Arguments for keeping shuttle around longer

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:47:36 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Unfortunately, the Shuttle apparently has gone the way of the Saturn V;
we can't make them any more.

Not so. Boeing offered to build a replacement after the Columbia lost.
NASA declined.

They did? What was the price tag and schedule?

It was the OV-20x proposal. Same mold line as the existing Shuttles,
but essentially all-new inside (except for new 100-series equipment
like MEDS). I'm sure it died of NASA sticker shock, but the cost
quoted wasn't *that* unrealistic ($2 billion or so for the first one,
follow-ons would be cheaper.) I don't recall a schedule being reported
(AvLeak or SpaceMuse, IIRC.)

You sure you're not thinking of post-Challenger?



Hence the 20x production numbers. I think Boeing was hoping for a nice
fat Shuttle Mk.II contract, with three or four to follow OV-201.


At this point if done right this might appeal to me more than "the stick"
and HDLV.

Done right, an OV-2xx could learn a lot from OV-1xx.


Brian

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:10:48 -0500, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:12:05 GMT, lid
(John Savard) wrote:


Unfortunately, the Shuttle apparently has gone the way of the Saturn V;
we can't make them any more.

Not so. Boeing offered to build a replacement after the Columbia lost.
NASA declined.

They did? What was the price tag and schedule?

Tooling is non-existent for much of it, AFAIK (e.g., I don't think
that they could build a spar or keel). In addition many of the
subcontractors don't even exist any more.

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

...Boeing offered to build a replacement after the Columbia lost.
NASA declined.

It's always *possible* to make more; the question is whether they can be
made at halfway-reasonable cost. As it was, Endeavour cost twice what the
earlier orbiters did, because of reverse engineering and substitutions and
other difficulties of building an orbiter after the production run had
ended. And that was nearly twenty years ago.

Wasn't there a proposal to build two "updated" orbiters for the price of
one "classic" when Endeavour was being bid? NASA didn't agree to that
either.

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:34:18 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


Not so. Boeing offered to build a replacement after the Columbia lost.
NASA declined.

They did? What was the price tag and schedule?

It was the OV-20x proposal. Same mold line as the existing Shuttles,
but essentially all-new inside (except for new 100-series equipment
like MEDS). I'm sure it died of NASA sticker shock, but the cost
quoted wasn't *that* unrealistic ($2 billion or so for the first one,
follow-ons would be cheaper.) I don't recall a schedule being reported
(AvLeak or SpaceMuse, IIRC.)

You sure you're not thinking of post-Challenger?

No, this was mid to late 2003.

Brian

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 20:55:43 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:


It's always *possible* to make more; the question is whether they can be
made at halfway-reasonable cost. As it was, Endeavour cost twice what the
earlier orbiters did, because of reverse engineering and substitutions and
other difficulties of building an orbiter after the production run had
ended. And that was nearly twenty years ago.

I think Boeing was proposing a new production run, completely updated
internally but still meeting the existing Orbiter moldline and using
the Block II SSMEs, MEDS, GPCs, etc. Sacrificing commonality with the
earlier Orbiters kept the price "down" to the $2 Billion range.

Brian

I remember there was talk about some kind of research into a material
that could replace the heat shielding tiles with a continous coating. I
just can't figure out what it was.

On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:44:42 -0500, Brian Thorn
wrote, in part:
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 20:55:43 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

And that was nearly twenty years ago.

I think Boeing was proposing a new production run, completely updated
internally but still meeting the existing Orbiter moldline and using
the Block II SSMEs, MEDS, GPCs, etc. Sacrificing commonality with the
earlier Orbiters kept the price "down" to the $2 Billion range.

Given the passage of twenty years, something like that would be the only
alternative. And, as well, the entire Shuttle fleet should be replaced;
the other vehicles served well, but have gone well past their design
lifetime.

But the basic design has safety issues as well.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On 2 Oct 2005 13:00:01 -0700, "Ed Kyle" wrote, in
part:

The remaining orbiters are not "worn out". They
have flown only a fraction of their design airframe
lifetimes. They have been repeatedly upgraded and
refurbished during their existence. They are now
equipped with new main engines and avionics, etc.
Each of these machines could fly dozens more
missions before retirement.

Perhaps you are right. It is true that reports in the news media may
oversimplify and sensationalize things.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On 2005-10-02, Brian Thorn wrote:

Not so. Boeing offered to build a replacement after the Columbia lost.
NASA declined.

They did? What was the price tag and schedule?

It was the OV-20x proposal. Same mold line as the existing Shuttles,
but essentially all-new inside (except for new 100-series equipment
like MEDS). I'm sure it died of NASA sticker shock, but the cost
quoted wasn't *that* unrealistic ($2 billion or so for the first one,
follow-ons would be cheaper.) I don't recall a schedule being reported
(AvLeak or SpaceMuse, IIRC.)

As I recall... someone at Boeing said "if they want us to build a new
one, we can" [1] relatively early on. SFAIK, no actual proposal ever
appeared - the details about the cost and whether it would be OV-106 or
OV-201 came from people discussing it after the fact.

[1] no doubt the "and, boy, will they pay for it" was silent.

--
-Andrew Gray

"zoltan" wrote in message
ups.com...
We should not forget that the shuttle is not all bad. Especially now
that we have it pretty well debugged. I think we should fly them even
knowing their problems, limitations. If we are going to have a shuttle
derived heavy lift architecture then it is not going to be an extra
cost to keep the shuttles flying indefinitely.

The shuttles provide a convenient environment for nursing satellites
before launch and they are the only thing we have if we want to bring
something back that does not have its own heat shield. The shuttles and
the SDHL complement each other.

But the cost of doing so is too high. That's why the shuttle program will
come to an end in 2010, or perhaps a bit later. Besides, NASA's plans will
require that shuttle facilities be converted for use with the stick and the
SDHLV.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.