Author Topic: SSP aiming to find the balance between Shuttle legacy and HLV advancement  (Read 22199 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Rather than just quoting the hearings, used some L2 content on SSP and HLV and added the excellent quotes from Mike Snyder's Q&A with Sen Nelson:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/02/ssp-balance-between-shuttle-legacy-hlv-advancement/
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Edward Carlson

  • Member
  • Posts: 41
  • Chicago
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Very interesting article! And thanks for quoting the Orbiter guy as he was amazing.

Offline KEdward5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 840
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 116
Nice balance with the pro comments from Shannon. Also thought M Snyder did what I had been hoping someone with shuttle had done already by fighting her case. Really well spoken too.

Offline northanger

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
That's a great article Chris, should help me start to grasp all the issues better (VASIMR rox ;D). Two quotes, first from John Shannon, second from Mike Snyder (thanks for pointing out he's an Orbiter Project manager, didn't know that!) sum things up for me:

Quote
“For now, keep doing what you are doing. The Shuttle Team’s execution of the mission, in concert with the ISS Team, is providing stability to the Agency. It is needed at this point in time and truly demonstrates NASA’s competencies to our country and our lawmakers.”

Quote
“You heard General Bolden say he wants redundant access – but when we stand down that fleet, that redundant access is gone and it becomes a foreign monopoly.

“The shuttle is the most capable vehicle we’ve ever had. I would challenge anyone who would say it’s unsafe. Clearly they do not know what we do – day in, day out – to make sure that every mission the fleet is as safe as it could possibly be.”

I'm a shuttle hugger & might not say this right, but this team has earned the right to pass the baton to whatever we do next. Extending this team doesn't make me concerned about deadlines, different flags on the Moon or commercialization.

Online Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6407
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 72
Gibson was an interesting choice to testify. He was CDR of STS-61C, with PLT Bolden and then-Rep. Nelson.
JRF

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8584
  • Liked: 3613
  • Likes Given: 327
Gibson was an interesting choice to testify. He was CDR of STS-61C, with PLT Bolden and then-Rep. Nelson.

Do you know who made that choice?

Offline MP99

Chris,

minor point...

Quote
Mr Snyder also pointed towards one of the Augustine Committee recommendations

I thought the committee was supposed to come up with options without actually recommending?

Martin

Offline northanger

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Gibson was an interesting choice to testify. He was CDR of STS-61C, with PLT Bolden and then-Rep. Nelson.

I'm weird this way :o -- but the three of them together seems to turn NASA Budget FY2011 into a shuttle mission.

Online Chris Bergin

Chris,

minor point...

Quote
Mr Snyder also pointed towards one of the Augustine Committee recommendations

I thought the committee was supposed to come up with options without actually recommending?

Martin

That's a fair point Martin, as you're right ;) I'll swap that out with "options".
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Harold KSC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 908
  • Liked: 11905
  • Likes Given: 60
That was far more balanced than most media outlets have been.

Offline Martin FL

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2468
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 282
"once again heard the NASA administrator position himself in opposition to an extension – mainly by citing the costs involved, even though he classed the $9 billion invested into the cancelled Constellation Program – potentially less than it would cost to extend shuttle to 2015 – as a “good investment”."

So true and so transparent.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7716
Thanks much :)

Relinked it in the article, but Mr Snyder's testimony is online:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=fe53d516-dd6b-4db5-ba9f-b86b47ddaefd

Thanks for the link Chris. I wanted to keep that in my files for all time. Mike mirrored many of the same comments I would make, but from being on the outside looking in. Having those comments out in the open, and directed at Congress who clearly need direction on this matter, is crucial. The point on redundancy but cancelling shuttle and relying solely on Soyuz to launch crew is so very poignant. Bravo Mike. I hope to raise a glass with you one day.

And a great article too Chris. There were a lot of great comments you made in there, not just quotes.

I'm not sure how the process could be worked, but could they (congress) implement an immediate CR to do a hold order on shuttle retirement, much like NASA did internally with CxP & Shuttle assets when HLV was being seriously looked at by Bolden? That should give them the time to evalute things more clearly, and give them breathing room. Obviously it would require more money, but even if they advocated a 1-year extension of 2 flights that would remove a LOT of pressure.

Offline Shuttle Man

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 498
  • KSC
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 2
Michael was impressive. Chris, you should see if you can ask your JSC friends if he'd register a membername here?
Ex-Apollo, waiting for NASA to finish what we started.

Offline Davinator

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 343
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 74
Game Changing HLV with shuttle hardware? What could that be?

Offline TonyJ73

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
From the article, a good read.

Quote
ASAP) report, which cited a need to recertify the fleet in the event of an extension, due to safety concerns. This is directly in contradiction to SSP manager Mr Shannon, who has twice gone on the record to refute the ASAP requirement by noting the recertification work that has taken place on the fleet after the Columbia disaster.

SNIP

It is highly questionable as to why General Bolden would cite the ASAP report on shuttle extension – in contradiction to his own managers – whilst dismissing the majority of the ASAP findings that were made in the same report, findings which supported Ares I and held grave misgivings about crew safety in relation to commercial vehicles.

I too found it strange he would side with the ASAP on shuttle, but not Ares or Commercial. He can have his own opinion, explain how his own SSP is wrong, but to use the ASAP, questionable is a good choice of words.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I too found it strange he would side with the ASAP on shuttle, but not Ares or Commercial. He can have his own opinion, explain how his own SSP is wrong, but to use the ASAP, questionable is a good choice of words.

I find it really strange how you can side with anything in the ASAP report with regards to Shuttle.  It says nothing....it simply throws out the same political misconceptions without any supporting data.  THAT is the true conspiracy theory.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline STS Tony

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1680
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 107
Great read as always. Now if they can only wake up to shuttle before it's too late.

Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Chris,
Good article, very timely.
Thank you!


Offline Carl G

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Liked: 260
  • Likes Given: 140
"once again heard the NASA administrator position himself in opposition to an extension – mainly by citing the costs involved, even though he classed the $9 billion invested into the cancelled Constellation Program – potentially less than it would cost to extend shuttle to 2015 – as a “good investment”."

So true and so transparent.

Makes you wonder about how mismanaged the Agency is and its the engineers that are paying with their jobs.

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Game Changing HLV with shuttle hardware? What could that be?



that's a question I would love to see an answer to ::)
look at figure 10 on page 42 of the PDF viewer( attached), perhaps ideas for HLV such as a ET tank with Delta-IV CBC's might be looked at again.Its shuttle derived with EELV heritage modular design.
and as always great article Chris
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 02:06 pm by infocat13 »
I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Game Changing HLV with shuttle hardware? What could that be?



that's a question I would love to see an answer to ::)
look at figure 10 on page 42 of the PDF viewer( attached), perhaps ideas for HLV such as a ET tank with Delta-IV CBC's might be looked at again.Its shuttle derived with EELV heritage modular design.
and as always great article Chris
If the 2nd from the right was pushed as Ares V I think there would have been less issues, altho still some due to the SRB's.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline DavisSTS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
  • England, American Ex Pat
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 63
Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Game Changing HLV with shuttle hardware? What could that be?



that's a question I would love to see an answer to ::)
look at figure 10 on page 42 of the PDF viewer( attached), perhaps ideas for HLV such as a ET tank with Delta-IV CBC's might be looked at again.Its shuttle derived with EELV heritage modular design.
and as always great article Chris
If the 2nd from the right was pushed as Ares V I think there would have been less issues, altho still some due to the SRB's.

well........second from the right is also a happy bipartisan rocket as it retains the SRB's from Utah ;D and uses EELV CBC's which presumably may be our commercial crew to LEO launch vehicle. but the new HLV budget line item calls for a new engine and is funded at $1 billion per year
perhaps Constellation is dead but some components might live on with a little nudge from congress
Downix what would have been the issues with the SRB's ?
Jim tells me you can'nt mount shuttle SRB's on a Delta-IV core but this is a ET core.
thanks
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 02:35 pm by infocat13 »
I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Game Changing HLV with shuttle hardware? What could that be?



that's a question I would love to see an answer to ::)
look at figure 10 on page 42 of the PDF viewer( attached), perhaps ideas for HLV such as a ET tank with Delta-IV CBC's might be looked at again.Its shuttle derived with EELV heritage modular design.
and as always great article Chris
If the 2nd from the right was pushed as Ares V I think there would have been less issues, altho still some due to the SRB's.

well........second from the right is also a happy bipartisan rocket as it retains the SRB's from Utah ;D and uses EELV CBC's which presumably may be our commercial crew to LEO launch vehicle. but the new HLV budget line item calls for a new engine and is funded at $1 billion per year
perhaps Constellation is dead but some components might live on with a little nudge from congress
Downix what would have been the issues with the SRB's ?
Jim tells me you cant mount shuttle SRB's on a Delta-IV core but this is a ET core.
thanks
Same issues Ares V has, the SRB outputting massive amounts of heat, and due to the RS-68's Ablative cooling system, they would fail before the lift stage was complete.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline infocat13

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

[/quote]
Same issues Ares V has, the SRB outputting massive amounts of heat, and due to the RS-68's Ablative cooling system, they would fail before the lift stage was complete.
[/quote]

ahhhh ok I remember now, thanks, so the first rocket on the right would have meant a massive buy of Delta CBC's and RS-68's along with the Orion on Delta-IV prices for lead items would drop.But this is now what could have been........................right? ::)
I am a member of the side mount amazing people universe however I can get excited over the EELV exploration architecture amazing people universe.Anything else is budgetary hog wash
flexible path/HERRO

Online Chris Bergin

Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Managers have to take the official position and the official position is not an extension.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17985
  • Liked: 4053
  • Likes Given: 2093
Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Managers have to take the official position and the official position is not an extension.
Chris, do you know if Mr. Snyder is with NASA or a contractor?  Just a guess, but that might make a very slight difference.  I can't recall any NASA Shuttle people doing that, and reporters have attempted to draw them out on multiple occasions in the last few years.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 02:56 pm by psloss »

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Managers have to take the official position and the official position is not an extension.

Political flunkies appointees have to toe the company line.  Professional managers do not and should not.

That's what gets NASA in trouble every time.  Wearing their "manager hats" instead of their "engineer hats".

Mark S.

Online Chris Bergin

Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Managers have to take the official position and the official position is not an extension.
Chris, do you know if Mr. Snyder is with NASA or a contractor?  Just a guess, but that might make a very slight difference.  I can't recall any NASA Shuttle people doing that, and reporters have attempted to draw them out on multiple occasions in the last few years.


Ah good point. I understand he's United Space Alliance.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline tminus9

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 145
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 1
Great article, as usual.

I would still love to see some hard numbers on the costs to extend, including restarting the necessary assembly lines, etc. We can all look at the current fixed and variable costs to fly each year, but I don't recall seeing the actual projected cost of an extension (e.g., 2015) that would require substantially more hardware. Those costs, along with the benefits of maintaining skills and crew-to-ISS redundancy, will have to be considered.

I'm all for shuttle extension, just not at any cost.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 03:03 pm by tminus9 »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17985
  • Liked: 4053
  • Likes Given: 2093
Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Managers have to take the official position and the official position is not an extension.

Political flunkies appointees have to toe the company line.  Professional managers do not and should not.
I'm not sure that Mr. Shannon or Mr. Moses promotion from MOD are highly political.

Offline dbhyslop

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 192
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4

Political flunkies appointees have to toe the company line.  Professional managers do not and should not.


Not true.  The political appointees make the policies and the civil servants are there to execute them.  This is why the names of government attorneys are redacted out of the OPR report on the interrogation memos.

Online Chris Bergin

Great article, as usual.

I would still love to see some hard numbers on the costs to extend, including restarting the necessary assembly lines, etc. We can all look at the current fixed and variable costs to fly each year, but I don't recall seeing the actual projected cost of an extension (e.g., 2015) that would require substantially more hardware. Those costs, along with the benefits of maintaining skills and crew-to-ISS redundancy, will have to be considered.

I'm all for shuttle extension, just not at any cost.

Thanks and that's a good post. I agree with the 2015 extension issue - always had a preference for 2012 - as you can manifest stretch and add STS-135 (ET-122), 136, 137 and maybe 138 (was two, but now documented as three part-built tanks in storage) without needing "new" tanks (as in MAF contractor re-starts). SSMEs are ok, and I'm sure ATK would be able to get some booster sets out if someone wrote them a check.

For 3-4 billion you literally wipe the gap in half - or more - if ULA (or SpaceX) can be ready for 2014....and the 2012 extension is probably cheaper as you don't have to restart production lines, and can run with two orbiters - with the third as a parts donor.

OMDP timelines are ok. Skill set retaintion is in place. Controlled transition.

The key is to make use of each flight as much as possible. It's not viable for just crew rotation and supply flights. Get the ISS full of ORUs, use the downmass capability for science not just trash. CRS is ready to immediately take over (or within a year) on retirement.

ASAP won't be armwaving over safety on a 2012 extension as it's literally just three or four more flights - not 15 additional flights as one 2015 extension study called for. Can be sure of full utilization of ISS.

I only hope 2015 is for bargining purposes, with 2012 being the negotiated stance, because I can't see 2015 being approved.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Great article, as usual.

I would still love to see some hard numbers on the costs to extend, including restarting the necessary assembly lines, etc. We can all look at the current fixed and variable costs to fly each year, but I don't recall seeing the actual projected cost of an extension (e.g., 2015) that would require substantially more hardware. Those costs, along with the benefits of maintaining skills and crew-to-ISS redundancy, will have to be considered.

I'm all for shuttle extension, just not at any cost.

Thanks and that's a good post. I agree with the 2015 extension issue - always had a preference for 2012 - as you can manifest stretch and add STS-135 (ET-122), 136, 137 and maybe 138 (was two, but now documented as three part-built tanks in storage) without needing "new" tanks (as in MAF contractor re-starts). SSMEs are ok, and I'm sure ATK would be able to get some booster sets out if someone wrote them a check.

For 3-4 billion you literally wipe the gap in half - or more - if ULA (or SpaceX) can be ready for 2014....and the 2012 extension is probably cheaper as you don't have to restart production lines, and can run with two orbiters - with the third as a parts donor.

OMDP timelines are ok. Skill set retaintion is in place. Controlled transition.

The key is to make use of each flight as much as possible. It's not viable for just crew rotation and supply flights. Get the ISS full of ORUs, use the downmass capability for science not just trash. CRS is ready to immediately take over (or within a year) on retirement.

ASAP won't be armwaving over safety on a 2012 extension as it's literally just three or four more flights - not 15 additional flights as one 2015 extension study called for. Can be sure of full utilization of ISS.

I only hope 2015 is for bargining purposes, with 2012 being the negotiated stance, because I can't see 2015 being approved.
Since the 5-seg booster would be ready by 2012, could even do two 5-seg SRB shuttle launches and make ATK quite happy by getting in two "test" launches while the shuttle fans will then have a bigger payload on the orbiter.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17985
  • Liked: 4053
  • Likes Given: 2093
Since the 5-seg booster would be ready by 2012, could even do two 5-seg SRB shuttle launches and make ATK quite happy by getting in two "test" launches while the shuttle fans will then have a bigger payload on the orbiter.
They'd have to qualify/certify those to fly on Shuttle and I don't think any work has been done in that regard in a long time.  (IIRC that was a different 5-seg booster than this one and not sure "integration" got beyond study phase.)

The certification work would likely require additional money, too.

Edit2:
Was discussed here a couple of years ago:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11356.msg229847#msg229847
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11356.msg229852#msg229852
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 05:53 pm by psloss »

Offline Tim S

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • MSFC
  • Liked: 821
  • Likes Given: 22
It's interesting that the previous battle was extension vs Constellation funding. Losing both was not something that should be accepted.

Offline Longhorn John

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 130
Great article, as usual.

I would still love to see some hard numbers on the costs to extend, including restarting the necessary assembly lines, etc. We can all look at the current fixed and variable costs to fly each year, but I don't recall seeing the actual projected cost of an extension (e.g., 2015) that would require substantially more hardware. Those costs, along with the benefits of maintaining skills and crew-to-ISS redundancy, will have to be considered.

I'm all for shuttle extension, just not at any cost.

Thanks and that's a good post. I agree with the 2015 extension issue - always had a preference for 2012 - as you can manifest stretch and add STS-135 (ET-122), 136, 137 and maybe 138 (was two, but now documented as three part-built tanks in storage) without needing "new" tanks (as in MAF contractor re-starts). SSMEs are ok, and I'm sure ATK would be able to get some booster sets out if someone wrote them a check.

For 3-4 billion you literally wipe the gap in half - or more - if ULA (or SpaceX) can be ready for 2014....and the 2012 extension is probably cheaper as you don't have to restart production lines, and can run with two orbiters - with the third as a parts donor.

OMDP timelines are ok. Skill set retaintion is in place. Controlled transition.

The key is to make use of each flight as much as possible. It's not viable for just crew rotation and supply flights. Get the ISS full of ORUs, use the downmass capability for science not just trash. CRS is ready to immediately take over (or within a year) on retirement.

ASAP won't be armwaving over safety on a 2012 extension as it's literally just three or four more flights - not 15 additional flights as one 2015 extension study called for. Can be sure of full utilization of ISS.

I only hope 2015 is for bargining purposes, with 2012 being the negotiated stance, because I can't see 2015 being approved.

Maybe the powers that be just want the shuttle to end? :(

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 457
I think the Shuttle should be extended to 2012 this would give overlap with the commercial providers.

I also believe an HLV should be one of the high risk things that NASA can be developing in house as HLVs with a payload over over 35 to 40T lack a commercial market at this time.

As for where to get the money there is several billion unspent in DHS mostly from the stalled and pretty much dead real ID program half the states bailed on it so it's dead as well as money that can be diverted from the DEA.
I won't go into all the details as it could be politically charged but it's something around 3 Billion to 6 USD a year more then enough for a Shuttle extension and fielding an HLV
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 05:31 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 533
Maybe the powers that be just want the shuttle to end? :(

I don't think anyone's standing in their dark tower, twisting their hands and muttering "I could rule this world, if not for that damned Space Shuttle!" to their magic mirror.

Take a look at the DoD: The F-22 and DDG-1000 are superb platforms and you can easily make an argument that the more of them our military has the better off it is. But for as excellent as they were, and as many people as their programs employed, their financial burden going forward was preventing the USAF and USN from attending to other needs. The shuttles are great, but the powers that be believe we can't get out to the next level while we're paying to keep them going.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 05:17 pm by Halidon »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 457
Maybe the powers that be just want the shuttle to end? :(

I don't think anyone's standing in their dark tower, twisting their hands and muttering "I could rule this world, if not for that damned Space Shuttle!" to their magic mirror.

Take a look at the DoD: The F-22 and DDG-1000 are superb platforms and you can easily make an argument that the more of them our military has the better off it is. But for as excellent as they were, and as many people as their programs employed, their financial burden going forward was preventing the USAF and USN from attending to other needs. The shuttles are great, but the powers that be believe we can't get out to the next level while we're paying to keep them going.

I think the F-22 was money well spent but I think the F-35 program was a complete waste.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2010 05:30 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 533
I think the F-22 was money well spent but I think the F-35 program was a complete waste.
F-35 is only part of the package. Also talking about Tanker, COIN aircraft, new and better drones, and possibly Joint Heavy Lift. All of which were facing tough budgetary battles while F-22 was still USAF's flagship program.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37641
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21720
  • Likes Given: 429

That's what gets NASA in trouble every time.  Wearing their "manager hats" instead of their "engineer hats".


Extending the shuttle is a management decision and not an engineering one.

Offline RobbieCape

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 83
Great article, as usual.

I would still love to see some hard numbers on the costs to extend, including restarting the necessary assembly lines, etc. We can all look at the current fixed and variable costs to fly each year, but I don't recall seeing the actual projected cost of an extension (e.g., 2015) that would require substantially more hardware. Those costs, along with the benefits of maintaining skills and crew-to-ISS redundancy, will have to be considered.

I'm all for shuttle extension, just not at any cost.

Thanks and that's a good post. I agree with the 2015 extension issue - always had a preference for 2012 - as you can manifest stretch and add STS-135 (ET-122), 136, 137 and maybe 138 (was two, but now documented as three part-built tanks in storage) without needing "new" tanks (as in MAF contractor re-starts). SSMEs are ok, and I'm sure ATK would be able to get some booster sets out if someone wrote them a check.

For 3-4 billion you literally wipe the gap in half - or more - if ULA (or SpaceX) can be ready for 2014....and the 2012 extension is probably cheaper as you don't have to restart production lines, and can run with two orbiters - with the third as a parts donor.

OMDP timelines are ok. Skill set retaintion is in place. Controlled transition.

The key is to make use of each flight as much as possible. It's not viable for just crew rotation and supply flights. Get the ISS full of ORUs, use the downmass capability for science not just trash. CRS is ready to immediately take over (or within a year) on retirement.

ASAP won't be armwaving over safety on a 2012 extension as it's literally just three or four more flights - not 15 additional flights as one 2015 extension study called for. Can be sure of full utilization of ISS.

I only hope 2015 is for bargining purposes, with 2012 being the negotiated stance, because I can't see 2015 being approved.

What is the next step in this battle, if any?

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12071
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7410
  • Likes Given: 3777
I have no trouble with standing down Shuttle because it is true that the operating funding is large enough that it does prevent moving forward. The SSP does need to stand down and end; that's not the problem. The problem is the timing, or rather the lack of it. The SSP should be transitioning to its operational replacement. It's not. Instead, in the words of Mr. Snyder, it's just being "extinguished". That leaves us nowhere, with nothing. That is, in my opinion, a stupid decision made by people who have either forgotten how or refuse to think.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online Chris Bergin

Great article, as usual.

I would still love to see some hard numbers on the costs to extend, including restarting the necessary assembly lines, etc. We can all look at the current fixed and variable costs to fly each year, but I don't recall seeing the actual projected cost of an extension (e.g., 2015) that would require substantially more hardware. Those costs, along with the benefits of maintaining skills and crew-to-ISS redundancy, will have to be considered.

I'm all for shuttle extension, just not at any cost.

Thanks and that's a good post. I agree with the 2015 extension issue - always had a preference for 2012 - as you can manifest stretch and add STS-135 (ET-122), 136, 137 and maybe 138 (was two, but now documented as three part-built tanks in storage) without needing "new" tanks (as in MAF contractor re-starts). SSMEs are ok, and I'm sure ATK would be able to get some booster sets out if someone wrote them a check.

For 3-4 billion you literally wipe the gap in half - or more - if ULA (or SpaceX) can be ready for 2014....and the 2012 extension is probably cheaper as you don't have to restart production lines, and can run with two orbiters - with the third as a parts donor.

OMDP timelines are ok. Skill set retaintion is in place. Controlled transition.

The key is to make use of each flight as much as possible. It's not viable for just crew rotation and supply flights. Get the ISS full of ORUs, use the downmass capability for science not just trash. CRS is ready to immediately take over (or within a year) on retirement.

ASAP won't be armwaving over safety on a 2012 extension as it's literally just three or four more flights - not 15 additional flights as one 2015 extension study called for. Can be sure of full utilization of ISS.

I only hope 2015 is for bargining purposes, with 2012 being the negotiated stance, because I can't see 2015 being approved.

What is the next step in this battle, if any?

Political.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Why couldn't Mike Moses or John Shannon come out with a similar statement to Mike Snyder? Moses seemed to back it with his "they are ok to fly till 2020" but wouldn't be drawn on if it was a good idea.

Managers have to take the official position and the official position is not an extension.
Chris, do you know if Mr. Snyder is with NASA or a contractor?  Just a guess, but that might make a very slight difference.  I can't recall any NASA Shuttle people doing that, and reporters have attempted to draw them out on multiple occasions in the last few years.


Ah good point. I understand he's United Space Alliance.

Civil service employees do not have the luxury of being able to say too much.  As employees of the government, they are to carry out policy...regardless of their personal feelings.  As for contractors, when this type situation comes up, then mostly it has to be cleared with whatever company we work for and then it has to be on our own time and at our own expense. 

See the Hatch Act for more information. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17985
  • Liked: 4053
  • Likes Given: 2093
Civil service employees do not have the luxury of being able to say too much.  As employees of the government, they are to carry out policy...regardless of their personal feelings.  As for contractors, when this type situation comes up, then mostly it has to be cleared with whatever company we work for and then it has to be on our own time and at our own expense. 

See the Hatch Act for more information. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
Thanks.

Offline Andy Armstrong

  • Member
  • Posts: 8
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
always had a preference for 2012 - as you can manifest stretch and add STS-135 (ET-122), 136, 137 and maybe 138 (was two, but now documented as three part-built tanks in storage) without needing "new" tanks (as in MAF contractor re-starts). SSMEs are ok.

The 2012 extension is probably cheaper as you don't have to restart production lines, and can run with two orbiters - with the third as a parts donor.
 

Nice to hear support for 2012.  And if a shuttle enhanced launch vehicle is chosen for HLV then the gap will essentially be non-existent.

Quote

Now, if this plan gets refined, and I suspect it will be, HLV is going to be central to changes. If we get a push on HLV timelines, that'll appease some people.


What kind of push would you like? Target of 2015, 2016, or other for initial flights. Just wondering.


Online Chris Bergin

Welcome to the site's forum, Andy.

On the HLV, I'm slightly less specific, as we need a specific goal/mission for the HLV. I'd *like* to see test flights by the second half of the decade, but if HLV is only for Mars, then the cost of a Mars mission would make it unviable to push for a HLV before the 2020s - and maybe further.

So the question would be how soon will we need a HLV and what sort of mission can we push for via the capability of a HLV?

Maybe the interim Mars precursor of big deep space telescopes? The extra political and science community support we saw for STS-125 would be a good ally.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/manned-mission-to-construct-huge-geo-and-deep-space-telescopes-proposed/

But I am a Flexible Path fan :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Tim S

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • MSFC
  • Liked: 821
  • Likes Given: 22
That's a good thought process, because it would be such a bad call to return to the same scenario that ended Ares I, a vehicle with no mission based on FOC readiness and ISS requirements. Having a HLV ready before there's any mission to use it would not work.

That said, you can't leave it too long, or you risk losing the people you need to design and produce the vehicle.

Offline RobbieCape

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 83
Welcome to the site's forum, Andy.

On the HLV, I'm slightly less specific, as we need a specific goal/mission for the HLV. I'd *like* to see test flights by the second half of the decade, but if HLV is only for Mars, then the cost of a Mars mission would make it unviable to push for a HLV before the 2020s - and maybe further.

So the question would be how soon will we need a HLV and what sort of mission can we push for via the capability of a HLV?

Maybe the interim Mars precursor of big deep space telescopes? The extra political and science community support we saw for STS-125 would be a good ally.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/manned-mission-to-construct-huge-geo-and-deep-space-telescopes-proposed/

But I am a Flexible Path fan :)

That's an interesting comment. There's been a large missing element of what we do between ISS and Mars, with only some references to a NEO mission, but you don't need a HLV for that?

Online Chris Bergin

Move and bump to the HLV section
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1