Fight to Save Shuttle

Brian Thorn wrote:
arging 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

As usual some fancy and realy practical numbers. Do you suggest sending the
"captain" and "pilot" down after a few days?

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

Proton can not repace the shuttle cargo, and it has not been suggested. IMHO
heavy lifting (if found necessary) will go to American contractors.

costs to achieve the same results.

So basicly you want to keep the shuttles because you cant trust a
predetermined sum in a contract?

Brian

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(ed kyle) wrote:

Taking the first one: if we really want to put some U.S. employees in
space, and assuming no shuttle and no replacement NASA launcher, then
there are several options. One (which is rumored to be part of the
plan) is to purchase launches from other spacefaring nations. But
another is to purchase launches from any other company that can provide
them. Yes, I realize that there are no such companies currently, but if
the price were right, there could be in fairly short order. SeaLaunch,
for example, could probably be man-rated. SpaceX (which I expect will
be flying the Falcon I very soon) could man-rate its I or V booster,
again, if there were sufficient demand. Indeed, we might all be better
off if NASA simply supplied the market, and stayed out of the
engineering and operations details.

If the plan is to abandon LEO and fly to the moon or Mars, then there won't
be sufficient demand. I don't like the idea of NASA committing to buying a
bunch of LEO flights when NASA doesn't really need to do anything in LEO
right now. At some point, it may want to build a Martian ship in LEO, but
that may be 20 years away.

It might be cheaper to fly the shuttle unmanned -- to get supplies to ISS.
I like the idea of abandoning ISS in 3 years, but sending enough fuel up
that it can stay up there for at least 10 years. ISS may be in the wrong
orbit to be used as a stepping stone to anyplace.

(Edward Wright) wrote in
om:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

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.

In that case, why does NASA need to build CEV at all? If a commercial
provider can launch the equivalent of a Soyuz capsule for $40 million,
why not use that?

On the other hand, if Alt Access is nothing but a brief stop-gap
between Shuttle and CEV, how do you expect a commercial provider to
charge $40 million per flight but still recoup its development costs
during the brief period before it is shouldered aside?

Simple, agree not to use CEV for ISS crew rotation/resupply if a US
commercial provider is available, CEV has plenty of non-ISS missions
(lunar/Mars/asteroids) to do.

--
JRF

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

Shill Bonde (the oblique omissions in lieu of a fact) wrote:

Mike Rhino wrote:

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(ed kyle) wrote:

Taking the first one: if we really want to put some U.S. employees in
space, and assuming no shuttle and no replacement NASA launcher, then
there are several options. One (which is rumored to be part of the
plan) is to purchase launches from other spacefaring nations. But
another is to purchase launches from any other company that can provide
them. Yes, I realize that there are no such companies currently, but if
the price were right, there could be in fairly short order. SeaLaunch,
for example, could probably be man-rated. SpaceX (which I expect will
be flying the Falcon I very soon) could man-rate its I or V booster,
again, if there were sufficient demand. Indeed, we might all be better
off if NASA simply supplied the market, and stayed out of the
engineering and operations details.

If the plan is to abandon LEO and fly to the moon or Mars, then there won't
be sufficient demand. I don't like the idea of NASA committing to buying a
bunch of LEO flights when NASA doesn't really need to do anything in LEO
right now. At some point, it may want to build a Martian ship in LEO, but
that may be 20 years away.

It might be cheaper to fly the shuttle unmanned -- to get supplies to ISS.
I like the idea of abandoning ISS in 3 years, but sending enough fuel up
that it can stay up there for at least 10 years. ISS may be in the wrong
orbit to be used as a stepping stone to anyplace.

*May* be in the wrong orbit?

Show us some numbers for that Bonde..

--Or, is that why you're known as a LYING right-wing shill?

Mike Rhino wrote:

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(ed kyle) wrote:

Taking the first one: if we really want to put some U.S. employees in
space, and assuming no shuttle and no replacement NASA launcher, then
there are several options. One (which is rumored to be part of the
plan) is to purchase launches from other spacefaring nations. But
another is to purchase launches from any other company that can provide
them. Yes, I realize that there are no such companies currently, but if
the price were right, there could be in fairly short order. SeaLaunch,
for example, could probably be man-rated. SpaceX (which I expect will
be flying the Falcon I very soon) could man-rate its I or V booster,
again, if there were sufficient demand. Indeed, we might all be better
off if NASA simply supplied the market, and stayed out of the
engineering and operations details.

If the plan is to abandon LEO and fly to the moon or Mars, then there won't
be sufficient demand. I don't like the idea of NASA committing to buying a
bunch of LEO flights when NASA doesn't really need to do anything in LEO
right now. At some point, it may want to build a Martian ship in LEO, but
that may be 20 years away.

It might be cheaper to fly the shuttle unmanned -- to get supplies to ISS.
I like the idea of abandoning ISS in 3 years, but sending enough fuel up
that it can stay up there for at least 10 years. ISS may be in the wrong
orbit to be used as a stepping stone to anyplace.

*May* be in the wrong orbit?


--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"

Mike Rhino wrote:

...
I like the idea of abandoning ISS in 3 years, but sending enough fuel up
that it can stay up there for at least 10 years.**ISS*may*be*in*the*wrong
orbit to be used as a stepping stone to anyplace.

I dont think US has any current capability to send any fuel to the ISS.
You'd have to come up with one that still allowes RKA and ESA to do their
own reboost and resupply.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

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.

That is no problem. You have already made the case that the shuttle works
for 3 Soyuz'es and more than 1 Proton and for less money (and is safer).
Just commersialize the shuttle program. There are plenty of payloads ready
to go.

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove

In article ,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn?= Ove Isaksen wrote:
So basicly you want to keep the shuttles because you cant trust a
predetermined sum in a contract?

The problem with a "predetermined sum in a contract" is, what are the
incentives for abiding by the contract? You need look no farther than US
aerospace contractors to see various innovative ways of reneging on an
allegedly fixed-price contract, and the Russians are quick studies on this
capitalism stuff.

A "predetermined sum" is trustworthy only if there are at least two
suppliers, so that if X starts acting up, you can say "to hell with you,
we're buying from Y instead".
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

On 2004-01-14, Edward Wright wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...

On the other hand, if Alt Access is nothing but a brief stop-gap
between Shuttle and CEV, how do you expect a commercial provider to
charge $40 million per flight but still recoup its development
costs
during the brief period before it is shouldered aside?

Simple, agree not to use CEV for ISS crew rotation/resupply if a US
commercial provider is available, CEV has plenty of non-ISS missions
(lunar/Mars/asteroids) to do.

From the White House fact sheet on the new policy: "The Crew
Exploration Vehicle will also be capable of transporting astronauts
and scientists to the International Space Station after the Shuttle is
retired." I see nothing in the fact sheet about NASA agreeing not to
use CEV for ISS crew rotation or to allow private enterprise to do
anything.

You have a url for that fact sheet edward ?

There's also a very strange statement about the CEV schedule: "The new
spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, will be developed and tested
by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014."
If the CEV will be developed and tested by 2008, what's it going to be
doing during the six years between 2008 and 2014?

Yeah, I picked that up as well. 2008 is the old date for CRV capability.
Is it possible that Bush ment it would be capable of ISS duty in 2008,
but would have to be able to get to the moon by 2014 ?

Then again, he said manned moon missions by 2020....*shrug* I dunno.

Some questions answered, more posed....Like what does "ISS Complete" mean ?
US Core Complete ? International Core Complete ?

International Core Complete is 24-25 flights away AIUI...assuming flights
happen between 2005 and 2010, thats 5 missions a year...With 2-3 orbiters,
at least 1 would have to fly 3 times a year...


Iain.

In article , Iain Young wrote:

From the White House fact sheet on the new policy: "The Crew
Exploration Vehicle will also be capable of transporting astronauts
and scientists to the International Space Station after the Shuttle is
retired." I see nothing in the fact sheet about NASA agreeing not to
use CEV for ISS crew rotation or to allow private enterprise to do
anything.

You have a url for that fact sheet edward ?

That quote's in today's press release, FWIW:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040114-1.html

[oh, on examination it does say 'fact sheet' at the top...]

There's also a very strange statement about the CEV schedule: "The new
spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, will be developed and tested
by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014."
If the CEV will be developed and tested by 2008, what's it going to be
doing during the six years between 2008 and 2014?

Yeah, I picked that up as well. 2008 is the old date for CRV capability.
Is it possible that Bush ment it would be capable of ISS duty in 2008,
but would have to be able to get to the moon by 2014 ?

Possible interpretation - NASA doesn't want to run two programs at once,
so if STS hasn't been phased out when CEV is ready, CEV will wait?
Flying in 2014 at the latest still keeps the 2015-20 window viable...

Then again, he said manned moon missions by 2020....*shrug* I dunno.

2015 to 2020.

--
-Andrew Gray