Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

RobertDyck · 2005-10-04 07:02:34

Well, I still think we need a reusable manned spacecraft. The Shuttle was an attempt to do just that. I personally was disappointed when I saw the Shuttle announced, not a fully reusable TSTO but a partially reusable compromise with throw-away drop tank and solid rockets. I've harped on this site quite often about maintaining your fixed assets, I think cell phones should last 8 years, cars should last at least 12 years, and a house should be built for a life time. However, the Shuttle development project was started in 1972 and first flew into space in 1981. There were those within NASA who only expected the Shuttle to last 10 years, then replaced with a new shuttle. I expect something as expensive as the Shuttle to last a very long time, much longer than the development period. It took 9 years to develop so asking it to fly for 20 years is quite reasonable. But those 20 years were up in 2001. It had a good run, it's time to give this venerable old bird a respectable retirement. The reason I keep calling for decommissioning the shuttle orbiter as soon as possible is its on-going maintenance cost. Its costs have increased, now it's cost cannot be justified. It's time. I'm sure the Smithsonian would create a whole new wing for one of the orbiters. KSC could build a Shuttle museum beside the Apollo/Saturn-V center.

Actually, each Shuttle orbiter was designed for 100 missions. With 4 orbiters it was expected to fly 400 missions, and NASA expected those 400 missions would be completed in 10 years. Shuttle has flown slightly more than 100 missions. That certainly justifies keeping it for 20 years, but again that time was up in 2001. It's time.

But I'm still not comfortable with the current mission architecture. I would love to see a tiny, reusable space taxi to carry 4 astronauts to LEO and back. And a reusable lunar taxi to carry astronauts to the lunar surface and back to LEO. Send a Mars habitat one-way to the Moon as a lunar base; that would demonstrate/test technology for a Mars mission. It looks like we'll get Apollo on steroids rather than a truely 21st century technology solution.

I'm sure Mike Griffin said this because he doesn't want NASA engineers thinking he belittled their work, or that their life's effort has no value. He also must report to congress, the politicians are his boss and so he can't make their decisions appear to be mistakes. Professional politicians are skilled at making carefully worded statements that say what they want without offending people who could hurt them. That's what politicians do, it's their job. Mike Griffin's bosses are those professional politicians, when he makes a statement to the press he's playing in their playground. I'm sure he really does think Shuttle was a mistake but he must be very careful.

Palomar · 2005-10-04 07:24:46

I'm sure Mike Griffin said this because he doesn't want NASA engineers thinking he belittled their work, or that their life's effort has no value. He also must report to congress, the politicians are his boss and so he can't make their decisions appear to be mistakes. Professional politicians are skilled at making carefully worded statements that say what they want without offending people who could hurt them. That's what politicians do, it's their job. Mike Griffin's bosses are those professional politicians, when he makes a statement to the press he's playing in their playground. I'm sure he really does think Shuttle was a mistake but he must be very careful.

*Yeah, true. The comparison with Apollo in his statement, though, was unforgiveable. ISS and Shuttle combined cannot hold a candle to Apollo (and Mercury and Gemini)...not even close. I realize he is between a rock and a hard place, and yes he wants to avoid belittling current engineers.

This is definitely a "can't please everyone" situation. Shuttle and ISS are ultimately, IMO, parasites draining the host. That's it.

Apollo was NASA's highest accomplishment yet.

Shuttle has become an embarrassment, never was "such a much" by comparison...ISS is a joke.

Okay, I'll stop now. :evil:

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-04 12:14:44

Your persistant use of "worship" is childish invective--surely not necessary if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.
Systems that "should not fail" is a given. But things happen, and the ability to improvise when no help except communicated advice from Mission Control (generically speaking) is at hand, as in the Apollo 13 tank blowout and the Progress/Miir collision, resulted in their respective crews' survival ... are human attributes we should acclaim--and count on next time whatever new stupidity or accidental oversight demands the on-board human touch. The Russian organization, in the case of Mir, failed to recognize the risks, and "our own" British-born, guest astronaut on board, was instrumental in saving their lives. The automated docking system was not at fault, and the cameras monocular and not positioned properly for a remotely controlled manual docking experiment. I don't fault the hardware, but the Ground Control authority over the Mir commander's. So, if I'm anything, it's a Mir-Hugger, not a Russian-worshiper. Their well proven hardware works reliabily enough to get us out and back, as much as I believe we should have been better off by now with the reuseable spaceplane/launcher plane confuguration contemplated post-Apollo, and shot down by the politicians.
Re."You need to get a reality check about how not so good Russian technology." That's open to further discussion. My atittude is and always will be: Don't cancel what works before you have something better already working. How can you criticize that, except on nationalistic grounds? You must be awfully young, willing to start all over again from square one ... especially when today's world situation makes the ability to start all over again (for us) problematic.
I'm looking foreward to a ten-year (say) spacetravel world-view lesson in reality, which I hope you will undertake, before this topic is allowed to fizzle out.

"Your persistant use of "worship" is childish invective"

No.

Here again you downplay the flaws with Russian technology and jabber about how cool the Russian space repair skills are. I don't care one bit about the Russian's vaunted ability to fix things, because if stuff keeps breaking, then their luck is inevitibly going to run out. The fact that you "don't fault the hardware" is why I find fault with you. Their hardware is not "well proven," in fact its proven to not be good enough! It doesn't work. At least four major near-fatal failures, maybe more! Thats not "nationalistic," thats called "I don't want to die." If the current stuff isn't good enough, then yes, we need new stuff.

I am also quite insulted by your "oh you are young an naieve" bit, newsflash: you aren't wiser, your just more arogant.

dicktice · 2005-10-04 17:03:47

Ah, well, the fact that the Russians keep launching successfuly, and on schedule, seems to mean nothing to you. So we'll just have to agree to disagree about what is meant by "reliability." The basis of my "being young" comment, was simply to imply that you seem have more years to wait than I for certain anticipated results in spacetravel to take place. But "naivety" (your own, telling contribution) was never intended. Now--how about a general across-the-board prediction for the next ten years in space...?

SpaceNut · 2005-10-04 18:14:47

Well as I see it with the current plan to continue the Iss construction it will have only just begun to transition from LEO and ISS use.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-04 20:00:08

Not really, no. We've been doing that since Gemini, if they can't even do that then they really have problems. The Space Shuttle is a curse, and neither was intended, is, nor can be made reliable.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-04 20:10:40

Say its not so, some goof, I mean some highly skilled worker screwed up royally... Fire this morron right now..
Official Offers Shuttle Foam Loss Theory

Workers may have accidentally cut or crushed the section of foam that broke off Discovery's fuel tank during its launch two months ago — a mishap that threatened the safety of the astronauts and grounded the shuttle fleet.
What probably happened is that during modifications to the tank at Michoud, technicians inadvertently damaged the section that ended up coming off, while working on nearby areas, Hale said. "This foam, which normally is not touched after it's applied, clearly was touched," he said.
Workers using plastic knives to remove nearby foam may have made small cuts in the section that tore away, allowing air to condense in the crevices against the tank, full of super-cold fuel, Hale said. Another possibility, he said, is that workers leaned against the piece of foam that broke off, and fractured it. Yet another theory is that the foam cracked because of normal thermal stresses.

I do recall hearing such a story but it was on moving it that it had happened ...

I do not feel we can trust this facility to do a further foam modifications, repairs or fixes. Strike three you are out...

publiusr · 2005-10-07 09:57:11

That's just great.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-11 08:21:10

The retirement date for the last mission and constructional use of shuttle seems to have been set.

NASA concentrates on ISS in reduced Shuttle schedule

NASA has told the European Space Agency that the Space Shuttle will be retired by 30 September 2010, with 19 flights remaining.
An internal ESA report reveals that, to meet International Space Station (ISS) partner obligations, the US agency has told the Europeans that it plans to launch 19 Shuttle flights, including a Hubble Space Telescope repair mission, by the end of September 2010.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-11 10:50:24

Yaaay! The end is near!

Palomar · 2005-10-11 20:17:14

Yaaay! The end is near!

*LOL!!!

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2005-10-11 21:11:02

Say its not so, some goof, I mean some highly skilled worker screwed up royally... Fire this morron right now..
Official Offers Shuttle Foam Loss Theory
Workers may have accidentally cut or crushed the section of foam that broke off Discovery's fuel tank during its launch two months ago — a mishap that threatened the safety of the astronauts and grounded the shuttle fleet.
What probably happened is that during modifications to the tank at Michoud, technicians inadvertently damaged the section that ended up coming off, while working on nearby areas, Hale said. "This foam, which normally is not touched after it's applied, clearly was touched," he said.
Workers using plastic knives to remove nearby foam may have made small cuts in the section that tore away, allowing air to condense in the crevices against the tank, full of super-cold fuel, Hale said. Another possibility, he said, is that workers leaned against the piece of foam that broke off, and fractured it. Yet another theory is that the foam cracked because of normal thermal stresses.
I do recall hearing such a story but it was on moving it that it had happened ...
I do not feel we can trust this facility to do a further foam modifications, repairs or fixes. Strike three you are out...

Sounds a lot more convenient than admitting the polyurethane foam insulation can't handle cryogenic temperature. Liquid hydrogen in the tank is -253°C, aluminum holding it will be about that same temperature. After all the whole point of the foam insulation is to separate cryogenic LH2 from warm Florida air. The best polyurethane I found on the web becomes brittle at temperatures colder than -70°C. Then there's the problem I keep mentioning of rapid decompression causing foam cells to burst. I think the problem is a lot more fundamental than they would like to admit.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-12 06:48:38

[url=http://planetary.org/news/2005/shuttle_1011.html]SHOULD THE SPACE SHUTTLE FLY AGAIN?

A Statement by The Planetary Society, October 11, 2005[/url]

That has been the problem to solve since not doing so would be to go against the presidential directive.

does completing the ISS require the shuttle? The quick answer is yes. No other alternatives have been identified – but then again no other alternatives have been seriously studied.

There are non to study since the module design are meant to be sheltered within the cargo hold unit they are safely in space. If the shuttle -c had been built then this would have been possible but there was no funding need since it was indicated that it would not save any money at the time when the studies were done.

We do know and understand the options but have not been given the funding to make any of them possible.

John Creighton · 2005-10-12 07:27:35

[url=http://planetary.org/news/2005/shuttle_1011.html]SHOULD THE SPACE SHUTTLE FLY AGAIN?
A Statement by The Planetary Society, October 11, 2005[/url]
That has been the problem to solve since not doing so would be to go against the presidential directive.
does completing the ISS require the shuttle? The quick answer is yes. No other alternatives have been identified – but then again no other alternatives have been seriously studied.
There are non to study since the module design are meant to be sheltered within the cargo hold unit they are safely in space. If the shuttle -c had been built then this would have been possible but there was no funding need since it was indicated that it would not save any money at the time when the studies were done.
We do know and understand the options but have not been given the funding to make any of them possible.

It sounds like the planetary society is a lot more supportive of the ISS then the Mars society.

I find this quote interesting:

Completing the ISS is less important to the United States than it is to Europe, Japan, and Canada. They joined the ISS program to gain human space flight experience and because they felt it prudent to respond positively to the U.S. invitation to participate. Honoring these international commitments should be important to the United States since it will likely need the cooperation of other spacefaring countries to advance the even more ambitious goals in the Vision for Space Exploration.

I’ve been saying this for a few months. It is interesting though I am from Canada and I’ll ask the question why should the US finance the ISS so other nations can get practice in space? I am sure if I ask the question lots of other people do to.

publiusr · 2005-10-13 11:17:05

Until the Planetary Society learns how to launch their own craft without failure--they need to quit harping on the mistakes of others.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-13 14:38:08

Well here is another one of those Nasa errors it would seem.

NASA Set To Approve New Unpressurized Logistics Carrier for Space Shuttle Fleet

NASA is set to approve development of 5 new unpressurized payload carriers for the Space Shuttle fleet at a total cost of $120 million.
What is the problem/issue?
The demand to launch and stow unpressurized cargo exists and has significantly increased due to Shuttle retirement. Current carrier fleet does not have the volume or mass efficiency required to launch and stow enough cargo to maintain the ISS through 2015. The more carriers in the cargo bay, the more integration hardware (mass overhead), the less usable cargo. Current carrier fleet does not have the capability to meet payload requirements."

Mundaka · 2005-10-27 12:13:01

SpaceNut · 2005-10-28 08:30:51

Even though it may have been a mistake to do this project this way. Other nations however are still moving forward with adding hardware and improvements to it.

ESA signs contract with Dutch Space to prepare the European Robotic Arm for its launch on Proton

contract, worth 20 million Euro, was signed with Dutch Space, the Industrial Prime Contractor leading an industrial consortium of European companies.

So why did they need there own are?

Originally ERA was scheduled for launch on a Space Shuttle, together with the Russian Science and Power Platform, which was intended to become its home base for operations on the station. Last year Russia introduced the Multipurpose Laboratory Module (MLM) as a new module to be added to the ISS and proposed also the possibility that ERA could be installed, launched and operated on the MLM. Since the MLM is designed for launch on a Russian Proton rocket, ERA will no longer be carried into space on a US Space Shuttle, but aboard Proton. This requires some technical, operational and contractual re-arrangements between the parties involved.

So as we see changes can make for more changes as we move forward towards completion..

So why not just by the arm from the Canadian firm that has one designed for the shuttle and make a few modifications to it for the purpose that the ESA intends it to be used for.

Arm charateristics:

The European Robotic Arm is over 11 metres in length and weighs 630 kg. ERA is capable of moving payloads up to a total mass of 8000 kg and is able to position itself with an accuracy of 5 mm.

Current ISS arm:

Canadarm2 - Brains and Brawn
Installed on station: April 22, 2001, 5:40 a.m. CDT
Length : 17.6 meters (57.7 feet)
Weight: 1,800 kilograms (3,968 pounds)
Special Features: Larger range of motion than a human arm.
Automatic collision avoidance.
Four color cameras.
Composed of 19 plies of high-strength carbon fiber.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-06 09:58:37

Griffin opens mouth again in a CBS news An interview with NASA Administrator Mike Griffin

Mike - has little time for pessimists. And only a misinformed pessimist, in his view, would worry overly much about future budgets and the presumption that development of NASA's planned shuttle replacement - the Crew Exploration Vehicle - will be stretched out. Griffin believes the gap between the end of shuttle operations in 2010 and the advent of manned CEV flights will be relatively short, emphasizing that NASA does not need new money to make it happen.

Thoughts on repair of tile damaged shuttle:

Certified tile and leading edge repair procedures will not be required for a Hubble flight or any other shuttle mission, Griffin said.

Not much offered this time by the Q an A IMO...

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-01-18 13:00:10

Just another Apollo?
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/502/1
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/507/1

SPACEHAB Tasked to Support NASA in New Space Station Activities; Mission Preparation and New Business Opportunities Underway
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/prn … 92203.html

When the Nixon Administration weighed ending the Apollo program early, the political costs of shutting down the nation’s human spaceflight played a major role—just as they would today.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/535/1

Transcription of Press Conference with Mike Griffin at NASA KSC

CRAIG COVAULT: Good morning. Craig Covault with Aviation Week. Big picture, not necessarily focused on the year's coming budget: how would you assess the overall health of the robotic planetary program given overall budget realities in the coming years and, down to the more specific, your confidence in cost and schedule for Mars science lab, which I believe is probably your biggest near-term new project.

GRIFFIN
Overall, I think all components of NASA continue to be healthy. You'll see that NASA is fully supported and the planetary science program is doing well. With regard to Mars science lab, that gets into specifics that I'm just not prepared to go into at this time, Craig. Mars science lab, obviously, is our next big mission to Mars. We will design a mission that fits the budget.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19305
BILL HARWOOD: Bill Harwood with CBS. This isn't about the shuttle, but it's about space science. I just wanted to follow up on Craig's question. A lot of the science team is here for New Horizons. Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of concern, and I'm stating that from what I hear from scientists, that moon/Mars is going to really whack the science program in the years to come. I mean, can you just expand on what you said to Craig, or do you have any reassurance to give that community on what is coming down the road after your speech and all of that.

GRIFFIN
" We are not, in your words, we are not "whacking" the space science program to pay for human exploration. This is not "The Sopranos," we don't whack people or programs here. We have, of course, in this nation – I do not need to be the one to tell you this – a difficult budgetary environment. NASA is not looking forward or expecting any gifts of robust growth from either the administration or the Congress. We expect to keep approximately the funding we have, which will essentially be a very low growth funding profile and therefore, all of the components, each separate component of what NASA does can expect to have, at best, only modest growth. The difference between cuts and modest growth, I guess, needs to be explained to people. I think we're doing well and within NASA the space science program is doing well and will continue to do well."

SpaceNut · 2006-01-26 11:44:25

It is almost the aniversary of space shuttle Challenger loss but what have we really learned in 20 years.
[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11031097/]7 myths about the Challenger shuttle disaster
It didn't explode, the crew didn't die instantly and it wasn't inevitable[/url]

I recalled the live broadcast and had nightmares, saying while still asleep that the crew was alive .. why was nasa not trying to rescue the crew..

a major factor in the disaster was that NASA had been ordered to use a weaker sealant for environmental reasons. But the cause was an inadequate low-temperature performance of the O-ring seal itself, which had not been replaced.

Sound familar... Foam, ET ring any bells yet..

The late Columbia Foam incident was very simular in that inadiquet testing of the foam after change to a new formular as well as the effects of repeated filling and emptying of the ET which lead to fractures within the foam but this may have not been the only cause.

Rxke · 2006-01-26 16:52:49

Darn, I was 16 at the time... Half a world away I watched the footage in disbelief, it's one of the few really strong memories I have...

Question: anyone visiting these pages was a child, watching this live, because of the teacher-in-space program?

I'm just wondering what it did to a generation. I guess *lots* of American kids saw this live?

With Christa McAuliffe set to be the first teacher in space, NASA had arranged a satellite broadcast of the full mission into television sets in many schools, but the general public did not have access to this....

cIclops · 2006-01-30 06:30:10

detailed interview with Mike about STS, Mars etc from Jan 19

Palomar · 2006-01-30 09:52:06

It is almost the aniversary of space shuttle Challenger loss but what have we really learned in 20 years.

*That the Shuttles are pieces of junk 20 years later?

Darn, I was 16 at the time... Half a world away I watched the footage in disbelief, it's one of the few really strong memories I have...
Question: anyone visiting these pages was a child, watching this live, because of the teacher-in-space program?
I'm just wondering what it did to a generation. I guess *lots* of American kids saw this live?

I was 20. As for your last question, well...most kids my age weren't enamored of Apollo footage replayed in school classrooms. Frankly I think most people are so disinterested in the space program overall that whatever impression it did make (negative) wasn't long-lasting on the generation of school kids watching. NASA's never had difficulties recruiting new astronauts, for instance; at least I've never read/heard anything to that effect.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-30 09:54:31

Detailed, but not really saying much we didn't already know.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-10-04 07:02:34

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#52 2005-10-04 07:24:46

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#53 2005-10-04 12:14:44

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#54 2005-10-04 17:03:47

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#55 2005-10-04 18:14:47

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#56 2005-10-04 20:00:08

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#57 2005-10-04 20:10:40

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#58 2005-10-07 09:57:11

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#59 2005-10-11 08:21:10

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#60 2005-10-11 10:50:24

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#61 2005-10-11 20:17:14

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#62 2005-10-11 21:11:02

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#63 2005-10-12 06:48:38

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#64 2005-10-12 07:27:35

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#65 2005-10-13 11:17:05

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#66 2005-10-13 14:38:08

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#67 2005-10-27 12:13:01

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#68 2005-10-28 08:30:51

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#69 2005-12-06 09:58:37

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#70 2006-01-18 13:00:10

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#71 2006-01-26 11:44:25

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#72 2006-01-26 16:52:49

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#73 2006-01-30 06:30:10

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#74 2006-01-30 09:52:06

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

#75 2006-01-30 09:54:31

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were *-Mistakes-*

Board footer

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-

Re: Griffin: Shuttle, ISS were -Mistakes-