Is A Human Space Flight Compromise Emerging? (STS Extension/SD HLV etc)

[Ben the Space Brit]

I've read the article linked by OV-106 and can note one glaring error (glaring even to a non-technical layperson such as myself).  Shuttle is not in any way a safeguard in the event of a Soyuz stand-down.  Without a Soyuz to be a lifeboat, the ISS would have to be abandoned, period.  Something like an ATV could be used to keep it stable and in orbit but, until a lifeboat vehicle is available, continual human occupation could not resume.

Where the shuttle really shines, of course, is in logistical upmass.  However, I'm pretty sure it would be a bit more difficult to explain to the public that they need to pay to keep shuttle flying because, frankly, there is presently no way to shift enough cargo to the ISS to keep it running in the long-term without it.

[Jorge]

I've read the article linked by OV-106 and can note one glaring error (glaring even to a non-technical layperson such as myself).  Shuttle is not in any way a safeguard in the event of a Soyuz stand-down.  Without a Soyuz to be a lifeboat, the ISS would have to be abandoned, period.

Shuttle would allow periodic man-tending (as Space Station Freedom was designed for), which would allow for maintenance/repair of critical systems during the period the station could not be continuously manned.

[Namechange User]

I've read the article linked by OV-106 and can note one glaring error (glaring even to a non-technical layperson such as myself).  Shuttle is not in any way a safeguard in the event of a Soyuz stand-down.  Without a Soyuz to be a lifeboat, the ISS would have to be abandoned, period.  Something like an ATV could be used to keep it stable and in orbit but, until a lifeboat vehicle is available, continual human occupation could not resume.

Where the shuttle really shines, of course, is in logistical upmass.  However, I'm pretty sure it would be a bit more difficult to explain to the public that they need to pay to keep shuttle flying because, frankly, there is presently no way to shift enough cargo to the ISS to keep it running in the long-term without it.

There are "always possibilities".

Can shuttle remain docked continuously, acting as a "permanent" rescuse vehicle?  No, of course not. 

Can shuttle stay for approximately 2 weeks at a time?  Yes.

Can shuttle perform crew rotation?  Yes

If Soyuz has an accident, will the Soyuz vehicles currently docked to ISS have to be used anyway?  Yes, absolutely.  No other way around it.

Could their six month service life be prolonged?  Possibly

While it is not a perfect solution is does provide the "redundanct access" so often discussed and possibilities otherwise not possible.  The one absolute is minus shuttle and something wrong with Soyuz is that you you may not be able to do anything for a significant amount of time on ISS, and depending on the failure of Soyuz, could be risking the crew on ISS.   

[Robotbeat]

I've read the article linked by OV-106 and can note one glaring error (glaring even to a non-technical layperson such as myself).  Shuttle is not in any way a safeguard in the event of a Soyuz stand-down.  Without a Soyuz to be a lifeboat, the ISS would have to be abandoned, period.

Shuttle would allow periodic man-tending (as Space Station Freedom was designed for), which would allow for maintenance/repair of critical systems during the period the station could not be continuously manned.

Other space stations have been abandoned temporarily. In fact, Salyut 7 was completely without power (or attitude control) for almost 4 months and was frozen and slowly spinning when the Soyuz T-13 crew manually docked to it and started restoring the spacecraft.

Obviously, the ISS would be much more complicated and it'd be completely irresponsible to let something like that happen to the station, but it's still not necessarily the end if it is abandoned temporarily.

And if we are talking about having the Shuttle available, then there are lots of things which could be done. Just because there aren't people inside all the time doesn't mean the thing immediately starts careening out of control.

[Space Pete]

Here's John Glenn's full statement regarding NASA's manned space flight program.

www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1406

[Space Pete]

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, today said she strongly supports former Senator and astronaut John Glenn's statement highlighting the risks of relying only on the Russian Soyuz vehicles for American access to the ISS.

www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31093

[MATTBLAK]

Isn't Senator Glenn leaving it a bit late to say anything?

[Ben the Space Brit]

Isn't Senator Glenn leaving it a bit late to say anything?

Everyone in a positition of authority seems to have left it a bit late to say anything.  Either they thought that NASA was exaggerating about the length of the Gap or they were happy so long as their constituents and lobbyists' employers were doing something, even if it was only ground work.

[sdsds]

Isn't Senator Glenn leaving it a bit late to say anything?

Everyone in a position of authority seems to have left it a bit late to say anything.

To be clear, Senator Glenn no longer represents the state of Ohio and is thus no longer in a "position of authority" in that sense of the phrase.  Like Armstrong, Glenn's authority now derives solely from the respect he has earned through his years of service.  That Glenn and others are speaking out now is yet another clear sign that the executive branch was not open and transparent during the time between the Augustine report and the announcement of the FY11 budget proposal.

It is not too late for the executive branch to change its course and work with the legislature to forge a plan to fly Orion atop a Shuttle-derived launcher.  The executive branch might particularly support this plan if the launcher program was led from KSC or JSC.

[mr_magoo]

What I found odd about Glenn's op-ed was that he seemed to entirely ignore the technology R&D push in fy2011 and then calls for "Increase preparation and planning for a MARS mission".

[Herb Schaltegger]

I've read the article linked by OV-106 and can note one glaring error (glaring even to a non-technical layperson such as myself).  Shuttle is not in any way a safeguard in the event of a Soyuz stand-down.  Without a Soyuz to be a lifeboat, the ISS would have to be abandoned, period.

Shuttle would allow periodic man-tending (as Space Station Freedom was designed for), which would allow for maintenance/repair of critical systems during the period the station could not be continuously manned.

Space Station Freedom was ALWAYS designed with a baseline PMC (Permanently Manned Configuration), scarred for planned growth to AC (Assembly Complete).  The man-tended phase was not designed nor meant to be an indefinite condition.

[Namechange User]

I've read the article linked by OV-106 and can note one glaring error (glaring even to a non-technical layperson such as myself).  Shuttle is not in any way a safeguard in the event of a Soyuz stand-down.  Without a Soyuz to be a lifeboat, the ISS would have to be abandoned, period.

Shuttle would allow periodic man-tending (as Space Station Freedom was designed for), which would allow for maintenance/repair of critical systems during the period the station could not be continuously manned.

Space Station Freedom was ALWAYS designed with a baseline PMC (Permanently Manned Configuration), scarred for planned growth to AC (Assembly Complete).  The man-tended phase was not designed nor meant to be an indefinite condition.

Same is true with ISS but Jorge's point is valid.  With shuttle, until something else comes along, you can maintain the station in the event Soyuz is grounded.  If Soyuz is grounded, you have nothing. 

[Jorge]

I've read the article linked by OV-106 and can note one glaring error (glaring even to a non-technical layperson such as myself).  Shuttle is not in any way a safeguard in the event of a Soyuz stand-down.  Without a Soyuz to be a lifeboat, the ISS would have to be abandoned, period.

Shuttle would allow periodic man-tending (as Space Station Freedom was designed for), which would allow for maintenance/repair of critical systems during the period the station could not be continuously manned.

Space Station Freedom was ALWAYS designed with a baseline PMC (Permanently Manned Configuration), scarred for planned growth to AC (Assembly Complete).  The man-tended phase was not designed nor meant to be an indefinite condition.

The man-tended phase was not designed to be indefinite but it *was* designed to last all the way through the assembly phase. SSF would not have been PMC until after the delivery of ACRV on the last assembly flight, MB-17. The man-tended capability wasn't going to magically disappear as soon as MB-17 landed.

[gladiator1332]

Well here we are almost at the end of June, and still no compromise. Even worse, those in Congress with an opinion on all of this, are STILL trying to save Ares and Cx.

I know many on here feel FY2011 is nothing but Obama's attempt to kill HSF...but how are the actions of those in Congress any better? They don't care about HSF one bit...all they want to do is protect the contracts and interests in their states.

[CessnaDriver]

Well here we are almost at the end of June, and still no compromise. Even worse, those in Congress with an opinion on all of this, are STILL trying to save Ares and Cx.

I know many on here feel FY2011 is nothing but Obama's attempt to kill HSF...but how are the actions of those in Congress any better? They don't care about HSF one bit...all they want to do is protect the contracts and interests in their states.

Obama offers nothing better then Constellation.

His plan sucks. It's not worthy of this nation.

What else are they supposed to do in this struggle?

Cave in to Obama and get nothing better?

Constellation is the fort to fight from for something better.


God knows there are far smarter paths to follow.

[Robotbeat]

Constellation is a path to cancellation. At least with "flexible path" we have more money going to R&D.

[gladiator1332]

Well here we are almost at the end of June, and still no compromise. Even worse, those in Congress with an opinion on all of this, are STILL trying to save Ares and Cx.

I know many on here feel FY2011 is nothing but Obama's attempt to kill HSF...but how are the actions of those in Congress any better? They don't care about HSF one bit...all they want to do is protect the contracts and interests in their states.

Obama offers nothing better then Constellation.

His plan sucks. It's not worthy of this nation.

What else are they supposed to do in this struggle?

Cave in to Obama and get nothing better?

Constellation is the fort to fight from for something better.


God knows there are far smarter paths to follow.

The politicians who are fighting for Cx, are not looking for a fort! They want Cx...Ares I, Ares V, Altair, Orion.

They do not understand / nor care that the budget for this does not exist. All they want is for the funding to remain in their states.

[neilh]

Well here we are almost at the end of June, and still no compromise. Even worse, those in Congress with an opinion on all of this, are STILL trying to save Ares and Cx.

I know many on here feel FY2011 is nothing but Obama's attempt to kill HSF...but how are the actions of those in Congress any better? They don't care about HSF one bit...all they want to do is protect the contracts and interests in their states.

We may have a better idea of the status of things today:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/06/29/a-hearing-doubleheader-today/

Then, at 3:30 pm this afternoon, the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee will hold a markup of its FY11 appropriations bill. This will be the first chance for Congress to put dollar amounts, and other conditions, on the administration’s plans for NASA.

[Pheogh]

Well here we are almost at the end of June, and still no compromise. Even worse, those in Congress with an opinion on all of this, are STILL trying to save Ares and Cx.

I know many on here feel FY2011 is nothing but Obama's attempt to kill HSF...but how are the actions of those in Congress any better? They don't care about HSF one bit...all they want to do is protect the contracts and interests in their states.

We may have a better idea of the status of things today:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/06/29/a-hearing-doubleheader-today/

Then, at 3:30 pm this afternoon, the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee will hold a markup of its FY11 appropriations bill. This will be the first chance for Congress to put dollar amounts, and other conditions, on the administration’s plans for NASA.

Is this kind of thing on CSPAN or webcast?

[psloss]

We may have a better idea of the status of things today:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/06/29/a-hearing-doubleheader-today/

Then, at 3:30 pm this afternoon, the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee will hold a markup of its FY11 appropriations bill. This will be the first chance for Congress to put dollar amounts, and other conditions, on the administration’s plans for NASA.

Is this kind of thing on CSPAN or webcast?

Something I'm kind of wondering, too.  There's at least typically some kind of statement released and then we'll have to wait to see when the bill gets published on Thomas and elsewhere.  Not sure that will be by close of business today.

The stakes are higher this year, so I'm more anxious to see the bill(s), but given that things are proceeding at a typical pace, there will be plenty of time to digest the bill(s) before the next "move."