NASA's roadmap to Shuttle obsolescence

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 13:04:18 +0200, in a place far, far away,
"Ultimate Buu" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

A U.S. Representative recently voiced the idea to operate the Shuttle only
in 'robotic mode' (i.e. no humans aboard). NASA claimed that this may well
be technically possible as most functions are performed automatically any
way.

It's certainly possible, but it's a stupid idea.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message
...
A U.S. Representative recently voiced the idea to operate the Shuttle only
in 'robotic mode' (i.e. no humans aboard). NASA claimed that this may well
be technically possible as most functions are performed automatically any
way. This got me thinking. I'm now convinced that this 'robotic mode' will
be used to phase out the Shuttle after the OSP is successfully launched
and
retrieved. The OSP will catch up with the Shuttle in space (not an easy
feat, but doable) and the astronauts will transfer to the Shuttle by space
suit or some sort of flexible airlock. Or the Shuttle will be turned into
a
giant space Mack truck to ferry payloads up into space.

So, the plan is to say, "shuttle is unsafe and costly" so when we want to
bring large payloads to ISS we'll launch the shuttle unmanned and then the
necessary crew on a brand NEW less proven system today called the OSP
tomorrow called YATLA (Yet Another TLA).

This is better how exactly?

Unfortunately while the shuttle has its problems, I'm not seeing many better
solutions coming out of NASA or Congress.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 03:44:02 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Unfortunately while the shuttle has its problems, I'm not seeing many better
solutions coming out of NASA or Congress.

There are no solutions as long as we remain unserious, as a nation,
about opening up space, which will require harnessing private
enterprise to the job.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"gmw" wrote in message
...
A U.S. Representative recently voiced the idea to operate the Shuttle only
in 'robotic mode' (i.e. no humans aboard).

I hate to bust your bubble, but the shuttle's automatic landing software
is
untried and is not designed to actually land the bird. The last thousand
feet or so require human pilots. This can be remedied but the money to do
so would have to be carved out of other projects.


Not true. On several flights (two if I remember correctly), the Shuttle
landed all by itself.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
...

"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message
...
A U.S. Representative recently voiced the idea to operate the Shuttle
only
in 'robotic mode' (i.e. no humans aboard). NASA claimed that this may
well
be technically possible as most functions are performed automatically
any
way. This got me thinking. I'm now convinced that this 'robotic mode'
will
be used to phase out the Shuttle after the OSP is successfully launched
and
retrieved. The OSP will catch up with the Shuttle in space (not an easy
feat, but doable) and the astronauts will transfer to the Shuttle by
space
suit or some sort of flexible airlock. Or the Shuttle will be turned
into
a
giant space Mack truck to ferry payloads up into space.

So, the plan is to say, "shuttle is unsafe and costly" so when we want to
bring large payloads to ISS we'll launch the shuttle unmanned and then the
necessary crew on a brand NEW less proven system today called the OSP
tomorrow called YATLA (Yet Another TLA).

This is better how exactly?


a) the Shuttle is tainted (see one of my previous posts)
b) the (erroneous) idea that everything new must be better
c) the politicians smell a rotting corpse (easy kill) and pounce on it

I agree with all of you that there's no logical reason to assume the
Shuttle is unsafe is the necessary safety precautions are taken and NASA
management with their "Keep 'm flying" attitude doesn't screw up the safety
review process. However, after the death of 14 astronauts this is beyond
logic. It's pure emotion.

The Shuttle will be removed from service ASAP. Even if the OSP isn't any
better technically (it's basically a Shuttle without the load carrying
capacity), most politicians will counter that it can't be any worse.

"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message
...

"gmw" wrote in message
...
A U.S. Representative recently voiced the idea to operate the Shuttle
only
in 'robotic mode' (i.e. no humans aboard).

I hate to bust your bubble, but the shuttle's automatic landing software
is
untried and is not designed to actually land the bird. The last
thousand
feet or so require human pilots. This can be remedied but the money to
do
so would have to be carved out of other projects.


Not true. On several flights (two if I remember correctly), the Shuttle
landed all by itself.

It can't. Human intervention is still required for the pitot tubes and the
landing gear.

And if you mean "flown" (those chores aside) I don't recall any flights
where the pilot or commander didn't fly it at least part way.

In article , Greg D. Moore
(Strider) wrote:

And if you mean "flown" (those chores aside) I don't recall any flights
where the pilot or commander didn't fly it at least part way.

Indeed. Confident it can be done, but no-one's going to let them do it.

On the topic of the landing gear, I was reading Feynman's writings about
his time on the Rogers Commission, and he makes a comment about the
ground being able to command deployment of the landing gear. Now, I've
been wondering about this - the context is vague, and is he referring to
the ground being able to signal a shuttle and tell the crew to deploy
the gear, damnit, you've forgotten... or was there, at some point, a
software command to do this?

--
-Andrew Gray

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Greg D. Moore
(Strider) wrote:

And if you mean "flown" (those chores aside) I don't recall any flights
where the pilot or commander didn't fly it at least part way.

Indeed. Confident it can be done, but no-one's going to let them do it.

On the topic of the landing gear, I was reading Feynman's writings about
his time on the Rogers Commission, and he makes a comment about the
ground being able to command deployment of the landing gear. Now, I've
been wondering about this - the context is vague, and is he referring to
the ground being able to signal a shuttle and tell the crew to deploy
the gear, damnit, you've forgotten... or was there, at some point, a
software command to do this?

Nope, no software command. There's no linkage between the computer and the
landing gear. It has to be done manually.

This prevents an accidental deployment in orbit which would be catastrophic.



--
-Andrew Gray

McLean1382 wrote:
Thomas Wang writes:
Triple barreled launchers
have lower reliability then the single barreled version.

In theory, all other things being equal. In the real world, that issue is
swamped by other factors. Look at the most reliable launchers, and count the
number of barrels.

If you look at the launch failures in the west...
Of the motor related losses, a number have been due
to solids finding new and interesting failure modes,
a larger number have been due to one of a pair of
liquid motors failing and the remaining one not
being up to the mission requirements.

It is grossly and inaccurately oversimplifying to suggest
that launcher reliability is magically due to the right
combination of numbers of engines on each stage.
But 2 is not the right answer, either, nor is 3 ;-)


-george william herbert