Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012

[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”.