|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Starts Planning to Retire Space Shuttle
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/science/02nasa.html
NASA Starts Planning to Retire Space Shuttle By WARREN E. LEARY Published: April 2, 2005 WASHINGTON, April 1 - Even as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration prepares to resume flights of the space shuttle, the agency has begun forming detailed plans to retire the spacecraft in five years, if not before, a top NASA official said on Friday. The official, Michael Kostelnik, the agency's deputy associate administrator for the shuttle and the International Space Station programs, said he had established a special group within his office to deal with retiring the shuttle. Agency leaders decided to create a separate entity to deal with shuttle retirement issues so there would be no conflict of interest with the flight program, Mr. Kostelnik said in a telephone briefing with reporters. Within a year or so, Mr. Kostelnik said, NASA will have to start the shuttle retirement process in earnest, moving toward canceling contracts for shuttle-related supplies, decommissioning some sites and redirecting or eliminating some of the work force. "Transitioning these resources is a very complex problem," he said. He added that after reviewing assets and work needs, NASA should begin within a year to terminate some contracts for items like the shuttle's external fuel tank and start planning how to mothball equipment and structures used by the shuttle. It would be premature to end shuttle activities until NASA determines how many more shuttle flights are needed to complete the space station and how many flights can be made each year before the planned end of the program in 2010, Mr. Kostelnik said. As part of President Bush's vision for NASA that he announced last year, the shuttle is to resume flying until 2010, when it is scheduled to complete the station, then be retired. The plan also calls for the United States to stop using the station by 2017 and to redirect resources from both programs to new space vehicles for exploring the Moon and Mars. The nation's fleet of three shuttles has been grounded since the Columbia disaster on Feb. 1, 2003. After the program is revamped and the spacecraft are modified, and if all recommendations made by Columbia accident investigators have been carried out, shuttles are to resume flights between May 15 and June 3. Mr. Kostelnik acknowledged that it was taking NASA longer than expected to complete all the reviews of design and procedural changes, as well as the necessary paperwork and documentation required to satisfy a special panel overseeing compliance with the recommendations. It will take at least another two weeks to gather this information and deliver it to the oversight panel, which is headed by the former astronauts Thomas P. Stafford and Richard O. Covey, he said. "Everybody would have liked to have had this work completed sooner," Mr. Kostelnik said. "But it's just kind of the way it is, and we're not going to cut short any of these milestones just to make an arbitrary date." The Stafford-Covey panel on Wednesday indefinitely put off what was to be its final meeting to assess NASA's return-to-flight progress, saying it could not proceed without the necessary data. The group has said it wants to deliver its final report on compliance at least a month before the first flight. [end of article] |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sounds sensible to me. It still seems strange to me that sometime in the
90's someone was not working on a replacement for the aging hardware OK, so they have updated avionics etc, but technology marches on, and I'd suspect an even better system would have emerged if they had started the planning earlier, when there had already been one accident and it was, I think to most, obvious that the Shuttle, though needed, was not very cost effective, and was too complex for even remotely intelligent safety assessments to be made. Still, 20/20 hindsight is a great thing, now I'd suggest it is time to learn from it, and maybe design things around vehicles for particular tasks, not a one size fits all, almost system as the Shuttle is. Certainly, some modular or reusable approach is possible, and maybe some standardisation of equipment, but its obvious that cargo, personnel into leo and ferrying to moon and mars are totally different needs. Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Brian Gaff wrote:
Sounds sensible to me. It still seems strange to me that sometime in the 90's someone was not working on a replacement for the aging hardware OK, so they have updated avionics etc, but technology marches on, and I'd suspect an even better system would have emerged if they had started the planning earlier, when there had already been one accident and it was, I think to most, obvious that the Shuttle, though needed, was not very cost effective, and was too complex for even remotely intelligent safety assessments to be made. Still, 20/20 hindsight is a great thing, now I'd suggest it is time to learn from it, and maybe design things around vehicles for particular tasks, not a one size fits all, almost system as the Shuttle is. Certainly, some modular or reusable approach is possible, and maybe some standardisation of equipment, but its obvious that cargo, personnel into leo and ferrying to moon and mars are totally different needs. Best bet at this point is to outsource lift services to the Chinese when they're up to speed, shouldn't be too long. It's obvious that we can't do it, or afford to do it, ourselves. About the only thing we need a national launch capability for is military, and that's easily handled by non-manned launchers already in service. For that matter, we could outsource that to the French too. JazzMan -- ************************************************** ******** Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. Curse those darned bulk e-mailers! ************************************************** ******** "Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry ************************************************** ******** |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-04-02, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/science/02nasa.html NASA Starts Planning to Retire Space Shuttle By WARREN E. LEARY Published: April 2, 2005 Similar articles area at: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...rom_the_n.html http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...uttlelife.html One thought that occured to me was what knock-on effect any potential shutdown of these Shuttle Contracts would have on any possible Shuttle Dervived Launch Vehicle ? It could be that its a step away from a SDLV, esp if any of the associated assembly lines are lost. Then again, NASA, could of course put a re-activation clause in. I guess time will tell. Iain |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Brian Gaff" wrote in
: Sounds sensible to me. It still seems strange to me that sometime in the 90's someone was not working on a replacement for the aging hardware You must have missed the X-33 and X-34 projects. And the X-30 before that. And SLI after that. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Iain Young wrote in
: On 2005-04-02, Scott M. Kozel wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/science/02nasa.html NASA Starts Planning to Retire Space Shuttle By WARREN E. LEARY Published: April 2, 2005 Similar articles area at: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...rom_the_n.html http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs...uttlelife.html One thought that occured to me was what knock-on effect any potential shutdown of these Shuttle Contracts would have on any possible Shuttle Dervived Launch Vehicle ? It could be that its a step away from a SDLV, esp if any of the associated assembly lines are lost. Then again, NASA, could of course put a re-activation clause in. I guess time will tell. They are not saying, "we will shut down these contracts now". They are saying, "if we really intend to retire the shuttle in 2010 and not follow up with an SDLV, the planning must start soon." In turn, that means that the exploration folks need to make a mode decision (SDLV vs EELV vs something else entirely) quickly so that intelligent decisions can be made on the shuttle side of the house. I would not bet any money on a quick decision, though. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
read: NASA starts planning the end of manned spaceflight.
Funny thing is that NASA isn't talking about accelerating development of some vehicle that can deliver parts to the space station. For instance, when a CMG needs replaced in 2011, what will bring the replacement up ? Have the americans begun to work on a replacement for MPLMs ? Or will all reasearch from 2010 onwards have to be burned over the pacific instead of having the results brought back to earth ? Have the americans signed contracts to have the Japanese build HTVs to replace MPLMs ? Have the american signed contracts to have europe build more ATVs or russians to build more Progress to keep the station in orbit ? Starting the winding down of the shuttle now is plain stupid. This is like starting to shutdown a coal fired electrical generator before you've begun construction of a hydro electric project meant to replace it. I can't believe that americans aren't seeing this as a ploy to simply end manned spaceflight. Until NASA has seen a prototype of the mythical CEV and actually places firm orders for 4 or more such vehicles, no steps should be taken to prevent the shuttle from flying. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Rand Simberg wrote:
That will be bid out to commercial providers. For example, Kistler is raising money to complete their vehicle with that as one of the markets. All the cancelled projects of the 1990s were also bid out to commercial builders. Just because NASA subcontracts for some mythical vehicle doesn't mean that NASA will fund the project to completion and that some government won't decide that budget deficits are too high and that cuts must be made. Has NASA completed mission specs for a vehicle capable of bringing crews to and from an orbital station ? Has NASA completed specs for a cargo vehicle capable of replacing the MPLM ? Will NASA modify at least one MPLM so it can stay at the station permanently as a storage module ? Or will they all be wasted in some wharehouse in Florida ? How far is NASA along with the robot that is supposed to safely de-orbit Hubble ? What will they test it on before sending it to Hubble ? How many separate projects will the decommissioning of the shuttle create ? Can NASA realistically work on, complete and more importantly fund that many projects at the same time ? And if, to bridge the gap, NASA gets the right to buy Soyuz, is there then a point in completing the mythical CEV when Soyuz would end up cheaper anyways ? That's because "americans" recognize that manned spaceflight is now being developed privately. Virgin Galactic won't be much different than that florida company offering 0g experience in a 727. It isn't space flight, not even close. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jorge R. Frank wrote: Iain Young wrote in : One thought that occured to me was what knock-on effect any potential shutdown of these Shuttle Contracts would have on any possible Shuttle Dervived Launch Vehicle ? It could be that its a step away from a SDLV, esp if any of the associated assembly lines are lost. Then again, NASA, could of course put a re-activation clause in. I guess time will tell. They are not saying, "we will shut down these contracts now". They are saying, "if we really intend to retire the shuttle in 2010 and not follow up with an SDLV, the planning must start soon." In turn, that means that the exploration folks need to make a mode decision (SDLV vs EELV vs something else entirely) quickly so that intelligent decisions can be made on the shuttle side of the house. We may have a better idea about this by the end of this year, when the first CEV contracts are let, but maybe not. Heavy lift would not be needed until sometime well after 2014, so an SRB/ET multiyear production gap could very well result. To me, this news item seems to be meant as a wake up call for the in-house (NASA and contractor) SDV crowd. Time is running out. The message to them seems to be "you only have about one year to make your case". - Ed Kyle |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 17:35:58 -0400, in a place far, far away, John Doe
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: read: NASA starts planning the end of manned spaceflight. Funny thing is that NASA isn't talking about accelerating development of some vehicle that can deliver parts to the space station. For instance, when a CMG needs replaced in 2011, what will bring the replacement up ? That will be bid out to commercial providers. For example, Kistler is raising money to complete their vehicle with that as one of the markets. I can't believe that americans aren't seeing this as a ploy to simply end manned spaceflight. That's because "americans" recognize that manned spaceflight is now being developed privately. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 1 | March 3rd 05 03:56 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 12 | April 4th 04 02:46 PM |
NASA updates Space Shuttle Return to Flight plans | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 20th 04 05:32 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Manifest | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 2 | February 2nd 04 10:55 AM |