Author Topic: Will it be too late to save STS program under new President?  (Read 21180 times)

Offline stefan1138

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
OV-106 - 7/8/2007  11:32 AM

Quote
stefan1138 - 7/8/2007  9:25 AM

It seems that there are conflicting reports concerning the molds and tooling for orbiter production. I read somewhere that the molds and tooling is stored, others are saying that they have been destroyed. Does anybody know more? Thanks Stefan :)

Many of the jigs, etc have been stored throughout the years.  Very recently they have started to be scrapped from Palmdale.  Some equipment to build orbiters and large tooling, jigs that make certain LRU's has bounced from place to place recently landing at MAF.  The process is currently in work to scrap that hardware.

Thanks very much OV-106 for the clearification. I am not happy about this but at least we now know what happened to this stuff. Stefan :)

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Quote
Jim - 7/8/2007  11:26 AM

Fairchild made the vertical stabilizer.  
Grumman made the wings

Both out on Long Island, right?  Never thought I'd see Grumman disappear so quickly, given how big it was even in the 80's when my grandfather retired from Bethpage...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
They were dinosaurs.  Douglas was at onetime the largest employer in the US

Offline sopwithuk

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The President can order anything he/she wants right?  So I would not be surprised if the new President ordered NASA to continue with the shuttle as I can't see the USA being happy with no access to orbit for years exept with Russian help.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Quote
sopwithuk - 8/8/2007  2:49 PM

The President can order anything he/she wants right?  So I would not be surprised if the new President ordered NASA to continue with the shuttle as I can't see the USA being happy with no access to orbit for years exept with Russian help.

He can order, but NASA is limited in what they can do. Congress and the Supreme Court have ways in which they can block presidential orders too. With just three Shuttles, the program is very vulnerable to the loss of an orbiter. There would need to be a compelling reason to launch a Shuttle when you're down to two Shuttles. And the more launches you perform *instead* of developing a new launcher, then the worse this risk becomes.

My take is that there may be enough equipment around for a few launches after the official end of the program (the provision launches may take this into account), but the program is going to go.

Finally, I'm glad to see the end of the program on the horizon. The Shuttle showed that the technology was possible, but we never achieved the launch frequency that would make the Shuttle competitive in any sense. Further, I don't like the low launch frequency of the two Ares vehicles nor that NASA fails to use commercial alternatives. I think it better to launch 6 Delta IV heavies than one Ares V, for example. Sadly, the commercial launch industry languishes while NASA comes up with an expensive workaround.
Karl Hallowell

Offline CuddlyRocket

Quote
sopwithuk - 8/8/2007  10:49 PM

The President can order anything he/she wants right?
Er, no.

The President proposes, Congress disposes. In other words, the President can propose that NASA continue flying the STS, but unless Congress provides the funds, nothing is going to happen.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Quote
Jim - 7/8/2007  1:29 PM

They were dinosaurs.  Douglas was at onetime the largest employer in the US

Wow.  I had no idea.
Scott

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Quote
stockman - 7/8/2007  12:12 PM

Quote
ApolloLee - 7/8/2007  11:59 AM

The shuttle's time is done, but it is most certainly possible that a new administration will save us from Ares I....

be careful what you wish for. "saving" us from Ares I could be as simple as cancelling it all together with nothing but long range studies of what we should do and no hardware to actually do anything with. Don't wish the political types a reason to get rid of this too quickly unless you are sure a better solution will be offered up in its place.

I hope I don't sound too zealous, but cancelling the whole Ares program and studying better LV replacements for a year would probably be better than what is going on now.  Let's design and begin to build the best Orion we can for beyond LEO ops, then let's choose the best CLV/CaLV.

But back to the topic: while I can't see any push to "save" the STS program, to extend its service for a short time might be feasible.  I can see a major call for it from certain congressmen, as the manned spaceflight gap only gets longer.
Scott

Offline stefan1138

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I think one of the most critical aspects in this respect is the production of additional tanks. As the last tank is already in production, not sure if at this point additional ones can be ordered.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Also, keep in mind Atlantis gets mothballed in '08.  Kinda like the PRV for this flight, it's going to get raided for parts for the other orbiters.  Bringing it back online after this point is non-trivial.  Also, the decision point for STS after FY10 is this December or January.  That's the lead time required to build an ET (maybe some other long-leads too).  So we'll know in a matter of months what the strategic decision is.  Missions may get delayed past the current sunset, but no additional missions will be possible.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline stefan1138

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Antares - 9/8/2007  9:35 AM

Also, keep in mind Atlantis gets mothballed in '08.  Kinda like the PRV for this flight, it's going to get raided for parts for the other orbiters.  Bringing it back online after this point is non-trivial.  Also, the decision point for STS after FY10 is this December or January.  That's the lead time required to build an ET (maybe some other long-leads too).  So we'll know in a matter of months what the strategic decision is.  Missions may get delayed past the current sunset, but no additional missions will be possible.

Thanks Antares for your clearification of the tank issue. Do you have a source for this? Thanks Stefan :)

Offline H-Dot Max

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
stefan1138 - 7/8/2007  9:01 AM

Ok, maybe the buildings are gone, but wouldn´t it be wise to store the molds, jigs and tooling? I know it is to late know, but what would have happened if let´s say in the nineties there would have been a need for a new orbiter (because of unrepairable damage to one of the others for example)? I think this decision to abandon this hardware was really shortsighted (if it is in fact true that this equipment no longer exists).

The biggest mistake is not in keeping the facilities and resources to keep the shuttles operating, but they should have been building on the shuttle's early success and creating a next-generation reusable spacecraft.

OV-099 through OV-105 were essentially test vehicles that could perform routine spaceflight objectives on what should have been a limited basis.

At this point, if there had been better vision and more favorable government support, the classic shuttles would already be retired and replaced by a newer STS.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
No, new shuttles are still wrong.  The business case doesn't support a shuttle RLV.  RLV won't be viable for some time to come.  And there is not need for a "shuttle"  The shuttle paradigm is wrong

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Quote
Antares - 9/8/2007  9:35 AM

Also, keep in mind Atlantis gets mothballed in '08.  Kinda like the PRV for this flight, it's going to get raided for parts for the other orbiters.  Bringing it back online after this point is non-trivial.  Also, the decision point for STS after FY10 is this December or January.  That's the lead time required to build an ET (maybe some other long-leads too).  So we'll know in a matter of months what the strategic decision is.  Missions may get delayed past the current sunset, but no additional missions will be possible.

Longest-lead items I know of are the 17-inch disconnects on the ET. They apparently have a lead time of 24-36 months even when the production line is up and running. I can't imagine what it would be if you had to tack a production restart on top of that.

Agreed on the bottom line - existing manifest may stretch past 2010, but no new flights added to the manifest.
JRF

Offline Paul Adams

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • United Kingdom and USA
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 26
I think this is what I find most disappointing, although some decry it as a spectacular waste, I believe the shuttle is a spectacular success.

Why oh, why are we not building on the foundation provided by STS and developing a new reusable system? In four years when A1 has slipped due to development delays and the first manned flight is still another three years away, retiring the shuttle will be seen as a huge mistake.

I would much more happily settle for two flights a year into LEO while developing a next-generation shuttle, and then branching further out to the moon and Mars: put into place an infrastructure that can be built on economically and effectively.

I fully expect the next manned vehicle after A1 will have wings on it and land on runway to provide “operational economy”.

Thanks for all the posts everyone, it may be hopeless but I shall continue to hope that the next president will extend the STS program - and I will send her a bunch of roses when she does!!

Paul


The biggest mistake is not in keeping the facilities and resources to keep the shuttles operating, but they should have been building on the shuttle's early success and creating a next-generation reusable spacecraft.

OV-099 through OV-105 were essentially test vehicles that could perform routine spaceflight objectives on what should have been a limited basis.

At this point, if there had been better vision and more favorable government support, the classic shuttles would already be retired and replaced by a newer STS.[/QUOTE]
It's all in the data.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Quote
Jim - 9/8/2007  2:30 PM

No, new shuttles are still wrong.  The business case doesn't support a shuttle RLV.  RLV won't be viable for some time to come.  And there is not need for a "shuttle"  The shuttle paradigm is wrong

There is no business case for Ares I or Ares V either.  Eventually we do need to start advancing again.  How will we ever get anywhere if we don't invest in new technologies?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Not so.  Like I said to another one of your posts,  the shuttle paradigm is wrong.  RLV's will not be effective for many years.  The shuttle is not needed, it needs to be ended as soon as possible

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Quote
Paul Adams - 9/8/2007  2:40 PM

1.  I would much more happily settle for two flights a year into LEO while developing a next-generation shuttle, and then branching further out to the moon and Mars: put into place an infrastructure that can be built on economically and effectively.

2. I fully expect the next manned vehicle after A1 will have wings on it and land on runway to provide “operational economy”.


1.  Can't happen just based on NASA requirements

2.  Highly doubtful.  Especially for cargo

Offline Tergenev

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Jim, I'm curious. You state the fact that the shuttle paradigm is wrong and that RLVs won't be effective for many years. This kind of implies that RLVs may eventually be effective. What changes do you think would need to occur to the situational reality to make them effective? Is it merely economic? Is it materials science? Or is it dependent on having some other operational capability we don't currently have?

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Quote
stefan1138 - 9/8/2007  9:40 AM
Thanks Antares for your clearification of the tank issue. Do you have a source for this? Thanks Stefan :)
In the public domain, try the Joint Prop Conference papers or pitches from last month.  It was discussed there.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0