Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-16 16:35:03

$65Bn in 2005 dollars for DRM then, but the figure is really immaterial...

NASA has already spent in the region of $80-90Bn on Shuttle/ISS since the program started (:edit: including SS Freedom/Alpha work and inflation probobly), but this is immaterial too. We will spend another $30-40Bn for upkeep and CEV flights at least, and probobly another ~$20-25Bn on Shuttle between now and 2010, but the fact remains: a vast amount of money has been spent on the program thus far, but about another $50,000,000,000 or more will be spent before the 2017 "mission end" date.

Thats real money, big money, and its more important that we get something for it then it is for NASA to feel all warm and peppy inside or score some political points. NASA will have to suceed on something other then the time-limited ISS (which will be gone by ~2017 anyway) or NASA will cease to exsist. Swell, huh?

Even if we spent $0.00 on the ISS to date, $50Bn would STILL be too much to pay to finish the station, given what will be accomplished on it. $50,000,000,000 is very much a good reason why we should not "finish it and make use of it." Bluntly, nothing we could possibly accomplish on the ISS is worth even half that amount of money, much less the risk to Shuttle/ISS crews. So, obviously, logically, finishing the ISS would be a waste of money, not canceling it.

"Gemini was... a technology demonstrator for the Apollo program... we need to test life support equipment in LEO before committing astronauts to Mars. The best place to do that is the ISS... "

Nonsense! Not only is this flatly untrue, but I think you know it too Robert, but you say that anyway to justify your irrational position

The technologies needed to get to Moon/Mars are already pretty mature, there is no equipment that we need for the Moon or Mars that can't be tested here on Earth or with VSE until it is ready to go to prototype vehicle phase. Infact it would cost even less money to - say - build the DRM hab and the HLLV to launch it with into LEO and fly it around for three years then it would to finish the ISS and test DRM parts there!

If Apollo cost about $150,000,000,000, would NASA have been justified spending $300,000,000,000 on Gemini!?... or even $75,000,000,000?

The ISS debacle is not a "setback" or a "mishap," the ISS has been from the very first day since signing the deal with the Russians and settling on a horrible design, a total failure. It can't be "fixed" because the ISS is inherintly incapable of returning anything worth the investment that has already been made nor that will be made in it. If we've got to fly something, then put the science rack in an X-34 with smaller fuel tanks on top of a Delta-IV for $100M or several in an unmanned CEV for ~$300M.

I take issue with the rest of your statements too, like defending Scramjets: the difference between X-43 and early all-metal airplanes or whatnot is really very simple, that earlier developers wern't up against the limits of practical materials and fuels. Titanium isn't technologically much harder then Aluminum, and high-end gasoline provided plenty of power. Today, we are struggling to improve on superlight carbon fiber, the lightest fuel in the universe isn't good enough, and so on. There is an upper maximum limit of energy available from chemical fuels per mass or volume, and upper limits to temperatures that today's aerospace materials can reliably withstand. Not to mention the air friction involved... The simple fact of the matter is, little progress has been made, and even less will be made without a sea-change in at least materials science, which isn't going to happen any time soon.

Notions to the contrary are fueled by unjustified optimism and ignorance

If the neither the design of DC-X nor the X-33 were viable, then what could we have possibly gotten out of them? Neither of them would have worked, and they were both rightly and justifiably canceled. NASA has a duty to the taxpayer not to throw away money without bennefit, and neither of these projects would have produced anything of comperable value to their cost. Nor would repairing Hubble, or spending another $50-60Bn on the ISS. Shuttle/ISS are what we have, and neither of them are worth anything close to their investment nor their continuing cost, and so they should be eliminated immediatly.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-16 18:17:11

And hey, while we're at it, if you are absolutely dying to have a space station, lets just build a copy or two of the DRM ERV and mate them nose to nose in Earth orbit with a solar/radiator logistics pallet. Presto! Instant space station for a fraction of what we would spend on just finishing/maintaining ISS. It would be in a better orbit, wouldn't be anywhere near as dangerous, and its development would be almost "free" by comparison.

-Redundant long-term LSS and emergency power
-Min. four 8m decks plus two 3m cylinder "basements"
-Solar/radiator package in place of one TEI stage
-Smaller TEI fuel tanks, space substituted for logistics
-Already able to operate unmanned when unneeded
-No long and dangerous construction, just docking

And cost?
$1.2Bn for launch vehicle ($600M ea)
$1.0Bn for each ERV (aprox)
$2.0Bn for modifications
$1.3Bn per year for four CEV flights
$0.5Bn per year for engineering

So, for a ten year service life, thats under twenty five billion, half what we have yet to spend on ISS, for a comperable amount of volume with a safer station then the ISS for three additional years of service... and did I mention its development costs will largely be shared with HLLV and DRM?

As the saying goes, this isn't rocket science... any way you cut it, except politically, the ISS is a bad deal.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-16 19:28:24

"Gemini was... a technology demonstrator for the Apollo program... we need to test life support equipment in LEO before committing astronauts to Mars. The best place to do that is the ISS... "
Nonsense! Not only is this flatly untrue, but I think you know it too Robert, but you say that anyway to justify your irrational position.

The Gemini docking with the Agena Target Vehicle was practice to dock the Apollo CSM with the LM. The Gemini space walk was practice to repair any future vehicle that may break, the possibility of a space walk between CSM and LM, and most importantly to practice using a spacesuit in space. A spacesuit would be needed on the surface of the Moon, you better get a working version before you get there. At that time they didn't know exactly what Apollo hardware would look like, but did know it would involve a CSM docking with LM. There were proposals to use a Gemini capsule as the lunar vehicle, but by all reports most people including most astronauts knew it wouldn't happen.

On 25 May 1961 JFK urged congress to send a man to the Moon. The 2-man Advanced Mercury concept was first introduced in May 1961, work began 27 July 1961; it was later renamed Gemini. JFK made his speech before Rice University on 12 September 1962. The first manned flight of Gemini was Gemini 3, 23 March 1965. So now tell me that Gemini wasn't part of the Moon program.

The technologies needed to get to Moon/Mars are already pretty mature, there is no equipment that we need for the Moon or Mars that can't be tested here on Earth or with VSE until it is ready to go to prototype vehicle phase.

Yup, we can agree that the technology is pretty mature. However, a long duration recycling life support system isn't and we need long duration experience in space. Skylab could have done it. Hell, we could brush off the backup Skylab from the Smithsonian and launch it. Wait, we don't have a Saturn V or even Saturn 1B any more. Well, there are Saturn V rockets in museums but there were left outdoors rusting in the rain for years. There's also a Saturn 1B in a junk yard in Florida, but there's a reason it's called a junk yard.

If you want the fastest and cheapest method of getting an operational space station, convince Russia to use Energia to launch 5 Shuttle loads of ISS modules at a time with a couple Progress service modules and one Progress docking system (radar, docking collar, rendezvous guidance system).

I noticed the Science Power Platform was originally scheduled for 6 Proton launches, but later for 2 Shuttle launches with some other stuff in each Shuttle mission. If the Shuttle is that much more efficient then convince the Russians to complete Ptichka. The Buran class orbiter named Buran was orbiter vehicle with serial number 1.01, designation OK-1K1, it was destroyed when the vehicle assembly building roof fell on it. Ptichka was serial# 1.02, designation OK-2K1; it's status is reported "construction was at least 95% complete with only a few electronic systems remaining to be installed, an unmanned flight had originally been planned for 1991 but a complete life support system may have been installed by 1993". Vehicle# 2.01, OK-1K2, was 40% complete, currently scheduled to be sent to the Auto & Technik Museum in Germany. Vehicle# 2.02, OK-2K2, was 20% complete, and reported to be dismantled and parts sold on the internet. Vehicle# 2.03, OK-3K2, only had a few parts manufactured, the airframe was never assembled; no one can find those parts now, probably also sold. So the only Buran class orbiter than can be revived is Ptichka (which translates as Birdie). It's currently stored in the MIK building at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. There are a few "MIK" buildings at Baikonur; the picture looks like building #240, the orbiter processing building. So use Ptichka to launch the Science Power Platform to ISS.

My estimate of cost to restore Energia to production, including repairing the vehicle assembly building, was $148.25 million US dollars, and $160.8 million per launch including the Energia Upper Stage. I don't know what the processing cost would be for Ptichka, but for simplicity let's say it's the same as the cost for EUS. That makes it sound cost effective to launch SPP to ISS. If they need a CanadArm to install the SPP, then Canada would be willing to sell the Russians one. Russian would have to pay the full cost, but Canada could provide one absolutely identical to the ones on American shuttles.

Or would Russian operation of a space shuttle embarrass the US?

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-16 21:32:07

Nonsense! Not only is this flatly untrue, but I think you know it too Robert, but you say that anyway to justify your irrational position
The technologies needed to get to Moon/Mars are already pretty mature, there is no equipment that we need for the Moon or Mars that can't be tested here on Earth or with VSE until it is ready to go to prototype vehicle phase. Infact it would cost even less money to - say - build the DRM hab and the HLLV to launch it with into LEO and fly it around for three years then it would to finish the ISS and test DRM parts there!
If Apollo cost about $150,000,000,000, would NASA have been justified spending $300,000,000,000 on Gemini!?... or even $75,000,000,000?

OBVIOUSLY Gemini was, perhaps you have trouble picking out which statement is which...

-We don't need ISS to test anything, because the technology can be sufficently developed on Earth such that its ready for the prototype phase.

-Gemini would have been scrapped if it cost double or even half what Apollo did, just like ISS will cost double DRM or the remaining ISS construction/tending most of what DRM would.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Nonsense, Bruan and all vehicles are long since history, and can never be reactivated. The old engineering staff is certainly long scatterd, and it would take a major effort to reactivate the program, finish and upgrade the orbiter (they have enough RAM for two whole orbits in their computers). You're crazy if you take the grand-standing Russian's word for it that they could wave a wand and be flying again in no time for peanuts. Reactivating Energia would also be alot of trouble, and simply from a reliability and simplicity standpoint Proton would be better...

...But that is all beside the point. The point is, that Russia has stabbed us in the back one time too many, and the chance that we're going to fork over a few billion of US taxpayer money needed to buy a dozen Protons and tugs to Russian engineers is non-exsistant. Its bad enough we are going to give Russia even some tens of millions for Soyuz while Shuttle is being fixed.

Since you were previously fixated by the political cost of eliminating ISS, the political (and to a point economic) cost of sending that much taxpayer money to workers in another country, rather then workers in this country, greatly exceeds the cost of running Shuttle for another five years. From a purely political viewpoint, the notion that we would send big money and supplant US space programs for Russian beyond a few cheap Soyuz capsules is absolutely preposterous in the States'. The economic cost of Russian rockets might be lower then ours, but the political cost is exactly the opposit.

To even suggest such a thing clearly illustrates how much you don't understand our mindset of Russia, and the political barrier to outsourcing the current stated goal of the US space program is unponderable and beyond the bounds of serious debate.
-----------------------------------------------------------

And lets say for a minute that this were not the case, and ISS were finished for about $5Bn (purchase Protons, tugs, and module mods), that would make a savings of about $15Bn. So, that $50-60Bn needed to finish and tend the station to mission end is down to around $35Bn...

$35,000,000,000.00... to test the life support box?

You're kidding, right? I am completly sure that we could come up with a way to so throughly test the device on Earth, where the only difference is gravity, some way and some how that would cost less then this figure. That failing, my solution is very simple: put the DRM HAB into Earth orbit. Just put the HAB in orbit, and if the LSS box fails, you switch over to open cycle and bring the box home.

It would only cost ~$3Bn to build a copy of the HAB, put it on a HLLV, and send up a CEV with the test crew, and thats with $500M for ground support and a few hundred million for creep. And that is a far sight better than finishing the ISS even with handing off remaining construction to Russia. And you get to test all the systems in their integrated form too.

In fact, to do otherwise is irresponsable.

...Oh, and my Dual-DRM station would still be better and cheaper.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-16 22:25:02

The photos of Ptichka are credit NPO Molniya 2005. That's where it is now. They only have 1 orbiter that could be re-activated, but that one does exist.

Perhaps you didn't catch the political point that I made. The SPP is a Russian module that was schedule to be launched by the American Shuttle. Russia is saying they insist on power for Russian science modules, if they don't get their power they will launch their own solar arrays. I keep saying they should launch their own SPP solar array. Let them do so with their own space shuttle. Ptichka is the only Russian shuttle left, let them use that.

As for American modules, use Energia with Progress service modules. It would avoid the embarrassment of a Russian shuttle. If you don't want to do that, then get NASA off its fat ass and build SDV quickly. Yes I do understand the political realities; have I pushed hard enough?

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-16 22:39:00

Yeah, a pretty picture of the airframe... big deal, Russia - if you will note as in their many mockups - are good at building metal boxes that resemble spacecraft. It might be the actual unfinished orbiter, but nothing about what shape its really in.

Even using SDV to finish the ISS, which could delay its completion a few years and cut the "complete" life in half. It will still cost several billion to buy a half dozen copies at ~$400-500M each and tug hardware, and its still going to cost ~$30-35Bn for upkeep and CEV tending until 2017. Thats assuming the engineering cost doesn't balloon due to increased station size and age.

Your concept of building SDV is months and not several years is simply beyond any rational consideration, do you still persist in that ludicrous opinion?

And $35,000,000,000.00 is still too much to justify it, not when science experiments could be placed in X-34 or unmanned CEV instead or a DRM-based station. $35Bn is as much as half the cost of the putting man on Mars with DRM!

Austin Stanley · 2005-11-17 00:43:32

One of the best things that could happen to the world space programs is for Energia to be re-activated. I think we are all in pretty much in agrement, it was the best HLLV that was ever developed. If the Russians are so hell bent on finishing ISS, I say they should go for it. Energia+Progress certianly makes a hell of a lot more sense than Shuttle + anything.

That said, I don't think we should pay for it. We should keep our money here as much as possible. Furthermore, it's pretty much political reality that the US funding the Russian Energia probably isn't going to happen, no matter how great it is. The HLLV we have on the drawing board right now could be pretty potent in it's own right. The shuttles engines and the solid boosters are both pretty rock solid incredible technologies in their own right. My only worry is that it doesn't appear to have the same ability to scale up that the Energia does, as adding more SRB isn't going to improve its performance that much.

-------

I agree that the ISS could potentialy be a good test-bed for the necessary long duration LSS tests we are going to need. However, the rest of the station is pretty much a flop. I don't think that the necessary test for the LSS system are enough justification to continue the station. Building the ITV (or whatever we are going to call them) and testing them in Earth orbit makes alot more sense to me. We could do a couple months/years cycling around the Earth and Moon for example. Or build the space staion ouf of them GCRN talked about. Our moon program should test the Hab side of things as well.

But while I am talking about political realities, it looks like ISS is going to go forward no matter how little sense it makes. So we (the Mars Society) should definetly push for the appropriet LSS modules to be sent up. I belive they are currently scheduled to be cut.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-17 03:06:58

Russia did extensive testing of Energia and Buran. They did build a lot of test vehicles, however this isn't one of them. I've been looking for the other flight vehicles for years. According to web documents, this is it. I'm rather relieved that the vehicle left outside with heat shield tiles hacked off was one of the mock-ups.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-17 07:25:26

"World space program?" Whats that? Heaven forbid we ever enter into such a space suicide pact!

Energia was a good rocket, but not radically superior to Magnum. The quad-booster Energia is no more powerful then the current Shuttle stack, and the eight-booster version has about the same payload as the biggest iteration of Magnum. The quad-SRB version of Magnum would haul 135MT.

I'm all for letting the Russians have the station lock/stock/barrel, but if we are going to be stuck building the thing, why should we spend one more dime then we have to? The ISS, even in its 15-Shuttle finished form, has nothing to offer for the expense. Why should we bother with adding modules beyond that could be cut to save money for VSE?

We ought to stop treating the ISS as an unwelcome but tollerable guest in our house, because it stands to directly disrupt and hold back the real goal, getting humanity off this rock. It should be opposed and opposed loudly, and thus just maybe NASA will be enboldend to make even further cuts in the rediculous monstrosity.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-17 07:57:01

Then you will not like the budget news for the funding due for the 2006 year on shuttle and the ISS.

NASA will get $16.5 billion to cover its moon mission, shuttle flights, a repair mission on the Hubble telescope and other costs.

The bill includes for the return to the moon $3.1 billion, $4.5 billion for the shuttle, $1.8 billion for the space station, Hubble telescope will get an extra $50 million for the repair mission for a total of $271 million for the space telescope.

3.1
4.5
1.8
+ 0.05
------
9.45 billion accounted for with a remaining 7.05 billion going for what? ? ? ?

John Creighton · 2005-11-17 08:03:09

9.45 billion accounted for with a remaining 7.05 billion going for what? ? ? ?

Science?

SpaceNut · 2005-11-17 08:15:22

Science is a big word but more specifics would be need for where and for what purpose to justify that amount of cash? It just seems way to large an amount.

Even if Shuttle were grounded perminantly starting tomorrow, it probobly wouldn't save that much money to build the ISS with the HLLV instead.

I am curious as to how this can be if each SDV HLLV were to cost roughly 500 million and could lift maybe 2 or 3 modules in one shot. Knowing that we have at worst case 30 shuttle ISS loads and at a minimum 15. This still accounts for a minimum of 50% savings or up to 70% possibly depending on flights and payload consolidations.

The way I see it is that we need the stack to get to launching anything of the 100 MT range any way. SO all we lose in doing so is some of the upper stage work to make it ISS compatible for docking. If developement costs are spread out across the ISS, Moon return and for later mars mission. It does not seem all that bad to just go for it.

Another cost savings as you noted could be made by using some for of a soft landing plane for the down mass requirement of the ISS experiment racks that need to be brought down gently. But there are other options as well for the bring of this stuff to the station on a modified version of the CEV, CLV cargo rocket in that designing a completely throwaway version might be worth while.

There are also addition cost savings in the INA aggreements as well that were just signed for Nasa to exploit as well for the SOyuz and progress ships.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-17 08:37:41

My earlier statement that HLLV wouldn't be a world cheaper is predicated on Griffin's opinion that the Shuttle Army wouldn't be culled and their cost retained, even if they are sitting around doing nothing useful. As long as there is a justification, however flimsy, to keep them around then they will probobly be kept.

And say that we did switch to HLLV and did manage to eliminate large swathes of the Army before the 2010 Shuttle mission-end date, it would probobly cost $5-10Bn to rush HLLV & tug development, modify the pad/vab, and actually build the things. Compared to Shuttle, thats only saving about $10-15Bn, which means that ISS will still cost about $35-40Bn from now until 2017. This price is still too high.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-17 09:45:53

After seeing the links in another thread with respect to timelines for shuttle retirement 2010 and then starting CEV, CLV flights by 2011 or so, with the SDV HLLV only beginning in 2017 for first flight.

Yes I see your point to where keeping the External tank facility operational does not save a dime. Which accounts for about 7 years of idle time.

Of course this is predicated on lossing expertise by shutting them down, lossing of infrastucture for supplies to build tanks, possibly buildings being damage by fierce huricanes and more.

Of course this does not wash since the same experitise is still available from Lockheed and elsewhere to build simular tanks. What it would mean though is a new building and possibly equipment at that time to restart tank building.

If we really must keep most of the working staff at least give them something to do.. if we are going to be forced into keeping them on the payroll.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-17 11:12:12

The Michoud plant will probobly work on building CEV "Stick" upper stages during the mean time, which are similar but smaller then the big Magnum cores. I wish that we could do away with the Michoud plant alltogether and hire Boeing to build the cores at their Decatur plant, if for no other reason then its not right on the coast... and is a real company, and not a worker emotional support facility.

Get rid of Shuttle and the ISS now, and have them start building Magnum cores as soon as possible. Strip the engines out of the orbiters and use them for the prototypes while production-run SSMEs are developed.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-17 13:20:38

Good Idea on canablizing the orbitors for its engines. Could we make use of the Enterprise that is in the museum for just that purpose as a means to save a little on the startup cash.

Rxke · 2005-11-17 13:29:30

Enterprise is only a aerodynamic test item. No motors.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-17 13:29:34

The big Vulkan configuration of Energia would have 8 boosters, the core module would have a cylindrical oxygen tank so the upper stage would be stacked instead of side-mounted, and the upper stage would be the same diameter as the core module. That means 7.8 metre diameter instead of 5.7 metre. With an axial configuration the fairing could be even larger. The result would be 170 metric tonne lift to 200km orbit. That's a bit more than the big configuration of Magnum that GCNRevenger quoted. However it was only an engineering study. There wasn't any physical work done. A launch pad and transporter would have to be modified, and all the development work of a new vehicle.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-17 16:06:29

Another reason to complete ISS is to fulfil international commitments. The US federal government has a disturbing habit of violating its agreements. Countries do take this into account for any further trade and military action. Yes, it does mean failure to fulfill commitments regarding ISS will affect both trade treaties and military alliances. There are many in the US who want to keep things like this separate, but they aren't. Responsible adults do what they commit to do; that's one definition of responsible. From my dictionary: "5. reliable: able to be counted on owing to qualities of conscientiousness and trustworthiness." Canada, Japan, Brazil, and Europe are dependant on the US to fulfill its contribution to be able to use theirs. Abandoning the ISS for a national political whim of the moment without regard for these other countries is irresponsible and would damage relations with these countries. The primary purpose of Apollo was to gain international allies after Russia demonstrated the world's first ICBM by using as a launch vehicle for Sputnik. That's what Sputnik was really about; demonstrating they could drop a nuclear warhead anywhere on the planet. The space race was a peaceful contest to demonstrate technological superiority to gain allies, with the hidden implication that this technology could be used for military purposes. But it went further: America made a point of demonstrating peaceful actions and character, and invited countries to enter into alliance peacefully without domination or military threat. Abandoning ISS and leaving the station partners screwed would undo the gains of Apollo. The station partners would have to look to Russia to gain access to their space assets. Actually ESA had intended to build an expendable capsule similar to an Apollo CSM based on ATM technology and launched by Ariane 5. They would re-activate that project for independent access for crew, and rely on the ATM for cargo. Canada, Japan, and Brazil would be forced to look to Russia, and even ESA would require Russia's help to complete construction. Some Americans may see ISS as expendable, but to countries other than Russia their contribution to ISS is a much higher proportion of their GDP and the only manned space assets they have. To these countries the ISS is not at all expendable. Leaving them dependant on Russia would push them into much closer relations, both economically and militarily. Do you really want that?

Here in Canada the realization is a strong need to separate our economy from the US. As someone interested in being a space contractor, I've tried to gain close contact with Americans. However, most Canadians I know are separating themselves from the US. Before George W. Bush was elected there was a strong desire to integrate with the US. The Royal Bank is the largest bank in Canada; they were lobbying the Canadian federal government to abandon the Canadian dollar and adopt the US dollar. The government didn't do that but the fact the largest bank tried does say a lot. When asked, 1/3 of students in university said they expected to get a job in Manitoba, 1/3 expected to leave the province, and the remaining 1/3 expected to move permanently to the US. No more. There was the beef crisis, repeated investigation about wheat, Maher Arar travelling with a Canadian passport was deported by US border officials to Syria where he was tortured, and the softwood lumber issue is on-going. Let's not forget the steel crisis. I keep hearing Americans talk about steel from 3rd world countries, they appear to have forgotten the issue of Canadian steel. Do I need to repeat it? It's why Canada agreed to replace the bilateral free trade agreement with NAFTA, to ensure there were rules to resolve disputes so something like the steel crisis can't happen again. But it is; the US government has ignored NAFTA rulings about softwood.

I hear a lot about beef here in the Manitoba; all slaughter facilities were closed and live animals shipped to the supposed high-tech efficient facilities in North Dakota. When the border was closed to beef that meant ranchers couldn't even ship their animals to be slaughtered for Canadian consumption. Now animals younger than 30 months are crossing the border, but older animals are still stuck. A group of farmers are building a slaughter facility for culls, and the provincial government is helping them, but the beef industry now views America as unreliable. They intend to not only build domestic slaughter facilities, but sell as much meat as possible to other countries; cut ties with the US. Many people don't realize how dramatic that is. The Canada-US beef industry has been integrated since the beginning. It was integrated before western states or western provinces were founded; back when the west was a shared territory between Canada and the US. This is the first time the beef industry has been divided along the national border.

Canada had offered to provide an entire module to US space station Freedom, a satellite repair and service station. After Freedom was cancelled, Canada reduced its contribution to robot arms and their associated equipment. The Canadian government is already on edge regarding the station, cancelling it now and abandoning Canada's assets would further demonstrate that Canada cannot rely on the US.

Commodore · 2005-11-17 16:27:31

IF we reduce the role of the Shuttle to merely being the instrument to attach the peices, then we can use the ISS as a means to jumpstart the VSE. Start the Heavy Lifter ASAP, and use the ISS modules as "operational guinea pigs".

Time is running out for that though.

BWhite · 2005-11-17 17:42:09

IF we reduce the role of the Shuttle to merely being the instrument to attach the peices, then we can use the ISS as a means to jumpstart the VSE. Start the Heavy Lifter ASAP, and use the ISS modules as "operational guinea pigs".
Time is running out for that though.

Griffin's plan in a nutshell appears to be to use ISS support and crew transfer to jumpstart alt-space (SpaceDev & t/space) with CEV to be capable of LEO return from the Moon. (Hat tip to John Creighton for the cogent analysis).

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-17 19:44:52

For two main reasons, frankly, I don't think that "international relations" is a worthwhile justification to finish the ISS either...

First, the concept I have mentioned before, that nobody can reasonably expect a government to do something that is obviously and gravely against its interests reguardless what promises have been made. The ISS is such a situation, that the US space program is on the brink of death over the accursed ISS. Given that the US is not going to get any use out of the station, particularly with NASA realligning its science goals away from basic biology or low-payoff materials work. The science that the other international partners could do on the station is pretty limited too, and not worth all that much. The ISS is, perhaps not to as great an extent, an aerospace work project for them too.

Simply put, the rest of the international partners have no business expecting America to continue with the project given its gargantuan costs, particularly given how the partners will derive little worth for their investment either.

Second, just what international partners will we be offending?
-Russia
-France
-Germany
-Canada
-Japan
-Italy
-Britain

Russia has stabbed NASA in the back on several occasions, first by defrauding NASA by dragging their heels on Mir-II/ISS modules and holding them hostage, by demanding that the US pay for Progress and Soyuz capsules that Russia would be launching anyway for money or political points, and the mess over interim crew escape.

Then there is the Iranian debacle, where Russia has knowingly helped build the nuclear program of, what is quite frankly, our greatest and most dangerous national enemy and foe of peace in the world today... for a few million bucks. Basically, Russia has long since given up any right to expect us to continue our involvement in the project.

France, Germany, and Canada have - for years now - based their leadership in the world by being the "Anti-America," and telling them off to the tune of a few billion dollars of useless modules and Shuttle rides is a miniscule fine compared to their beligerance, obstructionism, and disrespect against America. We owe them nothing for the ISS, and their insistance that we follow through with this debacle is simple mooching off the US taxpayer to get an "almost free" space station, none of the countries contributing but a few percent of the total cost apice.

Britain is not a big contributor to the ESA, and their stake in the project could simply be bought out.

Italy and Japan are the only two real "partners" in "international partners," and Japan's reduced nuclear-phobia would make them a prime option to give them Project Prometheus to both further VSE and to compensate them for their ISS investment. I am sure we could find a similar way to compensate Italy too, such as helping us with developing/building Lunar landers or light supply vehicles. [/u]

RobertDyck · 2005-11-18 02:08:46

Hmm. One Canadian steel company developed a new furnace that permitted it to make better quality steel, sell at a lower price than its competitors, make its bank loan payments and still had profit to pay its shareholders. Not the whole Canadian steel industry, just one company. But American steel companies with 50 year old furnaces complained they couldn't make steel either that good or that inexpensively, so demanded protectionism. The then bilateral free trade commission ruled that it's fair competition, but a state court in Virginia overruled them and imposed heavy tariffs on Canadian steel. Other Canadian steel companies also had 50 year old furnaces and were in no better position to compete than American companies; none had upgraded their equipment since World War 2. Isn't that how the free market system is supposed to work? The Virginia court was out of line. But you want to characterize Canada as anti-American.

American lumber companies complained that Canadian companies are actually selling product so must somehow be unfair. They claim Canadian rules for cutting trees on government land is the problem despite the fact it's roughly 2% of the market price of lumber, and every province has different rules just as every state has different rules. The NAFTA ruled it is fair trade, but the US government imposed $6 billion of tariffs anyway. The tariffs did reduce Canadian lumber imports for a while, but rather than American lumber companies making more the US imported lumber from Europe. America has limited trees and is cutting lumber as fast as it can already. The remaining Canadian companies run 24/7 and drastically improve efficiency to make a profit despite the tariffs, and increase lumber exports to the US to slightly above levels before the tariffs. The American lumber association then claimed this has defeated the point. Ah hah! They never did have any valid claim about fair trade; they just wanted to reduce competition. But it was a failed attempt because they can't produce more anyway.

American wheat makes bad pasta that literally crumbles, but great bread. Canadian wheat makes great pasta but sticky, gooey bread. Sounds like a great opportunity for trade. But consumers lately are buying more pasta and less bread. North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan blames Canada for declining market for North Dakota wheat; after all it's easy to blame a foreigner. After 86 investigations into Canadian Wheat Board marketing practices, every investigation has found Canada blameless. The double indemnity rule says you can't prosecute more than once for the same charge, but that hasn't stopped Byron Dorgan from attacking Canada 86 times and still trying. American pasta manufacturers said they need to produce quality product so will continue to purchase Canadian wheat even if tariffs are imposed, so tariffs would only hurt the American pasta industry.

After the attack of 9/11, Canada sent every soldier, ship, and military asset available to Afghanistan to join in the war against Al Qaeda. During a training exercise in Afghanistan, an American pilot flew over the exercise. American military control told the pilot not to attack and to leave the area, but he violated orders and bombed the Canadian troops. There were more Canadian casualties from that incident than from any enemy.

Canada sent in Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) which is recognised worldwide as the best anti-terrorist force in the world. It's still in Afghanistan but we get little recognition from the US.

Once forces were in Afghanistan, George W. Bush ordered a war against Iraq. Canadians strongly supported military operations against those who attacked our brothers in the US, but strongly opposed the war in Iraq. Iraq was punished in 1991 for its attack of Kuwait in 1990, and Iraq has kept to itself since. You can claim Iraq didn't obey UN resolutions, but that's between Iraq and the UN. Most importantly they didn't attack anybody. Despite the fact that most Canadians, including all supporters of the current party in power in Canada, opposed Canadian participation in the war against Iraq, the government did not recall Canadian exchange officers serving on American ships and kept Canadian frigates and destroyers in defence formation around American aircraft carriers during the Iraq invasion. The Canadian government got in trouble with its supporters due to this, but there's been little recognition.

During the space race in the 1960s, NASA themselves have recognised that they would not have succeeded if they had not recruited the best Canadian engineers when the Avro Arrow project was cancelled. One specific I can quote is that the lead engineer for the Arrow as the individual who designed the Gemini capsule; Gemini was the only American spacecraft designed solely by a single individual. There were many other Canadians in NASA, but this is the only individual I can quote.

So, you want to renege on your commitments as soon as they're inconvenient. When someone points out the sheer irresponsibility of doing so you want to call them anti-American. Do I have to come up with a negative adjective to describe that attitude? Don't you think it's time to start working with and appreciating Canada rather than taking it for granted and stabbing it in the back at every opportunity? When Canada stands up for itself when bullied that does not make it anti-American, it makes Canada worthy of respect. However, fighting does not make a good world citizen. Working together cooperatively does. Don't you think it's time to stop creating conflicts with Canada? Do I have to point out the resources Canada is still providing to the US? America does more trade with Canada than any other nation in the world. America is quite dependant on Canada, as Canada is on America. It would damage both countries to continue the current trend of separation.

As for ISS: yes, you do have to fulfill your commitments. The whole point of negotiating agreements upfront is that once set down you are committed. America has halted Shuttle flights for far too long after each incident. I could point fingers about detailed problems, but the point is to keep the Shuttle flying. Yes, Russia has had its problems; obviously America has had its problems too. Claiming Russia was "holding hostage" when they had an economic crisis after converting to a free-market economy is unfair. When Russia makes statements you don't like, you are the first to claim it's unfair to kick America when it's down; so why do you think it's any more acceptable to kick Russia when they're down? Face facts, both countries have had their problems. Now it's time to get the Shuttle back in space and finish the ISS.

So you want to attack Germany and France as well. Oh, right; you're the one who doesn't understand what happened with NATO. The German inspectors working on behalf of the UN found no weapons of mass destruction but George W. Bush said there were WMDs anyway. I saw an individual on American network news before the Iraq war state he works for the CIA and that the CIA found "no compelling evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." But George W. said they were there, so insisted on a war with Iraq. And you wonder why Germany would be upset? After 9/11 NATO unanimously activated the clause in the NATO charter which states if one member nation is attacked all member nations must come to its defence. All nations committed their full military support of the US against whoever attacked it (before Al Qaeda was publicly identified) including France and Germany. Yes, France and Germany committed troops to attack America's enemies. But George W. Bush refused NATO's aid, claiming he would build his own coalition and specifically told France that America would tell it what troops to send, where to send them, whom to attack and when. Well, France took that as a great insult so told America it's on its own. Germany was also offended by the rejection of NATO. But you don't understand that, do you?

Don't you think it's time to start working with first world industrial democratic countries rather than offending them?

SpaceNut · 2005-11-18 06:53:48

I know that Cindy did post about this in the Heliopolis *2* - ...Sun, Solar Science thread but it is also important that we be aware of the risks that any crew aboard the ISS might face.
Astronauts on alert after eruption of giant sunspot number 822.

Space weather forecasters say there is a 50% chance this huge sunspot, measuring 87,000 miles across, will spew out a solar flare within 24 hours

What damage can sunspots do? Well here is a short summary:

As well as being potentially harmful to the astronauts, these high-energy bursts of radiation can damage sensitive electronic equipment. If the flare is big enough it could create electricity blackouts on Earth and bring dancing red and green auroras to the skies, which will be particularly visible at high latitudes.

Of course having computers and instruments or equipment that can stand up to these conditions needs to not only be developement but it is usually quite expensive.

Radiation Resistant Computers, Researchers are developing advanced computers that can think clearly even when they're bombarded by space radiation

Palomar · 2005-11-18 07:02:37

I know that Cindy did post about this in the Heliopolis *2* - ...Sun, Solar Science thread but it is also important that we be aware of the risks that any crew aboard the ISS might face.
Astronauts on alert after eruption of giant sunspot number 822.
Space weather forecasters say there is a 50% chance this huge sunspot, measuring 87,000 miles across, will spew out a solar flare within 24 hours

*Actually, spaceweather.com is currently (today) reporting that Sunspot 822 is releasing "near-daily M-class solar flares." Now we're waiting for a CME.

Yep. Astronauts beware.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-11-16 16:35:03

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#27 2005-11-16 18:17:11

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#28 2005-11-16 19:28:24

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#29 2005-11-16 21:32:07

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#30 2005-11-16 22:25:02

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#31 2005-11-16 22:39:00

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#32 2005-11-17 00:43:32

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#33 2005-11-17 03:06:58

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#34 2005-11-17 07:25:26

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#35 2005-11-17 07:57:01

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#36 2005-11-17 08:03:09

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#37 2005-11-17 08:15:22

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#38 2005-11-17 08:37:41

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#39 2005-11-17 09:45:53

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#40 2005-11-17 11:12:12

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#41 2005-11-17 13:20:38

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#42 2005-11-17 13:29:30

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#43 2005-11-17 13:29:34

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#44 2005-11-17 16:06:29

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#45 2005-11-17 16:27:31

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#46 2005-11-17 17:42:09

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#47 2005-11-17 19:44:52

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#48 2005-11-18 02:08:46

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#49 2005-11-18 06:53:48

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#50 2005-11-18 07:02:37

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer