No more Space Shuttle?

Story from space.com. What do you think?

http://space.com/news/shuttle_status_040416.html

"Steve Dufour" wrote ...
Story from space.com. What do you think?

http://space.com/news/shuttle_status_040416.html

Continuing the Shuttle and ISS programmes has always been a tricky
question (not just recently). They both have value, although people will
argue about how much, and they both have costs that some will argued
are too high.

Personally I wonder how much such decisions depend on the
sunk cost fallacy http://www.confidentchoices.com/sunkcosts.html

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a manned space programme.
I am saying that I'm not sure that what you have is well-balanced
with respect to funding for other space activities.

I think this is worth considering and as the article says, the longer the
Shuttle doesn't fly, the more people will be asking whether it's time to
stop work on the ISS, retire the Shuttle and re-direct the funding to the
next manned space initiative.

There have been learning's from Shuttle that can be used in future manned
spaced programs, reusable or otherwise...I say it's time to close this
chapter on manned spacecraft, leave the ISS as is, payback the other ISS
partners for their hardware if need be, and move on....

Jeff Lerner
"Steve Dufour" wrote in message
om...
Story from space.com. What do you think?

http://space.com/news/shuttle_status_040416.html

"Meszéna Géza" wrote in
:

Would it be possible to finish the ISS by exclusively unmanned Shutle
flights?

It is possible, but not terribly practical. Some of the areas to be
automated would seriously push the state-of-the-art.

This would remove the need for obeying the CAIB recommendations. Under
the existing 98% reliability, whith some luck, you can deliver the 25
fligths necessary for comleting the Station without losing another
vehicle.

Automating the shuttle will be more expensive, take longer, and be more
technically challenging than meeting the CAIB recommendations.

If we are not so lucky, we will lose some of them. Of course,
the current reliablity must be maintained, otherwise we will lose all
the three remaining OV too soon.

The trouble is, the shuttle crew is counted as a "level of redundancy" in
many systems; they are the last line of defense for troubleshooting many
types of malfunctions and for taking over manually when automated systems
fail. Removing the crew will almost certainly decrease the reliability of
the fleet and increase the odds of losing vehicles, unless heroic efforts
are made to upgrade the "smarts" and reliability of automated systems.

It will takes some efforts, and money, to convert them unmanned. My
guess is that safety of the proximity oparations is the only
significant issue. Can it be a show-stopper?

It is probably the biggest issue, but not the only significant one. It is
probably not a show-stopper, but would definitely be one of the cost and
schedule drivers.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Steve Dufour" wrote in message
om...
Story from space.com. What do you think?

http://space.com/news/shuttle_status_040416.html

The Shuttle not flying anymore would mean a HUGE prestige blow to the U.S.
Any such decision would imply that the Shuttle isn't safe and therefore one
big mistake. That would be too much for NASA to bear.

No, I think no matter what the cost, the Shuttle will fly again. If only for
a few more flights. I, however, could well envision that the Shuttle is
ditched after only a couple more flights.

Uddo Graaf wrote:

The Shuttle not flying anymore would mean a HUGE prestige blow to the U.S.
Any such decision would imply that the Shuttle isn't safe and therefore one
big mistake. That would be too much for NASA to bear.

'Being too much for NASA to bear' isn't the criterion that is used to
determine what will be done, though.

Safety isn't the issue, anyway. It's cost and value. At $1.2B per
future shuttle flight (when proper cost accounting is done on the NASA
budget and you assume 4 flights/year), the vehicle is horrendously
expensive, and its sole remaining justification, supporting ISS,
is ever more obviously flawed.

Paul

"Steve Dufour" wrote in message
om...
Story from space.com. What do you think?

http://space.com/news/shuttle_status_040416.html

ahem:

"Left to be answered by the public and politicos are several key questions,
suggested Launius: Is the United States as a nation willing to endure a
period of several years when humans do not fly in space like it did between
the time of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975 and the first shuttle
mission in 1981? Are we willing to end human spaceflight altogether?"

so I guess all those Soyuz/Salyut cosmonauts weren't human, eh?

I think that gives you a pretty good perspective on just how accurate and
useful this article is.

--
Terrell Miller


"It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

"Meszéna Géza" wrote in
:

Would it be possible to finish the ISS by exclusively unmanned Shutle
flights?

It is possible, but not terribly practical. Some of the areas to be
automated would seriously push the state-of-the-art.

This would remove the need for obeying the CAIB recommendations. Under
the existing 98% reliability, whith some luck, you can deliver the 25
fligths necessary for comleting the Station without losing another
vehicle.

Automating the shuttle will be more expensive, take longer, and be more
technically challenging than meeting the CAIB recommendations.


And they would be no more replaceable (even less so than a crew, as
has been argued here) than a crewed orbiter if another one were to be
lost...

--

You know what to remove, to reply....

"Paul Blay" wrote in message ...
Continuing the Shuttle and ISS programmes has always been a tricky
question (not just recently). They both have value, although people will
argue about how much, and they both have costs that some will argued
are too high.

Both have values, but... there are actually better ways on doing them.

For example, having the Space Shuttle took flight each time it's kinda
like a big trailer going to orbit each time. It's preferable instead
to have a separate launch vehicles according to the type of cargo.

And the ISS are constructed in a quite different way, instead docking
one module to another like the Mir, the ISS was constructed with a lot
of E.V.A. in mind. And then there's the obvious lack of use of a
Skylab style of construction, which essentially having a large tank as
a space station.


The way of doing things now it seems to measure on how much hard tasks
that humans could endure.


Personally I wonder how much such decisions depend on the
sunk cost fallacy http://www.confidentchoices.com/sunkcosts.html

Has anyone thought of selling or giving away those 'tickets'? Or even
keeping them as momentos?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a manned space programme.
I am saying that I'm not sure that what you have is well-balanced
with respect to funding for other space activities.

Well... The massive amount of time, resources, and time spent is
probably due to preparing and operating the flights. The other stuff
can be modified for other uses.

For example, the Space Shuttle launchpad can be modified for other
type of launches, much like it was also once used for the Apollo
program.

"Uddo Graaf" wrote in message .. .
The Shuttle not flying anymore would mean a HUGE prestige blow to the U.S.
Any such decision would imply that the Shuttle isn't safe and therefore one
big mistake. That would be too much for NASA to bear.

In the last few years, the U.S.A.'s reputation has been defamed quite
a lot, it has been slapped quite a lot in the face.

It's possible that the group of people that is responsible for these
defaming acts are the same group of people, so... it's possible that
the Shuttle not flying anymore probably will be another slap that
'they' planned.

No, I think no matter what the cost, the Shuttle will fly again. If only for
a few more flights. I, however, could well envision that the Shuttle is
ditched after only a couple more flights.

An Apollo program style of exit seems to be possible.


"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message ...
'Being too much for NASA to bear' isn't the criterion that is used to
determine what will be done, though.

Safety isn't the issue, anyway. It's cost and value.

Doubtful, the more I observe the world, the more I see that many
things in the world is actually done with a 'money is no object'
routine.

While the average person might be persuaded to think that the reasons
that the Space Shuttle could get axe is due to its operational cost,
the true reason might be more political (see above in the term of
defaming).

At $1.2B per
future shuttle flight (when proper cost accounting is done on the NASA
budget and you assume 4 flights/year), the vehicle is horrendously
expensive, and its sole remaining justification, supporting ISS,
is ever more obviously flawed.

Money seems isn't the object.

However, I do notice that the time, resources, and work spent on
preparing and operating one flight is too much.

Anyway. Having a Space Shuttle flight is kinda like taking a big
trailer somewhere and then taking the whole trailer back home. And
keep repeating to do that.

It's preferable to build a villa, and then regulary shuttle people and
objects to the villa by a regular car.

Unless of course... Someone didn't get the permit or only manage to
get a permit to build a small and cramp villa. On the other hand, it's
possible that someone just want to have a big trailer going back and
forth, and also a small and cramp villa.

Paul