Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012

[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.