Should We Fly The Shuttle 2 More Years?

[rockett]

AS FOR THE ISS...


International Space Station Could Fly Through 2028, NASA Partners Say

http://www.space.com/news/space-station-life-2028-sn-100311.html

 

[MeteorWayne]

Sadly more powerpoint ideas with NO funding yet.

It's a moot point for me, as I suspect I'll be worm food by 2028...

 

[Astro_Robert]

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

Some aircraft that are overdesigned for a relatively benign flight regime may be able to experience long lifetimes with good maintenance. But such lifespans do not automatically confer onto all vehicles.

The launch vehicle environment is very rough. Think of the acoustic vibrations from the engines for 6-8 mins to reach orbit. It is brutal on harware. For a while the Shuttles were recieving regular maintenance and upgrades, however they were only 'designed' with ~100 mission mindset and it is not certain they could achieve that even with more maintenance. Since they have been destined to be retired they have not been getting all of the maintenance they otherwise probably would have recieved. Shuttles have served well and with distinction, but it is time to let them go.

 

[rockett]

Some aircraft that are overdesigned for a relatively benign flight regime may be able to experience long lifetimes with good maintenance. But such lifespans do not automatically confer onto all vehicles.

The launch vehicle environment is very rough. Think of the acoustic vibrations from the engines for 6-8 mins to reach orbit. It is brutal on harware. For a while the Shuttles were recieving regular maintenance and upgrades, however they were only 'designed' with ~100 mission mindset and it is not certain they could achieve that even with more maintenance. Since they have been destined to be retired they have not been getting all of the maintenance they otherwise probably would have recieved. Shuttles have served well and with distinction, but it is time to let them go.

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

And here's a quote highlighting what's REALLY funny about this article (considering my comment you quoted):

The agency has also met with aviation experts for long-running programs, like the U.S. Air Force's B-52 bomber program, to determine new ways to inspect shuttles to recertify them.

After meeting the B-52 bomber experts, NASA added 23 extra inspection points to its shuttle health checks, Shannon said.

 

[rockett]

Sadly more powerpoint ideas with NO funding yet.

It's a moot point for me, as I suspect I'll be worm food by 2028...

Sad but true MeteorWayne, great ideas without funding, are just ideas, those with funding are programs.
I may be worm food myself, but ya never know...

 

[EarthlingX]

Sadly more powerpoint ideas with NO funding yet.

It's a moot point for me, as I suspect I'll be worm food by 2028...

Sad but true MeteorWayne, great ideas without funding, are just ideas, those with funding are programs.
I may be worm food myself, but ya never know...

And as Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. said : 'If you go, i go'.

 

[rockett]

And as Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. said : 'If you go, i go'.

Not sure where you dug up that quote EarthlingX, but the irony in the present scheme of things is just tooooo much! :lol:

 

[EarthlingX]

And as Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. said : 'If you go, i go'.

Not sure where you dug up that quote EarthlingX, but the irony in the present scheme of things is just tooooo much! :lol:

It was taken out of context, and i owe an explanation. It was meant in a sense, that it doesn't matter if he himself personally goes to space, as long as other people are going.

I think it was in this video, that's why i'm watching it now :

NASA Administrator Meets With Reporters ( STS-130 )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfGo2ugcG48

First hint at 14:02 ..

Couldn't find it. I will come across it, sooner or later, but there are more hints like that in this clip, maybe you can try ?

There's talk about astronaut office at 38:40 and what to tell kids about the future of HSF at 59:00, if that helps ..

 

[rockett]

And as Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. said : 'If you go, i go'.

Not sure where you dug up that quote EarthlingX, but the irony in the present scheme of things is just tooooo much! :lol:

It was taken out of context, and i owe an explanation. It was meant in a sense, that it doesn't matter if he himself personally goes to space, as long as other people are going.

I think it was in this video, that's why i'm watching it now :

NASA Administrator Meets With Reporters ( STS-130 )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfGo2ugcG48

First hint at 14:02 ..

From the interview you sent.
New quote for the day: "I was stupid." - Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. :lol:
Also taken out of context, but funny nonetheless.

Also, heavy lift capability between 2020 and 2030. :x Maybe MeteorWayne was right...

 

[EarthlingX]

From the interview you sent.
New quote for the day: "I was stupid." - Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden, Jr. :lol:
Also taken out of context, but funny nonetheless.

Also, heavy lift capability between 2020 and 2030. :x Maybe MeteorWayne was right...

I would prefer this not to get personal, but in my opinion it is very good to be able to learn at least on your own mistakes, and not repeat them too often.

 

[rockett]

I would prefer this not to get personal, but in my opinion it is very good to be able to learn at least on your own mistakes, and not repeat them too often.

Agreed. It really was an eye opening interview in many respects. I hope that is indeed the case. So what did you glean from it? One thing that came through very clearly, he was under the Executive Branch and bound to whatever direction they set. So how much say does Congress really have in this? He did seem to be keenly aware of the conflict between the two.

And truthfully, the mistakes Bolden admitted to, I would guess are very much a product of his military training and not at all deliberate on his part. It's my impression the military has a much more direct, rather than diplomatic approach to such situations. I appeciated his saying that he "could not imagine" how his people must feel, and drew a good contrast of his own situation vs the average NASA worker.

I think Charlie is honest to a fault, and in a very difficult spot. I also suspect that if it were in his power, he would do things in a much more compassionate fashion or in a different way for his people. His admission that he cried at every shuttle launch was both touching and showed that he does have a "softer side".

 

[vulture4]

However I thought it was both impolitic and technically wrong for Bolden to compare flying the Shuttle to Russian roulette, as he did at a recent NASA presentation. In reality the historical and predicted risks of the Shuttle both improve with each successful flight. He also made the peculiar claim that the Orion carried a crew of seven, when it carries only four.

 

[rockett]

However I thought it was both impolitic and technically wrong for Bolden to compare flying the Shuttle to Russian roulette, as he did at a recent NASA presentation. In reality the historical and predicted risks of the Shuttle both improve with each successful flight. He also made the peculiar claim that the Orion carried a crew of seven, when it carries only four.

Good catch! I missed that. Orion as I recall was to be 4 for lunar operations, and 6 for LEO. Not sure why the differences except perhaps for more support equipment. Dragon on the other hand has a projected crew of 7.

 

[bmerritt]

Ok.. So alot of the current questions have to do with funding to extend the Shuttle program. If we go back and look at the past Economic Stimulus plans voted on and passed by both Bush and Obama.. I see that the original plan still has about $251 Billion available for use. Why not take the money from this and apply it towards NASA to 1. Extend the Shuttle program until a flight demonstrated and certified alternate is found, 2. Increase the funds to the current civilian programs to speed up development and deployment of their programs, 3. Increased funding for current and future HLV programs.

Extend the Shuttle program through at least 2015 (and then reduce program and transfer funds) until other programs are flying and can service the ISS fully with cargo and manned flight.

I seriously doubt any move of $20 Billion would NOT continue jobs currently in force and increase job creation with funding to new programs already moving toward their contracted missions with NASA.

By moving these funds sitting dormant, we will get to retain and create new jobs with the end product of actually having something to show for it...

Continued US presence and leadership in Space !!!

 

[rockett]

Ok.. So alot of the current questions have to do with funding to extend the Shuttle program. If we go back and look at the past Economic Stimulus plans voted on and passed by both Bush and Obama.. I see that the original plan still has about $251 Billion available for use. Why not take the money from this and apply it towards NASA to 1. Extend the Shuttle program until a flight demonstrated and certified alternate is found, 2. Increase the funds to the current civilian programs to speed up development and deployment of their programs, 3. Increased funding for current and future HLV programs.

Extend the Shuttle program through at least 2015 (and then reduce program and transfer funds) until other programs are flying and can service the ISS fully with cargo and manned flight.

I seriously doubt any move of $20 Billion would NOT continue jobs currently in force and increase job creation with funding to new programs already moving toward their contracted missions with NASA.

By moving these funds sitting dormant, we will get to retain and create new jobs with the end product of actually having something to show for it...

Continued US presence and leadership in Space !!!

That is an excellent question! I really like the idea you are suggesting, and if anything, it makes me question the present Administration's commitment to human spacefilght, even more, because no mention has been made of such an option.

 

[vulture4]

Just to clarify, the unspent stimulus funds aren't sitting in a bank vault somewhere gathering dust, they are authorized but not collected; borrowing would be needed to actually get the money to spend. The money has not yet been borrowed, so it is not drawing interest. Any expenditure of tax dollars should be undertaken with the understanding that it is worth collecting the additional taxes that will always be needed to pay it. If the money is borrowed, these taxes are deferred but also increased.

 

[rockett]

Just to clarify, the unspent stimulus funds aren't sitting in a bank vault somewhere gathering dust, they are authorized but not collected; borrowing would be needed to actually get the money to spend. The money has not yet been borrowed, so it is not drawing interest. Any expenditure of tax dollars should be undertaken with the understanding that it is worth collecting the additional taxes that will always be needed to pay it. If the money is borrowed, these taxes are deferred but also increased.

Thanks for the financial info, I wasn't sure how that worked.

 

[rockett]

Space Shuttles Will Keep Flying Through Early 2011, Report Says
http://www.space.com/news/space-shuttle-retirement-report-100325.html

 

[vulture4]

I do not know whether the Shuttle can be extended; the last administration did everything it could to burn the bridges, unfortunately it turned out they burned the bridges ahead of us. We need to:

1. Get Constellation off the table and use the billions still allocated to "closing it out" it for programs that have some chance of doing something of practical value.
2. Extend Shuttle if possible. Admit we were wrong to crush it. But at the same time, don't even think about using big solids for any new project. They're one part of the Shuttle we do not need.
3. Provide some additional R&D funds for SpaceX and Orbital to allow them to keep launch rates high and begin R&D on human spaceflight.
4. Restart the Reusable Launch Vehicle program, which is the only way we'll ever make human spaceflight practical
5. Our country is approaching a crisis because our manufacturing base has been decimated. We need to allow NASA centers like KSC to provide practical benefits for America in aviation, medicine, transportation, clean energy, etc., not just as an accidental byproduct but as a primary mission. NASA should serve industry, as it did in the NACA days, not vice versa.

 

[neutrino78x]

Note that SpaceX is an American company, and their rockets are made in the USA. Hence, if they are the only American entity launching people into space, that would still be American space superiority.

Also, the Space Shuttle was canceled for safety reasons. Regardless of what replaces it, they still have to cancel the Shuttle.

Finally, Obama's budget did include money for a heavy lift vehicle, in addition to the funds for the private/COTS program.

--Brian

 

[rockett]

I do not know whether the Shuttle can be extended; the last administration did everything it could to burn the bridges, unfortunately it turned out they burned the bridges ahead of us.

Frankly, an this goes for either the last or current administration, shutting down the Shuttle without manned spaceflight capability of some kind , NEVER made any sense. Especially with that $100 B international investment in orbit, that we can't get to unless we hitch hike.

1. Get Constellation off the table and use the billions still allocated to "closing it out" it for programs that have some chance of doing something of practical value.

We spent $10 B on it, estimated shutdown costs are another $5 B. Why it will cost half as much as we spent to shut it down is beyond me. I was at the Superconducting Super Collider when the Clinton administration shut it down and it cost more than they had spent to date to shut it down, so I guess that's par for cancelled government projects. Still seems crazy.

2. Extend Shuttle if possible. Admit we were wrong to crush it. But at the same time, don't even think about using big solids for any new project. They're one part of the Shuttle we do not need.

To borrow a phrase from the Obama campaign, "YES WE CAN". I have seen figures ranging from 2015 to 2020 by NASA managers and directors. It will take about $2.4 B per year to contine (includes salaries, maintenance, fuel tanks, spares - everything needed)

3. Provide some additional R&D funds for SpaceX and Orbital to allow them to keep launch rates high and begin R&D on human spaceflight.

No arguments there. We should award some contracts to cull the field a bit, so we don't spread available funds too thin. Just at a guess 2 or 3 competitors. Personally, I would pick Space X, Orbital, and maybe someone flying "Orion Light", no more than that.

4. Restart the Reusable Launch Vehicle program, which is the only way we'll ever make human spaceflight practical

Agreed. But we will be extremely lucky to get even the above.

5. Our country is approaching a crisis because our manufacturing base has been decimated. We need to allow NASA centers like KSC to provide practical benefits for America in aviation, medicine, transportation, clean energy, etc., not just as an accidental byproduct but as a primary mission. NASA should serve industry, as it did in the NACA days, not vice versa.

Should have been done years ago.

 

[rockett]

Note that SpaceX is an American company, and their rockets are made in the USA. Hence, if they are the only American entity launching people into space, that would still be American space superiority.

No proof of that yet. They haven't even launched a Falcon 9 successfully yet, let alone cargo. They admit they have a LOT of work to do before launching humans. AND their rockets have to be certified as "man-rated".

Also, the Space Shuttle was canceled for safety reasons. Regardless of what replaces it, they still have to cancel the Shuttle.

Also not true, NASA admits they could keep flying until 2015 to 2020, depending on the account you read. They were cancelled for Constellation money.

Finally, Obama's budget did include money for a heavy lift vehicle, in addition to the funds for the private/COTS program

This is pure deception and misdirection. If you have read the articles or watched the Bolden interviews, he is saying heavy lift in 2020 to 2030. THAT'S 10 to 20 years, which is simply absurd. If true, it shows ABSOLUTELY NO COMMITMENT to heavy lift.

 

[BrianBoru]

Good post rockett.

 

[gawin]

Also not true, NASA admits they could keep flying until 2015 to 2020, depending on the account you read. They were cancelled for Constellation money.

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, in a recent Space News Commentary [“Why We (Still) Need to Retire the Shuttle,” Oct. 20, page 19], identified cost and safety as the two most important reasons to retire the shuttle in 2010. He cited an internal NASA Shuttle Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) as forecasting a 1 chance in 8 that the shuttle will have another accident in an extra 10 flights between 2010 and 2015.

this sounds like a safety concern to me. This is NASA's OWN people saying 1 in 8. that is crappy odds for any space flight.

Look the shuttle was a great ship. No one is questioning that. But if you have a 1948 Peterbuilt truck i will bet you dont use it to haul logs every day.

If you continue to fly the shuttle it is no longer a matter of if you are well into the matter of WHEN you will lose another crew and shuttle.

 

[EarthlingX]

If he would be citing someone not under his command, it would have more weight.

I also read expressed opinions, that commenting successor on a public position is a bad taste, and i kinda agree.