Station to be abandoned?

er (Fogbottom) wrote in
:

WASHINGTON -- The White House has turned down a NASA request for
an extra $1.6 billion next year to get the three remaining
shuttles flying again and speed up development of the proposed
Orbital Space Plane, Florida Today has learned.

http://space.com/missionlaunches/nas...et_030823.html

This is the first I've heard of this; if the shuttles don't fly
again, I assume that the Russians can't keep the station manned
all by themselves.

Don't read too much into this; the White House simply wants to see the
actual CAIB report on August 26 before deciding what course to take with
shuttle return-to-flight.


--
JRF

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

Yeah your probably right. Every time I hear about our space program getting
ridiculously short changed yet again I get instantly defensive. The shuttle
isn't a perfect reusable space vehicle by any means but it has been a great
first step and I sincerely hope the concept hasn't been abandoned
altogether.

--
"Fogbottom" wrote in message
...
WASHINGTON -- The White House has turned down a NASA request for
an extra $1.6 billion next year to get the three remaining
shuttles flying again and speed up development of the proposed
Orbital Space Plane, Florida Today has learned.

http://space.com/missionlaunches/nas...et_030823.html

This is the first I've heard of this; if the shuttles don't fly
again, I assume that the Russians can't keep the station manned
all by themselves.

And if the Bush Administration won't give NASA 1.6 billion, they
presumably won't give it the 20 billion over the next five years
mentioned later in the article.

Oops....in theory anyone can *introduce* a budget bill. The House determines
how much money gets appropriated.

"Kent Betts
the House of Representatives is the
ONLY branch that can introduce budget bills

"Christopher"
If they had any sense they would cut the umbilical cord of public
money and de-nationialise NASA, then NASA would either have to learn
to swim on its own or go under like any other private corporation that
isn't sucking at the teat of the government breast.

I don't think the avg guy on the street cares whether we have a space program or
not. If that is true, it is amazing that NASA gets funded at all. But it does.
I like some of the stuff they do. Space probes tell us a lot of things about
Mars that we could not find out otherwise. Hubble is cool. The Shuttle takes up
something like a third of the budget, if you consider direct costs. If you
include indirect costs I think it is a lot more.

So with the say half of the NASA budget that goes for other stuff, like Mars
probes, I can say with some confidence that no private outfit is going to fund
Mars probes. Strange how govt pays for stuff that is, on balance, a "good
thing" but that no one wants to pay for. I guess the reason is that although I
am $2 better off when they launch a Mars probe, I can't see it and don't want to
be asked for the $2.

NASA ****es me off because they have a lot of eggheads that warm chairs and want
a fat pension and pay check but the NASA ****s are no different that the ****s
in the Dept of Agriculture or Dept of Education.....talk about some sorry depts.
Ag dept employs like 180,000 people. Gimme a break. That is a jobs program.
Dept of Ed only takes money from states, spends half, and sends the rest back to
the local schools. Hey is that great or what? I have no problem ****-canning
NASA if these cats go too.

Christopher wrote:
snip


If they had any sense they would cut the umbilical cord of public
money and de-nationialise NASA, then NASA would either have to learn
to swim on its own or go under like any other private corporation that
isn't sucking at the teat of the government breast.


Christopher


NASA wouldn't last one pay period.
JimD.

Charles Buckley wrote in
:

There are a few items leaked out of the CAIB already that will
put an interesting slant on things.

Getting Shuttle to fly again next year is going to be an
interesting exercise. The CAIB has already handed out 5 preliminary
recommendations.

Some of those recommendations are a bit.. ambitious.. for the expected
restart of Shuttle flights. Which is a nasty political bind. They can
fly pretty much at any point now, but they will do it with full
knowledge that they have not fixed anything.

However, the CAIB gave NASA a head start by giving them the recommendations
internally, long before issuing them formally. For example, NASA has been
working on vehicle inspection and tile repair since late February, while
Recommendation 3 wasn't issued until June 27. If NASA had waited until then
to start, they *would* be in a bind. Going one by one:

Recommendation One: Prior to return to flight, NASA should develop and
implement a comprehensive inspection plan to determine the structural
integrity of all Reinforce Carbon-Carbon (RCC) system components. This
inspection plan should take advantage of advanced non-destructive
inspection technology.

Status: For return to flight, NASA is removing RCC panels from the vehicles
and shipping them to Lockheed Martin in Dallas, where capability already
exists for non-destructive inspection. Long-term, NASA will request funding
for inspection facilities at KSC that will not require the panels to be
removed from the vehicles.

Recommendation Two: Prior to return to flight, NASA should modify its
Memorandum of Agreement with National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA)
to make on-orbit imaging for each Shuttle flight a standard requirement.

Status: Complete. MOA signed in late March.

Recommendation Three:

* Before return to flight, for missions to the International Space
Station (ISS,) develop a practicable capability to inspect and effect
emergency repairs to the widest possible range of damage to the Thermal
Protection System (TPS,) including both tile and Reinforced Carbon
Carbon (RCC,) taking advantage of the additional capabilities available
while in proximity to and docked at the ISS.

* Before return to flight, for non-station missions, develop a
comprehensive autonomous (independent of station) inspection and repair
capability to cover the widest practicable range of damage scenarios.

* An on-orbit TPS inspection should be accomplished early on all
missions, using appropriate assets and capabilities.

* The ultimate objective should be a fully autonomous capability
for all missions, to address the possibility that an ISS mission does
not achieve the necessary orbit, fails to dock successfully, or suffers
damage during or after undocking.

Status: Inspection/repair methods have been identified and hardware
development is underway. Inspection will use a combination of methods. A
58' simple boom by McDonald Dettwiller has been chosen for inspection of
the RCC. The boom is expected on-dock at KSC around Feb. 1. This inspection
will be accomplished on flight day 2 using the SRMS (now required for all
flights). On flight day 3, the orbiter crew will perform a flip maneuver
600 ft below the station to allow the acreage tiles to be inspected by the
ISS crew from the lab window.

Tile repair materials and tools have been identified and will undergo
arcjet tests, vacuum chamber tests, and parabolic aircraft micro-g tests.
Tile repair should be flight-ready in the December-March timeframe. A tile
repair DTO is being developed for STS-114 to provide the final in-space
test. RCC repair is not as far along but promising candidates have been
identified.

Tile repair for ISS flights will use the SSRMS as the work platform. While
docked to ISS, the orbiter will grapple ISS with the SRMS, undock, and flip
the orbiter over using the SRMS to present the bottom surface to an EVA
crewmember on the SSRMS.

Long-term, the simple boom can be used as a standalone work platform, but
will require worksite stabilization to mitigate boom flex. This is in work.

Recommendation Four:

* Upgrade the imaging system to be capable of providing a minimum
of three useful views of the Space Shuttle from liftoff to at least
Solid Rocket Booster separation, along any expected ascent azimuth. The
readiness of these assets should be included in the Launch Commit
Criteria for future launches.

Locations for additional cameras have been identified.

* Consideration should be given to using mobile assets (ships or
aircraft) to provide additional views of the vehicle during ascent.

Two USN ships have been identified; downselection is expected this fall.

Recommendation Five:

* Provide a capability to obtain and downlink high-resolution
images of the External Tank (ET) after ET separation. Modifying one of
the two umbilical cameras to meet this requirement is acceptable.

In work.

* Provide a capability to obtain and downlink high-resolution
images of the underside of the orbiter leading edge system and forward
section of both wings’ Thermal Protection System (TPS).

Trade studies between ET mounted cameras (like the one flown on STS-112)
and SRB mounted cameras are underway. Integration is expected to be fairly
straightforward.

Which, I think, is why this request came in. No matter how you cut it,
Shuttle's demonstrated accident rate is such that the existing
projections of Shuttle's operational life exceeds it's MTBF. They
are going to lose another Shuttle if they keep flying it.

The last statement is a given, but the details depend on flight rate. The
shuttle's demonstrated post-51L accident rate is 1:88. At five flights per
year, that's 17 years, 22 years at four flights per year. The probability
of another accident before 2020 is not trivial, but it's not unity, either.
An early retirement once OSP is operational (2010-2012) would occur after
24-40 flights. The odds are excellent that the fleet will survive that
long.

--
JRF

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

(MasterShrink) wrote in
:

My general feeling is that for the remainder of the Shuttle's life it
should fly at a highly reduced rate to save money and allow for a good
deal of inspection time on the ground. Maybe no more than four flights
per year, max.

The plan is already 4-5 flights per year. However, that will not save
money. The shuttle marginal cost per flight is very low; there is ample
data to show that the annual shuttle budget does not depend strongly on
flight rate.

The suggestion of reducing the flight rate to save money was made by the
Young (IMCE) committee in 2001. However, they estimated that deleting 6
flights would only save $480 million, or $80 million per flight. The
shuttle is most efficient at higher flight rates, not lower. Low flight
rates may indeed be required for safety, but don't delude yourself that
this will save any money.

In the meantime NASA should focus what they can on OSP to free the
shuttle up from ISS crew transfer duties and later station re-supply.

O'Keefe had to accelerate OSP by 2 years just to get it ready in 2008. I
would be very surprised if that actually happens. OSP, if it flies at all,
will not fly until 2010-2012.

Or, better yet, just use Soyuz for crew transfer detail (if that means
only two expeditions to ISS a year, well, then that's that...) while
shuttle missions focus on the construction and resupply of ISS.

That does not result in a net reduction in shuttle flights. ISS crew
rotation flights perform a lot of construction and resupply. Offloading the
ISS crew rotation saves little. It would also be illegal, under the Iran
Nonproliferation Act of 2000, unless some sort of barter deal can be worked
out. The Russians don't like barter. They prefer cash.

Once ISS is completed, if the OSP is in service, and assuming there
are no remaining solo-Earth orbit operations, the remaining shuttles
should be retired. Maybe keep one shuttle in reserve in the event an
OSP is lost (which for all we know could happen once).

That won't be economical. Keeping one shuttle in reserve means keeping the
VAB, one pad one MLP, one OPF, etc, operational. It also means keeping
much of the shuttle's standing army at KSC, JSC, and MSFC intact. Face
facts: the shuttle's marginal costs per flight are very low, while the
overhead is very high. The shuttle's annual program costs cannot be
described by a formula like (n*$500M), where n is the flight rate. It's
more like ($2500M + n*$100m). In other words, I predict it will cost $2.5
billion per year just to maintain the *capability* to launch shuttles,
whether any are actually launched or not.

Now the real
hard part comes...I do not see OSP as a shuttle replacement at all. It
cannot carry the same payload, nor is it capable of many of the
shuttles duties. It gets people up and down from ISS mainly and some
supplies.

At that point NASA needs to look into a real shuttle replacement,
which can carry a similar payload into orbit, while vastly improving
the safety of any flight crew.

That is not going to happen, either. As soon as NASA retires the shuttle,
any capabilities unique to the shuttle will be lost forever. There will be
no shuttle replacement. The money won't be there. NASA's planning should
be oriented toward how to do without those capabilities, rather than how to
replace them.

--
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" jrfrank wrote:

That is not going to happen, either. As soon as NASA retires the shuttle,
any capabilities unique to the shuttle will be lost forever. There will be
no shuttle replacement. The money won't be there. NASA's planning should
be oriented toward how to do without those capabilities, rather than how to
replace them.

I disagree with this assessment. While the OSP will not be a one-for-one
replacement of the Shuttle, with OSP all of the pieces are there to re-
place nearly all of the Shuttle's capabilities.

Delta IV Heavy can take over the Shuttle's heavy-lift function.

A finished ISS with a 7-man crew will take over the Shuttle's space
research functions.

An OSP-based CTV will take over the Shuttle's crew transfer function.
OSP will have, per the level one requirements, an autonomous rendezvous
and docking capability.

HTV can take over most of the Shuttle's cargo delivery functions, in-
cluding standard rack delivery. It can also take over the waste dis-
posal function, reducing ISS stowage requirements by disposing of
broken down equipment including standard racks. HTV also will have
an autonomous rendezvous capability.

All of these items are funded projects in the pipeline. At that point
in time, the only Shuttle functions lacking that are truly necessary for
long-term station ops are payload return and orbital maneuvering and
docking of large modules.

Once Delta IV Heavy, OSP, and HTV become operational, we will have all
of the underlying technology to acquire the last two Shuttle functions
as well. An OSP-dervied cargo carrer launched on a Delta IV heavy could
deliver large modules to ISS (though not as large as current station
modules). An HTV with OSP-derived avionics and heat shield could
return standard racks to Earth.

It is not hard to envision that by 2015 nearly all of the underlying
capability of the Shuttle will be available at the station or with
its attendant vehicles. The pieces are there. We've just got to make
sure they get put into place.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

{{Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 08:24:25 -0600
From: Charles Buckley
The next Shuttle loss will be the last. Shuttle will be grounded if
there is only 2 remaining in the fleet.}}

Why, other than PC crap? Suppose we fly with two, and lose another, and
fly with only one remaining. Suppose that last one goes up and
inspection of the TPS (Thermal Protection System) shows damage such
that re-entering won't be possible/safe. Still the Russian craft can
eventually get everyone down, probably safely, so what's the big
problem? I'd rather see the shuttle flying as long as possible, using
every last bit of investment, rather than just mothball the last two
orbiters for fear of political flak. Caveat: If and when there's a
lower-cost safer alternative available, such that *all* proposed
shuttle activities are better done using the new alternative, such that
on a per-mission basis the new alternative is chosen rather than the
shuttle, then at some point the last remaining orbiter never gets used
again, even though it remains available in case needed. Or when the
cost of refurbishing the last remaining orbiter is too high compared to
operations of the new launch system, and the cost of keeping the
refurbishing facilities in standby mode is just a waste, we might then
formally mothball the shuttle.

Note: The same goes for HST: So long as astronomers line up to use it,
love to use it, beg to get to use it, etc., even after NGST/JWST is
operational, so long as HST still works, let's keep it up there.
Remember Palomar, with the famous but now "obsolete" 200 inch
telescope, and the even smaller 48-inch Schmidt? The latter is
currently a major component in a brand new state-of-art survey. Funny
how old scopes with upgraded instruments can still do good work.

That does not result in a net reduction in shuttle flights. ISS crew
rotation flights perform a lot of construction and resupply. Offloading the
ISS crew rotation saves little. It would also be illegal, under the Iran
Nonproliferation Act of 2000, unless some sort of barter deal can be worked
out. The Russians don't like barter. They prefer cash.

I wasn't suggesting that the US purchase Soyuz spacecraft. Merely that those
two Soyuz they send up per-year be dedicated to crew transfer detail. But as
you pointed out, that will probably not save much cash.

That is not going to happen, either. As soon as NASA retires the shuttle,
any capabilities unique to the shuttle will be lost forever. There will be
no shuttle replacement. The money won't be there. NASA's planning should
be oriented toward how to do without those capabilities, rather than how to
replace them.

So, in other words the US will have no heavy-lift capability post-STS and the
good old days are officially about to end around, say, 2020 or so?

-A.L.