Quote from: 51D Mascot on 08/22/2010 09:38 pmBill, you touch on a point that is a good one, and one that, unfortunately, there is, right now, no really good answer for, and that is the sustainability and utilization of the ISS. The Senate bill makes quite a point of that concern, and, after establishing a clear policy direction to extend it to at least 2020, requires an in-depth analysis and report on projected ISS requirements for that extended time-period, in terms of spares, replacements, etc. It also takes steps to ensure an expanded utilization and research base by opening up half of the US Segment for management and use coordinated by an external, non-governmental non-profit organization, that can bring in other government agencies, private research entities, academic consortia, etc., to make use of ISS research capability, while NASA of course continues to use the other half for exploration-related science, technology development, etc.. It also of course adds the LON for the specific purpose of helping ensure sufficient spares are delivered--and things like the failed ammonia pump assembly to be brought back for analysis. It also provides for some work looking into potential down-mass capability beyond what might be anticipated in COTS/CRS program, which the bill also strongly supports. The ET-94 refurbishment "could" conceivably be the core of an additional flight, since it could be available by the end of CY 2011, but that would be an issue to consider after the ISS requirements analysis has been done and validated by GAO.In the end, however, there still is no real answer to the "gap" and the reliance on Soyuz as the only means of crew access for ANY of the partners. The ONLY short term answer for that between this time next year and whenever a new crew capability is available, whether NASA (SLS/MPCV) or commercial, is continued shuttle flights. You may recall that Senator Hutchison's bill introduced in March provided for the possibility of maintaining a two-flight-per-year option. I am still firmly convinced that could be accomplished for no more than $1.5 billion per year total cost; $2b per year at the max. But that simply is money that no one is willing, at this point, to provide as "new money", and so it would have to come out of the SLS/MPCV development, or Space and Earth Science, and none of those are acceptable options. That's one reason why that option did not carry into the Senate bill. But it remains, in my mind, to be an issue that we may well still have to seriously address (though NOT in this year's legislation) The recent failure highlighted that, and my guess is the ISS requirements analysis will likely suggest other steps might need to be taken.But I personally believe it's a point that should be remembered as we move forward, that we do not have a perfect solution; we believe we have the best solution possible, however, under current circumstances.You are asking the taxpayer to swallow ~200 million a month for two flights a year.The shuttle is simply too expensive.I think there are people who would vote for an extension if the cost of the program was under a poultry 100 million a month. However, you and I both know this will not happen. Too many people have their hands in the shuttle cookie jar, and much like the F-22 Raptor cookie jar, they are out of cookies.You know, maybe it could be passed, where we do get a shuttle extension, if somehow NASA could show how it could reduce costs and fly safely. I just do not think NASA has that leadership. NASA lacks the fiscal discipline to be trusted with anymore money. And it pains me to say that.As you pointed out the recent failure on ISS has raised a lot of eyebrows about future capability. With the imminent addition of STS-135 next June, shuttle huggers can rejoice. But if they were smart they would figure out how to "lean" the operation. Because there is no way the next congress is going to throw ~2.4 Billion a year for two shuttle launches.Has there been talk of reducing the fleet to two orbiters using one as a spare? Has there been talk of going from three shifts to one? Has anyone at NASA invited the private sector to look at the way they conduct business to see where we can not only save money; but the shuttle and SOME shuttle jobs? These questions are all rhetorical of course.Best wishes,RE327
Bill, you touch on a point that is a good one, and one that, unfortunately, there is, right now, no really good answer for, and that is the sustainability and utilization of the ISS. The Senate bill makes quite a point of that concern, and, after establishing a clear policy direction to extend it to at least 2020, requires an in-depth analysis and report on projected ISS requirements for that extended time-period, in terms of spares, replacements, etc. It also takes steps to ensure an expanded utilization and research base by opening up half of the US Segment for management and use coordinated by an external, non-governmental non-profit organization, that can bring in other government agencies, private research entities, academic consortia, etc., to make use of ISS research capability, while NASA of course continues to use the other half for exploration-related science, technology development, etc.. It also of course adds the LON for the specific purpose of helping ensure sufficient spares are delivered--and things like the failed ammonia pump assembly to be brought back for analysis. It also provides for some work looking into potential down-mass capability beyond what might be anticipated in COTS/CRS program, which the bill also strongly supports. The ET-94 refurbishment "could" conceivably be the core of an additional flight, since it could be available by the end of CY 2011, but that would be an issue to consider after the ISS requirements analysis has been done and validated by GAO.In the end, however, there still is no real answer to the "gap" and the reliance on Soyuz as the only means of crew access for ANY of the partners. The ONLY short term answer for that between this time next year and whenever a new crew capability is available, whether NASA (SLS/MPCV) or commercial, is continued shuttle flights. You may recall that Senator Hutchison's bill introduced in March provided for the possibility of maintaining a two-flight-per-year option. I am still firmly convinced that could be accomplished for no more than $1.5 billion per year total cost; $2b per year at the max. But that simply is money that no one is willing, at this point, to provide as "new money", and so it would have to come out of the SLS/MPCV development, or Space and Earth Science, and none of those are acceptable options. That's one reason why that option did not carry into the Senate bill. But it remains, in my mind, to be an issue that we may well still have to seriously address (though NOT in this year's legislation) The recent failure highlighted that, and my guess is the ISS requirements analysis will likely suggest other steps might need to be taken.But I personally believe it's a point that should be remembered as we move forward, that we do not have a perfect solution; we believe we have the best solution possible, however, under current circumstances.
Shuttle extension would only seem to make sense at this point with side mount. Inline would require sufficient changes to LC-39 that shuttle extension just delays SLS further...
39A or 39B?There are two and they both don't have to be modded at the same time.
It seems to me that that money would be better spent offsetting at least some of the cost of maintaining the capability to launch our astronauts on our own launch systems, as is actually required by law.
, and large pieces of "game changing" hardware.
But I must also say it's more than just a matter of how many launches, divided by the total cost, to get a per-launch cost; you'd be paying for a CAPABILITY. You keep a standing Army at a huge cost, hoping you never really have to send troops into battle; but you need the CAPABILITY to do so if the need arises, because you're protecting a huge value and investment--our freedom. Not trying to compare spaceflight to preservation of national security, of course, but just suggesting more has to be taken into account than simply an estimated per-mission cost. There's VALUE in preserving the CAPABILITY to ensure the ISS--something this nation has invested between $60 and $100 BILLION in developing, assembling and operating so far, depending on what costs you choose to include--can not only survive as a functioning spacecraft and habitat, but also be used to the fullest as a research laboratory--with who knows WHAT potential scientific and economic payoff over the next ten years.
You're right that shuttle costs could be "leaner" through some of the very things you describe (2 orbiters, less shifts--which would be feasible with a flight rate of two per year, etc.) and yes, those questions have been asked--and in fact you "may" hear more about that in the not too distant future--but so far there isn't widespread agreement or consensus on the real "need."
(Frankly, most folks interested in space have been focused more on Big-E Exploration the past five or six years and the station, and why we built it and what it might accomplish, has been left in the "noise" by most and seen as a money-sucking obstacle to Big E Exploration by others.)
Quote from: HappyMartian on 08/23/2010 01:16 am, and large pieces of "game changing" hardware. No such thing and there is 30 years of history to prove it.
Not to ask a silly off topic question, but how is the VASIMR engine going to get back to Earth for analysis?
If someone can just point me to a reference please... If "game changing" technology can't get back to Earth for analysis... the supporters of it are talking hot air.
This is a disingenuous argument in my humble opinion.
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 08/23/2010 02:09 amThis is a disingenuous argument in my humble opinion. No, it's not disingenuous, it's objectively honest.I'd love to imagine that you could simultaneously stack Shuttle and SLS in the VAB at the same time, but it's just not going to happen. Wishful thinking is no basis for a space program.
Quote from: simonbp on 08/23/2010 03:54 amQuote from: RocketScientist327 on 08/23/2010 02:09 amThis is a disingenuous argument in my humble opinion. No, it's not disingenuous, it's objectively honest.I'd love to imagine that you could simultaneously stack Shuttle and SLS in the VAB at the same time, but it's just not going to happen. Wishful thinking is no basis for a space program.whats the limitation that prevents this?
Quote from: chrisking0997 on 08/23/2010 04:15 amwhats the limitation that prevents this?$$$$$$
whats the limitation that prevents this?
And plus, extra money into Shuttle just perpetuates a doomed system. Funding commercial crew creates a solution that will still be available after 2016...
Now that is a disingenuous argument.If there is only one viable solution to a problem (and in this case, it looks distinctly possible that Shuttle extension really is the only way to plug the logistics gap), advocating a different solution that doesn't actually solve the problem, on the grounds that it's better value for the money, doesn't make sense.Unless getting rid of Shuttle matters more to you than keeping the ISS supplied...
Why does the "gap" need to be filled? We've already taken care of ISS cargo logistics with COTS/CRS, with two separate vendors no less. And there is no reason Soyuz can't provide crew logistics to ISS, just as it already did for 2003-2006. The only real argument against Soyuz seems to be "I don't trust them Russkies"...
