Author Topic: Is it time to extend the STS operational lifetime another year?  (Read 40812 times)

Offline HIPAR

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
  • NE Pa (USA)
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
hyper_snyper - 26/4/2008  5:40 PM

SpaceX Dragon has that exposed 'trunk' section or whatever.  That could be put to use bringing oversized unpressurized stuff, no?  

Right, 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

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Quote
psloss - 26/4/2008  3:31 PM

FWIW, 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.

While 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.

Quote
HIPAR - 26/4/2008  4:03 PM

Right, 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

Depending on non-existant flight hardware to provide critical spares does not seem to me to be a good thing to bet a multi-billion dollar spacestation on. Not to mention the two year gap. JMO
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Bubbinski

Apparently 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.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Quote
Bubbinski - 26/4/2008  5:15 PM

Apparently 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.

Actually at this point NASA cannot buy anything from Russia. In the recent House hearing on the ISS this was said;

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

NASA has not requested an exception for Progress resupply, whether this is due to the success of the ATV or increased confidence in COTS I have no idea. If Congress does not approve an exception for Soyuz flights NASA will truly be in a hard place with the choice of abandoning the station or turning on-orbit operations of the US segment over to ESA or just possibly extending shuttle operations.

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Quote
Jorge - 26/4/2008  1:33 PM

Quote
Bubbinski - 26/4/2008  2:34 PM

Ideally, 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.

Quote
Bubbinski - 26/4/2008  1:38 PM

Jorge, are you saying two more shuttle flights than is currently on the manifest?  If so, is there any advance planning being done for them?

A good question Bubbinski, Jorge is that what you are saying? Two flights beyond ULF4 and ULF5 or are you saying that ULF4 and ULF5 are enough?

Do you have any information on what spares are being removed from the remaining manifests to allow repair parts for the SARJ and other new spares that may be added?

“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 26/4/2008  8:00 PM

While 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.

At 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.

And there's always the possibility on the other end of the spectrum, that one more year might not be enough.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Quote
psloss - 26/4/2008  6:46 PM

Quote
Norm Hartnett - 26/4/2008  8:00 PM

While 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.
True there have been several, err, off nominal occurrences. On the other hand the fleet is ageing, I wouldn’t even be urging the extension of flights if I didn’t think that the station was under threat and if I didn’t think that the extension could pay big benefits politically both nationally and internationally. The He tank deformation and the recent problems with the payload bay door hoses are only symptomatic of the problems. It is highly possible that other problems are going to crop up causing more delays to the launch manifest.

Quote
psloss - 26/4/2008  6:46 PM
At 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.
In 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.

Quote
psloss - 26/4/2008  6:46 PM
And there's always the possibility on the other end of the spectrum, that one more year might not be enough.
If the fleet is that fragile then grounding it ASAP and finding some other method of salvaging the station is mandatory. Constellation would not be the answer unfortunately.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Quote
Bubbinski - 26/4/2008  3:38 PM

Jorge, are you saying two more shuttle flights than is currently on the manifest?  If so, is there any advance planning being done for them?

No, I'm referring to the two Contingency Logistics Flights that are already on the manifest.
JRF

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Extending 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

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Quote
Norm Hartnett - 26/4/2008  11:41 PM

In 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.
Sounds like another "unfunded mandate" to me.  What other parts of the infrastructure are you referring to?

Offline cb6785

  • First Officer MD11F / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1195
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 3
Quote
Analyst - 27/4/2008  8:01 AM

Extend Space Shuttle flights until there is another domestic capability for humans and cargo to reach ISS and return.

Analyst

What timeframe are you thinking of? Next operational flight as currently scheduled would be Orion 4 which would be (very optimistic best case) sept. 2014. This would mean 7 additional STS missions. But most likely with sticking to the AresI/Orion system we can add at least two years until operation. (11 additional mission).
I truly support the idea of flying two times a year, closing the gap. But how much capacity for expanding the manifest is there with the hardware we have?
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

Offline Patriot1776

  • Big Linux User
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • North Carolina, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
Analyst - 27/4/2008  3:01 AM

Extending 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

This idea right here makes the most sense in terms of keeping us in space during Constellation's early years and retaining capability, gradual transition.  Keep Pad 39A for Shuttle and let Pad 39B be for Orion/Ares I.  When Orion is flying missions and 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.

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 48
Quote
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.

Canceled.

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 48
Quote
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.

Offline Bubbinski

The problem of keeping ISS resupplied past 2010 is even making into into mainstream newspapers like today's Salt Lake Tribune, which reprinted an article from the Orlando Sentinel about this subject.  

Anyway, another thought popped into my head.  Could Shuttle-C be resurrected?  That would give NASA a lot of cargo capability, and use existing external tanks and SRB's.  Would that be workable?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
So let me adopt your tone for a second.

Quote
And who pays for all of this?

You. You personally as a US taxpayer, like any other US taxpayer. This is the way human spaceflight is payed for in the US since before 1961. And discounting some suborbital stunts, it will stay this way for quite some time.

Quote
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.

We can give advice, whether or not you listen is your problem. I agree, the US tends not to do so, mostly for the worse. Its your decision, and this is the way should be, absolutely. But please don’t be disappointed when it turns out the wrong decision.

Quote
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.

No, its your space program. But keep in mind you are spending this money for decades now. You paid for Shuttle and ISS for decades. We are talking small stuff compared to the money already invested. And now money is the issue? Not in the big picture.

Quote
And as for flying the Shuttle twice a year starting in 2011, also not going to happen.

You have the magical crystal ball and can look into the future? I can’t. Would you share this ball?

Quote
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 odds are against LOC. Anyway, we will be pushing our luck any time we fly into space for a long time to come. There can always be another LOM or LOC, be it Shuttle, Orion or whatever. But contrary to your bad examples humans can and do work every day to prevent it. They can fail again, Shuttle or not. Even Soyuz can have a bad day.

Quote
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.

This horizon shifts one year into the future every year. These better, safer ways are not there today and in the next 8+ years, and even then only if they hold their promises. You remember the promises of the Shuttle, do you?

The 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.

Analyst

Offline DMeader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 959
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 48
Quote
Analyst - 27/4/2008  3:52 PM
But you shouldn’t shoot the messenger just because you don’t like the message.
Analyst

Exactly. Ditto for MY message.

I've been paying for human spaceflight out of my taxes since the sixties. Easy for the rest of the world to say "you should be paying for all these magnificent programs and hardware, shame on you for not doing it". I'd love to see more money for space,but (except for the stupid wasteful war we are stuck in)  the necessities of life have to be paid for as well. You have to realize that. The US is seen as this fantastically rich country that can afford to do anything, and that just is not the case.

I'll repeat your own words back to you:


Quote
Analyst - 27/4/2008  3:52 PM
But you have to realize ambitions and reality differ widely.
Analyst

Don't they?

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Quote
Analyst - 27/4/2008  12:52 PM


The 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.

Another 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.

So 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.

I just find it disingenuous to complain about how underfunded the US space program is while ignoring how ineffective past and current efforts are.
Karl Hallowell

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Quote
khallow - 27/4/2008  9:59 PM

Spending on the ISS (the worst of the white elephants) has grown to about 15-20 times the original price tag way back when.

Umm, wrong.
JRF

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Quote
khallow - 27/4/2008  7:59 PM
Another 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.

On the other hand what sense does it make to spend billions of dollars on a program and then discontinue it before it produces any results? I will refrain from pointing to the numerous X programs but it has always been acknowledged that the ISS could not produce good science until it had a larger crew. So just when the station is reaching the point where it might fulfill some of its early promises we discontinue it or risk its failure due to a lack of spares?

Quote
khallow - 27/4/2008  7:59 PM
So 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.

I am only urging the continuation of the Shuttle program a single year to insure that the last two contingency flights do fly. I do think that consideration should be given to the possibilities of flying another spares/supply mission and an AMS mission so long as they can be flown within that one year window. I believe the STS is to old and to dangerous to consider flying past that. It is a question of balancing the risks of the STS and the risk to the ISS.

Quote
khallow - 27/4/2008  7:59 PM
I just find it disingenuous to complain about how underfunded the US space program is while ignoring how ineffective past and current efforts are.

Abiding by an artificial deadline and failing to complete the ISS mission is not going to be a motivator for funding of any further NASA programs. Either in Congress or with the American people.
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Tags:
 

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