NASA weighs plan to keep space shuttle until 2017

[Chris Bergin]

Known about this for a long, long time, but was requested to hold in order not to damage discussions, so that was obviously to be respected.

Cat's out of the bag now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41397955/ns/technology_and_science-space/

[rdale]

That's a nice cat to let out

[lucspace]

Now this seems like the perfect transition scenario... that someone might have come up with some years ago...

[brettreds2k]

The articke kind of confuses me, IF this was to happen, would NASA fly and operate the shuttle still or would it go to a private company??

It states MAYBE 2 Shuttles would be kept in service and fly one mission each per year through 2017, if so since it would start in 2013, I assume that is adding in time to start up production of new tanks since it will take atleast 2 years to get new ones produced right?

How realistic is this to actaully happening and keeping 1 or 2 active and keep flying?

What man power would be required to keep one in flight ready status in the OPF? I mean once processed for a flight which takes months, what staff would be required to watch it just sit there for the next year or two?

[Launch Fan]

Very confusing article. Says they will fly Endeavour, but then says they will fly Atlantis too. Nothing about OMDPs. Quoting officials saying they aren't commenting.

[Namechange User]

The articke kind of confuses me, IF this was to happen, would NASA fly and operate the shuttle still or would it go to a private company??

It states MAYBE 2 Shuttles would be kept in service and fly one mission each per year through 2017, if so since it would start in 2013, I assume that is adding in time to start up production of new tanks since it will take atleast 2 years to get new ones produced right?

How realistic is this to actaully happening and keeping 1 or 2 active and keep flying?

What man power would be required to keep one in flight ready status in the OPF? I mean once processed for a flight which takes months, what staff would be required to watch it just sit there for the next year or two?

No, they would be operated "commercially".  NASA would be involved in the COFR process but otherwise that is about it.  Think of it as a "pathfinder" to how the agency will learn to work with commercial.

Yes, it factors in time for ET production.

Technically, the orbiters are in great shape.  There are no concerns there.  Politics will likely dictate and outweigh the logic process on if this is required or not. 

Two flights a year is very doable and the manpower required is part of the proposal. 

[Namechange User]

Very confusing article. Says they will fly Endeavour, but then says they will fly Atlantis too. Nothing about OMDPs. Quoting officials saying they aren't commenting.

You need two for the "LON requirement".  OMDPs would be accomplished at KSC, as they are now, during the year.

[mikes]

Very confusing article. Says they will fly Endeavour, but then says they will fly Atlantis too.

The proposal ... would use Endeavour as well as a sister shuttle, Atlantis, to fly two missions a year

Note "use" - perhaps they mean to cannibalize her?

[brettreds2k]

So if its commercial, NASA would still process and Mission Control would still handle the flight but funding would come from commercial?? Im sorry for sounding stupid here, Just confused.

[yg1968]

If they are able to commercially operate the Shuttle at $1.5B per year, it makes you think that the same could be done for the SD-HLV.  This is thinking outside the box!

[mr. mark]

This is the worst idea ever. Talk about crippling the future. These birds need to be retired now, not in 2017. We need to start building on the future for new private vehicles that can do multiple uses such as the ISS,Bigelow station and the russian station. NASA continues to throw away the future for the past. Encouraging new technology such as Dragon, Orion, Dreamchaser and the Prometheus is the way to go.

[Ronsmytheiii]

If they are able to commercially operate the Shuttle at $1.5B per year, it makes you think that the same could be done for the SD-HLV.  This is thinking outside the box!

Makes you wonder whether that is what the end goal for USA through this scenario.....

[go4mars]

Shuttle:  56 people, and 160 tons of cargo over 4 years for $6 billion. 

Dragon:  $1 billion to develop + 56 people ($1.2 billion) + 160 metric tons of cargo ($3.65 assuming COTS pricing).  = $5.85 billion.

On the surface, that is VERY comparable.  So if NASA can get 2 shuttles up per year for $1.5 billion per year (including all costs such as external tank tooling recreation), then that appears to be a good deal (using SpaceX as the low cost comparator).  Shuttle can take up more modules, and there would be less ISS traffic.  That's got to be worth something too. 


Not sure how it fits in legally (not competing with commercial).
Also not sure how it works out longer term.  Will other new systems never be allowed to test their wings (or heatsheilds)?

[Namechange User]

This is the worst idea ever. Talk about crippling the future. These birds need to be retired now, not in 2017. We need to start building on the future for new private vehicles that can do multiple uses such as the ISS,Bigelow station and the russian station. NASA continues to throw away the future for the past. Encouraging new technology such as Dragon, Orion, Dreamchaser and the Prometheus is the way to go.

This doesn't mean those can't happen. 

I mean who can argue with such compeling arguements like "crippling the future", "these birds need to be retired now" , "private vehicles" (financed by the government), etc!

Besides it is hardly a guarantee. 

[Carl G]

And the site gets to keep the current logo