A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Shuttle program extension?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 3rd 08, 07:29 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Shuttle program extension?

How long would it take to build one or two new shuttles from scratch ?
Same core design, but with some of the improvements wanted by NASA (such
as electric APUs).

Someone had mentioned that it would cost about 2 billion to build one.
(perhaps another billion for the second shuttle ?).

This would allow NASA to implement many of the improvements to reduce
costs, and retire the older shuttles instead of having them go through
the recertification and major maintenance cycles needed after they've
done ISS assembly.

Would building new shuttles end up costing same ballpark as rebuilding
the current ones ?

They could keep one shuttle pad and maintain a few shuttle missions to
LEO per year (to ISS' hubble etc).

They could develop a re-entry capsule to be used as ISS espace pods
(brought up by shuttles), and later scale those capsules up to be able
to go to the moon on some new rocket.


If NASA were to gear down to support only 2 or 3 shuttle flights per
year, could it seriously lower its fixed costs on the ground ? I am
thinking that if fast turnaround were no longer needed, wouldn't they
require far fewer workers ? And with only 2 shuttles, wouldn't that free
up some buildings used for shuttle maintenance ?



  #12  
Old September 3rd 08, 12:53 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Shuttle program extension?


"J Waggoner" wrote in message
...
There is no reason the shuttles can't be maintained thru 2020 if
necessary. Lets face it Griffin has been campaigning for this
since Bush announced the back to the moon plan. The Russians
have given shuttle fans a gift in this way. Remember the Shuttles
were not to blame for the loss of Columbia or challenger. It was the
SRB joint and the tank foam. The real blame of course sits with
engineers who are human.


With Challenger, the blame sits squarely on management's shoulders. The
engineers recommended to *not* launch Challenger in such cold conditions.
They had some data to back them up, but management wanted them to prove the
shuttle would fail if they launched. Management turned safety upside down.

With Columbia, some management decisions were equally silly. As testing on
the ground showed, there was likely a huge hole in the wing leading edge,
yet no attempt was made to look for the hole. Many of the post-Columbia TPS
repair methods were originally concieved before STS-1 even flew. Obviously
it was a mistake for NASA to slowly start treating the TPS as a maintenenace
issue rather than a safety issue.

Once you go down that road, there isn't any point in inspecting the TPS,
since you couldn't fix it anyway, right? The mistake in this logic is that
if the hole had been discovered while Columbia was in orbit, every attempt
would have been made to save the crew. The engineers never had the
opportunity to attempt a rescue like Apollo 13.

Another method of launching the shuttle could always be revived. But
I do think Orion will be slowed down and perfected. Its not good to
rush a new program, you end up with disaster like Apollo One or
Challenger.


Look at the details of Ares I. That program is one giant hack on top of
another. It needs to die a quiet death and be replaced with something more
sane, like Orion launched by EELV's. The shuttle's paint shaker SRB's ought
not be allowed on any future launch vehicle, manned or otherwise.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein


  #13  
Old September 3rd 08, 02:38 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Shuttle program extension?

..

Look at the details of Ares I. *That program is one giant hack on top of
another. *It needs to die a quiet death and be replaced with something more
sane, like Orion launched by EELV's. *The shuttle's paint shaker SRB's ought
not be allowed on any future launch vehicle, manned or otherwise.


I agree with the Aries I launcher(although I think continuing
development of the J-2X powered second is a good idea), it would
really save them a lot of money if they just simply man-rated both the
Delta IV and the Atlas V (just like they did in the 60's with the
Atlas and Titan II launchers). Also man-rating the two EELVs would
have an additional benefit of reducing insurance premiums for
satellite makers as a man-rated booster would be more reliable.

  #14  
Old September 3rd 08, 02:49 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Alan Erskine[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,316
Default Shuttle program extension?

wrote in message
...

I agree with the Aries I launcher(although I think continuing
development of the J-2X powered second is a good idea), it would
really save them a lot of money if they just simply man-rated both the
Delta IV and the Atlas V (just like they did in the 60's with the
Atlas and Titan II launchers). Also man-rating the two EELVs would
have an additional benefit of reducing insurance premiums for
satellite makers as a man-rated booster would be more reliable.


The Delta IV is already more 'man-rated' than any version of the Ares 1 is
likely to be - lower vibration, smoother ride, proven reliability.


  #15  
Old September 3rd 08, 03:22 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Shuttle program extension?

John Doe wrote:
:
:How long would it take to build one or two new shuttles from scratch ?
:Same core design, but with some of the improvements wanted by NASA (such
:as electric APUs).
:

Probably about a decade.

:
:Someone had mentioned that it would cost about 2 billion to build one.
perhaps another billion for the second shuttle ?).
:

Preposterously low numbers.

It cost almost $2 billion to build Endeavour at the time and it
started with a full spares set that were 'free'.

:
:This would allow NASA to implement many of the improvements to reduce
:costs, and retire the older shuttles instead of having them go through
:the recertification and major maintenance cycles needed after they've
:done ISS assembly.
:

How would it do that? One of the reason for retiring the Shuttle is
that the operating costs are so high.

:
:Would building new shuttles end up costing same ballpark as rebuilding
:the current ones ?
:

Define 'rebuilding'.

:
:They could keep one shuttle pad and maintain a few shuttle missions to
:LEO per year (to ISS' hubble etc).
:
:They could develop a re-entry capsule to be used as ISS espace pods
brought up by shuttles), and later scale those capsules up to be able
:to go to the moon on some new rocket.
:

'Scale up' means redesign.

:
:If NASA were to gear down to support only 2 or 3 shuttle flights per
:year, could it seriously lower its fixed costs on the ground ? I am
:thinking that if fast turnaround were no longer needed, wouldn't they
:require far fewer workers ? And with only 2 shuttles, wouldn't that free
:up some buildings used for shuttle maintenance ?
:

They're called 'fixed costs' because they're FIXED. They don't change
no matter what your flight rate is.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #16  
Old September 3rd 08, 04:28 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Shuttle program extension?

J Waggoner wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:38:39 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
J Waggoner wrote:

As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built.

Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the
chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and
fly to the moon under my own power.


More likely the shuttle will continue flying and Ares I problems will keep
getting worse, to the point where that program is cancelled.

Jeff



This wasn't about the pads first all, that was an aside. If you want
to start a pad thread go ahead, be my guest.


Here's a clue for you - you don't control what is discussed in what
thread.

There is no reason the shuttles can't be maintained thru 2020 if
necessary.


There is a difference between what is theoretically possible, and what
is practically doable. Keeping the Shuttles flying for another twelve
years will be hellaciously expensive as they (and their supporting
infrastructure) will require ever increasing maintenance as they age.

What other problems, like the Kapton wiring of a decade ago, lurk?

Another method of launching the shuttle could always be revived. But
I do think Orion will be slowed down and perfected. Its not good to
rush a new program, you end up with disaster like Apollo One or
Challenger.


Given that neither Apollo 1 or Challenger was caused by programs being
rushed, I fail to see your point. Doubly so since by any rational
measurement Orion isn't being rushed either.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #17  
Old September 3rd 08, 04:30 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Shuttle program extension?

"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"J Waggoner" wrote in message
.. .
There is no reason the shuttles can't be maintained thru 2020 if
necessary. Lets face it Griffin has been campaigning for this
since Bush announced the back to the moon plan. The Russians
have given shuttle fans a gift in this way. Remember the Shuttles
were not to blame for the loss of Columbia or challenger. It was the
SRB joint and the tank foam. The real blame of course sits with
engineers who are human.


With Challenger, the blame sits squarely on management's shoulders. The
engineers recommended to *not* launch Challenger in such cold conditions.
They had some data to back them up, but management wanted them to prove the
shuttle would fail if they launched. Management turned safety upside down.


Of course, once again, the engineers mistakes go umentioned - because
management is blame. Always and forever.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #18  
Old September 3rd 08, 05:33 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Shuttle program extension?



Derek Lyons wrote:
Given that neither Apollo 1 or Challenger was caused by programs being
rushed, I fail to see your point. Doubly so since by any rational
measurement Orion isn't being rushed either.


Apollo 1 was certainly caused by the program being rushed (or "Go Fever"
as the astronauts referred to it). Challenger was due to trying to
maintain a unrealistic flight rate.

Pat
  #19  
Old September 3rd 08, 08:25 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Shuttle program extension?


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
With Challenger, the blame sits squarely on management's shoulders. The
engineers recommended to *not* launch Challenger in such cold conditions.
They had some data to back them up, but management wanted them to prove
the
shuttle would fail if they launched. Management turned safety upside
down.


Of course, once again, the engineers mistakes go umentioned - because
management is blame. Always and forever.


I used to have a good link for this one...

Here we go, straight from the Rogers Commission Report:

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/.../Chapter-5.txt

Quote from above:

The decision to launch the Challenger was flawed. Those who made
that decision were unaware of the recent history of problems
concerning the O-rings and the joint and were unaware of the initial
written recommendation of the contractor advising against the launch
at temperatures below 53 degrees Fahrenheit and the continuing
opposition of the engineers at Thiokol after the management reversed
its position. They did not have a clear understanding of Rockwell's
concern that it was not safe to launch because of ice on the pad. If
the decision makers had known all of the facts, it is highly unlikely
that they would have decided to launch 51-L on January 28, 1986.

I think that just about does it. The engineers at Thiokol knew there were
problems with the o-rings when launching in cold weather. They were opposed
to launching in cold weather. They were overruled by Thiokol management.

Also, NASA management was pushing Rockwell around as well (on the issue of
ice on the launch vehicle): "In this situation, NASA appeared to be
requiring a contractor to prove that it was not safe to launch, rather than
proving it was safe." Even though ice turned out to not be an issue in this
case, NASA's decision making process was clearly flawed when it came to
safety. There was a whole boatload of recommendations about safety and
safety processes that came out of the Rogers Commission Report. IMHO,
safety is something that has to be managed very carefully.

So, just how was the Challenger disaster the fault of the engineers?

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein


  #20  
Old September 3rd 08, 09:35 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.space.station
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default Shuttle program extension?

"Jeff Findley" wrote:

So, just how was the Challenger disaster the fault of the engineers?


Have you ever actually studied the Challenger accident as opposed to
quoting soundbites?

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
 




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
Shuttle program extension? Flyguy Space Shuttle 175 September 22nd 08 04:18 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
More Evidence The Shuttle Program Should Be Scrapped John Slade Space Shuttle 7 August 2nd 05 04:35 AM
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 10:36 AM.


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.