US Rep - End Manned Shuttle Missions Now

(CNN)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- NASA's plan to resume space shuttle flights as
early as March drew heated criticism from congressional leaders
on Wednesday, including one who wants to stop astronauts from
flying the orbiter again

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas told NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe
that he believed the shuttle was so unsafe that it should never
again fly with people on board.

"We are putting American men and women at great risk to their
lives to fly an orbiter that is 30 years old and cannot be made
safe," said Barton at a hearing of the House Science Committee.

He pledged to "do everything I can" to prevent astronauts from
going up in the shuttle, which he called "inherently unsafe."

"We've lost 14 men and women and if we keep flying we'll lose 21
others in the next 10 to 15 years," he said.

Other committee members offered criticism, albeit not as strong.
Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, told NASA its plan is
overly ambitious. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, said the agency
must not rush and repeat the problems that led to the disaster
which doomed the shuttle Columbia and its crew.

Barton, however, said that the shuttle should be flown only in a
robotic mode, without people on board, to deliver cargo and
supplies to the international space station.

O'Keefe said it may be technically possible to fly the space
shuttle without a crew, operating the craft remotely, to haul
cargo to and from the station. That is one option NASA is now
studying, he said.

For people, O'Keefe said, the agency could, if provided the
funds, develop an orbital space plane designed to launch people
only to the space station.
'Separate the crew from the cargo'

Ret. Navy Adm. Harold Gehman Jr., chairman of the panel
investigating the shuttle disaster, said the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board considered the issues posed by Barton and
concluded that, although it's risky, the shuttle could be
operated with people on board for at least two more years.

But he urged the nation to build a new spacecraft system so that
people fly on one type of ship and cargo on another.

"As soon as possible, we need to separate the crew from the
cargo," the retired admiral said. ...

.. . . . .

Gotta agree ... the shuttles just haven't lived-up to
their promises. Overly-complex, too expensive, WAY too
unsafe - time for another approach.

Using existing shuttles in robotic mode may be possible,
but it's still gonna be extremely expensive. Perhaps we
should start looking into disposable vehicles again. The
existing, refined, SRBs used with the shuttles would make
boffo boosters for a conventional liquid-fueled expendable
upper stage. There's also the Saturn style booster - which
might be made better and less expensive if mass-produced
and incorporating modern technological advances. If no
people are on board, some of the redundancy and safety
items could be deleted.

As for moving people, the Russian approach seems to work
pretty well for now. A "space plane" sounds like a just
another pork-barrel project, guarenteed to be a typical
committee-decision hyper-complex cluster-****. The
utility is obvious, however, but if we build it here,
75% of the money WILL find its way into some pork barrel
or another - so maybe we should hire a foreign contractor.
Saab makes nice fighter planes ...

In any event, the status-quo just isn't good enough and
any future plans will have to emphasize simplicity,
safety and - importantly - economy. OR ... we can just
wait for the Chinese to paint a big red star on the moon.

Where's von Braun when we need him ... ?

But the Russians _do_ use (basically) the same ship to move people and
cargo, and even sometimes both in the same mission.

Putting in a dogmatic division between personnel and cargo transport is
stupid. Cargo ships routine transport (or at least they used to do so) up
to 12 passengers. I regularly use my car for small-scale transport (up to
a few hundred kilograms 8-)). Some airline routes (e.g., Frankfurt-Rio-
Santiago) earn their keep through the mix of passengers and cargo they can
fly on the same plane.

Now, whether you want to combine the passenger car with the heavy-lift
truck - that is another matter, and is probably debatable. But the reason
why this is debatable has nothing to do with safety, as Barton and Gehman
seem to be suggesting.

Jan

Jan C. Vorbr?ggen wrote:

But the Russians _do_ use (basically) the same ship to move people and
cargo, and even sometimes both in the same mission.

Putting in a dogmatic division between personnel and cargo transport is
stupid.

On the surface, I'd agree ... but then you've got
to consider that there are significant differences
between a cargo-only vessel, something which carries
passengers PLUS cargo and something which carries
only passengers (+ trivial cargo).

Cargo-only allows you to cut out a LOT of the systems.
With no precious, perishable, humans to support the
entire environmental package can be scrapped, plus you
can go from triple/quadruple-redundancy to mere double.
If your cargo vessel is expendable, then you can drop
all the re-entry crap too - vastly simplifying the
design, reducing weight and eliminating recovery and
reconditioning expenses. Big cargo pods might be left
in orbit - to be later incorporated into a space station
or simply as a source of spare materials - metal, wire,
plastic, insulation etc..

Because of all this, an expendable cargo-only system
would be comparatively cheap - especially after we
standardize and mass-produce the major components - and
have fewer systems that we mere humans could screw up.

Passenger-only vessles can be physically small and of
robust construction. Size matters when it comes to
putting things into orbit and also matters when it
comes to maneuvering IN orbit. A passenger-only
vessle can also be OPTIMIZED for that role, which
means fewer compromises that might come back to
haunt us (or wind up scattered over Texas).

The WORST plan is what we have now ... a compromise
vehicle. Big and unweildly, trying to support people
AND cargo-carrying needs. The only nice thing about
the shuttles is the convenience of having people in
the same ship as the robotic arm and immediately
availible for EVA. However, the arm could as easily
be controlled from a nearby ship, and as far as EVA
goes, the passenger shuttle could literally be
docked to the cargo pod.

Cargo ships routine transport (or at least they used to do so) up
to 12 passengers. I regularly use my car for small-scale transport (up to
a few hundred kilograms 8-)). Some airline routes (e.g., Frankfurt-Rio-
Santiago) earn their keep through the mix of passengers and cargo they can
fly on the same plane.

Now, whether you want to combine the passenger car with the heavy-lift
truck - that is another matter, and is probably debatable. But the reason
why this is debatable has nothing to do with safety, as Barton and Gehman
seem to be suggesting.

I think it DOES impact safety - and the economics too.
Automobiles and airplanes are well-refined technology.
Even thus, a truck or plane designed for cargo is not
as well designed to safely transport people - and vice-
versa. Making something that does both jobs well is
difficult and more expensive than producing more dedicated
vehicles.

Now, whether you want to combine the passenger car with the heavy-lift
truck - that is another matter, and is probably debatable. But the reason
why this is debatable has nothing to do with safety, as Barton and Gehman
seem to be suggesting.

Jan


Yes it does. as it costs a lot more to have the safety needed for a manned
booster haul water to ISS

Yes it does. as it costs a lot more to have the safety needed for a manned
booster haul water to ISS

Why would that be the case? Astronauts are cheap, boosters/orbiters/spaceships
are costly. It is in the operator's best interest to reduce the probability of
vehicle losses, quite irrespective of whether it was a cargo or passenger
vehicle.

Jan

Cargo-only allows you to cut out a LOT of the systems.

Nope - based on the wrong premises.

With no precious, perishable, humans to support the
entire environmental package can be scrapped, plus you
can go from triple/quadruple-redundancy to mere double.

See the reply to "hallerb" - it's the vehicle that's expensive.
And for a resonably short period of time, you give every passenger
his environmental package as carry-on luggage, or you provide
a module with the necessary functionality and put the passengers
into that.

If your cargo vessel is expendable, then you can drop
all the re-entry crap too

Different, orthogonal issue.

Jan

nauts are cheap, boosters/orbiters/spaceships
are costly. It is in the operator's best interest to reduce the probability
of
vehicle losses, quite irrespective of

Well unmanned you can shoot for 97% success. To get to 99.9 for man rating
will likely increase your costs a LOT.

Its a dollars issue.

BlackWater wrote:
Where's von Braun when we need him ... ?

Off working on updating his design for a cargo-and-passenger
shuttle....

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Jan C. Vorbrüggen wrote:
Yes it does. as it costs a lot more to have the safety needed for a manned
booster haul water to ISS


Why would that be the case? Astronauts are cheap, boosters/orbiters/spaceships
are costly. It is in the operator's best interest to reduce the probability of
vehicle losses, quite irrespective of whether it was a cargo or passenger
vehicle.

Jan

I would say it is a risk vs reward issue. With a human rated system,
you spend more money because you are willing to accept less risk. Cost
rises dramatically for these systems relative to unmanned systems, where
you merely do a cost/benefit analysis and purchase insurance for your cargo.

Well, what is the loss value which is acceptable on a development vehicle?
Seems to me that what has in fact happened since Apollo is that the cultural
acceptance of the danger Astronauts face, has changed. In many ways, the
small losses in Apollo were almost a matter of luck.

Now though, the people, and Government want to make flying to space, almost
commonplace and 'normal'. So, you have a vehicle who's roots are in the old
culture, trying to achieve the requirements of the new.

Of course, nobody has told Nasa and it seems, nobody made the money
available since the Shuttles came on line, to make anything else either.

OK, so the Shuttle was never able to meet the high, some would say,
unrealistically high, flight rate and at a reasonable cost. However, this is
as much about learning lessons as any other form of research, surely?

So, it cost a lot more and still is, than some people thought, but maybe it
had to be done.

So, what to do? At present, i cannot see any alternative but to fly with
people untill some other way is found to get people up there. OK rework the
Shuttle into a cargo truck, but for missions like Hubble servicing, what
choice is there? Can you do it with a Soyuz?

I still think that a Shuttle derivative is required, but it may be a luxury
nobody wants to fund.

As for reusability, I'm sure that will come if space tourism is going to
happen, but while its purely research and no doubt military,, if Bush gets
back in, it will be the throw away cheap option.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/03