hyper_snyper - 26/4/2008 5:40 PMSpaceX Dragon has that exposed 'trunk' section or whatever. That could be put to use bringing oversized unpressurized stuff, no?
psloss - 26/4/2008 3:31 PMFWIW, STS-125 shouldn't really be counted -- there's 10 remaining ISS shuttle flights manifested: 1J, ULF2, 15A, 2J/A, 17A, ULF3, 19A, ULF4, 20A, ULF5.
HIPAR - 26/4/2008 4:03 PMRight, something like that solves the problem. There's absolutely no need to fly manned logistical missions to sustain the ISS after it's finished. They might need to work around some problems but that's how the international aerospace community excels.--- CHAS
Bubbinski - 26/4/2008 5:15 PMApparently the U.S. won't be buying Progress cargo flights from Russia after 2011, according to the latest Aviation Week. NASA will be relying on COTS. So yeah, I'd say it's necessary to make sure all the shuttle flights get flown that are needed to keep it going past retirement, even if they have to stretch out the shuttle program. As a space and shuttle fan, and more importantly, as a working taxpayer, I would hope NASA comes up with a good plan to deal with the supply shortfall, and that it gets the money it needs to execute that plan. ISS is a very expensive and important asset and full use needs to be made of it.
Hall: You may have to answer this in writing. In order for NASA to continue buying Soyuz, congress has to approve an exception to the Iran non-proliferation act. What would be the consequences if Congress did not pass that exception this year but it didn’t happen until next year.
Gerstenmaier: We really need that now. It takes 3 years to get the vehicle built. We need to get that approval this summer. We need a US presence to operate the US segment and we need the Soyuz to get us there. The only way to get them there initially is with the Soyuz. It is mandatory that congress approve the exception the Iran non-proliferation act.
Jorge - 26/4/2008 1:33 PMQuoteBubbinski - 26/4/2008 2:34 PMIdeally, how many flights would be needed for sufficient spares and supplies to keep ISS flying to 2016? There are 11 shuttle flights left on the current schedule.Two.
Bubbinski - 26/4/2008 2:34 PMIdeally, how many flights would be needed for sufficient spares and supplies to keep ISS flying to 2016? There are 11 shuttle flights left on the current schedule.
Bubbinski - 26/4/2008 1:38 PMJorge, are you saying two more shuttle flights than is currently on the manifest? If so, is there any advance planning being done for them?
Norm Hartnett - 26/4/2008 8:00 PMWhile STS-125 is not an ISS flight it is still in the launch manifest and impacts the flight rate which in turn impacts whether ULF5 and possibly ULF4 fly before the end of FY2010.
psloss - 26/4/2008 6:46 PMQuoteNorm Hartnett - 26/4/2008 8:00 PMWhile STS-125 is not an ISS flight it is still in the launch manifest and impacts the flight rate which in turn impacts whether ULF5 and possibly ULF4 fly before the end of FY2010.Point taken. It does have a near-term impact on the pace of the flights.I'm not sure that looking at recent flight history can be used to accurately forecast the flight rate for the next few years. We're still close in time to a number of disruptions that were probably singular events (hail storm), nagging issues (LH2 ECO system), the STS-400 LON requirement, and things like Endeavour's OMDP (which kept it out of the rotation for a long time). It's possible that most of those things are now behind the program at this point, and all three orbiters are on flight status, which is still a relatively new development.
psloss - 26/4/2008 6:46 PMAt this point, I'd be more curious about what it would cost to protect the option of flying a little longer -- for instance, by ordering a few more tanks (and the other critical items). On the face of it, that would seem cheaper than committing to another year of shuttle operations at this point.
psloss - 26/4/2008 6:46 PMAnd there's always the possibility on the other end of the spectrum, that one more year might not be enough.
Bubbinski - 26/4/2008 3:38 PMJorge, are you saying two more shuttle flights than is currently on the manifest? If so, is there any advance planning being done for them?
Norm Hartnett - 26/4/2008 11:41 PMIn the FY2008 Budget NASA was specifically directed to protect their ability to continue shuttle operations. Unfortunately with the long lead times required to maintain the capability to launch shuttles into FY2011 I am not sure having the materials/equipment for those launches is enough. NASA seems to be proceeding with the dismantling of the infrastructure required to launch into FY2011 both in terms of ground facilities and personnel.
Analyst - 27/4/2008 8:01 AMExtend Space Shuttle flights until there is another domestic capability for humans and cargo to reach ISS and return. Analyst
Analyst - 27/4/2008 3:01 AMExtending Space Shuttle lifetime for anaother year?I go much beyond this: Extend Space Shuttle flights until there is another domestic capability for humans and cargo to reach ISS and return. The return part is for cargo too: 10-20kg per Soyuz is nothing to utilize ISS for science. Fly the Space Shuttle twice a year starting 2011, fund a real science/use/application program for ISS. Use the massive investment being made. Carry experiments and ORUs – internal in MPLMs and external – up and down. Do crew rotations. Use the Shuttle (and ISS) for its design purpose.Develop a replacement vehicle in parallel – contrary to popular mythology it can be done. And as a matter of fact is and has been for almost three years now. If you spend just $1 billion per year for the replacement, you have $10 billion in ten years. What does Constellation spend in 2008? More. This will give you a well designed capsule including a cargo carrying variant. Not cutting edge shiny technology, but a replacement. Launchers are already standing arround. When this replacement is flying – and not before – retire the shuttle. When – at not before – use any surplus money to start doing new stuff or make existing stuff better. New is not always better, improving step by step can be a way too.Don’t stop dreaming but be aware of it. Be realistic about leaving LEO. Ask the “why” question, ask the question to the people paying for this. And keep in mind the changing answers to this question for past and current programs: Why Apollo (1961 vs. 1970)? Why a Space Shuttle (1972 vs. 2008)? Why a Space Station (1984 vs. 2008)? Why a lunar base (2008 vs. 2030)? Why Mars?Analyst
Patriot1776 - 27/4/2008 2:31 PM.... when we have an unmanned variant for ISS cargo, THEN retire the Shuttle and start work on switching Pad 39A over and flying Ares V.
Analyst - 27/4/2008 3:01 AM Fly the Space Shuttle twice a year starting 2011, fund a real science/use/application program for ISS. Use the massive investment being made. Carry experiments and ORUs – internal in MPLMs and external – up and down. Do crew rotations. Use the Shuttle (and ISS) for its design purpose.Develop a replacement vehicle in parallel – contrary to popular mythology it can be done. And as a matter of fact is and has been for almost three years now. If you spend just $1 billion per year for the replacement, you have $10 billion in ten years. What does Constellation spend in 2008? More.
And who pays for all of this?
Easy for others offshore to say the US should do this and this and this, but kindly tell us where the money would come from.
I love the way you say "if you spend this and you spend that....". You wanna chip in to help? No, didn't think so.
And as for flying the Shuttle twice a year starting in 2011, also not going to happen.
The shutdown of the program is underway even as we speak, and I don't think you realize how much we are pushing our luck each time we fly it. If we continue with it, there WILL be another LOC accident, it is inevitable. Like asteroid hits and the Big One in California, it is just a question of when.
The Shuttle is magnificent, but its time has passed, there are better, safer ways to do things on the horizon and it is time to move on.
Analyst - 27/4/2008 3:52 PMBut you shouldn’t shoot the messenger just because you don’t like the message.Analyst
Analyst - 27/4/2008 3:52 PMBut you have to realize ambitions and reality differ widely. Analyst
Analyst - 27/4/2008 12:52 PMThe US is not willing to spend the ressources needed for its human space program ambitions. This is a decision a society can make, I don’t criticise this. But you have to realize ambitions and reality differ widely. Again, its your space program, I am just noting from offshore. But you shouldn’t shoot the messenger just because you don’t like the message.
khallow - 27/4/2008 9:59 PMSpending on the ISS (the worst of the white elephants) has grown to about 15-20 times the original price tag way back when.
khallow - 27/4/2008 7:59 PMAnother thing to consider is whether the current ambitions are all that appropriate for a manned space program. A common problem as I see it are the white elephants. Expensive programs that don't provide much value in return. It's easy to claim that we're just not commited enough. But I see a good part of the problem in the programs and the shuffling that goes on after the program is underway. Spending on the ISS (the worst of the white elephants) has grown to about 15-20 times the original price tag way back when. The return on the station hasn't grown correspondingly (with the modest exception of some international benefit particularly to nuclear proliferation). It's reasonable in my view to expect that we could have built several ISS's for the cost of the one we did build with substantial increase in value obtained.
khallow - 27/4/2008 7:59 PMSo what is the benefit to extending the Space Shuttle's life? Especially if it ends up cutting into funding for future programs (which is the political reality of today)? I'm not enthusiastic about the ISS, but finishing the ISS seems a reasonable compromise. Similarly, extending the life of the Shuttle is a compromise with the future which I am not so sure is a good idea. It might be warranted to add components to the ISS and reach some satisfactory state of completeness, but it's unacceptable to keep the Shuttle running for years in order to provide routine access to the ISS. There simply isn't enough value gained to offset the negatives of keeping the Shuttle alive. It'd be better to hustle Ares I, manned EELV, DIRECT, etc.
khallow - 27/4/2008 7:59 PMI just find it disingenuous to complain about how underfunded the US space program is while ignoring how ineffective past and current efforts are.