Fight to Save Shuttle

Edward Wright wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...
Edward Wright wrote:

If NASA does the job, they will still need someone around who is able
to determine that budgets are real, but it would seem to me that they
need someone with different expertise to organize and run this operation.

A good man with an appropriate background is required. The first
place that comes to my mind is the military.

Ae you being rhetorical, or did you miss the fact that they're
bringing in Rear Admiral Craig Steidle (the Joint Strike Fighter
director) to run the program?

Well, I didn't exactly miss it but I haven't seen it yet. You are
obviously keeping on top of the situation a bit better than I am.

Mike Walsh

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...

It's not just in the press release, Mike. The President of the
United
States said the same thing, so did the Administrator of NASA, and
the
2014 date is even in the budget chart.

Okay, I just listened to O'Keefe again on CSPAN and this time I caught
it.

NASA is pursuing a "spiral development" of CEV, starting with unmanned
flights in 2008 and going through "several stages" of development
before a man-rated vehicle appears in 2014.

I know there are those who will say it's "prudent" not to risk the
lives of test pilots during the development period, even if the people
who live under the flight path are at risk.

Nevertheless, I think this sinks your argument that suborbital
companies are irrelevant because they can't get to a CEV capability in
one step. NASA doesn't think it can get there in one step, either. The
only question is whether it's better to start with an expensive,
unreliable system and try to make it reliable, or to start with safe
and reliable vehicles, then try to improve their performance.

Edward Wright wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...

It's not just in the press release, Mike. The President of the
United
States said the same thing, so did the Administrator of NASA, and
the
2014 date is even in the budget chart.

Okay, I just listened to O'Keefe again on CSPAN and this time I caught
it.

NASA is pursuing a "spiral development" of CEV, starting with unmanned
flights in 2008 and going through "several stages" of development
before a man-rated vehicle appears in 2014.

I know there are those who will say it's "prudent" not to risk the
lives of test pilots during the development period, even if the people
who live under the flight path are at risk.

Nevertheless, I think this sinks your argument that suborbital
companies are irrelevant because they can't get to a CEV capability in
one step. NASA doesn't think it can get there in one step, either. The
only question is whether it's better to start with an expensive,
unreliable system and try to make it reliable, or to start with safe
and reliable vehicles, then try to improve their performance.

You misunderstand my argument. Accomplishing suborbital tests of
a vehicle designed for orbital flights is a good idea.

I don't believe that suborbital companies are irrelevant to eventual
orbital flight, but that there is a quite large gap in the vehicle design
required for reusable orbital vehicles.

Where are these "safe and reliable" vehicles you are starting from?

(That was a rhetorical question. I believe you were inferring a
starting point from a commercially developed suborbital
system.)

Mike Walsh

Jim Davis wrote in message .1.4...
ed kyle wrote:

The danger is that five years becomes ten.

And exactly what is the danger in that?

successful national space
efforts are about 1) prestige

Granted, but the US has milked the prestige angle for all that it's
worth.

and 2) power through enhanced
defense.

But manned space flight contributes nothing to national defense.


Not true. Shuttle was co-developed by NASA and the
Pentagon. Discovery was built to be a dedicated DoD bird.
Several semi-classified DoD shuttle missions were flown.
These ended when Delta IV went into action, but shuttle
did subsequently fly a radar tomagraphy mission that may
have had defense implications. Shuttle launched the
original TDRS network, which is used to support DoD
launches. And we have no way of knowing for sure that
shuttle astronauts haven't at times been instructed to
photograph defense-related targets of opportunity from
orbit.

If a CEV is developed to fly on EELV, manned space flight
will contribute to national defense by keeping the EELV
production lines humming. NASA will likely contribute
to the development of more powerful upper stages for these
rockets, an upgrade that the military will take advantage
of.

- Ed Kyle

(ed kyle) wrote in
om:

shuttle
did subsequently fly a radar tomagraphy mission that may
have had defense implications.

'May?'

The full-resolution data set has never been released to the general public
on national security grounds. That's as stark an indication as possible
that the primary purpose of the mission was to create mission planning maps
for the pentagon to use whenever the US president has doubts about his
electoral viability.

--
Coridon Henshaw - http://www3.telus.net/csbh - "I have sadly come to the
conclusion that the Bush administration will go to any lengths to deny
reality." -- Charley Reese

ed kyle wrote:

But manned space flight contributes nothing to national defense.

Not true. Shuttle was co-developed by NASA and the
Pentagon. Discovery was built to be a dedicated DoD bird.
Several semi-classified DoD shuttle missions were flown.
These ended when Delta IV went into action,

No. These ended with the return of STS-39 on May 6, 1991, ten years
before Delta IV flew. The DoD agreed to buy 9 shuttle flights from
NASA in 1982 (STS-4, 20, 28, 27R, 28R, 33R, 36, 38, 39). After the
Challenger tragedy the DoD realized the shuttle could not be
counted on for defense purposes. Vandenberg launches were
abandoned. No further flights were purchased from NASA. The
development of Titan IV was started as an interim measure and then
Atlas and Delta EELVs for long term DoD space access.

Do you really believe that the DoD is the slightest bit concerned
that there will be no US manned space access between 2010 and 2015?
Or do you really believe that the DoD is concerned *now* that there
is no US manned space access since the Columbia tragedy and that
this situation will last for 2 or more years?

You have to stop kidding yourself, Ed.

but shuttle
did subsequently fly a radar tomagraphy mission that may
have had defense implications.

Or it may not have. But if it was, do you think that there is a
chance in hell the shuttle will be allowed to fly another similar
mission?

Shuttle launched the
original TDRS network, which is used to support DoD
launches.

Would you care to give odds on whether the shuttle will be allowed
to launch any future TDRSs?

And we have no way of knowing for sure that
shuttle astronauts haven't at times been instructed to
photograph defense-related targets of opportunity from
orbit.

This is just grasping, Ed. Do you *really* believe we have to keep
flying the shuttle on the slim chance that human hands might be in
a position to take a picture?

If a CEV is developed to fly on EELV, manned space flight
will contribute to national defense by keeping the EELV
production lines humming.

*chuckle*

*Any* use of EELVs by anyone for *any* purpose, manned or unmanned,
scientific, commercial, military, or completely frivilous would
have that effect, Ed. It's disingenuous to claim this as a benefit
of manned space alone.

Besides, this is an argument for terminating the shuttle as soon as
possible so its payloads will have to be launched on EELVs to keep
those production lines humming.

NASA will likely contribute
to the development of more powerful upper stages for these
rockets, an upgrade that the military will take advantage
of.

Your grasping again, Ed. If upper stages are needed, develop them.
The notion that we have to have a manned space capability merely to
provide an *excuse* to develop upper stages that can be justified
anyway is ludicrous.

Jim Davis

JRS: In article , seen
in news:sci.space.policy, Edward Wright
posted at Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:54:30 :-

Okay, I just listened to O'Keefe again on CSPAN and this time I caught
it.

NASA is pursuing a "spiral development" of CEV, starting with unmanned
flights in 2008 and going through "several stages" of development
before a man-rated vehicle appears in 2014.

That's a silly plan, a plan for failure. It amounts to saying that you
are going to have something in 2014 that you know in 2004 that you will
not in 2008 really know how to do, and its purpose is to replace STS
which is semi-usable now and is to be phased out in 2010.

Half a century before that, without previous experience, the US went
from Vanguard in '57/8 to orbiting Glenn in '62 - well under five years,
then to Apollo around the Moon in '68.

With previous experience, particularly of the high probability of
failure of technically-ambitious plans, it should be easily possible for
NASA to get a manned Apollo-style Command module, with an adequate
service module for LEO ops, docked at ISS within four years - and also
to get an unmanned version, with no life support and destructive
deorbiting, to dock with a few tons of cargo in the same time-scale.

Nevertheless, I think this sinks your argument that suborbital
companies are irrelevant because they can't get to a CEV capability in
one step. NASA doesn't think it can get there in one step, either. The
only question is whether it's better to start with an expensive,
unreliable system and try to make it reliable, or to start with safe
and reliable vehicles, then try to improve their performance.



The X-prize has passed its most useful period, since it will presumably
be won by a team that already has a design in production / test /
refinement. A harder intermediate target may be worthwhile; but the ISS
partners should now be planning for independent access to ISS. Assuming
only that Russia continues with Progress/Soyuz, it does not matter to
ISS if an individual independent access attempt fails; it only matters
that it does no harm.

For this, ISTM that ISS partners should supply information / equipment,
up to perhaps manoeuvring engines, for safe arm-aided docking of up to
perhaps ten metric tons to ISS; and should supply it, at marginal cost,
to any reputable organisation, of the type of Rutan, Armadillo, a
Russian company, ESA, India, China. It should be easy enough to think
of cargo that would be inexpensive to load and valuable in orbit -
water, air, food, clothes, fuel, COTS equipment; and to allow visitors
who bring with them enough resources to make the visit overall
profitable for ISS considered as an economic unit.

"Per man-week of board and lodging in ISS, we charge 500 kg of agreed
supplies; additional excursions extra TBA".

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Jim Davis wrote in message .1.4...
ed kyle wrote:

But manned space flight contributes nothing to national defense.

Not true. Shuttle was co-developed by NASA and the
Pentagon. Discovery was built to be a dedicated DoD bird.
Several semi-classified DoD shuttle missions were flown.
These ended when Delta IV went into action,

No. These ended with the return of STS-39 on May 6, 1991, ten years
before Delta IV flew.

Sorry. I intended to type "Titan" instead of "Delta" there.
I stand by my argument that NASA's manned space flight program
has been, and remains, interlinked with DoD spaceflight. This
link is not always obvious to the casual observer, but it is
as real as the Florida launch range facilities shared by NASA,
the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Navy. By supporting these
shared resources, NASA is supporting national defense in a
behind-the-scenes sort of way.


Do you really believe that the DoD is the slightest bit concerned
that there will be no US manned space access between 2010 and 2015?
Or do you really believe that the DoD is concerned *now* that there
is no US manned space access since the Columbia tragedy and that
this situation will last for 2 or more years?


Not necessarily, but this has nothing to do with my point.


If a CEV is developed to fly on EELV, manned space flight
will contribute to national defense by keeping the EELV
production lines humming.

*chuckle*

*Any* use of EELVs by anyone for *any* purpose, manned or unmanned,
scientific, commercial, military, or completely frivilous would
have that effect, Ed. It's disingenuous to claim this as a benefit
of manned space alone.


I didn't make that claim. I said that manned flight
could contribute to the EELV order books, not that it
would be the sole purchaser of these rockets besides
the military.

On the other hand, Boeing now has *no* pending commercial
customers for Delta IV and only a 14 mission backlog
altogether (12 DoD and 2 NASA). Boeing's Decauter plant
was designed to produce 60 CBCs per year, but it is only
building 3-5 at present.

Lockheed Martin only has *one* commercial customer
signed on for Atlas V and only a 20 launch backlog
total (1 NASA, 18 DoD). It has become obvious that
neither one of these launchers is commercially
competitive. That means that DoD and NASA will buy
nearly every EELV for the forseeable future. Manned
space could add considerable orders to one or both
EELV production lines. If it doesn't, it seems clear
that one of these rockets will soon dissappear.

NASA will likely contribute
to the development of more powerful upper stages for these
rockets, an upgrade that the military will take advantage
of.

Your grasping again, Ed. If upper stages are needed, develop them.
The notion that we have to have a manned space capability merely to
provide an *excuse* to develop upper stages that can be justified
anyway is ludicrous.


Again, that is not what I am said. Rather, I pointed
out that manned space flight does contribute to
military efforts when resources are shared. This has
happened in the past. The IUS upper stage was shared
by the Titan 34D, Titan IV, and Shuttle systems. Mercury
and Gemini flew on converted Air Force missiles from
converted Air Force pads. Gemini docked with modified
Air Force Agena targets. Lockheed Martin and Boeing tested
their new EELV engines on NASA test stands that were
originally built for project Apollo. The Saturn IB booster
engines were modified Navaho/Atlas/Thor/Jupiter engines
originally developed for the Air Force. NASA paid to
upgrade them further for Saturn. The upgraded versions
were then adapted for use in Delta rockets that occasionally
launched military payloads, etc..

With today's slimmed down U.S. aerospace industry, such
synergy is almost unavoidable.

- Ed Kyle

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...

You misunderstand my argument. Accomplishing suborbital tests of
a vehicle designed for orbital flights is a good idea.

I don't believe that suborbital companies are irrelevant to eventual
orbital flight, but that there is a quite large gap in the vehicle design
required for reusable orbital vehicles.

So? Does the fact that there's a gap imply that it's not worth trying
to close the gap? There's also a large gap between orbital vehicles
that are expensive, dangerous, and unreliable and orbital vehicles
that are affordable, safe, and reliable, isn't there?

Where are these "safe and reliable" vehicles you are starting from?

At the moment, I believe they're mostly in Mojave and an "undisclosed
location" in Nevada.

(That was a rhetorical question.

Oops. Too late. :-)

Michael Walsh wrote:

If I take the news release literally I would say about 6 years of unmanned
tests of the CEV. Or perhaps the term "first manned mission" refers to
some kind of operational mission as opposed to manned test flights.

A reality check on timeline that was forgotten to be edited out? You know,
in a month from now, 2% of the time left to make CEV happen in 2008 will
be gone.


Mike Walsh



--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++