Should We Fly The Shuttle 2 More Years?

[rockett]

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R) Texas has proposed bill to extend the Shuttle 2 more years.
In addition that NASA focus on building a heavy lift rocket by 2013 for crew transport, then by 2018 beyond LEO.

http://www.space.com/news/space-shuttle-extension-proposed-100305.html

Does this make sense, or should we stay with the Obama plan for commercial companies?

 

[gawin]

I have to go no on this because even NASA says the shuttle is not safe to fly after 2010.

Space News from The Huntsville Times - al.com

"HUNTSVILLE - An independent NASA safety panel has sent a strong suggestion to the U.S. Congress and the space agency that the three-decade old space shuttle program should be shuttered before another accident can happen.

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, or ASAP, released its 2008 annual report Friday outlining its concerns that the shuttle cannot continue to fly safely because of its age, the fact that parts for it are limited and important shuttle employees are either looking for new jobs or retirement."

In another survey by NASA they stated that they cut the chance of a catastrophic failure down to 1 in 8 if they go beyond 2010... cant find the article thought it was on here some place.

 

[menellom]

The problem is, as always, funding. NASA looked at the idea of extending the shuttle program through 2012 last Spring and they determined it'd cost almost $5 billion for those extra two years.

That's not even including the magic 'heavy lift capability' Hutchinson wants NASA to produce. I mean... under something like DIRECT... it might be possible, but it'd require billions in new funding and even then three years is a stretch at best.

That said, this Hutchinson's remark that NASA should receive 'top level funding' for all it's missions and programs has me intrigued, so I'd at least like to see the proposal in full. Does anyone have a link to the bill's text?

 

[tanstaafl76]

This would be a horrible decision.

1) Money pit: many of the Shuttle production lines have been shut down, employees let go, etc. To restart all that just for another few years of service would be a huge waste and sure to overrun any budget.

2) Safety: you are asking for another Shuttle disaster. Apart from age-related issues, the ongoing danger of foam/ice impacts on the fragile shuttle tiles means it's only a matter of WHEN not IF another strike occurs that could compromise the integrity of the craft upon re-entry if it is not found during inspection.

3) NASA needs every penny it has to design the new way forward, pissing away billions to keep Shuttle on life support is going to compromise their capability to focus on the new direction effeciently.

4) This is obviously a political issue for Hutchinson's constituents. I understand her desire to serve their interests, but the reality is we cannot have a space program run in such a way just to keep people in jobs, which is essentially what this is about.

 

[rockett]

I have to go no on this because even NASA says the shuttle is not safe to fly after 2010.

Space News from The Huntsville Times - al.com

"HUNTSVILLE - An independent NASA safety panel has sent a strong suggestion to the U.S. Congress and the space agency that the three-decade old space shuttle program should be shuttered before another accident can happen.

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, or ASAP, released its 2008 annual report Friday outlining its concerns that the shuttle cannot continue to fly safely because of its age, the fact that parts for it are limited and important shuttle employees are either looking for new jobs or retirement."

In another survey by NASA they stated that they cut the chance of a catastrophic failure down to 1 in 8 if they go beyond 2010... cant find the article thought it was on here some place.

I remember that report.

But there were also two previous proposals to extend the number of flights:
NASA managers present two shuttle extension options to lawmakers
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/05/nasa-present-two-shuttle-extension-options-to-lawmakers/

 

[menellom]

Again... it really all comes down to funding... I Congress wants to give NASA an extra $5 billion a year to extend the shuttle, extend the ISS, start a new HLV program, and start new research... I sure won't get in their way... but more than likely this will end up another "expect NASA to do it all without a budget increase" scenario... still, we'll see.

 

[rockett]

The problem is, as always, funding. NASA looked at the idea of extending the shuttle program through 2012 last Spring and they determined it'd cost almost $5 billion for those extra two years.

That's not even including the magic 'heavy lift capability' Hutchinson wants NASA to produce. I mean... under something like DIRECT... it might be possible, but it'd require billions in new funding and even then three years is a stretch at best.

That said, this Hutchinson's remark that NASA should receive 'top level funding' for all it's missions and programs has me intrigued, so I'd at least like to see the proposal in full. Does anyone have a link to the bill's text?

Here is a link to the working draft of the bill: Human Space Flight Capability Assurance and Enhancement Act of 2010 (PDF):
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=1cacb498-64bb-4fa3-a42e-d861e87700d5

And here is another article with a little more analysis:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/lawmakers-bill-extend-shuttle-2015-hlv/

 

[menellom]

Well you know... that's not half bad now that I have a chance to look at it. It's at least worth discussing. Who knows, maybe my predictions about the negotiation process on Obama's proposal will come true and we'll end up with an even better proposal than either by time voting comes around.

 

[rockett]

Well you know... that's not half bad now that I have a chance to look at it. It's at least worth discussing. Who knows, maybe my predictions about the negotiation process on Obama's proposal will come true and we'll end up with an even better proposal than either by time voting comes around.

When you take the time to carefully read it, it really doesn't sound so off the wall after all.

In fact it looks more like an attempt of an orderly transition to change instead of a hatchet job of just cutting off one program and throwing a new one out of the nest expecting it to fly. I especially like the part where it appears they are trying to buy time for the commercial sector to come on-line and have a chance to prove itself capable. That would deal with a lot of the critics of commercial human transportation.

It might actually work.

By the way, it also says through 2015 NOT 2012 meaning 5 years not 2, so the Space.com article was in error. Anyone know how to send a message to Amy Klamper to let her know?

 

[EarthlingX]

Axe fell in 2006. As for the rest, check this article on Wiki, it reminds me of this proposal :
Planned economy

This concept has a broad experimental results, which can be easily checked, in short, i'm not so impressed by it's performance.

Flying Shuttle under 5 flights per year is a waste of money, because the majority of costs being work-force and infrastructure maintenance.

Blame Dubya, let NASA do what they can with a lowest percentage of budget in the history. Good luck Charlie, may the Force be with you !
NASA Budget

edit: grammar
edit2:URL for planned economy
edit3:more grammar :roll:

 

[rockett]

Axe felt in 2006. As for the rest, check this article on Wiki, it reminds me of this proposal :
Planned economy

This concept has a broad experimental results, which can be easily checked, in short, i'm not so impressed by it's performance.

Flying Shuttle under 5 flights per year is a waste of money, because the majority of costs being work-force and infrastructure maintenance.

Blame Dubya, let NASA do what it can with a lowest percentage of budget in the history. Good luck Charlie, may the Force be with you !
NASA Budget

It's not the best answer, true. But it's a whole lot better than axing everything and hoping for the best, which seems to be Obama's plan. If you read the bill or the summarized link of it (about two or three posts past), there is transition to a better way of doing business. Besides, the debate is certainly not over yet.

In the past we have scrapped everything and gone back to the drawing board before (Apollo- Shuttle gap, Skylab, etc), and it was always several steps back. Meanwhile, what were the Russians doing? They were moving forward, with the technology they had, evolving it into more reliable systems. And they didn't stop, and haven't. What this bill proposes is we do that also, if you read it with an open mind.

In addition, as I said before, it gives the commercial operations time to mature, and also give them a chance to prove themselves to their critics in Congress. In that sense it could be a win-win.

I didn't quite get the Planned Economy reference. The URL didn't work when clicked so I had to search a bit to what I think it was supposed to be, so I may have read the wrong thing. Please explain.

 

[rockett]

Let's take a very simple illustration to clarify the difference between the Obama plan vs the Hutchinson Bill.

Let's make it personal (it is for me because I have been in these two situations, one not by choice). I live in a rural area and commute about 20 miles to a major city everyday to work.

IF I applied the Obama plan to my car:
When it was beginning to get worn out, I would park it or ditch it, hitch rides, beg rides, or pay high taxi fees to continue to go to work. I would hope that someday I would get another car.

If I applied the Hutchinsen Bill approach to my car:
When it was beginning to get worn out, I would do a little maintenance, reduce unnecessary driving, and nurse it along until I could get another one.

Does that simplify it?

 

[menellom]

Your analogy is flawed at best and biased at worst.

 

[gawin]

IF I applied the Obama plan to my car:
When it was beginning to get worn out, I would park it or ditch it, hitch rides, beg rides, or pay high taxi fees to continue to go to work. I would hope that someday I would get another car.

If I applied the Hutchinsen Bill approach to my car:
When it was beginning to get worn out, I would do a little maintenance, reduce unnecessary driving, and nurse it along until I could get another one.

Does that simplify it?

One flaw in your analogy is that if your car as it was getting worn out had a very high chance of killing every one riding in it i would think that you would park it and take a taxi until you could afford a new car.

Another flaw in your analogy is do you pay your mechanics 365 days a year salary just to work on the car for 3-4 times. Sooner or later it becomes MORE expensive to keep an old car running then it does for the payments on a new one.

 

[SpaceTas]

If you do fly shuttle what is it's mission?
Under the current schedule the ISS is complete with spares. The remaining supplies can be flown on other craft as can be the 1 or 2 astronauts required for crew rotation. Using the shuttle just to do these would be a waste of its heavy lift capabilities.

Here some possible worthwhile payloads.
1> Centrifuge Accommodation Module: already built and delivered to NASA by Japanese. It would allow experiments with partial gravity.
2> The HAB module. The shell was built before it was canceled. Would provide crew quarters. Currently crew slee4p in various places in the station and visitors bunk down by attaching sleeping bags around station.
3> Crew Rescue (oops Return) Vehicle. Was canceled after initial drop tests. This would provide long term return capability for the whole crew. At present 2 Soyuz life boats are docked to the station and need to be replaced about every 6 months.

Various amounts of work need to done on all these, and there may no longer be ports available for more nodes.

Any other ideas?

 

[js117]

by SpaceTas

2> The HAB module. The shell was built before it was canceled. Would provide crew quarters. Currently crew slee4p in various places in the station and visitors bunk down by attaching sleeping bags around station.

This is a good idea but why not put Bigelow Aerospace TransHab and attach to ISS and give it alot more room.
Also make this were the public or turists ( space adventures ) could go.
The Russian's and USA could make money off of this and help support the ISS.

 

[EarthlingX]

I didn't quite get the Planned Economy reference. The URL didn't work when clicked so I had to search a bit to what I think it was supposed to be, so I may have read the wrong thing. Please explain.

I fixed the link in my first post, it was missing 'h' at the beginning. Full URL one more time :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy
In short, it is the economy system, in which government plans all that is done in economy. Details above.

Similar to car and soon aero industry in USA, job-factories.

 

[rockett]

Your analogy is flawed at best and biased at worst.

True. In fact it is a gross oversimplification, and bordering on inflammatory even. But it does illustrate the main difference in the two approaches to the problem. Had I wanted to be even a little closer, I would have used a large truck for my original vehicle and the new one an econonomy car

In fact, the next post after yours pointed that out. It also brought up the question of what do we do with that truck besides haul crew? While the bill mentions hauling something, a little more digging is required to find out what the potential cargo manifest might be, given the option. I personally think that list could be quite long given the items scratched from the schedule because of launch availability over the years. A few are already being mentioned. This could add still more value and capability to the ISS in the end, that we wouldn't have had otherwise (like refueling stations maybe?).

The point was to draw that contrast and spur a little debate about the merits of each of the approaches

I think a lot of us (yourself included) expected this debate in Congress anayway...

 

[rockett]

I didn't quite get the Planned Economy reference. The URL didn't work when clicked so I had to search a bit to what I think it was supposed to be, so I may have read the wrong thing. Please explain.

I fixed the link in my first post, it was missing 'h' at the beginning. Full URL one more time :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy
In short, it is the economy system, in which government plans all that is done in economy. Details above.

Similar to car and soon aero industry in USA, job-factories.

I see now what you were getting at, a very good point. But when it comes to man-rating space vehicles, it is to be expected. The FAA certifies planes for example.

As for other aspects, we can hope for the best, and vote out the worst, but this isn't about politics. I only refer to them by the originator's names because it easily identifies the two. We are simply comparing two very different approaches to a problem, that are both worthy of discussion.

 

[samkent]

Meanwhile, what were the Russians doing? They were moving forward, with the technology they had, evolving it into more reliable systems.

You mean Soyuz? Are you aware that it’s 47 years old? Sure they have made a few upgrades but it’s still a cramped sardine can.

 

[cold73]

I know this has nothing to do with getting us into space from the ground, but could the Shuttle(s) ever be outfitted/modified for permanent orbital insertion? I mean, outfitted in such a way that they could be used to "shuttle" persons/cargo from LEO to Lunar orbit and back, with no re-entry involved. Just launch it one last time, dock with ISS, send up some kind of modified tank for fuel that it could dock with for lunar trips. I know it's not designed for extended stays in space, but could it be modified for such?

 

[rockett]

I know this has nothing to do with getting us into space from the ground, but could the Shuttle(s) ever be outfitted/modified for permanent orbital insertion? I mean, outfitted in such a way that they could be used to "shuttle" persons/cargo from LEO to Lunar orbit and back, with no re-entry involved. Just launch it one last time, dock with ISS, send up some kind of modified tank for fuel that it could dock with for lunar trips. I know it's not designed for extended stays in space, but could it be modified for such?

That question has come up repeatedly in the past. Unfortunately it's not possible.
You can see some of the responses on this thread:
http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=23137

Even though, I have wondered about just loading the cargo bays with fuel and sending them up one last time as inert tankers for refueling future craft in space. Then power and such wouldn't be needed much except to access the stored fuel...

 

[rockett]

Meanwhile, what were the Russians doing? They were moving forward, with the technology they had, evolving it into more reliable systems.

You mean Soyuz? Are you aware that it’s 47 years old? Sure they have made a few upgrades but it’s still a cramped sardine can.

Yep, and it's actually 44 years old, 43 if you count manned launch only: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(spacecraft)

But it works and it's so reliable it's still in use (remember, we have been planning on relying on that 44 year old spacecraft for the next few years, while we figure out what we are going to do!).

Shame we didn't keep any Apollos in cold storage, then we wouldn't need Soyuz.

 

[bushwhacker]

shuttle extension?

Well I dont know where this should go, so please move it if needed.

I just watched a video on my local news website. Stating congress is considering keeping the Shuttle flying for 5 more years. Has anyone seen anything about this?

While i realise the problems in doing this, i just cant stand the thought of the US relying on anyone else to get our people into space.

bushwhacker

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: shuttle extension?

As usual, this belongs with the half dozen other threads in SB&T