Shuttle Until Failure: A retirement scheme

[mikejz]

I have a proposal. With talk of retiring the shuttle, most talk of them ending up in museums. I have a different place for them: The bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. <br /><br />Here is my proposal. Because the shuttle have very high fixed overhead and very low margin cost this makes volume the key. However, this is not possible while still giving them the required service. When the shuttles have completed there manned missions, they will be stripped bare and flown by remote control. They will deliver payloads that are of low cost (think food, water, fuel) to the ISS or some over orbital depot. The shuttles will keep getting flown with minimal, if any, service in between flights, until they fail. How long is that? I’m not sure. Maybe 3 missions, maybe 200. <br /><br />With the proposed M2M initiative, getting lots of fuel into orbit would be a key component and get more value out of the shuttle program. <br />

 

[adzel_3000]

Shuttle Until Failure: A retirement scheme<br /><br />I thought you were talking about the engineers and managers at NASA! Retirement: The Final Frontier....<br /><br />Really....I don't think shuttle should end in the bottom of the Atlantic (or anywhere else). And I think there must be less expensive alternatives to unmanned cargo ferries than a retro-fit on the level you are suggesting.<br /><br />--A3K

 

[odysseus145]

One problem with that is you would end up with bits of shuttle falling all over the place. Besides, I think putting them in museums is the best idea to preserve them for future generations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

I favour continued use of an unmanned Shuttle beyond 2010 with the proviso that it is cost-effective. Which gets you into the vexed area of how much would each mission cost. Presumably less than the cost of a manned Shuttle mission, but this seems to be a 'how long is a piece of string' question for the pro and anti Shuttle folks here at the SDC.<br /><br />Certainly you would want enough processing undertaken each time to make sure the mission has a reasonable chance of success, but I favour minimal development beyond the existing hardware. By that I mean don't mess about trying to develop a cargo pod to replace the Orbiters. Just fly them as/is, with all non-essential weight stripped out of the crew module and the landing gear automated. No need to reinvent the wheel, and the payload bay holds a goodly amount of tonnage.<br /><br />With no comparable vehicle in sight, it would provide a good stop-gap measure until everyone decides a BDB is needed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

I've got an easier idea...<br />Take the billion or so dollars you were going to use for one shuttle launch, pile half of it under two Delta IV's and watch it burn as they take most of the same payload to orbit...<br /><br /><br />The Shuttle is not efficent for most missions. There are, and will continue to be for a while, missions that NO OTHER launcher can do that the Shuttle can. But using it for that kind of cargo run is still about as efficent as taking a unlimited class dragster to the store to buy milk.<br /><br />My Shuttle Retirement scheme;<br />Use it when we have to. <br />Work like hell to develop an unmanned HLV (emphasis on the H), AND a manned transport to replace the Shuttle.<br />Put the Shuttle(s) in museums. I'd love to walk though one a the Air and Space...<br /><br />Paul F.

 

[najab]

><i>Take the billion or so dollars you were going to use for one shuttle launch...</i><p>Even the most vociferous Shuttle bashers usually claim about $500 million per launch. In reality it's much closer to $100 million. Otherwise I agree with you.</p>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">" In reality it's much closer to $100 million. "</font><br /><br />How can this be? Has NASA ever spent less than $3B per year in shuttle operations? Last year it was nearly $4B and zero flights. Either there's a lot of launch-unrelated expenses under shuttle operations account or the $500M per launch is a safe <i>minimum</i>.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"How can this be? "</font><br /><br />100 million is the approximate incremental expense for adding one extra launch to the shuttle manifest (one more ET, refurb the SRBs, etc.). It does not take into account the cost of maintaining the shuttle *program*. In terms of the plan as outlined -- it also doesn't make sense. It's only viable when you're talking about adding an unscheduled launch to an otherwise 'ongoing' program (i.e. if a launch were added to save Hubble -- you could use this figure).

 

[najab]

><i>In terms of the plan as outlined -- it also doesn't make sense.</i><p>Actually, it does. The plan as outlined eliminates maintenance between flights. As soon as the Orbiter lands you take it back into the VAB, slap on another tank and set of SRBs and haul it out to the pad.</p>

 

[najab]

><i>Either there's a lot of launch-unrelated expenses under shuttle operations account...</i><p>Yes, there are. I did an analysis here once that showed that about half the Shuttle budget is spent at JSC on astronaut training. As a matter of fact <b>every</b> NASA field center gets a slice of the Shuttle budget, including $8 million a year spent at HQ!</p>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...you take it back into the VAB, slap on another tank and set of SRBs and haul it out to the pad. </font><br /><br />'You' in this case being <b>me</b> then? It must be, because the $100M figure ignores the salaries of all the people currently working on the shuttle program. I'll grant that some jobs could be eliminated in this program, but by no means all. There's also a heckuva lot of other infrastructure costs that are being ignored by that figure.

 

[najab]

Mrmorris, note that I had originally said "closer to $100M", not exactly. If you <br />(in the non-specific sense of the word) were to minimise the processing between flights the costs would drop <b>significantly</b>. Not to exactly $100M/flight, but certainly closer to that than $500M.<p>Note that just eliminating the astronauts would halve the program cost per flight.</p>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Note that just eliminating the astronauts would halve the program cost per flight."</font><br /><br />I dug up the current space shuttle budget. Page 3 figures:<br /><br />Budget Authority ($ millions) <br />FY 2003 <br />FY 2004 <br />Change <br />FY 2005 <br /><br />Space Shuttle <br />3,301.4 <br />3,945.0 <br />+374.2 <br />4,319.2<br /><br />...some minor development costs and then:<br /><br />Operations <br />3,204.6 <br />3,848.7 <br />+383.3 <br />4,232.0<br /><br />which divides into following:<br /><br />Program Integration <br />503.4 <br />609.8 <br />+183.2 <br />793.0<br /><br />Ground Operations <br />568.9 <br />894.2 <br />+161.3 <br />1,055.5<br /><br />Flight Operations <br />267.9 <br />373.2 <br />+32.2 <br />405.4<br /><br />Flight Hardware <br />1,705.2 <br />1,971.5 <br />+6.6 <br />1,978.1<br /><br />Now only thing that mentions astronaut training is Flight Operations and it seemed to be training to a particular mission, not some basic astronaut training. That's only about 10% of annual costs as in previous years. Where is the rest of the 'half' astronaut costs hidden?<br /><br />I'm sure you are right that NASA spends way too much money on training astronauts, wasn't it a recent news that just a few of them can actually hope to ever get their wings in action. Why spend millions to train someone to become world's most expensive unemployed?

 

[scottb50]

Maybe I could just ride along once or twice. I wouldn't touch anything. Promise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Now only thing that mentions astronaut training is Flight Operations and it seemed to be training to a particular mission, not some basic astronaut training. That's only about 10% of annual costs as in previous years. Where is the rest of the 'half' astronaut costs hidden?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>The reason you won't see astronaut training listed on NASA budgets is because, with a few limited exceptions, NASA doesn't train astronauts any more. That was privatized under the SFOC.<p>Looking at the 2001 budget (link), we see that $2.01B of the budget is allocated for flight hardware, with 9 launches planned. This yields $233M/launch for the flight hardware. $550M is allocated for launch operations ($61M/launch) for a grand total of $294M/launch.<p>In reality it is a bit less than that. If we look at the breakdown of the Flight Hardware line item we find that there's almost $900M that wouldn't apply in our scenario (SSME Test Support, Vehicle and EVA, and Flight Hardware Upgrades). This brings the on-budget per launch cost to about $180M/launch. The marginal cost of adding a launch is even lower than that, only about $120M or so.</p></p>

 

[quasar2]

hey maybe they can be turned into submarines after any flightworthiness is squeezed out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spaceiscool]

I say give them to the current engineers as severance packages so that nasa can hire some professionals in this time that don't "maintain" death traps.

 

[georgeniebling]

THAT, spaceiscool, may be the MOST inapropriate thing I have ever seen posted to this message board ... I don't work for NASA but I'm personally offended and I believe that you owe the 1000's of professionals that do work for our space program a MASSIVE apology.<br /><br />

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

I agree with you there George, what a A hole! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[rubicondsrv]

ignore spaceiscool he's more of a hopeless case than jimglenn. <br />although his comment was far more offensive than (most) of jimglenns posts. <br />but at least spaceiscool doesn't post as often as jimglenn. <br />just look at all of his past posts in M&l and free space and you'l see the pattern of offensive posts I think he <br />likes the attention they get him. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[grooble]

I think the engineers there must be some of the best in the world, it's management that is the problem.