Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

SpaceNut · 2005-09-16 06:10:23

With this Nasa has put up the flare calling for the ability to purchase elsewhere what ever is need to keep manned flight going.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/15/AR2005091502045.html]NASA Seeks Clearance to Buy Russian Technology
Shuttle Grounding Prompts Space Station Dilemma[/url] seeking to eliminate a provision in the 2000 Iran Nonproliferation Act prohibiting U.S. purchases of most Russian space technology and equipment -- including Soyuz spacecraft -- as long as Russia is exporting nuclear or missile technology or know-how to Iran.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-16 08:53:22

Its not "Russian technology" SpaceNut, NASA just wants to buy seats on the exsisting Soyuz.

Josh Cryer · 2005-09-16 09:11:13

Is this the end of ISS?

SpaceNut · 2005-09-16 09:26:06

Its not "Russian technology" SpaceNut, NASA just wants to buy seats on the exsisting Soyuz.

Not really my words but a reiteration of the read text and what is in the actual INA.

Seats are not technology and even if the soyuz was fully updated it would hardly be a military technological advantage.

I think the whole idea of the INA is just foulish at this point.

Is this the end of ISS?

IMO probably not.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-16 12:51:19

The word "technology" comes from the America-hating Washington Post, probobly as another sleight against the relativly patriotic nature of the space program. NASA is not buying Soyuz technology, NASA wants to buy seats on Soyuz to save face while Shuttle is in death throes and CEV is still a paper spacecraft.

I agree, the INA is foolish. We ought to give the Russian engineers some warning, and bomb the reactor. Problem solved.

Unfortunatly the ISS will probobly soldier on... NASA will either build an ISS module cradle for The Stick, or perhaps just let the Russians launch the remaining modules somehow. I think the chances that Shuttle will fly again, barring some breakthrough with the foam problem and moving ET production, are growing increasingly slim.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-17 17:54:00

NASA Planning to Resume Work at Michoud Assembly Facility

Recovery efforts at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans are progressing better than originally anticipated, almost three weeks after Hurricane Katrina struck. Power has been restored to the entire complex where space shuttle external fuel tanks are made. Temporary repairs have been made to damaged buildings.
Due to the progress, the Space Shuttle program has decided to keep tank work at Michoud.

Preparations are also under way to ship two external tanks from Kennedy back to Michoud by barge. External tank #120 is expected to arrive at Michoud in early October. It will be examined and portions of it dissected to better understand why foam came off during Space Shuttle Discovery's launch last July. External tank #119 will be sent back to Michoud in late October.

Ad Astra · 2005-09-18 00:00:00

I think the whole idea of the INA is just foolish at this point.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has said as much during recent news coverage of NASA and the INA. His point is that Russia has already given Iran everything it is willing to give regarding nuclear technology, so the INA no longer has any effect.

It has to be asked whether Russia's technology transfers to Iran could potentially contribute to a nuclear bomb. I'm certainly not defending Russia's actions, but I don't think the Russian-supplied reactors can be used to make plutonium for weapons. Our biggest fear is that the centrifuges which enrich Iran's uranium (<3% enrichment for power plants, much higher for nuclear weapons) will be used to make weapons instead of reactor fuel. Iran's centrifuge program can be traced to none other than Pakistan's Abdul Qadeer Khan.

I digress...

Right now NASA is in a fight for survival. A law must be amended to keep the space station going. Hurricane damage threatens the space shuttle program, and many workers are still unaccounted for. Most frightening is the prospect that manned spaceflight could be scuttled altogether to pay for the broader hurricane rebuilding effort. Just when we thought we were going back to the moon, we may be facing NASA's darkest hour.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-18 07:39:17

If the INA makes any difference or not is irrelivent, it should be adhered to as a matter of principle: Russian knowingly gave a rouge state, run by a dictatorial oligarchy who openly support genocidal mass murderer and declared the aim of destroying America, technology and nuclear fuel that could be used to build a bomb. Therefore, Russia should be penalized for hurting our security.

The question that the help given by the Russians could be used to make bombs is very likly yes: any nuclear reactor of any kind does produce plutonium, though light water reactors produce less of it then other types. Take note that Iran is building up the capability to process the entire fuel cycle and not simply to handle spent fuel rods. According to the deal with Russia, the reactor would use Russian fuel rods, which Russia would take back (with their Plutonium) after they used.

If this were the case, and Iran was only wanting nuclear power and were intending to abide by the agreement with Russia for fuel, then why would Iran be building the capacity to process fuel itself? After the first few batches of fuel rods have been cooled, Iran will simply tell the Russians they are keeping them and the deal is off... then set about removing the Plutonium themselves.

Simply by the nature of how the bomb works, a Plutonium based bomb would be much better suited for missiles or clandestine use then Uranium bombs, and Iran knows this. Russia and China will never let the UNSC impose sanctions (the only peaceful option left), and already France and Germany have all but abandoned the goal of stopping all nuclear activity in Iran, so I think it is time to think about the military option.

"Keep the space station going?" The space station will keep going, it just won't have a US astronaut onboard anymore. The Russians are capable of maintaining the station on their own, so there is no real material loss, and is purely a political consequence.

The manned space program can work, but now I think that the time has come back to question again... it seems unlikly that Shuttle can safely fly enough missions to even achieve minimal "completion" of the ISS if they get it flying again. Even if they do get the station "finished," its capacity for science will be basically zero due to a lack of crew & cargo support.

Even if it were finished to the practical specification, there is simply no science that could possibly be worth even the $50Bn or so we will yet spend on the station. There just isn't, all the experiments that could be conducted there could be done on unmanned X-37 or Vostok vehicles far, far better.

By the time Bush leaves office, the Shuttle orbiter will be irrevokably on the path to the Smithsonian, so the only US way to finish the station would be to use SDV (probobly The Stick) to do it. This will hamstring VSE by sapping billions of dollars and tie up infrastructure, possibly enough to doom the program. 2018 is the latest practical date for a Moon landing I think, and delays past this date risk the project never happening at all.

The ISS will continue to absorb 25-33% of NASA's manned spaceflight budget, depending on how many flights are sent to it anually once CEV is ready.

And for what?
What really?
If our "friends" France/Germany/Russia are so eager to compromise with a murderous mad regieme about giving them frigging nuclear bombs, then maybe they just might "compromise" and call the whole worthless project off... NASA is being asked to do far more than Apollo for far less money. I think that it is apt to question if $6-7Bn (maybe as low as $5Bn) a year is enough, and without more (which they are unlikly to get) NASA may simply fail.

The solution is clear... the self-immolating stupid madness over the ISS simply needs to stop. The lives of 14 men and women (or more), aproximatly $200Bn by programs' end, and the possible fatal blow to the future of NASA... it needs to stop. Its not worth it. We can't go on pretending that this is okay.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-22 05:44:08

Senate Clears NASA to Buy Russian Spaceships

The bill was introduced Sept. 15 by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) to provide temporary relief from provisions in the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 that bar U.S. purchases of Russian human spaceflight hardware as long as Russia continues to help Iran in its pursuit of nuclear know-how and advanced weapons technology.
The U.S. Senate approved Sept. 21 a bill that would clear the way for NASA to buy the Russian Soyuz vehicles it needs to continue to occupy the International Space Station beyond this year.
Lugar’s bill, S. 1713, changes the law to permit NASA to buy any Russian space hardware or services it needs for the International Space Station program until 2012.
Without relief from the Iran act, NASA could soon find itself unable to send its astronauts to the space station for extended stays. A Soyuz capsule set to carry a new two-person crew – and one space tourist – to the station Sept. 30 is the last one Russia is obligated to provide at no charge to the United States under a bilateral agreement.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-22 11:29:37

Shuttle Launch Not Likely Until May, NASA Boss Says

Despite the extra delay, Griffin said NASA still planned to fly the shuttle 18 times by 2010, using 17 missions to complete assembly of the international space station and one to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope. He said "our flight history tells us" that the agency has a 90 percent chance of meeting the schedule, even with the next launch in May.
Griffin acknowledged that "we're in a hole" but said it would not be cost-effective to abandon the shuttle because it would "decimate the workforce" needed to build the new spaceship and manage the spaceflight program, as well as "cause a lot of [other] collateral damage" that "wouldn't save much money."
Instead, he said he would use the new "crew exploration vehicle" to complete assembly of the space station if the shuttle cannot finish the job by 2010. Griffin has consistently refused to contemplate extending the shuttle's life beyond then.

With all the hurican damage and a season still yet to finish for another month or so. It could get real ugly before it is all said and done.

Ad Astra · 2005-09-22 22:34:17

Despite Griffin's well-laid plans, OMB is seriously considering immediate termination of the shuttle. Depending on the disposition of the shuttle army, such a move would either a) strip NASA of the workforce needed for lunar return, or b) end the shuttle program without any real cost savings because the shuttle army would still be on the payrolls.

Of course, if Rita destroys mission control, the shuttle and moon programs will be in serious trouble. At least ISS can be controlled from Russia. It's one benefit of international cooperation.

John Creighton · 2005-09-22 23:02:01

Despite Griffin's well-laid plans, OMB is seriously considering immediate termination of the shuttle. Depending on the sisposition of the shuttle army, such a move would either a) strip NASA of the workforce needed for lunar return, or b) end the shuttle program without any real cost savings because the shuttle army would still be on the payrolls.
Of course, if Rita destroys mission control, the shuttle and moon programs will be in serious trouble. At least ISS can be controlled from Russia. It's one benefit of international cooperation.

I’ll take Griffins word that there will be no real cost savings but I am curious as to what the cost savings would be and what could be done to retain the necessary expertise without the shuttle? Also would such a route yield a better or an inferior CEV.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-23 07:00:36

Well, if Shuttle is out then the best way to "finish" the ISS would be to use The Stick somehow. Assign ex-Shuttle engineers to it starting FY2006 and be done with it. Have the SSME engineers start work on a simplified version of the engine, Thiokol stop building 4-segment reloads and work on 5-segment motors, Michoud forget the foam and work on a 5m tank, and KSC folks to start modifying Pad 39/Crawler/VAB. Not down the road some time, but today, with things that won't be strongly dependant on the final Stick design.

I'd be interested in knowing where you heard that AdAstra, it might just make my day. In SpaceNut's link with the M. Griffin interview, its interesting to note his emphasis that continued ISS construction was to satisfy the international agreement, and not to ever get anything useful out of the station... And canceling Shuttle now won't save money? Then I guess Griffin & Congress have resigned themselves to not slimming down the Shuttle Army?

BTW: I think NASA needs a name for The Stick, they've got one for Super Magnum already.

Palomar · 2005-09-23 08:34:04

In SpaceNut's link with the M. Griffin interview, its interesting to note his emphasis that continued ISS construction was to satisfy the international agreement, and not to ever get anything useful out of the station

*Yep.

And canceling Shuttle now won't save money?

Evacuate all personnel, deorbit the piece of junk (ISS) and let it burn up on re-entry.

It's 2005 and we're reduced to the U.S. having to buy spacecraft from Russia, the Shuttle program is a joke, the ISS is an even bigger joke.

Future's mighty bright. Yepper.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-09-23 08:55:00

Thou it may be a sad day for the need for Nasa to begin buying Soyuz seats it however is even tougher for griffin to keep all the personel with no shuttle flights at all.

If all the sum of dollars for shuttles were save aprox 3 -4 billion and we only need say at most 3 soyuz flights for American astronauts.

Then we have a big chunk of cash for the piece that we do not have for Da Sticks developement and first flights from already built hardware.

When it comes to modifying a 4 segment SRB to making it a 5 segment it is rather quichly done. Making the ET would be a little harder but since they take so long to make the engineers have plenty of time on there hands to make the remaining parts to finish the the rest of the CEV.

Demonstators have already been done for the air bag landing, steerable parachutes, Escape tower and lots more already. Lets get all the pieces together and start getting something done for a change.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-23 09:02:03

Amen to that Cindy, but what Griffin said - that killing Shuttle/ISS now would save no money - disturbs me.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-23 11:05:39

[url=http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-michoud2205sep22,0,2826327.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-space]Louisiana NASA plant eager to get back to work;
The site, spared because of a 'ride-out' team, will house workers on ships.[/url]

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is close to approving a deal to anchor a 900-passenger boat from the Baltic Sea at the dock Michoud uses to ship the tanks to Kennedy Space Center. Workers would live on the ship until they can arrange housing off-site.

Now thats roughing it...

Regular work is expected to resume the first week of October, when one of two tanks at KSC is shipped back to Michoud. NASA managers plan to expand the work force from the current level of 60 people to about 150 to do nondestructive tests and begin processing the tank. The second tank at KSC is scheduled to be sent back three weeks later.

Hum.. while other centers are looking at possible RIF...

A so-called tiger team evaluating possible fixes was moved from Michoud to the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., because of Katrina.
One solution being considered is the removal of a foam ramp that lost a large section during Discovery's launch.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-23 11:10:31

Article on how the foam is applied:
[url=http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/la-sci-foam21sep21,0,2005364.story?coll=orl-news-space-promo]The Fine Art of Foam

Applying a flawless layer of chemical goo with a spray gun is no easy feat. Ask NASA's space shuttle team. Or that guy on your roof.[/url]

A little Hijinx

mix part A with Part B and A hot reaction starts immediately.
Wiltshire says a classic foamer's prank is to squirt a dollop of the mixture into somebody's back pocket and watch him drop his pants.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-23 13:11:14

Okay, so they rip off the likly unnessesarry, applied due to parinoia, PAL ramp foam.

How about those big fist-sized chunks that came off the supposedly A-O-K robot applied foam?

And, how are you going to test the re-re-repaired tank? Slap it on the orbiter and test fly it again?

BWhite · 2005-09-23 13:50:29

If OMB kills orbiter now, do we "give" ISS to Russia?

Russia says they are willing to take over ISS.

= = =

In my opinion, Griffin knows perfectly well the shuttle army must be culled. However, morale among those that remain is also mission critical.

= = =

PPS - - Early versions of "Operation Offset" to offset federal hurricane relief expense with other federal budget cuts mentioned cancellation of Moon-Mars, not orbiter.

But if Operation Offset is modified to cancel orbiter but NOT accelerate Moon-Mars, with alleged savings going to NOLA, Griffin may be saying he needs ALL the money to do Moon-Mars and may be is being "political" when he says cancelling orbiter now won't help save money.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-23 14:08:26

Well, if you take the ISS and its funding out of the equation, and redirect Shuttle funds to cover the Lunar program, then that would leave NASA with about $60Bn from now until 2018. That might be cutting it a little tight given how long the development cycles would have to be, but its possible that Griffin could pull it off. It would also be the excuse he needs to cull the standing Shuttle army, right Bill?

BWhite · 2005-09-23 14:52:08

Well, if you take the ISS and its funding out of the equation, and redirect Shuttle funds to cover the Lunar program, then that would leave NASA with about $60Bn from now until 2018. That might be cutting it a little tight given how long the development cycles would have to be, but its possible that Griffin could pull it off. It would also be the excuse he needs to cull the standing Shuttle army, right Bill?

Whatever Griffin may believe in private, he needs to bolster the morale of his work force. What is said in public, and what Griffin prepares for as a contingency plan need not be the same.

Killing ISS must occur at a level above Griffin's pay grade. He cannot advocate for that (in public) whatever his personal opinion. If Griffin goes on record to kill ISS and President Bush says "finish it" then Griffin's position is tenuous.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-23 19:09:12

Yup, since the president said it in his speech; it would now be up to the next president to take office that would be needed to kill it as soon as he can. But with all the entrenched parties having so much work force in each state it would prove unlikely that the president would get his way.

Ad Astra · 2005-09-23 20:15:14

Amen to that Cindy, but what Griffin said - that killing Shuttle/ISS now would save no money - disturbs me.

I don't recall Griffin explicitly saying that shuttle cancellation wouldn't save money, and I'm sorry if my comments gave that impression.

What I am saying is that the moon program will utilize the vast majority of the shuttle infrastructure and workforce, so it will cost roughly the same (with the marginal costs of a moon flight being somewhat higher than those of shuttle.)

The only way to save money from losing the shuttle is if you lose the army along with it. This will not happen as long as we're planning on returning to the moon.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-23 20:37:28

Not much savings when all the same locations are still needed to make and assemble the same pieces as used by the shuttle. Then add to the mix a new place to build the first stage, upper stage design, engine development, systems engineering, full vehicle stack integration, safety and mission assurance all from the Marshall Center. I would say that there would be no savings at all.

Marshall Space Flight Center Prepares to Implement Space Exploration Missions

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-09-16 06:10:23

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#77 2005-09-16 08:53:22

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#78 2005-09-16 09:11:13

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#79 2005-09-16 09:26:06

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#80 2005-09-16 12:51:19

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#81 2005-09-17 17:54:00

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#82 2005-09-18 00:00:00

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#83 2005-09-18 07:39:17

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#84 2005-09-22 05:44:08

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#85 2005-09-22 11:29:37

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#86 2005-09-22 22:34:17

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#87 2005-09-22 23:02:01

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#88 2005-09-23 07:00:36

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#89 2005-09-23 08:34:04

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#90 2005-09-23 08:55:00

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#91 2005-09-23 09:02:03

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#92 2005-09-23 11:05:39

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#93 2005-09-23 11:10:31

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#94 2005-09-23 13:11:14

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#95 2005-09-23 13:50:29

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#96 2005-09-23 14:08:26

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#97 2005-09-23 14:52:08

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#98 2005-09-23 19:09:12

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#99 2005-09-23 20:15:14

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

#100 2005-09-23 20:37:28

Re: Shuttle ST-121 Atlantis

Board footer