|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle program extension?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |