What should NASA do NOW?

[frodo1008]

There has been a lot of running around and screaming with people holding up their hand and saying “Scuttle the Shuttle”. And even those of us who have supported the program all along are having some trouble with this current problem. However, what is really needed here are people discussing what are reasonable solutions. SO I will give it a try!<br /><br />One thing that I do NOT want is to see the US pull out of the ISS project. We have given our word that we will complete the ISS to a certain point to our partners in this project. Maybe, I am old fashioned here but I believe that when you give your word you honor it! <br /><br />So we really have two items here, what is to be done with the STS system, and if this system is really to be abandoned, how do we complete our commitment to the ISS. Let us start with the STS (shuttle) system itself. I will try to list what I believe are the options here, running from what I believe is the most likely up to the least likely.<br /><br />The most likely is that NASA will get the shuttle up and flying again, and soon. I know the negativists on these boards will not like this, but I really think that if NASA does anything else it is asking for a lot of trouble with both the American taxpayer, and with congress. As I said in another thread NASA simply needs to get up enough guts to do what can be done very soon, and then simply fly the shuttle!! It is that simple, I know that this may indeed result in risk, but as the shuttle is going to be going to the safe harbor of the ISS anyway, then why not? If something hits and damages some ot the tiles in such a manner that NASA does not want to bring back astronauts from the ISS, then either we use additional Soyuz capsules, or another shuttle in a rescue mission. We are looking at a maximum of some 25 flights or so to finish the ISS with the shuttle, so let us do it by the 2010 deadline. And then move on to the CEV or other systems.<br />Also, the shuttle should be used ONLY f

 

[john_316]

What we need to do....<br /><br />1. Proceed with ET foam litagation and correction<br />2. Continue STS flights for ISS till 2010<br />3. Proceed with CEV design and development<br />4. Proceed with SDHLV for future time frame<br />5. Deliver some ISS components on Delta 4 or Atlas 5.<br />6. Continue to show support to the program as all of us are apart of the team.<br />7. Continue work into the SSTO designs for the future<br />8. Continue Lunar concepts and designs<br />9. Continue Mars concepts and designs<br />10. Continue project Prometheus along side Constellation.<br />11. Get on Board and enjoy the ride.<br /><br /><br />Space always will be frought with danger just like when you drive your car to the store and back. Anything can happen. We all need to realize our space occupation only makes up a small fraction of what we really could have there now.<br /><br />If we apply ourselves along with our friends and allies we can have permanate space presence out to Mars before 2050.<br /><br />Godspeed...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

I made some short term suggestions here...<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=293224&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[thermionic]

>>Another point on this particular option is that 112 of 114 shuttles have landed without any major problems of this nature, I would be perfectly willing to bet that the odds that the 20 some flights left to complete the ISS could do the same are very good. <br /><br />If the chances of loosing a shuttle are 1/50 per flight, then we'd have a 40% likelihood of loosing another one in the next 20 flights. That's too much. I think it's really important that the failure rate has been reduced if we want to go on. Does anyone know what NASA thinks the likelihood of catastrophe per flight is now? They surely have made some attempt to calculate this.

 

[spayss]

"The most likely is that NASA will get the shuttle up and flying again, and soon. "<br /><br /> What planet are you living on?<br /><br /> Many space keeners have an inability to distinguish what they 'want to happen' from what is going to happen.<br /><br /> I want, I want, I want.... Back to reality. NASA will have a budget of 15 to 20 billion each year over the next decade. What can be achieved with that amount of resources? It has nothing to do with Cristopher Columbus and Indians. <br /><br /> I'd like to see more emphasis of unmanned probes and deep space telescopes. On the manned side of the equation resources put into improving Apollo/Soyuz type technology.

 

[hurricane4911]

I agree 100%<br /><br />Human spaceflight today has no direction nor purpose. Going back to the moon for the sake of it is not good enough. If there are financial reasons for going back, let private industry foot the bill and reap the profits.<br /><br />I fully understand that robots cannot replace humans on missions. But they are getting pretty damn good! NASA should pave the way with robotic missions and leave human exploitation of space to those can exploit the best. <br />

 

[askold]

Nothing will happen until Discovery is brought down - then watch out.<br /><br />It's clear that the only real reason to have the shuttle is to service the ISS - which means that the ISS is key.<br /><br />When the ISS is put under the microscope, I'm afraid it's going to be found lacking. That will doom the shuttle to an early retirement.<br /><br />Maybe NASA can do a fly-by to the 10th planet with the money that is freed up ...

 

[frodo1008]

A very good post! A whole lot of food for thought here!<br />With some possible variation in minor details the exact same order of happening that I can see taking place in the nere to far future! Will be discussing these items either on this thread or on other new threads in the near future.<br /><br />Once again, thanks! Very level headed!

 

[frodo1008]

Dwayne:<br /><br />I think that your other post is far too important to just be used as a link reference. So I have taken the admitted liberty of copying your post to place it here in this thread also! So here goes:<br /><br />At the risk of making what might be considered a devils advocate suggestion, here goes: <br /><br />Debris strikes do not appear to pose a risk to the ascending shuttle. They are a risk to the descending shuttle. So <br /><br />Keep flying the shuttle as is. Fly it to the station with the minimum manning to do the job, with no equipment you are not prepared to lose. <br /><br />Continue the extensive inspection process. Look for damage that threatens the re-entry. If you see it, go to lifeboat mode, and ditch the shuttle in question. Return the crew to Earth via Soyuz. (Yes, you have to figure out how to do the funding) <br /><br />Assuming you can do a good job on the inspection process (I know that is a big assumption), the worst thing you have is 3 more one-way shuttle flights for supply and completion. You probably have more, with what appears to be a minimum risk to the crew, again hinging on how effective your are at inspecting. <br /><br />In short, don't do a bunch of twiddling with the foam/tank. Understand that there is a re-entry risk that you can mitigate, with only the cost of destroying shuttles that you are going to retire anyway. <br /><br />What do y'all think? This is inteded to stimulate thought in some different directions... <br /><br />Wayne <br /><br />Not only do I agree with your post, I also think that this is the most likely scenario for the near future! Even if I am NOT living on this planet, as some of the more helpful people put it! <br /><br />The only additional minor point that I would make is that even if a shuttle was damaged on ascent to the level that the astronauts (and I agree there should ONLY be the number absolutely necessary to finish whatever part if the station that is being taken up) needed to be resued that the equ

 

[frodo1008]

A reasonable post, and I am certain that NASA is itself well aware that they need to attempt a better repair of the foam problem. The problem is time and money. There is not a whole lot of either to be expended here. IN particular time, I fully believe that if they can not fly Atlantis this year they are indeed in big trouble, maybe not enough to directly end the program, but certianly enough to have to go to another scenario. Of which there are several that I wish to discuss here.<br /><br /><br />On the odds, remember that the other failure of the two out of 114 was the Challenger, which never got to this problem! So the direct odds for actual flights are some 1 in 112, and not 1 in 50. This is indeed a minor point, but a point never the less. Please also remember that as both Dwayne an I have pointed out that if a problem of damage comes up the astronauts themselves are going to the ISS, where they would have to be brought back by either a rescue shuttle or soyuz capsules. But the astronauts themselves would be safe, and that is the only thing stopping the shuttle from completing the ISS! While I am indeed sorry about the Hubble, I don't really think there is going to be a another shuttle flight up to it, it just isn't going to happen. However, if the advocates of improved robotic capability really want to push the true limits of robotic science then I would like to suggest that they push for a robotic repair mission. The research into artificial intelligence alone would be worth the cost, and they may even be able to pull it off and make the Hubble useful for a long time to come. How about that askold here is your opporunity!

 

[arobie]

Hurricane,<br /><br />What is the ultimate goal of <i>all</i> space flight? I mean, why do we even put forth the effort?

 

[frodo1008]

"What kind of planet are you living on?" This is the kind of comment I would expect from someone over on free space. It isn't really too useful here. <br /><br />At any rate I am sorry, but for once the politics of the situation are aginst you. This current adminitstration is in no position to further anger the opinions of the rest of the world. We ARE NOT going to abandon the ISS. I am very certain of this. One of the other scenarios that I was going to put out (and will in another post) was indeed what would be done to finish our obligations to the ISS, IF the shuttles were to be totally grounded. <br /><br />IF you have some actual information here instead of just another extremely negative opinion it would be useful here. One scenario is indeed that the shuttle willl never fly again, I note this scenario, but politics (like it or not) dictates that THIS is the least likely scenario! Not the most likely! That is why I did not begin with this particular scenario, but I will address it soon, and if you have USEFUL information at that time please join in!

 

[frodo1008]

The same answer that I provided spyass would generally apply to your post also. Except for the comment about my planetary origin that is!

 

[frodo1008]

I am fully aware of your general opinion of even manned space flight itself. I will indeed try to get to the level of this discussion where we will discuss the situation where the shuttle program would be totally shut down. If this would please you then fine. However, at this time I believe that the program IS NOT going to be shut down. Even though he is generally somewhat negative also I have noted on other threads where vwbraun has stated that he thought that the current negative affects of this situation would at least see to it that the shuttle will be truly phased out by 2010, and I totally agree with him! <br /><br />I see NO reason why the shuttle should not be fully able to complete our obligations to the international community that we promised for the ISS by that time. I also, don't see why the funding to do this would either have to reduce the robotic efforts of NASA, or stop NASA from designing and building a follow on to the shuttle in the meantime. <br /><br />I have noticed that in congress overall funding levels for the next five years that they also believe this. These funding levels while tight are adequate to do ALL of these things if NASA adopts the can/do attitude it once did. This is also one reason why I believe that the support of people like us in the space advocacy community is important. To help generate and foster that very can/do attitude. I would also like to think that both Mike Griffen and President Bush also support these efforts!

 

[le3119]

NASA should've postponed their announcement to ground the shuttle fleet until AFTER the return of Discovery. Why they chose to make known their change of plans during the mission is beyond me.

 

[spayss]

Don't worry Frodo says it's going to fly 'soon'.<br /><br /> I restate: reality check needed. The Shuttle is a dead duck. Exactly how are they going to fix the foam issue that hasn't been done in the last 2.5 years? More importantly, why would anyone have confidence that the issue was actually 'fixed' the next time?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">This current adminitstration is in no position to further anger the opinions of the rest of the world. We ARE NOT going to abandon the ISS. I am very certain of this.</font>/i><br /><br />I think you overestimate the importance of space in the eyes of most people. For example, I bet the French in general are more concerned about the Iraq war, global warming and Kyoto, farm subsidies, McDonalds, and American movies. I think you also overestimate how much the current Whitehouse cares about what "Old Europe" or anyone else thinks.<br /><br />As it is, ISS "obligations" have been seriously compromised. The 28-mission ISS assembly is pretty much dead. The only question is "how much" will be launched and when.<br /><br />Also, the original ISS obligation included supplying the station and bringing science equipment and experiments to <b><i>and from</i></b> ISS with the shuttle. With the 2010 retirement of the shuttle, this is already blown out of the water. There is nothing even on the drawing board to provide down-cargo capability for ISS, which impacts some (much?) of the planned science on ISS.<br /><br />The "obligation" is not an absolute -- you either met it or you didn't. It has <b><i>already</i></b> been decided that the US will not meet its role in the original vision for ISS. Ccrew escape, configuration by 28 missions, shuttle supply post 2010, shuttle down cargo capability post 2010, etc.<br /><br />The only question is how close the US will come to fufilling its role of the original vision.</i>

 

[benb]

Repeal Public Law 85-804 (Executive Order 10789) as it applies to ZATO's (secret cities) like Grants Pass, Oregon whose cladestined Human science psycho-subliminal activities I allege can conceivably re-translate to the space shuttles demise. The crippling legacy of subliminal RF microwave Mind Control, in a karmic cause-effect sense, eventually will destroy NASA. <br /><br />I have e-mailed them repeatedly about these activities and requested an investigation.....I wrote Stennis via regular mail in November 2004 and never heard back<br /><br />Unambigously awful.....

 

[frodo1008]

I SAID that the most probable course of action was that the shuttle would fly soon. I DID NOT say that it would automatically. I do not wish to get in a flame war with someone that either makes sarcastic remarks, or who misquotes me! If you want that kind of fight please go over to FS!<br /><br />I have not yet got around to posting my own thoughts about even a partial (where the shuttle is flown unmanned) or a complete shutdown of the program as of yet, please aalow me the courtesy of waiting until I can do this!!

 

[skywalker01]

Interesting question<br /><br />1) fix the foam ASAP and fly the Shuttle to finish the ISS<br /><br />2) honor our agreements regarding the ISS as best as possible but allowing for the retirement and replacement of the Shuttle with the CEV.<br /><br />3) get moving on the block 1 CEV and the SD SRM booster with J-2 upper stage for same<br />( I like either the Apollo capsule concept or a biconic like the one shown here best, http://www.affordablespaceflight.com/step2.html )<br /><br />4) develop the SDHLV, the SDHLV launched TLI stage for going to the Moon, the Lunar Lander, and the block 2 CEV <br /><br />5) confirm or disprove the existance of water ice at the Lunar poles so that a Lunar base site can be selected (either one of the Lunar poles if ice exists or an equatorial site if no ice)<br /><br />6) develop the Lunar surface euipment from the LUNOX plan based on results of item 5.<br />http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld051p.htm<br /><br />7) Return to the Moon for both exploration and to make use of Lunar resources for further manned space exploration.<br /><br />8) Look into replacing the TLI stage with either an ion powered tether in Earth orbit, or a reusable mass driver powered vehicle, or a reusable LOX/LH2 stage that uses Lunar propellants for a lower cost method of launching spacecraft to escape velocity<br /><br />9) Send the parts for a construction station to the Sun-Earth-Lagrange point 2 (SEL-2) for the assembly of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) using either an unmanned ion powered propulsion system or one of the propulsion systems developed in item 8<br /><br />10) send people to SEL-2 to assemble the JWST<br /><br />11) somewhere along the line developing a lower cost way of getting into Earth orbit needs to be done.<br />Something that will reduce the cost of getting to orbit to the $1000/lb ran

 

[drwayne]

"fix the foam ASAP"<br /><br />I have serious questions about whether that is possible in this universe, hence my suggestion from earlier in the thread.<br /><br />I don't see fixing the foam as a neccessary condition. I do not even see further efforts in this direction as cost effective, time effective, or even neccessarily safe.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[skywalker01]

<< I have serious questions about whether that is possible in this universe >><br /><br />Only time will tell but I suspect it is possible and that it will happen fairly quickly.

 

[drwayne]

Let us hope then that you are right, and that I am wrong. Nothing would make me happier....well, there is winning the lottery...and getting that new pickup...well, almost nothing.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Did you read my suggestion by the way?<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gawin]

here is a posablesolution if one of the shuttles was unable to re-enter the atmosphere. <br /><br />Leave it up thier as a space tug/service vehicle. use it to retrive parts of the ISS that are launched via unmaned rockets. this way you have a meens of going out and grabing the parts and bringing them back and installing them on the ISS. This would bring a large mesure of safty to launching other payloads to the ISS in unmanned missions as you wouldnt have to worry about dockcking them remotly just get them in the general area and use the shuttle to go retrive them.<br /><br />so should one of the shuttles end up not being able to return from orbit not all would be lost.<br /><br />gawin