Extending the Shuttle programme.

lord lucan

Seems some at NASA are hoping to convince the Obama administration to release the funds to enable it extend the shuttle programme further,citing the gap between the end of the shuttle programme and Orion and having to rely on the Russians for manned spaceflight and ISS work. Interesting read!

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/major-shuttle-and-iss-extension-drive-augustine-commission/

jumpguy

The shuttle flying is risky business, but then again so is all human spaceflight. Even though I love it, the sooner it's gone to sooner we can move on with human space exploration. All we have it orbiters. We've conquered Earth orbit. Lets do something new!
NASA's Ares rocket system (to launch Orion, their new craft) is under scrutiny though, as it's budget is large yet there are lots of bugs in the system such as the launch blast injuring astronauts.

mike65

What we need is an elevator, something that been discussed on a theoretical level for many years.

Stargate

lord lucan wrote: »

Seems some at NASA are hoping to convince the Obama administration to release the funds to enable it extend the shuttle programme further,citing the gap between the end of the shuttle programme and Orion and having to rely on the Russians for manned spaceflight and ISS work. Interesting read!


Lord Lucan !
How you doing this evening , great read , i wonder how much the economic downturn will play in what happens re the Shuttle Programme, maybe in different times we would see a different result :eek:

Regards
Stargate

lord lucan

Stargate wrote: »

Lord Lucan !
How you doing this evening , great read , i wonder how much the economic downturn will play in what happens re the Shuttle Programme, maybe in different times we would see a different result :eek:

Regards
Stargate

They've already played the recession card,job cuts at KSC & JSC. Tbh i'd rather they stuck to the original schedule and retired it next year(or 2011 if the programme runs over). If they granted NASA an increased budget i could see them cutting corners and putting the orbiter and astronauts lives at risk to meet it. Better to have the STS programme go out on a high than end in tragedy imo.

Stargate

lord lucan wrote: »

They've already played the recession card,job cuts at KSC & JSC. Tbh i'd rather they stuck to the original schedule and retired it next year(or 2011 if the programme runs over). If they granted NASA an increased budget i could see them cutting corners and putting the orbiter and astronauts lives at risk to meet it. Better to have the STS programme go out on a high than end in tragedy imo.

I agree Lord Lucan

Its a tough one i know , i think a lot of us would love the sts programme to keep on going , if it werent for the risks involved due to the orbiters been so old now and risky , but deep down the head says retirement and as you say , go out on a high note rather than tragedy .

Was reading this http://www.space.com/news/090729-nasa-shuttle-delay.html


I hope the current U.S. president is a " space " friendly guy

Regards
Stargate

lord lucan

Stargate wrote: »

I agree Lord Lucan

Its a tough one i know , i think a lot of us would love the sts programme to keep on going , if it werent for the risks involved due to the orbiters been so old now and risky , but deep down the head says retirement and as you say , go out on a high note rather than tragedy .

Was reading this http://www.space.com/news/090729-nasa-shuttle-delay.html


I hope the current U.S. president is a " space " friendly guy

Regards
Stargate

They're also playing the cold war card ie. the U.S.A. have to RELY on the Russians to service the ISS while NASA get the constellation programme together. Appeals to the flag waving patriots.

Like you i'd love to see the STS programme continue but something tells me that the longer it goes on the greater risk of another challenger/columbia.

Stargate

lord lucan wrote: »

Like you i'd love to see the STS programme continue but something tells me that the longer it goes on the greater risk of another challenger/columbia.

Thats exactly it Lord Lucan , its a passion !! Can you image the people who have trained for a trip aboard the ISS or SS and probably wont get their turn because as you say , the east/west thing plays a part and where will Nasa get the funding from ??? Its costs bigtime to send people into space and as i see it right now , Obama`s honeymoon is almost over and he has to deliver the goods soon , " Economy before space " i hear the American public say .

Yes a love and a passion for space is a wonderful thing !
Does Obama have it ?

Anyone know ?

Stargate

Hauk

I honestly think they will get the extension. If any of you watched the Augustine Commission public conference yesterday, the independent company (Aerospace Corporation) that is assessing NASA's Human Space Flight Programme has said that in it's current state, the Constellation program won't see it's first launch until some time between 2016-2017.

If this is the case, then NASA is relying on commercial space ventures(lookup COTS on wikipedia) and foreign space agencies for it's access to its modules on the ISS and Hubble.

It sickens me that it all comes down to politics. And it's sickening to know that NASA are really working with duct tape and toilet roll tubes.

Take NASA's budget for the 2009 fiscal year: USD$17.6bn

Some of you would think that's a lot of money. It's quite wrong really.

Compare that to the Dept of Defence budget for the 2009 fiscal year: USD$786bn.

I do hope this new administrator(Bolden) does a better job than Mike Griffin. And with a White House administration who is more focused on the scientific end of things than the previous one, NASA could possibly see an increase in funding.

But then again, this is me just speculating. If NASA were given a miniscule percentage of the DoD budget, NASA could continue to fly the Shuttle and develop Ares I and Ares IV simultaneously.

At that conference yesterday, one of speakers made a good point though. At this stage, there are commercial options available to launching rockets, and NASA should possibly switch to using commercial private companies to launch it's satellites/probes. This would then free up NASA engineers/research teams to do more research based work, like developing new space suit technologies, and improving the power/weight ratio's of it's engines.

I didn't mean to go on like this I swear!

@lord lucan: If you read the Columbia Accident Investigation Boards final report, there are a number of measures in place now that have the accident probably percentages right down. Hull inspections are done pre, and post launch, and before the shuttle de-orbits.

I do admit they do need to retire the space shuttle. But NASA has been asked to do the impossible, and people are micro analysing everything they do, when NASA is really trying to make-do and operate on a shoestring budget.

And I'm done.

lord lucan

Some great points there Hauk. Unfortunately you're right,NASA are operating on a relatively shoestring budget but given the current climate most Americans couldn't care less about the space programme as it's not seen to directly impact them,unlike the military where no budget cuts will ever be made,too much invested in various theatres around the globe and the military has a seemingly more human face ie. lots of people have friends/relatives on active service.

Aside from a small minority(like ourselves) most people wouldn't shed a tear if manned spaceflight was stopped. Too most people the ISS is a piece of tin floating around in space,a glorified amusement ride. The interest shown on these boards and some of the comments 2 weeks ago when Endeavour was visible show how unaware most people are of it and its function.

jumpguy

17 bn is tiny. It cost 2 bn to develop the Playstation 2!

As regards your question, Stargate, I'm sure Obama knows the importance of space flight and exploration. However, I'm sure he also knows it's not something that needs to be done now. In the current climate, it'd be a bad economic and political move making huge investments in risky space exploration projects that are likely to run over-budget. It's something that will be further invested in when the economy picks up again. The USA will probably begin stronger space investment in 2011 I'd say.

ynotdu

just a quick reply,i think their is too much at stake for the US NOT to stay independent in some way from Russia and not to let China get so ahead they may manage to make the moon their own.

Sally Ride i believe may well get her way.
too tired to at mo to elaborate but wanted to get email alerts when it updates so i dont lose track of it

Beeker

Shuttle will get an extention perhaps till 2012 with a few extra launches added to the schedule. I have always loved the STS programme but it is time to stop. They need to move forward but not sure if it will happen quickly.

Mr Benevolent

The Shuttle design is simply not as safe as the nearly 50 year old Russian Soyuz. It was design by a committee who all wanted different things. The problems:

Being reusable is the biggest headache and was only done for a PR stunt - it's less cost effective.

Secondly, the Shuttle has no on-pad abort capability.

Thirdly it has wings and a tail - all heavy and pretty much useless until the last ten minutes or so of flight.

Another point is that it's heavily weather dependent, meaning that it can't go unless the weather is nearly perfect, which has cost billions in lost time. The Ares/Orion and Soyuz design have much less trouble with this.

Yet another point is the internal NASA politics that ensured the loss of two crew through stupid arguments where the opinions of experts were ignored by management.

Finally, the engine configuration - having three main engines on the Shuttle itself means that the Orbiter has to be heavily reinforced and thus much heavier.

Essentially the Shuttle system has remained experimental for it's whole life. If the Shuttle is granted a reprieve I'd say it's 50/50 there'll be another disaster.

jumpguy

Not sure about your agrument about reusability Confab. You must remember the Shuttle is absolutely huge and has been described as the "18-wheeler" of space. Surely rebuilding such a machine 126 times would be MUCH less cost friendly?
The fact that it's such a heavyweight makes it's design complicated which is the source of it's problems. Of course, it's using old technology too. But the Soyuz "capsule" design is one of the simplest and therefore safest. You cannot really compare them as they both were built for different objectives.

ynotdu

My head says no but my heart says yes to future Shuttle missions(i want to see one!)

I and others have argued on another post that it was Congress/Senate messing around with the budget that made the Shuttle a retrograde step in terms of Astronaut safety at take-off and landing.

even after the approx 3 year delay after columbia, were all that could be done about foam was done,there was another delay after the return to space mission as more foam than expected fell off again,even Endevour discarded a lot of foam:mad:


I think they should keep two Shuttles mission ready for emergencies.
Sally Ride(first female astronaut)certainly wants it,she has been up there and may,be erring on the side of caution in wishing that any American aboard the iss does not have to depend on any other country for a flight home.

When i say mission ready,i really mean two shuttles fitted with ejector seats like the STS1,that mission only had a crew of two but they had a chance in a Challenger like tragedy,when the crew went to 7 there was no room for ejector seats.

last i heard a seat on a Soyuz is going to cost the US $50 min a go,(russia could try using stranded astronauts as a barganing chip at some time in future?)

also in just two manned missions China has launched one man,then two about 3 years later,by that timetable China should be due a launch fairly soon.
I would not be surprised if they aim to sling a man craft around the Moon on that one.
Whoever gets to the moon next may not have a plaque saying "We came in peace for all mankind"(as Apollo11 did)but may declare the moon to be Their territory and if far enough ahead in their technology may bring offensive weapons to shoot down other nations attempting to land men on the moon.
Is,nt the big prize heliom 3,a spoonful of which properly harvested could power a city for a year(so Scientists say)
so the question really is can America afford NOT to fund its Space programme?

Bodan

I think the shuttle's mission will be extended because it is the cheapest and easiest action for Nasa to take until Ares arrives. The study will, by and large give the administration cover to take that decision should any conflicts arise from making it.

Michael Griffin, the ex NASA Administrator thought the same according to his leaked email.

NASA chief blasts US space policy in leaked email

Actual leaked email GriffinEmail.jpg

ynotdu

Bodan wrote: »

I think the shuttle's mission will be extended because it is the cheapest and easiest action for Nasa to take until Ares arrives. The study will, by and large give the administration cover to take that decision should any conflicts arise from making it.

Michael Griffin, the ex NASA Administrator thought the same according to his leaked email.

NASA chief blasts US space policy in leaked email

Actual leaked email GriffinEmail.jpg

Hi Bodan,
Two excellant links you provided,I read them both(sometimes it is difficult to believe that some posters read the links provided before barging in with a misinformed comment.


as an aside it is interesting to note that Russia is in developing the next generation of Soyuz already,and are transferring its control center to the same place as Ariane is controlled.they wont be beholden to any ex soviet union state then,and may,be even Khazikstan may no longer be the default landing site?

also interesting that the Chinese Capsule is based on the Soyuz one!:eek:

Hmmmmmmmmm

lord lucan

Interesting read here about Admiral dyers reports to the House and the Shuttle Programmes managers disgust at what he said/recommended:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ssp-fight-back-asap-augustine-claim-risk/

Gotta say,i would tend to side with NASA on this one. The STS programme has never been safer,they don't hesitate to scrub/delay if there's even a small problem and every problem or potential problem is thoroughly investigated. Interesting too that the data they used was from '87 onwards,ie. includes the Columbia loss. Return to flight data would have given better results and a better picture of the safety culture that exists at NASA now.

Kevster

It's safer - yeh - but how much more expensive is it? Have they looked at simply reducing the cost of each shuttle launch does anyone know? Either way, the shuttle only allows for work in orbit. We need to start thinking further afield, and maybe the money freed up by ditching the shuttle programme will sopur more and more missions outside of the Earth-Moon system...

?

Beeker

The thought of the Shuttle program ending depresses me. It has been a Hugh part of my life for the past 30 years or so that it really feels like it is an approaching death! I hate the thought of it.

However I understand the need to retire what is after all a vehicle that is very expensive to operate and limited by the weather for launching and landing. I hope they get an extension but we do need a new vehicle sooner rather than later.

lord lucan

Kevster wrote: »

It's safer - yeh - but how much more expensive is it? Have they looked at simply reducing the cost of each shuttle launch does anyone know? Either way, the shuttle only allows for work in orbit. We need to start thinking further afield, and maybe the money freed up by ditching the shuttle programme will sopur more and more missions outside of the Earth-Moon system...

?

I see where you're coming from Kevster. My biggest concern about the retirement of the shuttle is that they lose the 'WOW' factor that a shuttle launch brings. Maybe it's just me but an atlas rocket or delta 4 just doesn't have the same effect as a shuttle launch. While that may seem like just the words of someone who enjoys spaceflight NASA have to keep in mind that they have to keep the public interested in it too. After all,it's the US taxpayers tax dollars that are paying for it. A manned mission to mars will not generate much interest until they arrive at mars. I dunno,i guess i'm with Beeker here and am just sad to see it go. It has outlived it's usefulness,thankfully wrongs during it's flight history have been righted and hopefully she'll go out with a bang(in a good way!).

ynotdu

lord lucan wrote: »

I see where you're coming from Kevster. My biggest concern about the retirement of the shuttle is that they lose the 'WOW' factor that a shuttle launch brings. Maybe it's just me but an atlas rocket or delta 4 just doesn't have the same effect as a shuttle launch. While that may seem like just the words of someone who enjoys spaceflight NASA have to keep in mind that they have to keep the public interested in it too. After all,it's the US taxpayers tax dollars that are paying for it. A manned mission to mars will not generate much interest until they arrive at mars. I dunno,i guess i'm with Beeker here and am just sad to see it go. It has outlived it's usefulness,thankfully wrongs during it's flight history have been righted and hopefully she'll go out with a bang(in a good way!).

The fickleness of Human nature LL!
You have proably seen the historic front page of the Washington post:
Apollo 11=MAN WALKS ON MOON!
Apollo 17=TWO KLUTZ ON THE MOON!

apollo's 18,19&20 were cancelled due to loss of public support,the remaining Saturn V,s were used(with two stages removed)to visit the Scabby Skylab.

It has been interesting watching the STS128 news confrences.
the media spent about ten minutes discussing 128 and 50 about the future of NASA.

I cannot think of the guys name(if you have ever seen the TV show Heartbeat,he looks like the guy who runs a garage&funeral home:))
He genuinly seemed to think that the Shuttle SHOULD end on time,and he gave a very weak defense when asked were the shuttles showing signs of decay(i was not sure then if he was playing politics in the hope of funding but with all that has come out i think he just wanted a dignified end to the STS)
IMO STS133(the final one)should be cancelled as its cargo could be delivered by other means and there are no plans for a spacewalk on it.NOT worth a possible LOV&C!
It is hard to justify it's existance unless it was going to be around for the Next Hubble repair mission and after the installation of Tranquility its job of building the iss will be complete:(
Even the iss at the moment has no funding beyond 2015(how fcuking stupid!)
They would not be forgiven if they had extended the Shuttle for Science experiments as in retrospect Columbia's doomed flight was not nescessary with the iss already in operation,albeit with only a 3 member crew.Sadly i think its job is just about done even though we are all agreed we will never see its likes again:(,As we are all agreed a post STS craft should be at the finishing stages now&NOT the possible starting stages:mad:
Won the Space race but threw it away:(
and the other inconsistant message from NASA=They have one spare tank and want it for a 'Launch on need?'flight,whilst also saying they are going to sell the Orbitors????

ynotdu

Look what they done to the Saturn V to launch to Skylab:eek:(Launch is about one minute into this video)On a serious note though if You choose to watch the full Video it really demonstrates how much manned Spaceflight is nescessary when all does not go to plan.!(correction to previous post,it was one stage of the Saturn V that was chopped off:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcXB-eJzTFM

lord lucan

ynotdu wrote: »

IMO STS133(the final one)should be cancelled as its cargo could be delivered by other means and there are no plans for a spacewalk on it.NOT worth a possible LOV&C!
It is hard to justify it's existance unless it was going to be around for the Next Hubble repair mission and after the installation of Tranquility its job of building the iss will be complete:(

NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! 1 less mission to look forward too!:(

At this stage STS-133 won't be cancelled though i understand what you're saying. The spare ET came from the 'rescue orbiter' ie. Endeavour which was on standby in case anything went wrong with Atlantis on the last Hubble mission. Obviously wasn't used and now it's spare but it'll never be used. At this stage they're best forgetting about extensions and the like and just focus on getting the remaining flights away safely and give the programme a dignified send off.

lord lucan

Some slightly positive news re. the space programme in general from Obama here:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0910/07obama/

Beeker

lord lucan wrote: »

Some slightly positive news re. the space programme in general from Obama here:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0910/07obama/

Yeah fingers crossed it looks good!!:)

ynotdu

lord lucan wrote: »

Some slightly positive news re. the space programme in general from Obama here:http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0910/07obama/

interesting read LL.I am not surprised obama is in favour of funding Spaceflight(although there had been rumours he preferred unmanned options)since he used high tech throughout the campaign and told the secret service he was keepig his Blackberry phone,end of!!!!!!!!!.they had to give him a modified super secure one!:)

Difficult to see whats in it for China to hook up with the States,but have to give him A for effort!

An attempt by him to keep his 'friends close,but his enemies even closer?:cool:

ynotdu

interesting article from Spaceflight.com that STILL does not rule out an extension of the Shuttle programme,as well as mentioning the' Launch on need' flight it mentons a possibility of an STS-135-136&137 {and turns out NASA has the external tanks for them}http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/10/nasa-evaluate-sts-335-sts-133-cross-country-farewell/

lord lucan

Interesting reading here about some of the opinions/recommendations that Augustine has made in his report for the White house.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0910/22augustine/

lord lucan

And here's the full report(sorry ynotdu,it's a pdf):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf