Should We Fly The Shuttle 2 More Years?

[bdewoody]

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.

Least we forget the soyez does not have a spotless record and a few Cosmonauts have died in it. Face it space flight is dangerous no matter what vehicle you are riding in.

 

[StarRider1701]

However, using a Shuttle to launch a fuel depot into orbit is not a bad idea! Maybe we could use it to fuel a lunar tug or EVA servicing missions...

While we're at it we could supply those propellant depots with some oxidizer as well so the tugs can burn the fuel

OK, OK, Swampcat :roll:

I mean "fuel" in the generic sense. Could be conventional LOX and Hydrogen, Hydrogen for VASIMR, or a variety of gasses for ion engines. Then again, maybe some for each...

And is there a point to being so idiotically anal over a simple word, Swampcat?

Thanks rockett, I was not aware of the re-entry problems that might be involed with using a shuttle for a lunar mission. I'm guessing there's no easy way to give the shuttle's heat shield tiles some extra protection?

 

[rockett]

Least we forget the soyez does not have a spotless record and a few Cosmonauts have died in it. Face it space flight is dangerous no matter what vehicle you are riding in.

True, about 5% according to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_accidents_and_incidents

However, Soyuz only accounts for 4 of them (that we know of) out of 22. I might also point out that the last known Soyuz fatality was in 1971. Just another reason for incremental development as opposed to the next big thing...

 

[rockett]

I'm guessing there's no easy way to give the shuttle's heat shield tiles some extra protection?

Not sure. It might be possible, but if you did, that would mean still more mass to heave into lunar orbit, in addition to those fixtures for atmospheric flight.

Best lunar mission I can personally think of is from LEO to the moon. Best design I can think of is one of those old bare bones spacecraft like Von Braun originally proposed. Here's a pick of him holding a model: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonander.htm

You will note that it's stripped down to bare bones, not pretty except to an engineer. Not a whole lot more than a crew capsule, fuel tanks, and engines. Now that we have a space station to launch from and return to, all we need is the fuel (in whatever combination you like Swampcat ) and the pieces. Shuttle wouldn't have any trouble lofting those.

Going that route, instead of Apollo on steroids, ahm, excuse me, "Constellation" :lol: , we could be back on the moon faster than anybody else...

 

[StarRider1701]

I'm guessing there's no easy way to give the shuttle's heat shield tiles some extra protection?

Not sure. It might be possible, but if you did, that would mean still more mass to heave into lunar orbit, in addition to those fixtures for atmospheric flight.

Best lunar mission I can personally think of is from LEO to the moon. Best design I can think of is one of those old bare bones spacecraft like Von Braun originally proposed. Here's a pick of him holding a model:

Yes, but we don't have one of those right now - how long would it take to build at what cost? I'm talking about figuring out a way to use what we have - the shuttle. I know that wings and the tail are of no use in a lunar mission, but there is no easy way to remove those and they are needed for the return home.
Not sure if my original question was answered - If we could put a full main fuel tank in orbit then link it up with a shuttle, could it get to lunar orbit with a payload and return? Several years ago someone here told me no, the shuttles engines were not strong enough. Is that true?

 

[rockett]

Yes, but we don't have one of those right now - how long would it take to build at what cost? I'm talking about figuring out a way to use what we have - the shuttle. I know that wings and the tail are of no use in a lunar mission, but there is no easy way to remove those and they are needed for the return home.
Not sure if my original question was answered - If we could put a full main fuel tank in orbit then link it up with a shuttle, could it get to lunar orbit with a payload and return? Several years ago someone here told me no, the shuttles engines were not strong enough. Is that true?

Still true I'm afraid. Even though they have reduced the weight of the tank considerably over the years (currently using the Super Lightweight Tank). Here's the math:
Shuttle Maximum Payload: 55,250 lb
Shuttle External Tank Empty: 58,500 lb
Shuttle External Tank Gross Liftoff Weight (meaning fully fueled): 1,680,000 lb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_external_tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle

What that means is that we would need to be able to lift 1,624,750 lb more than the Shuttle payload capacity (to put it in perspective that's 29.4 times the Shuttle payload capacity).

Can't launch a full one, but there is the capability for keeping an empty one in orbit and reusing it maybe, but we never made use of that.

As for a barebones space craft Buzz Aldrin has a proposal called the "XM" that would make use of the Space Hab that was never launched http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/spaceships-worthy-of-the_b_473452.html

He made the recommendation to the Augustine Commission and apparently it was ignored.

 

[sftommy]

Always seemed 2010/2011 date was an arbitrary choice for terminating shuttle program. Good thing to keep shuttle going if you add new money and not take away from the rest of NASAs budget. Lots of opportunity for their unique capabilities that we haven't even thought of yet.

Hutchinson's bill applies a sort of practicality to curtailing it into the Obama/Bolden vision. One concern would be delays in updating launch facilities and would probably increase cost of doing so.

It all makes one wonder if Obama/Bolden dropped Constellation to see if Congress would cough up more money to keep the Human Spce Flight initiative alive? Although Bolden statement at NASA site today seems pretty adament about the plan (if not a little annoyed about being asked to produce a "plan B"

Still NASA needs another $2B a year or so to pull all this off, maybe if we get lots and lots of school kids to write letters?

 

[sftommy]

ISS Habitation module was never fitted out and now is in Huntsville Alabama being used for life support testing and development since 2006. Three years use makes ot unilkely it could be made space worthy short of a total rebuild.

 

[rockett]

It all makes one wonder if Obama/Bolden dropped Constellation to see if Congress would cough up more money to keep the Human Spce Flight initiative alive?

Not likely, I think this whole thing came out of the White House and was quite deliberate.

Although Bolden statement at NASA site today seems pretty adament about the plan (if not a little annoyed about being asked to produce a "plan B"

Yes, he was VERY annoyed on the videos of his testimony (see earlier posts), and didn't like being in the frying pan. That's why he floated the "someday Mars" proposition, to take some heat off. Charlie Bolden is a former astronaut and NOT a stupid man by any means. From his reactions to questioning, I think he deep down thinks that the White House proposition is a bad idea, and doesn't like it at all, but he is bound to support his boss. Otherwise, he would have been better prepared to defend the White House position on human spaceflight. Pretty obvious he wasn't.

 

[rockett]

ISS Habitation module was never fitted out and now is in Huntsville Alabama being used for life support testing and development since 2006. Three years use makes ot unilkely it could be made space worthy short of a total rebuild.

Regardless of whether it is or not, Buzz Aldrin's idea of a true spacecraft (XM) that is purpose built for an airless environment is a better idea than lofting great huge masses into orbit each and every time to accomplish what it could do. Use a Bigelow inflatable instead if Space Hab's not usable.

See the Bigelow Current Updates Thread http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=11776 for more info, and some really cool vids.

For what we have already spent on Constellation, we could have built several XM's, and orbited the Hydrogen and LOX for them, been on the moon in probably 5 to 10 years tops.

As an alternative thought, just build the Altair lunar lander in a modular fashion that could be assembled in orbit, fuel it, and off you go...

 

[rcsplinters]

I personally do not think that it is wise to continue flying the shuttle at this point. That said, I think the issue is related more to fiscal responsibility than safety. The vehicle/launch system is probably statistically safer at this point that at any time in its history. Sitting on top (or to the side) of tons of high explosives that you intend to drive to a couple dozen times the speed of sound will never be "safe". Unpopular as it may be, its a question of acceptable losses.

If we had a well defined set of missions and the funding were made adequately and independantly available, then perhaps the shuttle would be worth two more years. I'm afraid it would come at the expense of the next US manned spaceflight option. That is not tolerable.

The one thing that congress and the administration seem to forget is that there is exactly one plan of record forward from this point. That is Constellation and specifically Ares/Orion. No other plan has passed safety and technical reviews to this point. I would prefer that Congress expedite the plan that everyone has agreed will work rather than legislate what should be an engineering decision. I'm afraid that the administration, in its zeal to add manned space flight to its legacy, has invited such legislative meddling. Ironically, the administration's legacy will likely include some historical footnotes about manned space flight. I'm not sure they will be the ones intended however.

I wouldn't be greatly surprised that we find NASA completely hamstrung with a continuing legal mandate for Constellation, have to throw the shuttle in the air a few more times and all with less funding due this latest debacle on the part of the administration. Now THATS not safe.

 

[rockett]

I personally do not think that it is wise to continue flying the shuttle at this point. That said, I think the issue is related more to fiscal responsibility than safety. The vehicle/launch system is probably statistically safer at this point that at any time in its history. Sitting on top (or to the side) of tons of high explosives that you intend to drive to a couple dozen times the speed of sound will never be "safe". Unpopular as it may be, its a question of acceptable losses.

Considering that there was an earlier post in this thread that pointed out the Shuttles were certified for flight through 2020, and there are B-52s right overhead that in some configurations carry nuke cruise missles that are expected to fly through 2040, it may not be a problem (think about that, 88 years old by then).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress

If we had a well defined set of missions and the funding were made adequately and independantly available, then perhaps the shuttle would be worth two more years. I'm afraid it would come at the expense of the next US manned spaceflight option. That is not tolerable.

Also earlier in this thread there are about a half dozen missions mentioned. As for "at the expense of the next US manned spaceflight option" there isn't one, other than commercial according to Obama.

The one thing that congress and the administration seem to forget is that there is exactly one plan of record forward from this point. That is Constellation and specifically Ares/Orion. No other plan has passed safety and technical reviews to this point.

Only from a design standpoint. As NASA has found out so far in Constellation, design and execution are two different things, hence the delays and cost overruns. As for "of record" that's only good as long as the Administration and Congress leave it alone, they vote a new "record" at their whim.

I would prefer that Congress expedite the plan that everyone has agreed will work rather than legislate what should be an engineering decision.

I'm afraid they have for years, look at the evolution of the Shuttle.

I do agree with you that they are meddling, but that has always been the reality since Apollo landed on the moon. What we are discussing is how to make the best of one possible outcome of the situation, and salvage what we can. There are many that think Constellation was ill concieved from the start. For that debate see this thread.
SAVE CONSTELLATION
http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=22561

 

[Valcan]

Look if we can do more shuttle launches safely go for it. If we can do it without rebuilding each one everytime do it. All im saying is that the Nasa people have said as they are the shuttles can only be reused 2 more times then they are death traps.

Think about that. They arent normaly aparently....even though they are huge bombs.

If we can afford it ok. But i just dont want more people dying for no reason.

 

[StarRider1701]

the Super Lightweight Tank). Here's the math:
Shuttle Maximum Payload: 55,250 lb
Shuttle External Tank Empty: 58,500 lb
Shuttle External Tank Gross Liftoff Weight (meaning fully fueled): 1,680,000 lb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_external_tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle

What that means is that we would need to be able to lift 1,624,750 lb more than the Shuttle payload capacity (to put it in perspective that's 29.4 times the Shuttle payload capacity).

Can't launch a full one, but there is the capability for keeping an empty one in orbit and reusing it maybe, but we never made use of that.

So why can't we launch a full one? We launch a full one every time we launch the shuttle. Granted, it is empty by the time it gets to orbit. But, for starters we are NOT launching a shuttle with it. Just the fuel tank. In place of the shuttle we put 2 of the solid fuel boosters, and two more on the opposite side. Fire those 4 as the first stage boosters then light the two that are normally on either side of the tank as the second stage rockets. Wouldn't that put the full tank into orbit? The shuttle gets launched a few hours later and connects up to the full tank in orbit.
Thanks for the math, but you didn't answer the question I asked. Could that shuttle, with a full tank of fuel, then get to the moon and back?

 

[rockett]

So why can't we launch a full one? We launch a full one every time we launch the shuttle. Granted, it is empty by the time it gets to orbit. But, for starters we are NOT launching a shuttle with it. Just the fuel tank. In place of the shuttle we put 2 of the solid fuel boosters, and two more on the opposite side. Fire those 4 as the first stage boosters then light the two that are normally on either side of the tank as the second stage rockets. Wouldn't that put the full tank into orbit? The shuttle gets launched a few hours later and connects up to the full tank in orbit.
Thanks for the math, but you didn't answer the question I asked. Could that shuttle, with a full tank of fuel, then get to the moon and back?

For the idea you propose:
1. Each booster you add is going to add A LOT more mass. So, in addition to lifting the tank, you would have to lift the added boosters. The 2 SRBs account for 60% of the Shuttle lift off weight. You have to fire a lot more than 2 to even get off the ground.
2. You can't shut them off once lit - they are solids. So you can't control altitude.
3. Directional control would be an issue, the Orbiter does it, if I recall correctly

NASA actually studied an Orbiter lunar mission once, and in that study they concluded that it would take an additional 10 to 12 Shuttle flights to refuel 1 Orbiter for the trip.
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2009/11/cislunar-shuttle-orbiter-1971.html

That doesn't account for problems with long term Hydrogen storage I've read about.
All in all, a very expensive proposition for little practical return. So the answer to your question is yes, it might be possible, but not the way you are suggesting, and no we can't afford it.

 

[rockett]

Look if we can do more shuttle launches safely go for it. If we can do it without rebuilding each one everytime do it. All im saying is that the Nasa people have said as they are the shuttles can only be reused 2 more times then they are death traps.

Think about that. They arent normaly aparently....even though they are huge bombs.

If we can afford it ok. But i just dont want more people dying for no reason.

First, what the Hutchinson Bill is proposing , is that the Shuttles would only fly 2 missions a year.
Second, the last calculated odds (last year) of an accident were 1/77 (which is the same as anyone on the ground being killed in a transportation accident in one year, 1/69 for non-transportation accidents). The accident hype was to justify and promote Constellation. In an earlier post I pointed out that we have 58 year old B-52s (until 2040) flying over our heads, some carrying nukes - now THAT'S worth worrying about.
Third, ANY rocket is a controlled explosion by it's nature

Here is a link to the April 2009 NASA report:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...xMmhtG&sig=AHIEtbR0jj0tCTEZzSqfdnOV_ooW61rwrA

I would hardly call them "death traps", which is not only unfair, but alarmist.

 

[rockett]

NEWS FLASH

NASA: Space Shuttles Could Fly Longer With Extra Funds
http://www.space.com/news/space-shuttle-extension-needs-money-100309.html

 

[Valcan]

Which sounds awesome. But there is also the realization that the obama planned increase in Nasa's budget is only what 800million? How could that 2.5 billion be used.

But if they want to keep it and fly a couple more times go ahead. Just i hope

A) we dont have another accident.

B) this doesnt cut into the budget of the other things nasa is doing.

C) this doesnt adverly affect there budget in the coming yrs.

 

[rockett]

A) we dont have another accident.

See my response to your earlier post. Odds the same as being killed in a car accident within one year...

 

[rockett]

MORE NEWS

AIP FYI Number 30: March 5, 2010 Congressional Hearings Find Little Support for Administration’s New Space Policy
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=33641

Florida legislators blast new NASA plan -which is to be expected
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ne.../florida-legislators-blast-new-nasa-plan.html

Kosmas Presses Budget Committee to Continue Shuttle Funding
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30330

 

[StarRider1701]

For the idea you propose:
1. Each booster you add is going to add A LOT more mass. So, in addition to lifting the tank, you would have to lift the added boosters. The 2 SRBs account for 60% of the Shuttle lift off weight. You have to fire a lot more than 2 to even get off the ground.
2. You can't shut them off once lit - they are solids. So you can't control altitude.
3. Directional control would be an issue, the Orbiter does it, if I recall correctly

NASA actually studied an Orbiter lunar mission once, and in that study they concluded that it would take an additional 10 to 12 Shuttle flights to refuel 1 Orbiter for the trip.

That doesn't account for problems with long term Hydrogen storage I've read about.

1. 60% of the mass provides 80(or more)% of the lift. Clearly the solid fuel boosters do more than just barely lift thier own mass. Yes you have to fire more than 2, my proposal calls for firing 4 as the first stage rockets, then firing the final 2 as the second stage thrust to get it into orbit.
2. Never said anything about shutting them off prematurely.
3. For directional control, small, light fins can be added to the normal two boosters, on either side of the tank.

Yes, for the small amount that each shuttle can carry, it would be prohibitively costly, that is why I'm making this suggestion. As for "long term hydrogen storage" I did suggest launching the shuttle a few hours after the tank, so that long term is not an issue.
Did you even read my idea before making up your senseless bullcrap, most of which didn't even relate to my idea?

 

[rockett]

1. 60% of the mass provides 80(or more)% of the lift. Clearly the solid fuel boosters do more than just barely lift thier own mass. Yes you have to fire more than 2, my proposal calls for firing 4 as the first stage rockets, then firing the final 2 as the second stage thrust to get it into orbit.
2. Never said anything about shutting them off prematurely.
3. For directional control, small, light fins can be added to the normal two boosters, on either side of the tank.

Yes, for the small amount that each shuttle can carry, it would be prohibitively costly, that is why I'm making this suggestion. As for "long term hydrogen storage" I did suggest launching the shuttle a few hours after the tank, so that long term is not an issue.
Did you even read my idea before making up your senseless ********, most of which didn't even relate to my idea?

Yes, StarRider1701, I read your idea very carefully, several times.

Basically as proposed, you have a huge unguided (without the fins you just mentioned, and a guidence system of some sort) tank of LOX and Hydrogen being launched (and I have doubts about even 4 SRBs being enough, remember it is not additive, you have to take off the additional mass for each one from the initial launch capability).
To detail the numbers:
"Each SRB weighs approximately 1,300,000 lb (590,000 kg) at launch"
"Each booster has a liftoff thrust of approximately 2,800,000 pounds-force"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Solid_Rocket_Booster
11,200,000 liftoff pounds-force for 4 SRBs
-7,800,000 liftoff weight of 6 SRBs
-1,680,000 liftoff weight of full tank
=1,720,000 or, a little over half the thrust of a single SRB
Add anything for your fins, guidence, and additional structure and reinforcement that would be necessary for the added SRBs, and it looks pretty iffy.

In addition, you would have no control (hence #2) over shutting down the engines once you achieved a desired orbit which is why even Aries I had a liquid propelled 2nd stage. This is necessary so that your Shuttle could rendevous with it. Simply launching it ballistically wouldn't cut it. Too much and your orbit is too high and maybe beyond the Shuttle's operational altitude, too little and we would have complaints from Europe about this huge thing landing on someone (and it would make the Hindenberg look like a firecracker). The SRBs are fine tuned for 1 task in one configuration. Adjusting a solid fuel rocket is not that easy, it burns the whole length of the tube.

And yes, I did skip over the Shuttle launch shortly after (sorry bout that). The reference to "long term hydrogen storage"
was tied to the NASA study below anyway, they didn't think of it at that time.
I think the study NASA originally did pretty much details the problems of such an approach, excluding the hydrogen storage issue.
http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2009/11/cislunar-shuttle-orbiter-1971.html

All that being siad, please do your research, put your numbers together, and justify your hypothesis.

There is really no practical value to sending an Orbiter to the moon vs a custom built, stripped down for economy, spacecraft that would require far less fuel and be far less expensive. It needn't be much more than a crew capsule, life support, tanks and engines, all tied together with as little framework as you can get by with. If you are gonna launch fuel, send up a whole lot less, a whole lot cheaper, and fuel the aforementioned spacecraft.

 

[StarRider1701]

There is really no practical value to sending an Orbiter to the moon vs a custom built, stripped down for economy, spacecraft that would require far less fuel and be far less expensive. It needn't be much more than a crew capsule, life support, tanks and engines, all tied together with as little framework as you can get by with. If you are gonna launch fuel, send up a whole lot less, a whole lot cheaper, and fuel the aforementioned spacecraft.

I was not sure if my idea would work or not, but you seemed to be saying no on an invalid basis. We seem to be being given more $ and a few more years to fly the shuttle. My thoughts, rather than spend what NASA spends to design and build a whole new space craft specifially for a mission (we don't have the bucks or the time for that) I was trying to find a way to use what we have available in an admittidly new configuration, to try to get something meaningfull from these last few years. Many previous posters have said there is no reason to go back to ISS, and we do now have a big reason for going to the moon. The practical reason for sending a shuttle? It is a space ship, already built and sitting there waiting to be used. Is it the perfect vehicle for the mission? Nope. But using it is far, far cheaper than letting NASA build a whole new one! And if we can give it the necessary fuel, it is capable of doing the job.
I agree that my configuration of sending the fuel tank up would require a few small modifications: fins on the two second stage boosters for attitude control and a very small computer chip, something like what is in a guided missile, for controlling the second stage firing and the attitude. True, mounts would need to be added to the big tank for the 4 boosters, in a place that would not interfere with the normal shuttle mounts. Although I didn't mention it, I did consider the possibility of needing to reduce slightly the amount of fuel in the final two solid fuel boosters. I know the amount of fuel in those 2 boosters would have to be carefully calculated to insure that the liquid fuel tank doesn't end up in an orbit the shuttle cannot reach. That would be embarasing, wouldn't it!
I love space travel and hate what NASA and idiot politicians have done to our space program. Again, I was only trying to figure out a way to use what we have to hopefully gain something productive from the final 2 years of the space shuttles.
Besides, your own numbers say it might work!

 

[rockett]

HERE'S THE HOUSE BILL
AND IT'S BIPARTISAN TOO!

Kosmas and Posey Introduce Bill to Minimize Human Spaceflight Gap
http://www.kosmas.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=269&Itemid=1

Snip:

“This bill is intended to maintain a robust human spaceflight program that will protect Space Coast jobs, enhance our national security, and generate scientific and technological advances that boost our economy,” said Congresswoman Kosmas. “While most agree that use of the Space Station should be extended through 2020, there is only one existing vehicle that we know can fully service and support the ISS, and that is the Shuttle. Our bill would extend the life of the ISS while allowing the Shuttle to continue flying in order to provide whatever support is needed for that extension.”

Snip:

“At the same time, our legislation fills in some of what we feel was missing from the President’s proposal by instructing NASA to develop a clear plan for the future of human space exploration with set goals, timelines and a next-generation NASA vehicle,” Kosmas added.

Snip:

“Our bill takes a critical first step toward closing the gap by extending Space Shuttle flights,” said Rep. Posey, a lead cosponsor of the bill. “The Augustine Panel said this was the only way to close the gap from this end and we do that in this bill. I’m pleased to join Representative Kosmas and Senator Hutchinson in forging bipartisan, bicameral legislation to close the space gap and keep America first in space.”

In addition to Kosmas and Posey, original cosponsors of the bill include Representatives Corrine Brown (D-FL), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Jim Costa (D-CA), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Ron Klein (D-FL), Stephen LaTourette (R-OH), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), John Mica (R-FL), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Adam Putnam (R-FL), and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL).

 

[rockett]

MORE NEWS

Florida Lawmakers Pushing for Space Shuttle Extension, New Rocket http://www.space.com/news/florida-lawmakers-push-extend-shuttle-100311.html

What's different here is:

Posey will participate in a news conference today calling on NASA Administrator Charles Bolden to explain how the president's proposed budget would maintain uninterrupted U.S. access to space.

Here's a vid:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35728187

Here's one on Obama's space summit:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35766999

One on Plan B:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35709113

What is interesting is that they bring up the statistic that they have spent $10B on Orion so far and it will cost another $5B to shut it down.