Only 4 more flights??

#40 by Jim on 30 Sep, 2006 12:18
Quote
gordo - 29/9/2006 4:28 PM

it all hypothetical , but a way would no doubt be found to allow ISS completion (and Atlantis to fly an additional flight) say if for instance one of the other 2 orbiters suffered significant damage needing repair, or forcing their early retirement.

If an orbiter suffered signifcant damage from a flight, the program would end right there
#41 by psloss on 30 Sep, 2006 12:52
Quote
henrycheck - 29/9/2006 11:01 PM

I'm not suggesting the shuttle should continue flying. It's technology that is more than thirty years old and replacement parts must be a nightmare and it's time to move on. However, if the need arose, the shuttle could fly beyond the end of fiscal 2010 regardless of how expensive / difficult / risky that might be.
I don't see the point you're trying to make...the fact that something could be done isn't necessarily persuasive there's a real chance of it happening.

Do you have any references to any contingencies that have been acknowledged as showstoppers for the deadline? All the words I've read say that the deadline is firm, regardless of how well they managed to complete the current flight manifest.

Thanks.
#42 by Jeff Bingham on 30 Sep, 2006 13:03
Quote
psloss - 29/9/2006 3:31 PM

Quote
henrycheck - 29/9/2006 3:49 PM

Is this "law" or a CAIB recommendation?
Well, it was definitely a CAIB recommendation, but perhaps language got into the authorization act that was passed last year. If so, I'd be curious what the language says...anyone got a link?

Thanks.

The Authorization Act (Public Law 109-155) says nothing about the issue of recertification. What it does say (Section 501(a)) is that it is the policy of the US to "possess the capability for human access to space on a continuous basis." Actually, the Senate version of the bill, as originally introduced, prohibited a "gap" between the retirement of the space shuttle and the operational capability of a replacement vehicle, but that was negotiated with the House (and the White House) to a statement of "policy," with the provision that if a gap appears obvious within a year of the final scheduled shuttle flight, the NASA Administrator must report to the Congress the exected length of that gap, what could be done to shorten the length of the gap, what alternative means would be available to fill that gap (commercial or foreign options), and what the "strategic risks" are to the US as a result of the gap (Section 501 (b).

Meantime, in June of every year between now and 2010, NASA must report to the Congress on its progress in developing a CRV and CLV and the timeline for planned operations, so that report due a year out is not the only means by which it would be made clear what sort of schedule shortfall there might be. (A year out would likely be too late to do a lot about it, anyway, so these report requirements serve more of a purpose of ensuring NASA knows it's got to keep its feet to the fire to get the new systems in place at the earliest possible date.)

Underlying that is the fact that the prevailing attitude, at least on the part of the authorizing Committee leadership in the Senate, is that the focus on retirement of the shuttle should be a matter of when it has competed its mission (i.e., assembling and outfitting the ISS), and NOT on an arbitrarily-selected hard date such as 2010.

Aside from the issue of what the bill says (or not) on the subject of recertification of the shuttles, an argument has been made by some that the aggregate steps taken to upgrade systems and refine flight requirements over the past three years has, in effect, accomplished what the CAIB had in mind when discussing "recertification." Certification, after all, is something done with reference to a set of requirements--requirements which can be subject to change. I'm certainly not qualified to discuss the pros and cons and technical or operational nuances of THAT issue, but mention it as something that might come into play over the next couple of years--especially when Congress prepares to "re-authorize" NASA in early 2008 and will take another comprehensive look at all these issues.

Have a pdf of the bill, but it's around 200k so exceeds the attachment limit. You can try this link:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ155.109.pdf
#43 by psloss on 30 Sep, 2006 13:19
Quote
51D Mascot - 30/9/2006 8:46 AM

Underlying that is the fact that the prevailing attitude, at least on the part of the authorizing Committee leadership in the Senate, is that the focus on retirement of the shuttle should be a matter of when it has competed its mission (i.e., assembling and outfitting the ISS), and NOT on an arbitrarily-selected hard date such as 2010.
A question then is what political flexibility folks like Senators Hutchison and Nelson have to change even this administration's policy when the new Congress starts next January. And beyond that, is it realistic to change course in FY 2009, with the new administration?

In other words, even if the leadership on the Hill wants the priority on finishing the station first and then retiring the shuttle, do they have the power to make that so?

Thanks.
#44 by Jeff Bingham on 30 Sep, 2006 13:36
Good question....one difficult to answer until after November 7th, when a LOT of congressional dynamics could change. But I would have to say that yes, if it became clear that--for whatever reason--the present schedule of 2010 shuttle retirement would preclude the completion of the ISS assembly or cut that assembly short to a redefined level of "completion" that would leave it signifcantly less capable than currently projected, Senators Hutchison and Nelson would very likely press legislation to change that retirement date--and would likely be successful.

There is at least a reasonable likelihood that a majority of Members of Congress could be convinced it makes sense to spend an additional $5 or even $10 billion over a period of two or three years to avoid throwing away a $35 to $100 billion investment (depending on who's figures you want to use) that has already been made. Not a piece of cake to accomplish, but doable, as has been clearly demonstrated in the past fifteen-year congressional voting history on ISS.
#45 by psloss on 30 Sep, 2006 14:27
Quote
51D Mascot - 30/9/2006 9:19 AM

Good question....one difficult to answer until after November 7th, when a LOT of congressional dynamics could change. But I would have to say that yes, if it became clear that--for whatever reason--the present schedule of 2010 shuttle retirement would preclude the completion of the ISS assembly or cut that assembly short to a redefined level of "completion" that would leave it signifcantly less capable than currently projected, Senators Hutchison and Nelson would very likely press legislation to change that retirement date--and would likely be successful.

There is at least a reasonable likelihood that a majority of Members of Congress could be convinced it makes sense to spend an additional $5 or even $10 billion over a period of two or three years to avoid throwing away a $35 to $100 billion investment (depending on who's figures you want to use) that has already been made. Not a piece of cake to accomplish, but doable, as has been clearly demonstrated in the past fifteen-year congressional voting history on ISS.
I'm skeptical of that outcome, though not so much so with the leadership dynamics you're referring to in the next Congress. I also wonder out loud about how they'd win this administration's support or accomplish that without the administration (lame duck or no).

But as usual, it will be interesting to see where government space policy is in terms of interest with the new Congress...
#46 by henrycheck on 30 Sep, 2006 19:02
Quote
psloss - 30/9/2006 8:35 AM

I don't see the point you're trying to make...the fact that something could be done isn't necessarily persuasive there's a real chance of it happening.

Actually, I was only asking for clarification. Was “law” being used figuratively (“this is the way it will be”), or literally (“Congress has passed a law”)? The first I understand. The second would have been news to me.

But since you asked . . .

It’s September 30, 2009 and war breaks out in Kazakhstan, or civil war breaks out in Russia, halting Soyuz and Progress launches. Do you abandon ISS or do you keep flying the shuttle?

My issue is people using “never” or “can’t” or “couldn’t” or “won’t” or “wouldn’t” in relation to the future. Everything in the future is “might.”

Let’s hope actual events follow the plan and the first Orion flights can be accelerated into the 2012 time frame.
#47 by psloss on 30 Sep, 2006 20:03
Quote
henrycheck - 30/9/2006 2:45 PM

But since you asked . . .

It’s September 30, 2009 and war breaks out in Kazakhstan, or civil war breaks out in Russia, halting Soyuz and Progress launches. Do you abandon ISS or do you keep flying the shuttle?

My issue is people using “never” or “can’t” or “couldn’t” or “won’t” or “wouldn’t” in relation to the future. Everything in the future is “might.”
OK -- but must we consider all possible hypotheticals interesting/relevant because they aren't impossible?

I'm more likely to be interested in the "ifs" that the pros are considering (like the one this thread) than other "ifs" that are thrown out in these forums.
#48 by Jim on 30 Sep, 2006 20:43
Quote
henrycheck - 30/9/2006 2:45 PM

It’s September 30, 2009 and war breaks out in Kazakhstan, or civil war breaks out in Russia, halting Soyuz and Progress launches. Do you abandon ISS or do you keep flying the shuttle?

Abandon. Can't do it without the Progress.

the number of remaining flights is the key, not so much the date 2010

The Shuttle is not flying more than 17 more flights. Period. !. !......!
#49 by Jeff Bingham on 01 Oct, 2006 01:55
Quote
Jim - 30/9/2006 3:26 PM

Quote
henrycheck - 30/9/2006 2:45 PM

It’s September 30, 2009 and war breaks out in Kazakhstan, or civil war breaks out in Russia, halting Soyuz and Progress launches. Do you abandon ISS or do you keep flying the shuttle?

Abandon. Can't do it without the Progress.

the number of remaining flights is the key, not so much the date 2010

The Shuttle is not flying more than 17 more flights. Period. !. !......!

I haven't seen anything in either the background you have posted on these forums, or heard any justification--or even rationale--for the kind of black and white unequivocal statements that you make like this, so obviously have no basis for discussion.

Can only say that, in my view you are DEAD WRONG in saying there is no possibility of flying more than 17 flghts. And I would also point out that NASA, and Mike Griffin, will tell you the key IS the 2010 date regardless of how many flights occur between now and then. I frankly would be happy with 17 flights being the driver. But it's not. It's the date, because OMB says there will be no more money to operate the shuttle after that date, and that's what NASA has to plan for.

What I am saying is that neither NASA, OMB nor even the President, can make that decision alone. The President cannot spend a DIME not authorized and appropriated by the Congress. And the "Golden Rule" in this case is "Those that have the gold make the rules."
#50 by Jim on 01 Oct, 2006 02:30
So how can there be more than 17 flights but they can't fly past 2010. They are mutually exclusive. More than 17 flights would require tiime past 2010. I was putting the emphasis that the number of flights isn't going to increase. The changes have already started at KSC.
#51 by henrycheck on 01 Oct, 2006 13:16
Quote
Jim - 30/9/2006 4:26 PM

Abandon. Can't do it without the Progress.

Failure is now an option at NASA.

By late 2010 my fellow taxpayers and I will have funded the design, development, construction, and launching into earth orbit of one-million pounds of man-rated space hardware which, for a four-year period from 2010 until 2014, will be dependent on a single launch system which launches and lands in the most volatile region on earth. Now that’s rocket science!
#52 by henrycheck on 01 Oct, 2006 13:17
Quote
Jim - 30/9/2006 4:26 PM

the number of remaining flights is the key, not so much the date 2010

Jim contradicting the Administrator.
#53 by henrycheck on 01 Oct, 2006 13:17
Quote
Jim - 30/9/2006 4:26 PM

The Shuttle is not flying more than 17 more flights. Period. !. !......!

Quote
Jim - 24/9/2006 8:50 AM

The contingency flights are part of the remaining 15 flights

Jim contradicting Jim.
#54 by henrycheck on 01 Oct, 2006 13:17
Anybody else notice how the quality of discussion plummets when Jim gets involved?

Jim --- you are well informed on many topics and might even be a nice person. Your posts have a God-like tone which often converts lively discussion into argumentative hair-splitting. If our mindless babblings frustrate you, perhaps you could start a new web site reserved for yourself and your fellow omniscient clairvoyants.
#55 by Jim on 01 Oct, 2006 13:34
Quote
henrycheck - 1/10/2006 9:00 AM

Quote
Jim - 30/9/2006 4:26 PM

The Shuttle is not flying more than 17 more flights. Period. !. !......!

Quote
Jim - 24/9/2006 8:50 AM

The contingency flights are part of the remaining 15 flights

Jim contradicting Jim.

The last one was a typo, I mean 17 vs 15
#56 by Jim on 01 Oct, 2006 13:36
Quote
henrycheck - 1/10/2006 9:00 AM

Anybody else notice how the quality of discussion plummets when Jim gets involved?

Jim --- you are well informed on many topics and might even be a nice person. Your posts have a God-like tone which often converts lively discussion into argumentative hair-splitting. If our mindless babblings frustrate you, perhaps you could start a new web site reserved for yourself and your fellow omniscient clairvoyants.

That's the problem, there are no other "fellow omniscient clairvoyants"
It's hard being one of a kind. Sort of lonely, that's why I am on this site
#57 by Gary on 01 Oct, 2006 13:39
Quote
Jim - 30/9/2006 9:26 PM

Abandon. Can't do it without the Progress.

What about the ATV? Isn't this a supplement/replacement to progress?
#58 by Jim on 01 Oct, 2006 13:49
You are correct, it is a supplement. There isn't enough of them planned.
#59 by psloss on 01 Oct, 2006 13:50
Quote
henrycheck - 1/10/2006 9:00 AM

Anybody else notice how the quality of discussion plummets when Jim gets involved?

Jim --- you are well informed on many topics and might even be a nice person. Your posts have a God-like tone which often converts lively discussion into argumentative hair-splitting. If our mindless babblings frustrate you, perhaps you could start a new web site reserved for yourself and your fellow omniscient clairvoyants.
My experience is that Jim's presence in a thread is a lagging indicator of mindless babblings.

Why is it OK for us to "babble," but it's not OK for Jim to say he thinks we're babbling?