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 63935 times)

Online Bubbinski

Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #160 on: 08/16/2008 04:39 pm »
"The closer we get to the Congressional legislators looking at their own job termination due to the coming mass layoffs, the more likely it becomes that whatever funding is needed will be forthcoming. "

I hope you're right!  But Congress and the President haven't increased NASA funding for a while (correct?  Haven't they gone on continuing resolutions?) and there is the national debt/budget deficit along with lots of other congressmen with different priorities for their districts.  I'm trying to be optimistic about all this, it's not always easy. 

I have to think something will be worked out though, some kind of action would be taken to try to reduce the gap, even if it may be largely symbolic.

If the extension happens, can they still go to the end of the year/early next before they have to decide?  Or has that changed?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #161 on: 08/16/2008 05:12 pm »
"The closer we get to the Congressional legislators looking at their own job termination due to the coming mass layoffs, the more likely it becomes that whatever funding is needed will be forthcoming. "

I hope you're right!  But Congress and the President haven't increased NASA funding for a while (correct?  Haven't they gone on continuing resolutions?) and there is the national debt/budget deficit along with lots of other congressmen with different priorities for their districts.  I'm trying to be optimistic about all this, it's not always easy. 

I have to think something will be worked out though, some kind of action would be taken to try to reduce the gap, even if it may be largely symbolic.

If the extension happens, can they still go to the end of the year/early next before they have to decide?  Or has that changed?

There is still time.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #162 on: 08/17/2008 06:53 am »

- Many focus on losing another Shuttle and its impacts. What if we lose an Orion? Or a lunar lander?

Analyst

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line

After years of analysing, redesigning, testing, blaming people and paying for all these efforts while standing down and blaming the original designers.

Analyst

no, it will be like Apollo 13 or an ELV failure.  Find the problem, fix it and flight again.

Apollo 13 did not lose a crew and it took 9.5 months until Apollo 14. In todays risk averse world you can easily double it. If you lose a crew you come up with the Shuttle downtimes after 51L and 107: 2.5 years plus. Finding and fixing the problem might not take this long, but reassuring the stakeholders does. Orion or Shuttle, won't be a difference.

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line We did not flow the next Shuttle in the processing flow.

Analyst

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #163 on: 08/17/2008 07:15 am »

- Many focus on losing another Shuttle and its impacts. What if we lose an Orion? Or a lunar lander?

Analyst

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line

After years of analysing, redesigning, testing, blaming people and paying for all these efforts while standing down and blaming the original designers.

Analyst

no, it will be like Apollo 13 or an ELV failure.  Find the problem, fix it and flight again.

Apollo 13 did not lose a crew and it took 9.5 months until Apollo 14. In todays risk averse world you can easily double it. If you lose a crew you come up with the Shuttle downtimes after 51L and 107: 2.5 years plus. Finding and fixing the problem might not take this long, but reassuring the stakeholders does. Orion or Shuttle, won't be a difference.

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line We did not flow the next Shuttle in the processing flow.

Analyst

If they lose an Orion or LSAM the delay would be just as long as the shuttle since they would try and redesign the vehicle.
An LSAM failure has a very high chance of being an LOC event esp since the LSAM provides such much of the life support and delta V for a mission.
The first failure of Orion or Altair could cause a complete redesign like Apollo 1 but double the time.
It could even cause a switch of crew launch vehicles if the LV is to blame.
« Last Edit: 08/17/2008 07:17 am by Patchouli »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #164 on: 08/17/2008 12:33 pm »
Apollo 13 did not lose a crew and it took 9.5 months until Apollo 14. In todays risk averse world you can easily double it. If you lose a crew you come up with the Shuttle downtimes after 51L and 107: 2.5 years plus. Finding and fixing the problem might not take this long, but reassuring the stakeholders does. Orion or Shuttle, won't be a difference.
Purely speculation, but I would guess you're closer to the recovery period than Jim.  The blame game has typically lasted about as long as the board of inquiry, 6-9 months or so.  Generally speaking, NASA has felt compelled to "raise the bar," and that has been a big factor in the length of the recovery period.

It will depend on the nature of the causes of the accident, but if management is implicated as it was in both shuttle disasters, than reassuring the stakeholders would probably look like the shuttle failure recoveries.

Offline soldeed

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 213
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #165 on: 08/17/2008 01:11 pm »
The Apollo 13 accident was a complex chain of events involving a dropped tank, (likely damaged the fill tube) a lapse in communications when  Beech aircraft who had the subcontract to build the tanks, failed to notify the small switch manufacturer who was further subcontracted to supply the thermostatic safety switches for the heaters of a voltage change from 28v DC to 65v DC and nobody noticed. After the CDDT test 3 weeks before launch, the tank would not empty properly, (probably because of the fill tube) so they decided to empty it by turning on the heaters. A technician working the night shift at pad 39A was tasked to watch the temperature and not let it go over 85 degrees Fahrenheit, but the gauge only read as high as 85 degrees, no higher. So as he let it run for eight hours, the 65v current fused the safety switch and the teflon insulation baked and cracked exposing the elements. When mission control ordered the tank stir, the damaged heating elements short circuited igniting the teflon inside the tank and-    BOOM!

The sort of things that happen when imperfect human beings screw up. Not an indictment of the basic design of Apollo which was sound. 
The Exodus is behind schedule

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #166 on: 08/17/2008 01:26 pm »
The sort of things that happen when imperfect human beings screw up. Not an indictment of the basic design of Apollo which was sound. 
Probably not an indictment of the basic design of the tank, either, but the accident board recommended a redesign, anyway.  (Which Chris Kraft fought up the management chain, eventually losing.)  Perceptions and political forces in these situations often produce overreaction.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #167 on: 08/17/2008 01:37 pm »

Fly the next one coming off the assembly line We did not flow the next Shuttle in the processing flow.


Because it had all the ignored flaws that existed in the destroyed one.

No escape
many Crit 1 SPF

Processing is not the same as assembly

Offline brihath

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #168 on: 08/17/2008 01:41 pm »
Apollo 13 did not lose a crew and it took 9.5 months until Apollo 14. In todays risk averse world you can easily double it. If you lose a crew you come up with the Shuttle downtimes after 51L and 107: 2.5 years plus. Finding and fixing the problem might not take this long, but reassuring the stakeholders does. Orion or Shuttle, won't be a difference.
Purely speculation, but I would guess you're closer to the recovery period than Jim.  The blame game has typically lasted about as long as the board of inquiry, 6-9 months or so.  Generally speaking, NASA has felt compelled to "raise the bar," and that has been a big factor in the length of the recovery period.

It will depend on the nature of the causes of the accident, but if management is implicated as it was in both shuttle disasters, than reassuring the stakeholders would probably look like the shuttle failure recoveries.


In terms of impact to schedule, the Apollo 13 incident was 3.5 months, as all post Apollo 12 missions were scheduled at 6 month intervals, so NASA got back on the horse and flew fairly quickly, given the investigation and tank redesign.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #169 on: 08/17/2008 01:58 pm »
In terms of impact to schedule, the Apollo 13 incident was 3.5 months, as all post Apollo 12 missions were scheduled at 6 month intervals, so NASA got back on the horse and flew fairly quickly, given the investigation and tank redesign.
True, but one of Analyst's points was that there was no loss of life in that case.  I think losing a crew would "raise the stakes" as it has in other past cases.

Offline GimmeSpace

  • Member
  • Posts: 84
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #170 on: 08/17/2008 03:04 pm »
Losing 2 vehicles in 100 or so trips is unacceptable reliability any way you look at it. STS should retire as planned unless someone can prove the reliability problems are really behind us.

If the replacement to STS was started too late, that is not a justification to ignore reliability.
"Mission Accomplished."

Offline Thorny

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 894
  • San Angelo, Texas
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #171 on: 08/17/2008 03:39 pm »
Losing 2 vehicles in 100 or so trips is unacceptable reliability any way you look at it. STS should retire as planned unless someone can prove the reliability problems are really behind us.

So Soyuz should be retired too?


Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #172 on: 08/17/2008 03:56 pm »
As others have pointed out, losing an Orion and its crew just isn't that significant. Maybe it will, as these things have in the past, result in a couple of years of blame passing and procrastination. But if NASA loses a Shuttle, the Shuttle program is over. Continuing to launch Shuttles would result in greatly increased risk and cost.

And to reiterate, "lack of funding" as it manifested in the Shuttle (and many other US government projects) is a design flaw. One of the constraints that the Shuttle designers should have been working under was a vehicle that could thrive on a few billion (or less) a year. It was pretty clear from the early 70's on that the Shuttle would be operating with a far lower budget than the Saturn V had. Yet as far as I can tell, they designed the Shuttle so that it had high fixed costs and under the optimal conditions (40 launches a year) would cost over $10 billion a year (ignoring development costs and construction costs of orbiters). Who had a valid reason to expect that the Shuttle would find $10 billion per year in funding?

Anyway, this is a bit tangent to my original argument. I just don't see the reason to continuing using a vehicle which is both operating well outside it's optimal funding environment and which is way too dependent on three launch vehicles. My take is that NASA should do the minimum construction necessary to fulfill their obligations to ISS partners and then discontinue the Shuttle. The funds thus freed up should then be put into closing the gap with an EELV-based solution.
Karl Hallowell

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: Flash Poll: Shuttle to 2010 or 2012
« Reply #173 on: 08/17/2008 04:38 pm »
Losing 2 vehicles in 100 or so trips is unacceptable reliability any way you look at it. STS should retire as planned unless someone can prove the reliability problems are really behind us.
It's debatable -- as pointed out, Shuttle isn't any less reliable than Soyuz; there have been lots and lots of posts about this, including earlier in this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13818.msg299830#msg299830

"Increasing" reliability (even if it won't/can't be demonstrated) is one approach, but an independent approach would be to somehow change/condition the public/outside expectations to be more realistic about the risks -- though I have little confidence in that happening any time soon.  At this point, it seems to remain a "cost of doing business."
« Last Edit: 08/17/2008 04:40 pm by psloss »

Tags:
 

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