Will selected shuttle vehicles be retired first, or all at one time?

As Endeavor is the newest shuttle, would it be the last to be retired?
Or would NASA just pull the plug on all of the vehicles? I would think
that NASA would gradually switch from the shuttles to the replacement
over time. That there would be a mix of vehicles in use for a short
while. Or would that be too much a logistical headache?

robert casey wrote:
As Endeavor is the newest shuttle, would it be the last to be retired?
Or would NASA just pull the plug on all of the vehicles?

Orbiter retirement order will have nothing to do with age. Rather, it
will be partly time since last refurbishment, and partly luck of the draw.

Previous manifests had Atlantis retiring after HST SM-04 in 2008, then
becoming a "parts donor" for the other two. Now all three orbiters will
fly until 2010, retiring in turn after their last flights: Atlantis,
Discovery, then Endeavour.

I would think
that NASA would gradually switch from the shuttles to the replacement
over time. That there would be a mix of vehicles in use for a short
while. Or would that be too much a logistical headache?

The "replacement" will not be ready until 2014.

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:41:16 GMT, robert casey
wrote:

I would think
that NASA would gradually switch from the shuttles to the replacement
over time. That there would be a mix of vehicles in use for a short
while. Or would that be too much a logistical headache?

Too expensive. NASA can't afford to start building Ares/Orion until
the Shuttle's $4 billion/year budget is freed up. The funding increase
Bush promised when he introduced the Shuttle successor, Moon/Mars
initiative in 2004 did not materialize. So serious work on Ares/Orion
has to wait for Shuttle retirement, i.e. Fiscal Year 2011.

With such a funding shortfall and ever-growing gap between Shuttle and
Orion, NASA really, really needs to step back and take a new look at
its plans. Alot of its assumptions are wrong now, i.e., selecting Ares
I to launch crews because NASA needs to keep the SRB team together
until Ares V comes along. But now that there is definitely going to be
a lot of thumb-twiddling at ATK anyway, because Orion won't, assuming
there aren't even more delays, fly before 2014, why not dump Ares I (a
vehicle facing serious performance issues anyway) and go with Delta IV
or Atlas V and throw the Ares I development money into Orion? Uprating
the Delta's engine or stretching its upper stage a little has to be a
lot cheaper than an all-new SRB, an all-new upper stage, and
restarting production of an engine that's been defunct for 30 years. I
can think of a lot uses for that money.

Brian

I was under the impression, that unless the life of the Shuttle was extended
by at least five years, then no US manned vehicles would be around for at
least that amount of time, Americans flying on foreign vehicles for some
time.

The other snag for continuing shuttles past 2010 is launch resources, as at
least one pad will be being converted during that time I'd imagine.

Of course, then there is the cost which is pretty great, of keeping Shuttles
flying even before their age is taken in to account. The problems of age
came to light recently with some concern over tanks in the Shuttle still
being good at pressures they were designed for over 10 years after their
certified life.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"robert casey" wrote in message
k.net...
As Endeavor is the newest shuttle, would it be the last to be retired? Or
would NASA just pull the plug on all of the vehicles? I would think that
NASA would gradually switch from the shuttles to the replacement over
time. That there would be a mix of vehicles in use for a short while. Or
would that be too much a logistical headache?

In article ,
Clark wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in
m:

The "replacement" will not be ready until 2014.

At the earliest. When was the last time NASA was on schedule?

1969?

At the earliest. When was the last time NASA was on schedule?


1969?

Yes! But they had money back then....

On Jun 28, 3:42?pm, robert casey wrote:
At the earliest. When was the last time NASA was on schedule?

1969?

Yes! But they had money back then....

crew replacement vehicle is too big over weight and over budget, and
way behind schedule.

On Jun 27, 7:47 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
robert casey wrote:
As Endeavor is the newest shuttle, would it be the last to be retired?
Or would NASA just pull the plug on all of the vehicles?

Orbiter retirement order will have nothing to do with age. Rather, it
will be partly time since last refurbishment, and partly luck of the draw.

Previous manifests had Atlantis retiring after HST SM-04 in 2008, then
becoming a "parts donor" for the other two. Now all three orbiters will
fly until 2010, retiring in turn after their last flights: Atlantis,
Discovery, then Endeavour.


This was news to me (though just looked at Steve Pietrobon's
unofficial manifest to see it may be true), but any reason Atlantis'
retirement has been held off and it will be now kept in service for
two more flights?

-A.L.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:07:26 -0700, Skylon wrote:


This was news to me (though just looked at Steve Pietrobon's
unofficial manifest to see it may be true), but any reason Atlantis'
retirement has been held off and it will be now kept in service for
two more flights?

NASA and Boeing took another look at the OMM timetable and increased
the required interval between OMMs. NASA would have had to violate
that rule for Discovery and Endeavour, too before 2010, so they had to
find a workaround. The minor OMM tasks will be dropped, and the most
time senstive issues will be worked during regular turnarounds.

Now... will Atlantis get the SSPTS?

Brian

"robert casey" wrote in message
k.net...


At the earliest. When was the last time NASA was on schedule?


1969?

Yes! But they had money back then....

Actually, funding was cut back before 1969, but the bulk of the
Apollo/Saturn development effort was done well before 1969.

But the point is valid. Apollo/Saturn enjoyed virtually unlimited funding
in order to beat the Soviets to the moon.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)