U.S. urged to keep space shuttle flying past 2010

[erioladastra]

Me thinks we have diverged on the thread and suggest this discussion be moved to its own thread for those eager to follow it. Thanks.

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The difference between an offensive and a defensive weapon is just in when you push the button. Once a missile is in place you can change your mind at any time about that.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />There is flaw with your statement. Your reply was in response to something that was said about a comparison between ballistic missiles and ABMs. ABMs have no offensive capabilities at all. It doesn't matter when you push any button associated with them. The problem the Russians have (and what triggered the ABM treaty) was that an ABM shield can make real offensive missiles useless.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Russia put those missiles in Cuba in response to something the US was doing in Europe.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Namely some Jupiter/Redstone missiles in Turkey. They were already losing favor in the Pentagon because they couldn't be fueled until you wanted to fire them. It would take several hours to do so. In the process, it would be obvious to anyone watching that a launch would be happening soon. Khrushchev felt threaten by them personally because he had a vacation dacha in the Crimea, which was within range and could have been a target. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

Well stated and I would only add that the reason ABMs are not considered offensive weapons is that they lack the range to reach targets other than targets coming into the area ABMs are guarding.<br /><br />As for the now almost forgotten topic...I'd be willing to bet that barring another shuttle disaster, the shuttle could well be kept flying beyond 2010 in part because of concerns over reliance on Russian hardware. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">..."barring another shuttle disaster.... concerns over reliance on Russian hardware."</font><br /><br />Interesting pair of phrases. As we speak they are dealing with the <br />shuttle's faulty empty tank sensors, failure of which <b>could</b> mean <br />another disaster. Who does have reliability on their side? <br /><br />Or do you mean political concerns, not technological ones? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>...I'd be willing to bet that barring another shuttle disaster, the shuttle could well be kept flying beyond 2010...<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />This has been my feeling for some time. As the commissioning date for CEV inevitably pushes out far beyond the 2010 retirement date of Shuttle, it won't be either operationally or politically acceptable to be 'grounded'.<br /><br />The NASA/USA guys have pointed out this is impossible from a budgetry standpoint as financing, facilities/hardware and manpower are diverted to the Constellation program, but Congress will make it happen I believe.<br /><br />An incredibly inefficient and expensive way to go about the transition from one vehicle to the next but, in reality, not uncommon with projects of this magnitude. It seems human nature, or 'business nature perhaps, to defer biting the bullet on development of a new vehicle (or building or whatever) until it is too late to do it in the most cost-effective way.<br /><br /><br /> <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>

 

[dragon04]

In hindsight, it seems to me that putting all the "ISS Eggs in the STS Basket was a bad idea.<br /><br />IMO, the whole thing in terms of the ISS was based on overly optimistic assumptions based on a relatively flawless STS launch schedule that left no room for minor delays let alone catastrophic failures and the ultra complicated nature of the aging Shuttle Fleet itself.<br /><br />IIRC, there are no more External Fuel tanks to be made, and the manufacturing facility is shut down, yes?<br /><br />I don't know about Aerospace and fuel tank manufacturing, but I DO know that once a coal mine is "closed", it's cost prohibitive to reopen it to produce coal. Or at least <b>was</b> before oil hit $90 a barrel. But, I digress.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>IIRC, there are no more External Fuel tanks to be made, and the manufacturing facility is shut down, yes? <br /><br />I don't know about Aerospace and fuel tank manufacturing, but I DO know that once a coal mine is "closed", it's cost prohibitive to reopen it to produce coal.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I agree it would be cost-prohibitive to reinstigate production of ET's, hence my above suggestion that keeping the STS program running beyond 2010 will cost an obscene amount of money, but I believe the US government (and taxpayer for that matter) will be prepared to spend that.<br /><br />It's a matter of pride for the US people in my view. The USA is used to being at the pointy end of human endeavour, particularly where it comes to the technically tricky stuff. It just won't be acceptable to have no Astronaut access to space or, at the very least, have to rely on hitching rides on Soyuz. Especially if the ETA on the CEV pushes out beyond 2014 to 2015-6-7!!<br /><br />We're all pragmatic (cynical?) enough to realise it's going to be a rocky road to getting these new vehicles in the air. It's going to take more time and more money than you'd ideally want, but that is the demonstrated nature of any large project.<br /><br />I personally don't see any problem with flying the Orbiters beyond 2010, save for the obvious huge expense involved in trying to run two programs alongside one another. However, given the relatively meagre budgets NASA is handed year on year, it's hard to see any scenario which would have allowed a smooth and painless transition from one launch system to the next.<br /><br />The way things are shaping up it's either accept a long time sitting on the ground, or keep Shuttle going until the finish line is in sight with Constellation. Personally, I'd keep Shuttle running until after Ares I and V have demonstrated their abilities in actual missions, but that's easier said than done when I'm funding it w <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>

 

[wubblie]

NASA wouldn't need to go past 2010, if they used the unmanned capability of the craft. Does anyone doubt that if this was an unmanned craft, they would have gone ahead and launched with 2 of 4 sensors working? Of course they would have. The STS would be a much more efficient vehicle if it is just used to ferry up pieces of the ISS, and the astronauts aboard the ISS take over there and attach the modules. NASA could launch 6 a year, if they didn't have to worry about making sure that everything was four-fold redundant because there are people aboard. Take the astronauts off, launch at will, finish the ISS in 09', and put the money toward Ares.

 

[MeteorWayne]

It's all a moot point.<br /><br />There are no more ET's in the pipeline.<br />When they are gone, the program is ended.<br /><br />If all goes well, that will be in September 2010.<br /><br />If not, there will be leftover tanks that might extend the program, but with no more ET's, whatever missions are on the manifest are the only possible ones.<br /><br />Sure, stuff happens, it might pass September, but no missions can be added. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[steve82]

"If not, there will be leftover tanks that might extend the program, but with no more ET's, whatever missions are on the manifest are the only possible ones. "<br /><br />And by that time, the ET assembly line will long since have been closed down and many of those facilities reconfigured for Orion which will be cutting metal by then.<br />

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">It's a matter of pride for the US people in my view.</font><br /><br />Perhaps so in the minds of an insignificant few, and if so, it's pride terribly misplaced.<br /><br />JAXA, the Chinese, and the ESA have all enjoyed great advancement in spaceflight while the USA has wallowed in the stagnation of the STS Program with apparently little forethought to the next step of evolution in American spaceflight.<br /><br />When I use the term wallow in stagnation, I'm not indicting the STS Program. Certainly, in the history of Manned Space flight, there's not <b>been</b> a more magnificent machine built and flown.<br /><br />It's the departure from the KISS principle that I'm getting at. Sure. The STS Program has proven the prowess of American ingenuity and engineering. It's a great source of pride, no doubt.<br /><br />However, in the larger picture, it's an expensive herd of one-trick ponies, IMO. That's a critique, not a criticism.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The way things are shaping up it's either accept a long time sitting on the ground, or keep Shuttle going until the finish line is in sight with Constellation.</font><br /><br />So, what's inherently wrong with "a long time on the ground" if it leads to the most expedient development of the next generation of American Manned Spaceflight?<br /><br />We have an old euphamism here in America. "Stepping over a Dollar to save a Dime".<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I personally don't see any problem with flying the Orbiters beyond 2010, save for the obvious huge expense involved in trying to run two programs alongside one another</font><br /><br />That <b>is</b> the problem in a nutshell. Every dollar spent to change course and extend the STS Program at this late stage is a dollar <b>not</b> spent on the future.<br /><br />The fact that costs increase yearly as a function of inflation amplifies the problem.<br /><br />In addition, how many more years can NASA expect to reliably get out <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Which means they are still in place and could be kept in use if a case can be made for further use of the Shuttles.<br /><br />I would also think after the number of flights already done and the extensive maintenance accomplished to-date some of the heavy maintenance could be rescheduled. Most engines and and airframes come out with low TBO's that get extended as experience is gained. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> e some of the heavy maintenance could be rescheduled</i><br /><br />No. The CAIB report said that the fleet needs to be fully recertified if they were going to fly past 2010. That means stripped right to the airframes and verified. Look at all the age-related issues STS is already experiencing and it is easy to understand why the Orbiters are being retired. They are showing their age. What's the latest? Cracks in another fuel line?<br /><br />There should have been a 2nd-gen Shuttle developed in the early 90s instead of Station. NLS or Shuttle-C or something else. That was NASA's real opportunity to change the spaceflight cost dynamic. Post SEI, pre-ISS. Now it is up to SpaceX and Bigelow, especially with Energia and StarSem stepping back from increased Soyuz flights.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There should have been a 2nd-gen Shuttle developed in the early 90s instead of Station.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Actually, they tried -- twice. First was NASP (better known as Reagan's "Orient Express"). Then Lockheed got the contract for VentureStar. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

photoneye:<br />First-strike ICBMs, you said???! And where you found such definition? According to Soviet military commanders, it was a pure defensive weapon.<br /><br />Me:<br />So because Soviet military commanders say the missiles were defensive...therefore they are? Both sides will downplay weapons capabilities when it serves their interests. Cuban missile crisis revolved around the deployment of SS-4 missiles (NATO code named Sandal) and possibly SS-5 (Skean) missiles. The SS-4 range of 2,000 Km would have allowed the SS-4 to reach Washington D.C. from Cuba.<br /><br />This missile can be launched offensively or defensively but defensively in the missile world implies the ability to defend against incoming ballistic missiles or aircraft and would likely not require such long ranges.<br /><br />You mentioned the missiles were there to defend against U.S. invasion...why would the SS-4, the missile at the heart of the crisis...need such a long range to defend Cuba?<br /><br />I disagree with the Soviet commanders assessment that missiles can be "Purely defensive" unless they are clearly ABMs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

centsworth_II:<br />Interesting pair of phrases. As we speak they are dealing with the...do you mean political concerns, not technological ones?<br /><br />Me:<br />Mostly the political ramifications of reliance by supposedly the worlds only superpower and worlds premier economic power on a supposedly economically defunct world power to get the superpower into space. The shuttle has done very well and has been more forgiving than most folks realize. I bring up the possibility of another disaster in terms of it being just that...a possibility. Unfortunately however, another shuttle disaster will cause a political backlash that will result in the programs closing prematurely IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Dragon04:<br />In hindsight, it seems to me that putting all the "ISS Eggs in the STS Basket was a bad idea.<br /><br />Me:<br />At the time the idea seemed sound. But even if some clairvoyant person in 1975 or so said the shuttle would prove to be an economic disaster...there would not have been funding for other eggs in the political climate of the day, which for human space exploration largely prevails today.<br /><br />Had the warning been carried out another way...the shuttle cancelled before first flight...we might very well be observing the 35th anniversary of the last human spaceflight in 2010. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

SpaceKiwi:<br />The NASA/USA guys have pointed out this is impossible from a budgetry standpoint as financing, facilities/hardware and manpower are diverted to the Constellation program, but Congress will make it happen I believe.<br /><br />Me:<br />I'd have to agree with the NASA guys based on Apollo. NASAs budget was ramped way up to support Apollo. The total cost of Gemini was around $1B dollars and much of Gemini was devoted to preparation for Apollo. Apollo by itself was 26 times the Gemini budget. Now we talk about returning to the moon on a NASA annual budget that will see no significant change as the NASA budget of the 1960s did?<br /><br />Or put another way. From 1960 to 1975, the U.S. went from no humans in space, no manned spacecraft existed (1960) to five different spacecraft designs (Merc, Gem, Apollo Cm and LM, Skylab) and 30 plus manned flights by 1975.<br /><br />Any similar fifteen year period since is dismal by comparison. 1975 to 1990 fifteen year period saw the shuttle/spacelab development and operations and spacelab was a European program. 1990 to 2005, shuttle still...and ISS. As far as efficient transitions, thats apparently a more recent trend. The transition from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo was rapid. Due largely to the fact all were aimed at the same goal. But Apollo to shuttle introduced the first hiatus in human spaceflight which went from 175 to 1981. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> there is no "shuttle mafia". And if there was it has already done its job in seeing to it that the Orion will fly on the stick configuration,</i><br /><br />That we are having this discussion at all is proof that the Shuttle Mafia exists. Rep. Weldon has been making "Shuttle Forever" noises for years, and is supported by everyone from the KSC pad-rat to HQ to other Congress-critters. STS (and derivatives like the Shaft) has become the only acceptable spaceflight option precisely because of the Shuttle Mafia. <br /><br />I know this is an older post, but I think it needs to be pointed out exactly how stifling and influential this kabal has proven to be. That a former SSME engineer can stand up and say there is no undue political influence around STS is absurb. Frodo, I like you and respect you, but you are "Luca Brasi". (Please, plz don't put a horse head in my bed!)<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>>>"Cracks in another fuel line? "<br /> />Not that I know of. </i><br /><br />I thought I read that there were newly discovered hair-line cracks in a fiberglass segment of the hydrogen lines. My point is that age-related stress is only going to get worse if the STS fleet is flown past 2010.<br /><br />(and don't mean any insult to you current/past Shuttle workers)<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

A fiberglass segment of the hydrogen lines?<br /><br />That seems odd, since to me it seems fiberglass would not react well to cryo temperatures. <br /><br />Edit: Got a link to the story? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[3488]

Hi MeteorWayne,<br /><br />Fibreglass @ cryonic temperatures would be extremely brittle would it not??<br /><br />Liquid Hydrogen: -253 C / 20 K. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <br /><br />Unless it is a special formulated fibreglass, in which case would be far more likely. <br /><br />This is getting more & more complicated.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

No link, sorry, am looking but busy. I probably misread it but could have sworn I read that in the past week. Fiberglass as an insulator perhaps? It does sound odd. If I find the article I'll link to it.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[3488]

Happy New Year everyone.<br /><br />What would you prefer to happen shuttle_guy, as I think you are in a better position <br />than most to have an informed opinion?<br /><br />What does erioladastra think?<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> cancel the Constellation program.<br />pay the vendors to restart the production lines fo Shuttle parts.</i><br /><br />Cancelling/stretching Constellation is seriously a bad idea unless the US govt is giving up on human spaceflight. Obama is talking about stretching CxP by an extra 5 years to pay for some kind of school program. The problem, besides 10 years (!) of no NASA flights? The problem is that stretching the program still requires $500M/yr in maintenance costs to enable it later. <br /><br />Extending STS is not the answer. Can some components even be sourced again? A lot of the hardware is old-tech at this point. For instance, aren't the ECO sensors taken from a large store of hardware? If a new run was needed, would the vendors want to redesign the item?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>