Return to flight slipping

Ad Astra · 2004-03-22 19:01:10

I'm very disturbed that 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 rudder actuators are a headache unto themselves. Some parts are corroded, some are cracked, and gears were put in place upside-down when the units were first built. The original manufacturer can't build replacements fast enough to meet NASA's RTF schedule, and may end up cannibalizing good parts from the existing actuators just so they can have a full, reliable set on board Discovery and Atlantis when RTF does happen.

For the first RTF, we waited two years, eight months, and one day. Will we wait even longer this time?

Bill White · 2004-03-22 19:11:03

If the rudder actuators are corroded, what are the odds that other parts are corroded as well?

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-23 09:17:35

This is why Shuttle Discovery is now at this minute sitting in a hanger, stripped down to its frame, and they're going over every nook and cranny with magnifiers and ultrasound... dang that must be expensive.

It would suit me just fine for J.Bell's vision for Shuttle to come true... that the price and difficulty of making Shuttle fly again, much less safety, would not be worth it just to finish ISS, which is all but worthless.

Lars_J · 2004-03-23 09:28:37

I'd say the odds are increasing every day that the Shuttle will never fly again...

dicktice · 2004-03-23 17:57:02

GCNRevenger: What a selfish fellow you are! "All but worthless" to whom--ten years or so down the line? Surely, not to the Russians by (hand-it-to-them-on-a-platter) default!

rstones8 · 2004-03-23 18:11:37

In Bush's new "plan", doesn't it call for the retirement of the shuttle by 2010? Seems to me that perhaps its not worth all the trouble they're going through for a return to flight, for only 5 more years of service. And flying by '05 is proablby optimistic. IMHO they should stop beating the dead horse and start working on new projects. (although I realize we are comitted to finishing the ISS) I mean, NASA has alot of work cut out for them with a lunar mission and base, not to mention Mars. I say forget the shuttle and get cracking!

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-23 19:46:36

You bet its worthless... we're going to go up and do "studies on human physiology"... ya huh. Whoopie. If the Russians want to try and keep the thing up there, let um, but stop spending US money on the contraption. Frankly, the ESA and RSA haven't been all that helpful other than jerry-rigging a Zarya and the ESA building the too-small ATV.

For that $100Bn we could build the Shuttle-Z and a gas core nuclear rocket engine, and make it GanyameadeDirect and not MarsDirect... I say that rushing to put Shuttle back into service for a measly five years at terrible expense and risk is not worth it just to finish ISS.

Bill White · 2004-03-23 21:32:20

You bet its worthless... we're going to go up and do "studies on human physiology"... ya huh. Whoopie. If the Russians want to try and keep the thing up there, let um, but stop spending US money on the contraption. Frankly, the ESA and RSA haven't been all that helpful other than jerry-rigging a Zarya and the ESA building the too-small ATV.
For that $100Bn we could build the Shuttle-Z and a gas core nuclear rocket engine, and make it GanyameadeDirect and not MarsDirect... I say that rushing to put Shuttle back into service for a measly five years at terrible expense and risk is not worth it just to finish ISS.

Did you send your letter to Neil Tyson, yet?

:;):

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-23 22:08:37

Ooohkay, lets take a little look at the ISS debacle...

Without Shuttle/CEV and barring Russia miraculously building Klipper from a few wrinkled Rubles in engineer's launderd pants pockets or doubling the Soyuz flight rate, the ISS will be limited to its crew of 2-3 plus one tagalong for a week per flight for the 2-man config. It takes a little over 2 man days per day to keep ISS flying and in research worthy conditions.

Without Shuttle carrying MPLMs, no cargo of any size can reach ISS that won't fit through the Progress cargo tugs hatch. The ESA ATV uses the same size, and the Japanese cargo vehicle is likly doomed. Without Shuttle, no module that is not self-guiding can be added to ISS subsequently either for any upgrades or modifications. It is also questionable if ISS can do anything beyond stay flying without the large mass capacity of a Shuttle flight. Due to the low flight rate of the Ariane-V and small payload capacity of Progress, up-mass to ISS is a trickle; hardly enough to support a full crew I imagine.

Without Shuttle, ISS has essentially no down-mass capacity asside from suitcase sized stuff barring the Russian Klipper being built. Same trouble about hatch sizes sans-Shuttle/MPLM.

ISS is in a really crappy orbit... unless you are launching from Russia, you pay a >25% mass penalty versus a more equitorial orbit. Terrible if you are building anything for travel elsewhere, bad enough if you are building ISS at all.

ISS will not survive that much longer... keeping Mir going for as long as it did was crazy, and ISS will suffer the same decline, and then it will not be worthwhile or safe to keep it up there anymore.

I could go on... you get the idea... but the #1 damning question is: what do you intend to DO on ISS?

Bill White · 2004-03-23 22:24:05

I could go on... you get the idea... but the #1 damning question is: what do you intend to DO on ISS?

Or perhaps what do you do WITH the ISS?

Maybe keep the illusion alive through January 2005 so the folks in Florida dont get angry at GWB. ???

Euler · 2004-03-24 00:34:09

There is a lot of research that can be done on the ISS, such as finding ways to counter the negitive effects of 0g or investigating methods of 0g manufacturing. If we do not complete the ISS, in 10 or 15 years we will have to build ISS 2 to do the research that ISS was supposed to do.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-24 09:06:17

Heh yeah somthing like that Bill... though by the look of things, there is a good chance that Nasa is going to go for Shuttle-derived HLLV, which hopefully they are doing a REAL analysis for the concept right now, none of this "suuure it'll fly 100 times a year, no problem!"

About beating the effects of zero-G... why should we? The trick is just to get where we want to go faster, not to jerry-rig human physiology to make longer flights somewhat safer.

And zero-G manufacturing... If it were so profitable, why aren't we seeing a major push for it? And even at ISS, how are you going to get manufacturing gear/supplies up there? And more importantly... how do you intend to get stuff back down?

ISS won't even remain fit to live in for that much longer anyway, build a proper space station later - built as a single entity and not this frankenstein of SS Freedom/Mir-II/Zarya bits and pieces - with mass-produced TransHab construction, larger docking ports, etc lobbed by an HLLV in a few flights.

Bill White · 2004-03-26 08:49:26

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4603371/]Another blow to the ISS?

If the Russians say they need tourists to justify launching their Soyuz taxi mission, isn't that just a clever way of saying that ISS just isn't that important to them? Does anyone believe Putin truly lacks the money to fund those flights?

Or is this Russian hardball in response to the Iran business?

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-26 09:20:52

Sounds like Russia "capitalizing" on Nasa's weakness since Nasa has given the Russians so much trouble over launching space tourists. I also wonder if the money from tourism is "better" than Russian gov't money because they can spend it without oversight?

clark · 2004-03-26 10:28:31

I think it's all about Iran. Russia has to support the ISS- we gave them that problem. Yet we also say it's a problem we won't pay for.

What's a Bolshevik to do?

Besides, what do you think they are going to do with ISS after we're done with it? What they're doing now. Looks like the Russians want to get in on the ground floor of this new business.

Bill White · 2004-03-26 10:37:18

I think it's all about Iran. Russia has to support the ISS- we gave them that problem. Yet we also say it's a problem we won't pay for.
What's a Bolshevik to do?
Besides, what do you think they are going to do with ISS after we're done with it? What they're doing now. Looks like the Russians want to get in on the ground floor of this new business.

So remind me. Why are we paying billions to finish ISS?

Rxke · 2004-03-26 10:38:39

Don't see anything wrong with it. About time those wimpy six month stays are to be extended

Seriously, if the Russians need the money, so be it, there is no other way, as long as they are the sole upkeepers of the ISS. OTOH, this looks like the shape of things to come, if USA abandons he ISS... Longer missions for a core crew, and more paying tourists or wealthy (or funded) scientist etc...

The ATV, due to launch in autumm this year, could save the Russians another Progress launch, too, if push comes to shove, it is, after all designed to be able to boost ISS, bring some much needed spares etc...

clark · 2004-03-26 10:49:15

So remind me. Why are we paying billions to finish ISS?

To justify the exsistence of NASA.

Bill White · 2004-03-26 11:09:25

So remind me. Why are we paying billions to finish ISS?
To justify the exsistence of NASA.

I agree and the Russians are playing this against us. So why not find a better reason for NASA to exist?

clark · 2004-03-26 11:14:23

Like what? Hubble things?

Without the ISS, there's no need for the Shuttle. No need for the Shuttle, and no ISS, means there is no need for astronauts. That means NASA dosen't need billions anymore.

What's a reason for NASA to exsist? Better yet, what's a reason for NASA to be involved with manned exploration?

The greatest benefits from NASA have come from the unmanned portion of research.

Bill White · 2004-03-26 11:22:55

Like what? Hubble things?
Without the ISS, there's no need for the Shuttle. No need for the Shuttle, and no ISS, means there is no need for astronauts. That means NASA dosen't need billions anymore.
What's a reason for NASA to exsist? Better yet, what's a reason for NASA to be involved with manned exploration?
The greatest benefits from NASA have come from the unmanned portion of research.

If you believe this, how can you believe Project Constellation will actually get us back to the moon or farther?

Your reasoning is exactly why we need to fear that PlanBush will result in the termination of human spaceflight. Or at least American human spaceflight. Just like Jeff Bell predicts.

Rxke · 2004-03-26 11:25:41

Ahem *American* human spaceflight.

And that won't happen.

clark · 2004-03-26 11:32:59

If you believe this, how can you believe Project Constellation will actually get us back to the moon or farther?

Because Project Constellation, like every other space plan, is a manufactured reason to put people in space. There is no reason to send people, except maybe as an argument that they are more efficient in some respects to robots, which is slowly becoming less true as the state of robotics advances.

Cancellation of ISS now removes a reason to send people into space- that was the question more or less. Cancelling the Shuttle now removes our ability to put people in space.

I gladly grant the opponents of manned space flight their due, they're practical, and they're right. I still want people in space, but I try to see it for what it is. This is one of the reason why the Mars Society should not get involved with the Hubble debate.

We don't need to fear plan Bush becuase it retains the exscuse neccessary to keep people in space. Now they'll be doing something a little more productive than what we have already been doing. Plan Bush didn't have to come out. Plan Bush didn't have to call for a return to the Moon. Plan Bush could have been completion of ISS and the OSP, and a small increase in robotic sciences (you know, the last 8 years of NASA). Instead, it put humans at the forefront of our space exploration plans. Instead, it gives us the capability to go farther than we have before.

That's pretty much why I think Bell, and those who think like him, are full of it. I have no love for Bush, but I'm trying not to let that feeling cloud my view of what this space policy can provide us.

Bill White · 2004-03-26 11:58:24

To be totally candid, if we take the prospects for the permanent human settlement of space "off the table" (and permanent settlement requires having babies in space, IMHO) I would probably be in the robotic exploration camp myself.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-26 12:01:35

>6mo stays are bad news for human physiology... the Russians who stayed up longer and came back down "reasonably okay" and walked off the plane are exceptions to the rule...

There are only two reasons for a country to have human spaceflight or beyond-Earth robot spaceflight...
1: To stay ahead of OTHER countries economicaly and militarily when humanity moves off this luke-warm salty mudball. There are reasources to be had (in the long term, anyway) by traveling into space. Countries that don't try to grow their economies to new available reasouces and efficencies are doomed to live in the shadows of those that do.
2: The human desire to explore that is hard-wired into us, this is natural and inevitible, since we CAN go, we will go. Other continants? Check. Moutains? Check. Bottom of the sea? Check... Space though, space is the ultimate expedition, because it has no end.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-03-22 19:01:10

Re: Return to flight slipping

#2 2004-03-22 19:11:03

Re: Return to flight slipping

#3 2004-03-23 09:17:35

Re: Return to flight slipping

#4 2004-03-23 09:28:37

Re: Return to flight slipping

#5 2004-03-23 17:57:02

Re: Return to flight slipping

#6 2004-03-23 18:11:37

Re: Return to flight slipping

#7 2004-03-23 19:46:36

Re: Return to flight slipping

#8 2004-03-23 21:32:20

Re: Return to flight slipping

#9 2004-03-23 22:08:37

Re: Return to flight slipping

#10 2004-03-23 22:24:05

Re: Return to flight slipping

#11 2004-03-24 00:34:09

Re: Return to flight slipping

#12 2004-03-24 09:06:17

Re: Return to flight slipping

#13 2004-03-26 08:49:26

Re: Return to flight slipping

#14 2004-03-26 09:20:52

Re: Return to flight slipping

#15 2004-03-26 10:28:31

Re: Return to flight slipping

#16 2004-03-26 10:37:18

Re: Return to flight slipping

#17 2004-03-26 10:38:39

Re: Return to flight slipping

#18 2004-03-26 10:49:15

Re: Return to flight slipping

#19 2004-03-26 11:09:25

Re: Return to flight slipping

#20 2004-03-26 11:14:23

Re: Return to flight slipping

#21 2004-03-26 11:22:55

Re: Return to flight slipping

#22 2004-03-26 11:25:41

Re: Return to flight slipping

#23 2004-03-26 11:32:59

Re: Return to flight slipping

#24 2004-03-26 11:58:24

Re: Return to flight slipping

#25 2004-03-26 12:01:35

Re: Return to flight slipping

Board footer