Station to be abandoned?

{{Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 08:24:25 -0600
From: Charles Buckley
The next Shuttle loss will be the last. Shuttle will be grounded if
there is only 2 remaining in the fleet.}}

Why, other than PC crap? Suppose we fly with two, and lose another, and
fly with only one remaining. Suppose that last one goes up and
inspection of the TPS (Thermal Protection System) shows damage such
that re-entering won't be possible/safe. Still the Russian craft can
eventually get everyone down, probably safely, so what's the big
problem? I'd rather see the shuttle flying as long as possible, using
every last bit of investment, rather than just mothball the last two
orbiters for fear of political flak. Caveat: If and when there's a
lower-cost safer alternative available, such that *all* proposed
shuttle activities are better done using the new alternative, such that
on a per-mission basis the new alternative is chosen rather than the
shuttle, then at some point the last remaining orbiter never gets used
again, even though it remains available in case needed. Or when the
cost of refurbishing the last remaining orbiter is too high compared to
operations of the new launch system, and the cost of keeping the
refurbishing facilities in standby mode is just a waste, we might then
formally mothball the shuttle.

Note: The same goes for HST: So long as astronomers line up to use it,
love to use it, beg to get to use it, etc., even after NGST/JWST is
operational, so long as HST still works, let's keep it up there.
Remember Palomar, with the famous but now "obsolete" 200 inch
telescope, and the even smaller 48-inch Schmidt? The latter is
currently a major component in a brand new state-of-art survey. Funny
how old scopes with upgraded instruments can still do good work.

wrote:
{{Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 08:24:25 -0600
From: Charles Buckley
The next Shuttle loss will be the last. Shuttle will be grounded if
there is only 2 remaining in the fleet.}}

Why, other than PC crap?

Let's see:

They have to have a certain number of shuttles in production to
keep the necessary skills and keep their people gainfully employed.
It is not cost effective to keep a refit facility when it would
only sporatically be used. And it is suicidal to ramp such a facility
up and down whenever they want to do work on the fleet. There is
a similar cost and skill issue with parts and parts replacement.

The next loss will also have a certain amount of costs associated
with getting the Shuttle back into service. That is an equation
of diminishing returns. The closer and more complete that ISS is,
the less they need Shuttle. A $500 million cost now is one thing.
It is another when ISS is flying and stable.

Which brings up another point. Look at the Shuttle manifest. If they
lose another Shuttle on launch, then they lose parts of ISS that
might not be replaceable.

Suppose we fly with two, and lose another, and
fly with only one remaining. Suppose that last one goes up and
inspection of the TPS (Thermal Protection System) shows damage such
that re-entering won't be possible/safe. Still the Russian craft can
eventually get everyone down, probably safely, so what's the big
problem? I'd rather see the shuttle flying as long as possible, using
every last bit of investment, rather than just mothball the last two
orbiters for fear of political flak.

What if the next one is lost due to structural defects in the wingspar?
That would not be cost effective to fix in the rest of the fleet. We
could both find boundry failure conditions that somewhat favor
positions.

Caveat: If and when there's a
lower-cost safer alternative available, such that *all* proposed
shuttle activities are better done using the new alternative, such that
on a per-mission basis the new alternative is chosen rather than the
shuttle, then at some point the last remaining orbiter never gets used
again, even though it remains available in case needed. Or when the
cost of refurbishing the last remaining orbiter is too high compared to
operations of the new launch system, and the cost of keeping the
refurbishing facilities in standby mode is just a waste, we might then
formally mothball the shuttle.

Note: The same goes for HST: So long as astronomers line up to use it,
love to use it, beg to get to use it, etc., even after NGST/JWST is
operational, so long as HST still works, let's keep it up there.
Remember Palomar, with the famous but now "obsolete" 200 inch
telescope, and the even smaller 48-inch Schmidt? The latter is
currently a major component in a brand new state-of-art survey. Funny
how old scopes with upgraded instruments can still do good work.

only one remaining. Suppose that last one goes up and
inspection of the TPS (Thermal Protection System) shows damage such
that re-entering won't be possible/safe. Still the Russian craft can
eventually get everyone down, probably safely,

To recover a full shuttle crew using Soyuz will require three of them, and the
Russians don't keep that many capsules and rockets lying around. If the point
described is reached, some people will die, unless OSP or its successor can get
them in time. Probably NASA will not run the shuttle until that crisis is
reached; it would be lethal to the organization.