US/Russia ISS tension

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
Nothing magic happens in 2010 from an aging standpoint. That date was
driven by the desire to retire Shuttle after station completion, not
because it suddenly got old.

Another thought. Keeping the shuttle flying in support of ISS might be a
good thing for LEO fuel depot R&D. Having astronauts available to swap out
components on an existing fuel depot would help show that such fuel depots
are sustainable.

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

"Jeff Findley" writes:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
Nothing magic happens in 2010 from an aging standpoint. That date was
driven by the desire to retire Shuttle after station completion, not
because it suddenly got old.

Another thought. Keeping the shuttle flying in support of ISS might be a
good thing for LEO fuel depot R&D. Having astronauts available to swap out
components on an existing fuel depot would help show that such fuel depots
are sustainable.

It would show that fuel-depots are a bad idea.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/new...n-invasio.html


If we aren't going to be able to get to it after Shuttle retirement, we may
want to stop building it right now.
But you just watch... Shuttle retirement will get pushed back instead.

So it'll be like in the movie 2010 then? Will there be a border drawn
down the middle of the ISS?

I hope the next administration recognizes the simple truth
concerning NASA's long term goal. The original goal has been
replaced by the kind of planning that results from doing little else
but putting out one fire and another. It's just been tossed into the wind
....like balls thrown upon the floor. Once the tail begins wagging the dog
it's time to just ****-can the whole thing and start over from scratch.

With a new goal designed to be as important as it is popular.

Replacing fossil fuels before global warming becomes
irreversible.


Executive Summary
NASA's SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1






Pat

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:03:36 GMT, "Alan Erskine"
wrote:


Or maybe they could come up with an external tank or two for Orion?

Which would require an even bigger launch vehicle than Ares 1.

I was thinking external tanks added at the orbital prop depot.

Brian

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:21:44 +0200, in a place far, far away, Jochem
Huhmann made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

"Jeff Findley" writes:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
Nothing magic happens in 2010 from an aging standpoint. That date was
driven by the desire to retire Shuttle after station completion, not
because it suddenly got old.

Another thought. Keeping the shuttle flying in support of ISS might be a
good thing for LEO fuel depot R&D. Having astronauts available to swap out
components on an existing fuel depot would help show that such fuel depots
are sustainable.

It would show that fuel-depots are a bad idea.

How would it do that?

Jeff Findley wrote:
A couple of issues with this:

1. What about recertification? The recommendation after Columbia was to
either recertify pretty much *everything* on the shuttle or shut down the
program by 2010.

2. What about funding? Continuing to fly the shuttle puts a huge damper on
Griffin's plans to scrap the shuttle and start flying Orion on Ares I. This
would delay the entire Ares/Orion program without a huge influx of money to
essentially allow shuttle and Ares/Orion to run in parallel.

My hope is that total recertification would be deemed too expensive as well
as the current Ares/Orion program. But, I still think there would need to
be some increased funding to investigate the possibility of aging issues
with the orbiters.

Where to go from there? My hope is that there would be a modest
continuation of shuttle flights, say two a year to ISS to rotate US crews
and provide MPLM support. At the same time, I'd like to see an increase in
funding to pay for COTS.

How to pay for all of this? Ares would need to be completely scrapped. How
to provide long term launch capabilities for NASA programs? EELV gets the
nod for manned Orion operations from its pads and NASA puts some of that
savings into developing first generation LEO refueling depots.

First would be a LOX refueling depot prototype. LOX is easier to store with
passive refrigeration techniques than LH2. LOX also has the advantage that
it is the heavier of the LOX/LH2 combination. Perhaps NASA could use this
depot to mount an Apollo 8 style mission with Orion.

Next would be a LH2 refueling depot prototype. If successful, a full
LOX/LH2 depot could be fielded, which enables a LOT of missions with EELV
Heavies.

Plus, EELV providers could be given the green light for next generation EELV
Heavies. I believe that there are growth options for both EELV's without
requiring much in the way of new infrastructure.

Unfortunately, this might spell the end of a lot of shuttle infrastructure,
but Griffin wasn't really planning on using much of that anyway. The
current direction would mean a lot of *new* infrastructure which gave the
appearance of using shuttle infrastructure since the new equipment would use
the same locations as shuttle/Saturn V. Still, KSC would be kept fairly
busy doing launch preparations for Orion, landers, LEO fuel depots, and NASA
specific EDS like upper stages which would be filled from the fuel depots.

Michoud would likely be o.k. since they might end up building tanks for fuel
depots and for the EDS like upper stage. The biggest blow would be to ATK.
Hopefully this would be the final nail in the coffin of large segmented
solids on launch vehicles.


Well, it's the Bush II admintstration.
Do you really expect anything in it, or anything it does, to make any
consistent sense...or for that matter, any sense whatsoever.
No, it's ...and always was... a Brazilian Cluster **** from the word go.
Right now, the State Department is assuring the Ukraine that we'll stand
with them the way we did Georgia...when the big red bear comes knocking
on the door.
As they said in "Animal House": "Hey, you ****ed up...you trusted us."

Pat

Pat

Alan Erskine wrote:

To paraphrase the old line: "You can lead a person to water, but you can't
make them think".


My fave is still Dorothy Parker's reply on being challenged to making
up a pun incorporating "horticulture" inside of five minutes.
Her reply?
"You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think."
Other great Dorothy Parker line: "My new apartment is so small that I
barely have room to lay my hat...much less my friends."
And of course, the all-time classic rhyme:
"One Martini for me; or two Martinis at most.
With three I'm under the table; with four I'm under the host."
Probably the wittiest person of the 20th century, as Oscar Wilde was the
wittiest person of the 19th century.
At least in English; wit can't really be translated well due the the
subtle differences of different languages.

Pat

Jeff Findley wrote:

Another thought. Keeping the shuttle flying in support of ISS might be a
good thing for LEO fuel depot R&D. Having astronauts available to swap out
components on an existing fuel depot would help show that such fuel depots
are sustainable.


That's not going to happen, but it does mean that you could actually get
all of the planned original ISS modules attached to it, so it could
actually be finished to the original design.
I rather doubt that's going to happen after Georgia.
I think there's a better than 50/50 chance that the ISS ends right now,
and no further Shuttle ever heads for it.

Pat
Jeff