Let's just get this on record. You are claiming that the EELVs are human rated to NASA 1.4?
This is the exact question that A LOT of us, including many in the Congress, asked the day that the Obama budget came out.
I asked this before but didn't get an answer:Who besides the congressmen with NASA centers in their districts has spoken out against the plan or even shown any interest in this mess?
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 04/20/2010 12:21 pmI asked this before but didn't get an answer:Who besides the congressmen with NASA centers in their districts has spoken out against the plan or even shown any interest in this mess? Colorado, Louisiana, Utah, Arizona and more.
Quote from: khallow on 04/20/2010 02:29 amI have yet to see a demonstrated need for downmass from the ISS. But if one should occur, then we have the Soyuz now and will have the ATV and the COTS entries later. Second, the ATV and HTV may launch once a year now, but they don't need to launch once a year later.STS-131 should land tomorrow. The MPLM is not empty.
I have yet to see a demonstrated need for downmass from the ISS. But if one should occur, then we have the Soyuz now and will have the ATV and the COTS entries later. Second, the ATV and HTV may launch once a year now, but they don't need to launch once a year later.
When will this ATV capability be available, or for that matter more importantly, these COTS entries? Their schedules have slipped already, after all this business is difficult, and per the original milestones SpaceX should be flying by now.
Who funds the additional ATV and HTV capability? What will that cost be? What is the lead time from signing the contract for additional cargo vehicles and flight?
As I've said before, I don't believe anyone on the planet could fly the Shuttles twice a year and maintain their current reliability. You can't maintain experience and readiness of the launch support staff with very infrequent launches.
Quote from: zerm on 04/20/2010 12:08 pmThis is the exact question that A LOT of us, including many in the Congress, asked the day that the Obama budget came out.I asked this before but didn't get an answer:Who besides the congressmen with NASA centers in their districts has spoken out against the plan or even shown any interest in this mess? Aren't the congressmen that haven't been vocal also a factor in the decision? I really want to know since it seems somewhat important to me.
(1) Shuttle is not the only system serving ISS. There are four other vehicle/spacecraft combinations doing that as well. We don't need the capacity or the capabilities of the Shuttle.(2) The Shuttle is a billion dollars or more per flight for something we don't need. Further, a sunk cost is not an investment. Just because we spent a hundred billion dollars...(3) Finally, we come to return on investment. If the ISS really were a hundred billion dollar investment...
...It was not promised money, it assumed money was going to be there....
...seemingly for the wrong reasons....
...The "apparent" absence of "Facts" seems to be on the side of those who seem to want to bury their head in the sand and ignore them. Such as:(1) It is a FACT that, had Soyuz not been available in 2003...(2) It is a FACT that, without a redundant capability...(3) It is a FACT that ...commercially-developed vehicles--simply will lose the very foundation of its business case...(4) So it is a FACT that the Obama plan, by failing to address those NEAR-TERM concerns, are exposing their alternative of choice for future US human spaceflight to complete and utter fasilure....(5) With no reliable sustainable destination, they lose any foundation upon which to attract venture capital to their activities....(6) And, by the way, I think I can lay claim to not really being considered a "layman" on these issues, but I have no intention of trying to prove that to you or anyone else here, for that matter...
It's well known there's a spare array...These are basic, and very well known facts.
...Don't you think the public, and some politicians, will be asking the all important question, WHY? Why are we giving NASA all of this extra money when we aren't launching anything...
...Wow.
...Why would you stop operating your primary supply vessel...
...What's in it?...
Does anyone really think NASA's leadership/adiministration/policy/whatever won't spin again like a weather vane when the wind starts to blow from a new direction?
I imagine the NASA part of it will come from the savings achieved by canceling the Shuttle. The rest will come from the ESA and JAXA.
Quote from: mmoulder on 04/19/2010 09:04 pmI honestly don't understand why government cannot see this? Is money really that tight? How about another 1% of federal budget to Nasa? Is that too much to ask?Yes.
I honestly don't understand why government cannot see this? Is money really that tight? How about another 1% of federal budget to Nasa? Is that too much to ask?
Quote from: OV-106 on 04/20/2010 02:43 amSTS-131 should land tomorrow. The MPLM is not empty.What's in it? Reading around, I just get "micrometeor shields for the Quest's airlock". I can't even find what Digitalman talks about. I imagine most of it is refuse from the station. If you're going to claim it contains valuable stuff, then you should at least say more than "not empty".
STS-131 should land tomorrow. The MPLM is not empty.
In reading some of the post on here stating how shuttle is too expensive, commercial is so much cheaper, etc. I'm going to try to clarify my point that I'm trying to make here. I'm not advocating anyway that shuttle would be cheaper that commercial. I'm not even trying to argue cost here. That is an area way outside of my area of knowledge. I'm trying to speak, again, from a common sense standpoint. Why would you stop operating your primary supply vessel, when you have personnel in space that depend on being supplied with consumables and parts, and put all of your faith that these other options, with their good faith promises of this much capability by this time at this cost, will be able to step up to the plate and deliver as promised? I seem to recall that the shuttle itself had it's own promises that fell short (30+ launches a year, cheap to maIntain and operate, safe enough to carry congressmen and passengers, etc.) shuttle even dabbled in commercial itself pre-Challenger. For an agency that prides itself in putting soooo much emphasis on having backup systems, backup plans, and contingincies, I just can't believe that NASA, aka. Bolden and Garver, would just fall in line with this "plan"
Quote from: Danderman on 04/20/2010 04:09 amQuote from: 51D Mascot on 04/20/2010 03:32 amIt is a FACT that, without the shuttle payload capability for delivery of large items, if a solar array or radiator (one of each of which is already suffering from damage which could lead to failure or at least degradation of performance beyond acceptable limits. At the very least, a loss of power would mean reduction in research capability, and a loss of thermal control could result in rendering the station uninhabitable.It is a FACT that are no spare solar arrays or radiators, so even if Shuttle were extended, there would be no hardware for the Shuttle to bring to ISS in this scenario.You're embarrassing yourself with some of the 'facts' you're stating. It's well known there's a spare array. It was used in the ground troubleshooting when the P6 4B solar array suffered problems during deploy.These are basic, and very well known facts.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 04/20/2010 03:32 amIt is a FACT that, without the shuttle payload capability for delivery of large items, if a solar array or radiator (one of each of which is already suffering from damage which could lead to failure or at least degradation of performance beyond acceptable limits. At the very least, a loss of power would mean reduction in research capability, and a loss of thermal control could result in rendering the station uninhabitable.It is a FACT that are no spare solar arrays or radiators, so even if Shuttle were extended, there would be no hardware for the Shuttle to bring to ISS in this scenario.
It is a FACT that, without the shuttle payload capability for delivery of large items, if a solar array or radiator (one of each of which is already suffering from damage which could lead to failure or at least degradation of performance beyond acceptable limits. At the very least, a loss of power would mean reduction in research capability, and a loss of thermal control could result in rendering the station uninhabitable.
Quote from: Danderman on 04/20/2010 04:09 amQuote from: 51D Mascot on 04/20/2010 03:32 amIt is a FACT that, without the shuttle payload capability for delivery of large items, if a solar array or radiator (one of each of which is already suffering from damage which could lead to failure or at least degradation of performance beyond acceptable limits. At the very least, a loss of power would mean reduction in research capability, and a loss of thermal control could result in rendering the station uninhabitable.It is a FACT that are no spare solar arrays or radiators, so even if Shuttle were extended, there would be no hardware for the Shuttle to bring to ISS in this scenario.And wrong again on the radiators. A replacement for S1 is not required at this time. There's 8th Floor notes on this very site about how it was already being considered for a shuttle mission when concerns were higher.
Quote from: rjholling on 04/20/2010 12:07 amI would also argue that Constellation was conceived based upon sound engineering principles rather than ideological notions that "private enterprise is better than a government run option", even though that government run option has actually made this work and has been doing it for 50 years with over 100 successful manned launches whereas commercial spaceflight hasn't even sent one human into orbit yet.(emphasis mine) You call that track record admirable? A hundred or so manned launches in 50 years is a success of manned spaceflight so much that there is absolutely no reason to even think about changing the approach?Wow.
I would also argue that Constellation was conceived based upon sound engineering principles rather than ideological notions that "private enterprise is better than a government run option", even though that government run option has actually made this work and has been doing it for 50 years with over 100 successful manned launches whereas commercial spaceflight hasn't even sent one human into orbit yet.
Quote from: Jim on 04/20/2010 11:21 am EELV are "manrated" according to the new requirements. And besides "man rating" is a smoke screen. The vehicles are not going to change for commercial crew.Let's just get this on record. You are claiming that the EELVs are human rated to NASA 1.4?
EELV are "manrated" according to the new requirements. And besides "man rating" is a smoke screen. The vehicles are not going to change for commercial crew.
Quote from: renclod on 04/20/2010 12:31 pmQuote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 04/20/2010 12:21 pmI asked this before but didn't get an answer:Who besides the congressmen with NASA centers in their districts has spoken out against the plan or even shown any interest in this mess? Colorado, Louisiana, Utah, Arizona and more.Colorado - Orion, soon to be Orion super-liteLouisiana - MichoudUtah - ATKDon't know about Arizona or 'others.'