or some such comprimise that would purchase the required lift. 3) Primitive parachute landing. Parachutes are light, cheap, and you can carry more than one. It's called reduncancy. Also, I believe it is easier to protect them from hazards that could damage them. And no, I don't think anybody is going to build another shuttle where the TPS can be rained on by foam from an ET tank.

frodo1008 · Oct 21, 2005

I know. All the time you hear about the wasted money being spent (I say invested) on space. But we in the US spend far, far more on our various vises and triviolities than on any kind of reasonable future investment. It is really sad to me at least! I wonder just how much our health care costs would decline without such vices as cigarrettes and alcohol use? I would say at least 10X at a minimum. Yet even on these boards, where you would think that others would actually be supportive, I sometimes see the typical "Well, I don't want to see my hard earned tax dollar go to waste.", such hypocracy astounds me!!!!

vt_hokie · Oct 21, 2005

"And no, I don't think anybody is going to build another shuttle where the TPS can be rained on by foam from an ET tank." Let's hope not! But I do think that lifting body "space planes" represent the future of travel to/from low Earth orbit.

mattblack · Oct 21, 2005

I wanted the X-38, too. Simple and brilliant. Imagine my dissapointment but lack of surprise when it was cancelled. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

mattblack · Oct 21, 2005

Also, the Moon isn't just a rock: It's a world in it's own right with a unique geology, history and potential. I'd like to remind people that every other world in the solar system that can be landed on is a "ball of ice or rock" and is not like the Earth. This is not Star Trek we're dealing with here: these worlds are the choices we have in this solar system. Anyone who keeps comparing the other planets to the Earth and finds them wanting in comparison to it, are missing the point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

barrykirk · Oct 21, 2005

Just one class M planet? oh well...

frodo1008 · Oct 21, 2005

The powers that be can come up with all of the legal charter stuff they want. This is not of even the slightest interest to the real rulers of NASA, Joe averaver taxpayer! If he isn't interested NASA isn't going to get the funding to do it! It is that simple! Now, what over the years has interested and exited this funds paying taxpayer? Satellites that find out more about gamma rays? Not on your life!, the average taxpayer doesn't even have the slightest idea what gamma rays are ("Uh, could we use them to get rid of terrorists!"), is more like the knowledge of such topics of the gerneral public! No, what the general taxpayer likes to see is astronauts exploring the solar system! So far the only such places have been LEO and the moon! This is reflected in the general funding for NASA, NOT its charter! After all, the Apollo project itself quite probably spent far more than ALL of the scientific projects put together have! Now, please don't get me wrong here, I myself do indeed support a VERY active science program at NASA. And there has been general public interest in such projects as the Hubble, and the Mars explorers (notice that I did say "Explorers" not "Science Investigators", which would actully be the more accurate term, but it isn't science that gets the funding! It is explorers, either robotic (controlled indeed by human scientific types, but still explorers) or even more interesting to the funds paying general public, human explorers! So despite what some uninformed ivory tower science types say, it IS the exploration side of NASA that pays the bills, including the science side bills! They may not like it , but THAT is truth, and I think that Mike Griffin is well aware of it!!!!

dobbins · Oct 21, 2005

The kind of science the average person wants NASA to do is invent stuff like Teflon and Velcro. Yes I'm aware that NASA didn't invent either one, but most people think they did. They don't care about Micro-gravity, they don't care if Jupiter has some little Moonlet that nobody saw before, they don't care what the clouds of Neptune are made of. They don't know what a lifting body is, let alone care if one is used for a space ship. They have as much interest in the Shuttle hauling parts to the ISS as they have in some truck driver hauling a load of ree bar to Podunk. They want Buck Rogers and if NASA doesn't deliver it won't get their bucks. The Ivory tower science types think they can use all that money spent on maned flight for neat probes if they can just get rid of the astronauts. Forget it, without the maned flight there won't be a NASA to finance any probes at all. Forget probes, forget the ISS, forget anything but satcoms, weather satellites, and the Air Force's spy birds. That is all there will be without Buck Rogers bringing in the Bucks.

vt_hokie · Oct 21, 2005

Well then, as I said earlier, maybe the problem is that too many Americans are stupid, or at least uneducated! Looking at the state of this country, I doubt whether the United States will remain a leader in the 21st century.

dobbins · Oct 21, 2005

If you think posting that Americans are "stupid" on a forum that is open to the public is going to make them want to finance your kind of space program then you are the one that is doing something stupid. They happen to have different priorties than you do. Try dropping the elitist attitude and you will stand a better chance of convincing them that space science should have a higher priorty.

vt_hokie · Oct 21, 2005

My comment about America's future leadership, or lack thereof, isn't really targeted toward the type of person who would be reading this message board, but rather the kid out there who's selling cocaine or meth to make a living, or robbing convenience stores, or taking part in a gang war. I mean, that's the bottom of the barrel, obviously, and there's a lot of in-between, but there's too much of the worst these days, and not enough of the best that humanity has to offer.

lampblack · Oct 21, 2005

"I mentioned in another post that it would be forward-looking for NASA to fast-track CEV for flight in 18-24 months instead of 5-7 years. Just Do It. As it stands right now, we don't have a manned spaceflight capability. Copy Gemini's timetable and get the US out of this spaceflight gutter." They COULD do this. There is only one reason they don't: $$$$$$$$$$$. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

dobbins · Oct 21, 2005

McDonnell already had a team in place to build spacecraft, the people who had built Mercury. Neither Lockheed nor Boeing has that advantage so there is no way it could be done in the kind of time Gemini was done in. Even the Gemini program wasn't done as fast as you think, it was in fact 18 months late, not developed in 18 months. The program was announced on December 7th 1961, and there was work done before that, planing for a Mercury Mark II. It' first maned flight was on March 23, 1965 over 3 years after the anouncement date.

radarredux · Oct 22, 2005

> I wonder just how much our health care costs would decline without such vices as cigarrettes and alcohol use? I would say at least 10X at a minimum./i> Yes, but then we would break Social Security even faster! We need all those people to smoke, die early, and not collect Social Security in order to keep it solvent.

radarredux · Oct 22, 2005

> They COULD do this. There is only one reason they don't: $$$$$$$$$$$./i> Don't forget about the Mythical Man-Month: it takes 1 woman 9 months to make a baby; you can't use 9 women to make a baby in 1 month. Often more money can help accelerate a program, but it doesn't always work the way one would expect. However... just a conspiracy theory here... but there has been a lot of criticism in Congress about gap between the shuttle retirement and US having independent access to ISS that just took $10s of billions to build. Maybe the discussion to reduce Shuttle operations to just one shift (and 8 launches) is (in addition to the OMB's question) to free up more money to accelerate the CEV/CLV so there isn't any gap. If NASA went to Congress and the White House and gave them two options:<ul type="square"><li>18 flights to ISS and 2 year gap during which US would have to pay Russia for rides to ISS<li>8 flights to ISS for a smaller ISS but no gap </li></li></ul>Do you think Congress and/or the White House would prefer one over the other?

vt_hokie · Oct 22, 2005

I don't see what the big deal is about a 2 year gap. Heck, the post Challenger and Columbia disaster shutdowns have been longer than that!

frodo1008 · Oct 22, 2005

I am sorry, but I thought that McDonnell eventually teamed up with Douglas, and this entire company was then bought out by Boeing. Perhaps I am wrong, but if this IS the case then Boeing does have the capability. And as their design was the capsule design, and they are the largest aerospace company in the world, then perhaps they just might have the capability to move out quickly on this project. I really don't know enough about Lockheed to say the same, but I am sure that they are also competent. Also, from what I have seen recently it looks like LM and Boeing are possibly going to increase their partnership in the Space Alliance effort to include ALL of their respective space efforts which should give a company that should at least have great experience and capabilities!! My own old stomping grounds of Rocketdyne was recently bought from Boeing by United Technologies which includes Pratt and Whitney. This is somewhat ironic, as P&W were in the past great rivals to Rocketdyne! However, I think it will work out well as P&W would not have spent that cash just for nothing, and now they are quite probably the biggest and most experienced Liguid Rocket Engine manufacturer in at least the US, if not the world! So, just perhaps we will indeed end up with enough concentrated experience and capability to just pull this effort off!! I am hopeful at any rate!!!

najab · Oct 22, 2005

>Perhaps I am wrong, but if this IS the case then Boeing does have the capability.They might have *had* the capability 20+ years ago, but nobody in the US has built a new manned space vehicle since 1989 - and that wasn't even a new design. The last new design of US spacecraft first flew in 1981.

cuddlyrocket · Oct 22, 2005

"....and primitive parachute landing." Hmm, vt, are you one of those people who are 'wedded to the tyranny of the new'? Parachutes are not a primitive technology. Granted, they've been around a while, but then so has the wheel. The reason they are still around is that they do the job they are designed for and no better alternative has been developed. Also, they are simple, but simple is good. As a space enthusiast you must be aware of the story of the space pen and the pencil. Shiny, new, technologically advanced, is not always the best strategy. A lesson painfully learnt by the Germans on the Eastern Front in WWII. Their tanks were generally superior to the Russian ones. Well designed, well made. Russian ones were simpler, cruder, thrown together in a hurry. The only thing in their favour was that there was more of them. A lot more. Their simpler, cruder design made them easier to manufacture and to keep running once they were made (which was what was required at the time). A lot of space enthusiasts are technology fans. Ooh, look at the shiny rockets! You see the same with people interested in commercial aviation - look at the shiny new aeroplanes! Yet, most people who have a practical involvement in commercial aviation are interested in how much does it cost, how safe is it, how comfortable is it? (I think maybe I'm in a minority, being interested in what the astronauts are doing, rather than the bits of metal and plastic that they use to do it.) Also, this desire for NASA to build a space plane, is the same error made with the Shuttle and the ISS. It's confusing capability with aims. Anyone who hasn't read Zubrin's critique of Shuttle-mode versus Apollo-mode should do so. It may not convince everyone, but it convinced me and, somewhat more importantly, it convinced the Administration and Congress. (I suspect that Zubrin was talking to the already-converted, but I doubt anyone else can put it more articulately.)

dobbins · Oct 22, 2005

NASA should be developing new technology, but in the same manner it did when it was still the NACA. The NACA did things like develop the NACA air foils and the studies that showed the best placement for nacelles on multi-engined aircraft. It developed the X-1 and X-15 (It was still the NACA when the proposal was developed) not as operational systems, but as test beds to do research that was made available to aerospace companies. NASA should be doing this in astronautics as well as continuing to do it for aeronautics. That means things like research on new rocket engines and flying X plane spaceships to gather data that others can put to use. The NACA concentrated on research on applied science, and that research made aircraft better, faster, and cheaper to produce. This is the kind of research NASA needs to concentrate on for astronautics, and they need to do more of it. Space travel has a big what comes first, the chicken or the egg problem. Launch costs are expensive because companies don't want to invest in R&D to develop better rockets without customers, and potential customers don't want to invest in space because of high launch costs. This situation could have developed in aircraft, but the NACA helped prevent it from happening by doing the basic R&D and making it available to all. This is what NASA needs to be doing for astronautics. NASA needs to be able to make a claim like BASF does in it's TV ads, to tell people "We don't make the rockets, we make them better". It doesn't need to bet the maned program on a new super duper space plane, it needs to use proven technology for exploration and also do the R&D that will allow Lockheed, Boeing, Scaled Composites, and anyone else who wants to enter the market to build those super duper space planes.

dobbins · Oct 22, 2005

An "Apollo relic" that works is better than a paper space plane that never flies or another Space Edsel like the Shuttle.

n_kitson · Oct 22, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />So, exploration by man is directly implicit in NASA charter. So the problem isn't there<hr /></blockquote> It says "The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space" It definitely doesn't say "The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space for the purpose of exploration". This section applies to the purpose of the Act, not to NASA specifically (the purpose of which is covered in sec 203). It's pretty clear that the Act (i) makes for the provision of the development and operation of manned craft (ii) does not provide for using those craft for missions to plant flags (iii) does provide for using those craft for furthering our scientific understanding of the atmosphere and of space.

n_kitson · Oct 22, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />They want Buck Rogers and if NASA doesn't deliver it won't get their bucks. The Ivory tower science types think they can use all that money spent on maned flight for neat probes if they can just get rid of the astronauts. Forget it, without the maned flight there won't be a NASA to finance any probes at all. Forget probes, forget the ISS, forget anything but satcoms, weather satellites, and the Air Force's spy birds. That is all there will be without Buck Rogers bringing in the Bucks.<hr /></blockquote> If you're going to build you space program on popularity of the stunts, then you will very quickly end up with no program at all. Let's take a little look at the flagship project, Apollo. Great achievement. Everyone with a television set was tuned in to watch the landing. Now, in 2005, what percent of the public remembers the name of the second man on the moon? What percent remember the names of the Apollo 12 crew? What percent believe that Tom Hanks was a member of Apollo 13? Apollo died because we went to the moon and discovered that unless we were prepared to spend hundreds of billions, we'd get no useable science. The public interest died after Apollo 11. Neil Armstrong had done it. No one cared about no 2. The same is true for every project since. The MER program is an incredible from both a scientific and PR point of view. The public interest in MER was unprecendented, since Apollo. However, after a month or so on the surface of the planet, the public lost interest. Minimal news coverage, no more website checking. All programs built on public interest fail. We'll go the moon in 2020, or whenever. The entire nation will be cheering when the flag is again planted. But what happens 20 days after that? Or when mission 3 lands? There will be no more interest. We'll have done it, so why spend more money. That is the space program you are go

NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

vt_hokie

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

mattblack

Guest

mattblack

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

dobbins

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

dobbins

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

lampblack

Guest

dobbins

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

najab

Guest

cuddlyrocket

Guest

dobbins

Guest

dobbins

Guest

n_kitson

Guest

n_kitson

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page