Should We Fly The Shuttle 2 More Years?

[rockett]

Here are some links on Shuttle extension studies:

2020 Extension Assessment that was done done in 2003
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/9123main_2020_assessment.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04203.pdf
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001070.html

2015 Extension:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/exclusive-nasa.html
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2008/11/shuttle-extension-to-2015-possible---but-not-cheap.html

The upshot, if I read them correctly all revolves around funding and maintenance. But if Constellation is dead, then what? Could the "post Constllation" era money be funneled back into maintenance? From the "Obama Plan" I can't see that we are doing a whole lot else with it. 2020 to 2030 according to Bolden's projections for heavy lift is a long lead time, with, little annual expenditure, and the COTS is also relatively small.

 

[tanstaafl76]

On the safety front, it seems clear that it's only a matter of when, not if, a foam/insulation strike on the shuttle during launch will cause irreparable damage to the re-entry tiles. Then if we're lucky they notice it during the orbital inspection and don't try to re-enter. Even in that best case scenario while you save the crew you'd have to abandon the shuttle, and it will probably be a total loss because repairing the tiles in orbit to the point at which they are satisfied it is safe to land is going to be very difficult and expensive. On the other hand if they miss the damage during the orbital inspection, then we have another Columbia disaster which really sets us back a long time. I don't see how there is any real counter-point to this basic reality.

Obviously all space flight is risky, but over time it has become abundantly clear that the side-mounted shuttle with fragile, exposed ceramic tiles is a fundamentally flawed design. We do our astronauts a disrespectful disservice by asking them to continue to ride these craft to orbit indefinitely.

Constellation was rapidly turning into a joke with the Ares 1-X "test" flight, and the shuttles are inherently flawed per the above. We desperately needed a new direction, and so I don't see how they could continue either program. And if Obama or his administrators don't really know what the replacement should be, then I almost prefer they don't try to do something just for the sake of doing it. I'd rather they focus on helping private orbital transport service mature until NASA has the proper technology to create the next-generation space exploration vehicle.

Getting off-topic but imho that vehicle should not be an orbital launch vehicle, but rather a spacecraft with new propulsion systems designed to operate in space for extended periods of time, with the craft designed to be maintained and repaired while in orbit. The ferrying of people and stuff back and forth to the surface of Earth does not need to be fancy, it can be done by the private sector with old fashioned rockets. NASA should be focused on where we go from orbit, not new ways to get to orbit.

 

[rockett]

On the safety front, it seems clear that it's only a matter of when, not if, a foam/insulation strike on the shuttle during launch will cause irreparable damage to the re-entry tiles. Then if we're lucky they notice it during the orbital inspection and don't try to re-enter. Even in that best case scenario while you save the crew you'd have to abandon the shuttle, and it will probably be a total loss because repairing the tiles in orbit to the point at which they are satisfied it is safe to land is going to be very difficult and expensive. On the other hand if they miss the damage during the orbital inspection, then we have another Columbia disaster which really sets us back a long time. I don't see how there is any real counter-point to this basic reality.

Obviously all space flight is risky, but over time it has become abundantly clear that the side-mounted shuttle with fragile, exposed ceramic tiles is a fundamentally flawed design. We do our astronauts a disrespectful disservice by asking them to continue to ride these craft to orbit indefinitely.

That has been the case for 30 years. How many times has it happened? 1.
From what I have read that the Shuttle Program Managers and Engineers have written, the Shuttles are safer than they have ever been, based on continuing safety improvements since the Columbia disaster. Don't confuse "mature" technology with "old and decrepit". In earlier posts, there are refernces to the B-52 program running to 2040 (carrying nukes sometimes, by the way), NASA has consulted them on the longevity and maintenance.

Constellation was rapidly turning into a joke with the Ares 1-X "test" flight, and the shuttles are inherently flawed per the above. We desperately needed a new direction, and so I don't see how they could continue either program. And if Obama or his administrators don't really know what the replacement should be, then I almost prefer they don't try to do something just for the sake of doing it. I'd rather they focus on helping private orbital transport service mature until NASA has the proper technology to create the next-generation space exploration vehicle.

It's not a question of technology, we have had that since Apollo. It's a question of the will to do it, and funding. NASA funding is at a historical low percentage wise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

Getting off-topic but imho that vehicle should not be an orbital launch vehicle, but rather a spacecraft with new propulsion systems designed to operate in space for extended periods of time, with the craft designed to be maintained and repaired while in orbit. The ferrying of people and stuff back and forth to the surface of Earth does not need to be fancy, it can be done by the private sector with old fashioned rockets. NASA should be focused on where we go from orbit, not new ways to get to orbit.

There are no new "miracle drives" anywhere on the horizon, so other than improving what we have in the near future, there's nothing new for NASA to work on, unless somebody has some "Cavorite" brewing in a back room. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Men_in_the_Moon

As for the multipurpose in-orbit spaceship, see Buzz Aldrin's XM proposal:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html?page=2

The Augustine Commission gave the idea the cold shoulder, as I recall.

 

[tanstaafl76]

That has been the case for 30 years. How many times has it happened? 1.

Actually the tiles have been damaged many times, but yes it only led to a catastrophic loss one time. How many shuttles do we need to lose, exactly, before this known and somewhat unavoidable defect becomes unacceptable to you? And in the scheme of things we may have gotten lucky with debris strikes.

It's not a question of technology, we have had that since Apollo. It's a question of the will to do it, and funding. NASA funding is at a historical low percentage wise.

No, it's about more than just funding, or will. It's about vision. Their last vision was Constellation and even if it were adequately funded it would have been a disappointment.

There are no new "miracle drives" anywhere on the horizon, so other than improving what we have in the near future, there's nothing new for NASA to work on, unless somebody has some "Cavorite" brewing in a back room.

Part of the reason for that is it hasn't been NASA's focus. They've been concentrated on reinventing the wheel with Constellation. If they had been concentrated on researching next-gen space propulsion instead of making Apollo on Steroids, we probably would have had more to show for it today. Instead they wasted years of time and billions of dollars on the publicity stunt that was Ares-IX.

As for the multipurpose in-orbit spaceship, see Buzz Aldrin's XM proposal:

The Augustine Commission gave the idea the cold shoulder, as I recall.

I don't recall them mentioning it by name, but they did endorse the general notion of exploring comets, la grange points, Martian moons, etc., as stepping stones. Obviously for those types of missions you are going to need a craft more sophisticated than your run-of-the-mill space capsule. In that respect you could say they indirectly supported something akin to the XM.

 

[rockett]

Actually the tiles have been damaged many times, but yes it only led to a catastrophic loss one time. How many shuttles do we need to lose, exactly, before this known and somewhat unavoidable defect becomes unacceptable to you? And in the scheme of things we may have gotten lucky with debris strikes.

This is not a new risk. In fact, a couple of examples go way back. There was John Glenn's re-entry:
"At Mercury Control Center an engineer at the telemetry control console, William Saunders, noted that "segment 51," an instrument providing data on the spacecraft landing system, was presenting a strange reading. According to the signal, the spacecraft heatshield and the compressed landing bag were no longer locked in position. If this was really the case, the all-important heatshield was being held on the capsule only by the straps of the retropackage."
http://www.thespaceplace.com/history/mercury/mercury06.html
Then I recall the failure of a Soyuz 7K-OK heatshield in January 1967.
Those are just a couple of examples that come to mind, and there may be more, some we never heard about
The problem is, and has always been, how we go about re-entry with our current technology. It's fragile, and prone to catastrophic failure.

No, it's about more than just funding, or will. It's about vision. Their last vision was Constellation and even if it were adequately funded it would have been a disappointment.

We really haven't had one since the Apollo days. Frankly, I don't fault the politicians. We elected them, and by and large, the problem is not them, but us. The American people have at best, weak support for human spaceflight. They just aren't near as excited about it, as the release of the new iPad. As parents, teachers, and leaders, we have failed to convey that excitement and enthusiasm for space exploration. Politicians have whatever "vision" they think will get them votes. If that's social programs, then their vision is "health care" and other such "visions". If they think it's national security, then it's the "war on terrorism".

Part of the reason for that is it hasn't been NASA's focus. They've been concentrated on reinventing the wheel with Constellation. If they had been concentrated on researching next-gen space propulsion instead of making Apollo on Steroids, we probably would have had more to show for it today. Instead they wasted years of time and billions of dollars on the publicity stunt that was Ares-IX.

First off you are incorrect. Note the John Glenn Center for advanced propulsion:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/propulsion_space.html
I'm sorry, you can't blame everything on Constellation, it was really our half-hearted support that even brought it about. We showed that weak support with weak funding, and we got what we paid for.

I don't recall them mentioning it by name, but they did endorse the general notion of exploring comets, la grange points, Martian moons, etc., as stepping stones. Obviously for those types of missions you are going to need a craft more sophisticated than your run-of-the-mill space capsule. In that respect you could say they indirectly supported something akin to the XM.

Here, at least we agree. I have long been a proponent for "build it in space, keep it there, reuse it there". It's simply more economical than boosting everything from the ground everytime we are going somewhere, then throwing it all away. Now that we have the ISS, we have a base to build it from. This approach is nothing new. Willy Ley and Werhner Von Braun proposed it back in the 50's and 60's.

 

[swampboy]

The short answer is the shuttle should get at minimum a one year extension that way NASA will have a manned vehicle while waiting on somebody’s replacement to come online. Missions would be crew and supply runs and perhaps adding another section to the station. As of now there is no one ready for a manned crewed vehicle.Orion can be continued as a NASA owned and operated crew vehicle and let the commercial companies go with the cargo systems. The X37 has potential for coming online as a crew delivery vehicle provided the USAF will let Boeing use it as there commercial entry to servicing the station.

 

[vulture4]

On the safety front, it seems clear that it's only a matter of when, not if, a foam/insulation strike on the shuttle during launch will cause irreparable damage to the re-entry tiles.

This is not entirely accurate. The tiles have been struck thousands of times by fragments of the spray-on ET foam without serious damage. The Columbia was lost because a large foam block came loose, and moved a long distance laterally, and hit a particularly vulnerable spot. These foam blocks were removed by a change in design, and the ET foam has been improved to substantially reduce foam loss. Inspection would detect any damage, but none requiring repair has been detected since the return to flight.

 

[rockett]

Looks like Bolden is moving ahead without Congressional approval. Unfortunately, I suspected this was going to happen.

NASA Chief Maps Out Space Agency's Future Beyond Shuttle
http://www.space.com/news/nasa-centers-new-assignments-100408.html

 

[EarthlingX]

Looks like Bolden is moving ahead without Congressional approval.

He has President's orders, i guess.

 

[rockett]

Interviews, overall, seems to be, yes we can do it, probably ought to, but a lot of doubt we will. Obama already has ignored even the possibility...

United Space Alliance Push For More Shuttle
http://www.space.com/common/media/show/player.php?show_id=57&ep=2
Five Shuttle External Tanks Remain
http://www.space.com/common/media/show/player.php?show_id=57&ep=3

...and sure enough, the Russians are starting to raise the price of their taxi service.

Obama Rumors, Protests, Space X and Yuri's Night
http://www.space.com/common/media/show/player.php?show_id=57&ep=4

 

[rockett]

John Glenn to NASA: Keep shuttles flying
Fleet’s retirement should be put on hold, retired senator-astronaut says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37817608/ns/technology_and_science-space/

 

[rockett]

Obama Asks Congress to Shift $100M from NASA for Job Initiatives

The money, a small part of the roughly $19 billion NASA could receive under the 2011 budget request Obama sent to Congress in February, would instead go to the Departments of Commerce and Labor for initiatives aimed at helping Florida and other states bracing for job losses associated with the end of the space shuttle program.

http://www.space.com/news/obama-nasa-budget-jobs-sn-100621.html

 

[vulture4]

If NASA is going to have a jobs program, it should do something useful. Keep 'em flying! And not just 2 years, but until and unless we have something better in service! And keep the flight rate at maximum, five or six missions per year. If it is productive, let's produce all we can. If we are going to keep the program running, extra flights during the same period are cheap.

Eliminate the jobs program called Constellation/Ares/Orion. (including the civil servants) and put the money into a broad spectrum of RLV tech demonstrators. Hey, I just had to pick up a second job (to get the jump on end of Shuttle) why shouldn't the civil servants have to do the same? I know some of them who do work very hard, but they just have to recognize that they need to be producing something useful, not blindly following orders.

 

[rockett]

If NASA is going to have a jobs program, it should do something useful. Keep 'em flying! And not just 2 years, but until and unless we have something better in service! And keep the flight rate at maximum, five or six missions per year. If it is productive, let's produce all we can. If we are going to keep the program running, extra flights during the same period are cheap.

Eliminate the jobs program called Constellation/Ares/Orion. (including the civil servants) and put the money into a broad spectrum of RLV tech demonstrators. Hey, I just had to pick up a second job (to get the jump on end of Shuttle) why shouldn't the civil servants have to do the same? I know some of them who do work very hard, but they just have to recognize that they need to be producing something useful, not blindly following orders.

I have to agree Vulture4.

 

[rockett]

Looks like we will have some flights next year after all.

Shuttle swan song delayed to 2011
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/22/4544758-shuttle-swan-song-delayed-to-2011

STS-135: June 24, 2011 under evaluation for extra shuttle mission
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sts-135-june-24-2011-evaluation-extra-shuttle-mission/

 

[EarthlingX]

Related SDC thread :

STS-135 under evaluation

 

[rockett]

Now people are trying to frame the argument as "Old Space" vs "New Space". That is not the point at all. It is simply about maintaining human space flight capability while "New Space" matures.

Keeping the shuttle flying is NOT going to be a drain on:
1. A non-existant moon program
2. A wish and a dream asteroid mission which will not happen during the current Administration anyway (if ever)
3. A five year program to design a heavy-lift (and if we ARE going commercial, why not the Falcon 9 heavy and other heavy lift variants of commercial launchers). This nothing but a sop to politics.
4. 6 billion spread across 5 years for commercial. In case you don't have a calculator, that's 1.2 billion a year out of a 19 billion NASA budget, or 6%. (In light of the above, where is the other 94% going?)

Missives launched in space debate
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/22/4546288-missives-launched-in-space-debate

And here is Kay Bailey Hutchinson on Glenn...

Hutchison Strongly Supports John Glenn Statement on NASA
http://hutchison.senate.gov/pr062210.html