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

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If I might ask, would you define the precise reasons that you think it's worth the costs (and risk) and backtracking in the big picture that would be required to extend the STS Program?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Apologies for the delay in reviewing your comments and posting a reply, Dragon.<br /><br />I don't, for a second, think it's worth the costs to extend the STS program, and I don't believe that's what I said. I did say that I think it's inevitable that the first operational flights of the Stick and the Heavy Lifter will push out well beyond what is currently forecast. History teaches us that large projects such as this rarely come in on time and/or on budget.<br /><br />Given that we are already talking about a four year stand-down for the Astronaut Office, and that time is only likely to grow more substantial, I believe it is also inevitable that some attempt will be made to extend STS' life, and hang the expense. It only takes the political will on Capitol Hill to vote NASA as much cash as they would need to do so. Again, I view this as a matter of pride for the American people, and particularly the political leaders. Despite the obvious benefits of being 'grounded' so that full efforts can be put into Constellation, I'm not sure Congress will wear this once it becomes apparent that 2014 is overly optimistic for Mission 1 with the new vehicles.<br /><br />I've listened to others say that production lines in support of STS are about to be decommissioned, and I will concede that they make a very compelling argument against my point of view. I can only say we won't have long to wait either way, and 2008 is going to be a crucial year in determining what does happen in 2010 and beyond. I'm rarely right anyway.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><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>

 

[j05h]

If successful, Dragon and Falcon 9 can fill the gap. SpaceX's COTS schedule will be complete sometime in 2009 or 2010, presumably followed by commercial ops of Dragon to ISS and any Bigelow-based facilities. If available, this could more than cover the gap until Constellation. <br /><br />Every time STS operations are extended, it will cause Constellation first flight to ripple further into the future. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">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.</font>/i><br /><br />I think the critical decision points to close the gap have already passed. I am not sure Congress can understand that in some areas decisions made today don't effect results until many years (and several election cycles) in the future.<br /><br />No matter what, the NASA gap is going to be expensive. Either NASA will need to maintain facilities, employees, and contractors during the gap or they will have to pay to restart these capabilities later.<br /><br />To compound the problem, Ares I won't be operational until about the same time that NASA will be exiting ISS (2015-1016), so there will be an almost immediate second gap until Ares V is operational and Lunar launches are ready (2020).</i>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If successful, Dragon and Falcon 9 can fill the gap. SpaceX's COTS schedule will be complete sometime in 2009 or 2010, presumably followed by commercial ops of Dragon to ISS and any Bigelow-based facilities. If available, this could more than cover the gap until Constellation.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You might have flights, but after 2015, would anyone from NASA be flying? Their astronauts might be waiting for the lunar mission. Who will pay astronauts more? NASA or private industry? <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>

 

[j05h]

it's not a question of who pays more. Private industry almost always pays more than civil service. The question is whom will the adventure be with? Push papers for 15 years in exchange for a single Soyuz flight? or joining professional explorers doing something innovative? Hopefully the govt will come along for the ride, but it looks like new.space will be going full-force. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> No, the sensors have never given us any problems. </i><br /><br />I was mostly refering to the change in technology - the ECO sensor (or other part) was designed 30 years ago. So, given a new order, would the vendor want to change something? Perhaps move to carbon fiber covers? <br /><br />I agree that 9/30/10 is the smart stopping date. 3488 asked above how much it would cost to fly 2 STS flights a year after that. The answer is at least half the regular STS budget in my opinion, because of the sunk costs of all the dedicated facilities and staff. It would significantly delay Constellation and be begging for another accident. On top of all that is the CAIB recertification requirement. <br /><br />Besides "pride", what are the good reasons for continuing STS ops after 2010? What do you do after the next accident, with no new craft (ConstellatioN) in the pipeline? Permanent standdown? Why have 6 launches a year for $4G when you could, using SpaceX or Russia, possibly be flying dozens of times in that same budget? For the "Shuttle Forever" crowd, what do you do after the next accident? Rep. Weldon and others consistently fail to look into the future.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Since most of the ARE's and VSE stuff is power-point presentations and concept mockups it would make more sense to go with a Shuttle II. A new vehicle that trades payload capacity for crew safety with an escape module like the F-111 would be a good first step. Maybe a maximum crew of four or five. A redesigned ET to eliminate foam and sensor problems and composite SRB's would be a plus also.<br /><br />It just seems that the existing results of well over a hundred missions would more than offset the paper progress made on the alternatives. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacedog12]

I totally agree. I never did understand why after all we have learned and how many advancements in technology have occured in the last 30 years, we're going back to Apollo and talking about Splashdowns. This whole thing should have been thought out differently as in a "ShuttleII" or another type of flying craft. I cannot imagine 4 or six people going to the moon or mars in a cramped little capsule.

 

[erioladastra]

"been thought out differently as in a "ShuttleII" or another type of flying craft. "<br /><br />Why oh why would you take useless wings to the Moon or Mars? You want two vehicles, one to launch and reenter the earth and a second to travel back and forth? What is wrong with splash down - it is very simple and cost effective? After over a 100 years of building aircraft don't we put the jet engines in sideways and do something new? Well because what we have works well. Just because it is isn't sexy in your coordinate system doesn't neccessarily mean it isn't the right andwer. What system do you want (oh by the way it has to be somewhat cost effective to design, test and build)???

 

[scottb50]

I wasn't talking about taking a ShuttleII to the moon or Mars any more then taking Orion to Mars is feasible. <br /><br />To be effective at either place is going to take a much larger vehicle and it is going to have to be provisioned and manned from the surface. The whole problem with Shuttle has been it has to meet a lot more objectives then it was originally conceived to meet and rather then being very good at a single or a few things it just gets by at a whole bunch of things.<br /><br />Flexibility is great, but every new task somes at the expense of another. The Shuttle should takeoff and land and deliver people and payloads to LEO facilities, that's it. No moon trips, Mars trips or even two week autonomous missions, it should take things up and bring them down as efficienctly as possible.<br /><br />If you want to go to the moon or Mars you need specific vehicles for each, if you want a direct entry from the moon you could use a return capsule, but from Mars I would rather keep everything off Earth until there is no question of safety from returned samples. I would want the same for a robotic sample return mission.<br /><br />I seriously doubt it would be a problem but until you know for sure there is still uncertainty.<br /><br />Lets see we put engines on the wing, turboprops and piston, we put the under the wing, even over the wing and in the wing and we put them on the aft fuselage or in the vertical fin, they all seem to do the job they were meant to do or they wouldn't be in production. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Why take Orion to Mars? Because it is designed for such a mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Because it is designed for such a mission.<br /><br />It is designed to go to the ISS, it is designed to go to the moon an to Mars. That is the entire problem. If it is going to Mars it should be designed to go to Mars, not adapted from something designed to go to LEO, or the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

any Earth-return capsules in a Mars-bound craft are going to be a few tons in a stack of 100s of tons. Who cares if it says "Dragon" or "Orion" or "Sirius Cybernetics Corp" on them? Why wouldn't a Mars craft be built from as much pre-existing/modified hardware as possible? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[scottb50]

People object to launching perfectly safe Nuclear power sources into orbit. How do you think they would react to a direct entry Mars return capsule carrying samples from another Planet?<br /><br />While I seriously doubt it would be a problem I can't totally discount it as one. I would much rather see testing in LEO before samples are brought to the surface. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacedog12]

Multi Stage use it and lose it rockets (granted we will recover the solids) and Service modules are such a waste, not to mention all the trash we leave in space. Another 20 years of this, an we'll be lucky to be able to safely go up at all. There has to be a better way. As for the capsule. 90 cubic feet of habitable space for 4. How would you like to float for a week or more in a space the size of a cargo van? I think it's all about dollars and no sense. They should have been designing and building this thing 10 years ago and thinking bigger.

 

[willpittenger]

To me, the Orion would have to redesigned to land on Mars. It would need more parachutes that are designed solely for that trip and couldn't settle for landing on water. It also couldn't make the return trip or provide any attempt at a return to orbit. You might be able to use the your Earth entry Orion as a command center for the overall Mars ship, but I would never subject the entire crew (which for even the first Martian trip, needs to be 20+ people) into a small capsule. More space is needed.<br /><br />Besides, I agree that sample return missions of any type, manned or not, must restrict the samples to remaining in orbit until further notice. <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>

 

[spacedog12]

20 people is a lot. I wouldn't have a problem with smaller more compact crews if more time and energy were spent on a mode of transport that gets them there and back much more quickly. Coasting for several months leaves too much time for something unforseen to go wrong. ..................I agree that a lot of thought must go into both bringing samples back and contamination of other worlds by us.

 

[spacedog12]

20 people is a lot. I wouldn't have a problem with smaller more compact crews if more time and energy were spent on a mode of transport that gets them there and back much more quickly. Coasting for several months leaves too much time for something unforseen to go wrong. ..................I agree that a lot of thought must go into both bringing samples back and contamination of other worlds by us.

 

[scottb50]

Getting them there faster or back faster entails slowing down more when you get there or back. It depends on ow much propellant you want to take and how much payload you want to take, faster you take less, slower you take more. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

SpaceDog12:<br />Multi Stage use it and lose it rockets (granted we will recover the solids) and Service modules are such a waste, not to mention all the trash we leave in space.<br /><br />Me:<br />As you mentioned in your post, it is about dollars and no sense. The U.S. program was axed by approximately 50% funding wise in the early 1970s and has been held to that approximate level since. <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>

 

[vulture2]

>>granted we will recover the solids<br /><br />Recovering the SRBs was a programmatic requirement for the Space Shuttle. It is, unfortunately, not economically practical. <br /><br /> />>As you mentioned in your post, it is about dollars and no sense. The U.S. program was axed by approximately 50% funding wise in the early 1970s and has been held to that approximate level since.<br /><br />All the more reason we should use our limited funds to develop better technology, not to re-enact Apollo.

 

[willpittenger]

I should note that at various times flyback boosters (and ET) have been proposed. These would have flown back to the same runway the orbiter lands on. There would be minimal recovery costs. About the only thing better for the boosters would for them to have the energy to fly back to the processing plant (in Utah!!) rather than shipping them both ways. <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>

 

[steve82]

"Orion would have to redesigned to land on Mars"<br /><br />Orion will never land on Mars. It will only provide crew transport up to and from whatever other Constellation elements provide habitation during the trans-mars trajectory and the actual landing.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Multi Stage use it and lose it rockets (granted we will recover the solids) and Service modules are such a waste, not to mention all the trash we leave in space. Another 20 years of this, an we'll be lucky to be able to safely go up at all. There has to be a better way. As for the capsule. 90 cubic feet of habitable space for 4. How would you like to float for a week or more in a space the size of a cargo van? I think it's all about dollars and no sense. They should have been designing and building this thing 10 years ago and thinking bigger.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />While your statements are shared by many and common sense would agree, there are some things about space flight and traveling in space that I think your overlooking:<br /><br />1. Most of the weight of any launcher is the fuel. Even if you have permanent orbital tugs to take the place of service modules, you still have to launch the fuel and its probably just as costly. The remedy would be to find a source of fuel in space.<br /><br />2. Perception of volume of a room in micro gravity is different than in 1G environment. Astonauts have stated that room in a module seems bigger in micro gravity than on Earth.<br /><br />3. They've been designing and building this stuff since the 60's. Lots of ideas proposed, only few were given money to make it a reality.<br /><br />4. IMHO THERE IS NO SENSE IN GOVERNMENT WERE IT COMES TO SPACE. The reason is that everybody and their mother want a say on what we should do or how we should go about manned space operations. <br /><br />5. Multistage rockets work! Not much else has so far. Alternates are being tried:<br /><br />a. Air launched rockets. Virgin Galatic (suborbital air launches), and Air Launch LLC (rocket airlaunch for orbital placement of satellites) and TransfromationalSpace (Resusable capsule and thow away rocket that's air launched).<br /><br />The advantage of air launched rockets is that from the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

I seem to recall a derived Shuttle Orbiter concept that integrated the main fuel tank with the orbiter and ending up with large wings. Not your fly back SRBs but I thought it was relevant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>