programs to be cut?

In article , Dan Foster wrote:

Would it really take that long for Core Complete? Considering that prior to
107, there was apparently some managerial expectation of a significant
milestone to happen in February 2003 or around then from my recollection of
a CAIB report comment.

If you look at
http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/spac...e/manifest.txt

(not official, but a reasonably good guide)

US Core Complete would be STS-120 with Node 2; *International* Core
Complete (a slightly different thing) would be STS-135 or -137 (I'm not
sure if the cupola's part of ICC or not). Six assembly flights for USCC,
another five or six for ICC, and cargo flights in the interim.

--
-Andrew Gray

Long term shuttle upgrades seem to be a "no brainer". You simply sort
these into upgrades that pay off before the shuttle is retired and

with the shuttle near its end of life bno major upgrades will occur........

jeff findley wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" writes:

OSP is definitely one of them. The rest haven't been decided. Long-term
shuttle upgrades are one attractive target.

Surely OSP is obsolete considering the plans for a CEV.

Of course. OSP is the one program explicitly cancelled in Bush's proposal.

Long term shuttle upgrades seem to be a "no brainer". You simply sort
these into upgrades that pay off before the shuttle is retired and
into upgrades that don't. The difficult part is how heavily you
weight the safety benefit of an upgrade versus the cost.

Agreed. SLEP (Shuttle Life Extension Program) is going into triage soon.

--
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 Gray wrote in
:

In article , Jorge R. Frank
wrote:

Surely OSP is obsolete considering the plans for a CEV.

Of course. OSP is the one program explicitly cancelled in Bush's
proposal.

I'm taking bets - how long till we see

"Of course, had that penny-pincher Bush not cancelled OSP - remember
that? - on the same day he closed the Shuttle program down, we
wouldn't be having these stupid problems with CEV; it's a ****ing
joke!"

or similar, every time there's a glitch? ;-)

Of course. The grass is always greener...


--
JRF

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

In article , Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Surely OSP is obsolete considering the plans for a CEV.

Of course. OSP is the one program explicitly cancelled in Bush's proposal.

I'm taking bets - how long till we see

"Of course, had that penny-pincher Bush not cancelled OSP - remember
that? - on the same day he closed the Shuttle program down, we wouldn't
be having these stupid problems with CEV; it's a ****ing joke!"

or similar, every time there's a glitch? ;-)

--
-Andrew Gray

(vthokie) wrote:
[...]
While not a significant portion of NASA's budget compared to the
shuttle and station programs, I think NASA's RLV programs, including
X-37, will be cut. That's really the one part of the plan I disagree
with. I think it would be a shame to abandon RLV development and
focus solely on expendable vehicles.

Well, as often gets posted here, RLV makes sense when you can get a
lot of flights out it with modest maintenance budgets, a la airliners.
(Heck, a la jet fighters would be a big advance).

If you do what Buran did and OSP planned to do, namely put the main
engines on the booster, the major technical hurdle becomes reentry.
For an RLV, winged reentry has advantages. The disadvantages are drag
and weight on launch, and the little trifle of heat management.

I didn't see that the winged OSP designs had any great leaps forward
on heat management, although a different tile system was to be used.

My thinking is that we get DOD to fund the heat management stuff by
having them go off and design NASCM (National Aero-Space Cruise
Missile). Once they have hypersonic cruise dealt with, a mere reentry
ought to be a piece of cake.

/dps