US/Russia ISS tension

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.

Pat

"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.

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.

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

"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.

Pat

Love the two comments thus far:

"It is madness, utter madness, to terminate the Shuttle program in 2010 in
view of increasing uncertainties obout Ares' performance and now the Soyuz
flight purchase controversy. Will someone, somewhere in a position of
authority take the necessary action to impeach NASA and stop them from doing
this." Why do people continue to blame NASA for this decision? It was the
Congress that forced NASA into this position. Also, you don't "impeach" an
entire Agency; you impeach a President or other politician, and only then if
there is considerable wrong-doing on the part of that individual.

And: "There is always China's Soyuz Clone which has a compatible docking
ring to the ISS." It doesn't have a docking ring at all. And the
relationship between the U.S. and China is even worse than it is right now
between the U.S. and Russia.

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

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
And: "There is always China's Soyuz Clone which has a compatible docking
ring to the ISS." It doesn't have a docking ring at all. And the
relationship between the U.S. and China is even worse than it is right now
between the U.S. and Russia.

A couple of other things about the Chinese idea - How many flights have they
had? How many flights can they perform each year for at least five years?

Some "International" space station - when you have little microgravity
borders between all the sections.

The problem is between Russia and Georgia - none of the U.S.'s business. It
is to be remembered that South Ossetia was Georgian for only a couple of
years, but Georgia broke away from the USSR after almost 90 years. If South
Ossetia wishes to be a part of Russia, so be it - Georgia didn't do anything
about it until just before the Russian 'invasion'. The Russian's can say
that they are merely supporting the will of the people of Ossetia; and fair
enough too.

However, considering the actions of the U.S. in the past couple of years,
they can't win either way - supporting Russia's 'invasion', some would say,
would be like saying "We're for the big guy, with the big guns"; but
supporting Georgia can be said to be a continuation of the "We're the
biggest guy, with the biggest guns and we'll do what we damn well want"
attitude of the Bush administration.

So, can the Shuttle program be extended for a further five years?

Can the U.S. do without its Russian 'partner' in the ISS?

Is the ISS really worth all the effort, cost and political hypocracy (the
proposed waiver - aka "We're for the big boys with the big guns")

What will the U.S. do if they decide not to use Soyuz; close off 'their'
section of the ISS?

What about electricity generation (mostly U.S. systems) if the U.S. leaves
the ISS?

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:50:14 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


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.

Not without the Altair. Altair, not Orion, will perform the big Lunar
Orbit Insertion burn.

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

Brian

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:50:14 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
hdakotatelephone...
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.

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.

No one knows what "recertification" means. I'd say that everything
they've done since Columbia is functionally equivalent to it.

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.

Boo hoo...

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.

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.

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
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. The U.S.
doesn't have anything big enough for a payload bigger than 25 tonnes LEO
(Delta IV Heavy already more than meets the criteria).

Oh, by the way, if you download the .pdf for the Delta IV, it mentions
payload to the ISS as 23.5 tonnes (roughly), however, that is into an orbit
that could easily be met by the Delta IV Heavy carrying the Orion into an
orbit of just 200km. Afterall, the D-IV-H is just the launch vehicle, not
the delivery vehicle. Same applies for the Ares 1; it just launches Orion
into a fairly low (does anyone know how low?) orbit, and Orion then uses
it's 'SPS' to get to the ISS.

"Alan Erskine" wrote:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
hdakotatelephone...
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.

Pat

Love the two comments thus far:

Don't read any Slashdot space coverage then....

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Don't read any Slashdot space coverage then....


Problem is, people not only read it, they believe it.

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:50:14 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


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.

Not without the Altair. Altair, not Orion, will perform the big Lunar
Orbit Insertion burn.

I'd like to see Altair *not* perform that burn. By using LEO refueling
depots, you can top off your EDS like stage with so much fuel that it can do
the LOI burn. The EDS like stage would use much of the LEO fuel depot's
passive refrigeration technology to keep boil off to a minimum.

Eventually, reuse of the EDS like stage would be a goal. Throwing away
perfectly good tankage and liquid fueled engines after only one use is
folly. Air startable, regeneratively cooled LOX/LH2 engines can easily be
used multiple times. Even the Apollo era J-2 was used for multiple burns on
lunar missions.

LEO fuel depots are an enabling technology for far more hardware reuse in
space than what NASA is currently proposing.

Right now, NASA's plan is to throw away all hardware after each mission,
except perhaps SRB's, the Orion capsule, and hardware landed on the Moon.
Note that the way they're proposing to reuse hardware on the Moon, you end
up landing in the same spot over and over.

In addition to LEO fuel depots, stick a fuel depot at someplace like an
earth/moon lagrange point and you enable reusable lunar landers. This is a
key transportation enabler because it means you can land at a different
location on the moon on each mission without having to buy a new lander
every time. That is a far more sustainable transportation architecture than
disposable landers with reusable, but largely static, payloads.

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