A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

Bill White · 2004-01-16 10:40:59

I predict after the November election, at the earliest. Other thoughts?

Rxke · 2004-01-16 10:49:15

2005. (wait, re- finding the link...) [http://www.floridatoday.com/news/space/ … launch.htm]FloridaToday...

clark · 2004-01-16 11:05:11

My wild one-eyed man took me only this far. The future is unknown... for now.

Bill White · 2004-01-26 11:40:49

When will shuttle fly?

NASA hopes to fly as many as two shuttle missions before the end of 2004. The earliest would be Sept. 12. If NASA can get that flight off the ground within a month of that target, Kostelnik said, it would try for a second shuttle mission in November.
But if NASA misses the launch window that opens Sept. 12 and closes Oct. 10, Kostelnik said the odds of returning to flight in 2004 drop considerably. Because of new restrictions NASA has placed on shuttle launches at the recommendation of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board -- such as launching only during daylight hours -- November offers very few good launch opportunities.

Miss this September/October window and Spring 2005 looks likely says [http://space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_040126.html]this article.

clark · 2004-01-26 12:19:27

So they need 25 Shuttle flights to complete ISS...

That's 5 a year to compelte ISS by 2010.

That's 1 Shuttle launch about every three months, with an extra one thrown in every year.

They have three shuttles with which to do this.

Now tell me, does anyone think that the remaining fleet of three Shuttles can meet this operational tempo?

Options, but consider the Bush space policy to be the guiding factor on possibilites?

Use the Shuttle's and try to meet the operational tempo.
Look for alternative heavy lift options that are not Shuttle (how many of the 25 remaining flights for ISS complete can be handled by a launcher other than the Shuttle?)
Develop Shuttle C, unmanned expendable cargo launch.

What other options are there?

Bill White · 2004-01-26 13:35:47

Are you saying Bush/Rove intended to push for shuttle C all along and are merely waiting for someone else to openly call for an end to orbiter flights? They couldn't be that devious, now could they?

Or, when the orbiter fails to meet these requirements, withdraw from ISS participation due to technical difficulties beyond America's control.

clark · 2004-01-26 13:55:18

Are you saying Bush/Rove intended to push for shuttle C all along and are merely waiting for someone else to openly call for an end to orbiter flights?

Well, not exactly... I'm not sure what the intent was, but doing the basic math here, either they set NASA up to fail, or they are creating a situation that allows for an early termination of the Shuttle and increases the likelihood of politcal support for a successor sooner.

Okay, thinking out loud now: Team Bush wants to kill the SHuttle because it's a dead end, and just squandering money, so they propose a date for retirement of the Shuttle. This creates an artifical problem: Completeing the ISS with the Shuttle by 2010. Team Bush knows this. O'Keefe knows this. The Committe that Bush is putting together to implement the plan will see this.

Remember, the Committe is focused on the broad guidelines put forth by Bush, thou shalt not deviate from the stated policy! So that means we go to the moon before Mars, and that means we complete the ISS and retire the Shuttle by 2010.

So, now we have a problem for the Committee, complete ISS and retire the Shuttle, both by 2010... which means 25 more shuttle launches with three orbitors in 5 years. Each Shuttle would need to do about 8 more launches between now and 2010. So each Shuttle could have a maximum of 7-8 months between each launch. Add in the extra constraint of limited launch windows mandated by the CAIB (thou shalt not deviate from the CAIB reccomendations!) and you come to the final relization:

It can't be done within the given timeframe. A loss of one more Shuttle completely seals the deal. And the President is least likely to mandate a target date that cannot be achieved.

Team Bush knew. They had enough technical know-how available to understand that even under the best of circumstances, 2010 was a close call. Look at the rest of the dates- we have till 2014 to have a man rated CEV. We have till 2020 to get a man on the moon. They padded it. But they didn't pad the ISS and Shuttle retirement anymore than they had to.

The Shuttle is now a lame-duck program. It ain't gunna live beyond 2010, and there is no way we're going to go with recertification. The only way to salvage the Shuttle program, and to make sure that you have congressional buy-in is to create a problem that needs solving.

ISS construction deadline is it! We need to meet our international commitments. We need to get on with the NASA of tommorrow. We need to start exploring. We need to do this now!

Who said we chould retire Shuttle immediately? Not Bush, he was merely following the reccomendations of the Committee, and it's space experts... just like he followed the CAIB findings (O'Keefe was instructed by Bush to follow them). Bush is acting on the reccomendations of space experts, who say the only way to finish ISS is to retire the Shuttle now, today, yesterday even.

We then spend part of the Shuttle funds to stand down the fleet, do some hasty work on a cargo module, then jerry-rig the motor fairings to make Shuttle C... which can do at least as much, if not twice, what the current Shuttle can do.

They couldn't be that devious, now could they?

You tell me.

Rxke · 2004-01-26 14:14:46

clark, i submitted this link also in your question thread 'ISS completed-when?' Not sure if you saw it...

[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/future/index.html]'to-do launches'

note that the 25 Shuttle missions also comprise the Hubble mission (? ?) Not to mention the Japanese H II vehicule ...
Anyway, no way this will get completed around 2010, shedules have always been slipping, even when all the Shuttles were still around...

clark · 2004-01-26 14:22:06

Yes, thank you!

Hmmm.... this is exactly what I have been looking for.

GO to the link provided by Rxxe, it lists the remaining Shuttle flights needed to complete ISS.

Now, if you look, you will notice that after the next 8 flights, ISS is considered to be US 'core complete'.

There are a bunch of flights beyond that, but those are not considered as part of the US core complete.

If this is the case, could it be that we only need 8 more Shuttle flights with three oribters between now and 2010 to meet Bush's goal?

Didn't we say that our part would be done with US core complete?

That's doable. Hell, it could be done by 2008, along with the first versions of the CEV.

Palomar · 2004-01-28 06:57:10

[=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040127/sc_nm/space_shuttle_dc_2]Shuttles might resume flight in September

*Hot off the Yahoo! e-presses.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: To the left is another article "Has the Shuttle Become NASA's '76 Dart" but you have to be registered with New York Times to read it.

Bill White · 2004-03-11 16:21:48

September 2004; then

March 2005; now

Possibly [http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/ … 195060.xml]another 9 month delay.

If they are serious about ISS completion and have doubts whether orbiter can fly 25 more missions before more stuff breaks, maybe 8 shuttle C + 8 orbiter flights starts looking better and better.

He said NASA engineers discovered corrosion and microscopic cracks on the space shuttle fleet's rudder speed brake actuators - large motors that deploy tail flaps that slow the shuttle during landing. If shuttle workers cannot perform detailed examinations and find some type of replacements, then the planned March 2005 return to flight launch for Discovery could slip another nine months, Kostelnik said.

When one headlight goes, best to replace them both. . .

clark · 2004-03-11 21:39:56

So I was reading this... yeah, I know, but some one has to...

[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=12163]Statement of Sean O'Keefe before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD-Independent Agencies

So, if you take the time, or have some interest in what the big hancho up there at Fort NASA is saying to our duly e'lected represenatives, you will find some interesting stuff, among a lot of other boring stuff.

NASA, and the future! You see, there's this Exploration thing they're talking about, I don't know, some private type people who think they know how to get us into space, they're gunna tell NASA how to do their job, that one they did 30 years ago, and do it cheaper and easier than anything they've done before!

We calls them e'fficiency experts. They cut through that rigamaroll and regular type BS that is so tough to wade through on your own. So, yup, in 4 months time, these private type big cheeze kind of fella's and ladies (we is edumacated, and e'lightened out this way) are gunna give us a plan. A Plan, with a capital "P", for a Vision, that's with a capital "V" too.

Four months to plan for the next twenty years, and tell NASA how to do it! How can these people do it you ask? They is E'fficient. And they're expert to boot!

Oh yeah, something about executive backing for ammending the Iran counter proliferation treaty to secure forieng launch services, funding plan and development guidelines for CEV, current future of Hubble, HLLV for cargo, and some other stuff about encouraging kids to go into aerospace... so we can have future E'ffiency experts to tell NASA how to do what its done before. :laugh:

No matter how you see it, just try to see it all.

Bill White · 2004-03-22 08:55:21

More orbiter delay [http://space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_040322.html]information.

What is interesting is that one of the three orbiters is not scheudled to fly until 2006.

Although Discovery has been picked to launch first, NASA wants Atlantis ready to launch within weeks of Discovery’s targeted March 6 launch date should a rescue mission prove necessary. McNamara said Hamilton Sundstrand faces less schedule pressure building actuators for Endeavor. That orbiter is not expected to make its first post-Columbia flight until 2006.

Doesn't that mean only one mission in all of 2005 if two orbiters need to be flight ready at all times? Okay, perhaps the second can fly in very late 2005 if the 3rd orbiter will be ready by January/February of 2006.

Edit: What about ISS?

Bill White · 2004-03-25 09:47:09

After NASA discovered the speed brake issue, I have read that the orbiters are being stripped down and rebuilt to discover whether any other parts are corroded or any other pieces installed backwards.

If true, how different is this from the re-certification process needed to extend the 2010 termination deadline?

Bill White · 2004-03-30 08:03:20

Senator Brownback, the ranking GOP member of the Science committee has called for hearings on whether the orbiter should be grounded sooner rather than later.

[http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/cus … -headlines]http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news....adlines

Registration required. A quote:

"The President has unveiled an exciting vision for the future -- an unlimited future for our children beginning with human exploration of the moon and Mars. But we can't begin this journey if we can't get into space. With the space shuttle indefinitely parked in the repair shop, we are like the family with a maxed-out credit card. All our funds go to servicing the account with none left to get out of debt," Brownback said in a statement released Monday.
"The President has mandated that we retire the space shuttle by 2010. But if we can't safely fly it again, why not phase it out sooner and apply the tens of billions to the future?" the statement continued.

clark · 2004-03-30 09:52:56

Who have you been talking to Bill?

Bill White · 2004-03-30 12:35:32

Here is a scary thought.

Orbiter gets retired soon. ISS is abandoned by the United States.

Can Ariane 5 lift ISS components to a low inclination orbit?

It seems to me that if the RSA & ESA were to deploy ISS-2 at say 12 or 16 degrees of inclination from Kouru and with Sea Launch they could pretty much replicate the current ISS for less than $10 billion, excluding the costs of modules already built and awaiting flight on shuttle.

They pretty much have to do this otherwise the European ATV and the Japanese cargo freighter have nothing to do.

Bill White · 2004-04-01 19:54:50

[http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … ID=4730087]Shuttle safety upgrades could cost $700 million.

The return to shuttle flight is set for March 2005, but O'Keefe has previously said safety recommendations issued by those who investigated the shuttle disaster will be followed to the letter, regardless of schedule constraints.

Bill White · 2004-04-16 07:15:59

[http://space.com/news/shuttle_status_040416.html]A new story on shuttle orbiter return to flight.

This hints that March 2005 may be too earlier to be safe.

Josh Cryer · 2004-04-16 13:29:12

Ugh, retire it, damn...

rstones8 · 2004-04-18 01:18:09

IMO NASA should stop pouring money into a vehicle that will last another 5 years at most. ISS can be finished without us, and the reality is that even it will become obselete in a decade or two. Hardly worth the trouble when there is so much more out there that needs exploring.

Quit practicing in the driveway and take humanity out for a joy ride!!

Euler · 2004-04-18 02:24:15

ISS can be finished without us, and the reality is that even it will become obselete in a decade or two.

Are you sure about this? I thought that only the Space Shuttle had enough payload capacity for the heavy ISS modules.

rstones8 · 2004-04-18 17:13:02

Actually I am not sure at all, it was just an assumption which is proablby wrong. But it seems to me that there must be another way to finish ISS, and the way things are looking with the shuttle as of now, it might not be a bad idea to start finding it if ISS is to ever be completed.

I realize our international comittment to finish ISS, and that not finishing what you start is not the best way to operate... but how much would completion of ISS add to its current capabilities (which will soon be put on the back-burner anyways when Moon to Mars gets underway)? Not much I would think. It's like putting money into a dying car when you should be saving for a new one. Not a very good analogy I know, but you get the point.

Euler · 2004-04-18 18:55:11

I realize our international comittment to finish ISS, and that not finishing what you start is not the best way to operate... but how much would completion of ISS add to its current capabilities (which will soon be put on the back-burner anyways when Moon to Mars gets underway)? Not much I would think. It's like putting money into a dying car when you should be saving for a new one. Not a very good analogy I know, but you get the point.

Completing ISS should allow the crew size to increase from 3 to 7, though I don't know what the plan is with regards to escape vehicles. It will also go from having just the US Destiny lab, to having Destiny, the ESA Columbus Orbital Facility, the US/Japanese Centrifuge Accommodation Module, the Japanese Kibo laboratory, and the Japanese Experiment Module. Considering that it costs much more to design and build these modules than it does to launch them(even with the Shuttle's launch costs), we really have no choice but to launch them. It is not completely useless for the Bush plan either, a lot of the research conducted will be aimed at making it easier and safer to get to Mars.

rstones8 · 2004-04-18 20:22:38

Is it possible to finish all that in less than 5 years to meet the 2010 retirement date?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-16 10:40:59

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#2 2004-01-16 10:49:15

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#3 2004-01-16 11:05:11

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#4 2004-01-26 11:40:49

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#5 2004-01-26 12:19:27

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#6 2004-01-26 13:35:47

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#7 2004-01-26 13:55:18

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#8 2004-01-26 14:14:46

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#9 2004-01-26 14:22:06

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#10 2004-01-28 06:57:10

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#11 2004-03-11 16:21:48

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#12 2004-03-11 21:39:56

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#13 2004-03-22 08:55:21

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#14 2004-03-25 09:47:09

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#15 2004-03-30 08:03:20

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#16 2004-03-30 09:52:56

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#17 2004-03-30 12:35:32

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#18 2004-04-01 19:54:50

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#19 2004-04-16 07:15:59

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#20 2004-04-16 13:29:12

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#21 2004-04-18 01:18:09

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#22 2004-04-18 02:24:15

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#23 2004-04-18 17:13:02

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#24 2004-04-18 18:55:11

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

#25 2004-04-18 20:22:38

Re: A new bet? - When will shuttle fly?

Board footer