A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Shuttle
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shuttle program extension?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 30th 08, 08:50 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Flyguy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Shuttle program extension?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,5252607.story
  #2  
Old August 30th 08, 08:53 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Flyguy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Shuttle program extension?

Flyguy wrote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,5252607.story


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,3449221.story
  #3  
Old August 30th 08, 09:30 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
rjn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Shuttle program extension?

Wayne Hale:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28974
"We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago.
That horse has left the barn."

--
Regards, Bob Niland
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
  #4  
Old August 30th 08, 10:43 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,089
Default Shuttle program extension?

rjn wrote:
Wayne Hale:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28974
"We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago.
That horse has left the barn."


Read the entire article. Hale lays out all the facts but then guides the
reader to a different conclusion than warranted by the facts. Sure, if
you wait until the last shuttle flight to start procuring new ETs you
will have a shuttle-to-shuttle gap. But if a decision were made today
(9/2008) to continue the program, the parts for the next batch of tanks
would be ready in 18 months (3/2010) and the first flights with the new
tanks could be made in 2011. It would not take much of a stretch of the
existing manifest to close the potential shuttle-to-shuttle gap. The
normal flight-to-flight delays might even close the gap without
resorting to a conscious stretch.

It is not a matter of whether it is physically possible to continue the
program, but (as always) a matter of money and priorities. Hale argues
that the money and people would be better spent on the moon rocket than
the shuttle. That is certainly a valid point, and those are the
priorities of the current administration. But those priorities were
based on a certain set of geopolitical assumptions that have now been
called into serious question. If the next administration decides that
assured US access to space is more important than returning to the moon,
they may come to a different conclusion.

That conclusion may not include the shuttle; they may well decide that
COTS-D or a "Block I" Orion/EELV (or both) would make more sense than a
shuttle extension. Not only would a shuttle extension be expensive, it
would not provide emergency crew return capability from ISS while the
other two solutions could.
  #5  
Old August 31st 08, 09:46 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Shuttle program extension?

Hang on a moment, I seem to recall that Mike Griffin did in fact say a long
time ago that there was no fundamental reason why it could not fly, except
that at some point the tooling for tanks etc, and the modification to the
pads for the next craft may mean that some decision were to be made on this,
it would have to be fairly fast.

In my view, its the apparent disagreement with Russia over policies on the
ground etc, which may have made this a higher priority. After all, you can
hardly fly Americans on Soyuz, if you are daggers drawn over policies in
Eastern Europe.

From over here, I cannot see why the US seems to be going out of its way to
annoy Russia, if the boot, so to speak was on the other foot regarding
missile bases and for that matter, a neighbouring country threatening
etchic Americans (OK no such thing) I'm sure the response would have been
very similar.

Anyway, I think I said back in the start, that they may wish to fly longer.
The bottom line really is the bottom line though, and that is will it be
funded as well as Orion, or is the return to the moon etc, going to be
quietly forgotten?

The are old and someone needs to make a long term decision not overturn by
any administration coming up in a few years.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Flyguy" wrote in message
news:Yvhuk.84$Wd.21@trnddc01...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,5252607.story


  #6  
Old August 31st 08, 09:51 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Shuttle program extension?

Hmm, well, yes, but there is no such thing as never.

I'm not so sure how he currently feels about the program he is working on at
the moment. Poisoned Challis territory.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"rjn" wrote in message
...
Wayne Hale:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28974
"We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago.
That horse has left the barn."

--
Regards, Bob Niland
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.



  #7  
Old August 31st 08, 09:53 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Shuttle program extension?

Well, flog it all to the Japanese I say.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
rjn wrote:
Wayne Hale:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28974
"We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago.
That horse has left the barn."


Read the entire article. Hale lays out all the facts but then guides the
reader to a different conclusion than warranted by the facts. Sure, if you
wait until the last shuttle flight to start procuring new ETs you will
have a shuttle-to-shuttle gap. But if a decision were made today (9/2008)
to continue the program, the parts for the next batch of tanks would be
ready in 18 months (3/2010) and the first flights with the new tanks could
be made in 2011. It would not take much of a stretch of the existing
manifest to close the potential shuttle-to-shuttle gap. The normal
flight-to-flight delays might even close the gap without resorting to a
conscious stretch.

It is not a matter of whether it is physically possible to continue the
program, but (as always) a matter of money and priorities. Hale argues
that the money and people would be better spent on the moon rocket than
the shuttle. That is certainly a valid point, and those are the priorities
of the current administration. But those priorities were based on a
certain set of geopolitical assumptions that have now been called into
serious question. If the next administration decides that assured US
access to space is more important than returning to the moon, they may
come to a different conclusion.

That conclusion may not include the shuttle; they may well decide that
COTS-D or a "Block I" Orion/EELV (or both) would make more sense than a
shuttle extension. Not only would a shuttle extension be expensive, it
would not provide emergency crew return capability from ISS while the
other two solutions could.



  #8  
Old September 1st 08, 12:26 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
rjn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Shuttle program extension?

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Wayne Hale:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=28974
"We started shutting down the shuttle four years ago.
That horse has left the barn."


Read the entire article.


I did. My objective in posting just the punch line
quote was to provoke some discussion in where we are
in the wind down.

The Useless Mass Media is reporting that the Michaud
tooling is the point of Negative Return, but I was
wondering if we already passed some other killer
milestone, like it is no longer possible to get
left-handed whitworth 3/7-13 exploding beryllium bolts.

Some of this stuff may not be just old tech. There
could be raw material, EPA, RoHS and other issues.

Hale lays out all the facts but then guides the
reader to a different conclusion than warranted
by the facts.


Wouldn't be the first time a headline (and a punch
line) are contradicted by the details of a story.

Sure, if you wait until the last shuttle flight to
start procuring new ETs you will have a
shuttle-to-shuttle gap.


At what point is it more than just a gap?

At some point it might be cheaper to re-create the F-1.

--
Regards, Bob Niland
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
  #9  
Old September 1st 08, 12:41 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Shuttle program extension?

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 16:26:46 -0700 (PDT), rjn
wrote:

At what point is it more than just a gap?


Essentially, when Congress says it is.

At some point it might be cheaper to re-create the F-1.


No need. A Delta IV-Heavy with modest modification (much less than the
work needed for Ares I or an F-1-based booster) can launch an Orion to
ISS.

Brian
  #10  
Old September 2nd 08, 03:16 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
J Waggoner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default Shuttle program extension?

Thankfully both McCain and Obama have sent a letter to the
administration and Dr. Griffin to put the decision on hold to retire
the shuttle for 1 year... why... because everyone
can see the "coolness" developing. Its just silly to think that if
we have a direct conflict with Russia that they will continue the
space relationship with NASA beyond what is necessary. This
is especially true if sanctions occur. Which is unlikely, unless the
Russians invade the rest of Georgia, which is possible. Depending
on how much Putin is feeling his cheerios.

So Shuttle should continue to be made available to the USA and our
European and Japanese partners so we don't have a repeat Skylab
experience and watch the ISS drop out of the sky and burn into
a million pieces while the press destroys NASA for the failure of ISS.
NASA can't and won't let this happen, if Orion is put on hold for 5
years oh well, welcome to the real world of geopolitics, the space
programs very familiar and old hunting ground.

This will definitely probably stop Atlantis from being mothballed.

As a bonus this will give time to work out Orion and Ares 5 problems
that may not have been able to occur before the current time table.
As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built.
Why not, all the blueprints are in the vault aren't they? Don't
answer that last question. Its just something that's possible as all
things are like just retooling the existing Apollo base design and
redoing the electronics. Welcome back... to ideas that are proven.

Jonathan

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:46:57 GMT, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

Hang on a moment, I seem to recall that Mike Griffin did in fact say a long
time ago that there was no fundamental reason why it could not fly, except
that at some point the tooling for tanks etc, and the modification to the
pads for the next craft may mean that some decision were to be made on this,
it would have to be fairly fast.

In my view, its the apparent disagreement with Russia over policies on the
ground etc, which may have made this a higher priority. After all, you can
hardly fly Americans on Soyuz, if you are daggers drawn over policies in
Eastern Europe.

From over here, I cannot see why the US seems to be going out of its way to
annoy Russia, if the boot, so to speak was on the other foot regarding
missile bases and for that matter, a neighbouring country threatening
etchic Americans (OK no such thing) I'm sure the response would have been
very similar.

Anyway, I think I said back in the start, that they may wish to fly longer.
The bottom line really is the bottom line though, and that is will it be
funded as well as Orion, or is the return to the moon etc, going to be
quietly forgotten?

The are old and someone needs to make a long term decision not overturn by
any administration coming up in a few years.

Brian


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama to extend Shuttle program? J Waggoner Space Shuttle 5 June 23rd 08 11:50 PM
No Shuttle launch, Shuttle program mothballed? Widget Policy 1 July 4th 06 03:51 PM
The shuttle program needs some comedy!!! Steve W. Space Shuttle 0 August 9th 05 09:59 PM
Positive Aspects from Shuttle Program? Brandons of mass destruction Space Shuttle 7 August 5th 05 03:08 PM
Question regarding the end of the Shuttle program JazzMan Space Shuttle 23 February 19th 04 03:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.