New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#51 2005-07-14 21:10:49

BWhite
Member
From: Chicago, Illinois
Registered: 2004-06-16
Posts: 2,635

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

NASA Authorization passes committee. First time in a long time!

big_smile


NO rules about CEV must fly before orbiter retirement. Talk to Kay Bailey and Bill Nelson about that.

Still, if we fulfill the full plate of ISS/STS - - we are on hold until 2011 doing essentially zippo.


Give someone a sufficient why and they can endure just about any how

Offline

#52 2005-07-14 21:34:21

GregM
Member
Registered: 2005-01-16
Posts: 30

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

One pad at LC-39 is plenty to support 4 or 5 shuttle flights per year.

Just thought I'd add that we now not only have 1 shuttle prepped and launched, but another one on deck to launch within two weeks  for a rescue mission. Just how much work needs to be done to a pab after each launch to get it ready?

Although after this week they might just be better off cramming 9 people into a Soyuz.  roll

Yup, that's a very good point. Good call. Look to have extra supplies put on the ISS ASAP in order to support a stranded shuttle crew for 30-60 days to alleviate this problem. The addition of node 2 will really help in this matter (extra space). As for the rescue shuttle, it won't actually be sitting on the other pad waiting for the signal to go, but rather it will be sitting in the VAB. Wheeling it out to the one shuttle pad takes 5-6 hours. I would expect pad refurbishment in an emergency would take 2-5 days.  In the golden days of the Shuttle  program they launched 2 flights 15 DAYS apart from the same pad (yup - you read correct - 15 days).  So, one pad is still enough.

Offline

#53 2005-07-15 04:55:59

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,542

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

Sorry if the link was posted
NASA and White House Discuss Early Shuttle Fleet Retirement

NASA is considering retiring a Space Shuttle orbiter in 2007 and beginning modifications to one Shuttle launch pad at the Kennedy Space Center under a plan now being reviewed at NASA headquarters, according to senior agency sources.

Driving the idea of a phased retirement of the space vehicles are two concerns. The first is a desire for finding new sources of funds to pay for advancement of the President's moon-to-Mars plan. And secondly NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin's fears of a third Shuttle accident.

Discovery is the oldest Shuttle vehicle still in operational status, having entered flight service in 1984. Endeavour is the newest vehicle, constructed to replace the Challenger lost in the 1986 accident. Endeavour made its first space flight in 1992 and is currently undergoing an extensive upgrade to improve its performance and reliability.

If this plan is adopted, the chosen orbiter would only fly three or four additional missions after STS-114 - this despite hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent on vehicle upgrades for Discovery and the other spacecraft. Under the plan being studied, the retirement of the Discovery or one of the other remaining vehicles would result in its transport to the National Air and Space Museum facility at Dulles International Airport in 2007.

And what makes them think that they will save any money with this plan? They have had nearly 2 years and have not save a dime while not flying any of the shuttles. How do they think not flying one of them would change that fact to allow for CEV money to be freed up.

Offline

#54 2005-07-15 17:43:39

GregM
Member
Registered: 2005-01-16
Posts: 30

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

And what makes them think that they will save any money with this plan? They have had nearly 2 years and have not save a dime while not flying any of the shuttles. How do they think not flying one of them would change that fact to allow for CEV money to be freed up.

Even when Shuttles are not flying, there is a substantial cost to keeping the Orbiters maintained and housed in the OPF. While a part of the Shuttle program inventory, each Orbiter is either flying, being prepped for flight, or in maintenance. Even during the latest program stand down, the cost of just “keeping the horses in the barn” is not a trifle. Every minute of any one of those activities outside of actually flying the Orbiter still costs substantial money in salaries and resources. The only exception to this rule was when Columbia was temporarily put in mothballs and parked in the VAB for several years about 5 years ago. Even then, there is a cost attached to that activity.

Additionally there is of course the cost of actually launching and flying a mission. That money WAS saved during the STS program stand down of the past several years. Those savings were not seen however, due to the RTF modifications to the remaining fleet that cost at least a billion dollars. If they had not flown for the past two years, and not spent any money on mods to the fleet, savings would have been seen.

If an Orbiter vehicle is pulled from the fleet and decommissioned, there will be a cost to decommissioning as well. But once parked at their final resting place, that Orbiter is no longer costing NASA money. Real dollars are saved.

Offline

#55 2005-07-16 20:31:11

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,542

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

I can not see how there can be much cost to parking one or more obiters into its garage. Once the batteries are removed and all fuels, it simply can not cost you anything but a guards wages to watch over it.

Offline

#56 2005-07-16 22:03:33

GregM
Member
Registered: 2005-01-16
Posts: 30

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

I can not see how there can be much cost to parking one or more obiters into its garage. Once the batteries are removed and all fuels, it simply can not cost you anything but a guards wages to watch over it.

Trust me - decomissioning will still cost $$$, despite the fact that it would seem to be a simple thing.

It's not as simple as draining the fuel tank and turning off the lights.

Fuel: Hydrazine, Nitrogen Teteroxide. Check out the occupational health and safety requirements for dealing with any component contaminated with such material. Any trace of this material must be removed from a decomissioned vehicle

Additionally, among many others requiring removal/safeing there are:
APUs, hydraulic systems, pressurised oxygen & nitrogen systems, cooling system, fuel cells, emergency pyros, computers, and yes - the batteries as well.

As well, they won't be going back to the garage. Once done with they will be going straight to a museum. Bays in the OPF need to be converted for servicing the CEV.

Offline

#57 2005-07-16 22:36:31

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

Not to sound too "religious" about it or anything, but let me put it this way... Shuttle is the singular most complex device ever built by the hand of man. Ever. And how much does it cost to idle or decomission other very complex machines, say, nuclear power plants?

Shuttle is among a special class of machines, machines that are so complex, that it is beyond the limits of the human mind to truely know and understand everything about it. The reason why it doesn't seem obvious why storing or decomissioning Shuttle will be expensive is because nobody really comprihends how complex the Golden Goose is, not even the people that built and operate it... Only now are NASA managers really accepting this fact.


"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw

The glass is at 50% of capacity

Offline

#58 2005-07-18 07:04:42

BWhite
Member
From: Chicago, Illinois
Registered: 2004-06-16
Posts: 2,635

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

Retire orbiter sooner rather than later:

WASHINGTON - According to a White House staffer, a memo representing official Bush administration space policy calls for no more than 15 space shuttle flights before the fleet is retired in 2010.

The memo, promoted by Paul Shawcross, NASA's examiner at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), calls for a massive cut to the number of approved Space Shuttle missions remaining to assemble the International Space Station (ISS) The direct result could be an ISS that is smaller and less capable than is spelled out in various international agreements.

This document was originally supposed to have been part of the Administration's formal "passback" on the NASA FY 2006 budget. However, the approach spelled out in this document was rejected out of hand by (then) NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe.

According to NASA, industry, and other government sources, shortly after O'Keefe's departure in February 2005 the paper's contents were being touted by Shawcross at NASA and elsewhere as now representing the "official White House position" on NASA's budget and how it was to deal with the shuttle.

Specifically, the memo says "The Administration is convinced that 28 Shuttle flights are not required to assemble a Space Station that meets the goals of the Vision and that this number of flights is not achievable by 2010. The projected increases to the Shuttle's lifetime budget could put the Vision in jeopardy ... To ensure that the Shuttle can be retired safely by the end of the decade at close to its planned lifetime budget, and without undue schedule pressure, Passback assumes that the Space Shuttle program is limited to a total of 15 additional flights to complete the assembly of the Space Station."

Only the President swims at a pay grade high enough to accomplish curtailment of ISS, if Congress agrees, that is.


Give someone a sufficient why and they can endure just about any how

Offline

#59 2005-07-18 21:26:49

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,542

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

This is the section that caught my eye:

This Nasa schedule shows 23 projected Shuttle flights plus 3 other non-Shuttle flights required to assemble the ISS. It also has this note at the bottom: "Additional Progress, Soyuz, H-II Transfer Vehicle and Automated Transfer Vehicle flights for crew transport, logistics and resupply are not listed."

So which is right, 28 or 23 flights? ???

Offline

#60 2005-07-18 23:25:34

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,929
Website

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

I thought NASA now has enough aluminum-lithium alloy for 28 flights. The shuttle manifest has 23 flights plus the Russian Universal Docking Module (UDM) delivered by Soyuz, the ATV and HTV. Actually, it lists flight HTV-1 launched by "U.S. Orbiter" which would be the 24th flight. I'm arguing that the H-II Transver Vehicle (HTV) that's designed to launch on an H-II rocket should be launched on H-II. This manifest doesn't include Hubble Service Mission 4.

Offline

#61 2005-07-19 06:50:41

GCNRevenger
Member
From: Earth
Registered: 2003-10-14
Posts: 6,056

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

Its not the lack of fuel tank material, its the lack of time

GOOD, and no Hubble SM4 trip.


"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw

The glass is at 50% of capacity

Offline

#62 2005-07-19 09:48:57

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,929
Website

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

I expect HSM4 will happen.

Offline

#63 2005-07-20 07:11:53

Palomar
Member
From: USA
Registered: 2002-05-30
Posts: 9,734

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

*Thought I'd post this here; seems the most suitable thread:

NASA to move Atlantis for September launch

While NASA hopes to get shuttle Discovery cleared for flight next week on the first post-Columbia mission, workers at Kennedy Space Center will move Atlantis from its hangar to the Vehicle Assembly Building later today for mating with an external fuel tank and solid rocket boosters. Atlantis is being prepped to launch in September to haul supplies to the space station and conduct more shuttle demonstration tests.

That's a headline at spaceflightnow.com

--Cindy


We all know those Venusians: Doing their hair in shock waves, smoking electrical coronas, wearing Van Allen belts and resting their tiny elbows on a Geiger counter...

--John Sladek (The New Apocrypha)

Offline

#64 2015-05-24 17:22:53

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,542

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

Wow another screwed up topic to fix for the shifting...due to user content post_uid commands no longer valid...

With the title one would not have thought that there would be a delivery issue with the stations supplies but we had seen it before and why should we have expected anything less for issues....

Four HTV spaceships have been launched to space so far. The first craft was launched on Sept. 10, 2009. Five subsequent missions are planned—one each year for 2015–2019. Which in comparison to other partners is a very low supply cargo rate. The cost per mission is just not enough of a rate to reduce it so here is the before shot of what we have followed by what is planned.


Japan planning to upgrade HTV cargo spacecraft


iss036e030730-Kopia-647x431.jpg


HTV-4 spacecraft being grappled by Canadarm2 attached to the ISS.

The HTV spacecraft is 13 feet (4 meters) across and about 33 feet (10 meters) in length and an estimated mass of 10.5 tons. Manufacturing and maintenance costs will be halved from about $165 million by reducing the spacecraft’s mass by about 30 percent while maintaining its transport capacity of some 6 tons.

Now for the after shot changes to the vehicles cargo module.

Ministry to improve cargo spacecraft


DTMANAGE.000000020150520154044725-1.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAI7EPFDYX6SSPYKKQ&Expires=1432565714&Signature=Zpmw4J%2BK1EwJ0VNBr5BX1MDLTbM%3D

Previously meantioned

The ministry said manufacturing and maintenance costs will be halved from about ¥20 billion by reducing the spacecraft’s current weight of 10.5 tons by about 30 percent while maintaining its transport capacity of six tons. The development period is still undecided.

Offline

#65 2015-05-25 01:41:52

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 5,929
Website

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

According to a bank foreign exchange converter, ¥20 billion works out to US$150 million. Significant cost. I hope that includes the H2 launch vehicle. The obvious change is steerable solar arrays. Flat solar cells are cheaper, and a steerable array requires fewer cells for the same power. Interesting that Dragon v2 from SpaceX has changed to conformant solar. An array that doesn't require tracking the sun makes navigation easier, so easier software at the expense of more expensive solar array. As long as the upper stage of the launch vehicle doesn't release it in a rapid tumble like the last Russian Progress, it'll be fine. Would like to know how they'll reduce weight. Simplified unpressurized logistics carrier (UPLC)? More compact avionics? Different propulsion module?

Offline

#66 2015-05-25 07:13:10

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 18,542

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

Here is the link to the current H-II Jaxa Transfer vehicle "KOUNOTORI" (HTV)

KOUNOTORI Specifications

pict_htv_1j_e.jpg

Length Approx. 9.8m (including thrusters)
Diameter Approx. 4.4m
Total Mass Approx. 10,500kg
Cargo capacity
(supplies and equipment) Max. 6,000kg
  -Pressurized cargo: Max. 5,200kg
  -Unpressurized cargo: Max. 1,500kg
Cargo capacity (waste) Approx. 6,000kg
Target orbit to ISS Altitude: 350km to 460km
Inclination: 51.6 degrees
Maximum duration of a mission Rendezvous flight period: about five days
Bearthed with the ISS: about 45 days
On-orbit emergency stand-by: about seven days

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB