Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012

[Chris Bergin]

At the request of a member that wasn't able to start the poll (we'll look into that)...

I'll add the considerations:

Pro: Ensures completion of the manifest (with CLFs) and potential of AMS (STS-134). (Note: At present, they can do everything bar 134 by May 2010).

Con: CxP lose budget expectations from STS retirement for two years.

Pro: Large amounts of the USA (and others) workforce avoid pink slips for a couple of years.

Con-ish: Orbiter health - would likely require another "Atlantis to 2010" style review of the mini-OMDPs. One orbiter would certainly need to be retired for spares.

Pro: US manned capability is extended.

Con: Gap at the other end is likely to be moved right - (though CxP is slipping regardless).

Lots of other elements to this, such as political, and Griffin not being in charge (though that's close to reality).

Personally, yes - to 2012. The shuttle works, CxP is struggling with Ares. The argument of "but we need to get out of LEO" is not valid right now, imho, as the concentration is almost soley on Orion to ISS.

[Bubbinski]

I'd like to see them go to 2012, to ensure the ISS is finished and maybe even add a few flights for logistics, to help the complex live up to its potential.  I would also combine that with a big effort to get Dragon running or to get Orion up on a different vehicle than the "stick" since it won't be ready till 2015. 

The moon is an excellent objective, one that needs to be kept in view, but the Int'l Space Station is the world community's first real "base" in low earth orbit and needs to be used to its fullest in my opinion.

[AresWatcher]

We're just delaying the gap aren't we? It's danergous to assume the shuttle is now safe, it's still more dangerous than Ares/Orion is proposing to be.

[gladiator1332]

I think with the safety checks that are now in place it is safe to fly until 2012. But I think it has to be 2012 with good reason. There is no reason to fly Shuttle to deliver more toilet paper to the ISS, use progress for that.
But if completing the ISS comes into play, 2012 will give NASA more time to work with. A 2010 deadline may cause corners to be cut.

[Jorge]

We're just delaying the gap aren't we? It's danergous to assume the shuttle is now safe, it's still more dangerous than Ares/Orion is proposing to be.

Who's assuming the shuttle is safe? I don't think anyone is. Of course, no spacecraft is, in any objective sense. Broadly speaking, there are two classes of manned spacecraft: those with a 1 in roughly-60 fatality rate, and those that never flew enough to even demonstrate a 1 in roughly-60 fatality rate.

Ares/Orion may propose whatever numbers they wish, but Orion would have to complete its first 62 manned flights without a fatality to demonstrate a better fatality rate than the shuttle. The odds of that are quite low, for a variety of reasons.

Nor will the risk associated with flying the shuttle sharply increase after 2010. If the risk increases at all, it will do so gradually. There was nothing special about the date 2010 when the CAIB wrote R9.2-1, and there was nothing special about the administration adopting that date for shuttle retirement, other than being able to make a public show of accepting the CAIB recommendations as program requirements.

The valid reason to retire the shuttle is that its high costs of operations "sucks all the air out of the room" for funding development of replacement vehicles.

[Bubbinski]

"There is no reason to fly Shuttle to deliver more toilet paper to the ISS"

True, but isn't it also true that there would be a lot of science racks not filled by the time the shuttle retired?  If NASA flies additional logistics missions I would hope they would get to fill up those racks.  Also doesn't the shuttle fly up a LOT of water too, way more than a Progress?  The shuttle can carry lots more up there than other craft.

[hanschristian]

I agree with sir Chris' opinion...

The "we need to get out of LEO" mindset is kinda' screwed at the moment... they have to prepare carefully for this... They may have already done it 39 years ago, and currently have more than adequate technology to do it again, but still, its still not as easy as anyone thinks... Just like when the Apollo program was commencing...

Also, unlike before, going beyond LEO for the sake of going there is not the only goal in mind... since they plan to exploit the potential benefits of going that far...

IMO, probably its best that they prepare everything in LEO, starting with the most important ones (whatever it may be)...

"To say which lesson is more important is like saying, which number on a phonebook is the most important... The most important one is the one you need to call next"

 - Dr. David Wolf

[Analyst]

We're just delaying the gap aren't we? It's danergous to assume the shuttle is now safe, it's still more dangerous than Ares/Orion is proposing to be.

Who's assuming the shuttle is safe? I don't think anyone is. Of course, no spacecraft is, in any objective sense. Broadly speaking, there are two classes of manned spacecraft: those with a 1 in roughly-60 fatality rate, and those that never flew enough to even demonstrate a 1 in roughly-60 fatality rate.

Ares/Orion may propose whatever numbers they wish, but Orion would have to complete its first 62 manned flights without a fatality to demonstrate a better fatality rate than the shuttle. The odds of that are quite low, for a variety of reasons.

Nor will the risk associated with flying the shuttle sharply increase after 2010. If the risk increases at all, it will do so gradually. There was nothing special about the date 2010 when the CAIB wrote R9.2-1, and there was nothing special about the administration adopting that date for shuttle retirement, other than being able to make a public show of accepting the CAIB recommendations as program requirements.

The valid reason to retire the shuttle is that its high costs of operations "sucks all the air out of the room" for funding development of replacement vehicles.

Well put. I disagree with your last paragraph:

CxP already gets $ 2.5 billion/year, now, with Shuttle still flying. Saying it "sucks all the air out of the room" is not correct. This is why the "you just delay the gap" talk is a myth. $ 2.5 billion/year are $ 20 billion in 8 years, this should be enough to fly Orion to LEO (development and later operations). Then and only then you can take the additional Shuttle money and invest in whatever else.

Analyst

[psloss]

CxP already gets $ 2.5 billion/year, now, with Shuttle still flying. Saying it "sucks all the air out of the room" is not correct. This is why the "you just delay the gap" talk is a myth. $ 2.5 billion/year are $ 20 billion in 8 years, this should be enough to fly Orion to LEO (development and later operations).

These statements you make are just as much myth.  We've already discussed this before:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13336.msg285957#msg285957

The plan that Congress authorized and the President signed into law is being executed, and that plan depends on shuttle money and shuttle resources after FY 2010.

Even if Orion and Ares can be completed without shuttle money, if the law says no money for shuttle after FY 2010 and transfers the shuttle people and facilities over to CxP for development and operations, what might be possible becomes a "what if" discussion.

[brihath]

I voted to extend to 2012 for several reasons:

CxP is experiencing delays that will increase the length of the gap and put a strain on supporting ongoing ISS operations.

Since the return to flight, NASA has made steady progress in mitigating the foam release issues with the ET, lowering the risk level with Shuttle.  Even with the increased scrutiny the Orbiters are getting, we are seeing extremely clean vehicles post mission.  I feel we should take advantage of these improvements.

The ISS is just nearing full capability and we are going to "pull the rug out" by retiring the Shuttle, limiting our ability to gain from the investment we made in the ISS.

If we retire Shuttle we will have all our eggs in one basket with manned access.  The recent history of Soyuz reentry incidents points out that no spacecraft is without risk, even one with a long flight history.  We put the all ISS ops at risk by relying on Soyuz alone for what seems to be an ever longer gap.

The Shuttle offers something no other spacecraft has-significant downmass capability.  Depending upon the experiments being flown on ISS, this could be a useful capability.

There doesn't seem to be evidence that NASA has fully resolved the logistics capability shortfall post shuttle.  Maintaining that capability, especially in a six crew environment can give NASA the time to develop that capability.

One caveat to my vote...there must be a commitment by NASA and Congress to provide additional funding to support the extension.

[Paul Adams]

My personal preference is to keep the shuttle flying two missions per year for as long as it takes to get a replacement ready.

I think it is necessary to look at the big picture when considering post shuttle programs. I see many negatives:

Issues with the stick that do not seem to have an acceptable solution.
A (probably) incoming president that is anti manned spaceflight that will cut funding to NASA whenever possible, regardless of what back peddling he may currently be doing.
A failing economy that will only provide reason for the above.

I do not wish to be a naysayer as I greatly support the space program, but now what with technical and political problems, the future looks bleak for the US manned space program. I fear that everyone supporting government-funded system is going to be disappointed: we that support the shuttle, those that want the stick and those who promote use of existing launchers.

My bet, ramp up COST D while NASA develops the next reusable system, learns the lessons of shuttle 1 and builds a system that delivers true cost effective operation.

Paul

[psloss]

Pro: Ensures completion of the manifest (with CLFs) and potential of AMS (STS-134). (Note: At present, they can do everything bar 134 by May 2010).

Question: does this assume keeping tank production open or just stretching the existing manifest so that shuttles fly in 2011 and 2012?

[William Barton]

I voted yes on the assumption this would mean 4 - 5 additional flights (including AMS), along with some added tank production. My reasoning is based on my gut feeling that the next Pres. is probably going to wind up canceling ESAS and looking for a new way forward. If the decision is made early on in 2009, I think Orion on EELV by 2013 is do-able. My forlorn hope is VSE would be continued with a somewhat altered architecture. DIRECT or some other SDV, including various side-mount options, as CaLV (no problem because no man-rating). It would even be okay if Congress would buy into funding complete Ares V development 2013-2018.

[cb6785]

If it would be my decision I would keep Shuttle running on a lower rate with two orbiters (the third one for spare parts, etc.) let's say maybe 2-4 launches a year as needed until there is a second way for ISS access besides Soyuz (whatever may be ready to fly first (and gets funded): Orion on Ares, Orion on EELV, Dragon on Falcon, etc.). When this "basis" is established then all the Shuttle funding can be transfered to the next steps (Lunar outpost, required heavylifter, etc.).

So, yes, I voted 2012.

[marshallsplace]

ISS in LEO is where it's at (at the moment).

Retiring the Shuttle as soon as the ISS is "finished" has always seemed wrong to me.

NASA maintaining the ability to reach the ISS using the shuttle for transportation of people, experiments, certain heavy-lift spares... etc, has got to make sense for the health of the ISS.

[SimonFD]

I voted undecided....

Mostly because I can't make up my mind what the effect on CxP would be.
I want the shuttle to fly as long as possible to deliver everything that ISS needs to be completely functional but at the same time I want Orion to fly so that Moon flights become a possibilty.
If by flying the shuttle for another two years you delay CxP by the same amount then maybe it gives them more time to sort out the current issues. But wouldn't a 2010 finish for shuttle give CxP the extra cash to knock these issues on the head?

I dunno.............hence undecided

[SimonShuttle]

I voted yes, obviously. To vote no is a vote for the US - the all singing/all powerful super power - to be paying a billion or so to another country to ferry its astronauts to a $100b space station the US mainly paid for.

Just seems totally wrong.

[Chris Bergin]

Pro: Ensures completion of the manifest (with CLFs) and potential of AMS (STS-134). (Note: At present, they can do everything bar 134 by May 2010).

Question: does this assume keeping tank production open or just stretching the existing manifest so that shuttles fly in 2011 and 2012?

Key point I missed (D'Oh)! I am assuming a manifest stretch - but we could do with an update on the MAF cut-off date for new ET production, so I'll ask.

On the question of extending. If they stretch to 2012, it's about 8 billion whatever, right? You can launch one mission in a year, or six, it's still about the same baseline costs? (I remember reading here that the "It costs about a billion a launch" isn't correct)?

[psloss]

On the question of extending. If they stretch to 2012, it's about 8 billion whatever, right? You can launch one mission in a year, or six, it's still about the same baseline costs? (I remember reading here that the "It costs about a billion a launch" isn't correct)?

Yes, in that range for two fiscal years of shuttle operations.  Seems like a waste of $3-4 billion if they could fly even the AMS mission with the repaired tank as a standby in 2011.  The provision in the Senate authorization bill essentially proposes this, that the program must complete the manifest plus fly AMS before it can be retired.

If the next Congress and next Administration reconsiders overall space policy and the VSE is "cancelled," then ending the shuttle program in 2012 seems arbitrary.

[texas_space]

I voted for ending shuttle operations in 2010.  Constellation needs the shuttle funding to do what it has set out to do.  Delaying the retirement of STS will only move the gap to right;  it won't make it shorter.  I don't like the gap at all, but it's inevitable at this point.

As far as safety goes, the shuttle is needed to finish the ISS.  Once that is done, it is not worth the risk to crews to ferry supplies.  Flying the shuttle longer than needed is also a big risk to the overall human program.  If there is another deadly shuttle accident, Congress will not be inclined to support more manned spaceflight even if it will be safer than shuttle.  We must think the bigger picture here.

[Analyst]

CxP already gets $ 2.5 billion/year, now, with Shuttle still flying. Saying it "sucks all the air out of the room" is not correct. This is why the "you just delay the gap" talk is a myth. $ 2.5 billion/year are $ 20 billion in 8 years, this should be enough to fly Orion to LEO (development and later operations).

These statements you make are just as much myth.  We've already discussed this before:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13336.msg285957#msg285957

The plan that Congress authorized and the President signed into law is being executed, and that plan depends on shuttle money and shuttle resources after FY 2010.

Even if Orion and Ares can be completed without shuttle money, if the law says no money for shuttle after FY 2010 and transfers the shuttle people and facilities over to CxP for development and operations, what might be possible becomes a "what if" discussion.

Please. This poll is about "what if": Shuttle to 2010 or 2012. Within your argumentation even this poll is - I stretch it - against the law. Laws can be changed, happens more often than one thinks. Will happen here.

As for the budget numbers: They are (planned) facts and no myths. And they don't say anything about a gap. They only say CxP gets ~ $2.5 billion/year now and ~$6.5 to 7 billion/year after 2010. Sure you would delay the magical lunar stuff if you keep the Shuttle longer, but nowhere is it written the gap moves to the right 1:1.

Analyst

[psloss]

Please. This poll is about "what if": Shuttle to 2010 or 2012. Within your argumentation even this poll is - I stretch it - against the law.

If this is case, I agree.  Not against the law, just unrealistic.

Laws can be changed, happens more often than one thinks. Will happen here.

To be fair, I can't guarantee that policy inertia will win...what gives you the confidence that the policy will be changed?

As for the budget numbers: They are (planned) facts and no myths. And they don't say anything about a gap. They only say CxP gets ~ $2.5 billion/year now and ~$6.5 to 7 billion/year after 2010. Sure you would delay the magical lunar stuff if you keep the Shuttle longer, but nowhere is it written the gap moves to the right 1:1.

Fair enough.  Schedules are laid out based on the budget projections and I would assume integration to move to the right significantly at $800M per year instead of $2.5B, along with the shuttle employing a lot of people and continuing to use facilities like a test stand at Stennis vs. giving that up for CxP.  Closer to 1:1 than 0:1, in my opinion.

[Analyst]

A lot of the CxP money after 2010 is for Ares V/Altair etc. and has no impact to the (LEO) gap if removed to/kept at Shuttle. Sure keeping the Shuttle longer would take money, but not money needed nor planned for Orion LEO access. It would delay the lunar part, but not shift the gap to the right.

Analyst

[Tim S]

A lot of the CxP money after 2010 is for Ares V/Altair etc. and has no impact to the (LEO) gap if removed to/kept at Shuttle. Sure keeping the Shuttle longer would take money, but not money needed nor planned for Orion LEO access. It would delay the lunar part, but not shift the gap to the right.

Analyst

That's a myth. Large scale lunar development doesn't pick up till around 2014. All CxP effort goes into Ares/Orion prior to that. The next five to six years is Ares V/Altair. Work is being done already, but very prelim. It won't massively expand in 2010.

[ShuttleDiscovery]

I don't really mind as long as they fly STS-134 with AMS. Flying till 2012 would be nice though...

[Bubbinski]

"If the next Congress and next Administration reconsiders overall space policy and the VSE is "cancelled," then ending the shuttle program in 2012 seems arbitrary."

If the VSE is cancelled by the next President, then I say keep the shuttle flying and go to town with massive upgrades - a new orbiter or two, a new launch pad, high flight rate, keep ISS going and get a new grand project for the STS fleet (like say, large solar power in space facilities and a prototype small scale "space colony".  You could maybe even get started on a shuttle based program to go to the moon, I recall an Aviation Week article in 1993 talking about it).  I have previously thought that retiring the fleet in 2010 was the right thing to do, but if there's no VSE I would not want the US simply using Orion to shuttle crews to ISS and do nothing else, that's a step back.

I know, the shuttle fleet's getting old, there is the COPV issue, and the critical RCC nose and wing leading edges are exposed to debris strikes.  But surely if they make the commitment to keep shuttle flying a lot longer these issues can be dealt with.  After all, these birds were designed for 100 flights each, weren't they?  They've only gotten 20-30 flights per orbiter under their belt.

[Jamie Young]

Voted yes, but what's the big deal with AMS? I've seen images of it, looks small and can't be heavy, so would it also be a logisitic flight?

[mike robel]

My vote was for undecided.  I don't want shuttle to shut down in 2010, I want shuttle to shut down when it accomplishes its missions.

For example, lets say that something bad happens at Michoud that prevents them from providing ETs in a timely manner.  Let's further say that that happens in such a way that the last flight in 2010 can't get its tank until FEB 2011.  In that case, I would fly the shuttle in Feb 2011.  Under the current schedule, that would be that and we would not fly the final mission cause it is no longer 2010 and thta is when the shuttle is completed.

Fly to standards, not to time.

[Captain Scarlet]

Capt. Cernan said it best.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5462

Voted yes.

Pro: Large amounts of the USA (and others) workforce avoid pink slips for a couple of years.

What's a pink slip Chris?

[Chris Bergin]

What's a pink slip Chris?

US version of our P45.

[Jim]

What's a pink slip Chris?

Employment termination notice

[ShuttleDiscovery]

If the VSE is cancelled by the next President, then I say keep the shuttle flying and go to town with massive upgrades - a new orbiter or two, a new launch pad, high flight rate, keep ISS going and get a new grand project for the STS fleet

I really like that idea.

They sould stop wasting money on VSE/Constellation because we're only going to find out that we need an even bigger rocket or major changes (again!).

They should use the money on the shuttles! A new orbiter or two with major improvements such as a new TPS design and higher performance would be an excellent idea. The could give OV-103, 104 and 105 a major upgrade, and use them for ISS and Science missions (like what Columbia was doing and was planned to do before STS-107). This would mean the old shuttles would be safer and would peform much better that they could. Then they could use the 2 new orbiters fo a new STS project...

[psloss]

If the VSE is cancelled by the next President, then I say keep the shuttle flying and go to town with massive upgrades - a new orbiter or two, a new launch pad, high flight rate, keep ISS going and get a new grand project for the STS fleet

I really like that idea.

They sould stop wasting money on VSE/Constellation because we're only going to find out that we need an even bigger rocket or major changes (again!).

They should use the money on the shuttles! A new orbiter or two with major improvements such as a new TPS design and higher performance would be an excellent idea. The could give OV-103, 104 and 105 a major upgrade, and use them for ISS and Science missions (like what Columbia was doing and was planned to do before STS-107). This would mean the old shuttles would be safer and would peform much better that they could. Then they could use the 2 new orbiters fo a new STS project...

If shuttles were to be continued indefinitely, there would likely need to be a decent investment of money above and beyond the ops budget in terms of life extension; efforts to sustain the flight hardware and the support hardware for long-term use have been allowed to lapse based on current policy.  Some kind of recertification will need to be paid for, too.  All of which might suggest a stand-down in the near term.

Even if new orbiters weren't absolutely impossible, they would probably require a blank check, which is very unlikely.

[Analyst]

That's a myth. Large scale lunar development doesn't pick up till around 2014. All CxP effort goes into Ares/Orion prior to that. The next five to six years is Ares V/Altair. Work is being done already, but very prelim. It won't massively expand in 2010.

If you are correct, Ares I/Orion (to LEO) is even more expensive than I thought, arround $40 billion [sic!] from 2005 to 2016. Then Shuttle is a bargain for sure.

Analyst

[William Barton]

One of the advantages of Shuttle-C and other sidemount SDV concepts is, the Orbiter can continue flying from the same pads. I have sometimes wondered if developing a new orbiter for the same "launcher" (i.e., the ET and SRBs) would be viable, alongside Shuttle-C or other SDV. One with metallic TPS and a thermally protected ejection cabin. A ridiculous pipedream, at this point, of course. The time for that came and went a long time ago.

[marshallsplace]

If I were head of NASA (new thread maybe?).....

I would keep the shuttle operating to service the ISS and develop the Orion transportation system (on a liquid fuelled first stage concurrently. 

By the time the new Orion rocket is available and in service the ISS will be entering it's final stage and the shuttle would be retired. 

A heavy lift system design would then be carried out in earnest for moon etc. 

Hey, I can dream....

[cb6785]

Hey, I can dream....

Seems like we share some dreams

[Andrewwski]

First, I doubt VSE will be canned after so much has been put into it already.

As expensive as the shuttle is, it still works.  It does the job for LEO and ISS missions.  Are we going to gain much from flying it indefinitely?  I don't think so.  But I'd like to see if it could be flown a few missions a year during the "gap" (which wouldn't be a gap anymore).

I'd love to see the return to the moon and all of Orion's goals happen.  But if we're going to shoot ourselves in the foot with the "gap," it's not going to help anything.

And I concur on a liquid fueled rocket for Orion.  Without turning this into an EELV thread...it makes little sense to me why they're using solid.  Ares V or another heavy-lift vehicle would still be able to be used for the lunar missions.

[soldeed]

The shuttle should be retired on schedule!

It is too heavy relative to it's payload, too expensive to operate, and by it's design is inherently much more dangerous than a more conventional rocket.  If we keep operating it, it WILL kill more astronauts. in addition it will prevent Constellation from kicking into high gear as long as it's operating.

The argument that continuing to operate the shuttle will not delay constellation is ridiculous when the budget is considered;

http://history.nasa.gov/sepbudgetchart.pdf

Here we see the shuttle consumes over a third of NASA's budget. Thats pretty steep for an orbital taxi. NASA should be pushing human presence out into the solar system, and leave earth orbit operations to others.  I expect space X and others to do quite well. Heck, they may get to the moon BEFORE NASA. Part of the appeal of constellation to me is that for not much more of our national treasure than we are already spending to putter around in orbit, we can be really exploring. We should have already sent manned missions to mars by now, if we had built on the saturn architecture instead of going down the dead end of the shuttle!

EDIT; Oops after further study of the budget chart, and scrolling down to look at the gray part, The shuttle actually consumes LESS than a third of NASA's budget, but close to!

[soldeed]

Why the Space shuttle was a mistake to begin with and we should not have retired the saturn V;

The Space Shuttle has a liftoff thrust of 6.6 million pounds.

The Saturn V Boosters had a liftoff thrust of 7.5 million pounds.

The Space Shuttle can lift a payload of 40,000 pounds into low earth orbit.

The Saturn Five could lift a payload of 280,000 pounds into low earth orbit.

Lifting 280,000 pounds into low earth orbit, is equivalent to lifting 100,000 lb all the way to the moon. Remember, the Saturn V lifted the 100,000 lb lunar lander and command module (including fuel) all the way to the moon.

So, one Saturn V launch is equivalent to SEVEN Space Shuttle launches. You only had to launch one Saturn V to carry the same payload to low earth orbit (say, in order to build the international space station) as SEVEN Shuttle launches.

Which would have been cheaper, researching, developing and using the Space Shuttle, or just using the already researched and developed Saturn V's, each of which could haul SEVEN times as much gear into space as the Space Shuttle.
 
And just imagine, with upgrades in propulsion, avionics and lighter weight materials, what the modern evolution of the saturn would be capable of.

The shuttle was our biggest space mistake EVER!

[Norm Hartnett]

While the guy at the Post was talking through his hat when he said that the ISS was an interplanetary spaceship he was not that far wrong. If we can maintain our current shuttles while developing upgraded, improved shuttles then we can assemble a moon ship in LEO just as we did the ISS, one that can make the trip to the moon not once but many times. There is no way that launching from Earth’s surface to the moon is ever going to be affordable on a long-term basis, it is just not sustainable. Constellation is not sustainable, Direct is not sustainable, too much of the launch system is thrown away on each launch.
Use COTS, COTS-D, ATV, Progress, Soyuz, HTV to support the ISS and use the shuttle and Proton for the big up-mass and to bring down-mass down. Assemble an Earth-Moon taxi in LEO, use it to haul landers and payload to the moon and back. If we are going to the moon lets do it right, not a reprise of Apollo with it’s almost guaranteed built in cancellation.

[robertross]

So many great points of view, on both sides. I voted keeping the shuttle to 2012.

Personally I'm for keeping shuttle beyond 2012, whether that is adding flights, or extending the schedule. Reasons:

1. The investment in ISS is almost finished, so let's finish it. Having spent $1B on AMS, get it up there. As mentioned, if you have rack facilities available, fill them on the logistics missions. Get the necessary spares up. Personally I'd say add spare: ammonia tank, radiator, SARJ and solar array on orbit (but that will never happen).

2. With ISS complete, and whenever you have an alternative craft capable of reaching ISS (HTV, ATV, Orion, COTS) with crew and downmass capability, then plan the shuttle retirement date. Some experiments need to be returned to earth, so you need that downmass capability. relying on Soyuz is no different than relying on shuttle: you need alternatives in case of delays/disasters. How can you make a fixed date for something as complex and dangerous as space travel? Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

3. I don't see Ares I making it. I see it scrapped for something that will fly, whatever that is. I have my preference, but that's my view.

4. If you really want to get to the moon that badly (I'd say it's a good proving ground before Mars), then fund it - properly, or don't bother. Otherwise it will end up just like the ISS development: millions/billions in analysis, development, construction, revision, cancellation...until you end up with less than what you hoped for. Even worse if the whole thing is cancelled due to eyes bigger than the pocketbook.

Caviates:
1. Ensure sufficient funding to have 2 orbiters available for use, and retire one for spares. No need for 3 orbiters while nearing the end. Use what you got.

2. Hopefully the USA will not be in such a serious economic state that funding cuts across the board doesn't cripple every program. They will have to cut the fat, and I hate to say it, but that would mean the moon for now (Ares V). This fact reinforces the need to keep US spaceflight going in some minor capacity, and although the shuttle IS expensive, it works. Again, use what you got.

[Martin FL]

The shuttle was our biggest space mistake EVER!

Based on what? That it's LEO? Well guess what, for being a vehicle tied to LEO, those vehicles have achieved so much any comment like yours is nothing sort of rediculous.

Let's take back over 100 successful missions and pretend Apollo was extended. 1) Was never going to happen, no money. 2) It would have been only a matter of time before a crew died, was nearly Apollo 13 after all, and 3) The Cold War meant we needed Shuttle at the time.

It was good enough for the Soviets to build a fleet. So they made the same mistake? Look at the state of their program after Buran?

Shuttle allowed us to stay a word leader, and it's ironic we're worrying about that tide turning as we move away from Shuttle.

[soldeed]

Congress WILL NOT simultaneously fund shuttle and constellation sufficiently.  If you believe otherwise you are seriously deluding yourselves.  I've been around long enough to know how those clowns operate. Continuing to operate the shuttle will only extend the gap.  I have seen no convincing argument on this board for extending the shuttle program, rather it seems to me that too many people have an emotional attachment to the shuttle and are unwilling to let it go.  I was cured of that after Columbia.  We should not love spacecraft, but rather adventure and exploring spectacular places and doing great science as only humans can do.  As long as we operate the shuttle NASA CANNOT return to the moon OR go to mars.

[soldeed]

The shuttle was our biggest space mistake EVER!

Based on what? That it's LEO? Well guess what, for being a vehicle tied to LEO, those vehicles have achieved so much any comment like yours is nothing sort of rediculous.

Let's take back over 100 successful missions and pretend Apollo was extended. 1) Was never going to happen, no money. 2) It would have been only a matter of time before a crew died, was nearly Apollo 13 after all, and 3) The Cold War meant we needed Shuttle at the time.

It was good enough for the Soviets to build a fleet. So they made the same mistake? Look at the state of their program after Buran?

Shuttle allowed us to stay a word leader, and it's ironic we're worrying about that tide turning as we move away from Shuttle.

We spent billions developing the Saturns and were just getting good at operating them and then THREW THEM AWAY to start over from SCRATCH and spend more billions MORE developing the shuttle because they were thought to be cheaper. Well, somebody did'nt think that one through well enough IMHO.  We got something with considerably less payload capacity, more expensive to operate and more deadly to astronauts. Maybe Apollo would have eventually killed a crew, but it was not as inevitable as the shuttle, which has SO MANY ways to kill astronauts it's a wonder MORE have not died.

[Thorny]

The Space Shuttle can lift a payload of 40,000 pounds into low earth orbit.

The shuttle was our biggest space mistake EVER!

Shuttle can actually launch 55,000 lbs, not 40,000 lbs. Chandra was around 50,000 lbs. and that was on Columbia (which was heavier than the later Orbiters.)

Perhaps Shuttle was our biggest mistake ever, but I think the mistake was treating it as an operational rather than experimental vehicle, and not building improved derivatives based on what worked, and what didn't.

[Andrewwski]

And I hate when people say that the shuttle will be deadly, will have another accident, etc.

Well, I've got news for you.  If you think like that then Orion, or whatever flies in the future, for the US, commercial, whatever, will also suffer from the same.  Just because it's got a different TPS style doesn't mean it's any less prone to problems.  Maybe not the same problems, but there's many other things that can go wrong.  I prefer if people think cautiously...assume all possibilities, but think positively.

IMO foam loss is not a valid reason for retiring the shuttle.  True...it's definitely a concern, but a concern that has been addressed and lessened.  It's the high operating cost in relation to its return.  But it's all we have right now.  And I think it's too bad that Congress doesn't see an issue with the gap, as they really should appropriate more money to allow the shuttle to keep flying until Orion is ready.

[soldeed]

How is the shuttle more deadly? Let us count the ways;

1) No escape during early boost.  From liftoff until it gains enough altitude for a fly-back,  a serious malfunction (hard over, engine failure) will KILL the crew. A catastrophic (explosive) malfunction is potentially deadly all the way to MECO. Apollo had (and Orion WILL have) an escape system similar to the one that saved the Soyuz T-10A cosmonauts.

2) Hanging the spacecraft off the side of the fuel tank, right next to the SRB's to boot, is inherently dangerous. Refer to challenger accident. Even an escape capsule system may not have saved them.  On top of the rocket, you got a chance to get away.

3) Exposed heat shield during Ascent is fragile and easily damaged. Refer to Columbia accident.  Apollo and Orion's heat shields, are safely protected till needed assuring safe return.

Don't tell me that the shuttle is as safe as Orion will be, It's not! Especially in that early boost phase, when things are most likely to go to hell!

[Chris Bergin]

We spent billions developing the Saturns and were just getting good at operating them and then THREW THEM AWAY to start over from SCRATCH and spend more billions MORE developing the shuttle because they were thought to be cheaper. Well, somebody did'nt think that one through well enough IMHO.  We got something with considerably less payload capacity, more expensive to operate and more deadly to astronauts. Maybe Apollo would have eventually killed a crew, but it was not as inevitable as the shuttle, which has SO MANY ways to kill astronauts it's a wonder MORE have not died.

Apollo had lost nearly all public interest before Apollo 13, and lost it again right after, I believe.

It does leave a very sour taste in my mouth to read a poster on here saying deathtrap shuttle. I makes me feel like I've completely failed to get across the engineering safety that is involves with the vehicle. It's a very complex vehicle and the fact that its had so many successes is a testiment to the engineers and the lessons learned.

Like it or not, the experience of shuttle will be looked back in years and decades to come as the biggest plus point of future exploration, because of the challenges of Shuttle, because of the ISS - that wouldn't exist without shuttle and because of the knowledge that one doesn't just pack it in as a bad job when tradegy occurs - a risk that is there from SS2 to Soyuz.

THAT is not characterized as the biggest mistake ever.

[Bubbinski]

"If we are going to the moon lets do it right, not a reprise of Apollo with it’s almost guaranteed built in cancellation."

Agreed - one of the things that bugs me about Apollo is they never built an outpost or base.  I do not want to see renewed flights to the moon if the end result is not a permanently operated manned base, and I like the idea of a moonship assembled in LEO that could travel between the worlds repeatedly. 

One of the things I think is important about the Int'l Space Station is that it's actually a manned base of operations in LEO. I think if ISS hadn't been built and operating by the time STS-107 flew, I'm not sure the shuttle program would have returned to flight.  When ISS needs to be retired there had better be a replacement in the wings....maybe the ISS replacement could become the cornerstone of a new push for exploration?  Build a space station with living quarters, a Destiny/Kibo like lab, and fuel depots and docking facilities for a moonship that shuttles between LEO and lunar orbit.

[soldeed]

We spent billions developing the Saturns and were just getting good at operating them and then THREW THEM AWAY to start over from SCRATCH and spend more billions MORE developing the shuttle because they were thought to be cheaper. Well, somebody didn't think that one through well enough IMHO.  We got something with considerably less payload capacity, more expensive to operate and more deadly to astronauts. Maybe Apollo would have eventually killed a crew, but it was not as inevitable as the shuttle, which has SO MANY ways to kill astronauts it's a wonder MORE have not died.

Apollo had lost nearly all public interest before Apollo 13, and lost it again right after, I believe.

It does leave a very sour taste in my mouth to read a poster on here saying deathtrap shuttle. I makes me feel like I've completely failed to get across the engineering safety that is involves with the vehicle. It's a very complex vehicle and the fact that its had so many successes is a testament to the engineers and the lessons learned.

Like it or not, the experience of shuttle will be looked back in years and decades to come as the biggest plus point of future exploration, because of the challenges of Shuttle, because of the ISS - that wouldn't exist without shuttle and because of the knowledge that one doesn't just pack it in as a bad job when tragedy occurs - a risk that is there from SS2 to Soyuz.

THAT is not characterized as the biggest mistake ever.

Where could we be now had we continued to employ apollo/saturn?
A moon base, manned missions to mars, and who knows what else? And we didn't need no shuttle to make a space station! That's preposterous! We could have had a space station bigger than this one in the 70's had we not lost our way!  All the shuttle did for so many years was lame science experiments and expensively launch satellites and eat budget while we almost did away with expendable boosters.  Part of why it was so hard to get the ISS approved was how expensive the shuttles were to operate. And if 14 dead astronauts are not enough to convince anyone how dangerous the shuttle is, how many more? Spaceflight is inherently dangerous enough without tempting fate by flying flawed spacecraft.

[soldeed]

"If we are going to the moon lets do it right, not a reprise of Apollo with it’s almost guaranteed built in cancellation."

Agreed - one of the things that bugs me about Apollo is they never built an outpost or base.  I do not want to see renewed flights to the moon if the end result is not a permanently operated manned base, and I like the idea of a moonship assembled in LEO that could travel between the worlds repeatedly. 

One of the things I think is important about the Int'l Space Station is that it's actually a manned base of operations in LEO. I think if ISS hadn't been built and operating by the time STS-107 flew, I'm not sure the shuttle program would have returned to flight.  When ISS needs to be retired there had better be a replacement in the wings....maybe the ISS replacement could become the cornerstone of a new push for exploration?  Build a space station with living quarters, a Destiny/Kibo like lab, and fuel depots and docking facilities for a moonship that shuttles between LEO and lunar orbit.

Apollo was cancelled due to short sighted politicians. The hardware was solid. By apollo 17, we were good at it!  The more you build of something the cheaper the unit costs get, meaning a continuing exploration program would have meant cheaper rockets.  But NASA followed the siren song of the shuttle, and the result is no new bold exploration has occurred, except by robots,- YAWN!!

[Andrewwski]

You can't say that "we were good at it" by Apollo 17.

By the 17th shuttle flight there had been no disasters, and it was officially "operational."

Unfortunately, many of the things the shuttle was to offer never happened.  It was originally said to be worth it - but that's when it would fly 20+ times per year, fly in polar orbit, etc.  Would it have been?  That's up for debate, but it's worth noting that the way the shuttle is used now is much different than when the idea was conceived in the 1970's.

[soldeed]

You can't say that "we were good at it" by Apollo 17.

By the 17th shuttle flight there had been no disasters, and it was officially "operational."

Unfortunately, many of the things the shuttle was to offer never happened.  It was originally said to be worth it - but that's when it would fly 20+ times per year, fly in polar orbit, etc.  Would it have been?  That's up for debate, but it's worth noting that the way the shuttle is used now is much different than when the idea was conceived in the 1970's.

1) Yes I can! Many of the Astronauts felt the same way.

2) Apollo was safer than shuttle, can't convince me otherwise!

3) 20+ shuttle flights per year was never realistic as far as I was concerned. We were lied to!

4) On the contrary, NASA always wanted to build a space station, The shuttle is only just now (since the late 90's) being used for it's intended purpose, as opposed to the 80's- early 90's when quite frankly the things it was doing were science of limited utility or launching satellites  better done by expendable boosters. Once the ISS is done, no further reason to keep it going.

[Jorge]

We spent billions developing the Saturns and were just getting good at operating them and then THREW THEM AWAY to start over from SCRATCH and spend more billions MORE developing the shuttle because they were thought to be cheaper. Well, somebody didn't think that one through well enough IMHO.  We got something with considerably less payload capacity, more expensive to operate and more deadly to astronauts. Maybe Apollo would have eventually killed a crew, but it was not as inevitable as the shuttle, which has SO MANY ways to kill astronauts it's a wonder MORE have not died.

Apollo had lost nearly all public interest before Apollo 13, and lost it again right after, I believe.

It does leave a very sour taste in my mouth to read a poster on here saying deathtrap shuttle. I makes me feel like I've completely failed to get across the engineering safety that is involves with the vehicle. It's a very complex vehicle and the fact that its had so many successes is a testament to the engineers and the lessons learned.

Like it or not, the experience of shuttle will be looked back in years and decades to come as the biggest plus point of future exploration, because of the challenges of Shuttle, because of the ISS - that wouldn't exist without shuttle and because of the knowledge that one doesn't just pack it in as a bad job when tragedy occurs - a risk that is there from SS2 to Soyuz.

THAT is not characterized as the biggest mistake ever.

Where could we be now had we continued to employ apollo/saturn?
A moon base, manned missions to mars, and who knows what else?

No. NASA could not have afforded to resume production of the Saturn V on its budgets of the early 1970s, with or without the shuttle. At best, Saturn IB and Apollo CSM. So the answer to where NASA would be if they had continued to employ Apollo/Saturn is, a few S-IVB wet-lab stations in LEO, and not much else.

And if 14 dead astronauts are not enough to convince anyone how dangerous the shuttle is, how many more? Spaceflight is inherently dangerous enough without tempting fate by flying flawed spacecraft.

The shuttle's overall safety record is equal to that of the only other spacecraft (Soyuz) with a statistically significant number of flights. Broadly speaking, there are two classes of manned spacecraft: those with a demonstrated fatality rate of roughly 1 in 60 (Shuttle and Soyuz), and those that never flew enough to even demonstrate a fatality rate of 1 in 60 (everything else). The shuttle's fatality numbers only look worse because it has flown more often and carried more people into space (by a fairly wide margin) than any other spacecraft. Soyuz has not had a fatal accident by 1971 but that is not as meaningful as it might appear due to the low flight rate of Soyuz. Soyuz has had 87 successful manned landings since the last accident; that is only equal to the 87 successful manned landings of the shuttle in the 17 years between its fatal accidents.

It is fairly well documented that NASA officials like Owen Maynard and Robert Gilruth were glad to see Apollo end and one of their leading reasons was the fear of a fatal accident. I think they understood the situation better than you do.

Emotional hysteria will not get you far on these forums. You are rapidly gaining a reputation you will not quickly lose.

[A_M_Swallow]

Since the big cost of the shuttles is people on the ground, so it is not the flight cost but the time on the ground cost.  What modifications would allow a 2 week turn round?

For instance if hand repairing the windows is expensive simply replacing the glass after each flight would be simpler and may be cheaper.

[Jorge]

Since the big cost of the shuttles is people on the ground, so it is not the flight cost but the time on the ground cost.  What modifications would allow a 2 week turn round?

For instance if hand repairing the windows is expensive simply replacing the glass after each flight would be simpler and may be cheaper.

Less fragile TPS.

Less high-strung SSME.

Non-toxic OMS/RCS/APU propellants.

[soldeed]

We spent billions developing the Saturns and were just getting good at operating them and then THREW THEM AWAY to start over from SCRATCH and spend more billions MORE developing the shuttle because they were thought to be cheaper. Well, somebody didn't think that one through well enough IMHO.  We got something with considerably less payload capacity, more expensive to operate and more deadly to astronauts. Maybe Apollo would have eventually killed a crew, but it was not as inevitable as the shuttle, which has SO MANY ways to kill astronauts it's a wonder MORE have not died.

Apollo had lost nearly all public interest before Apollo 13, and lost it again right after, I believe.

It does leave a very sour taste in my mouth to read a poster on here saying deathtrap shuttle. I makes me feel like I've completely failed to get across the engineering safety that is involves with the vehicle. It's a very complex vehicle and the fact that its had so many successes is a testament to the engineers and the lessons learned.

Like it or not, the experience of shuttle will be looked back in years and decades to come as the biggest plus point of future exploration, because of the challenges of Shuttle, because of the ISS - that wouldn't exist without shuttle and because of the knowledge that one doesn't just pack it in as a bad job when tragedy occurs - a risk that is there from SS2 to Soyuz.

THAT is not characterized as the biggest mistake ever.

Where could we be now had we continued to employ apollo/saturn?
A moon base, manned missions to mars, and who knows what else?

No. NASA could not have afforded to resume production of the Saturn V on its budgets of the early 1970s, with or without the shuttle. At best, Saturn IB and Apollo CSM. So the answer to where NASA would be if they had continued to employ Apollo/Saturn is, a few S-IVB wet-lab stations in LEO, and not much else.

And if 14 dead astronauts are not enough to convince anyone how dangerous the shuttle is, how many more? Spaceflight is inherently dangerous enough without tempting fate by flying flawed spacecraft.

The shuttle's overall safety record is equal to that of the only other spacecraft (Soyuz) with a statistically significant number of flights. Broadly speaking, there are two classes of manned spacecraft: those with a demonstrated fatality rate of roughly 1 in 60 (Shuttle and Soyuz), and those that never flew enough to even demonstrate a fatality rate of 1 in 60 (everything else). The shuttle's fatality numbers only look worse because it has flown more often and carried more people into space (by a fairly wide margin) than any other spacecraft. Soyuz has not had a fatal accident by 1971 but that is not as meaningful as it might appear due to the low flight rate of Soyuz. Soyuz has had 87 successful manned landings since the last accident; that is only equal to the 87 successful manned landings of the shuttle in the 17 years between its fatal accidents.

It is fairly well documented that NASA officials like Owen Maynard and Robert Gilruth were glad to see Apollo end and one of their leading reasons was the fear of a fatal accident. I think they understood the situation better than you do.

Emotional hysteria will not get you far on these forums. You are rapidly gaining a reputation you will not quickly lose.

I do not agree that I am being emotionally hysterical. Im am telling the facts as I see them. I truly believe the inherent design flaws (spacecraft hanging off side of fuel tank, exposed heat shield) and lack of a launch escape system makes the shuttle inherently more dangerous than a conventional rocket design.  I see no reason to continue flying it. Lets just let it go. 

[Seattle Dave]

I'm not seeing the validity in Soldeed's posts. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but as regular members of this site there's a good understanding about just how much safety is placed on the vehicles. Challenger was a culture problem. Columbia was a freak event.

There would be some validity if the problems were unsolvable, but as we've seen, they solved both issues and have back up plans in the event of a Columbia situation.

The problem I have is your using those now defunt areas of Challenger and Columbia to rationalize your vote of no to going past 2012, so it doesn't hold ground. Neither does the end of the Apollo program.

You have to take Shuttle as it is today, which is very different to 1986 and also different from 2003. Thus you can't throw the next disaster card at the poll.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it's a one person viewpoint from the posts on here, and a very rare viewpoint for someone on this site, who should know better about the current status of the fleet via how involved this site is in every little part of processing and missions.

There's a lot of knownledgable people on here. Sometimes it's better to ask the question, not make the statement.

[Bubbinski]

I'm not sure about a 2 week turnaround, but before Challenger I recall they got a pretty good clip going, about a month in between flights for each orbiter or something like that.  Didn't they have round the clock shifts to turn the orbiters around?  I thought I saw that somewhere.

The only way I could ever see the shuttle fleet getting to that rate again is if they made a MAJOR commitment to keep it flying for the indefinite future, and gave it a major mission that needed a high flight rate.

[STS Tony]

This is such the wrong site for "another crew might die" talk You're a brave guy for taking that argument into the depths of shuttle-support-dom Problem is, your comments aren't relevant.

You can't compare Shuttle to Orion, why? Cause one vehicle is nothing more than mockups right now, the other has been the mainstay of the US space program for over 25 years.

Orion might not even fly because of Ares, and it may end up flying with no LAS, as per some speak from MSFC. Who knows, but the point is, it can't be compared until you've flown well over 100 Orion missions. Same works the other way around for the Russians, comparing Buran to Soyuz. I've never heard the Russians saying "wow, glad we didn't take Buran past a test flight, otherwise there would be lots of dead cosmonauts". Why? cause you can't compare the two.

[Jorge]

Emotional hysteria will not get you far on these forums. You are rapidly gaining a reputation you will not quickly lose.

I do not agree that I am being emotionally hysterical.

Waving the bloody shirt of "14 dead astronauts" without putting the numbers into context is pretty hysterical.

Here's the missing context:

Soyuz:
97 manned flights, 2 fatal accidents (1 in 47.5)
237 person-trips, 4 fatalities (1 in 59.25)
Shuttle:
123 manned flights, 2 fatal accidents (1 in 61.5)
740 person-trips, 14 fatalities (1 in 53)

And Apollo managed to kill a crew even before its maiden launch.

Im am telling the facts as I see them. I truly believe the inherent design flaws (spacecraft hanging off side of fuel tank, exposed heat shield) and lack of a launch escape system makes the shuttle inherently more dangerous than a conventional rocket design. 

The key words in the paragraph above are "as I see them". You are quick to point out the flaws of the shuttle and blind to the flaws of other spacecraft. Launch escape systems couldn't save the Apollo 1, Soyuz 1, or Soyuz 11 crews. The universal practice among expendable capsules of dividing the spacecraft into modules that must separate after the deorbit burn and prior to entry interface is a design flaw that has already killed one crew and caused several other harrowing close calls.

[Shadow Spork]

I voted no because I believe the shuttle was the subject through politics when the idea first started. I believe that when the Soviets couldn't go to the moon, they decided to stick to LEO with their Salyut space stations. When the US observed what the Soviets were doing, they decided to come up with something, with Skylab being the first. After that, shuttle, so that it can build space stations as part of it's long-term goal.

Clearly, the shuttle achieved that one goal, along with many other goals, but I think the idea of the shuttle was a pawn of politics, given that NASA (or any other space agency) these days is getting flack from the average human being on Earth for basically being stuck in LEO, wondering how and why the space business is not benefitting them with "food on the table" or any other "wonders" to them. From what I see, it's really not fair to the people who work in the space business, and I'd rather be exploring Mars by now. Yes, the moon may be a logical step, but again, to the "average Joe," they'd be wondering why are we going back to the moon when we should be focusing on Mars.

It's frustrating sometimes, and thus, I'd like to see the Shuttle retire on time. But don't get me wrong. I really want the shuttle to continue on. But there's already too many factors that would negate any realistic extension to 2012.

[Paul Howard]

I voted yes as the vehicles are performing like champions over the past couple of years. I'd go as far as to say the fleet are at the peak of their ability, that they have matured both in processing and mission goals via the lessons learned and via a team that been challenged to the level of world class.

Yes, I understand the budget issue, but I really took exception to Soldeed's posts, which seem to be too far back into the past. There's nothing that can be done and hoping for a Saturn V/Apollo return via Ares/Orion isn't going to happen like that. Constellation is using part of the old roadmap, but in a very different format.

I think it's ironic that Constellation are taking Shuttle derived hardware, rather than trying to recopy Saturn hardware. So when the return to the moon happens, you will have to say "thank you shuttle".

The learning curve provided by shuttle gives that chance for a moon base, a lot more than Saturn could, because it was already the begining of the end before the final Apollo missions anyway. The moon base was nothing more than a wish from Von Braun, not a potential reality once Armstrong had beaten the Soviets to the moon.

[soldeed]

I'm not seeing the validity in Soldeed's posts. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but as regular members of this site there's a good understanding about just how much safety is placed on the vehicles. Challenger was a culture problem. Columbia was a freak event.

There would be some validity if the problems were unsolvable, but as we've seen, they solved both issues and have back up plans in the event of a Columbia situation.

The problem I have is your using those now defunt areas of Challenger and Columbia to rationalize your vote of no to going past 2012, so it doesn't hold ground. Neither does the end of the Apollo program.

You have to take Shuttle as it is today, which is very different to 1986 and also different from 2003. Thus you can't throw the next disaster card at the poll.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it's a one person viewpoint from the posts on here, and a very rare viewpoint for someone on this site, who should know better about the current status of the fleet via how involved this site is in every little part of processing and missions.

There's a lot of knownledgable people on here. Sometimes it's better to ask the question, not make the statement.

Well, I've said all I am about the safety of the shuttle.

On TV right now is the universe episode about colonizing space. It's dangerous and people will die, but I don't mind the risk as long as we are doing great things and exploring unknown places and moving human civilization out into the solar system and that is just not happening right now. I have more faith in private efforts to achieve this than what NASA is doing in this regard. I see the space shuttle standing in the way of exploration. That's the real reason I oppose it, besides it's safety.

[Paul Howard]

I voted no because I believe the shuttle was the subject through politics when the idea first started.

That's not really a valid reason to vote no. A decision 30 something years ago has not been referenced in the 2010 date retirement date, and shouldn't be related to not going on for another two.

[Maverick]

Soldeed, so you are happy with the US retiring its access to space, and flying our astronauts on a foriegn vehicle that roughly the same safety record shuttle, and nearly killed a crew on its last two landings, in order to hopefully see the US capability return in five or six years time on a vehicle that's not even off the drawing board yet?

If that's not backing yourself into a corner, I don't know what is, as your assumptions are wishful thinking with a heavy bias of anti-Shuttle that is not warranted.

[Jorge]

I voted no because I believe the shuttle was the subject through politics when the idea first started. I believe that when the Soviets couldn't go to the moon, they decided to stick to LEO with their Salyut space stations. When the US observed what the Soviets were doing, they decided to come up with something, with Skylab being the first.

That's just plain wrong. Skylab came out of the Apollo Applications Program in the mid-60s. The USSR kept Salyut secret and the US did not know about it until the first one was launched in 1971. Skylab was not a reaction to Salyut.

[Davinator]

I'm a yes vote, as those two years of Constellation development, at the same pace as it is now, might lead to a realization that Ares isn't going to work, and an alternative could be sought. IF, I know, but if we retire in 2010 with Shuttle and by 2012 Ares is a dead end, then what?

[khallow]

2) Apollo was safer than shuttle, can't convince me otherwise!

Let's attempt the impossible anyway. First point is that there's no justification for your opinion. The Saturn V flew only 13 times. There's no way you can tell from that record that the LOM rate would be better than 1 in 50 or so. Second, the Apollo program was extremely risky. They would have accepted greater risks at launch than the later Space Shuttle missions. Finally, each launch of the Saturn used parts that had never been in a launch before. Due to the Space Shuttle's partial reusability, a considerable portion of the launch stack had been tested in one or more flights before.

[soldeed]

Soldeed, so you are happy with the US retiring its access to space, and flying our astronauts on a foriegn vehicle that roughly the same safety record shuttle, and nearly killed a crew on its last two landings, in order to hopefully see the US capability return in five or six years time on a vehicle that's not even off the drawing board yet?

If that's not backing yourself into a corner, I don't know what is, as your assumptions are wishful thinking with a heavy bias of anti-Shuttle that is not warranted.

I think the Space X dragon will be ready before 2012.  People underestimate Elon, But the shuttle only provides access to orbit. I want access to DEEP space, and the shuttle has done nothing but prevent that. LEO aint good enough. And the Russians will fix the Soyuz, I've no doubt.

[nathan.moeller]

I'm a yes vote, as those two years of Constellation development, at the same pace as it is now, might lead to a realization that Ares isn't going to work, and an alternative could be sought. IF, I know, but if we retire in 2010 with Shuttle and by 2012 Ares is a dead end, then what?

I'm guessing we'd try again.  They'd look into alternatives, the first of which, if my guess is correct, would be man-rate one of the EELVs (Delta, Atlas).  That, or they'd look into something like Direct.  Either way, we'd be in big trouble and facing a gap that would encompass the better part of the decade between 2010 and 2020.

[Stowbridge]

I think the whole argument of LEO is a moot. A friend once mentioned it as going around in circles, doing some experiments on board and landing. It so isn't. We've been learning how to build a giant structure in space. The Shuttle has allowed us to carry massive modules and arrays, then to be installed by the crew that rode up to space with the payload.

That to me is more exciting than bouncing around the lunar surface collecting rocks.

Of course, when it moves to the phase of a moon base, sure. That's the big level up, but I wonder if we all appreciate how much we've been learning how to do that via the ISS assembly missions?

That isn't in itself a vote for 2010 or 2012, as it's out of our hands anyway, but another tick in the box for what Shuttle has given us and the lessons we've gained, some harsh, some via ingenuity.

I'm proud to be a fan of shuttle and than does not mean I'm not a fan of exploration, because we're still damn well learning! LEO, the moon, or Mars, we're still infants at exploration. These 25 years or so with Shuttle have provided us some amazing tools that we can use in exploration.

A mistake? not a chance. A triumph.

Now let's stop acting like Ares and Orion are a shoe in for 2014, as that's gone. 2015 if we're lucky, but we are talking about replacing a vehicle with one that's not proven in the slightest yet. There's no rush to stop in 2010!

[Patchouli]

I say keep it flying until 2012 until at least both Dragon and Cygnus have flown a few flights then it can be retired or at least mothballed until Orion is flying well.

Though if Direct replaces Ares the switch from the Shuttle to Orion becomes a lot easier and smoother since the RSRM remains unchanged and the ET tooling stays the same.

In short we should keep it flying until we have some other way to bring both crew and cargo to ISS.

Griffin's burn your bridges policy is very foolish and the first shuttle accident can be partly blamed on the Shuttle Apollo gap the whole not listening to your contractors and engineers problem.

BTW I have to agree with Stowbridge on the shuttle missions they were not a waste and we did learn a lot from them.

The STS program even though it was in LEO probably has taught us more skills that could be applied to a manned mission to mars and beyond then the Apollo program has.

An crewed interplanetary mission is not going to be launched in once piece even with a booster like Ares V even Phillip Bono's Rombus RLV probably couldn't do it in a single launch.

A vehicle like Seadragon could but then we never built anything close to that big.

So a Mars or Jupiter mission is going to start out like the ISS program assembling a lot of pieces in LEO.

[Stowbridge]

Soldeed, so you are happy with the US retiring its access to space, and flying our astronauts on a foriegn vehicle that roughly the same safety record shuttle, and nearly killed a crew on its last two landings, in order to hopefully see the US capability return in five or six years time on a vehicle that's not even off the drawing board yet?

If that's not backing yourself into a corner, I don't know what is, as your assumptions are wishful thinking with a heavy bias of anti-Shuttle that is not warranted.

I think the Space X dragon will be ready before 2012.  People underestimate Elon, But the shuttle only provides access to orbit. I want access to DEEP space, and the shuttle has done nothing but prevent that. LEO aint good enough. And the Russians will fix the Soyuz, I've no doubt.

God this is annoying. Space X haven't even had a successful test flight of their Falcon I yet. They are very much behind schedule with their ambitious schedule and there are no certainties with the new space gang, apart from maybe some joy rides for Paris Hilton for six minutes of weightlessness.

You see very certain that Soyuz will be fixed, but convinced Shuttle is risking another loss? Sorry, but you're now talking ....

[nathan.moeller]

I think the Space X dragon will be ready before 2012.  People underestimate Elon, But the shuttle only provides access to orbit. I want access to DEEP space, and the shuttle has done nothing but prevent that. LEO aint good enough. And the Russians will fix the Soyuz, I've no doubt.

You're giving us a very strong 'me, me, me' attitude without considering the actual facts.  You underestimate what the shuttle has given us and continuously fail to see its role in the bigger picture.  If that weren't bad enough, you say it has hindered space operations when it has given us countless lessons we will need as we venture out passed LEO.  Speaking of which, LEO isn't good enough for who?  You?  Wow, NASA really missed that one in their planning, didn't they?

Yes, the Russians will fix the Soyuz.  In the same manner, NASA has fixed, and will continue to fix, issues with the shuttles all the way to their retirement.  There's no real justification for your anti-shuttle attitude here.  Manned access passed LEO is coming and the shuttle is actually helping us get there.  Put your attitude and (poorly) pre-conceived notions aside, step back and look at the big picture here.  We'd be more than happy to explain it to you.

Space X?  They're 0 for 2.  You're really contradicting your own arguments here.  You're positive shuttle is headed for another loss DESPITE all the safety modifications that have been made, and are being made, since Columbia.  On the other hand, two VERY close calls with the Soyuz in a row and you still lend absolute faith to that system.  If that weren't bad enough, you take it even further by implying Space X will beat out NASA by two to three years without even considering their accidents in 2006 and 2007.  Are you seeing the contradictions here?

[Carl G]

Yes, the Russians will fix Soyuz, Soldeed, just like NASA fixed the Shuttle. Stop making up the rules.

[soldeed]

2) Apollo was safer than shuttle, can't convince me otherwise!

Let's attempt the impossible anyway. First point is that there's no justification for your opinion. The Saturn V flew only 13 times. There's no way you can tell from that record that the LOM rate would be better than 1 in 50 or so. Second, the Apollo program was extremely risky. They would have accepted greater risks at launch than the later Space Shuttle missions. Finally, each launch of the Saturn used parts that had never been in a launch before. Due to the Space Shuttle's partial reusability, a considerable portion of the launch stack had been tested in one or more flights before.

Apollo had a launch escape system. It worked as advertised in tests. A similar system saved the lives of the Soyuz T-10A crew.  What would have been the fate of a shuttle crew in a similar situation?  A fuel leak breaks out in the engine bay and a fire starts.  Apollo crew gets away.  Shuttle crew dies. The launch is the most dangerous time of a space mission, and is when the shuttle is most vulnerable. A loss of an apollo crew would have likely been in space from a meteoroid or being caught in a solar flare, something inherently dangerous about spaceflight. But launch mishaps they probably would have survived. Launch mishaps are the most dangerous to the shuttle because they cannot escape. The 13 mission was lucky I'll grant did'nt happen on 8, but the flaw of the thermostat was fixed and subsequent missions were safer.

[AndrewSTS]

A fuel leak breaks out in the engine bay and a fire starts.  Apollo crew gets away.  Shuttle crew dies.

Eh? Such an incident has never happened with shuttle over the 27 years she's been flying? I think you need to give it a rest now.

[Shuttle Scapegoat]

Soldeed you want access to deep space, as in long term space flight duration. Guess what they've been learning on the ISS. Guess what built the ISS. Good night.

[nathan.moeller]

Apollo had a launch escape system. It worked as advertised in tests. A similar system saved the lives of the Soyuz T-10A crew.  What would have been the fate of a shuttle crew in a similar situation?  A fuel leak breaks out in the engine bay and a fire starts.  Apollo crew gets away.  Shuttle crew dies. The launch is the most dangerous time of a space mission, and is when the shuttle is most vulnerable. A loss of an apollo crew would have likely been in space from a meteoroid or being caught in a solar flare, something inherently dangerous about spaceflight. But launch mishaps they probably would have survived. Launch mishaps are the most dangerous to the shuttle because they cannot escape. The 13 mission was lucky I'll grant did'nt happen on 8, but the flaw of the thermostat was fixed and subsequent missions were safer.

There's never been the need for an LAS in the 27-year-history of the shuttle program.  I know you're thinking of Challenger, but no one knew what hit them until long after it happened.  LAS would have done them no good.  And you're also forgetting/ignoring the hundreds of safety checks, rules and features that NASA use in ALL phases of spacecraft processing to ensure a safe launch for a crew.

[soldeed]

A fuel leak breaks out in the engine bay and a fire starts.  Apollo crew gets away.  Shuttle crew dies.

Eh? Such an incident has never happened with shuttle over the 27 years she's been flying? I think you need to give it a rest now.

Are you saying it can never happen? 

[AndrewSTS]

A fuel leak breaks out in the engine bay and a fire starts.  Apollo crew gets away.  Shuttle crew dies.

Eh? Such an incident has never happened with shuttle over the 27 years she's been flying? I think you need to give it a rest now.

Are you saying it can never happen? 

I'm saying it's never happened on the last 27 years of shuttle flight, which is a hell of a lot more valid that you dreaming up the scenario based on what?

[nathan.moeller]

Are you saying it can never happen? 

Things can happen, but NASA goes to great lengths to ensure that they don't.  You're neglecting that fact in your would-be arguments against shuttle.  Read Chris's standup reports and articles.  There are often mentions of 'this part failed that test,' such as pressure seals failing leak tests or tire pressures not being satisfactory.

But what's interesting is the fact you ALWAYS see what their course of action is.  They say why they think it went wrong and what they're doing to fix it.  And often times, you get the wonderful third part that describes how their plan of action worked and the part passed the test.

[James Lowe1]

Ok, let's get this back on track to the specific question in the poll. This is getting out of hand now. I will start deleting posts if required.

[soldeed]

Apollo had a launch escape system. It worked as advertised in tests. A similar system saved the lives of the Soyuz T-10A crew.  What would have been the fate of a shuttle crew in a similar situation?  A fuel leak breaks out in the engine bay and a fire starts.  Apollo crew gets away.  Shuttle crew dies. The launch is the most dangerous time of a space mission, and is when the shuttle is most vulnerable. A loss of an apollo crew would have likely been in space from a meteoroid or being caught in a solar flare, something inherently dangerous about spaceflight. But launch mishaps they probably would have survived. Launch mishaps are the most dangerous to the shuttle because they cannot escape. The 13 mission was lucky I'll grant did'nt happen on 8, but the flaw of the thermostat was fixed and subsequent missions were safer.

There's never been the need for an LAS in the 27-year-history of the shuttle program.  I know you're thinking of Challenger, but no one knew what hit them until long after it happened.  LAS would have done them no good.  And you're also forgetting/ignoring the hundreds of safety checks, rules and features that NASA use in ALL phases of spacecraft processing to ensure a safe launch for a crew.

True even if they had an escape capsule ala the F-111 it would have done them no good since they were right next to the fuel.  I did mention that as a design flaw did'nt I?

And even though they have'nt needed one does that mean no one ever needs one? fly it long enough and we may find out.

[soldeed]

Ok, let's get this back on track to the specific question in the poll. This is getting out of hand now. I will start deleting posts if required.

Alright, Im done! spoken my peace.

[nathan.moeller]

True even if they had an escape capsule ala the F-111 it would have done them no good since they were right next to the fuel.  I did mention that as a design flaw did'nt I?

And even though they have'nt needed one does that mean no one ever needs one? fly it long enough and we may find out.

Same with Apollo, Soyuz, Space X and Orion.  And your glorification of the Soyuz T-10A escape is unwarranted.  What could be called a design flaw in the booster almost prevented them from escaping.  The fire burned through the wires that would have allowed the automated sequence to fire the LAS and launch the crew to safety, so the ground crew had to race to do it manually.  They escaped only with a few seconds to spare.  Sure, it was great work by the launch team, but it also proves that LAS isn't perfect as you seem to think.

[nathan.moeller]

Ok, let's get this back on track to the specific question in the poll. This is getting out of hand now. I will start deleting posts if required.

Apologies.  Have at 'em.

[A_M_Swallow]

I'm not sure about a 2 week turnaround, but before Challenger I recall they got a pretty good clip going, about a month in between flights for each orbiter or something like that.  Didn't they have round the clock shifts to turn the orbiters around?  I thought I saw that somewhere.

The only way I could ever see the shuttle fleet getting to that rate again is if they made a MAJOR commitment to keep it flying for the indefinite future, and gave it a major mission that needed a high flight rate.

Err ... yes.  A 100 flights in 10 years is a 5 week turn around.

The STS may never need a high flight rate again but the granddaughter of the Orion could.  An individual can learn directly from what wrong but a corporate entity can only learn from something in writing.  Preferably published somewhere that future designers and quality inspectors can find.

If the shuttles are scrapped in 2010 the list of modifications is just background information.  If they are kept past 2012 to say 2020 then the list is a set of useful enhancements.

[Jim]

I say keep it flying until 2012 until at least both Dragon and Cygnus have flown a few flights then it can be retired or at least mothballed until Orion is flying well.

That isn't going to do anything.  The contract for CSR will be let by the end of the year.  It is possible that Dragon and Cygnus are not part of the contract.  Therefore their flights would be meaningless.

[nathan.moeller]

Just a question, but let's say they do extend to 2012.  I'm under the impression that, if that were to happen, no new flights (aside from STS-134) could be added to the manifest, as MAF is taking apart the tooling needed to make the external tanks.  Is my impression correct, or does the possibility exist to add more flights after STS-133/STS-134?

[MBK004]

Just a question, but let's say they do extend to 2012.  I'm under the impression that, if that were to happen, no new flights (aside from STS-134) could be added to the manifest, as MAF is taking apart the tooling needed to make the external tanks.  Is my impression correct, or does the possibility exist to add more flights after STS-133/STS-134?

It is my understanding that to add additional flights after STS-134 (which would use a repaired ET tank for LON from Katrina) would require a new ET order at MAF by September of this year.

[nathan.moeller]

It is my understanding that to add additional flights after STS-134 (which would use a repaired ET tank for LON from Katrina) would require a new ET order at MAF by September of this year.

So does that mean they haven't started tooling disassembly and the possibility exists to add more flights?  Though I'd like to see more flights, I don't ask this to push one way or the other.  It's for my own understanding of what options are on the table.

[MBK004]

It is my understanding that to add additional flights after STS-134 (which would use a repaired ET tank for LON from Katrina) would require a new ET order at MAF by September of this year.

So does that mean they haven't started tooling disassembly and the possibility exists to add more flights?  Though I'd like to see more flights, I don't ask this to push one way or the other.  It's for my own understanding of what options are on the table.

I may be off by a year, but yes, there are still quite a few tanks to complete before they start the disassembly of the tooling.

[nathan.moeller]

I may be off by a year, but yes, there are still quite a few tanks to complete before they start the disassembly of the tooling.

I was under the impression they were disassembling the tooling as the final tank (ET-139?) went through production, meaning part-x of assembly was finished and pushed the tank on to part-y of assembly, so part-x tooling would be disassembled, as it's no longer needed.

I guess I'm asking if all the tooling is still intact and ready for ET production, so if, by some chance, a new ET order arrived at MAF from NASA for another run of flights (STS-135-STS-???), they could do it.

[iamlucky13]

It might be disassembled but not scrapped...

Anyway, it sounds like the decision has to be made well before the next administration, which might be a factor in what happens.

[nathan.moeller]

It might be disassembled but not scrapped...

Anyway, it sounds like the decision has to be made well before the next administration, which might be a factor in what happens.

Gotcha.  And I fear, based on what I've heard, that an Obama presidency could mean NASA is screwed.

[psloss]

And I fear, based on what I've heard, that an Obama presidency could mean NASA is screwed.

I don't share that fear (too general), but probably a topic best for another thread.

[nathan.moeller]

And I fear, based on what I've heard, that an Obama presidency could mean NASA is screwed.

I don't share that fear (too general), but probably a topic best for another thread.

To be specific - many of their options would probably be axed, as Obama would be blindly asking to cut funding from NASA and other organizations to fund his education programs.  Shuttle would be SOL and the future of Constellation would be bleak.

[psloss]

To be specific - many of their options would probably be axed, as Obama would be blindly asking to cut funding from NASA and other organizations to fund his education programs.  Shuttle would be SOL and the future of Constellation would be bleak.

Would suggest looking at some recent threads...one post has an example of how swing state politics change rhetoric:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13631.msg298928#msg298928

[cd-slam]

Just a question, but let's say they do extend to 2012.  I'm under the impression that, if that were to happen, no new flights (aside from STS-134) could be added to the manifest, as MAF is taking apart the tooling needed to make the external tanks.  Is my impression correct, or does the possibility exist to add more flights after STS-133/STS-134?

Not a US citizen and thus not entirely aware of US politics, but here's my 2c worth. Assuming Mr Obama gets elected, he will come into office only end of January 2009. Generally nothing gets done in the first three months, so the first decisions would happen about May 2009.

By this point, unless there is a major problem with the shuttle the flights STS 125, 126, 119 and 127 will be flown and the ISS will be virtually complete and fully staffed with 6 crew. At the same time, it's likely that the schedule for Orion will be far extended and the "gap" would be yawning after 2010. Obama then will have 3 options:

a) Cancel remaining shuttle flights, which by then will have crews assigned and flight hardware in progress. Would not save many $ and would create enormous resentment with IPs, Russia and the US aerospace community, so I consider this unlikely.

b) End the shuttle program in FY2010, it's likely that NASA will not make the deadline and would have to cut at least STS 133 flight to meet the deadline. Then the "gap" yawns again and Obama would have to answer in 2012 polls.

c) Extend the shuttle program to FY2012 by delaying the remaining flights on the manifest and including STS 134. Not many more $ are required because the flight hardware would already be on order and crews trained. This would keep the IPs and aerospace community happy at least until 2012, then Orion will be far in the future and thus delays would affect any future administration, not his.

Of course preferable would be d) extend the shuttle program and add more flights, but this means much more $ and goes against Obama's statements. Plus Michoud will have difficulty to produce more ETs and US at the same time, likely to extend Orion schedule even more.

[psloss]

c) Extend the shuttle program to FY2012 by delaying the remaining flights on the manifest and including STS 134. Not many more $ are required because the flight hardware would already be on order and crews trained.

No, quite a few more $ are required.  You have to pay for shuttle operations for two years, and that's likely to cost $3-4 billion each year, no matter how many shuttles fly.

[William Barton]

A fuel leak breaks out in the engine bay and a fire starts.  Apollo crew gets away.  Shuttle crew dies.

Eh? Such an incident has never happened with shuttle over the 27 years she's been flying? I think you need to give it a rest now.

That's really not a valid statistical argument. The Shuttle never broke up during reentry in 22 years of flying, and then...

[Analyst]

Do we really want to discuss possible events with a very low probability and high impact? Statistics does not help much. This is the reason why you should be sceptic when talking about LOC or LOM numbers - or when talking to your insurance agent.

Analyst

[khallow]

c) Extend the shuttle program to FY2012 by delaying the remaining flights on the manifest and including STS 134. Not many more $ are required because the flight hardware would already be on order and crews trained.

No, quite a few more $ are required.  You have to pay for shuttle operations for two years, and that's likely to cost $3-4 billion each year, no matter how many shuttles fly.

I agree here. Extending the life of the Shuttle is very expensive. That money could be used more effectively elsewhere in the manned space program. My take is even Ares I development is a better use of the money. Given that we seem to be on track to finish the basic Shuttle manifest by 2010, I went ahead and voted to end the Shuttle flights in 2010. I don't see a good reason to drag this out.

Nathan, option b) looks very good to me. Fulfill obligations to ISS with some time to spare.

[William Barton]

Do we really want to discuss possible events with a very low probability and high impact? Statistics does not help much. This is the reason why you should be sceptic when talking about LOC or LOM numbers - or when talking to your insurance agent.

Analyst

Actually, we do. These have not turned out to be "very low probability" events, and the impact is potentially high enough to end the manned space program. It's like comparing the odds of being killed in a plane crash to being killed playing Russian roulette. One is low probablility, the other is not. (Yes, I realize those are exaggerations, even though evidently it takes a rocket scientist to understand the insurance biz.)

[Analyst]

You have to be aware ex ante statistical calculations of these kind of - and I stand by may words - "very low probability" "high impact" events so far never matched actual ex post observations. One reason may be that your models never capture the complexity of reality. Another being that the failure probalitities of single components are even lower and you try (and often fail) to aggregate these.

Analyst

[DavisSTS]

Hypothetically, if there is another delay, for whatever reason, what is the driving factor, 2010 or ISS complete? Is Node 3 ISS complete?

[Jorge]

Hypothetically, if there is another delay, for whatever reason, what is the driving factor, 2010 or ISS complete? Is Node 3 ISS complete?

Depends on whether this year's Authorization bill becomes law and gets backed up by appropriations. It changes the last two logistics flights from contingencies to requirements.

[gordo]

Just a question, but let's say they do extend to 2012.  I'm under the impression that, if that were to happen, no new flights (aside from STS-134) could be added to the manifest, as MAF is taking apart the tooling needed to make the external tanks.  Is my impression correct, or does the possibility exist to add more flights after STS-133/STS-134?

It is my understanding that to add additional flights after STS-134 (which would use a repaired ET tank for LON from Katrina) would require a new ET order at MAF by September of this year.

STS 134 would fly with ET 138, the final new tank currently on order.  The additional hardware costs for STS134 would be refurbishing ET 122 (the damaged tank) and having a set of RSRMs made up/refurbished.


Further flights after this would required additional ETs, unless they decided to fly the STS135 LON with the unused Lightweight tank that is in long term storage, after post Columbia modifications.

So theoretically you have 2 more missions without a serious level of new tank production

[gospacex]

The ISS is just nearing full capability and we are going to "pull the rug out" by retiring the Shuttle, limiting our ability to gain from the investment we made in the ISS.

Full capability to do what?

The Shuttle offers something no other spacecraft has-significant downmass capability.  Depending upon the experiments being flown on ISS, this could be a useful capability.

When this capability was used last time? What planned experiments require it?

[Jorge]

The Shuttle offers something no other spacecraft has-significant downmass capability.  Depending upon the experiments being flown on ISS, this could be a useful capability.

When this capability was used last time?

STS-118, last August.

[Orbiter]

For my Opinion I voted no,
Why?
The Space Shuttle costs money, it would take a lot to both juggle the Orion and the Shuttle, and would most likely push the Orion to the right. Its time to go to the moon.

[Analyst]

The ISS is just nearing full capability and we are going to "pull the rug out" by retiring the Shuttle, limiting our ability to gain from the investment we made in the ISS.

Full capability to do what?

Science in zero-g. Have you been listening in the last 30 years? Btw., construction complete does not mean ISS has its full capability, not even close. Because we spent 95% and "save" the last 5% because some people think ...

... Its time to go to the moon.

Why?

Analyst

[Orbiter]

... Its time to go to the moon.

Why?

Analyst

Rather be stuck in LEO?

[Justin Space]

... Its time to go to the moon.

Why?

Analyst

Rather be stuck in LEO?

I think the better answer is a moon base and a stepping stone to Mars, rather than trying to undermine the amazing achievement shuttle has allowed in LEO.

"Going to the moon" has been done, but a moon base is taking the next step.

[Orbiter]

... Its time to go to the moon.

Why?

Analyst

Rather be stuck in LEO?

I think the better answer is a moon base and a stepping stone to Mars, rather than trying to undermine the amazing achievement shuttle has allowed in LEO.

"Going to the moon" has been done, but a moon base is taking the next step.

Exactly.

[clongton]

Moon base like in permanently occupied at the South Pole: No
Moon base like in a man-tended astronomy science station on the far side: Yes.

I’m all for a moon base – don’t get me wrong. But it has to have some other purpose than just being there because some people want to take the next step. There has to be a very specific reason that justifies the expense beyond just wanting to be there. Otherwise it will suffer the exact same fate as the Apollo program. Remember, the space program in this country is publicly funded, and that means Congress, who will be asked to keep funding the program, will always reflect the mindset of the people or they’re out of a job. Unless we’re doing something on the moon that engages the more or less continual interest of the people, the program will end up following the same pattern as Apollo. As great as it was to go to the moon last time, Congress had no difficulty canceling it when the people were no longer interested. There’s too much else that can be done with that vast amount of money.

Personally, I have never liked the Shackleton Base idea. Unless we are staging our missions at EML-1 or EML-2, it is too difficult and restrictive to go there because of the constant phasing. Plane changes would need to be a continual fact of life and those are always very propellant-costly. Solar power is great, and will be the preferred power source for missions that don’t exceed a lunar daylight cycle of 2 weeks. But if we are ever going to do anything really serious on the moon we will need to be able to operate outside of the sunlight. That means nuclear power. So the justification of Shackleton being continual solar power doesn’t hold up in my book because it would restrict us to that location. Go nuclear and then we can go global.

Moon bases are very, VERY expensive. IMHO, they need to justify their existence and “just to take the next step” doesn’t qualify. There are lots of financially and scientific reasons to have a base on the moon, but other than the science station on the far side, I haven’t heard anyone put them forward.

Any “base” we put there should not require the continual presence of a human crew. It should be man-tended, not permanently occupied. We are quite simply not there yet.

Edit: fixed "astronomy"

[William Barton]

Chuck, I'd go a step further. I support the idea of a man-tended astronomy complex on the farside (especially radio astronomy at this point), but for lunar science, I'd suggest the development of man-tended, resuppliable large rovers (MoLAB class, at least), with some number of them set down at various points on the Moon. Crews would be delivered, and would spend however long was allotted on lunar science. In between crew visits, the unmanned rover would be remotedly operated, and driven between areas worth live human attention. The biggest caveat I can think of is if the rover were to be used or crewed during the lunar night, it'd have to be nuclear powered ($$$ and politics).

BTW, your use of the phrase "astrological science station" gave me a good laugh. If that were seriously proposed, support and funding would come out of the woodwork! And the rovers could be used to search for the Lost Ark of the Covenant!

[clongton]

BTW, your use of the phrase "astrological science station" gave me a good laugh. If that were seriously proposed, support and funding would come out of the woodwork! And the rovers could be used to search for the Lost Ark of the Covenant!

OMG! I have to go fix that! thanks.

I like the idea of the "mobile outpost". It could be nuclear powered and have all the facilities necessary for detailed examination of any given site. All the lander would need to do is deliver the crew and any specialized equipment that the rover identified might be necessary to exploit the opportunities at that specific site.

With a man-tended astronomy station on the far side, we would have the ability to create a Very Large Optic Array (VLOA) telescope. We may actually be able to image earth-sized rocky worlds orbiting other stars and extract a fair amount of surface detail.

[JonSBerndt]

This seems like kind of a silly poll. I guess we are to assume that extra billions have been allocated over 2011 and 2012? And specifying a retirement year rather than a set of payloads seems backwards. Does it assume any extra costs for thorough safety checks for the orbiters, as recommended by the CAIB?

[cd-slam]

The ISS is just nearing full capability and we are going to "pull the rug out" by retiring the Shuttle, limiting our ability to gain from the investment we made in the ISS.

The poll was stated as, since Constellation would not be ready until 2016+, should the shuttle deadline of FY2010 be extended to FY2012. Not sure how a moonbase, astrological or astronomical, suddenly came into the picture.  I think it's a perfectly reasonable question.

In my personal opinion, I don't see any reason why shuttle missions should be cancelled if needed just to fulfil some arbitrary deadline. It makes more sense to fly out all the planned missions, FY2012 should be a reasonable date and also has political significance as US election year.

[clongton]

The ISS is just nearing full capability and we are going to "pull the rug out" by retiring the Shuttle, limiting our ability to gain from the investment we made in the ISS.

The poll was stated as, since Constellation would not be ready until 2016+, should the shuttle deadline of FY2010 be extended to FY2012. Not sure how a moonbase, astrological or astronomical, suddenly came into the picture.  I think it's a perfectly reasonable question.

In my personal opinion, I don't see any reason why shuttle missions should be cancelled if needed just to fulfil some arbitrary deadline. It makes more sense to fly out all the planned missions, FY2012 should be a reasonable date and also has political significance as US election year.

It's all about the money. The way CxP funding is set up, Shuttle needs to be shut down before any real work can happen on CxP. Extending Shuttle delays CxP by the same amount of time. It does not shorten the gap, it only delays the start of the same gap.

[Analyst]

Do you really want to say no real CxP work has been, is and will be done from 2005 to 2010, despite having a budget of (in total) ~$10 billion in this timeframe?

To the contrary of your statement even with Shuttle operating after 2010 CxP would still have ~$3.5 billion/year (without Shuttle its ~7 to 7.5 billion/year). You can easily develop Orion with this budget. The gap would not stay the same, because after a finite amount of time the cumulative $3.5 billion/year (~$17.5 billion in 5 years) are enough to have Orion flying. Plus you have operated the Shuttle during the same time.

I really don't understand why you spread this "gap moving to the right" myth and don't say the money from STS is needed (planned) for CxP elements unreleated to the gap (aka Ares V, Altair and all the other shiny dreams).

Analyst

[psloss]

I really don't understand why you spread this "gap moving to the right" myth and don't say the money from STS is needed (planned) for CxP elements unreleated to the gap (aka Ares V, Altair and all the other shiny dreams).

Because it's not a myth.  The STS money is used for Orion and Ares I well into the next decade.

[brihath]

The ISS is just nearing full capability and we are going to "pull the rug out" by retiring the Shuttle, limiting our ability to gain from the investment we made in the ISS.

The poll was stated as, since Constellation would not be ready until 2016+, should the shuttle deadline of FY2010 be extended to FY2012. Not sure how a moonbase, astrological or astronomical, suddenly came into the picture.  I think it's a perfectly reasonable question.

In my personal opinion, I don't see any reason why shuttle missions should be cancelled if needed just to fulfil some arbitrary deadline. It makes more sense to fly out all the planned missions, FY2012 should be a reasonable date and also has political significance as US election year.

It's all about the money. The way CxP funding is set up, Shuttle needs to be shut down before any real work can happen on CxP. Extending Shuttle delays CxP by the same amount of time. It does not shorten the gap, it only delays the start of the same gap.

I think we need to include the political dimension of grounding the Shuttle also.  Once the Shuttle is grounded we become committed to Ares/Orion as the only system for U.S. manned space flight.  Future administrations will feel pressure to fund the program and move toward flight, as there is no other alternative.

It makes me recall an old saying about commitment: "When the pig is in the slaughter house he is concerned, but once he is made into bacon, he is committed."

NASA will be committed to Ares/Orion once the Shuttle is grounded.

[Analyst]

Have you ever added it up? You end up with ~$40 billion until Orion flies in 2016. Seems way to much, even for Ares I/Orion.

But let us assume you are correct. You need ~$40 billion or whatever sum: Adding up ~3.5 billion/year for enough years gives you whatever sum you need. Now you can adjust for inflation etc., but the fact still remains: After a finite time of years you have Orion flying. And you fly the Shuttle in parallel until you reach this point in time. It is just simple math (and you can do it with your prefered budget numbers too).

Analyst

[clongton]

Have you ever added it up? You end up with ~$40 billion until Orion flies in 2016. Seems way to much, even for Ares I/Orion.

But let us assume you are correct. You need ~$40 billion or whatever sum: Adding up ~3.5 billion/year for enough years gives you whatever sum you need. Now you can adjust for inflation etc., but the fact still remains: After a finite time of years you have Orion flying. And you fly the Shuttle in parallel until you reach this point in time. It is just simple math (and you can do it with your preferred budget numbers too).

Analyst

Actually, that's a true statement. CxP does get a relatively small amount of money now, and they are spending it now, and developing Orion now, slowly, while Shuttle continues to fly. The problem comes in because the POLITICAL decision has been made to retire Shuttle in 2010, before Orion and its launch vehicle are ready. The current program is designed to ramp up and use the Shuttle funding after retirement to bring CxP to fruition "rapidly". That's what my statement was based on.

Now if the POLITICAL decision were made, instead, to continue to fly Shuttle until Orion and its launch vehicle were ready, then the scenario you describe would work. There would be no gap and we would simply transition to Orion when it was ready, probably (guesstimate) 10 years away. CxP would be a small program, based on current funding, but would proceed forward at a slow pace, based on the current funding level. It would take time. But we have rabbits running things (zero patience), and they want everything done NOW. They were very good at laying out the grand vision (VSE), but really bad at laying out a timetable that made any real sense (2010). Hence our "gap" problem.

[texas_space]

Although I disagree with flying the shuttle past 2010 for a few reasons, I have a question to ask:
If we fly the shuttle past 2010, why fly till 2012? I don't see the point unless we fly the shuttle until a replacement is fully online.  Not sure what date that would be, but I can almost guarantee it won't be in 2012.

If we keep flying the shuttle, then stopping in 2012 is just as arbitrary as 2010.  If we're going to fly the shuttle, keep it flying till it is truly no longer necessary.

[Analyst]

Good, I am glad you understand, and I didn't really doubt it in the first place.

I am sure if the Shuttle flies longer than until 2010 together with this POLITICAL decision the budget/funding plan will be adjusted accordingly, e.g. the Shuttle does not fly longer (with now planned CxP money) but everything else stays the same. This would have impacts on the gap and everything else.

A simple statement like "the gap just moves to the right" is wrong in the first place. I get the impression, people like Griffin talk this way to implement the gap into the peoples mind as something we can't do anything about, so noone even asks for alternatives (because people think there are none).

Analyst

[psloss]

A simple statement like "the gap just moves to the right" is wrong in the first place. I get the impression, people like Griffin talk this way to implement the gap into the peoples mind as something we can't do anything about, so noone even asks for alternatives (because people think there are none).

Combining a couple of things that Chuck wrote, the money is political, too.  The gap is at the very least a political reality, including the notion of a sliding gap without supplemental funding.  In order to change the political equation, Congress and the Administration would have to accept different numbers and assumptions.

The question is whether that will happen -- which advocate(s) for different numbers will Washington listen to?  For example, the Senate authorization bill, which prominently includes a section titled "Uninterrupted United States Human Spaceflight Capability," is still using the current numbers and the political assumptions that go into them.

[cd-slam]

I think we need to include the political dimension of grounding the Shuttle also.  Once the Shuttle is grounded we become committed to Ares/Orion as the only system for U.S. manned space flight.  Future administrations will feel pressure to fund the program and move toward flight, as there is no other alternative.

It makes me recall an old saying about commitment: "When the pig is in the slaughter house he is concerned, but once he is made into bacon, he is committed."

NASA will be committed to Ares/Orion once the Shuttle is grounded.

I think this is overly simplistic. There are real people who are working on the shuttle programe now. If this program is ended in 2010, they will not be sitting in their rocking chairs waiting for the Constellation program to start in 2016. They will take up positions in other industries or other roles, and their expertise will be lost to the space industry.

A similar situation is occurring in the oil and gas field, many of the experienced workers left in the 90s when oil price was $8 per barrel. Now with oil price at $130+ per barrel, lots of new projects are coming on stream and who are the people to run them? All new, inexperienced and no older people to learn from, these people are likely to cause accidents once all these projects are ready to roll. This is something you don't want to repeat in the space industry.

[kraisee]

A year of Shuttle operations will push the Orion/Ares-I schedule out, but not by the same amount.

In FY2011 CxP's budget essentially doubles because the cash paying all the jobs for Shuttle currently becomes available.

According to NASA's Budget Request, Ares-I's budget will jump from $1,277m in FY10 to $2,032m in FY2011 (+59%).

Orion's will similarly jump from $1,105m to $1746m (+58%)

As pointed out above, some serious work also begins (albeit slowly at first) on Ares-V too jumping from $24m in FY10 to $365m.

Altair though, still does not actually have its own budget line item until after 2013.   Up to that point its budget remains essentially just 'noise'.


The actual net result of denying these increases would be extending the development period for the new hardware, although not by a full year.

When you factor in the overheads (fixed costs) for the development work, a 12 month extension to Shuttle would result in about 8-9 months extension to the development period of Ares-I and Orion.   You could get that down to about 6-7 months delay if you postpone all Ares-V & Lunar development work until after Shuttle has eventually retired too, but that has the result of pushing that schedule well beyond 2020.

Ross.

[Norm Hartnett]

Either 2010 or 2012 are artificial deadlines. IMO the criteria should be mission complete.

Of course that raises the question of what constitutes the STS mission.
Completion of the current manifest?
Completion of the current manifest plus the two contingency flights?
Completion of the current manifest plus the two contingency plus AMS2?
Etc.

Or does mission complete mean when a suitable US manned replacement spacecraft is flying?

I favor the last definition. The ESAS/Constellation program was predicated on “Pay as you go.” So if the STS system is operated until a replacement is operational, either Ares I/Orion, EELV/Orion, or some COTS D system, this should not totally derail the ESAS/Constellation program, merely delay it while retaining US manned capability.

JMO

[BeanEstimator]

Ross probably has the best answer, from my quick skimming of the last couple pages.  If only for the detail that he offers.

In NOA (which is basically the Cx Checking Acct), we see an increase of ~50% from FY10 to FY11.  If shuttle is not retired per the existing plan, that increase will not be realized.  That's bad. 

If Shuttle is not retired per the existing plan, facilities and people are not available.  I'm sure someone better suited to talk to the facilities issue could explain.  Suffice to say we need buildings.  If SSP is still using them, it will get messy.  Recall Ares I-X delay issues.

In FY11 we have to spend significant $$ on Lunar.  Because we have to.  I'm sure some of you can read between the lines there.  That's fixed.  Can't do anything about it. 

So, if $ are not available in FY11 (i.e. shuttle extended with no new $)

1 - My total NOA is decreased, significantly = bad from reserves and dev perspective
2 - People and Facil are not available = bad from a schedule perspective
3 - I still have to spend $ on Lunar = bad from an IOC perspective

Bad x3 = launch delays

Not all NOA early on has been spent on IOC.  $ has to be allocated to other "phases/activities".  ISS Ops and Lunar.  Contrary to popular belief we are not spending $40b thru FY14 on IOC. 

This is a big agency.  10 centers, which I'm sure you already knew.   But, you might not understand that Cx is the bankroll.  It's Cx $ that will pay for the "fixed infrastructure" and it isn't cheap.  FCA aside, the bill goes to Cx for regular O&M.  We spend a lot of dough every year on "sustainment".  It's part of the reason why it's so hard for Cx to "get cheaper".  How do you get cheaper, when I have to pay for all of this fixed infrastructure?  You saw what happened with LPRP.  Someone used to have a sig of "Job program or exploration program, choose one".       

[marsavian]

Michael Griffin agrees that extension is the best policy and the current scorched earth policy of destroying Shuttle infrastructure is nothing to do with him ... honest

http://www.aero-news.net/news/aerospace.cfm?ContentBlockID=3E96830E-83AE-42F3-A715-A0D9D47C7B9E&Dynamic=1

A common thread throughout the hour-plus discussion was the logic, or lack thereof, of discontinuing the Space Shuttle until a replacement vehicle was in operation. According to NASA's website, the current plan includes phasing out the Space Shuttle in 2010 and using Russian Soyuz and Progress spacecraft to shuttle astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station (ISS) until a US replacement is developed. "The US and its partners have invested $100 billion in the ISS," said Griffin,. "so it does seem short-sighted to not spend the $3 billion a year to maintain the Shuttle. " Directing his comments to the children in the audience, "Sometimes Washington does silly things."

When asked what would he do if "wishes were free" and NASA's budget were doubled (the equivalent of the inflation-adjusted program for Apollo), the Administrator's response was as follows 1):  We wouldn't rely on another country and would develop a new system in parallel to continuing to use the Space Shuttle; 2) Begin working on vehicle systems sooner; and 3) Do more advanced research, the "blue sky stuff."

[ApolloStarbuck]

You know, reading these posts and learning so much from veteran members, I just have to ask: What has happened to this country?

In the 1960's we didn't even really know what we were doing and still we fielded three different manned spacecraft and at least four man-rated boosters in less than what...6 years?!?

Now we're struggling to to build one booster in less than 5 (6, 7, 8 or more) years which may not even work and which is supposedly based on technologies, systems and expertise that already exists.

God knows we have great engineers, sufficient money and people who know how to get things done.

I just don't get it. Where is the disconnect?   Is our political system so screwed up that this is the mess we face now?

[Jorge]

You know, reading these posts and learning so much from veteran members, I just have to ask: What has happened to this country?

In the 1960's we didn't even really know what we were doing and still we fielded three different manned spacecraft and at least four man-rated boosters in less than what...6 years?!?

Now we're struggling to to build one booster in less than 5 (6, 7, 8 or more) years which may not even work and which is supposedly based on technologies, systems and expertise that already exists.

God knows we have great engineers, sufficient money and people who know how to get things done.

I just don't get it. Where is the disconnect?

The disconnect is the money. "Sufficient", in one sense, but far less than was spent in the 1960s.

[clongton]

You know, reading these posts and learning so much from veteran members, I just have to ask: What has happened to this country?

In the 1960's we didn't even really know what we were doing and still we fielded three different manned spacecraft and at least four man-rated boosters in less than what...6 years?!?

Now we're struggling to to build one booster in less than 5 (6, 7, 8 or more) years which may not even work and which is supposedly based on technologies, systems and expertise that already exists.

God knows we have great engineers, sufficient money and people who know how to get things done.

I just don't get it. Where is the disconnect?   Is our political system so screwed up that this is the mess we face now?

Mercury and Gemini flew on modified existing rockets; Redstone, Atlas and Titan. Even the Saturn-iB was assembled using mostly existing hardware. Saturn-V was designed from the ground up, but that effort differed from the current effort in that Von Braun’s direction to the engineers was “here’s what I envision. Go check this out and see if it works and get back to me. If it doesn’t work well enough tell me what will and we’ll build that”. Compare that to what’s happening today with the Ares-I: “You are instructed to build THIS. I don’t care what you think and I don’t care what the problems are. Make it work. If you have the stupidity to suggest a different approach I will fire you. Now get you’re a*s to work. I don’t want to see nothing but a*sses and elbows. Oh btw, I want it yesterday”.

[Stowbridge]

It might be prudent to keep shuttle going until engineers are absolutely certain TO is not going to end Ares.

[khallow]

It might be prudent to keep shuttle going until engineers are absolutely certain TO is not going to end Ares.

Even given the uncertainty surrounding Soyuz availability, my take is that the better path would be to develope manned EELVs. Two to three billion a year of former Shuttle funds should go a long way.

[fredm6463]

I posted in other forums my belief that US must fund one to two shuttle flights per year until AresI/Orion can safely fly astronauts.

Look at current international news with Russia invading Georgia.
International events occurring in the next five years could leave the US and EU (ESA) and other ISS partners with no human access to space.
If this Russian conflict were to get out of control or if such a future conflict does so, the US and EU may become alienated from Russia.

The cold war may be over, but Russia is certainly not a dependable ally. They continue to block UN sanctions the US and EU are backing against Iran, and other international issues.

We can't afford to be out of the human launch business for an extended period of time. It's not 1976-1981.

[Jim]

Everybody keeps focusing on the Soyuz  or Shuttle flights to the ISS.  The Gap is meaningless if the ISS  can't be maintained on orbit.  Either Progresses or ATV's are needed for reboost propellant.  Or at a minimum, Russian cooperation is needed to allow the ATV's to dock.  Without prop, the ISS goes in.

[pierre]

Look at current international news with Russia invading Georgia.
International events occurring in the next five years could leave the US and EU (ESA) and other ISS partners with no human access to space.
If this Russian conflict were to get out of control or if such a future conflict does so, the US and EU may become alienated from Russia.

Let's try to keep things in contest. The EU/Russia trade is almost € 300 billion/year (more than US$ 400 billion). If the EU ever becomes alienated from Russia, for both countries the ISS will be the last of the problems.

And anyway both Russia and the USA need each other to run the ISS: even if Russia completely controls the manned launches to the station, only NASA can keep the whole thing up and running. And both of them will need big fat ATVs from Europe to sustain a crew of more than two or three people after the Shuttle retirement.

[khallow]

Everybody keeps focusing on the Soyuz  or Shuttle flights to the ISS.  The Gap is meaningless if the ISS  can't be maintained on orbit.  Either Progresses or ATV's are needed for reboost propellant.  Or at a minimum, Russian cooperation is needed to allow the ATV's to dock.  Without prop, the ISS goes in.

What Russian cooperation is required for the ATV?

[Jim]

Everybody keeps focusing on the Soyuz  or Shuttle flights to the ISS.  The Gap is meaningless if the ISS  can't be maintained on orbit.  Either Progresses or ATV's are needed for reboost propellant.  Or at a minimum, Russian cooperation is needed to allow the ATV's to dock.  Without prop, the ISS goes in.

What Russian cooperation is required for the ATV?

Configuring the SM to accept the ATV

[marsavian]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-latest-buzz-aldrin-flies-to-the-moon-again&print=true

What do you think of NASA's efforts to develop new technologies for getting humans in and out of space?

NASA does R&D in a lot of subjects. For example, the agency spent a lot of money on the X-33 program, which was for a craft that would take off horizontally like a plane and get into orbit. But that project was set aside. The return capsule being developed for the Orion module (the shuttle's replacement scheduled for 2014) is probably the right stage to use at this point. But space tourists in a future inflatable hotel shouldn't have to use a capsule. We need to have redundancy options (for getting people back and forth into space), and these are not being worked on at this time.

A craft that takes off and lands like an airplane would also be highly marketable to India and China and would increase (the U.S.'s) prestige. What we need is a way to deliver people and to do what we originally committed to do, which is have an emergency return vehicle at the International Space Station, rather than relying on the supposed cost effectiveness of a (Russian-made) Soyuz ship. If that's the only way we can get to the $100-billion space station after 2010 (when the space shuttle is retired), that is rather unfortunate. So it may make sense to extend the shuttle for a few more years. There are other ways of filling a gap (in craft availability and mission objectives) rather than squeezing it at both ends. That's what NASA did with the Gemini program between the Mercury and Apollo programs in the 1960s.

[fredm6463]

We spent billions developing the Saturns and were just getting good at operating them and then THREW THEM AWAY to start over from SCRATCH and spend more billions MORE developing the shuttle because they were thought to be cheaper. Well, somebody didn't think that one through well enough IMHO.  We got something with considerably less payload capacity, more expensive to operate and more deadly to astronauts. Maybe Apollo would have eventually killed a crew, but it was not as inevitable as the shuttle, which has SO MANY ways to kill astronauts it's a wonder MORE have not died.

Apollo had lost nearly all public interest before Apollo 13, and lost it again right after, I believe.

It does leave a very sour taste in my mouth to read a poster on here saying deathtrap shuttle. I makes me feel like I've completely failed to get across the engineering safety that is involves with the vehicle. It's a very complex vehicle and the fact that its had so many successes is a testament to the engineers and the lessons learned.

Like it or not, the experience of shuttle will be looked back in years and decades to come as the biggest plus point of future exploration, because of the challenges of Shuttle, because of the ISS - that wouldn't exist without shuttle and because of the knowledge that one doesn't just pack it in as a bad job when tragedy occurs - a risk that is there from SS2 to Soyuz.

THAT is not characterized as the biggest mistake ever.

Where could we be now had we continued to employ apollo/saturn?
A moon base, manned missions to mars, and who knows what else?

No. NASA could not have afforded to resume production of the Saturn V on its budgets of the early 1970s, with or without the shuttle. At best, Saturn IB and Apollo CSM. So the answer to where NASA would be if they had continued to employ Apollo/Saturn is, a few S-IVB wet-lab stations in LEO, and not much else.

And if 14 dead astronauts are not enough to convince anyone how dangerous the shuttle is, how many more? Spaceflight is inherently dangerous enough without tempting fate by flying flawed spacecraft.

The shuttle's overall safety record is equal to that of the only other spacecraft (Soyuz) with a statistically significant number of flights. Broadly speaking, there are two classes of manned spacecraft: those with a demonstrated fatality rate of roughly 1 in 60 (Shuttle and Soyuz), and those that never flew enough to even demonstrate a fatality rate of 1 in 60 (everything else). The shuttle's fatality numbers only look worse because it has flown more often and carried more people into space (by a fairly wide margin) than any other spacecraft. Soyuz has not had a fatal accident by 1971 but that is not as meaningful as it might appear due to the low flight rate of Soyuz. Soyuz has had 87 successful manned landings since the last accident; that is only equal to the 87 successful manned landings of the shuttle in the 17 years between its fatal accidents.

It is fairly well documented that NASA officials like Owen Maynard and Robert Gilruth were glad to see Apollo end and one of their leading reasons was the fear of a fatal accident. I think they understood the situation better than you do.

Emotional hysteria will not get you far on these forums. You are rapidly gaining a reputation you will not quickly lose.

I do not agree that I am being emotionally hysterical. Im am telling the facts as I see them. I truly believe the inherent design flaws (spacecraft hanging off side of fuel tank, exposed heat shield) and lack of a launch escape system makes the shuttle inherently more dangerous than a conventional rocket design.  I see no reason to continue flying it. Lets just let it go. 

Yes, having the shuttle hanging off the side and TPS is more dangerous than Apollo and Orion, but that design came about because of the lack of sufficient funding of Space Shuttle by Congress. The STS design was a compromise, which was picked from many other safer designs because the development costs would be cheaper.

As far as the 14 Astronauts killed on Challenger and Columbia, those deaths occurred primarily because NASA management ignored the warning signs of o-ring corrosion and blow-by as well as debris falling off the ET. If NASA had stopped flying and corrected these issues, Challenger, Columbia and the 14 astronauts would still be with us.
The shuttle tragedies were mostly due to NASA management's negligence as opposed to Apollo I and Apollo 13's lack of quality control during manufacturing (of wire harness; Apollo I and poor welding; Apollo 13.

I whole-heartedly agree with Chris that the Shuttle was not a mistake.
And it will remain the most complex spacecraft ever built for quite some time to come.

[Thorny]

The shuttle tragedies were mostly due to NASA management's negligence as opposed to Apollo I and Apollo 13's lack of quality control during manufacturing (of wire harness; Apollo I and poor welding; Apollo 13.

Poor welding? I thought it was a voltage change late in the manufacturing process (which didn't get passed on to all the subcontractors) that fried a temperature sensor in LOX tank.

Still a quality control problem, but not poor welding.

[khallow]

Yes, having the shuttle hanging off the side and TPS is more dangerous than Apollo and Orion, but that design came about because of the lack of sufficient funding of Space Shuttle by Congress. The STS design was a compromise, which was picked from many other safer designs because the development costs would be cheaper.

No. Let's not blame poor design on "funding". NASA did not have a need for a Shuttle that large. But because they chose to do so, they had to make all sorts of compromises.

As far as the 14 Astronauts killed on Challenger and Columbia, those deaths occurred primarily because NASA management ignored the warning signs of o-ring corrosion and blow-by as well as debris falling off the ET. If NASA had stopped flying and corrected these issues, Challenger, Columbia and the 14 astronauts would still be with us.
The shuttle tragedies were mostly due to NASA management's negligence as opposed to Apollo I and Apollo 13's lack of quality control during manufacturing (of wire harness; Apollo I and poor welding; Apollo 13.

I whole-heartedly agree with Chris that the Shuttle was not a mistake.
And it will remain the most complex spacecraft ever built for quite some time to come.

While I agree that the Shuttle was probably considerably safer than the Saturn V, it remains at the center of bad decisions over the past thirty or more years that restrict the US manned space program to LEO for at least 40 years. Low funding is a poor excuse for bad design. That's one thing about Ares I that's in its favor. It's designed with a modest budget in mind.

Still most of those bad decisions remain in the past. Now, my main opposition is just that the Shuttles are very costly to maintain. That money can be used to speed the development of a Shuttle replacement. Plus, we have to worry about what happens if we lose another Shuttle. The manned program will then rely on the Soyuz or a replacement vehicle anyway.

[fredm6463]

No. Let's not blame poor design on "funding". NASA did not have a need for a Shuttle that large. But because they chose to do so, they had to make all sorts of compromises.

Many of the shuttle design issues were indeed due to lack of funding.
And it looks like Ares/Orion and VSE is following the same pattern.

While I agree that the Shuttle was probably considerably safer than the Saturn V, it remains at the center of bad decisions over the past thirty or more years that restrict the US manned space program to LEO for at least 40 years. Low funding is a poor excuse for bad design. That's one thing about Ares I that's in its favor. It's designed with a modest budget in mind.

Still most of those bad decisions remain in the past. Now, my main opposition is just that the Shuttles are very costly to maintain. That money can be used to speed the development of a Shuttle replacement. Plus, we have to worry about what happens if we lose another Shuttle. The manned program will then rely on the Soyuz or a replacement vehicle anyway.

There are plenty of bad decisions being made today. First we have Ares I with a five segment SRB and thrust oscillation issues. Then designing Orion for land and/or water landings, settling on water only landings. Ares V with 5 SRB segments, then 5 and a half segments and adding another engine to the core stage.

Not only Congress, but President Bush's administration has not budgeted the funds that are necessary to get Ares I/Orion on line and reduce the gap between shuttle and Constellation.

I predict that due to other more pressing issues (terrorism, Iraq, Russia, Iran, a poor economy, and lack of Congressional and public support, the Ares V and lunar landings may be pushed further in to the future leaving AresI/Orion as a LEO vehicle also.

I don't think the funding will be there for manned trips to the moon.  Some in the  scientific community are pushing for a trip to an asteroid rather than the moon.  Finally,  who knows what the new administration will do to the VSE be it McCain or Obama who becomes the next President.

[Analyst]

No. Let's not blame poor design on "funding". NASA did not have a need for a Shuttle that large. But because they chose to do so, they had to make all sorts of compromises.

While I agree that the Shuttle was probably considerably safer than the Saturn V, it remains at the center of bad decisions over the past thirty or more years that restrict the US manned space program to LEO for at least 40 years. Low funding is a poor excuse for bad design. That's one thing about Ares I that's in its favor. It's designed with a modest budget in mind.

Still most of those bad decisions remain in the past. Now, my main opposition is just that the Shuttles are very costly to maintain. That money can be used to speed the development of a Shuttle replacement. Plus, we have to worry about what happens if we lose another Shuttle. The manned program will then rely on the Soyuz or a replacement vehicle anyway.

Wrong on many accounts:

- What is wrong with LEO? It is the only place the US taxpayer is willing to afford. Likely stays this way.
- For the capabilities the Shuttle has been asked do have, the funding was not adequate. It is amazing how well it works despite this.
- You have the same situation today with CxP and its early parts Ares I and Orion. Ares is not designed with a modest budget in mind, just the opposite. It already breaks the bank.
- Maintaining the Shuttle (~ $3.5 billion each year) is a bargain compared to operate Ares I and Orion (~ $ 2.5 billion each year at least) if you take into account the Shuttle capabilities which Orion lacks (You need an extra mission module to do anything useful with Orion other than ISS crew rotations).
- Many focus on losing another Shuttle and its impacts. What if we lose an Orion? Or a lunar lander?

Analyst

[Jim]

- Many focus on losing another Shuttle and its impacts. What if we lose an Orion? Or a lunar lander?

Analyst

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line

[psloss]

- Many focus on losing another Shuttle and its impacts. What if we lose an Orion? Or a lunar lander?

Losing another shuttle would very likely have a different political impact than the first Orion/CxP loss, in part just for the fact that it would be another loss rather than the first.  It may not be logical or fair, but that's part of the politics of this.  Politically, it's more likely CxP would get a second chance than shuttle would get another one -- particularly since Washington decided not to give the shuttle a third chance after STS-107.

[fredm6463]

- Many focus on losing another Shuttle and its impacts. What if we lose an Orion? Or a lunar lander?

Losing another shuttle would very likely have a different political impact than the first Orion/CxP loss, in part just for the fact that it would be another loss rather than the first.  It may not be logical or fair, but that's part of the politics of this.  Politically, it's more likely CxP would get a second chance than shuttle would get another one -- particularly since Washington decided not to give the shuttle a third chance after STS-107.

I recall reading that only about 10 Orion capsules will be built and that they are being designed to be somewhat reusable.
Has water landing of Orion changed that goal?

[Bubbinski]

Back to the original topic: flying shuttle to 2012:

Has there been any recent official movement on this since the Caucasus situation broke out?  Also, if the Soyuz waiver is not passed, but the partnership otherwise stays and the Russians keep flying Soyuzes and Progresses to ISS (just without U.S. astronauts on the Soyuz after 2010), and shuttle extension is approved, does this make it more likely that we would see new flights to ISS than a stretchout of the manifest?

In this situation, if new flights are added, I could maybe see them flying 4-5 missions a year (depending on OMM), featuring 2-3 week flights to ISS to not only resupply the station but also activate and conduct experiments that would be finished up and returned to earth by the following shuttle flights, in a "man-tended" situation.  Also perhaps the Canadians, Europeans, or Japanese could buy Soyuz seats to keep up their manned presence while we try to develop - and hopefully fast track - the shuttle replacement on something other than the "stick" with new funds from Congress.  Would this scenario be realistic?  (I know, relying on Congress for new funds for NASA isn't exactly a slam dunk, far from it).

[clongton]

(I know, relying on Congress for new funds for NASA isn't exactly a slam dunk, far from it).

The closer we get to the Congressional legislators looking at their own job termination due to the coming mass layoffs, the more likely it becomes that whatever funding is needed will be forthcoming.

[Analyst]

- Many focus on losing another Shuttle and its impacts. What if we lose an Orion? Or a lunar lander?

Analyst

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line

After years of analysing, redesigning, testing, blaming people and paying for all these efforts while standing down and blaming the original designers.

Analyst

[Jim]

- Many focus on losing another Shuttle and its impacts. What if we lose an Orion? Or a lunar lander?

Analyst

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line

After years of analysing, redesigning, testing, blaming people and paying for all these efforts while standing down and blaming the original designers.

Analyst

no, it will be like Apollo 13 or an ELV failure.  Find the problem, fix it and flight again.

[Bubbinski]

"The closer we get to the Congressional legislators looking at their own job termination due to the coming mass layoffs, the more likely it becomes that whatever funding is needed will be forthcoming. "

I hope you're right!  But Congress and the President haven't increased NASA funding for a while (correct?  Haven't they gone on continuing resolutions?) and there is the national debt/budget deficit along with lots of other congressmen with different priorities for their districts.  I'm trying to be optimistic about all this, it's not always easy. 

I have to think something will be worked out though, some kind of action would be taken to try to reduce the gap, even if it may be largely symbolic.

If the extension happens, can they still go to the end of the year/early next before they have to decide?  Or has that changed?

[clongton]

"The closer we get to the Congressional legislators looking at their own job termination due to the coming mass layoffs, the more likely it becomes that whatever funding is needed will be forthcoming. "

I hope you're right!  But Congress and the President haven't increased NASA funding for a while (correct?  Haven't they gone on continuing resolutions?) and there is the national debt/budget deficit along with lots of other congressmen with different priorities for their districts.  I'm trying to be optimistic about all this, it's not always easy. 

I have to think something will be worked out though, some kind of action would be taken to try to reduce the gap, even if it may be largely symbolic.

If the extension happens, can they still go to the end of the year/early next before they have to decide?  Or has that changed?

There is still time.

[Analyst]

- Many focus on losing another Shuttle and its impacts. What if we lose an Orion? Or a lunar lander?

Analyst

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line

After years of analysing, redesigning, testing, blaming people and paying for all these efforts while standing down and blaming the original designers.

Analyst

no, it will be like Apollo 13 or an ELV failure.  Find the problem, fix it and flight again.

Apollo 13 did not lose a crew and it took 9.5 months until Apollo 14. In todays risk averse world you can easily double it. If you lose a crew you come up with the Shuttle downtimes after 51L and 107: 2.5 years plus. Finding and fixing the problem might not take this long, but reassuring the stakeholders does. Orion or Shuttle, won't be a difference.

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line We did not flow the next Shuttle in the processing flow.

Analyst

[Patchouli]

- Many focus on losing another Shuttle and its impacts. What if we lose an Orion? Or a lunar lander?

Analyst

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line

After years of analysing, redesigning, testing, blaming people and paying for all these efforts while standing down and blaming the original designers.

Analyst

no, it will be like Apollo 13 or an ELV failure.  Find the problem, fix it and flight again.

Apollo 13 did not lose a crew and it took 9.5 months until Apollo 14. In todays risk averse world you can easily double it. If you lose a crew you come up with the Shuttle downtimes after 51L and 107: 2.5 years plus. Finding and fixing the problem might not take this long, but reassuring the stakeholders does. Orion or Shuttle, won't be a difference.

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line We did not flow the next Shuttle in the processing flow.

Analyst

If they lose an Orion or LSAM the delay would be just as long as the shuttle since they would try and redesign the vehicle.
An LSAM failure has a very high chance of being an LOC event esp since the LSAM provides such much of the life support and delta V for a mission.
The first failure of Orion or Altair could cause a complete redesign like Apollo 1 but double the time.
It could even cause a switch of crew launch vehicles if the LV is to blame.

[psloss]

Apollo 13 did not lose a crew and it took 9.5 months until Apollo 14. In todays risk averse world you can easily double it. If you lose a crew you come up with the Shuttle downtimes after 51L and 107: 2.5 years plus. Finding and fixing the problem might not take this long, but reassuring the stakeholders does. Orion or Shuttle, won't be a difference.

Purely speculation, but I would guess you're closer to the recovery period than Jim.  The blame game has typically lasted about as long as the board of inquiry, 6-9 months or so.  Generally speaking, NASA has felt compelled to "raise the bar," and that has been a big factor in the length of the recovery period.

It will depend on the nature of the causes of the accident, but if management is implicated as it was in both shuttle disasters, than reassuring the stakeholders would probably look like the shuttle failure recoveries.

[soldeed]

The Apollo 13 accident was a complex chain of events involving a dropped tank, (likely damaged the fill tube) a lapse in communications when  Beech aircraft who had the subcontract to build the tanks, failed to notify the small switch manufacturer who was further subcontracted to supply the thermostatic safety switches for the heaters of a voltage change from 28v DC to 65v DC and nobody noticed. After the CDDT test 3 weeks before launch, the tank would not empty properly, (probably because of the fill tube) so they decided to empty it by turning on the heaters. A technician working the night shift at pad 39A was tasked to watch the temperature and not let it go over 85 degrees Fahrenheit, but the gauge only read as high as 85 degrees, no higher. So as he let it run for eight hours, the 65v current fused the safety switch and the teflon insulation baked and cracked exposing the elements. When mission control ordered the tank stir, the damaged heating elements short circuited igniting the teflon inside the tank and-    BOOM!

The sort of things that happen when imperfect human beings screw up. Not an indictment of the basic design of Apollo which was sound. 

[psloss]

The sort of things that happen when imperfect human beings screw up. Not an indictment of the basic design of Apollo which was sound. 

Probably not an indictment of the basic design of the tank, either, but the accident board recommended a redesign, anyway.  (Which Chris Kraft fought up the management chain, eventually losing.)  Perceptions and political forces in these situations often produce overreaction.

[Jim]

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line We did not flow the next Shuttle in the processing flow.

Because it had all the ignored flaws that existed in the destroyed one.

No escape
many Crit 1 SPF

Processing is not the same as assembly

[brihath]

Apollo 13 did not lose a crew and it took 9.5 months until Apollo 14. In todays risk averse world you can easily double it. If you lose a crew you come up with the Shuttle downtimes after 51L and 107: 2.5 years plus. Finding and fixing the problem might not take this long, but reassuring the stakeholders does. Orion or Shuttle, won't be a difference.

Purely speculation, but I would guess you're closer to the recovery period than Jim.  The blame game has typically lasted about as long as the board of inquiry, 6-9 months or so.  Generally speaking, NASA has felt compelled to "raise the bar," and that has been a big factor in the length of the recovery period.

It will depend on the nature of the causes of the accident, but if management is implicated as it was in both shuttle disasters, than reassuring the stakeholders would probably look like the shuttle failure recoveries.

In terms of impact to schedule, the Apollo 13 incident was 3.5 months, as all post Apollo 12 missions were scheduled at 6 month intervals, so NASA got back on the horse and flew fairly quickly, given the investigation and tank redesign.

[psloss]

In terms of impact to schedule, the Apollo 13 incident was 3.5 months, as all post Apollo 12 missions were scheduled at 6 month intervals, so NASA got back on the horse and flew fairly quickly, given the investigation and tank redesign.

True, but one of Analyst's points was that there was no loss of life in that case.  I think losing a crew would "raise the stakes" as it has in other past cases.

[GimmeSpace]

Losing 2 vehicles in 100 or so trips is unacceptable reliability any way you look at it. STS should retire as planned unless someone can prove the reliability problems are really behind us.

If the replacement to STS was started too late, that is not a justification to ignore reliability.

[Thorny]

Losing 2 vehicles in 100 or so trips is unacceptable reliability any way you look at it. STS should retire as planned unless someone can prove the reliability problems are really behind us.

So Soyuz should be retired too?

[khallow]

As others have pointed out, losing an Orion and its crew just isn't that significant. Maybe it will, as these things have in the past, result in a couple of years of blame passing and procrastination. But if NASA loses a Shuttle, the Shuttle program is over. Continuing to launch Shuttles would result in greatly increased risk and cost.

And to reiterate, "lack of funding" as it manifested in the Shuttle (and many other US government projects) is a design flaw. One of the constraints that the Shuttle designers should have been working under was a vehicle that could thrive on a few billion (or less) a year. It was pretty clear from the early 70's on that the Shuttle would be operating with a far lower budget than the Saturn V had. Yet as far as I can tell, they designed the Shuttle so that it had high fixed costs and under the optimal conditions (40 launches a year) would cost over $10 billion a year (ignoring development costs and construction costs of orbiters). Who had a valid reason to expect that the Shuttle would find $10 billion per year in funding?

Anyway, this is a bit tangent to my original argument. I just don't see the reason to continuing using a vehicle which is both operating well outside it's optimal funding environment and which is way too dependent on three launch vehicles. My take is that NASA should do the minimum construction necessary to fulfill their obligations to ISS partners and then discontinue the Shuttle. The funds thus freed up should then be put into closing the gap with an EELV-based solution.

[psloss]

Losing 2 vehicles in 100 or so trips is unacceptable reliability any way you look at it. STS should retire as planned unless someone can prove the reliability problems are really behind us.

It's debatable -- as pointed out, Shuttle isn't any less reliable than Soyuz; there have been lots and lots of posts about this, including earlier in this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13818.msg299830#msg299830

"Increasing" reliability (even if it won't/can't be demonstrated) is one approach, but an independent approach would be to somehow change/condition the public/outside expectations to be more realistic about the risks -- though I have little confidence in that happening any time soon.  At this point, it seems to remain a "cost of doing business."