Poll

Considering CxP would you extend Shuttle to 2012?

Yes - preference to extend to 2012
No - preference to retire fleet in 2010
Undecided

Author Topic: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012  (Read 63934 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« on: 07/22/2008 03:26 am »
At the request of a member that wasn't able to start the poll (we'll look into that)...

I'll add the considerations:

Pro: Ensures completion of the manifest (with CLFs) and potential of AMS (STS-134). (Note: At present, they can do everything bar 134 by May 2010).

Con: CxP lose budget expectations from STS retirement for two years.

Pro: Large amounts of the USA (and others) workforce avoid pink slips for a couple of years.

Con-ish: Orbiter health - would likely require another "Atlantis to 2010" style review of the mini-OMDPs. One orbiter would certainly need to be retired for spares.

Pro: US manned capability is extended.

Con: Gap at the other end is likely to be moved right - (though CxP is slipping regardless).

Lots of other elements to this, such as political, and Griffin not being in charge (though that's close to reality).

Personally, yes - to 2012. The shuttle works, CxP is struggling with Ares. The argument of "but we need to get out of LEO" is not valid right now, imho, as the concentration is almost soley on Orion to ISS.
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 Bubbinski

Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #1 on: 07/22/2008 03:43 am »
I'd like to see them go to 2012, to ensure the ISS is finished and maybe even add a few flights for logistics, to help the complex live up to its potential.  I would also combine that with a big effort to get Dragon running or to get Orion up on a different vehicle than the "stick" since it won't be ready till 2015. 

The moon is an excellent objective, one that needs to be kept in view, but the Int'l Space Station is the world community's first real "base" in low earth orbit and needs to be used to its fullest in my opinion.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline AresWatcher

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #2 on: 07/22/2008 03:50 am »
We're just delaying the gap aren't we? It's danergous to assume the shuttle is now safe, it's still more dangerous than Ares/Orion is proposing to be.
"One Percent for Space"

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #3 on: 07/22/2008 03:54 am »
I think with the safety checks that are now in place it is safe to fly until 2012. But I think it has to be 2012 with good reason. There is no reason to fly Shuttle to deliver more toilet paper to the ISS, use progress for that.
But if completing the ISS comes into play, 2012 will give NASA more time to work with. A 2010 deadline may cause corners to be cut.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #4 on: 07/22/2008 05:04 am »
We're just delaying the gap aren't we? It's danergous to assume the shuttle is now safe, it's still more dangerous than Ares/Orion is proposing to be.

Who's assuming the shuttle is safe? I don't think anyone is. Of course, no spacecraft is, in any objective sense. Broadly speaking, there are two classes of manned spacecraft: those with a 1 in roughly-60 fatality rate, and those that never flew enough to even demonstrate a 1 in roughly-60 fatality rate.

Ares/Orion may propose whatever numbers they wish, but Orion would have to complete its first 62 manned flights without a fatality to demonstrate a better fatality rate than the shuttle. The odds of that are quite low, for a variety of reasons.

Nor will the risk associated with flying the shuttle sharply increase after 2010. If the risk increases at all, it will do so gradually. There was nothing special about the date 2010 when the CAIB wrote R9.2-1, and there was nothing special about the administration adopting that date for shuttle retirement, other than being able to make a public show of accepting the CAIB recommendations as program requirements.

The valid reason to retire the shuttle is that its high costs of operations "sucks all the air out of the room" for funding development of replacement vehicles.
JRF

Offline Bubbinski

Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #5 on: 07/22/2008 06:02 am »
"There is no reason to fly Shuttle to deliver more toilet paper to the ISS"

True, but isn't it also true that there would be a lot of science racks not filled by the time the shuttle retired?  If NASA flies additional logistics missions I would hope they would get to fill up those racks.  Also doesn't the shuttle fly up a LOT of water too, way more than a Progress?  The shuttle can carry lots more up there than other craft.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline hanschristian

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • Pinoy Space geek
  • Imus, Cavite, Philippines
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #6 on: 07/22/2008 06:21 am »
I agree with sir Chris' opinion...

The "we need to get out of LEO" mindset is kinda' screwed at the moment... they have to prepare carefully for this... They may have already done it 39 years ago, and currently have more than adequate technology to do it again, but still, its still not as easy as anyone thinks... Just like when the Apollo program was commencing...

Also, unlike before, going beyond LEO for the sake of going there is not the only goal in mind... since they plan to exploit the potential benefits of going that far...

IMO, probably its best that they prepare everything in LEO, starting with the most important ones (whatever it may be)...

"To say which lesson is more important is like saying, which number on a phonebook is the most important... The most important one is the one you need to call next"

 - Dr. David Wolf
« Last Edit: 07/22/2008 06:23 am by hanschristian »
The Sky is NOT the Limit...

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #7 on: 07/22/2008 08:28 am »
We're just delaying the gap aren't we? It's danergous to assume the shuttle is now safe, it's still more dangerous than Ares/Orion is proposing to be.

Who's assuming the shuttle is safe? I don't think anyone is. Of course, no spacecraft is, in any objective sense. Broadly speaking, there are two classes of manned spacecraft: those with a 1 in roughly-60 fatality rate, and those that never flew enough to even demonstrate a 1 in roughly-60 fatality rate.

Ares/Orion may propose whatever numbers they wish, but Orion would have to complete its first 62 manned flights without a fatality to demonstrate a better fatality rate than the shuttle. The odds of that are quite low, for a variety of reasons.

Nor will the risk associated with flying the shuttle sharply increase after 2010. If the risk increases at all, it will do so gradually. There was nothing special about the date 2010 when the CAIB wrote R9.2-1, and there was nothing special about the administration adopting that date for shuttle retirement, other than being able to make a public show of accepting the CAIB recommendations as program requirements.

The valid reason to retire the shuttle is that its high costs of operations "sucks all the air out of the room" for funding development of replacement vehicles.

Well put. I disagree with your last paragraph:

CxP already gets $ 2.5 billion/year, now, with Shuttle still flying. Saying it "sucks all the air out of the room" is not correct. This is why the "you just delay the gap" talk is a myth. $ 2.5 billion/year are $ 20 billion in 8 years, this should be enough to fly Orion to LEO (development and later operations). Then and only then you can take the additional Shuttle money and invest in whatever else.

Analyst

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #8 on: 07/22/2008 10:57 am »
CxP already gets $ 2.5 billion/year, now, with Shuttle still flying. Saying it "sucks all the air out of the room" is not correct. This is why the "you just delay the gap" talk is a myth. $ 2.5 billion/year are $ 20 billion in 8 years, this should be enough to fly Orion to LEO (development and later operations).
These statements you make are just as much myth.  We've already discussed this before:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13336.msg285957#msg285957

The plan that Congress authorized and the President signed into law is being executed, and that plan depends on shuttle money and shuttle resources after FY 2010.

Even if Orion and Ares can be completed without shuttle money, if the law says no money for shuttle after FY 2010 and transfers the shuttle people and facilities over to CxP for development and operations, what might be possible becomes a "what if" discussion.

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #9 on: 07/22/2008 11:32 am »
I voted to extend to 2012 for several reasons:

CxP is experiencing delays that will increase the length of the gap and put a strain on supporting ongoing ISS operations.

Since the return to flight, NASA has made steady progress in mitigating the foam release issues with the ET, lowering the risk level with Shuttle.  Even with the increased scrutiny the Orbiters are getting, we are seeing extremely clean vehicles post mission.  I feel we should take advantage of these improvements.

The ISS is just nearing full capability and we are going to "pull the rug out" by retiring the Shuttle, limiting our ability to gain from the investment we made in the ISS.

If we retire Shuttle we will have all our eggs in one basket with manned access.  The recent history of Soyuz reentry incidents points out that no spacecraft is without risk, even one with a long flight history.  We put the all ISS ops at risk by relying on Soyuz alone for what seems to be an ever longer gap.

The Shuttle offers something no other spacecraft has-significant downmass capability.  Depending upon the experiments being flown on ISS, this could be a useful capability.

There doesn't seem to be evidence that NASA has fully resolved the logistics capability shortfall post shuttle.  Maintaining that capability, especially in a six crew environment can give NASA the time to develop that capability.

One caveat to my vote...there must be a commitment by NASA and Congress to provide additional funding to support the extension.

Offline Paul Adams

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • United Kingdom and USA
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #10 on: 07/22/2008 11:40 am »
My personal preference is to keep the shuttle flying two missions per year for as long as it takes to get a replacement ready.

I think it is necessary to look at the big picture when considering post shuttle programs. I see many negatives:

Issues with the stick that do not seem to have an acceptable solution.
A (probably) incoming president that is anti manned spaceflight that will cut funding to NASA whenever possible, regardless of what back peddling he may currently be doing.
A failing economy that will only provide reason for the above.

I do not wish to be a naysayer as I greatly support the space program, but now what with technical and political problems, the future looks bleak for the US manned space program. I fear that everyone supporting government-funded system is going to be disappointed: we that support the shuttle, those that want the stick and those who promote use of existing launchers.

My bet, ramp up COST D while NASA develops the next reusable system, learns the lessons of shuttle 1 and builds a system that delivers true cost effective operation.

Paul
It's all in the data.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #11 on: 07/22/2008 11:42 am »
Pro: Ensures completion of the manifest (with CLFs) and potential of AMS (STS-134). (Note: At present, they can do everything bar 134 by May 2010).
Question: does this assume keeping tank production open or just stretching the existing manifest so that shuttles fly in 2011 and 2012?

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #12 on: 07/22/2008 11:49 am »
I voted yes on the assumption this would mean 4 - 5 additional flights (including AMS), along with some added tank production. My reasoning is based on my gut feeling that the next Pres. is probably going to wind up canceling ESAS and looking for a new way forward. If the decision is made early on in 2009, I think Orion on EELV by 2013 is do-able. My forlorn hope is VSE would be continued with a somewhat altered architecture. DIRECT or some other SDV, including various side-mount options, as CaLV (no problem because no man-rating). It would even be okay if Congress would buy into funding complete Ares V development 2013-2018.

Offline cb6785

  • First Officer MD11F / Simulator Instructor
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1195
  • EDDS/STR
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #13 on: 07/22/2008 11:57 am »
If it would be my decision I would keep Shuttle running on a lower rate with two orbiters (the third one for spare parts, etc.) let's say maybe 2-4 launches a year as needed until there is a second way for ISS access besides Soyuz (whatever may be ready to fly first (and gets funded): Orion on Ares, Orion on EELV, Dragon on Falcon, etc.). When this "basis" is established then all the Shuttle funding can be transfered to the next steps (Lunar outpost, required heavylifter, etc.).

So, yes, I voted 2012. ;)
You know, if I’d had a seat you wouldn’t still see me in this thing. - Chuck Yeager

Offline marshallsplace

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
  • UK
    • music website
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #14 on: 07/22/2008 12:20 pm »
ISS in LEO is where it's at (at the moment).

Retiring the Shuttle as soon as the ISS is "finished" has always seemed wrong to me.

NASA maintaining the ability to reach the ISS using the shuttle for transportation of people, experiments, certain heavy-lift spares... etc, has got to make sense for the health of the ISS.



« Last Edit: 07/22/2008 12:23 pm by marshallsplace »

Offline SimonFD

Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #15 on: 07/22/2008 12:31 pm »
I voted undecided.... :(

Mostly because I can't make up my mind what the effect on CxP would be.
I want the shuttle to fly as long as possible to deliver everything that ISS needs to be completely functional but at the same time I want Orion to fly so that Moon flights become a possibilty.
If by flying the shuttle for another two years you delay CxP by the same amount then maybe it gives them more time to sort out the current issues. But wouldn't a 2010 finish for shuttle give CxP the extra cash to knock these issues on the head?

I dunno.............hence undecided ::)
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so

Offline SimonShuttle

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Manchester, England
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 89
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #16 on: 07/22/2008 12:52 pm »
I voted yes, obviously. To vote no is a vote for the US - the all singing/all powerful super power - to be paying a billion or so to another country to ferry its astronauts to a $100b space station the US mainly paid for.

Just seems totally wrong.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #17 on: 07/22/2008 01:00 pm »
Pro: Ensures completion of the manifest (with CLFs) and potential of AMS (STS-134). (Note: At present, they can do everything bar 134 by May 2010).
Question: does this assume keeping tank production open or just stretching the existing manifest so that shuttles fly in 2011 and 2012?


Key point I missed (D'Oh)! I am assuming a manifest stretch - but we could do with an update on the MAF cut-off date for new ET production, so I'll ask.

On the question of extending. If they stretch to 2012, it's about 8 billion whatever, right? You can launch one mission in a year, or six, it's still about the same baseline costs? (I remember reading here that the "It costs about a billion a launch" isn't correct)?
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: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #18 on: 07/22/2008 01:14 pm »
On the question of extending. If they stretch to 2012, it's about 8 billion whatever, right? You can launch one mission in a year, or six, it's still about the same baseline costs? (I remember reading here that the "It costs about a billion a launch" isn't correct)?
Yes, in that range for two fiscal years of shuttle operations.  Seems like a waste of $3-4 billion if they could fly even the AMS mission with the repaired tank as a standby in 2011.  The provision in the Senate authorization bill essentially proposes this, that the program must complete the manifest plus fly AMS before it can be retired.

If the next Congress and next Administration reconsiders overall space policy and the VSE is "cancelled," then ending the shuttle program in 2012 seems arbitrary.

Offline texas_space

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
  • Ex Terra, Scientia
  • Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, USA
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #19 on: 07/22/2008 01:36 pm »
I voted for ending shuttle operations in 2010.  Constellation needs the shuttle funding to do what it has set out to do.  Delaying the retirement of STS will only move the gap to right;  it won't make it shorter.  I don't like the gap at all, but it's inevitable at this point.

As far as safety goes, the shuttle is needed to finish the ISS.  Once that is done, it is not worth the risk to crews to ferry supplies.  Flying the shuttle longer than needed is also a big risk to the overall human program.  If there is another deadly shuttle accident, Congress will not be inclined to support more manned spaceflight even if it will be safer than shuttle.  We must think the bigger picture here.
"We went to the moon nine times. Why fake it nine times, if we faked it?" - Charlie Duke

Tags:
 

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