Shuttle extension, stats

Some numbers on cost and risk:

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/...10/1006/NEWS01

January 7, 2009
Study: Extra shuttle flights have big risk
BY TODD HALVORSON
FLORIDA TODAY

NASA could keep its shuttle fleet operating through 2015 and close a
five-year gap in U.S. human spaceflight, but the cost would top $11
billion, an internal agency study shows.

The risk to U.S. astronaut crews would rise dramatically, and plans
for lunar exploration would be severely hampered.

But NASA could retain critically skilled workers during the transition
between the shuttle program and Project Constellation, the nation's
bid to return astronauts to the moon by 2020.

"This option eliminates the gap between shuttle and Constellation
operations, and allows NASA and its contractors to maintain the
critical skills necessary to successfully operate future human
spaceflight programs," NASA officials wrote in a draft of the study, a
copy of which was obtained by FLORIDA TODAY.

Charts show the current shuttle work force -- which now numbers 11,900
-- would gradually decrease to 7,900 in 2015, rather than drop to zero
in 2011.

NASA expects one-third of that current shuttle work force -- or about
3,500 people -- to lose Kennedy Space Center contractor jobs after
shuttle fleet retirement. The other two-thirds are expected to move on
to the new moon program or find other work at KSC.

NASA now is operating under a Bush administration directive to finish
the International Space Station and retire the shuttle fleet by
September 2010.

The United States then would rely on Russia to fly American astronauts
to and from the station until Ares 1 rockets and Orion spacecraft are
ready to fly in March 2015.

The Russian invasion of Georgia last August prompted President-elect
Barack Obama and others to question the reliance on Russia.

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin ordered two studies aimed at
minimizing the gap. One examined extending shuttle operations. The
other focuses on speeding up the Constellation project.

Several options were examined in the shuttle extension study. Two were
considered the most viable:

# Option 1: Add three shuttle flights to the current schedule of nine
missions, extending fleet operations through 2012. Cost:
$5 billion.

# Option 2: Add up to 13 flights through 2015. Cost:
$11.4 billion.

The chance of losing a shuttle crew increases significantly in either
case.

The probability of a catastrophic accident during the nine remaining
flights is 1 in 8, the report said.

Adding three flights through 2012 increases the odds to 1 in 6. Adding
13 flights through 2015 increases the probability to 1 in 4, the
report said.

The risk of losing a crew on any given flight is 1 in 77, the report
said.

A two-year extension would be a boon for International Space Station
operations.

Three supply runs and crew rotations would be added.

Only "minor negative impacts" to Constellation program milestones
would be expected.

A five-year extension would push back the moon program. Engine test,
rocket manufacturing and launch facilities would not be freed up in
time to restart lunar exploration by 2020.

The anticipated delay: Up to three years.

Decision deadline: May.

NASA would have to pursue either option by then to reverse shuttle
program shutdown plans.

On Jan 7, 10:15�am, Allen Thomson wrote:
Some numbers on cost and risk:

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/...070310/1006/NE...

January 7, 2009
Study: Extra shuttle flights have big risk
BY TODD HALVORSON
FLORIDA TODAY

NASA could keep its shuttle fleet operating through 2015 and close a
five-year gap in U.S. human spaceflight, but the cost would top $11
billion, an internal agency study shows.

The risk to U.S. astronaut crews would rise dramatically, and plans
for lunar exploration would be severely hampered.

But NASA could retain critically skilled workers during the transition
between the shuttle program and Project Constellation, the nation's
bid to return astronauts to the moon by 2020.

"This option eliminates the gap between shuttle and Constellation
operations, and allows NASA and its contractors to maintain the
critical skills necessary to successfully operate future human
spaceflight programs," NASA officials wrote in a draft of the study, a
copy of which was obtained by FLORIDA TODAY.

Charts show the current shuttle work force -- which now numbers 11,900
-- would gradually decrease to 7,900 in 2015, rather than drop to zero
in 2011.

NASA expects one-third of that current shuttle work force -- or about
3,500 people -- to lose Kennedy Space Center contractor jobs after
shuttle fleet retirement. The other two-thirds are expected to move on
to the new moon program or find other work at KSC.

NASA now is operating under a Bush administration directive to finish
the International Space Station and retire the shuttle fleet by
September 2010.

The United States then would rely on Russia to fly American astronauts
to and from the station until Ares 1 rockets and Orion spacecraft are
ready to fly in March 2015.

The Russian invasion of Georgia last August prompted President-elect
Barack Obama and others to question the reliance on Russia.

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin ordered two studies aimed at
minimizing the gap. One examined extending shuttle operations. The
other focuses on speeding up the Constellation project.

Several options were examined in the shuttle extension study. Two were
considered the most viable:

# Option 1: Add three shuttle flights to the current schedule of nine
missions, extending fleet operations through 2012. Cost:
$5 billion.

# Option 2: Add up to 13 flights through 2015. Cost:
$11.4 billion.

The chance of losing a shuttle crew increases significantly in either
case.

The probability of a catastrophic accident during the nine remaining
flights is 1 in 8, the report said.

Adding three flights through 2012 increases the odds to 1 in 6. Adding
13 flights through 2015 increases the probability to 1 in 4, the
report said.

The risk of losing a crew on any given flight is 1 in 77, the report
said.

A two-year extension would be a boon for International Space Station
operations.

Three supply runs and crew rotations would be added.

Only "minor negative impacts" to Constellation program milestones
would be expected.

A five-year extension would push back the moon program. Engine test,
rocket manufacturing and launch facilities would not be freed up in
time to restart lunar exploration by 2020.

The anticipated delay: Up to three years.

Decision deadline: May.

NASA would have to pursue either option by then to reverse shuttle
program shutdown plans.

The chance of losing a shuttle crew increases significantly in either
case.


The probability of a catastrophic accident during the nine remaining
flights is 1 in 8, the report said.

THATS AMAZINGLY HIGH. Wonder what that number is based on???

On Jan 7, 11:15*am, " wrote:

The probability of a catastrophic accident during the nine remaining
flights is 1 in 8, the report said.

THATS AMAZINGLY HIGH. Wonder what that number is based on???

On this: "The risk of losing a crew on any given flight is 1 in 77,
the report said."

1 - (1 - (1 / 77))^9 = 0.11

Which is actually more like 1 in 9: One in eight is 0.125.

One in 77 is a per-flight reliability of 1 - 1/77, or 98.7%. That's
not out of line with the record and other guesstimates.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:01:26 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Allen Thomson made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Jan 7, 11:15*am, " wrote:

The probability of a catastrophic accident during the nine remaining
flights is 1 in 8, the report said.

THATS AMAZINGLY HIGH. Wonder what that number is based on???

On this: "The risk of losing a crew on any given flight is 1 in 77,
the report said."

1 - (1 - (1 / 77))^9 = 0.11

Which is actually more like 1 in 9: One in eight is 0.125.

One in 77 is a per-flight reliability of 1 - 1/77, or 98.7%. That's
not out of line with the record and other guesstimates.

I think that they're probably actually better than 1/77 now, given all
the scrubbing that the system has taken, and the fact that all flights
other than Hubblle will go to ISS where they can safe-haven crew. So
it's a pretty conservative estimate.

On Jan 7, 1:13�pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:01:26 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Allen Thomson made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:





On Jan 7, 11:15�am, " wrote:

The probability of a catastrophic accident during the nine remaining
flights is 1 in 8, the report said.

THATS AMAZINGLY HIGH. Wonder what that number is based on???

On this: "The risk of losing a crew on any given flight is 1 in 77,
the report said."

1 - (1 - (1 / 77))^9 = 0.11

Which is actually more like 1 in 9: One in eight is 0.125.

One in 77 is a per-flight reliability of 1 - 1/77, or 98.7%. That's
not out of line with the record and other guesstimates.

I think that they're probably actually better than 1/77 now, given all
the scrubbing that the system has taken, and the fact that all flights
other than Hubblle will go to ISS where they can safe-haven crew. �So
it's a pretty conservative estimate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am challenged by these numbers...........

1 in 77 sounds about right, given the shuttles track record
historically but adding extra risk given its age.......

but 1 in 8 or 9 sounds almost like playing russian roulette if one
out of ten times you got in a vehicle you didnt come home nearly no
one would drive anywhere

please explain

I think this entire post is emblematic of what is wrong with our space program,
space policy and space adminstrative infrastructure. Why we need to take a
long and very hard look at how we are conducting our space program.

From what I've seen as this article provides the perfect example, I say its
time to shut 'er down and take a new approach. I will cite examples from
the text...

Allen Thomson writes:

Some numbers on cost and risk:

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/...10/1006/NEWS01

January 7, 2009
Study: Extra shuttle flights have big risk
BY TODD HALVORSON
FLORIDA TODAY

NASA could keep its shuttle fleet operating through 2015 and close a
five-year gap in U.S. human spaceflight, but the cost would top $11
billion, an internal agency study shows.

$11 billion. Sounds bad, $750 billion on public works projects sounds
worse tho....

The risk to U.S. astronaut crews would rise dramatically, and plans
for lunar exploration would be severely hampered.

More on that later...

But NASA could retain critically skilled workers during the transition
between the shuttle program and Project Constellation, the nation's
bid to return astronauts to the moon by 2020.

Aha, space welfare...

"This option eliminates the gap between shuttle and Constellation
operations, and allows NASA and its contractors to maintain the
critical skills necessary to successfully operate future human
spaceflight programs," NASA officials wrote in a draft of the study, a
copy of which was obtained by FLORIDA TODAY.

This is what I love to read. Space policy set by draft. Draft of a study.
Today it's become well known that "a study" is the scientific/engineering
basis for determining the direction of the political wind....

Charts show the current shuttle work force -- which now numbers 11,900
-- would gradually decrease to 7,900 in 2015, rather than drop to zero
in 2011.

11,900 - 7,900 = 4,000 people on the Floridian east coast learning the phrase
"...and would you like fries with that burger sir?" by 2015.

NASA expects one-third of that current shuttle work force -- or about
3,500 people -- to lose Kennedy Space Center contractor jobs after
shuttle fleet retirement. The other two-thirds are expected to move on
to the new moon program or find other work at KSC.
right, sure... like counting the gator population along the banks of the
Banana River. Potential applicants for this job must be able to complete
the 50yd dash in under 8 seconds. Amputees need not apply. (Sorry OM).

oh yeah, we lost 500 people there somewhere. Guess the gators stay well
fed, eh?

NASA now is operating under a Bush administration directive to finish
the International Space Station and retire the shuttle fleet by
September 2010.

The United States then would rely on Russia to fly American astronauts
to and from the station until Ares 1 rockets and Orion spacecraft are
ready to fly in March 2015.

The Russian invasion of Georgia last August prompted President-elect
Barack Obama and others to question the reliance on Russia.

Comrade! We regret to inform you that we have lost your key to the
doors of the ISS. But for a mere $9 billion, we can make you a new one!
(You save 2 Billion!).

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin ordered two studies aimed at
minimizing the gap. One examined extending shuttle operations. The
other focuses on speeding up the Constellation project.

Translation: MG ordered two studies aimed at preserving as much of the
status quo as possible. One examined how to preserve sand castles against
tidal forces, the other on replacing the castles with condominiums.

Several options were examined in the shuttle extension study. Two were
considered the most viable:

# Option 1: Add three shuttle flights to the current schedule of nine
missions, extending fleet operations through 2012. Cost:
$5 billion.

Comrade! We see that we have found your old key! We can return it to
you for $4 Billion...

# Option 2: Add up to 13 flights through 2015. Cost:
$11.4 billion.
Comrade! You insist on a new key! Very well, we make you one for $9
Billion.


The chance of losing a shuttle crew increases significantly in either
case.

This is the part I love...

The probability of a catastrophic accident during the nine remaining
flights is 1 in 8, the report said.

Adding three flights through 2012 increases the odds to 1 in 6. Adding
13 flights through 2015 increases the probability to 1 in 4, the
report said.

Where in the heck are these numbers coming from? And what are they based
on? I can't assess risk just from this. I don't even understand the
definiton of the term catastrophic. A wheel falls off?

The risk of losing a crew on any given flight is 1 in 77, the report
said.

So the more-likely catastrophic accident doesn't involve crew loss?


A two-year extension would be a boon for International Space Station
operations.

A boon for US involvement in ISS operations.

Three supply runs and crew rotations would be added.

Only "minor negative impacts" to Constellation program milestones
would be expected.
And fewer high trans-fat fries get added to those burgers as well,
saving millions of lives along the Floridian east coast.


A five-year extension would push back the moon program. Engine test,
rocket manufacturing and launch facilities would not be freed up in
time to restart lunar exploration by 2020.

Because we're too f*cking cheap to build new ones for Constellation.
But let's trade off the ISS ops we have on hand for all the benefits
we're going to obtain from lunar exploration. I mean the benefits
are just too numerous to mention. So I won't. If you need to see them
I'll commission a study.

The anticipated delay: Up to three years.

Decision deadline: May.

NASA would have to pursue either option by then to reverse shuttle
program shutdown plans.

Translation: We don't have a f*cking clue what we're doing, why we're
doing it, nor the benefits of doing one, the other, either or neither.
But we'll scare the sh*t out of you with meaningless statistics if
you don't chose the option we want you to.

Oh and you need to decide by May.

After all, there's always time to do it over. And if we get it wrong
this time, we'll commission a study to figure out why and get back to you
for the funding.