The shuttle can't complete the ISS - do the math ....

[askold]

According to my calculations, the shuttle has flown 17 missions to assemble the ISS since 1998:<br /><br />1998 - 1<br />1999 - 1<br />2000 - 4<br />2001 - 6<br />2002 - 4<br />2003 - 0<br />2004 - 0<br />2005 - 1<br /><br />With the shuttle scheduled for retirement in 2010, that leaves just 5 years to fly the remaining 25 missions to complete the ISS. That would mean flying 5 missions a year. Even before the twin disasters NASA has managed to fly this many missions in only one year.<br /><br />Does anybody really think that the shuttle will fly 25 more construction missions to the ISS?!?<br /><br />If the shuttle doesn't do it then what will? My understanding is that the ISS modules are built to be transported by the orbiter.<br /><br />Why are we wasting time building something that clearly will not be completed?

 

[viper101]

A Shuttle-Derived vehicle could likely be designed to carry some of the loads. I agree with you - the difficulties in safety and turnaround times make the chance of 25 missions during '06-'10 doubtful. <br /><br />I'm glad they are building the station though, and hope they keep at it. It can become a base for so many different opportunities in the decades ahead.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Put simply, it's not going to be 25 missions. Griffin made a point of this before STS-114.

 

[spacefire]

the ISS will not be completed in its original planned configuration, good shuttle or no shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nasa4now]

Don't forget the HST servicing mission. The 2010 date for STS retirement is not etched in stone, or is it?

 

[nacnud]

I think that it is becoming unmovable.

 

[radarredux]

I have slightly different numbers, but I cannot remember where I originally got them from:<br /><br />1981 2<br />1982 3<br />1983 4<br />1984 5<br />1985 9<br />1986 1<br />1987 0<br />1988 2<br />1989 5<br />1990 6<br />1991 6<br />1992 8<br />1993 7<br />1994 7<br />1995 7<br />1996 7<br />1997 8<br />1998 5<br />1999 3<br />2000 5<br />2001 6<br />2002 5<br />2003 0<br /><br />Using these numbers I calculated the total number of launches for each year and the next 4 years. For example, the numbers below for 1984 represent the numbers for 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988. So the line for 1984 looks like:<br /><br />1984 5 17<br /><br />which means, in 1984 there were 5 flights, for 1984-1988 there were 17 flights.<br /><br />1981 2 23<br />1982 3 22<br />1983 4 19<br />1984 5 17<br />1985 9 17<br />1986 1 14<br />1987 0 19<br />1988 2 27<br />1989 5 32<br />1990 6 34<br />1991 6 35<br />1992 8 36<br />1993 7 36<br />1994 7 34<br />1995 7 30<br />1996 7 28<br />1997 8 27<br />1998 5 24<br />1999 3 19<br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

><br />Don't forget the HST SM servicing mission. The 2010 date for STS retirement is not etched in stone, or is it?<<br /><br />I think the HST SM is very much off the books at this moment in time.<br /><br />Maybe a few successful missions to the ISS without issues of major concern will allow a launch that takes safe harbour out of the equation.<br /><br />I think 2010 is unmovable too. I keep hearing a rumour of 2009 and CEV by 2011, but it's just a rumour.

 

[drwayne]

Please don't take this as argumentative, because I do not intend it that way.<br /><br />I just hesitate to say anything is unmovable or unchangeable in a government program. I have seen so many hard turns done that I don't take much for granted.<br /><br />We may still be flying shuttles in 2020. Is it likely? Probably not, but it is a process that involves politicians.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[nasa4now]

->HST SM is very much off the books at "this moment in time".<br /><br />There are likely a few astros who expect to see the telescope fixed. There is nothing really "on the books" right now, except 121?

 

[frodo1008]

Of course, if you do the math the way askold does, and count the years that the shuttle didn’t even fly at all, you get the impression that the shuttle will not be able to complete the ISS in the next five years. How convenient it is to figure this way. Especially if you are someone who is against the entire manned space program of the US anyway! I really grow tired of people who do the math in such a way as to try to prove their own particular agenda!<br /><br />IN the first place all 25 flights might not even have to be shuttle flights at all. There are bound to be some of the smaller pieces of the ISS that can be sent to the ISS by means other than the shuttles. Means, such as the EELV’s or even eventually spacex’s new Falcon series of rockets. Evidently at least Mike Griffen believes this is so as he thinks it will be entirely possible to reduce the number of shuttle flights to some 15. Now this makes some three flights per year, or one flight per each separate shuttle each year for the five years until 2010. <br /><br />Even if there are still one or even two such flights to be done at the end of 2010, does anyone who is reasonable think that we would just quit at that time? Also, the safest way to fly the shuttle is to fly to the ISS as it is a safe harbor against any damage to the shuttle tiles and other TPS elements. If you come right down to it, it IS not possible to fly any kind of human devised space launch and space craft with a 100% certainty of success. So there IS always going to be some risk involved. It would seem that the astronauts involved know this far better than some of the people on these boards!<br /><br />Heck, even askold’s scientific robotic flights have been known to go haywire occasionally! The only thing that upsets me on these subjects is that while those of us who support the manned program of not only NASA, but also the new pure private efforts of such as Burt Rutan, also usually support very heavily the excellent robotic eff

 

[askold]

It's not my math - it's NASA's math:<br /><br />http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/assembly/flights/1998/1ar.html<br /><br />The remaining 25 missions are all scheduled for the orbiter.<br />

 

[hansolo0]

I don't think the shuttle flew at all Radar after the Challenger accident for like for years until 1990....?

 

[frodo1008]

This entire scenario was originally set up very consevatively by prior NASA administrators. We now have a much more proactive administrator, who doesn't want to fly the shuttle more than is absolutely necessary. So even the prior math by NASA is very suspect under these circumstances. <br /><br />Mike Griffen wants as few shuttle flights as possible not only becuse of the suspect safety of the shuttle itself, but mainly because he wants as much money as possible for President Bush's vision of human beings going back to the moon to stay, and then going on to Mars. <br /><br />I know from some of the other threads that you have started that your own goal is to see the entire manned programs of NASA cancelled. However, THAT isn't going to happen. Even if the manned sections were cancelled, you impress me as far to intelligent to think that all that extra money is going to just go into more scientific robotic programs. I can guaratee you that congress would just take the money and use if for some war in some hell on the other side of the world. As a matter of fact, as I have already said, I would suspect that the robotic programs would also be cancelled. <br /><br />So for the sake of ANY kind of space program for the US it is quite a bit better that Mike Griffen is in charge, don't you think?

 

[nasa4now]

The five man crew of the Discovery's first RTF mission, STS-26, launched on September 29, 1988.

 

[jll62]

Nice post. Sometimes we forget just how many flights there can be in a 5 year span. I didn't expect the numbers to be that high.<br /><br />Funny that askold has not replied to this one...

 

[john_316]

I sincerley believe some of the latter shuttle missions will be defered to the EELV and save some money as well in the process...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[askold]

What, what. Reply to what?<br /><br />The number of total missions flown for all purposes? I got the ISS assembly flight numbers off a NASA site.<br /><br />When the shuttle was young and friskier (as we all were) it flew a lot of missions. Looking back, many of those missions narrowly averted disaster (leaking SRBs, falling foam). NASA is not going to return to that same pace of launches in the future. Especially when you factor in the fact that another shuttle has to be on standby for a launch to proceed.<br /><br />In today's new reality, 25 launches in 5 years seems optimistic.

 

[vt_hokie]

NASA needs 7 more shuttle flights to get through "U.S. core complete" with the addition of Node 2. Three additional flights could get you the European Columbus module and the two Japanese lab modules. Throw in the final Hubble servicing mission, and you've got a dozen flights.<br /><br />There's really no sense in adding the additional ISS trusses and solar arrays, not to mention Node 2, if the additional lab modules aren't going to be installed.

 

[no_way]

Its actually impossible to "complete" which has a loose and ever-changing definition of "completeness".<br /><br />The only thinkable way is just to draw a line in sand at some point, and basically declare victory and go home from there.<br /><br />The math above is pretty much irrelevant especially when definitions and rules change faster than you can update your schedule viewgraphs.

 

[j05h]

>Its actually impossible to "complete" which has a loose and ever-changing definition of "completeness". <br /><br />Yes. Exactly what is "Core Complete"? Well, depends on your definitition. <br /><br />If Dr. Griffin goes to Congress and gets permission, this is what I think he should work toward: immediate standdown and retirement of the Orbiters, with a 5-year crash program to develop the SDHLV and launch the remaining ISS structures in a few flights, defered. "Completion" (Kibo, Columbus, trusses, Node2) can be achieved in 2010-12 timeframe by this method. Using the heavy lifter could allow for some integration on the ground. This is pretty much support for ATK's safesimplesoon plan - single-stick SRB, Shuttle-C evolving into mega Inline heavy lifter. We can pursue both the VSE and get the partner's modules to ISS, without breaking the bank. It just requires retirement of the orbiter.<br /><br />I want to see the station utilized, we have put so much effort into it that it is foolish to abandon. However, for NASA, I think the VSE is more important and should take precedence. They are not mutually exclusive, until politics gets in the way.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[askold]

I don't know how I got the role of the Grinch Who Stole the US Manned Space Program, but I have no objections to manned space exploration, per se, I just think we're doing it really badly right now.<br /><br />For a variety of reasons, our whole society has become terribly risk averse - we sue McDonalds when they don't prevent us from spilling coffee on our laps!<br /><br />So be it. I don't think there's any rush to put boot-prints on the Martian surface. The planet will be still be there in 10 years and in 100 years. At some point the state of the art of our technology will intersect with our risk tolerance and then we can go fly without all this infuriating handwringing every time the slightest thing is out of place.<br /><br />For now - let's send the robots. They're doing great work and we don't declare a national day of mouring when some bone-head mistake sends one crashing into the ground.

 

[spayss]

askold: You are asking a very logical and sane question. The type of question that is asked everyday in every engineering and construction firm. <br /><br /> The difference is that NASA doesn't cope well with reality. It doesn't make provisions for likely scenarios. It makes provisions for ideal scenarios. <br /><br /> Of course it's unlikely that the ISS will be completed. NASA doesn't adjust to that reality. What is NASA's position 'today' on the ISS if the Shuttle is grounded for good? What's it's position if 3 more flights are completed then it is grounded? what's NASA's position if there are 8 flights before 2010 and the ISS is incomplete but the Shuttle is grounded?<br /><br /> These are all types of scenarios that every engineering firm has to cope with. There's a disjunt in NASA's plans and the real world. You're quite properly asking for a reality check. <br /><br /> Perhaps the ISS should be completed at whatever cost over whatever time table it takes. That's fine as long as it's accepted that the budget is limited and resources that would go to other missions (such as return to the Moon) will not be available for a few extra years.

 

[frodo1008]

From a technical standpoint what you are saying here is a good alternative to using the shuttle. Of course, the other alternative is strangely enough a place where I happen to agree with askold! And that is as the shuttle would be going to the ISS, which can be used as a safe harbor, then continue to finish the ISS with the shuttle. Just get off this constant worry mode, space flight is going to continue to be risky. Nobody knows this more than the astronauts, and they are very anxious about only one thing, that is, am I ever going to get to space for those who don't even have any flights, and when am I gong to get my next flight for those who have at least one flight! Why would anybody go through all that these people do for ANY other reason? <br /><br />We were very, very lucky not to lose someone during the actual flight phase of the Apollo project (after the Apollo 1 fire, which was not in actual flight). All of the astronauts almost expected that someone was going to be killed, but they fought like hell to get a flight anyway! <br /><br />From what I understand Burt Rutan and Virgin Galactic have thousands of serious applications already, and that for just a five minute sub-orbital flight! I can't believe that these people would be so uninformed and stupid as to believe that all risk can be removed from even these relatively simple flights.<br /><br />So either take some couple of months and make as sure as possible that the foam problem is finally as fixed as it is going to be, and then fly the shuttles to the station to finish it. At least, use up the equipment that has already been built, and is just sitting on the ground waiting to be placed on the station. What an enormous waste of time and money it would be NOT to place these pieces on the ISS where they belonged! If it can be done in 15 flights before 2010, then fine. IF it takes more flights, and somewhat longer, then fine! Just finish it, and move on!<br /><br />OR, do what JO5H said here, and mo

 

[frodo1008]

You got that reputation by starting a thread in which you stated that stoping the manned programs was what you wanted. I am just naive enough about what people post here to have believed you! I am just as willing to believe that you were indeed talking about the current situation, and not abandoning the manned program forever! I know that I sometimes write things which I am generally writing one way and thinking another. So I will accept that you may not have meant what you wrote in quite the same way as it sounded!<br />No problem!<br /><br />You, and the other shuttle detractors DO have a point. As I said in answer to JO5H's excellent post, is that even those of us who have supported NASA, the manned program, the STS system, and the ISS have had our doubts (at least I have)! <br /><br />I just think that it would be a complete waste to abandon these projects at this time. Congress isn't going to just then take the money from the STS system and the ISS, and allow NASA to just use it any way (i.e. more robotic missions) that it wants to. The money will just go into some war on the other side of this poor embattled planet. or some other black hole of a pork program!<br /><br />So what IS needed is a NASA with the guts to at least finish the ISS to the level of the equipment that is ALREADY completed by flying the shuttle. And at the same time building the next manned system. Being intelligent people we know that any other system is in itself NOT going to be 100% safe! It just isn't going to happen. But by seperating the placing of large amounts of material from the placing of human beiongs into LEO, and then making sure that the placing of human beiings is far safer than it has been with the shuttle, then we can indeed move forward into a brighter future for all mankind!<br /><br />Just for your own information I fully support not only the present robotic exploration, but even a greatly incrreased program. When we human beings go further out into the solar system