Orbiter retirement

[punkboi]

Jorge - 5/10/2006 10:19 AM Well, at least Discovery will get the last HST servicing mission as well! -- JRF

Where did you read that?  Did Griffin already approve the HST mission?

[psloss]

DaveS - 5/10/2006  1:17 PM

Didn't stop the OV's when they were transferred from Palmdale to Edwards.

True, but back in the 80s, there wasn't that much work to do to clear an area out there -- which wasn't really "metro" at the time.  People may outnumber Joshua trees in the Antelope Valley now, but it wasn't always that way...  (and yes, I'm exaggerating)

Edit: this reminds me of something John Young said in testimony to the Rogers Commission about how to get an orbiter back to KSC after an emergency landing in Orlando...search for "beeline"

[psloss]

punkboi - 5/10/2006  1:00 PM

...and Cali space geeks would have to spend hundreds of dollars to go to Florida to TRY to watch a shuttle launch (darn T-storms)

C'mon, where's the dedication?  All five of the shuttle launches I attended were when I was living in either Oregon or Southern California.

[Jorge]

punkboi - 5/10/2006  12:37 PM

Jorge - 5/10/2006 10:19 AM Well, at least Discovery will get the last HST servicing mission as well! -- JRF

Where did you read that?  Did Griffin already approve the HST mission?

He hasn't approved it formally yet. But there's a "Flight of Opportunity" on the manifest for it, STS-125, OV-103, April 2008. Griffin clearly wants to do it, so does the Astronaut Office, most of the (hand-picked) managers reporting to him, and the rank-and-file are behind it as well. There are no technical showstoppers now that the OBSS Structural Dynamics DTO demonstrated that the OBSS could provide an EVA repair platform for a non-ISS shuttle mission. There are some open questions about whether/how to plan for LON rescue if 39B is turned over to ESMD, but that won't be a showstopper. If Griffin says "no" next month, it'll be due to some issue that hasn't surfaced yet... and I'll be very surprised.
--
JRF

[Jim]

Jorge - 5/10/2006  1:00 PM


I feel pretty strongly that the USAF shouldn't get their own orbiter (say, at Wright-Patt) since they levied a bunch of requirements on the shuttle that crippled the program and that ultimately they didn't even use, then they pulled out at the first opportunity when NASA was in a bad spot after Challenger.

The USAF did NASA a favor by pulling out.  NASA wanted them out

[Jorge]

psloss - 5/10/2006  12:41 PM

DaveS - 5/10/2006  1:17 PM

Didn't stop the OV's when they were transferred from Palmdale to Edwards.

True, but back in the 80s, there wasn't that much work to do to clear an area out there -- which wasn't really "metro" at the time.  People may outnumber Joshua trees in the Antelope Valley now, but it wasn't always that way...  (and yes, I'm exaggerating)

Same with Clear Lake... both highway 3 and NASA Parkway are heavily urbanized, with lots of utility poles to have to hinge to get the wings over. And I don't even want to think about how they will get through the underpass where the new NASA Parkway Bypass rejoins NASA Parkway just west of El Camino Real.
--
JRF

[Jorge]

Jim - 5/10/2006  1:39 PM

Jorge - 5/10/2006  1:00 PM


I feel pretty strongly that the USAF shouldn't get their own orbiter (say, at Wright-Patt) since they levied a bunch of requirements on the shuttle that crippled the program and that ultimately they didn't even use, then they pulled out at the first opportunity when NASA was in a bad spot after Challenger.

The USAF did NASA a favor by pulling out.  NASA wanted them out

Doesn't change my opinion that they shouldn't get an orbiter.
--
JRF

[Jim]

They will get one

[Jorge]

Jim - 5/10/2006  2:52 PM

They will get one

It will be an injustice if they do. They should have the grace not to ask.
--
JRF

[Jim]

The USAF pump billions of dollars into the shuttle program and they built a launch site.   NASA appreciated the DOD contributions and many of the military detailees had/have high ranking positions in NASA.  

NASA does not hold the same feelings towards the DOD/USAF as you do.

[collectSPACE]

Jim - 5/10/2006  2:52 PM

They will get one

If they [the USAF museum] do, then its most likely to be Enterprise.

There is very little question that the Smithsonian and KSC will house orbiters. And recently, while speaking to someone close to the JSC Saturn V, I was told that its temporary building, which is not yet complete, is already being looked at to expand to make room for a soon-to-be retired space vehicle.

Read into that what you may...

[Jorge]

Jim - 5/10/2006  4:05 PM

The USAF pump billions of dollars into the shuttle program and they built a launch site.   NASA appreciated the DOD contributions and many of the military detailees had/have high ranking positions in NASA.  

NASA does not hold the same feelings towards the DOD/USAF as you do.

Almost all of those billions were wasted on the launch site that was never used, and therefore benefitted NASA not one bit. Apart from that, the only DoD money for shuttle that I can find solid documentation on is development of the IUS and the ridiculously low amount ($268 million) that the DoD paid for the nine classified shuttle flights (Jenkins, p. 328), an amount that was insufficient to fully fund even one launch. The DoD actively declined to spend money on the development of the shuttle itself; all the DoD provided was to support NASA at congressional and OMB budget hearings to give the appearance of a unified front (Jenkins, p. 151). You need to study some history.

Regarding "NASA" not holding the same feelings as "I" do, there is an assumption buried in your statement that "NASA" is a monolithic entity and an assumption about my status as well. Both are wrong.

I do not object to displaying OV-101 at Dryden/Edwards, but that's as much of an orbiter as the USAF should get.
--
JRF

[Jim]

The DOD provided more money than you list.   NASA allowed the DOD to close VAFB.  

NASA almost used the IUS as much as the USAF.

I work for NASA and one of many ex USAF and DOD employees.    We still rely on USAF support for ELV launches

DFRC is not USAF.

[Jorge]

Jim - 5/10/2006  4:36 PM

The DOD provided more money than you list.   NASA allowed the DOD to close VAFB.  

NASA almost used the IUS as much as the USAF.

I work for NASA and one of many ex USAF and DOD employees.    We still rely on USAF support for ELV launches

DFRC is not USAF.

If the DoD provided more money than I listed - especially for shuttle development, please send the primary source documentation to Dennis Jenkins. He could use the material for the fourth edition of his book.

NASA allowed DoD to close SLC-6 (not all of VAFB) because SLC-6 was only needed for polar launches, which were almost entirely DoD. It doesn't change the fact that the billions spent on SLC-6 did not benefit the shuttle program. It quite clearly didn't. In fact, it was a net burden inasmuch as NASA detailed some shuttle personnel to SLC-6 in 1985-86 to help prepare it, stretching the KSC workforce thinner during the period immediately prior to 51L.

I already acknowledged the IUS.

Do not assume that everyone who works for NASA is monolithic in their opinions. I am supportive of the USAF and DoD in general, but with regard to the specific matter of shuttle development, the weight of the evidence is that DoD involvement was one of several factors that ruined the shuttle. Both entities would likely have been better off today had they walked away from the table in 1971, even if it meant the cancellation (or at minimum, severe rescoping) of the program as we have come to know it.

We were talking about DoD support for shuttle, not ELV launches. ELVs are launched from CCAFS, not KSC, so of course the DoD supports those. I have seen no evidence for DoD financial support for shuttle development beyond what I have listed. I acknowledge DoD support of shuttle operations beyond what I previously listed: 45th SW range safety support, NGA support of shuttle ascent/orbit imaging, and NORAD/SPACECOM/STRATCOM support of debris avoidance. Probably several other minor line items as well. None of that comes close to offsetting the nine shuttle flights NASA flew for DoD at a cost of close to $9 billion while being reimbursed $268 million from DoD. It certainly doesn't warrant an orbiter.

I am aware that DFRC is not DoD. Sharing OV-101 between NASA/DFRC and USAF/EAFB is as much as the USAF deserves.
--
JRF

[Dobbins]

punkboi - 5/10/2006  1:00 PM

Throw us a bone, will ya?  It's bad enough most landings take place at KSC now...and Cali space geeks would have to spend hundreds of dollars to go to Florida to TRY to watch a shuttle launch (darn T-storms)

KSC visitor's complex is sponsering the History Channel's "space week". As a promo they have a sweepstakes with a 5 day all expenses paid trip to see STS-118 launch.

http://www.history.com/space/sweepstakes/

[Jim]

Jorge - 5/10/2006  8:22 PM

1.  If the DoD provided more money than I listed - especially for shuttle development, please send the primary source documentation to Dennis Jenkins. He could use the material for the fourth edition of his book.

2.  NASA allowed DoD to close SLC-6 (not all of VAFB) because SLC-6 was only needed for polar launches, which were almost entirely DoD. It doesn't change the fact that the billions spent on SLC-6 did not benefit the shuttle program. It quite clearly didn't. In fact, it was a net burden inasmuch as NASA detailed some shuttle personnel to SLC-6 in 1985-86 to help prepare it, stretching the KSC workforce thinner during the period immediately prior to 51L.

3.  Do not assume that everyone who works for NASA is monolithic in their opinions. I am supportive of the USAF and DoD in general, but with regard to the specific matter of shuttle development, the weight of the evidence is that DoD involvement was one of several factors that ruined the shuttle. Both entities would likely have been better off today had they walked away from the table in 1971, even if it meant the cancellation (or at minimum, severe rescoping) of the program as we have come to know it.

4.  We were talking about DoD support for shuttle, not ELV launches. ELVs are launched from CCAFS, not KSC, so of course the DoD supports those. I have seen no evidence for DoD financial support for shuttle development beyond what I have listed. I acknowledge DoD support of shuttle operations beyond what I previously listed: 45th SW range safety support, NGA support of shuttle ascent/orbit imaging, and NORAD/SPACECOM/STRATCOM support of debris avoidance. Probably several other minor line items as well. None of that comes close to offsetting the nine shuttle flights NASA flew for DoD at a cost of close to $9 billion while being reimbursed $268 million from DoD. It certainly doesn't warrant an orbiter.

5.  I am aware that DFRC is not DoD. Sharing OV-101 between NASA/DFRC and USAF/EAFB is as much as the USAF deserves.
--
JRF

1.  Classified.  Couldn't share it with you or David.  NASA set the price for those missions and the DOD paid more than commercial customers.   NASA got extra money post Challenger not from the DOD but due to DOD requirements.

2.  NASA needs polar launches as much as the DOD.  Work Package 4 of the space station program had polar platforms, which evolved into the EOS program.   Since '98, 50% of NASA's ELV launches were from VAFB.

The shared launch/processing team was NASA's idea and therefore their fault.  KSC didn't want a totally separate team

3.  So nothing would be better than what we have?   Bad logic.   Anyways, the USAF was forced by congress to use the shuttle the NRO did not want the shuttle.  

4.  Don't lecture me on launch sites, ELV or Shuttle.  Been working at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport since '88 and before that the USAF shuttle program office that provided the $268m to NASA.    You might not have the evidence but I know there was.   It didn't cost NASA 9 B for those flights neither.  

The DOD provided processing facilites for NASA spacecraft.  It funded the Shuttle Centaur program office.  Testing facilities were provided.  AFFTC provided flight test support for entry testing.   JSC had USAF detailees integrated in the workforce.  The USAF provide workers at Palmdale for shuttle work.   Sunnyvale provided tracking support.

The USAF was very much part of the shuttle program pre 95 and NASA embraced them.  Your opinion is in the minority

[Jorge]

Jim - 5/10/2006  8:09 PM

1.  Classified.  Couldn't share it with you or David.  NASA set the price for those missions and the DOD paid more than commercial customers.   NASA got extra money post Challenger not from the DOD but due to DOD requirements.

2.  NASA needs polar launches as much as the DOD.  Work Package 4 of the space station program had polar platforms, which evolved into the EOS program.   Since '98, 50% of NASA's ELV launches were from VAFB.

The shared launch/processing team was NASA's idea and therefore their fault.  KSC didn't want a totally separate team

3.  So nothing would be better than what we have?   Bad logic.   Anyways, the USAF was forced by congress to use the shuttle the NRO did not want the shuttle.  

4.  Don't lecture me on launch sites, ELV or Shuttle.  Been working at the Cape Canaveral Spaceport since '88 and before that the USAF shuttle program office that provided the $268m to NASA.    You might not have the evidence but I know there was.   It didn't cost NASA 9 B for those flights neither.  

The DOD provided processing facilites for NASA spacecraft.  It funded the Shuttle Centaur program office.  Testing facilities were provided.  AFFTC provided flight test support for entry testing.   JSC had USAF detailees integrated in the workforce.  The USAF provide workers at Palmdale for shuttle work.   Sunnyvale provided tracking support.

The USAF was very much part of the shuttle program pre 95 and NASA embraced them.  Your opinion is in the minority

2. Those are ELV launches, not shuttle launches, which further reinforces my point.

3. It would not have been "nothing." In 1971, NASA had not yet gotten the go-ahead for the shuttle. Had they walked away from the DoD at that point (BEFORE "the USAF was forced by congress to use shuttle"), it is indeed quite likely that the shuttle as we know it would not have happened. NASA would have had to retrench, reorganize, and come up with a plan B.

That would not necessarily have been a bad thing; in hindsight, my opinion is that high-flight-rate reusable vehicles are indeed the best route to reducing the cost of access to space, but that it was sheer hubris for NASA to think they could develop a fully operational reusable vehicle on the first try and have it meet all performance requirements. Indeed, its failure to meet said requirements is being touted as "proof" by some that reusability itself is a bad thing - this with exactly one data point to work from!

If NASA had, instead, asked for a followon to the X-15 and incrementally worked their way up to orbital by a series of followon X-planes, it is quite likely that they would have learned a lot more about reusable space vehicles than attempting to develop an operational space shuttle right away and then continuing to fly it for 25 years. I consider it is highly likely that Nixon and Congress would have approved this as long as it cost less than the shuttle (and it almost certainly would have, as long as NASA stuck to developing one X-plane at a time). It probably would have cost *enough* less than the shuttle to allow a low-key continuation of Apollo/Saturn IB LEO ops. It is also more likely that such a program could have engaged in more productive cooperation with the DoD - the experimental requirements for an X-plane are a lot easier to accommodate than trying to shoehorn all the DoDs operational requirements into the space shuttle. The previous X-planes were quite successful examples of that.

4. So what do nine shuttle flights cost? Somewhat a trick question. I've got all the budget data in a spreadsheet in current-year dollars and constant-year dollars, accounting for inflation, figured both as total program cost-per-flight (includes DDT&E since 1969) and annual program cost-per-flight (annual shuttle budget divided by number of flights). The $9 B number is actually somewhat less than my figure for total program cost but somewhat more than the average annual program cost for nine flights. The marginal cost-per-flight - the cost of adding one flight to the manifest - is much lower but still can't be lower than about $100-150 million per flight, or $900-1350 million for nine flights. Any way you slice it, the DoD got a huge bargain on those launches.

Anyway, to bring this back to the subject line of the thread, my point is not that DoD didn't contribute to the shuttle program. It's clear that they did and continue to do so. The question is whether their contributions warrant giving them one of the space-flown orbiters when the fleet is retired. My opinion is that they do not, and that the best compromise would be to share OV-101 between NASA/DFRC and USAF/EAFB in California. This would provide an appropriate level of acknowledgment of the DoD role in the program while maximizing the geographic distance between the orbiters so that the largest number of Americans could view one. Udvar-Hazy to KSC is 868 miles, KSC to JSC is 1015 miles, and JSC to DFRC is 1657 miles. Wright-Patterson is only 475 miles from Udvar-Hazy. Putting an orbiter at Wright-Patt wouldn't put nearly as many people within driving distance of an orbiter as putting one at DFRC/EAFB.
--
JRF

[punkboi]

Dobbins - 5/10/2006 5:28 PM

punkboi - 5/10/2006 1:00 PM Throw us a bone, will ya? It's bad enough most landings take place at KSC now...and Cali space geeks would have to spend hundreds of dollars to go to Florida to TRY to watch a shuttle launch (darn T-storms)

KSC visitor's complex is sponsering the History Channel's "space week". As a promo they have a sweepstakes with a 5 day all expenses paid trip to see STS-118 launch. http://www.history.com/space/sweepstakes/

 Niiice.

[Jim]

Jorge - 5/10/2006  11:08 PM

2. Those are ELV launches, not shuttle launches, which further reinforces my point.

Wrong again.  They were suppose to be shuttle missions.  No west coast shuttle pad therefore ELV missions.

NASA made their bed wrt shuttle costs.  The DOD only had to pay the marginal costs of the missions.

WRT all the all stuff about whether the shuttle should have happen, hindsight is 20/20

[Jorge]

Jim - 6/10/2006  4:07 AM

Jorge - 5/10/2006  11:08 PM

2. Those are ELV launches, not shuttle launches, which further reinforces my point.

1. Wrong again.  They were suppose to be shuttle missions.  No west coast shuttle pad therefore ELV missions.

2. NASA made their bed wrt shuttle costs.  The DOD only had to pay the marginal costs of the missions.

3. WRT all the all stuff about whether the shuttle should have happen, hindsight is 20/20

1. No, right again. Still doesn't count as an example of a DoD contribution to the shuttle program.

2. "Hey, you screwed yourself on the price!" is hardly a convincing argument for getting an orbiter.

3. Hindsight is how we learn from our mistakes. Hindsight tells me that NASA going to DoD for support on the shuttle was a mistake. I don't know how the DoD feels about it but I imagine many within DoD agree.
--
JRF