Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-08 20:21:37

One would hope that to be true but then that would require very little design effort and a very short timeline to actually having the CEV up and flying.
Looking at the Nasa time line for unmanned flight to manned was 6 years as listed by Nasa's exploration plan.
If that's is true then it is a lot harder than we both could imagine.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-08 20:37:10

No SpaceNut, the trouble is that there is no money to really get the CEV program going until Shuttle is retired. Right now up until 2010, we will probobly not be putting a huge amount of effort into it.

The secret to man-raiting the EELVs is to improve their performance to minimize the number of engines they need and to include escape and control mechanisms with links to the rockets' improved health monitoring and second stage control trunk.

If the CEV capsule can be kept light enough and the Delta-IV upgraded with Al/Li alloy, improved RS-68R and ML-60/RL-60 engines, and perhaps slushed Hydrogen... then CEV could be deliverd to orbit with only TWO engines total. Delta-IV HLV with these modifications could also launch 40MT payloads, big enough for a EOR Lunar program.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-10 06:25:44

Then how can we have a space craft fly off in 2008 of an umanned craft if there is no money?
On another note of Workforce Challenges at Ames Research Center - and Elsewhere at NASA

NASA is once again facing budget pressures - pressures that are being translated into changes in its work force. This is not the first time that this has happened. In previous years, such pressures were either the result of overall attempts across the federal government to reduce the workforce, or due to cuts in NASA's budget. This year, these changes come in the wake of an overall budget increase for the agency - one spurred on by a major new space policy issued by the White House.
Editor's note: No one likes to lose his or her job. For the most part, no one likes to lay people off either. I quit my NASA civil service position in 1993 out of disgust and disillusionment with how Dan Goldin abused the agency's workforce. Been there, done that.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-10 07:47:15

For a list of reasons...

The unmanned flight might just be the airframe with a heat shield to see if the basic design can handle reentry. If it wern't fitted out with the tons of equipment and supplies that a 4-6 man human crew docking with somthing would need, then it would be light enough to ride on the standard unmodified Delta-IV.

So you wouldn't have to fly anything resembling a complete vehicle on a rocket which doesn't have to be the manrated upgraded one.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-12 07:43:45

EXPLORATIONS - Space Digest

A run down of current missions and there status

Ad Astra · 2005-01-21 18:38:24

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=15179]A preview of the CEV requirements

It seems like FAST (Flight Application of Spacecraft Technologies) will be a technology testbed rather than representative of the final CEV. New heat-shield technologies are supposedly in development, and will end up on board FAST. Autonomous rendezvous will probably be demonstrated, and perhaps new power systems and life support will get a chance to fly.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-21 21:08:18

Huge amount of other documents at the link on the referred to page but before I can even get to that I need to decipher the alphabet soup in the second paragraph at space Ref.

Martin_Tristar · 2005-01-21 23:31:46

Well, the definition of CEV under NASA is more than "apollo style capsule program " It means all transport for humans in space from earth -to-orbit, in-space, transportation in space and landing on earth or other bodies.

They are looking for the infrastructure to expand humans into space but within the NASA Budget issues. They have also listed other items including robotic assistants under this crew exploration system development.

I have some hope they are going the right way finally !!!!!!

:band:

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-02-05 16:25:29

Cost, good designs and safety are highly important as SpaceNut says:

If Nasa was a business it would have never been allowed to act that way nor would the funding for such continue

here's another quote

a calculated risk, but they need to. Go ahead and use it to complete the ISS and then ditch it, it may fail again, but the odds are somewhat on NASA's side that it won't before it's terminated in 2009.
It's time to take some risks in finishing up the ISS and then move on to the moon using the CEV...?
New tests show that the new space shuttle is more vulnerable than NASA thought. return to flight is slipping back. Already pushed back to March 2005, it may be delayed further into 2006 if they can't fix the rudder actuator problem. The shuttle is so vulnerable to hits from debris that even the post-Columbia changes may not be enough to protect the shuttle, WESH NewsChannel 2 reported.
Recently, NASA rolled out a new space shuttle fuel tank designed to avoid the failure that brought down Columbia. A piece of foam insulation weighing almost 2 pounds made a hole in Columbia's wing. The new tank was designed to lose pieces no larger than about 1/3 of an ounce.
Steve Lindsey is preparing for a mission he hopes will never launch: the rescue of other astronauts in orbit. If a crisis arises during shuttle Discovery's planned return to flight in May, Lindsey and a crew of three could be called upon to lift off aboard sister ship Atlantis on an emergency mission that would be the first in the history of human space exploration. Rescue flights were hotly debated at NASA. According to Bush's proposal, once the shuttle fleet has returned to flight, it will be used to complete construction of the International Space
Hubble missions have been scrapped, NASA's argument is that the 20-35 ISS missions are acceptably safe, but the 2 Hubble missions are not. Buzz Aldrin has already talked about the possible need for using the ISS as a shield for shuttle where it would provide assistance like a lifeboat, the astronauts may also have to fly in Russian made rockets. There are other complications like maybe needing more ideas like Soviet Progress and European ATV supply ships, and a possible flaw between 2006 and 2010 in which no ISS lifeboat is planned.
Engineers have been trying to determine just how much damage 1/3 of an ounce can do to a shuttle. Engineers used a long air-powered cannon to find that out, and they concluded -- to their surprise -- that a chunk weighing about 2/3 of an ounce can make a crack in the shuttle's wing.
Further tests, using the 3,000 degree heat and high pressure a shuttle gets on the way down, revealed that even that small crack is enough to make the wing fail and cause a repeat of the Columbia accident.
However the Spacestation chief is wary of haven plan, One of Russia's most experienced cosmonauts, who will take over command of the international space station this spring, said he has concerns over NASA's plans to use the orbiting outpost as an emergency shelter for a damaged shuttle. Cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev said NASA's emergency plan for the crew of a damaged space shuttle to take refuge on the orbiting station until a rescue ship could be sent raised safety issues and he had pressed managers on the issue. "We need to prepare a backup plan for this backup scenario," said Krikalev, 46, a veteran of three long-duration
space flights and two shuttle missions. "It's going to be difficult. The station cannot stay in this configuration for a long time," he said during a news
conference at Houston's Johnson Space Centre.

let's hope they can move ahead

Martin_Tristar · 2005-02-05 19:42:54

Interesting Statement " CEV or Crew Exploration Vehicle", everything I have read about this program suggests that a limited number of personnel in orbit and for exploration to moon, mars and beyond.

I am disappointed to the fact that we should be looking for meanings to move a large workforce off the planet into space particularly into earth orbit for space science platforms, and lunar colonization before we look at mars colonization / settlement.

We are not with this CEV Program we are moving back to rocket style "apollo module"vehicles that have limited resource needs and limited crew casualties if things go wrong. We need more >>>>>>>>>>>>

We need a resuable space plane for crew movements into space from earth ( earth-orbit ) strictly for movement of personnel. a frieghter variant could be used for spacecargo transfer based on the airliner frieghters with modular onboard container systems and limited passenger space.

The vessels used to the moon and mars are different again because the absence of atomsphere except for the landing scrafts for the martian missions. These vessels are modular in design to make it easier to construct and maintain from earth orbit. These vessels will be developed from the ISS space station truss system and thus flexible and expandable.

idiom · 2005-02-06 00:42:30

If the problem with cancelling the shuttle is the backlash from lay-offs then why lay people off. Nasa will eventually need a huge staff to support PlanBush so why not keep everybody around doing team building, outreach and experimentation while they wait for their new hardware? It might be throwing away money, but it would be throwing away less money and everybody wins.

If you want to keep the shuttle anyway why is there such resistance to changing out the SRB's?

Why is there not a thin ablative layer of cork or something underneath the tiles as a back-up. The back-up system doesn't have to be reusable; it just needs to make it home. On the same note, the nose cone of the shuttle (nearly entirely RCC) pretty much made it back in both disasters. What would it take to make the nose cone survivable? Taking the RCC around into a sphere? Adding a parasail and winglet stabiliser?

On the upgrade thread... would it be possible to boost the payload to a near ISS orbit on an expendable booster. The shuttle would then fly with an empty cargo bay save for a pair of upgraded EVA jetpack thingies... (I forget their name) to be used as space tugs? The rest of the 'cargo-bay' could be retrofitted as an internal fuel tank. This would be used to do a massive re-entry burn to reduce the speed that has to bled by the heat shield. This also has two bonuses:

- Hubble repair is back on due to the extended range
- Nasa and the Public get used to space tugs and separation of payload/crew launches.

Just a few thoughts...

Martian Republic · 2005-02-06 04:10:32

idiom,

The current shuttle is old technology space craft. Number one there aging and there life of these old shuttle will come to an end either because we will retire them or because they will crash. Even to do minor modification to the current shuttle has cost the United States about 1.5 billion dollars since the Colombian accident. To launch a shuttle to orbit cost 500 to 600 million dollars. So there expensive to launch and when you count the ground support cost to keep these shuttle going, it cost 3.5 billion dollars per year to keep them flying. That to do three or four launches a year cost.

It generally not a good idea to do any major modification to an existing shuttle, because it will generally cause problem, because your trying to make that shuttle do things it was not designed to do. Now to do any major modification of these shuttle you will have to re-engineer them, which will cost almost as much as engineering new shuttle from scratch which would cost three to six billion dollars. If we build replacement shuttle of the same type we have right now, it will cost about 2 billion dollars a copy right now.

Once you consider both the cost to maintain these shuttle and what it will cost to keep them flying or replace them with new shuttle of the same type, it obvious that we will be retire these shuttle sooner or later.

The only thing that in question is which way that we are going to go for our next space ships are basically two direction.

1. Build the next generation shuttle which will cost us 3 to 6 billion dollars to design and maybe one billion dollars a copy after that. Assuming that we build six of them would probably cost us between ten to fifteen billion dollars to build.

2. Go back to an Apollo type rocket which will probably cost 2 billion dollars to design and 500 million dollar per copy to build every time we want to go into space.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-06 09:03:10

1. Build the next generation shuttle which will cost us 3 to 6 billion dollars to design and maybe one billion dollars a copy after that. Assuming that we build six of them would probably cost us between ten to fifteen billion dollars to build.
2. Go back to an Apollo type rocket which will probably cost 2 billion dollars to design and 500 million dollar per copy to build every time we want to go into space.

Basically yeah, modifying Shuttle to make it more surviveable with an escape pod or a huge engine to deorbit with aren't practical ideas.

Also, if you launch ISS cargoes with expendable rockets, you will run into lots of problems:
-Payloads are designed to be lifted from the side, not pushed from the bottom
-Many ISS componets are loose bits, not big modules
-ISS payloads would have no way to prevent spinning, which happens to all spacecraft without maneuvering jets or gyros
-No tug vehicle exsists to get payload close to the ISS and to a relative stop

Now for "future options," building a real Shuttle-II is going to cost alot more then $6Bn... a truely reuseable medium launch shuttle would cost in the region of $20Bn.

The rocket/capsule option doesn't need a new rocket, as the EELVs with some modifications can do it just fine.

RobertDyck · 2005-02-06 11:09:40

Actually, cost is the big issue. The current shuttle cost $10.1 billion to research, develop, and construct the first 3 orbiters. That included conversion of launch facilities from Saturn V to Shuttle, conversion of Michoud to produce ET instead of S-1C stage, a new main engine, and everything else. The original price of the X-38 was $1.2 billion, but after all the design changes it overran to $2 billion. HL-20 has a cost estimate of $2 billion. Yes, GCNRevenger, if X-38 could be built for $1.2 billion without all the modifications then the original cost estimate of $2 billion for HL-20 was accurate. But when NASA announced the OSP, major contractors asked $11-13 billion. These guys have a habit of deliberately ensuring cost overruns for major projects; Robert Zubrin estimated it would end up costing $17 billion. That's just for the spacecraft, not including the rocket or its launch or manufacturing facilities.

Then there's VentureStar. That was supposed to be Shuttle 2. They started with a 1/4 scale version that would fly a sub-orbital hop to prove the technology. The idea was a small version would be cheaper to fix any problems that might arise. X-33 cost millions so it was a bit of a risk. If everything worked perfectly it was a waste of money, but if something went wrong then fixing it on X-33 before the full size version is built would be cheaper. So X-33 would be successful if something went wrong; well something did. Lockheed Martin made a last minute change of the tanks and the first test failed. The hollow wall composite fuel tank proved incompatible with cryogenic propellant. Ok, so that proved X-33 was a sound investment; make the change and move on. Furthermore, to ensure the contractors didn't deliberately cause failures to create cost overruns, NASA put a clause in the contract that said the contractor had to share the cost of any set-back. NASA activated that clause, but Lockheed Martin refused. After 2 years of lawyers arguing they decided to use an aluminum tank instead of a solid wall composite. When George W. was elected, he cancelled the project. I think he was right, you don't proceed with a project after the contractor violates the contract.

Today we're faced with the question "Now what?" Many people want to use expendable capsules because they're "tried and true". But expendable capsules are known to be expensive. That doesn't reduce your operating costs, it's just a step backward to the mid-1960s. Lifting bodies were developed in the late-1960s and early-1970s. But technology doesn't matter, the real issue is controlling contractor costs. The proposed CEV is an expendable capsule that's just a redo of Apollo. The mission architecture is "Earth Orbit Rendezvous", that's the vision of Werner Von Braun from World War 2. The difference from Apollo is using solar panels for the Resource Module instead of fuel cells for the Service Module, 2 TLI stages instead of a single S-IVB stage, carrying the Command module to Lunar surface, and assembly in Earth orbit. Hell, even science fiction stories from 1950 like "The Man Who Sold the Moon" said chemical rockets will take you to Earth orbit, but you need nuclear thermal to go to the Moon. Yes, they talked about ground launching nuclear thermal. That story envisioned water propellant instead of liquid hydrogen, but still pretty advanced for 1950.

So GCNRevenger estimates $20 billion for the next Shuttle. That isn't unreasonable, but it would have to include everything and provide a full-size shuttle. Any new shuttle would require a frequent launch rate (at least one per week, preferably once per week per orbiter) and significantly reduced per-launch cost. And that doesn't address separation of cargo from crew.

dicktice · 2005-02-06 12:11:44

At the risk of incurring GCNR's wrath (again!) I'm reminded of the "not invented here" syndrome, because there's the Russian potential just waiting to be utilized to accomplish everything mentioned in all of the above, while we take our own good time to develop the next generation Space Transportation System. I cringe in anticipation of the condemnation I'm inviting with this observation, but isn't that what brainstorming is all about?

Martian Republic · 2005-02-06 12:45:48

1. Build the next generation shuttle which will cost us 3 to 6 billion dollars to design and maybe one billion dollars a copy after that. Assuming that we build six of them would probably cost us between ten to fifteen billion dollars to build.
2. Go back to an Apollo type rocket which will probably cost 2 billion dollars to design and 500 million dollar per copy to build every time we want to go into space.
Basically yeah, modifying Shuttle to make it more surviveable with an escape pod or a huge engine to deorbit with aren't practical ideas.
Also, if you launch ISS cargoes with expendable rockets, you will run into lots of problems:
-Payloads are designed to be lifted from the side, not pushed from the bottom
-Many ISS componets are loose bits, not big modules
-ISS payloads would have no way to prevent spinning, which happens to all spacecraft without maneuvering jets or gyros
-No tug vehicle exsists to get payload close to the ISS and to a relative stop
Now for "future options," building a real Shuttle-II is going to cost alot more then $6Bn... a truely reuseable medium launch shuttle would cost in the region of $20Bn.
The rocket/capsule option doesn't need a new rocket, as the EELVs with some modifications can do it just fine.

Like I said, we are at a decision point of which way we want to go.

If we go with the shuttle II we would want to make a goal of designing one that has 1/10 the launch cost of current day shuttle or there would be no use in trying to build a second generation shuttle. Also we would need 100% re-usability too to keep that cost down per launch. So we would be shooting for a 50 million dollar launch or less per trip into space for say 10 to 20 people versus 500 to 600 million dollars for 7-8 people with the current shuttle. Now once such a shuttle would have to be designed and built so we would be able to have 10 to 30 shuttle launches per year without breaking the bank on shuttle launches. I admit the big problem will be the development and engineering those new shuttle which as you say may cost ten to twenty billion dollars and that may very be the case. If the NASA build this type of shuttle II technology they would open the doors to private enterprise to go through and setup private shuttle companies for going into space, because most of the engineering work would have already been done by the US Government through NASA. So we would have a two way break on this thing of a better shuttle for NASA and private sector upgrading there White Knight/Space space one design with this new technology along with other space concerns. Most of the technologies use in the White Knight/Space ship one design came from the X-15 design back in the late 50’s and early 60’s. I admit it will be expensive to go this way and follow this path, but if we are going to put together any serious long term development of space, this is the rout we will ultimately have go in, because is the most cost efficient in the long term for manned flight into space.

The other choice is to have an Apollo type craft that we launch for 500 million or so per launch for 3 to 6 people and only launch 4 or 5 times a year. In the short term, it will definitely cost less to do it this way, but we also limit what we can do in space too. We go this way and we lose the versatility of having the shuttle. Because the shuttle can and does do things that you can't do or do very well with an Apollo type rocket system. The shuttle was designed as a pick truck, which it does very well, but it an expensive pick truck, I will admit that.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-07 00:16:11

"The original price of the X-38 was $1.2 billion, but after all the design changes it overran to $2 billion... the original cost estimate of $2 billion for HL-20 was accurate"

...Which has exactly zero to do with your spaceplane. Why? Because the X-38 is nothing at all like the vehicle you desire. Let me make a short list of all things that the X-38 does not have that your ship would need:

-No large, complex, reuseable tripropellant main engine
-No heat shield penitrations for tank mounting or fuel lines
-No restartable OMS engine(s)
-No LSS system, only nine hours of bottled gasses and batteries
-No controls of any kind, only parachute control and autopilot
-No docking alignment hardware
-No Lidar/Radar/etc for rendevous
-No avionics for controlling same
-No wheeld landing gear
-No water landing floatation system
-No windows at all
-No waste management system

Plus:
-Require heavier structure for the extreme load from pushing the fuel tank from the bottom of the vehicle, especially against hypersonic drag
-Never intended for reuseability, only a one-off escape pod, and was designed as one. Not built for easy reuseability or soft recovery. (Heat shield?)
-Too heavy to lift much payload except for a crew, it will be pretty useless for launching ISS gear. (batteries weigh 200kg, gyros even more)
-Fuel tank does not exsist and would cost eight digits each easy
-Would require extensive aerodynamic design & testing

So... That $2Bn for the ACRV is plausable, but the low figure for the HL-20 and this plane is a pile of "male bovine black bile."

It will likly take a little money for the CEV to uprate the EELV rocket(s) to carry it, but the EELV+ would have uses other then launching the CEV, like being powerful enough for a Lunar EOR mission. That said, I think that the huge "$11Bn" figure thrown around is stupid, and that Zubrin is doing a stupid job at trying to manipulate us space-folk into hating the CEV, because it isn't MarsDirect.

"Many people want to use expendable capsules because they're "tried and true". But expendable capsules are known to be expensive. That doesn't reduce your operating costs, it's just a step backward to the mid-1960s"

Yes they are... safer, lighter, and more versitile then spaceplanes.

Expensive compared to what though? Compared to Shuttle, they are a bargain... ~$100M for a Delta-IV+ Medium 50 including launch costs and a $100-150M copy of a CEV capsule, and we're already at 1/4th the price of Shuttle. Sounds like a big decrease in operating cost to me... The people in the 1960's had the right idea with capsules, but jumped the gun to do Shuttle before the time for an RLV was right.

They will also save money on development, which a spaceplane will not. This is a real cost, that if a spaceplane can save $50M a flight but costs $1Bn extra, it doesn't save you a dime for twenty missions, which would be many years of flights. This is about right since you will have to develop the EELV+ anyway.

And the ISS, the pathetic sick joke of a project, will never be worthwhile to justify a reuseable taxi to and from it. It may even fall apart soon, with the stress on the station from the Russian RCS systems. The thing is turning into a Mir-like deathtrap. Its also a horrible science platform, since there is so much vibration and contamination. There just isn't any good reason to design a ship to tend it.

""The Man Who Sold the Moon" said chemical rockets will take you to Earth orbit, but you need nuclear thermal to go to the Moon."

Again, this is another short-term bad idea. An expensive NTR engine only saves you about 25-33% of sortie mass, and it is simply cheaper to use a bigger launch vehicle to bring up extra chemical fuels (EELV+). Getting to the Moon is easy enough that the reduced launch mass is not that signifigant compared to the cost of NTR engines... Nor do you seem to think that the safety risk of returning a hot reactor (which even makes me flinch) to LEO or the boiloff problem from its Hydrogen fuel are signifigant.

(Shuttle-II) "And that doesn't address separation of cargo from crew."

Yes it does. The two-stage system would have a seperate dedicated unmanned cargo orbiter and a dedicated crew orbiter with extra reentry hardening.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-07 11:42:25

The standing army is one of those things that we can not afford to continue paying for.

New NASA budget plan to study closures, Agency will look at its 10 field centers; KSC is safe

Lots more article links on spacetoday.net

RobertDyck · 2005-02-07 23:18:41

GCNRevenger, first thank you for responding in the Shuttle thread, not the Hubble one. I was trying to figure out how to make the shift myself.

You make some good points. The X-38 doesn't have all that stuff. However, HL-20 was designed from the beginning to be an OSP. It has everything except the reusable tri-propellant main engine, heat shield penetrations for tank mounting, and structure to push the fuel tank. As for fuel lines, why not feed then around the back? No need to penetrate the heat shield. Mounts can be made of titanium or inconel, with fibrous ceramic thermal insulators connecting them to the hull inside the heat shield. Just let the mounts stick through during atmospheric entry; fewer doors means fewer things to go wrong.

Again, I claim this justifies the higher $2 billion price tag of HL-20 vs. X-38. But look at SpaceShipOne; it cost $30 million including development and construction of both the spaceship and WhiteKnight carrier aircraft. A gigantic B2 bomber costs $2 billion. Why would HL-20 cost more? I think it's just space price ratchetting. But if you want to claim the main engine alone will increase the price, then I won't argue with that.

That $2Bn for the ACRV is plausible, but the low figure for the HL-20 and this plane is a pile of "male bovine black bile". How very colourful and very rude. I must give you credit for the creativity of the insult, but remind you that rudeness is a sign of weakness.

"spaceplanes. Expensive compared to what though?" Do you really think a CEV Crew Control Module, Resource Module, plus Launch Escape System will be light enough to launch on a Delta IV+ Medium? Boeing is talking about a Delta IV Heavy. The list price of Delta IV Heavy is $170 million; the Air Force paid for a test at $154 million but I don't think you could get regular production at that rate. Then what about the cost of the expended CEV CCM, RM, and LES? The incremental cost of a Shuttle launch was $63 million in 1988; I've already said the reasonable price in today's dollars is $126 million. I expect a mini-shuttle to cost significantly less per launch than the current shuttle.

"Fuel tank does not exsist and would cost eight digits each easy" I see no reason why a tank would cost 8 digits each. Five digits easy, 6 digits I wouldn't argue with, but eight!

Separation of cargo from crew is best accomplished with today's technology with a reusable space taxi (or spaceplane) for crew, and an expendable Big-Dumb-Booster for cargo. Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V Heavy fulfill BDB nicely.

"Nor do you seem to think that the safety risk of returning a hot reactor (which even makes me flinch) to LEO...signifigant." HAH! I got the Gas Core Nuclear Rocket Revenger to flinch about nuclear rocket technology! The science fiction books I refer to do mention reusable NTR rockets, but I envision expendable Timberwind style launch vehicles lifting heavy cargo, not people. You could use an expendable NTR TMI stage for a crewed mission, but I wouldn't use it for launch. I met an aerospace engineer who wants to use uranium nuclear ram jets for commercial airliners, but I doubt the public is ready for that. I think you can do a lot with X-43 style hydrogen-fuelled SCRAM jets.

By the way, my magical method of reducing the mass of the RD-701 tri-propellant rocket engine is to use a single chamber. A double chamber engine still has only one fuel pump, and the HL-20 has solid rocket motors for abort. The current shuttle couldn't reasonably get to orbit with one engine out.

SpaceNut · 2005-02-08 06:06:21

Well in the news due to the coming years budget there are slated a number of facilities job losses and attempts at reducing the number of shuttle flights remaining to complete the station. Seems like a lot of numbers are being rearranged in order to free up the cash to construct the CEV on a faster track IMO.

Cuts target shuttles, defense; Proposed $16.5B budget signals end of orbiter era, dooms Hubble

phasing out spending on the shuttles and cutting other projects to free billions of dollars for a new spaceship as well as missions to the moon and Mars.
also cut funding for a mission to rescue the ailing Hubble Space the ailing Hubble Space Telescope and pushed back or eliminated money for some big-ticket science missions and aeronautics research.
Gaining less notice: $160 million included to buy cargo and crew delivery services from other countries or private companies. The idea: Shift supply runs from the shuttle to less-expensive space freighters and station crew changeovers to the Russians' Soyuz, which has done the job while the U.S. fleet was grounded the past two years.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-07-24 02:50:11

NASA officials think they have found the source of the problem that delayed the launch of space shuttle Discovery, and if they can fix the glitch in time, they could launch on Tuesday, 26 July. Engineers are wrapping up a troubleshooting plan to address a fuel sensor system issue and there are at least four opportunities for Discovery to launch during the current launch window to the stations orbits, which extends until 31 July but if they don't launch July they'll have to wait until September for a window. Shuttle delay worries ISS partners Japan, one of 16 nations involved, has spent more than $3-billion on space station vehicles and modules including a laboratory named Kibo - Japanese for "hope" and Kibo now sits - along with Europe's Columbus module, a connecting node, station trusses, solar arrays, and a sparkling seven-sided cupola window . The Russians are making it very clear that they do not want to keep providing Soyuz taxi services to and from the ISS for NASA astronauts unless the US pays up. On its face, this is not unreasonable. The Russian space establishment has taken to capitalism like a duck to water. In many ways their single-minded pursuit of profit is an admirable case of an organization doing what it has to do to survive and thrive under very difficult circumstances. There is a chance NASA can't launch before July 31, the next possibilities are in September. Will NASA have to ask for a lift from Soyuz, or get Europe to launch the ESA ATV or get more Russian Progress launches to the station. The Shuttle was a wonderful craft, and some of the missions were great it carried specialised scientists, commercial researchers and oceanographers. However many feel the Shuttle has seen its best days gone. Since the disaster NASA has not been able to put people in Space for almost 2 and 1/2 years. 15 billion on the Shuttle since the last successful launch and ZERO results since. What is astronomical about the STS Shuttle is the cost and the price of launching on it, weigh that with the risks. Compare the NASA budget with Russia, the ESA or China, how did this craft start costing so much ?

http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3679

The USA Mars Telecommunication Orbiter cancelled ?

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-24 09:37:48

Shuttle costs so much for two main reasons:

1: It was originally designed so that it would make everybody happy, which is impossible, so it wound up being a compromise design that doesn't work very well.

2: NASA wanted it to be so expensive, so that they could keep the maximum number of engineers employed for the longest possible time. This, the real goal of Shuttle, has been sucessful beyond their wildest dreams. Even more sucessful then Apollo.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-03-25 17:49:39

some recent press on the Shuttle

delayed again
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006J … 035340.htm
program should be scrubbed
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/he … 071957.php

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-25 18:15:36

I am starting to wonder if Jeffy Bell's conspiracy theory might be becoming more and more likly...

...Bush will "get around to" making another speech about spaceflight, this time to publicly announce the decision to eliminate Shuttle immediatly, and spend as much as is nessesarry (NASA would have plenty if Shuttle were out of the picture) to finish the station by other means. Or, better yet, bluntly state that the ISS is not "living up to its billing" and American construction will be halted indefinatly.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-11-12 05:56:09

Stennis' gaze on Mars, beyond

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-01-08 20:21:37

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#77 2005-01-08 20:37:10

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#78 2005-01-10 06:25:44

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#79 2005-01-10 07:47:15

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#80 2005-01-12 07:43:45

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#81 2005-01-21 18:38:24

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#82 2005-01-21 21:08:18

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#83 2005-01-21 23:31:46

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#84 2005-02-05 16:25:29

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#85 2005-02-05 19:42:54

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#86 2005-02-06 00:42:30

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#87 2005-02-06 04:10:32

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#88 2005-02-06 09:03:10

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#89 2005-02-06 11:09:40

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#90 2005-02-06 12:11:44

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#91 2005-02-06 12:45:48

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#92 2005-02-07 00:16:11

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#93 2005-02-07 11:42:25

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#94 2005-02-07 23:18:41

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#95 2005-02-08 06:06:21

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#96 2005-07-24 02:50:11

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#97 2005-07-24 09:37:48

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#98 2006-03-25 17:49:39

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#99 2006-03-25 18:15:36

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#100 2006-11-12 05:56:09

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

Board footer