Discussion:
NASA Starts Planning to Retire Space Shuttle
(too old to reply)
Scott M. Kozel
2005-04-02 23:55:27 UTC
Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/science/02nasa.html

NASA Starts Planning to Retire Space Shuttle
By WARREN E. LEARY
Published: April 2, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 1 - Even as the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration prepares to resume flights of the space shuttle, the
agency has begun forming detailed plans to retire the spacecraft in five
years, if not before, a top NASA official said on Friday.

The official, Michael Kostelnik, the agency's deputy associate
administrator for the shuttle and the International Space Station
programs, said he had established a special group within his office to
deal with retiring the shuttle. Agency leaders decided to create a
separate entity to deal with shuttle retirement issues so there would be
no conflict of interest with the flight program, Mr. Kostelnik said in a
telephone briefing with reporters.


Within a year or so, Mr. Kostelnik said, NASA will have to start the
shuttle retirement process in earnest, moving toward canceling contracts
for shuttle-related supplies, decommissioning some sites and redirecting
or eliminating some of the work force.

"Transitioning these resources is a very complex problem," he said. He
added that after reviewing assets and work needs, NASA should begin
within a year to terminate some contracts for items like the shuttle's
external fuel tank and start planning how to mothball equipment and
structures used by the shuttle.

It would be premature to end shuttle activities until NASA determines
how many more shuttle flights are needed to complete the space station
and how many flights can be made each year before the planned end of the
program in 2010, Mr. Kostelnik said.

As part of President Bush's vision for NASA that he announced last year,
the shuttle is to resume flying until 2010, when it is scheduled to
complete the station, then be retired. The plan also calls for the
United States to stop using the station by 2017 and to redirect
resources from both programs to new space vehicles for exploring the
Moon and Mars.

The nation's fleet of three shuttles has been grounded since the
Columbia disaster on Feb. 1, 2003. After the program is revamped and the
spacecraft are modified, and if all recommendations made by Columbia
accident investigators have been carried out, shuttles are to resume
flights between May 15 and June 3.

Mr. Kostelnik acknowledged that it was taking NASA longer than expected
to complete all the reviews of design and procedural changes, as well as
the necessary paperwork and documentation required to satisfy a special
panel overseeing compliance with the recommendations. It will take at
least another two weeks to gather this information and deliver it to the
oversight panel, which is headed by the former astronauts Thomas P.
Stafford and Richard O. Covey, he said.

"Everybody would have liked to have had this work completed sooner," Mr.
Kostelnik said. "But it's just kind of the way it is, and we're not
going to cut short any of these milestones just to make an arbitrary
date."

The Stafford-Covey panel on Wednesday indefinitely put off what was to
be its final meeting to assess NASA's return-to-flight progress, saying
it could not proceed without the necessary data. The group has said it
wants to deliver its final report on compliance at least a month before
the first flight.

[end of article]
Brian Gaff
2005-04-03 08:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Sounds sensible to me. It still seems strange to me that sometime in the
90's someone was not working on a replacement for the aging hardware OK, so
they have updated avionics etc, but technology marches on, and I'd suspect
an even better system would have emerged if they had started the planning
earlier, when there had already been one accident and it was, I think to
most, obvious that the Shuttle, though needed, was not very cost effective,
and was too complex for even remotely intelligent safety assessments to be
made.

Still, 20/20 hindsight is a great thing, now I'd suggest it is time to learn
from it, and maybe design things around vehicles for particular tasks, not
a one size fits all, almost system as the Shuttle is. Certainly, some
modular or reusable approach is possible, and maybe some standardisation of
equipment, but its obvious that cargo, personnel into leo and ferrying to
moon and mars are totally different needs.

Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: ***@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
JazzMan
2005-04-03 15:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff
Sounds sensible to me. It still seems strange to me that sometime in the
90's someone was not working on a replacement for the aging hardware OK, so
they have updated avionics etc, but technology marches on, and I'd suspect
an even better system would have emerged if they had started the planning
earlier, when there had already been one accident and it was, I think to
most, obvious that the Shuttle, though needed, was not very cost effective,
and was too complex for even remotely intelligent safety assessments to be
made.
Still, 20/20 hindsight is a great thing, now I'd suggest it is time to learn
from it, and maybe design things around vehicles for particular tasks, not
a one size fits all, almost system as the Shuttle is. Certainly, some
modular or reusable approach is possible, and maybe some standardisation of
equipment, but its obvious that cargo, personnel into leo and ferrying to
moon and mars are totally different needs.
Best bet at this point is to outsource lift services to
the Chinese when they're up to speed, shouldn't be too long.
It's obvious that we can't do it, or afford to do it, ourselves.
About the only thing we need a national launch capability for
is military, and that's easily handled by non-manned launchers
already in service. For that matter, we could outsource
that to the French too.

JazzMan
--
**********************************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
**********************************************************
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
**********************************************************
jacob navia
2005-04-04 13:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by JazzMan
About the only thing we need a national launch capability for
is military, and that's easily handled by non-manned launchers
already in service. For that matter, we could outsource
that to the French too.
No thanks

Jacob Navia
Paris France
Jorge R. Frank
2005-04-03 18:57:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Gaff
Sounds sensible to me. It still seems strange to me that sometime in
the 90's someone was not working on a replacement for the aging
hardware
You must have missed the X-33 and X-34 projects. And the X-30 before that.
And SLI after that.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Iain Young
2005-04-03 17:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/science/02nasa.html
NASA Starts Planning to Retire Space Shuttle
By WARREN E. LEARY
Published: April 2, 2005
Similar articles area at:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/03/nots_from_the_n.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050328/shuttlelife.html

One thought that occured to me was what knock-on effect any
potential shutdown of these Shuttle Contracts would have on
any possible Shuttle Dervived Launch Vehicle ?

It could be that its a step away from a SDLV, esp if any of
the associated assembly lines are lost. Then again, NASA,
could of course put a re-activation clause in. I guess time
will tell.


Iain
Jorge R. Frank
2005-04-03 19:00:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iain Young
Post by Scott M. Kozel
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/science/02nasa.html
NASA Starts Planning to Retire Space Shuttle
By WARREN E. LEARY
Published: April 2, 2005
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/03/nots_from_the_n.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050328/shuttlelife.html
One thought that occured to me was what knock-on effect any
potential shutdown of these Shuttle Contracts would have on
any possible Shuttle Dervived Launch Vehicle ?
It could be that its a step away from a SDLV, esp if any of
the associated assembly lines are lost. Then again, NASA,
could of course put a re-activation clause in. I guess time
will tell.
They are not saying, "we will shut down these contracts now". They are
saying, "if we really intend to retire the shuttle in 2010 and not follow
up with an SDLV, the planning must start soon."

In turn, that means that the exploration folks need to make a mode decision
(SDLV vs EELV vs something else entirely) quickly so that intelligent
decisions can be made on the shuttle side of the house.

I would not bet any money on a quick decision, though.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Ed Kyle
2005-04-04 02:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Post by Iain Young
One thought that occured to me was what knock-on effect any
potential shutdown of these Shuttle Contracts would have on
any possible Shuttle Dervived Launch Vehicle ?
It could be that its a step away from a SDLV, esp if any of
the associated assembly lines are lost. Then again, NASA,
could of course put a re-activation clause in. I guess time
will tell.
They are not saying, "we will shut down these contracts now". They are
saying, "if we really intend to retire the shuttle in 2010 and not follow
up with an SDLV, the planning must start soon."
In turn, that means that the exploration folks need to make a mode decision
(SDLV vs EELV vs something else entirely) quickly so that intelligent
decisions can be made on the shuttle side of the house.
We may have a better idea about this by the end of this
year, when the first CEV contracts are let, but maybe
not. Heavy lift would not be needed until sometime
well after 2014, so an SRB/ET multiyear production
gap could very well result.

To me, this news item seems to be meant as a wake up
call for the in-house (NASA and contractor) SDV crowd.
Time is running out. The message to them seems to be
"you only have about one year to make your case".

- Ed Kyle
John Doe
2005-04-03 21:35:58 UTC
Permalink
read: NASA starts planning the end of manned spaceflight.

Funny thing is that NASA isn't talking about accelerating development of
some vehicle that can deliver parts to the space station. For instance,
when a CMG needs replaced in 2011, what will bring the replacement up ?

Have the americans begun to work on a replacement for MPLMs ? Or will
all reasearch from 2010 onwards have to be burned over the pacific
instead of having the results brought back to earth ? Have the americans
signed contracts to have the Japanese build HTVs to replace MPLMs ? Have
the american signed contracts to have europe build more ATVs or russians
to build more Progress to keep the station in orbit ?


Starting the winding down of the shuttle now is plain stupid. This is
like starting to shutdown a coal fired electrical generator before
you've begun construction of a hydro electric project meant to replace it.

I can't believe that americans aren't seeing this as a ploy to simply
end manned spaceflight.

Until NASA has seen a prototype of the mythical CEV and actually places
firm orders for 4 or more such vehicles, no steps should be taken to
prevent the shuttle from flying.
Rand Simberg
2005-04-04 03:27:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:35:58 -0400, in a place far, far away, John Doe
Post by John Doe
read: NASA starts planning the end of manned spaceflight.
Funny thing is that NASA isn't talking about accelerating development of
some vehicle that can deliver parts to the space station. For instance,
when a CMG needs replaced in 2011, what will bring the replacement up ?
That will be bid out to commercial providers. For example, Kistler is
raising money to complete their vehicle with that as one of the
markets.
Post by John Doe
I can't believe that americans aren't seeing this as a ploy to simply
end manned spaceflight.
That's because "americans" recognize that manned spaceflight is now
being developed privately.
John Doe
2005-04-04 01:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rand Simberg
That will be bid out to commercial providers. For example, Kistler is
raising money to complete their vehicle with that as one of the
markets.
All the cancelled projects of the 1990s were also bid out to commercial
builders. Just because NASA subcontracts for some mythical vehicle
doesn't mean that NASA will fund the project to completion and that some
government won't decide that budget deficits are too high and that cuts
must be made.

Has NASA completed mission specs for a vehicle capable of bringing crews
to and from an orbital station ?

Has NASA completed specs for a cargo vehicle capable of replacing the
MPLM ? Will NASA modify at least one MPLM so it can stay at the station
permanently as a storage module ? Or will they all be wasted in some
wharehouse in Florida ?

How far is NASA along with the robot that is supposed to safely de-orbit
Hubble ? What will they test it on before sending it to Hubble ?

How many separate projects will the decommissioning of the shuttle
create ? Can NASA realistically work on, complete and more importantly
fund that many projects at the same time ?

And if, to bridge the gap, NASA gets the right to buy Soyuz, is there
then a point in completing the mythical CEV when Soyuz would end up
cheaper anyways ?
Post by Rand Simberg
That's because "americans" recognize that manned spaceflight is now
being developed privately.
Virgin Galactic won't be much different than that florida company
offering 0g experience in a 727. It isn't space flight, not even close.
Rand Simberg
2005-04-04 05:38:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 21:24:03 -0400, in a place far, far away, John Doe
Post by John Doe
Post by Rand Simberg
That will be bid out to commercial providers. For example, Kistler is
raising money to complete their vehicle with that as one of the
markets.
All the cancelled projects of the 1990s were also bid out to commercial
builders.
You don't seem to understand the difference between development
contracts and service contracts.
Post by John Doe
Just because NASA subcontracts for some mythical vehicle
doesn't mean that NASA will fund the project to completion and that some
government won't decide that budget deficits are too high and that cuts
must be made.
Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between development
contracts and service contracts. Unlike anything in the 1990s, this
is not a development contract, controlled by NASA.
Post by John Doe
Has NASA completed mission specs for a vehicle capable of bringing crews
to and from an orbital station ?
Yes, actually, in the OSP program, though hopefully no one will follow
them.
Post by John Doe
Has NASA completed specs for a cargo vehicle capable of replacing the
MPLM ? Will NASA modify at least one MPLM so it can stay at the station
permanently as a storage module ? Or will they all be wasted in some
wharehouse in Florida ?
How far is NASA along with the robot that is supposed to safely de-orbit
Hubble ? What will they test it on before sending it to Hubble ?
Nothing, probably. Why are you so critical of NASA? I know why I am,
but it seems out of context, given your other attitudes.
Post by John Doe
How many separate projects will the decommissioning of the shuttle
create ?
Who knows?
Post by John Doe
Can NASA realistically work on, complete and more importantly
fund that many projects at the same time ?
Again, you don't seem to understand the difference between a
development contracts and service contracts.
Post by John Doe
And if, to bridge the gap, NASA gets the right to buy Soyuz, is there
then a point in completing the mythical CEV when Soyuz would end up
cheaper anyways ?
Undoubtedly.
Post by John Doe
Post by Rand Simberg
That's because "americans" recognize that manned spaceflight is now
being developed privately.
Virgin Galactic won't be much different than that florida company
offering 0g experience in a 727. It isn't space flight, not even close.
Virgin Galactic is a company, not a specific project. And there are
others as well.
Josh
2005-04-04 15:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Virgin Galactic won't be much different than that florida company
offering 0g experience in a 727. It isn't space flight, not even close.


so incremental development means nothing? In your world, we must have
gone straight from horse-drawn carriages to international airlines,
right? Virgin, Space Adventures, Scaled, etc are part of the evolution
of private American Spaceflight- walk, crawl, run.
John Doe
2005-04-04 18:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
so incremental development means nothing? In your world, we must have
gone straight from horse-drawn carriages to international airlines,
right? Virgin, Space Adventures, Scaled, etc are part of the evolution
of private American Spaceflight- walk, crawl, run.
In this case, USA will have gone from crawl, walk and then go back to
crawling for a long time before it can walk again.


If Scaled Composites can solve the heat shield problem, and truly scale
their planes to have true ECLSS in it, docking/EVA capabilities etc,
then that would be incredible, and I am sure they could do it for much
cheaper than Boeing would. On the other hand, if Boeing had a commercial
manned space programme, they may also come out with much cheaper access
to space.

But that doesn't negate the fact that NASA will be without a manned
space program on the day it retires the space shuttle because it will be
without a manned vehicle. It will also be without any cargo access to
the space station. And if it is really lucky, it will have succesfully
de-orbited Hubble before it started to thumble and thus become
ungrappable by some mythical robot.
Rand Simberg
2005-04-04 22:49:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 14:25:28 -0400, in a place far, far away, John Doe
Post by John Doe
But that doesn't negate the fact that NASA will be without a manned
space program on the day it retires the space shuttle because it will be
without a manned vehicle.
If what NASA has been doing is the best that can be done for all those
billions, then better to not have a "manned space program," and hope
that eventually we will get a real one.
Jorge R. Frank
2005-04-05 03:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Has NASA completed mission specs for a vehicle capable of bringing crews
to and from an orbital station ?
Has NASA completed specs for a cargo vehicle capable of replacing the
MPLM ? Will NASA modify at least one MPLM so it can stay at the station
permanently as a storage module ? Or will they all be wasted in some
wharehouse in Florida ?
NASA doesn't have answers to any of those. They've only begun to ask the
questions:

<http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16030>
Post by John Doe
How many separate projects will the decommissioning of the shuttle
create ?
One, CEV. It won't replace the shuttle. It isn't intended to.
Post by John Doe
And if, to bridge the gap, NASA gets the right to buy Soyuz, is there
then a point in completing the mythical CEV when Soyuz would end up
cheaper anyways ?
CEV is intended to be a modular system for lunar/Mars exploration, a
capability Soyuz doesn't have.

Besides, handing Russia a monopoly on human spaceflight would be just plain
stupid.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Greg Kuperberg
2005-04-05 12:50:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Besides, handing Russia a monopoly on human spaceflight would be just plain
stupid.
Other than the space station mess, what would be the problem with it?
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \ Home page: http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~greg/
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
Rand Simberg
2005-04-05 17:11:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:50:30 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Post by Greg Kuperberg
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Besides, handing Russia a monopoly on human spaceflight would be just plain
stupid.
Other than the space station mess, what would be the problem with it?
Nothing, obviously, if you don't care about manned spaceflight. Or
going into space yourself. Or developing offworld resources. Or
expanding frontiers.
Greg Kuperberg
2005-04-05 13:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rand Simberg
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:50:30 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Post by Greg Kuperberg
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Besides, handing Russia a monopoly on human spaceflight would be just plain
stupid.
Other than the space station mess, what would be the problem with it?
Nothing, obviously, if you don't care about manned spaceflight. Or
going into space yourself. Or developing offworld resources. Or
expanding frontiers.
I can't say that I care one way or the other about any of these proposals.
But the thread is specifically about *government* efforts. If private
outfits pursue human spaceflight with their own money, more power to them.
What is the problem with handing Russia a monopoly on *government-funded*
human spaceflight?
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \ Home page: http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~greg/
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *
Rand Simberg
2005-04-05 17:49:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 13:27:10 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Post by Greg Kuperberg
Post by Rand Simberg
Post by Greg Kuperberg
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Besides, handing Russia a monopoly on human spaceflight would be just plain
stupid.
Other than the space station mess, what would be the problem with it?
Nothing, obviously, if you don't care about manned spaceflight. Or
going into space yourself. Or developing offworld resources. Or
expanding frontiers.
I can't say that I care one way or the other about any of these proposals.
But the thread is specifically about *government* efforts. If private
outfits pursue human spaceflight with their own money, more power to them.
What is the problem with handing Russia a monopoly on *government-funded*
human spaceflight?
I don't have one, actually, though it's unlikely to happen, since the
Chinese are doing so as well.
Sander Vesik
2005-04-06 02:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Kuperberg
I can't say that I care one way or the other about any of these proposals.
But the thread is specifically about *government* efforts. If private
outfits pursue human spaceflight with their own money, more power to them.
What is the problem with handing Russia a monopoly on *government-funded*
human spaceflight?
Too many cold warriors still around.
--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Fred J. McCall
2005-04-18 14:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Sander Vesik <***@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:

:Greg Kuperberg <***@see-web-page.edu> wrote:
:>
:> I can't say that I care one way or the other about any of these proposals.
:> But the thread is specifically about *government* efforts. If private
:> outfits pursue human spaceflight with their own money, more power to them.
:> What is the problem with handing Russia a monopoly on *government-funded*
:> human spaceflight?
:
:Too many cold warriors still around.

Because governments almost always have deeper pockets than do
individuals. Therefore, a government which wants to do so could kill
any private efforts while they are still trying to get started simply
by dropping prices selectively to dry up their market.

When your business plan fails, so does your business.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
Sander Vesik
2005-04-18 22:06:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred J. McCall
:>
:> I can't say that I care one way or the other about any of these proposals.
:> But the thread is specifically about *government* efforts. If private
:> outfits pursue human spaceflight with their own money, more power to them.
:> What is the problem with handing Russia a monopoly on *government-funded*
:> human spaceflight?
:Too many cold warriors still around.
Because governments almost always have deeper pockets than do
individuals. Therefore, a government which wants to do so could kill
any private efforts while they are still trying to get started simply
by dropping prices selectively to dry up their market.
When your business plan fails, so does your business.
This is quite a bit of a different scenario than the one I replied to.

Even if US, Russia or France offered free space launches, there would still
be market around for private launches. For one thing, such would at most
last for a very limited period of time, and probably depress said countries
bonds quite a bit in the progress. And be a temporary offset at best.

But ultimately, any space launch business plan that does not figure a large
amount of interference and sabotage by governments (never mind various
rules that just happen to go the other way) is really foolish.
--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
Paul F. Dietz
2005-04-05 13:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rand Simberg
Post by Greg Kuperberg
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Besides, handing Russia a monopoly on human spaceflight would be just plain
stupid.
Other than the space station mess, what would be the problem with it?
Nothing, obviously, if you don't care about manned spaceflight. Or
going into space yourself. Or developing offworld resources. Or
expanding frontiers.
Even if you do care, what's the problem? What is this fetish with
maintaining useless current capabilities at the expense of real
development?

Paul
Rand Simberg
2005-04-05 17:49:56 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 08:28:25 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Paul F.
Post by Paul F. Dietz
Post by Rand Simberg
Post by Greg Kuperberg
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Besides, handing Russia a monopoly on human spaceflight would be just plain
stupid.
Other than the space station mess, what would be the problem with it?
Nothing, obviously, if you don't care about manned spaceflight. Or
going into space yourself. Or developing offworld resources. Or
expanding frontiers.
Even if you do care, what's the problem? What is this fetish with
maintaining useless current capabilities at the expense of real
development?
I've no such fetish. That's a different question than the one that
Gregg asked.
f***@gmail.com
2005-04-04 20:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
when a CMG needs replaced in 2011, what will bring the replacement up ?
Have the americans begun to work on a replacement for MPLMs ? Or will
all reasearch from 2010 onwards have to be burned over the pacific
instead of having the results brought back to earth ? Have the
americans
signed contracts to have the Japanese build HTVs to replace MPLMs ?
Have
the american signed contracts to have europe build more ATVs or
russians
to build more Progress to keep the station in orbit ?

Interesting questions you ask, but they all beg the prior logical
question: How much additional funding/resources should the USA put
into ISS? One answer to that question is damn little, but enough to
meet our prior commitments to our International partners. That is the
position of GWB and the current NASA.

Other's might argue that the lean funding position doesn't make enough
use of our HUGE prior investment in ISS (that seems to be the thrust or
your remarks). On the contrary, spending large amounts of additional
funds on ISS may not be the best use for the money, especially when you
consider that the other ISS partners may be capable and willing to keep
the project functioning. As an example, Russian capabilities have
keep ISS functioning through the shuttle downtime. With the addition
of EU and Japan service modules, robust servicing seems to be assured.

Another relavent factor to consider is that ISS work needn't be done by
the shuttle; certainly from a very narrow point of view, using the
shuttle has advantages, but other practical delivery mechanism may
emerge when it is clear that the Shuttle mafia is no longer to be.

Using the 5 to 8 billion dollar yearly shuttle budget for other
priorities seems like a good idea to me.
John Doe
2005-04-05 00:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Interesting questions you ask, but they all beg the prior logical
question: How much additional funding/resources should the USA put
into ISS? One answer to that question is damn little, but enough to
meet our prior commitments to our International partners. That is the
position of GWB and the current NASA.
If the Bush promise of going to Mars is real, then the ISS should be
extremely key to this project and stopping investment into ISS is silly,
and this leads me to believe that there is really no commitment to go to Mars.

The ISS is not only crucial to test human survival skills in 0g with
sufficient strength to be productive when they land on mars (no cushy
van to collect them once they land), but also the perfect testbed for
all the systems that a mars expedition will need.

Would you send people on a 1 year + expedition with a CRDA before you
got CDRA to work reliably 100% of the time ? Heck, the USA hasn't even
been able to get a threadmill to work reliably yet. Would you launch a
ship with a USA equivalent to Elektron before it ran succesfully on the
ISS and you know how many spare parts you will need for a mission of
that duration ?

Furthermore, consider the tooling that exists to build the tin cans used
to assemble the station, as well as designs for CBM etc. You can't send
a team to mars in an Apollo capsule. They will need a station with
enough space for them to exercise, and stowage etc. Consider all the
technology and training that already exists to assemble those tin cans
in space, grapple point designs, arm software etc etc.

You want to go to mars ? don't underestimate the existing investment in
the ISS because a whole lot of its designs and systems would be usable
for a vehicle that goes to Mars and back. So the ISS is not only the
perfect testbed for the ship tyo mars, burt also represents significant
technologiea and investments that can be re-used for the ship to mars
(no so much what is in orbit now, but all that is on the ground,
including software, designs, tooling and more importantly PEOPLE.

By starting to wind down the manned space programme, you'll never have
the people with the experience current present to build the ship to
mars. You,ll be starting from scratch, not too different from the moon
shot in the 1960s, or space station Freedom started in the 1980s.
Rand Simberg
2005-04-05 04:52:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 20:26:17 -0400, in a place far, far away, John Doe
Post by John Doe
Post by f***@gmail.com
Interesting questions you ask, but they all beg the prior logical
question: How much additional funding/resources should the USA put
into ISS? One answer to that question is damn little, but enough to
meet our prior commitments to our International partners. That is the
position of GWB and the current NASA.
If the Bush promise of going to Mars is real, then the ISS should be
extremely key to this project
Why?
Post by John Doe
and stopping investment into ISS is silly,
That presumes that your original premise is valid.
Post by John Doe
and this leads me to believe that there is really no commitment to go to Mars.
What an absurd conclusion, particularly given the flawed premises.
Post by John Doe
The ISS is not only crucial to test human survival skills in 0g with
sufficient strength to be productive when they land on mars (no cushy
van to collect them once they land), but also the perfect testbed for
all the systems that a mars expedition will need.
Perfect? Really? It's not possible to imagine a better one, or build
it?
Post by John Doe
Would you send people on a 1 year + expedition with a CRDA before you
got CDRA to work reliably 100% of the time ? Heck, the USA hasn't even
been able to get a threadmill to work reliably yet. Would you launch a
ship with a USA equivalent to Elektron before it ran succesfully on the
ISS and you know how many spare parts you will need for a mission of
that duration ?
No, but then, we're not planning on doing any 1+year expeditions for
many years...
Post by John Doe
Furthermore, consider the tooling that exists to build the tin cans used
to assemble the station, as well as designs for CBM etc. You can't send
a team to mars in an Apollo capsule. They will need a station with
enough space for them to exercise, and stowage etc. Consider all the
technology and training that already exists to assemble those tin cans
in space, grapple point designs, arm software etc etc.
Why do you assume that a Mars vehicle will be weightless?
Post by John Doe
You want to go to mars ? don't underestimate the existing investment in
the ISS because a whole lot of its designs and systems would be usable
for a vehicle that goes to Mars and back.
Actually, few of them will, because of the different radiation
environment, and the possibility that the Mars trip will be in a
low-gee, rather than weightless environment.
Post by John Doe
So the ISS is not only the perfect testbed
There's that amusing word again.
Post by John Doe
By starting to wind down the manned space programme, you'll never have
the people with the experience current present to build the ship to
mars. You,ll be starting from scratch, not too different from the moon
shot in the 1960s, or space station Freedom started in the 1980s.
Given the performance of the people who've given us the current
"manned space programme" (so, you're British, eh? Guess that
anonymous posting thing isn't quite as anonymous as it would seem...),
it's not at all obvious that this would be a bad thing.
John Doe
2005-04-05 03:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rand Simberg
"manned space programme" (so, you're British, eh? Guess that
anonymous posting thing isn't quite as anonymous as it would seem...),
it's not at all obvious that this would be a bad thing.
When you're threathened by trolls such as "rk" to be reported to the FBI
because I asked questions about the shuttle and when I am later informed
that because someone reported my posts to NASA, this was used as part of
justification to terminate employement to someone, you would understand
why nobody would want to use their real name. And besides, since "Nomen
Nescio" impersonates identities, any post using my real name in this
forum would likely be spoofed.

I don't like having to bring this up, but since "rk" and his friends are
on a campaign to discredit me at every possible opportunity, there is
only so much I can take before defending myself.

Of course, the "rk" troll can deny ever threathening me since he uses
x-no-archive on his posts.
Herb Schaltegger
2005-04-05 13:46:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Post by Rand Simberg
"manned space programme" (so, you're British, eh? Guess that
anonymous posting thing isn't quite as anonymous as it would seem...),
it's not at all obvious that this would be a bad thing.
When you're threathened by trolls such as "rk" to be reported to the FBI
because I asked questions about the shuttle and when I am later informed
that because someone reported my posts to NASA, this was used as part of
justification to terminate employement to someone, you would understand
why nobody would want to use their real name.
We know who you are, JF, and we know your posting history. You're not
fooling anyone.
--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
<http://www.angryherb.net>
Reed Snellenberger
2005-04-05 05:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rand Simberg
On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 20:26:17 -0400, in a place far, far away, John Doe
Post by John Doe
If the Bush promise of going to Mars is real, then the ISS should be
extremely key to this project
Why?
As a long-term development testbed for the life-support hardware, if
nothing else. The current problems with Elektron demonstrate that we
Earthers *still* don't know how to make a system that's truly reliable
(i.e., we don't have to worry about it much) over the period of several
years that a Mars mission would require (or even a Moon mission).

If nothing else, the current ISS (& Mir) experience with the Elektron
design gives an example of what fussy things they can be and (hopefully)
some ideas about how not to build them (can we develop a solid-state
design?). Ditto exercise machines...

It's going to be a long time before CEV takes to the moon, much less
Mars. We ought to use that time to get a handle on the "easy" stuff so
that we can focus on the really hard stuff (in-situ processing,
dust-resistant suits) that we'll *still* need to do when we have
reliable oxygen plants.
--
Reed Snellenberger
GPG KeyID: 5A978843
rsnellenberger-at-houston.rr.com
Rand Simberg
2005-04-05 15:41:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:04:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, Reed
Post by Reed Snellenberger
Post by John Doe
If the Bush promise of going to Mars is real, then the ISS should be
extremely key to this project
Why?
As a long-term development testbed for the life-support hardware, if
nothing else.
*A* space station might be needed (or at least useful) for that, but
it's not at all obvious that ISS is that station.
Post by Reed Snellenberger
It's going to be a long time before CEV takes to the moon, much less
Mars. We ought to use that time to get a handle on the "easy" stuff so
that we can focus on the really hard stuff (in-situ processing,
dust-resistant suits) that we'll *still* need to do when we have
reliable oxygen plants.
Then we should do it with an affordable station built for that
purpose, rather than one built to create jobs in various congressional
districts, Europe and Russia.
Paul F. Dietz
2005-04-05 12:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rand Simberg
Then we should do it with an affordable station built for that
purpose, rather than one built to create jobs in various congressional
districts, Europe and Russia.
It is also not obvious that a mission to Mars is so close in time
that microgravity human biology is on the critical path. If it isn't,
answering those questions now is a waste of money.

Paul
e***@hotmail.com
2005-04-05 14:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rand Simberg
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:04:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, Reed
Post by Reed Snellenberger
Post by John Doe
If the Bush promise of going to Mars is real, then the ISS should be
extremely key to this project
Why?
As a long-term development testbed for the life-support hardware, if
nothing else.
*A* space station might be needed (or at least useful) for that, but
it's not at all obvious that ISS is that station.
But Rand, ISS, though some think it flawed, is
the only space station NASA has - now and for
the forseeable future. I suspect that most of
the U.S. money for ISS has already been spent.
NASA might as well use it for something (get the
hardware up so the agency can start terminating
the ground processing contracts, etc). It would
probably cost more to start over with a new
station at this point.

- Ed Kyle
Rand Simberg
2005-04-05 18:46:29 UTC
Permalink
On 5 Apr 2005 07:34:11 -0700, in a place far, far away,
Post by e***@hotmail.com
Post by Rand Simberg
Post by Reed Snellenberger
As a long-term development testbed for the life-support hardware, if
nothing else.
*A* space station might be needed (or at least useful) for that, but
it's not at all obvious that ISS is that station.
But Rand, ISS, though some think it flawed, is
the only space station NASA has - now and for
the forseeable future.
That's a policy choice, not an immutable fact.
Post by e***@hotmail.com
I suspect that most of
the U.S. money for ISS has already been spent.
Perhaps, but there are still many billions ahead if we stick with it,
that could be used much more productively.
Post by e***@hotmail.com
NASA might as well use it for something (get the
hardware up so the agency can start terminating
the ground processing contracts, etc). It would
probably cost more to start over with a new
station at this point.
Only if NASA does it using traditional methods. The existing station
is so expensive to maintain, both due to its design and location, that
a sensible one would probably be cheaper, even including development
costs. That assumes, of course, that we develop sensible
transportation first.

The ISS disaster followed inevitably from the Shuttle disaster, and we
won't make space affordable until we break completely free from both
of those albatrosses. That was something implicitly recognized in the
new space policy, but the administration wasn't quite ready to break
completely then.
Jeff Findley
2005-04-05 15:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rand Simberg
The ISS disaster followed inevitably from the Shuttle disaster, and we
won't make space affordable until we break completely free from both
of those albatrosses. That was something implicitly recognized in the
new space policy, but the administration wasn't quite ready to break
completely then.
Unfortunately, I don't think the new space policy (coming from the Bush
administration) is a guarantee that things will change.

For example, if NASA is allowed to develop a shuttle derived vehicle "to
take advantage of the shuttle infrastructure", that's a clear sign that it
will turn out to be another albatross due to the high overhead inherent in
the shuttle infrastructure. Even if NASA switches to ELV's for the launch
vehicle, that's no guarantee that costs will come down much. I think the
CEV proposals are starting to look like a potential albatross as well.

Breaking free of the shuttle and ISS is only the first step. Insuring that
NASA doesn't replace these programs with equally expensive and unproductive
programs is the second, more difficult step.

Would you agree?

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
Rand Simberg
2005-04-05 19:56:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:22:08 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Post by Jeff Findley
Post by Rand Simberg
The ISS disaster followed inevitably from the Shuttle disaster, and we
won't make space affordable until we break completely free from both
of those albatrosses. That was something implicitly recognized in the
new space policy, but the administration wasn't quite ready to break
completely then.
Unfortunately, I don't think the new space policy (coming from the Bush
administration) is a guarantee that things will change.
No, in fact I see little sign of it (though Dr. Griffin could change
that). I'm just saying that if we wanted to do it right, we could.
It would simply take a decision to do so.
Post by Jeff Findley
Breaking free of the shuttle and ISS is only the first step. Insuring that
NASA doesn't replace these programs with equally expensive and unproductive
programs is the second, more difficult step.
Would you agree?
Sure.
Pete Lynn
2005-04-06 03:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Findley
Breaking free of the shuttle and ISS is only the first step.
Insuring that NASA doesn't replace these programs with
equally expensive and unproductive programs is the
second, more difficult step.
Would you agree?
Any shuttle or ISS derived infrastructure would surely take the path of
least resistance, pork barrel government funding and bloat as per the
originals. I think that much is obvious, but I also think that you have
to go even further than this. NASA is repeated the world over, you can
not just slay the original, the beast has many heads.

Like the deregulation of the California electricity sector, it is not
enough to just ensure that the government monopoly ends, and stays
ended, but you must also ensure that a private oligopoly does not rise
to take its place. Currently NASA leads the oligopoly, it is unlikely
that slaying NASA will slay the oligopoly, it may even just put us back
to square one. The good thing about a government monopoly, is that at
least you can vote it out.

Getting rid of NASA is hard, keeping rid of NASA is even harder, but the
third step may be the hardest of all - preventing a new invigorated
oligopoly of current launch vehicle providers in NASA's place, (where do
you think the majority of current NASA funding would go? - the usual
suspects).

Maybe SpaceX will break the cabal, maybe Virgin Galactic? It would be
nice to have this assured.

What will help to enable a free and open launch market?
To begin with:
-Low entry barriers
-High flight rates
-Large production numbers
-Markets
-Low costs - COTS componentry.

Which infers small size and orbital assembly, among other things.

This problem needs to be divided down into smaller parts, which can be
tackled separately by smaller companies with less resources. So many
companies want to develop the whole launch vehicle, which is beyond
them, so few want to develop individual components, engines, guidance
systems, etcetera, and sell them to the others. These lesser objectives
are within their reach, and collectively they would accomplish much
more, with a lot fewer failures. It would at least give them the chance
to build up gradually, and to avoid a lot of expensive mistakes that
seriously hurt the industry as a whole.

For example, a separate generic for hire reusable lower stage,
(airlaunch or rocket to just above most of the atmosphere), would be a
great enabler, greatly reducing launch vehicle development costs for
everyone else. Such a lower stage would be well within the abilities
and resources of a small launch vehicle company. Pick up and delivery,
launch pad services, this would make everyone else's jobs much easier,
greatly reducing entry barriers now.

What we need are small grass roots launch vehicles, these can open the
market, and ensure that it stays open. The easiest way to overcome
large, monopolistic, expensive and centralised infrastructure is with
small mass produced, distributed consumer items that can be bought at
Wal-Mart. Launch vehicles have to become cheap consumer items.

Fixating upon the evils of NASA is just a distraction, NASA is
irrelevant.

Pete.
Ed Kyle
2005-04-06 15:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Lynn
What will help to enable a free and open launch market?
-Low entry barriers
-High flight rates
-Large production numbers
-Markets
-Low costs - COTS componentry.
Which infers small size and orbital assembly, among other things.
This problem needs to be divided down into smaller parts, which can be
tackled separately by smaller companies with less resources. So many
companies want to develop the whole launch vehicle, which is beyond
them, so few want to develop individual components, engines, guidance
systems, etcetera, and sell them to the others.
Hardware isn't the problem. The world is awash in
launch vehicle overcapacity today. The problem isn't
the launch technology, it's the low launch rate.

Why is the launch rate low? It's because there isn't
much to do up there. No one has yet figured out any
amazing commercial must-do-in-space tasks beyond the
usual comsat, etc. applications.

Some think that people-in-space might be the break
through commercial money-maker. Maybe. But creating
the infrastructure (which is about much more than just
the launch vehicle) would be a major financial risk
for a commercial entity.

The truth is that governments rule space because they
have more tasks to perform there (mostly defense
related) than commercial entities.

This is why I think government could best foster the
unconventional commercial space industry by buying
consumable delivery services, to an orbital depot, that
could be used to help them accomplish their tasks.
Propellants first, then maybe human consumables like
water, oxygen, food, etc. Provide a kick-boost before
undocking. Provide trash delivery down, Progress-style.
The service could be done by robot autodockers, or, for
those interested in selling extra passenger seats for
the ride, it might be provided by human guided craft.
Government first provides the depot, then does what
it does best - contracts, lowest bidder, kickbacks,
etc. - the usual bureaucrat items.
Post by Pete Lynn
What we need are small grass roots launch vehicles, these can open the
market, and ensure that it stays open. The easiest way to overcome
large, monopolistic, expensive and centralised infrastructure is with
small mass produced, distributed consumer items that can be bought at
Wal-Mart. Launch vehicles have to become cheap consumer items.
Wal-Mart, of course, is buying its goods en-masse from
low-cost manufacturers in China. Can they build rockets
too?

- Ed Kyle
Pete Lynn
2005-04-07 02:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Kyle
Hardware isn't the problem. The world is awash in
launch vehicle overcapacity today. The problem isn't
the launch technology, it's the low launch rate.
Yes, you can get comparatively cheap left over hardware, but I am not
sure how much this helps. Like trying to develop CATS with
pre-developed shuttle hardware, (eg. SSMEs), one would invariably be
sucked back down into the old cost structures.

Current hardware was not designed sensibly with high launch rates in
mind, it fixes one into the old cost structures. Just increasing launch
rate with existing designs is not the cheapest or easiest road to CATS -
it has limits. Without ongoing development it is a flag and footprints
approach.
Post by Ed Kyle
Why is the launch rate low? It's because there isn't
much to do up there. No one has yet figured out any
amazing commercial must-do-in-space tasks beyond the
usual comsat, etc. applications.
Yes. I would hope that the first generation of Wal-mart launch vehicle
would want to get at least a one order of magnitude cost reduction,
which might help the market size a little. I would hope that the
satellite market is fairly elastic, and becoming increasingly small
scale compatible. The same advancements which might enable CATS, will
hopefully also enable cheap space stuff, and hence a market for CATS.
Post by Ed Kyle
Some think that people-in-space might be the break
through commercial money-maker. Maybe. But creating
the infrastructure (which is about much more than just
the launch vehicle) would be a major financial risk
for a commercial entity.
Indeed, though some are putting up the money and there is hope. I am
uncomfortable with all the eggs being in that basket. It would be nice
to find a smaller and less committing first step.
Post by Ed Kyle
The truth is that governments rule space because they
have more tasks to perform there (mostly defense
related) than commercial entities.
The government is by far the biggest market, so for better and worse new
players get sucked into that game.
Post by Ed Kyle
This is why I think government could best foster the
unconventional commercial space industry by buying
consumable delivery services, to an orbital depot, that
could be used to help them accomplish their tasks.
Propellants first, then maybe human consumables like
water, oxygen, food, etc. Provide a kick-boost before
undocking. Provide trash delivery down, Progress-style.
The service could be done by robot autodockers, or, for
those interested in selling extra passenger seats for
the ride, it might be provided by human guided craft.
Government first provides the depot, then does what
it does best - contracts, lowest bidder, kickbacks,
etc. - the usual bureaucrat items.
Agreed, but the pace of government would still be slow and buried in red
tape, private development needs to work much quicker than that, with
faster payback periods. A faster more immediate market is desired.

This is one of the reasons why I favour very low development cost small
launch vehicles, (~500kg payload). This enables immediate niche markets
which are much faster and capable of immediate growth and development.
We need fast evolution here. A 500kg vehicle that launched twenty times
a year, (in the first year), would only serve ~2% of the world launch
market. There should be existing niche markets enough for that - if the
business case could be made to close. This would require initial
development costs in the less than $100 million range, I am hoping this
might be possible.

With each passing year the estimates for the costs of a new private CATS
vehicle slowly come down, as people come up with better solutions.
Roton was perhaps ~$300M, now it is probably down to $200M or less,
hopefully one day soon these estimates and the market will meet. The
trick may be to develop a vehicle that can initially survive/evolve on a
small uncompromising, (non direct government?), niche market.

Pete.
John Doe
2005-04-05 20:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rand Simberg
Perhaps, but there are still many billions ahead if we stick with it,
that could be used much more productively.
More importantly, the money invested in the ISS will yielded very little
because the USA will stop making use of its potential as soon as it is
completed. It is a like a corporation spending millions to build a new
plant that makes widgets, and then once the plant is complete, it
decides that it doesn't want to use that plant anymore.
Post by Rand Simberg
Only if NASA does it using traditional methods. The existing station
is so expensive to maintain, both due to its design and location, that
a sensible one would probably be cheaper, even including development
costs. That assumes, of course, that we develop sensible
transportation first.
Forget location. This isn't a "station cost", it is a shuttle cost (eg:
uplift penalty due to inclination). And if the station is expensive to
maintain, it isn't enough to just shut it down. What is required is to
analyze why it is expensive as you accuse it to be, and then find ways
to fix it so that when you do build that martian ship, you can build it
cheaply and you won't get people like you constantly complaining about
it.
Post by Rand Simberg
of those albatrosses. That was something implicitly recognized in the
new space policy, but the administration wasn't quite ready to break
completely then.
The new space policy is to make an empty promise to go to Mars and then
use that empty promise as justification to shutdown manned space
programme without any firm or timed commitment to return to space. I
guess you are happy with this. I am not.

If Bush had been serious about Mars, he would have increased funding to
the ISS because like it or not, the ISS is the key to developping and
testing systems needed to go to mars. And just like the USA couldn't
afford Freedom all by itself, it is also very likely that a ship to Mars
will be international. NASA has learned a lot about working with Russia,
Canada, Europe, Japan in recent years. A project to build a mars ship
would avoid many of the pitfalls encountered with ISS and would also
have more realistic expectations of what each member can provide and when.


And by having that empty promise of a mythical CEV that will pay for
itself, I guess NASA employees involved with manned space programme have
a false sense of security thinking that they have secure jobs.

And by the time a real programme to go to Mars starts, NASA will have
lost/forgotten about all it learned about the ISS and will have to start
from scratch. Now, there,s a waste of money, not only because of the
investment and experience in ISS will be wasted, but also, anmd more
importantly, because many of the mistakes made with ISS are likely to be
repeated, and in the specific example of an O2 generator, the USA will
be a total newbie in it without any experience operating such a device
in 0g for long periods of time.

If Elektron were american, would NASA really be able to fix its problems
once and for all ? It is easy to point fingers at the Russians whose
image isn't very good, and whose systems don't look state of the art and
appear to be held up with duct tape. But that doesn't mean that in
reality the russians are the best available expertise for O2 generators
and that the americans woudln't do any better. Until the USA launches
its own O2 generator, we won't know.

But until someone gets a reliable O2 generator to work on the ISS,
nobody's going to Mars.
m***@my-deja.com
2005-04-06 11:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
It is a like a corporation spending millions to build a new
plant that makes widgets, and then once the plant is complete, it
decides that it doesn't want to use that plant anymore.
Something which happens fairly often. It's a difficult decision to
make, but sometimes you have to accept that despite billions in sunk
costs, your new plant costs more to run than is worth paying for the
benefits it provides.

Of course, unlike government, a business can't just steal more money
from people to pay for its expensive plants that serve no purpose,
which is why they do close them down. Government, on the other hand,
keeps throwing other people's money at them until the voters revolt.
Post by John Doe
And if the station is expensive to
maintain, it isn't enough to just shut it down. What is required is to
analyze why it is expensive as you accuse it to be,
We already know: ISS is a government jobs program (both for America and
Russia), not a space station. The goal is to spend money, and it's
achieved that goal pretty well... spending money is one of the few
things that government bureaucrats are good at.
Post by John Doe
and then find ways
to fix it so that when you do build that martian ship, you can build it
cheaply and you won't get people like you constantly complaining about
it.
But that's easy: just keep the government out of it and let private
companies build their own Mars ships, if and when they get the urge to
go there. A trillion dollar boondoggle to send civil servants to Mars
will only discourage private companies from going there, just as Apollo
did for the Moon.

Mark
Jeff Findley
2005-04-06 14:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
Post by Rand Simberg
Only if NASA does it using traditional methods. The existing station
is so expensive to maintain, both due to its design and location, that
a sensible one would probably be cheaper, even including development
costs. That assumes, of course, that we develop sensible
transportation first.
uplift penalty due to inclination). And if the station is expensive to
maintain, it isn't enough to just shut it down. What is required is to
analyze why it is expensive as you accuse it to be, and then find ways
to fix it so that when you do build that martian ship, you can build it
cheaply and you won't get people like you constantly complaining about
it.
All launchers suffer from lower payload capability as you increase the
inclination of the destination orbit above (or below) the latitude of the
launch site. The shuttle is hit particularly bad because of its poor
payload mass fraction (i.e. counting only the payload in the bay as payload,
not the orbiter itself as payload).

Note that the ATV will suffer from the choice of the inclination of the ISS
orbit as well. Howeer, you don't hear the Europeans complaining as much
about the high inclination since Ariane V has a better payload mass fraction
than the shuttle.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
Rand Simberg
2005-04-08 16:04:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 16:39:06 -0400, in a place far, far away, John Doe
Post by John Doe
Post by Rand Simberg
Perhaps, but there are still many billions ahead if we stick with it,
that could be used much more productively.
More importantly, the money invested in the ISS will yielded very little
because the USA will stop making use of its potential as soon as it is
completed. It is a like a corporation spending millions to build a new
plant that makes widgets, and then once the plant is complete, it
decides that it doesn't want to use that plant anymore.
Because its ongoing operational costs exceed the value of the services
provided.
Post by John Doe
Post by Rand Simberg
Only if NASA does it using traditional methods. The existing station
is so expensive to maintain, both due to its design and location, that
a sensible one would probably be cheaper, even including development
costs. That assumes, of course, that we develop sensible
transportation first.
uplift penalty due to inclination). And if the station is expensive to
maintain, it isn't enough to just shut it down. What is required is to
analyze why it is expensive as you accuse it to be, and then find ways
to fix it so that when you do build that martian ship, you can build it
cheaply and you won't get people like you constantly complaining about
it.
Many already have done such an analysis.
Post by John Doe
Post by Rand Simberg
of those albatrosses. That was something implicitly recognized in the
new space policy, but the administration wasn't quite ready to break
completely then.
The new space policy is to make an empty promise to go to Mars and then
use that empty promise as justification to shutdown manned space
programme without any firm or timed commitment to return to space. I
guess you are happy with this.
How can I be happy (or unhappy) with something that's a fantasy on
your part? Bush's promise is no more "empty" than Kennedy's was.
Post by John Doe
If Bush had been serious about Mars, he would have increased funding to
the ISS because like it or not, the ISS is the key to developping and
testing systems needed to go to mars.
Many disagree with you, including the administration. ISS is a
diversion from going to Mars.
Post by John Doe
And just like the USA couldn't
afford Freedom all by itself,
Another myth. We chose not to spend the money by ourselves, but we
certainly could afford it, if we chose to.

<rest of confused nonsense snipped>
f***@gmail.com
2005-04-05 18:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
If the Bush promise of going to Mars is real, then the ISS should be
extremely key to this project and stopping investment into ISS is silly,
Bob Zubrin would think differently.
Post by John Doe
and this leads me to believe that there is really no commitment to go to Mars.
GWB isn't going to be around for a Mars mission, and frankly NASA
(thankfully) isn't being asked to put together a Mars mission. The
budget and public mandate isn't there at current prices implied by
NASA-style management. The CEV program is a sharp change in direction
that has the goal of getting NASA astronauts out of LEO. The following
presidential administration will determine if it survives, and in what
form.
Post by John Doe
The ISS is not only crucial to test human survival skills in 0g with
sufficient strength to be productive when they land on mars (no cushy
van to collect them once they land), but also the perfect testbed for
all the systems that a mars expedition will need.
Yes and no.

Yes, it would have been nice to test low and micro gravity
envirnoments in the (deleted) centrafuge. It would have been nice to
test long duration life support, but all life support was designed for
short duration with lots of expendable, resupplied resources. It would
have been nice to design living quarters that would be directly usable
as a Mars transport habitate. But none of those "nice" things turned
out to be true of ISS, so as it turns out, ISS isn't applicable to
gaining deep space experience.

This is a result of bad management and decision making (Thanks Dan!
Thanks Bill!)
It has resulted in some really nice Dachas in Kazakstan -- they aren't
good precedents for a Mars mission either.
John Doe
2005-04-05 21:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
NASA-style management. The CEV program is a sharp change in direction
that has the goal of getting NASA astronauts out of LEO. The following
presidential administration will determine if it survives, and in what
form.
Cool. So you shoot astronauts in a glorified/simplified/smaller
shuttle/capsule/Tardis/whatever further up than LEO. Will that mythical
CEV be able to land on the moon ? Or will then need a LEM that can drop
a few people in a tin can and stay on the moon less than 2 days with
extremely limited payload ?

Will the CEV be of any use to go to Mars ? Nop. Would it be able to be
used as a Martian Lander ? Will be be able to be refueled and made ready
on Mars by a squeleton crew there and launch back to earth ? Doubt it.

I think those who believe in the CEV are as gullible as those who
believed the Shuttle would make spaceflight as easy as commercial
aircraft. the CEV will be nothing mroe than a LEO vehicle, even if NASA
spends billions extra to give it the possibility of going to the moon.

In fact, it may have made more sense to put the priority on developping
a replacement for Shuttle's cargo launch capability, complete with the
orbital manoevering and "hotel" for the cargo (power, data, cooling,
comms) first, and make it such that it could launch the remaining
hardware to ISS. If this could be developped quickly and take on
whatever remains from Shuttle's manifest, the Shuttle flight rate could
then be reduced to only the crew exchanges, and MPLM. This would have
extended the Shuttle's life, and thus given more time for the mythical
CEV to be developped without any interruotion to the manned space programme.

And the cargo launcher and orbital tug would have become useful for
building whatever Martain ship will be built, and a LEO CEV would be
useful in bringing crews to assemble and test such a ship.
Post by f***@gmail.com
envirnoments in the (deleted) centrafuge. It would have been nice to
test long duration life support, but all life support was designed for
short duration with lots of expendable, resupplied resources.
The USA had plans for a closed loop ECLSS on ISS. It may not have been
100% closed loop, but if proven to work, it may have allowed a mars
expedition ship to carry far less ECLSS consumables, and more
importantly, the experience would have given NASA real empirical numbers
on exactly how many consumables would be needed and how many spare parts
for the stuff likely needing replacement during such a trip.
Post by f***@gmail.com
It would
have been nice to design living quarters that would be directly usable
as a Mars transport habitate. But none of those "nice" things turned
out to be true of ISS, so as it turns out, ISS isn't applicable to
gaining deep space experience.
I don't see why you would make such a statement. Plans were for the iSS
to have a crew of 6. Knowing how much space is needed per person (for
the type of person likely to go on such an expedition) is extremely
important. Planning for sufficient exercise equipment and space is also
important. And this is all information which the ISS still has the
potential to yield.
Herb Schaltegger
2005-04-05 23:25:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
The USA had plans for a closed loop ECLSS on ISS. It may not have been
100% closed loop,
More than plans, JF. Complete designs which had passed CDR, qual-level
hardware for probably 85% of the major components and dev-level
hardware for every bit of the rest, as far as the ARS. PWS was a
little further behind but it was probably 60% - 40% at least. By '93
we were well past the handwaving stage, thank you.
--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
<http://www.angryherb.net>
f***@gmail.com
2005-04-06 18:01:17 UTC
Permalink
Out of curiosity, what is the full story behind the ISS life support
design?

Any links to an in depth history.

--Fred
Herb Schaltegger
2005-04-06 18:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Out of curiosity, what is the full story behind the ISS life support
design?
Any links to an in depth history.
You mean, aside from the box of mostly-still-accurate documents I took
with me when I left my job as an ARS design engineer for SSF ECLSS in
lat '93? No, I doubt it. :-p

A google search of the sci.space.* groups will reveal lots of posts on
specific issues (by me and lots of others with some knowledge) - if you
have any particular questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.
All told at one point we had nearly 4,000 people working for Boeing on
SSF Work Package 1, of which about 30 were involved with regenerable
ECLSS design. Bear in mind that my specific group was designing just
the ARS (Atmosphere Revitalization Subsystem) of the ECLSS. There were
separate design teams for the Potable Water System, Temperature and
Humidity Control, High-Pressure Gas System, etc. And that was just
within the ECLSS Group. There were separate groups for electrical/data
design, structures (both element design and rack design), integration
and packaging, operations, materials and properties, etc.
--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
<http://www.angryherb.net>
f***@gmail.com
2005-04-19 19:49:59 UTC
Permalink
The questions I have are:

* Why did we shelve the regenerable ECLSS? I assume it had to due with
tight budgets ... but why regen and not say, the cupola?
* Was that a NASA decision or a Whitehouse Decision, (or other)?

Brass tacks:
* How much mass per time per crew is used on ECLSS now vs. a regen
system?
Herb Schaltegger
2005-04-19 20:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
* Why did we shelve the regenerable ECLSS? I assume it had to due with
tight budgets ... but why regen and not say, the cupola?
Regenerable ECLSS was shelved due to budget. The Cupola was designed
by Boeing for SSF, who also had overall responsibility for the SSF
ECLSS. However, it ended up being built but Alenia in Italy -- e.g.,
the funding allocations were very political in nature. Actually
cutting the regenerable ECLSS from the U.S. segments saved very little
program money -- most all of the hardware was well past the contractor
CDR stage - most of them were in qualification-testing level or final
dev-testing stage at worst. I would guesstimate that the decision not
to finish building the U.S. regenerable ECLSS flight components saved
maybe $100 million in design funding, and maybe as much in procurement
funding, allocated over the years from 1993 - present. Bear in mind
that SSF funding was well over a billion a year in 1993 when I left
ECLSS design.
Post by f***@gmail.com
* Was that a NASA decision or a Whitehouse Decision, (or other)?
NASA, pressured by the Administration to cut annual program costs at
the expense of program capabilities and increased long-term costs due
to resupply issues.
Post by f***@gmail.com
* How much mass per time per crew is used on ECLSS now vs. a regen
system?
Hard to tell. If the system worked properly, you'd only need to spend
a couple hours a month, total, to check/change a few expendable items
(debris filters, mostly, or items with limited-lifetimes like heater or
sorbent beds in the CDRA). Maintenance spec's were initially very
tight, but I get the very strong impression they ended up loosened up a
great deal in order to save development costs - again, save a couple
million a year in development costs for the program, waste hundreds of
hours' worth of crew time due to increased maintenance over the life of
the systems.
--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
<http://www.individual-i.com/>
Derek Lyons
2005-04-21 21:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herb Schaltegger
Post by f***@gmail.com
* How much mass per time per crew is used on ECLSS now vs. a regen
system?
Hard to tell. If the system worked properly, you'd only need to spend
a couple hours a month, total, to check/change a few expendable items
(debris filters, mostly, or items with limited-lifetimes like heater or
sorbent beds in the CDRA). Maintenance spec's were initially very
tight, but I get the very strong impression they ended up loosened up a
great deal in order to save development costs - again, save a couple
million a year in development costs for the program, waste hundreds of
hours' worth of crew time due to increased maintenance over the life of
the systems.
If I may substitute a little 'real world' experience here - I've
always found that in reality maintenace take more time than the
engineers think.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
m***@my-deja.com
2005-04-06 11:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
This would have
extended the Shuttle's life, and thus given more time for the
mythical
Post by John Doe
CEV to be developped without any interruotion to the manned space programme.
I think you're missing the point.

IMHO the primary goal of the CEV is to justify killing the shuttle
(just as some people have argued that the primary goal of the shuttle
was to justify killing the expensive Apollo and Saturn programs).
Whether it achieves anything beyond that is pretty much irrelevant, and
will be up to future politicians to decide, long after Bush has hit the
lecture circuit.

Mark
f***@gmail.com
2005-04-06 17:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Actually I think we tend to agree that ISS could have been a good place
to develop and test tech for deep space manned missions.

My point is that this hasn't been in the ISS budget for a while, and
isn't in the future plans. That's really a shame, but that is the way
it is.

I hold many of the same doubts you do about CEV. Let's hope that NASA
does something useful with it.
Jorge R. Frank
2005-04-07 02:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Actually I think we tend to agree that ISS could have been a good place
to develop and test tech for deep space manned missions.
My point is that this hasn't been in the ISS budget for a while,
That should hardly be surprising. ISS is still under assembly, so any
research that gets done at this stage is gravy.
Post by f***@gmail.com
and
isn't in the future plans.
That remains to be seen. For one, you're not going to see much ramp-up in
research funding of *any* kind until assembly starts winding down. For
another, the Exploration Systems folks have to define the requirements for
what they want before the ISS folks can start working on it.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Rand Simberg
2005-04-08 16:06:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:22:49 -0400, in a place far, far away, John Doe
Post by John Doe
Post by f***@gmail.com
NASA-style management. The CEV program is a sharp change in direction
that has the goal of getting NASA astronauts out of LEO. The following
presidential administration will determine if it survives, and in what
form.
Cool. So you shoot astronauts in a glorified/simplified/smaller
shuttle/capsule/Tardis/whatever further up than LEO. Will that mythical
CEV be able to land on the moon ? Or will then need a LEM that can drop
a few people in a tin can and stay on the moon less than 2 days with
extremely limited payload ?
Why are you arguing about a subject on which there's plenty of
information available, yet you are ignorant of? Why don't you go
learn a little about the initiative before criticizing it?
Jorge R. Frank
2005-04-05 03:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Another relavent factor to consider is that ISS work needn't be done by
the shuttle;
Logistics, crew rotation, and resupply, perhaps. But ISS assembly can only
be done by the shuttle, and the probability of that fact changing during
the lifetime of ISS is extremely remote.
Post by f***@gmail.com
Using the 5 to 8 billion dollar yearly shuttle budget for other
priorities seems like a good idea to me.
The shuttle budget is under $5 billion, and has been for most of its
history. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the shuttle budget has only
exceeded $5 billion in five years (1983, 1987, and 1990-92) out of 37.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Andrew Lotosky
2005-04-05 04:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Post by f***@gmail.com
Using the 5 to 8 billion dollar yearly shuttle budget for other
priorities seems like a good idea to me.
The shuttle budget is under $5 billion, and has been for most of its
history. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the shuttle budget has only
exceeded $5 billion in five years (1983, 1987, and 1990-92) out of 37.
Has that been the peak? If so I find those dates interesting...1983,
the orbiters were "in production" as Discovery and Atlantis neared
completion. 1987, work was underway for the post-Challenger RTF, so the
SRB's were being redesigned and recertified. And from 1990 - 1992
Endeavour was being built.

Has there been a similar spike in the shuttle budget with the current
stand-down? I suspect not as the modifications don't seem as extensive.

Finally, what happens if at the end of 2010 NASA is a few flights short
(say four or five) of finishing ISS. Will the government say "tough"
and whatever ISS components that don't go up are left to rust on Earth?
How far is NASA willing to try extending STS if it becomes necessary?

-A.L.
Douglas Holmes
2005-04-05 11:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lotosky
Finally, what happens if at the end of 2010 NASA is a few flights short
(say four or five) of finishing ISS. Will the government say "tough"
and whatever ISS components that don't go up are left to rust on Earth?
How far is NASA willing to try extending STS if it becomes necessary?
If the schedules I have seen are right no major component is launched
in the last 6 flights.
Five flights from the end is the Cupola.

5 of the last 6 are supply and crew flights.
In fact almost half the 28 flights are largely dedicated to crew and
logistics.
Jorge R. Frank
2005-04-06 00:01:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Douglas Holmes
Post by Andrew Lotosky
Finally, what happens if at the end of 2010 NASA is a few flights short
(say four or five) of finishing ISS. Will the government say "tough"
and whatever ISS components that don't go up are left to rust on Earth?
How far is NASA willing to try extending STS if it becomes necessary?
If the schedules I have seen are right no major component is launched
in the last 6 flights.
Five flights from the end is the Cupola.
5 of the last 6 are supply and crew flights.
In fact almost half the 28 flights are largely dedicated to crew and
logistics.
That sounds a little out of date. Here is the latest I have:

114(LF-1) RTF/Logistics
121(ULF-1.1) RTF/Logistics
115(12A) P3/P4 (US asm)
116(12A.1) P5 (US asm)
117(13A) S3/S4 (US asm)
118(13A.1) S5 (US asm)
119(15A) S6 (US asm)
120(10A) Node 2 (US asm)
122(1E) COF (Int'l asm)
123(ULF-2) Logistics
124(1J/A) JEM (Int'l asm)
125(1J) JEM (Int'l asm)
126(17A) Outfitting
127(UF-3) SPDM (Int'l asm), logistics
128(UF-4) Logistics
129(2J/A) JEM (Int'l asm)
130(UF-5) Logistics
131(20A) Node 3 (US asm)
132(19A) Node 3 outfitting (US asm)
133(14A) Cupola (US asm), logistics
134(UF-7) CAM (US asm)
135(ULF-3) Logistics
136(9A.1) SPM (Int'l asm)
137(ULF-4) Logistics
138(ULF-5) Logistics
139(9A.2) SPM outfitting (Int'l asm)
140(ULF-6) Logistics
141(ULF-7) Logistics

Breaking the whole thing down, we have:

114,121 Two return-to-flight test missions
115-120 Six assembly flights to get to US Core Complete
122-129 Six assembly flights to get to International Core Complete with a
couple of logistics flights sprinkled in
130-134 Four assembly flights to get to six-crew research capability,
cupola and centrifuge, plus one logistics flight
135-141 Five logistics flights with two Russian assembly flights sprinkled
in
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Jorge R. Frank
2005-04-05 12:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Lotosky
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Post by f***@gmail.com
Using the 5 to 8 billion dollar yearly shuttle budget for other
priorities seems like a good idea to me.
The shuttle budget is under $5 billion, and has been for most of its
history. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the shuttle budget has only
exceeded $5 billion in five years (1983, 1987, and 1990-92) out of 37.
Has that been the peak?
Yes.
Post by Andrew Lotosky
If so I find those dates interesting...1983,
the orbiters were "in production" as Discovery and Atlantis neared
completion. 1987, work was underway for the post-Challenger RTF, so the
SRB's were being redesigned and recertified. And from 1990 - 1992
Endeavour was being built.
Actually, most of the money for Endeavour came from the 1987 appropriation.
Post by Andrew Lotosky
Has there been a similar spike in the shuttle budget with the current
stand-down? I suspect not as the modifications don't seem as extensive.
A smaller spike, roughly from $4 billion to $4.5 billion.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
f***@gmail.com
2005-04-05 17:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Logistics, crew rotation, and resupply, perhaps. But ISS assembly can only
be done by the shuttle, and the probability of that fact changing during
the lifetime of ISS is extremely remote.
Logistics and crew rotation comprise a good fraction (1/3?) of the
forward looking US comitment.

Granted that currently designed US/EU/Japanese modules are shuttle
specific, making them seemingly economically impractical to deliver via
expendable launchers, although I doubt anyone has seriously pursued
this option due to the current NASA pro-Shuttle bias. Russian modules
have been delivered via expendables, showning that given sufficient
motivation, engineering, and advanced planning it can be accomplished.
Let's take it as a given that the existing core complete hardware would
most efficiently be launched via the shuttle.
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Post by f***@gmail.com
Using the 5 to 8 billion dollar yearly shuttle budget for other
priorities seems like a good idea to me.
The shuttle budget is under $5 billion, and has been for most of its
history. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the shuttle budget has only
exceeded $5 billion in five years (1983, 1987, and 1990-92) out of 37.
I don't have the data to quibble with your numbers in detail.
Frankly, I'm not sure that NASA does either, but that's another thread.


Even given that retiring the shuttle program would only free up 5
billion, wouldn't that fund quite a robust and useful CEV? More to the
point, if the goal is to go higher than LEO, isn't funding CEV more
relavent and cost effective than funding the Shuttle?

I admit that I have my doubts that the NASA management can execute
successfully and efficiently on CEV. I can easily imagine them wasting
vast sums of money building YAMR (Yet Another Manned Rocket) with
wildly contraditory goals and riduclously grandeous requirements.
Afterall, they named one of their centers after Langley (Not Orville
and Wilbur) says a lot if you really think about it.
Jorge R. Frank
2005-04-06 00:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Logistics, crew rotation, and resupply, perhaps. But ISS assembly can
only
Post by Jorge R. Frank
be done by the shuttle, and the probability of that fact changing
during
Post by Jorge R. Frank
the lifetime of ISS is extremely remote.
Logistics and crew rotation comprise a good fraction (1/3?) of the
forward looking US comitment.
Granted that currently designed US/EU/Japanese modules are shuttle
specific, making them seemingly economically impractical to deliver via
expendable launchers, although I doubt anyone has seriously pursued
this option due to the current NASA pro-Shuttle bias. Russian modules
have been delivered via expendables, showning that given sufficient
motivation, engineering, and advanced planning it can be accomplished.
That "sufficient" is going to be more than most people realize. The Russian
modules are around 18 tons, just like the US modules, but if you look
closely you see that only around 10-11 tons is the "payload"; the rest is
propulsion and other systems needed to get those 10-11 tons to the station,
or about 40% of the launch mass. The US modules are *all* payload since
they're designed to rely on the shuttle to get them to ISS. Apply that same
factor to the US modules and you wind up with something too heavy to launch
with any current launcher. So not only do you need to develop the systems
to attach to the US modules to get them to ISS, you need to upgrade a
launcher to do the job.
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Let's take it as a given that the existing core complete hardware would
most efficiently be launched via the shuttle.
I'll agree with that.
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Post by f***@gmail.com
Using the 5 to 8 billion dollar yearly shuttle budget for other
priorities seems like a good idea to me.
The shuttle budget is under $5 billion, and has been for most of its
history. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the shuttle budget has only
exceeded $5 billion in five years (1983, 1987, and 1990-92) out of 37.
I don't have the data to quibble with your numbers in detail.
Frankly, I'm not sure that NASA does either, but that's another thread.
Here are my sources. Have fun.

Shuttle Costs, 1970-1999
Jenkins, Dennis R. Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space
Transportation System/The First 100 Flights, 3rd ed, p. 256

Shuttle Costs, 2000
http://ifmp.nasa.gov/codeb/budget2002/06_space_shuttle.pdf
Shuttle Costs, 2001
http://ifmp.nasa.gov/codeb/budget2003/06-Space_Shuttle.pdf
Shuttle Costs, 2002
http://ifmp.nasa.gov/codeb/budget2004/24-Space_Shuttle.pdf
Shuttle Costs, 2003
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55412main_29%20SSP.pdf
Shuttle Costs, 2004-2005 (actual), 2006 (requested), 2007-2010 (planned)
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/107492main_FY06_2_ec.pdf
Post by Jorge R. Frank
Even given that retiring the shuttle program would only free up 5
billion, wouldn't that fund quite a robust and useful CEV? More to the
point, if the goal is to go higher than LEO, isn't funding CEV more
relavent and cost effective than funding the Shuttle?
CEV can't complete ISS assembly, and that's one of the cornerstones of the
VSE: to use ISS to continue research on the effects of microgravity on the
crew and develop countermeasures to protect crew health on long voyages,
and to develop and demonstrate high-reliability life support systems.

One could argue that ISS is poorly suited for this task due to its orbit
and design heritage, and claim that a purpose-built station could do the
task more cost-effectively than using the current shuttle to complete the
current ISS. That could well be the case, but I don't consider it likely to
happen, for a variety of reasons.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Joseph S. Powell, III
2005-04-08 22:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
read: NASA starts planning the end of manned spaceflight.
Funny thing is that NASA isn't talking about accelerating development of
some vehicle that can deliver parts to the space station. For instance,
when a CMG needs replaced in 2011, what will bring the replacement up ?
Have the americans begun to work on a replacement for MPLMs ? Or will
all reasearch from 2010 onwards have to be burned over the pacific
instead of having the results brought back to earth ? Have the americans
signed contracts to have the Japanese build HTVs to replace MPLMs ? Have
the american signed contracts to have europe build more ATVs or russians
to build more Progress to keep the station in orbit ?
Starting the winding down of the shuttle now is plain stupid. This is
like starting to shutdown a coal fired electrical generator before
you've begun construction of a hydro electric project meant to replace it.
I can't believe that americans aren't seeing this as a ploy to simply
end manned spaceflight.
I have more optimism for private manned spaceflight than anything NASA has
planned for the future.
Herb Schaltegger
2005-04-08 22:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph S. Powell, III
Post by John Doe
I can't believe that americans aren't seeing this as a ploy to simply
end manned spaceflight.
I have more optimism for private manned spaceflight than anything NASA has
planned for the future.
Don't worry; JF Mezei can't believe people can see through his stupid
nym-changing, either.
--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
<http://www.angryherb.net>
Jonathan Silverlight
2005-04-09 16:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Doe
read: NASA starts planning the end of manned spaceflight.
I can't believe that americans aren't seeing this as a ploy to simply
end manned spaceflight.
Given that it's only the end of US manned (crewed ?) spaceflight I
suspect those plans may change.
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
David M. Palmer
2005-04-09 17:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan Silverlight
Post by John Doe
read: NASA starts planning the end of manned spaceflight.
I can't believe that americans aren't seeing this as a ploy to simply
end manned spaceflight.
Given that it's only the end of US manned (crewed ?) spaceflight I
suspect those plans may change.
No it's only the end of NASA crewed spaceflight. (There were three manned
space flights from the US last year. NASA wasn't involved in any of them.)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...