Fight to Save Shuttle

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On 12 Jan 2004 18:29:00 GMT, Jim Davis
wrote:

Exactly what is the "danger", Ed? There was was a ~5 year gap in US
manned space capability back in the 1970s. The nation didn't miss
it.

SkyLab did.

Arguably the bigger loss was the exodus of many NASA engineers and managers
during the post-Apollo layoffs. NASA lost a lot of institutional memory
during that period.


--
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" wrote in
:

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On 12 Jan 2004 18:29:00 GMT, Jim Davis
wrote:

Exactly what is the "danger", Ed? There was was a ~5 year gap in US
manned space capability back in the 1970s. The nation didn't miss
it.

SkyLab did.

Arguably the bigger loss was the exodus of many NASA engineers and
managers during the post-Apollo layoffs. NASA lost a lot of
institutional memory during that period.

Ack, hit send too soon.

The "danger" from planning a gap between shuttle and CEV, and announcing
that Soyuz will fill it, is price-gouging by the Russians once the shuttle
is retired and the US has no alternatives.

I'd much prefer to throw some money into Alt Access, and see if a US
commercial provider can beat the price of a Soyuz by 2010. I'd be surprised
if they couldn't.

--
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) writes:

First let me say that I think that space shuttle should
be retired and replaced as soon as possible.

How would a roboticized Shuttle compete with other launch vehicles
economically and otherwise? Seems like the price of conversion would
be reasonable enough, I don't know how the basic recurring per-flight
costs compare. I know the commonly-stated per-flight costs are huge,
but I suspect a lot of that has to do with astronauts and
mission-related (eg, hardware, planning, training) costs.

(Gary W. Swearingen) wrote in
:

(ed kyle) writes:

First let me say that I think that space shuttle should
be retired and replaced as soon as possible.

How would a roboticized Shuttle compete with other launch vehicles
economically and otherwise? Seems like the price of conversion would
be reasonable enough, I don't know how the basic recurring per-flight
costs compare. I know the commonly-stated per-flight costs are huge,
but I suspect a lot of that has to do with astronauts and
mission-related (eg, hardware, planning, training) costs.

Nope, most shuttle costs are overhead, due to the shuttle's very low flight
rate and the large number of personnel required to process it. Automating
it won't save money; it will cost money due to the cost of conversion (not
trivial, especially if you want automated rendezvous/docking capability)
and the increased odds of losing an automated orbiter (there are many
contingency scenarios where the crew can take action to save the vehicle
that would be lost with an automated vehicle).


--
JRF

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

Joe Strout wrote in
:

In article ,
John Schutkeker wrote:

Joe Strout wrote in news:joe-
:

space tourism is about to take off in a
big way. By the time ISS is completed and the shuttle fleet
retired, we will at least have a suborbital tourism industry.

Why do you say this?

Because the X-Prize will be won this year, almost certainly by
SpaceShipOne, with several other contenders probably acheiving the
same target within the next few years. While Scaled has said they
have no plans to commercialize SS1, I doubt that Paul Allen spent $20M
to develop a new kind of craft just to collect a $10M prize and a big
lawn ornament. And other contenders, such as Armadillo (IIRC), have
explicitly stated that suborbital tourism is their goal.

So, I expect we'll see routine suborbital tourist flights within five
years or so.

I agree with everything you've just said except the tourism part. You are
assuming a market that may or may not exist. Although there is clearly a
market for tourism on the ISS, those flights last days, and the visitor is
allowed to hang around on the most prestigious piece of hardware America
owns, with substantial room to move. A sub-orbital flight only lasts about
fifteen minutes, which is hardly enough time to interest the majority
of status seekers.

There will quite likely be a non-tourism market, like the one for the
"vomit comet." And someone else in the group kindly pointed out that SS1
could be used as a sounding rocket, which addresses my concern about
finding commercial uses that will have any substantial quantity of traffic.
But to make the leap from this to tourism is a groundless assumption.

Well, yes, because there hasn't been a suborbital tourist craft. Now
there's one going through careful, steady testing (just broke the
sound barrier a couple weeks ago), and others sure to follow.

And there will be a small number of people interested in making the ride,
but not enough to justify the unrecouped $10 million development cost.

You gotta give the Russians credit for that one. I
guess there are some advantages to having weak ethics and a
desperation for cash, because they sure led the curve on this idea.

I do give them credit for that, and I don't agree with your "weak
ethics" crack. There's nothing unethical about making a profit in
space. The Russians are doing the right thing; it's the U.S. that's
standing in the way of progress there.

I never said that space tourism was unethical. I said that it grew out of
Russian's general tendency toward weak ethics, which is demonstrated in
other aspects of their society. I also agree that it's a good idea, but
the thought never occurred to us, because we weren't willing to consider
outrageous ideas like that.

Joann Evans wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote:

On 12 Jan 2004 15:08:16 -0800, (vthokie)
wrote:

My problem is with the fact that Bush's plan makes no mention of
reusable launch vehicle development. Abandoning RLV concepts in favor
of Apollo style capsules and expendable launch vehicles will do
nothing to make access to space more affordable or routine.

Since the government has failed catastophically to do this, it may not
be a bad idea to stop expecting it.

Let's get back to exploring, at least then NASA won't be in the way of
private launch vehicle development.

But I doubt the public will support extremely expensive exploring,
and an economical RLV (which will also be doing other things) is the
only way to support missions deeper into space in an affordable manner.

But you're right, it isn't likely to come from NASA. (Though, as DC-X
was showing, a *different,* less hide-bound government agency might do
better....)

It's not likely to come from any of the existing NASA manned spaceflight
bureaucracy. I think a new organization will need to be created, but it
doesn't necessarily need to be separate from NASA. Back in the 60's
NASA created the Industrial Operations Division at HQ to manage Apollo,
essentially from scratch, and something like that can be done again.
The important point is that the new organization needs to be completely
independent from the existing Center bureaucracy so that the
laboratories are out of the loop for program planning and design.
That's the only way we're going to accomplish the goals in the simplest,
most cost-effective manner.

If Bush's plan comes across as "business as usual" for the NASA
bureaucracy it will be an unmitigated disaster.
--

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

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in
:

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On 12 Jan 2004 18:29:00 GMT, Jim Davis
wrote:

Exactly what is the "danger", Ed? There was was a ~5 year gap in US
manned space capability back in the 1970s. The nation didn't miss
it.

SkyLab did.

Arguably the bigger loss was the exodus of many NASA engineers and
managers during the post-Apollo layoffs. NASA lost a lot of
institutional memory during that period.

Ack, hit send too soon.

The "danger" from planning a gap between shuttle and CEV, and announcing
that Soyuz will fill it, is price-gouging by the Russians once the shuttle
is retired and the US has no alternatives.

Price gouging? Couldn't the Russians charge ten times what they've been
charging and still save NASA a boat load of money over using Shuttle?

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:10:22 GMT, John Schutkeker
wrote (in part):


I agree with everything you've just said except the tourism part. You are
assuming a market that may or may not exist. Although there is clearly a
market for tourism on the ISS, those flights last days, and the visitor is
allowed to hang around on the most prestigious piece of hardware America
owns, with substantial room to move. A sub-orbital flight only lasts about
fifteen minutes, which is hardly enough time to interest the majority
of status seekers.


Why do you imagine that the primary purpose (or any purpose) of a
suborbital tourist will be to seek status? Think thrills. Think novelty.
Think vast vistas. Think of it as a sort of combination of a roller-coaster
ride and a climb up a mountain without the bad weather and exertion.

Sure, the first few will have (and use) some bragging rights. But that
will wear out quickly, and there's no way it would ever sustain a tourism
industry -- on Earth or in space.

I do grant that "tourism" may not be the right word for a suborbital
flight. But that's just a quibble.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:35:40 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" wrote:

The "danger" from planning a gap between shuttle and CEV, and announcing
that Soyuz will fill it, is price-gouging by the Russians once the shuttle
is retired and the US has no alternatives.

Price gouging? Couldn't the Russians charge ten times what they've been
charging and still save NASA a boat load of money over using Shuttle?

Depends on what they've been charging, which seems to be something of
a mystery. But the answer is probably 'no'. It takes three Soyuz to
duplicate one Shuttle, and that's just for the crew. Add the 20,000
lbs of cargo a Shuttle offers, and Soyuz/Progress lose some of their
luster. It's still certainly cheaper, but not 1/10th the Shuttle's
costs to achieve the same results.

Brian

Shrill Blonde (the oblique omissions in lieu of a factual tact) wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote:

Jim Davis wrote:

Exactly what is the "danger", Ed? There was was a ~5 year gap in US
manned space capability back in the 1970s. The nation didn't miss
it.

SkyLab did.

Arguably the bigger loss was the exodus of many NASA engineers and
managers during the post-Apollo layoffs. NASA lost a lot of
institutional memory during that period.

Ack, hit send too soon.

The "danger" from planning a gap between shuttle and CEV, and announcing
that Soyuz will fill it, is price-gouging by the Russians once the shuttle
is retired and the US has no alternatives.

Price gouging? Couldn't the Russians charge ten times what they've been
charging and still save NASA a boat load of money over using Shuttle?

Still having trouble with numbers, Bonde?

"Then I checked the number and it was 3.1% which is about 3.5%."

"Pakistan has a population about the size of the United States."

"I said that I mixed up the totals and showed why."

"I didn't count the lines. It feels like billions."

"I think Basic English has 800 words."

"I see that you are a lochnerian sock and want 800 line posts."

--I see that you're a LYING hypocritical right-wing shill..