CCDev-2 Finalists

[AlexP]

I think that people involved with the Shuttle may be among its staunchest backers, yes, but I also believe that this is quite probably more through intimate knowledge of its capabilities and desire to keep them, rather than purely in order to keep their jobs. Clearly, it didn't meet all of the goals it set out to, for various reasons, but that shouldn't lead us to thinking it was a failure. 130+ launches spanning 4 separate decades, so many milestones, a variety of accomplishments and an awe inspiring sight to boot.

IF it can be run commercially for another few years, and if this will benefit SLS whilst protecting the station and allowing the new commercial services - be they Dream Chaser, Dragon, CST-100 or whoever - time to get going without a rush then that's a good thing, as long as they aren't greatly impeded by redirected funds. It's a proposal which needs to be examined rationally, not dismissed purely it's become the dogma to call the Shuttle an expensive failure. Far from it, I'm proud as a human being that we've manage to accomplish such a thing (as a Brit, I'm playing the human card here).

Just a view from an uninformed observer, ever hoping for the best

[Calorspace]

You'll usually find, the only people who believe the shuttle should be continued are either those who gain through it doing so such as the huge amount of employees or the various companies involved, or those living in the past.

These people need to wake up and realise it isn't going to be continued. It's an over bloated,wasteful, vastly expensive program.

The sooner SpaceX and the others achieve crew transportation capabilities the better.

Your misconceptions - lack of knowledge on the facts - have no basis in reality. I'd of expected better from a fellow countryman.

Hopefully, the longer you read some facts on the rest behind SSP, and the challenges others are yet to face, your opinion will become more educted....as much as this particular thread is encouraging armwaving.

What about my post isn't based in reality?, the costs, the time,the resources and the number of people involved are all well known.

If arm waving is the desire to see a competitive crew transportation market rather than the current situation then yes it is.

[Chris Bergin]

You'll usually find, the only people who believe the shuttle should be continued are either those who gain through it doing so such as the huge amount of employees or the various companies involved, or those living in the past.

These people need to wake up and realise it isn't going to be continued. It's an over bloated,wasteful, vastly expensive program.

The sooner SpaceX and the others achieve crew transportation capabilities the better.

Your misconceptions - lack of knowledge on the facts - have no basis in reality. I'd of expected better from a fellow countryman.

Hopefully, the longer you read some facts on the rest behind SSP, and the challenges others are yet to face, your opinion will become more educted....as much as this particular thread is encouraging armwaving.

What about my post isn't based in reality?, the costs, the time,the resources and the number of people involved are all well known.

If arm waving is the desire to see a competitive crew transportation market rather than the current situation then yes it is.

1) "You'll usually find, the only people who believe the shuttle should be continued are either those who gain through it doing so such as the huge amount of employees or the various companies involved, or those living in the past." - no basis in reality. Trust me, I run this site, I can tell you there's a fair few more people than just the above who believe shuttle should be continued. So you're in error.

2) "These people need to wake up and realise it isn't going to be continued." Everyone is aware of the current plan. This thread, however, includes STS as a potentail CCDEV-2, thus that is what the comments are based on.

3) "It's an over bloated,wasteful, vastly expensive program." - Bloated and wasteful. Give examples. Nothing's cheap....oh, you mean compared to some commercial capsule launchers? Well for starters, you can't "like for like" STS with a F9 launch. You're comparing a minivan with an 18 wheeler. The 18 wheeler will be more expensive. Then equate the flight history, the experience base, the lessons learned, the "current ability" of the vehicles in question, a) You'll find it's not as clear cut as you assume, b) you're picking the wrong enemy.

[CitabriaFlyer]

If this plan is approved when do we need to contract for new tanks?  When do we need to contract for SRB refurbishment?  What is the rationale for retiring Discovery?  Is she the next one needing orbiter maintenance down period?  How will that be handled for Endeavor?  Weren't Atlantis OMDP tasks handled in pieces during inter mission flow?

[Namechange User]

If this plan is approved when do we need to contract for new tanks?  When do we need to contract for SRB refurbishment?  What is the rationale for retiring Discovery?  Is she the next one needing orbiter maintenance down period?  How will that be handled for Endeavor?  Weren't Atlantis OMDP tasks handled in pieces during inter mission flow?

ATP for ETs. SRBs, etc depends on NASA's ok.  There's some work to do but we stand ready. 

This potential solution uses only two vehicles.  Discovery will still be retired. 

There will be a "gap within a gap" to get new tanks online.  During that time I imagine we would perform most of the OMDP requirements that are near due.  Some of them can certainly be accomplished during a normal flow. 

[Chris Bergin]

If this plan is approved when do we need to contract for new tanks?  When do we need to contract for SRB refurbishment?  What is the rationale for retiring Discovery?  Is she the next one needing orbiter maintenance down period?  How will that be handled for Endeavor?  Weren't Atlantis OMDP tasks handled in pieces during inter mission flow?

A lot of this is discussed in length on the other thread, such as starting with ET-94, then part built ET-139. New BX-265 cert waive. Tough on rationale, as I've noted in my "time has probably been and went" posts.

I believe Discovery has life-cycle issues with her OMS structure to the point she'd need a full OMDP. Whereas Atlantis and Endeavour only need mini-OMDPs during nominal flows.

The other thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24010.0 - probably best for the STS element on this.

[Calorspace]

1) "You'll usually find, the only people who believe the shuttle should be continued are either those who gain through it doing so such as the huge amount of employees or the various companies involved, or those living in the past." - no basis in reality. Trust me, I run this site, I can tell you there's a fair few more people than just the above who believe shuttle should be continued. So you're in error.

2) "These people need to wake up and realise it isn't going to be continued." Everyone is aware of the current plan. This thread, however, includes STS as a potentail CCDEV-2, thus that is what the comments are based on.

3) "It's an over bloated,wasteful, vastly expensive program." - Bloated and wasteful. Give examples. Nothing's cheap....oh, you mean compared to some commercial capsule launchers? Well for starters, you can't "like for like" STS with a F9 launch. You're comparing a minivan with an 18 wheeler. The 18 wheeler will be more expensive. Then equate the flight history, the experience base, the lessons learned, the "current ability" of the vehicles in question, a) You'll find it's not as clear cut as you assume, b) you're picking the wrong enemy.

I'm not really sure who you think I am considering the enemy.

The point is, it isn't about comparing them. Commercial vehicles are not going to be designed with 'Can we have the capabilities of the shuttle but cheaper' as the aim. They are going to be designed based upon what capabilities are required, which in the near future is crew transportation to the ISS.

[Namechange User]

You'll usually find, the only people who believe the shuttle should be continued are either those who gain through it doing so such as the huge amount of employees or the various companies involved, or those living in the past.

These people need to wake up and realise it isn't going to be continued. It's an over bloated,wasteful, vastly expensive program.

The sooner SpaceX and the others achieve crew transportation capabilities the better.

Welcome to the forum!  Can you site any specific examples, I would love to see a tangible piece of data to correlate these opinions.

If what the poster before me has stated is true, in that you are an employee of the program then I am sure you know for yourself a) the costs b) the amount of people involved

Doesn't matter who I am.  Again, I'd like to see the data.  Thank you. 

[Chris Bergin]

1) "You'll usually find, the only people who believe the shuttle should be continued are either those who gain through it doing so such as the huge amount of employees or the various companies involved, or those living in the past." - no basis in reality. Trust me, I run this site, I can tell you there's a fair few more people than just the above who believe shuttle should be continued. So you're in error.

2) "These people need to wake up and realise it isn't going to be continued." Everyone is aware of the current plan. This thread, however, includes STS as a potentail CCDEV-2, thus that is what the comments are based on.

3) "It's an over bloated,wasteful, vastly expensive program." - Bloated and wasteful. Give examples. Nothing's cheap....oh, you mean compared to some commercial capsule launchers? Well for starters, you can't "like for like" STS with a F9 launch. You're comparing a minivan with an 18 wheeler. The 18 wheeler will be more expensive. Then equate the flight history, the experience base, the lessons learned, the "current ability" of the vehicles in question, a) You'll find it's not as clear cut as you assume, b) you're picking the wrong enemy.

I'm not really sure who you think I am considering the enemy.

The point is, it isn't about comparing them. Commercial vehicles are not going to be designed with 'Can we have the capabilities of the shuttle but cheaper' as the aim. They are going to be designed based upon what capabilities are required, which in the near future is crew transportation to the ISS.

Ok cool, now we're having a conversation (Always worries me when someone jumps in anti-shuttle as a first post, as they are usually drive-bys, but you've stuck around and responded, so that's all good).

I don't disagree with your latest post. The only problem is we're talking about "forward thinking statements" and we all know how things slip, failures happen, and so on.

I'm sure SpaceX - who are great - etc. will do a fine job, but they too will know uncertainty exists. The problem is the ISS needs to replace the supply line of STS and everything needs to work, first time, on schedule (or near enough) to keep the ISS at six crew and achieve the potential of what is a $100 billion investment.

Add in the *current" SLS being SD HLV and it's not as clear cut to run head first into losing STS....as much as it's almost certain we will.

[Chris Bergin]

If this plan is approved when do we need to contract for new tanks?  When do we need to contract for SRB refurbishment?  What is the rationale for retiring Discovery?  Is she the next one needing orbiter maintenance down period?  How will that be handled for Endeavor?  Weren't Atlantis OMDP tasks handled in pieces during inter mission flow?

A lot of this is discussed in length on the other thread, such as starting with ET-94, then part built ET-139. New BX-265 cert waive. Tough on rationale, as I've noted in my "time has probably been and went" posts.

I believe Discovery has life-cycle issues with her OMS structure to the point she'd need a full OMDP. Whereas Atlantis and Endeavour only need mini-OMDPs during nominal flows.

The other thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24010.0 - probably best for the STS element on this.

Quick addition. Found my post on the ET situation:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24010.msg688675#msg688675

[Calorspace]

You'll usually find, the only people who believe the shuttle should be continued are either those who gain through it doing so such as the huge amount of employees or the various companies involved, or those living in the past.

These people need to wake up and realise it isn't going to be continued. It's an over bloated,wasteful, vastly expensive program.

The sooner SpaceX and the others achieve crew transportation capabilities the better.

Welcome to the forum!  Can you site any specific examples, I would love to see a tangible piece of data to correlate these opinions.

If what the poster before me has stated is true, in that you are an employee of the program then I am sure you know for yourself a) the costs b) the amount of people involved

Doesn't matter who I am.  Again, I'd like to see the data.  Thank you. 

The data is in the proposal...

$1.3 billion for two flights a year. 650 million dollars per launch for crew transportation. How can you not consider that to be wasteful of tax payers money?

[Namechange User]

You'll usually find, the only people who believe the shuttle should be continued are either those who gain through it doing so such as the huge amount of employees or the various companies involved, or those living in the past.

These people need to wake up and realise it isn't going to be continued. It's an over bloated,wasteful, vastly expensive program.

The sooner SpaceX and the others achieve crew transportation capabilities the better.

Welcome to the forum!  Can you site any specific examples, I would love to see a tangible piece of data to correlate these opinions.

If what the poster before me has stated is true, in that you are an employee of the program then I am sure you know for yourself a) the costs b) the amount of people involved

Doesn't matter who I am.  Again, I'd like to see the data.  Thank you. 

The data is in the proposal...

$1.3 billion for two flights a year. 650 million dollars per launch for crew transportation. How can you not consider that to be wasteful of tax payers money?

Why do you assume it is only crew transportation?

[Jim]

The data is in the proposal...

$1.3 billion for two flights a year. 650 million dollars per launch for crew transportation. How can you not consider that to be wasteful of tax payers money?

You forgot it includes around 20klbs of pressurized and unpressurized  logistics hardware per flight

[vt_hokie]

$1.3 billion for two flights a year. 650 million dollars per launch for crew transportation. How can you not consider that to be wasteful of tax payers money?

As mentioned, it brings more than crew, but what I consider to be an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars is putting our $100 billion investment in ISS in jeopardy as we bet the farm on commercial providers who have yet to prove their capabilities.

[pummuf]

The data is in the proposal...

$1.3 billion for two flights a year. 650 million dollars per launch for crew transportation. How can you not consider that to be wasteful of tax payers money?

The shuttle is very expensive, but not in proportion to its capabilities. It carries large payload in addition to crew, and can return payload to earth. Nothing comes close to its spectrum of capabilities when they are fully used.

[Calorspace]

The data is in the proposal...

$1.3 billion for two flights a year. 650 million dollars per launch for crew transportation. How can you not consider that to be wasteful of tax payers money?

The shuttle is very expensive, but not in proportion to its capabilities. It carries large payload in addition to crew, and can return payload to earth. Nothing comes close to its spectrum of capabilities when they are fully used.

If fully used yes. But in the near term it isn't going to be. We can conjure up all sorts of ideas of what it could be used for but the current primary requirement is crew transportation to the ISS.

In an ideal world there would be a seamless integration between a successor and the shuttle, but there simply isn't the financial resources available

[Longhorn John]

Yes, that is the big point about shuttle. Not only is she seven crew, she's massive upmass, and also massive downmass. Going to take lots of multiple commercial vehicles to come close. CRS alone is $3.1 billion. Not a massive amount of difference when you calculate it out.

[Namechange User]

The data is in the proposal...

$1.3 billion for two flights a year. 650 million dollars per launch for crew transportation. How can you not consider that to be wasteful of tax payers money?

The shuttle is very expensive, but not in proportion to its capabilities. It carries large payload in addition to crew, and can return payload to earth. Nothing comes close to its spectrum of capabilities when they are fully used.

If fully used yes. But in the near term it isn't going to be. We can conjure up all sorts of ideas of what it could be used for but the current primary requirement is crew transportation to the ISS.

In an ideal world there would be a seamless integration between a successor and the shuttle, but there simply isn't the financial resources available

It would be used just as it has.  Carrying crew and cargo for the ISS.  Upmass and downmass, twice a year. 

Given the capability of the vehicle it could also carry a "seventh ISS crew member" who could assist the ISS crew during the docked phase.  Mind you this was a goal when the FY2011 budget was released and it could happen now, at least temporarily, and not at some TBD point in the future. 

There are the financial resources availabe.  It is commitment that is required. 

[Robotbeat]

...
There are the financial resources availabe.  It is commitment that is required. 

Care to share where those financial resources are?

[yg1968]

...
There are the financial resources availabe.  It is commitment that is required. 

Care to share where those financial resources are?

We have already discussed this in the commercial Shuttle thread. In any event, I am not sure there is any point in debating this since the decision has already been made to not extend Shuttle. Neither Congress nor Bolden supports extending the Shuttle.