Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Rxke · 2005-11-23 03:22:43

I am starting to wonder if we should expect Griffin to resign by the end of 2006 at this rate, if it became obvious that VSE would fail.

I was thinking about the opposite...

Hoping he could start a long-term change.
Could he be re-elected after his term?
And if not, does he has anything to say about who follows up?
Will he get enough time to make a change AND see results, that's the question. Now many will see him as the grim reaper, if he pulls it off, he'll be the hero... If he's still around.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-23 05:52:30

You are talking about needing a material that has excelent tearing properties, really strong and able to hold in foam even if a major overpressure blows it out hard. None of this "film" business, no kind of thin layer is going to have sufficent properties no matter what its made of. It will also need at least some thermal resistance, since its going to get awfully cold in the upper atmosphere or hot from friction.
The film applied to the cars is designed for just one thing: ease of application. I doubt that it has the high strength properties across a whole range of temperatures. I bet that it would have to be relativly very thick to offer the mechanical performance needed.
Plus, you have the problem of what happens if gasses build up under it or a vacuum void forms, in which case bad stuff might happen. NASA can't afford question marks like that any more then it can to come up with a brand new material.
Its got to be porus, its got to have maximum rip properties for minimum mass, and it has to handle temperature variences. A high-strength counterpart to "chicken wire" or a mesh made of high-strength polymer fiber (pressed flush into the foam if needed) over the orbiters' 40% of the tank is the way to go.
Simple, relativly quick, and a minimum of question marks.

A couple local people talked about using chicken wire to hold in foam. But this is a material that's known to fragment. The whole problem is fragmentation. Foam pieces will be cut by the chicken wire itself and pass through the gaps in the wire. We don't need a material that will cause the very problem we're trying to fix.

However, you do have a few valid points. The stratosphere does get down to -70°C. Mylar can handle that, fluoropolymers can handle that, Kapton can handle that, even the spray-on polyurethane foam that I said can't handle the cryogenic temperature of liquid oxygen can handle -70°C. However, I have no idea what "an aqueous polyester-polyurethane dispersion" can handle; I have no data. Don't worry about heat; if hypersonic heating was a problem the polyurethane foam used in close-out areas would bake off. The Shuttle ascends so quickly that air pressure gets very thin by the time it's fast. The tank will burn up when it falls back into the atmosphere, but that's what it's supposed to do.

Blow-outs? I'm expecting individual cells of closed-cell foam to burst. Gas from a single cell is small and I expect foam cell walls to be very thin, the overpressure caused by a bursting cell will be very slight. But, yes, you do have to let gas escape. The point of the film is not to contain gas, it's to contain foam. A few pin holes should let gas escape, placed in thickened patches of film to prevent a tear from starting.

What about a fishnet mesh of polymer thread? Gore Tenara architectural fabric is composed of 400 denier yarn with twill weave. The outer fabric of EMU spacesuits is Orthofabric; that's a double-layer fabric of the same Gore-tex yarn on the outside, and Nomex yarn on the back with 2 threads of Nomex replaced by Kevlar every 1/2" in both warp and waft directions. Gore-tex is expanded PTFE (polytetrafluorethylene), Gore Tenara is unaffected by UV light, flex resistance is virtually unlimited, and useful temperature range is -212°C to +260°C (-350°F to +500°F). Why don't we make a fishnet cover over the tank? You could weave it in a hexagonal pattern like a cargo net for a van, but the weaving involved would be intricate. I believe cargo nets are woven on an automated loom. Hmm, rather than trying to weave in place over the tank, could you just weave a flat net, throw it over the tank and sew it together in a seam the length of the tank? A cargo net has multiple threads woven as cords. It may be better to use a commercial fishing net weave. Looms for commercial fishing nets are already big.

But I would still be worried about aerodynamic smoothness. Spray the film over the tank after the fishnet is applied. When the spray is still wet it should soak between fibres. Although PTFE is a fluoropolymer and therefore things tend not to stick, soaking into the fibres should mechanically lock it in place. The film would hold small pieces that otherwise would pass through gaps in the net, as well as providing an aerodynamically smooth exterior skin. You could poke film pinholes to vent gas in thread knots so the thread acts as rip-stop.

I have a sample of Gore Tenara fabric as well as Orthofabric along with their datasheets. I got them when I bid to make a replacement analogue suit for FMARS. The Gore website has a copy of the fabric datasheet but the link for Tenara sewing thread datasheet only gives a sales glossy. Yarn denier means weight in grams for 9000 metres. Assume square pattern net with single-strand 400 denier Gore Tenara thread, 3/4 inch squares knotted, and not covering the tank bottom. The result is 7.64kg net weight. Add 1 mil spray-on film (also not covering the bottom) for 44.68kg and the total is 52.32kg additional weight.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-23 08:04:32

The objective isn't to stop 100% of foam bits of all size, but rather to ensure the bits are small enough that they can't deliver sufficent kinetic energy to damage any part of the orbiter (with an appreciable margin for pessimism). Making the goal any more stringent then it has to be will cost NASA precious time. Bits of foam a centimeter or two in diameter should not be consequential no matter when the separation occurs during acent.

We have all manner of high-strength fibers that would be lighter then anything off the shelf, which would be worthwhile since Shuttle's mass budget is so tight and thinner fibers would make the mesh less "bumpy" aerodynamically. Get some Spectra-2000 and use a commertial fishing net weaving machine or something to make netting. Then, cover the orbiter half of the tank with it and hold it on by wrapping cords of fiber all the way around the tank.

The assumption that blowouts would be small and not a problem caused by gas overpressure or cracking due to a vacuum void is just that, an assumption. While it might be a reasonable assumption, right now it is more important that question marks be absolutely minimized... If Shuttle doesn't fly by this time next year, then its probobly not going to fly again at all.

Forget trying to spray anything on the tank to make the fiber flush, thats going to introduce a number of issues. If you puncture it to prevent any pressure/vacuum buildup under it, then you are introducing a very big failure mode during manufacturing. Will punching holes in the foam weaken it? Cause cracks? Would improperly spaced holes cause the film to peel off, and perhaps take some of the mesh with it and release the foam it held back? Etc etc...

The foam doesn't harden instantly, it takes some time for it to set. Lets put the high exaulted "foam guys" supposedly indespensable and highly expensive skills to work, and tell them to simply press the mesh into the still-wet foam such that it is flush with the surface. Particularly since the mesh should make up for their monumentally bad job they've been doing on the foam. Problem solved.

I had a thought, that relying on having a polymer solution infiltrate a woven fiber is a bad idea. First off, polymer solutions suitable for spraying are often viscous and have some surface tension, and so the solution might not penitrate the small gaps between fibers at all. Even if it did, the polymer will have a different volume dry then wet, and that introduces some question marks about how the fiber's properties may be different. Lastly, since the gaps between fibers are small, the toughness of the fiber-polymer interface will probobly be poor. I don't think this is nessesarry or desireable.
-----------------------------------------------------------

All of this asside though, none of this matters, none of it at all if the "external tank people" are just not capable of doing the job competantly, which seems to be the case and which will be fatal to both Shuttle and VSE. They didn't change a thing after Columbia, even though it was their fault. They didn't change a thing after Discovery's brush with death, even though it was their fault. The Shuttle program will fail if they can't launch again soon, even though it is their fault...

After Columbia, the quotes from Michoud making the rounds were all whining about their job security, and not hoping their incompetance didn't kill those men and women plus endangerd the future of NASA as a whole.

No thought that switching foam formulation might be a problem, no sense of urgency in nailing down potential problems (they want to fly tanks with PAL ramps with sensors to get data and find out if they're "safe"... even though the test flights will be manned and a similar fault killed Columbia!), and to top all this off they seem to have completly melted down in Michoud and are in disarry even in meetings with M.Griffin their boss.

.. unless M.Griffin can cut them loose despite the senators from Louisiana, this is a problem. Kill Michoud now, use TheStick to finish the ISS if we must, contract Boeing to build upper stages for it. Shop around for a new SDV core manufacturer, we won't be flying it for a while anyway.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-23 08:47:12

So good they want jobs so lets give them one, lets have them make tanks for anything but the shuttle as a consession to the boeing lockheed workforce and let another plant build the the ET's the right way.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-23 11:23:55

There is nothing that NASA needs that could justify keeping Michoud open except to build tanks/stages for TheStick or the big SDV. If they can't do this competantly, then they should be closed and NASA find someone who can. Period

Boeing's pitch for VSE rocket upgrades to the Delta-IV eventually called for a light HLLV class rocket with 8m stages to be built at their current plant with some modifications. They also have people who know how to work with RS-68 right there. Let them build a quadruple RS-68 core and cut Michoud and Stennis with their Shuttle-based SSME-powerd core loose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit: Say, wouldn't Rumsfeld and the USAF just love it if NASA were to wind up hiring Boeing to use its Delta-IV plant to build Stick & SDV stages? That would solve the problem of paying to keep both the Delta-IV and Atlas-V rocket factories open. Convienant, no?

Rxke · 2005-11-23 13:34:15

Edit: Say, wouldn't Rumsfeld and the USAF just love it if NASA were to wind up hiring Boeing to use its Delta-IV plant to build Stick & SDV stages? That would solve the problem of paying to keep both the Delta-IV and Atlas-V rocket factories open. Convienant, no?

Wow... Dude, that's :shock: a scary thought...

RobertDyck · 2005-11-23 13:59:37

Well, I tried to completely solve the foam loss problem. It may be true that small chunks of foam won't cause a problem, but they also believed foam couldn't harm RCC. I would like the same guys who used an air cannon to demonstrate a piece of foam can puncture RCC to also test small pieces of foam on RCC leading edges, and HRSI tiles. Let's see just how much the tiles can handle without loss. If HRSI tiles (the black tiles) can't handle even small chunks then use the film.

I suggested Gore-tex because that will handle the cold and all other conditions of space, and is actually affordable. Gore Tenara fabric 70.8" wide (1.8 metre wide) costs $117 per linear meter ($106.90/yard) when purchased in quantity of less than 650 linear metres. A net made using a commercial fishing net weave made from Gore Tenara sewing thread should be much cheaper because it would be so much less dense. But, yea, Spectra would be lighter for a given strength. I tried looking up the datasheet for Spectra but found Honeywell has bought Allied Signal and Honeywell's web pages for Spectra keep giving me a server error, a recursive error dealing with JavaScript.

idiom · 2005-11-23 14:26:03

Could the Orbiter be mounted ontop of an SDV stack?

Just wondering because it is taking forever to get the shuttle back up without modification, could it possibly take longer with the redesign involved?

At least we would have our BDB in place at the end of the affair even if we apparently cannot glue the shuttle to the top like we hoped...

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-23 14:32:02

"Could the Orbiter be mounted ontop of an SDV stack?"

No.

As far as what to cover the tank with, I am thinking something with really overkill strength is more important then stopping bits of foam the size of ping-pong/table-tennis balls. I'm talking something that could resist a small explosion, which is what a worst-case overpressure under the foam could cause. That menas something like metal wire, UHMWPE, or other advanced polymer. Really solid strength, more then is probobly really needed, and not a whimpy textile cloth.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-23 15:16:06

Metal wire is stiff to work with and tends to cut soft things like foam. You don't want to deliberately introduce something that will cut it. But your suggestion of Spectra is better than you think. The strength to weight ratio is what's important, not strength for a given thickness. Spectra may have to be thicker than steel wire, but the strength to weight ratio is 10 times as great as steel. Spectra is lighter than Kevlar so the strength to weight ratio is actually better than even Kevlar. It is used for bullet proof vests, I'll let sales people argue which makes a better vest, but it would make a very high performance net for the Shuttle.

Will Spectra handle the -70°C temperature of the stratosphere, or near cryogenic temperatures on the outside of insulation foam of a cryogenic tank? I don't know, that's why I tried to look up its datasheet.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-23 16:02:46

If the wire cuts the foam into little pieces however, that shouldn't matter.

I'm not familiar with the thermal properties of UHMWPE polymers, but embrittlement at cryogenic temperatures is probobly a given. Embrittlement at stratosphereic temperatures may depend on the degree of polymerization or if any branching agents were added.

Palomar · 2005-11-26 06:41:31

*Mind if I post this here?

Thanksgiving dinner aboard the ISS

Looks like they had a nice menu. Unfortunately you apparently cannot dehydrate pumpkin pie. The Russian astronaut joined in the feasting; they are "like brothers." That's terrific.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-11-29 13:11:52

Well the convection oven is probably never going to materialize but then again neither is the connection to the new space exploration vision..
Review of NASA Strategic Roadmaps: Space Station Panel, National Research Council (NRC) Report: Review of NASA Plans for the International Space Station

summary of parts of the report are at the above link

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-29 13:38:15

Hey, the "but we NEED the ISS to go to Mars!" fools are finally noticing...

...M. Griffin intends to cut the ISS loose as much as is possible without actually scuttling the station. Yay!

SpaceNut · 2005-11-30 09:40:23

Since shuttle is on the short list for safety issues the changes in the NASA Advisory Council whould seem very appropiate to add to our discusions.

The panel of old was more of a civilian one and was partly faulted for not stopping the previous acidents to some degree. Being ineffectiver lead to its disbanding. So some changes have been needed for quite some time.

Griffin shifts NASA board with advisers

The New NASA Advisory Council Meets - At Last. But Something Is Missing

Palomar · 2005-11-30 10:21:03

Hey, the "but we NEED the ISS to go to Mars!" fools are finally noticing...
...M. Griffin intends to cut the ISS loose as much as is possible without actually scuttling the station. Yay!

*Lol!

I'm just barely following news about either, but occasionally pop into these threads. Keeping tabs on the ISS and shuttle for long is like watching bad reruns (and reruns and reruns)...

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2005-11-30 13:51:45

Yea, the same argument again and again. I keep pointing out that NASA still has an organizational culture of quitting when the going gets tough. Every major project they've undertaken in the last 15 years or so has been cancelled. It appears ever since the 90-day report following George Bush Sr.'s space initiative that NASA and congress are too scared to stick with anything. The space station has been built, the vast majority of modules are sitting in a building at KSC waiting to be launched. Just launch them. NASA was a can-do organization during the 1960s, it has to become that again. This paranoid fear has to be overcome, and quitting another major project because there are obstacles is not the way to overcome fear. Just do it. If for no other reason that to say NASA is capable of finishing what it starts, and capable of overcoming all obstacles. Don't try to reduce the size of ISS or cancel modules, that again means fear and inability to accomplish the goal.

No more debate, no more argument, no more excuses. Just do it.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-30 14:28:38

Well I have been trying to find more specifics on the manifest of the remaining items for install with regards to finishing the station.

List of ISS items still to make a station complete:

Science Power Module
3 Solar panel arrays

Docking Extension Module
Node 3

Cupola

Jem PRESSURIZED MODULE
JEM REMOTE mANIPULATOR SYSTEM
JEM EXPOSED FACILITY AND SECTION

COf (columbus orbital Facility)

Cam (Centrifuge Accommodation Module)

Express Pallets
AMS

These are what I have found to be since the last down sizing of 28 shuttle missions to approximate 15 or so.

Some of which need to have a special craddle made in order to launch. Some of the remaining items were also planned to be Russian delivered as well but I think that was on the order of maybe 3 flights.

Could either of the Giants (Boeing, Lockheed) given enough incentive be able to rework there current launchers in order to deliver these items to the ISS for less than the $1 billion maybe more cost per shuttle launch.

Granted this does not solve the Human flight aspect for safety but it does stop the shuttle use now.

Commodore · 2005-11-30 14:51:15

The trouble is they have nothing with which to do it with. They lack the shuttle, and even if they get that back they may not have the money or the time to perform the missions, even assuming that what they are doing now solves the problem.

They must take the shuttle out of the equation for getting the modules to orbit. We have a HLV on the drawing board. Pay the Russians to increase supply missions and crewed missions, retire one shuttle and prep the other two for long duration missions. When the HLV is ready, launch the remaining modules in bundles attached to modified tugs based on the EDS to be for the moon missions, then launch the shuttle only when needed to attach the components the ISS can't attach its self. With luck you can count such missions on one hand.

At this point its the only choice I see to both finish the ISS and make it worth our while, as the driving force behind the early developement of the HLV.

The ISS is the only large orbital game in town for at least the next 20 years, and we've aready paid for it. Lets turn it into the fire under our butts instead of the anchor on our ankles.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-30 16:21:20

Yea, the same argument again and again. I keep pointing out that NASA still has an organizational culture of quitting when the going gets tough. Every major project they've undertaken in the last 15 years or so has been cancelled. It appears ever since the 90-day report following George Bush Sr.'s space initiative that NASA and congress are too scared to stick with anything. The space station has been built, the vast majority of modules are sitting in a building at KSC waiting to be launched. Just launch them. NASA was a can-do organization during the 1960s, it has to become that again. This paranoid fear has to be overcome, and quitting another major project because there are obstacles is not the way to overcome fear. Just do it. If for no other reason that to say NASA is capable of finishing what it starts, and capable of overcoming all obstacles. Don't try to reduce the size of ISS or cancel modules, that again means fear and inability to accomplish the goal.
No more debate, no more argument, no more excuses. Just do it.

Nonsense. Those projects "where the going got tough" were canceld because they were stupid. For example, X-33 and DC-X turned out to not be feasable nor worthwhile, and so they were correctly canceld. The ISS holds only political and no tangible bennefit, and so M.Griffin is going to gut it too as best he can if congress doesn't cough up a few more billion to pay for it.

Its not a bad thing to stop doing stupid things... a difficult project is one thing, but a difficult project without signifigant net bennefit is another. When up against a substantial (read: expensive) obsticle, it should be asked: "is it worth it to overcome this obsticle?" If the answer is no, then going ahead anyway is a stupid thing to do.

As far as Bush-I's 90-Day report, I think that it is painfully, deeply, you'd-have-to-be-obtuse-not-to-know-it, never a serious plan. NASA was scared that the status quo would be upset (and result in its death, Apollo-cancelation style), and so they came up with a report that they knew would be shot down. Its that simple. I mean, come on, NASA isn't that stupid to come up with a plan like that!... NASA wasn't afraid so much to go to Mars, NASA was afraid the Shuttle "gravy train" would stop and the agency gutted if a sucessive administration decided not to go to Mars after all.

And fear? You are all wrong about that too, the only really deep fear NASA has had for a long, long time was that the Space Shuttle and the neverending gravy train for it and its decendant projects (ISS, SpaceHab, Hubble) would end. Now there is a fear, but for a different reason, because now the Shuttle's end has been all but set in stone... and the new fear, the fear of having a new justification for the ~$16.5Bn/yr budget. The ISS couldn't soak up this money, and it too will be gone only some half dozen years after Shuttle...

So now it is that VSE is really NASA's only hope. It really is... without VSE suceeding, NASA has no long-term reason to exsist in its present scope. Once Shuttle and the ISS are gone, every year NASA doesn't have a mission the risk increases that the agency will get gutted by Congress. Thus, VSE must not only suceed, but it has to make substantial progress soon now that Shuttle is already past-tense on capitol hill.

And you know what one project stands in its way, and the future survival of NASA, more than any other? Thats right, the ISS! ...Anything and everything that can be done to stop, curtail, or end the project directly contributes to ensuring NASA's survival. The ISS is the current penultimate "stupid thing," and so we should stop it as much as possible. This isn't rocket science... if you are for human space exploration, you must by extension be against the ISS. Period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also take issue with your "just- (insert thing here);" its both dishonest and demeaning because you make it all sound so simple, when it is simply, clearly, obviously not the case. The highly inclined orbit, the high payload mass & volume, the high accuracy rendezvous, orientation matching, remote control, and whatnot are not simple things. No rocket today has the ability to lift all the modules nor the little bits, and if we started today on the SDV, it would be unable to get the job done any faster then Shuttle could.

Downsizing the ISS is not a sign of weakness, it is a natural consquence of having a new goal and new priorities. Finally, we have a NASA administrator who is willing to act on the simple notion that the ISS is worthless in every way except politically, and so he has simply changed the goal... finish and tend the ISS only to the minimum degree politically acceptable, and then walk way from the whole horrible debacle. NASA's budget is already hanging by a thread, and so reducing the scope of ISS is an obvious way to save money that is otherwise wasted.

Given the uselessness of the station, the very real possibility of NASA joining the Shuttle/ISS in their grave, it is the best thing NASA can do.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-30 17:48:23

Well, yea, the plan of the 90-day report was ridiculous. It was way too expensive and had very little return. Unfortunately NASA keeps trying to repeat the same mistakes in that report. The report included space station Freedom, plus a permanent lunar base, plus lunar mines to harvest oxygen, tankers to bring it to Earth orbit, an LEO fuel depot, and a giant Mars spacecraft with on-board greenhouse and a 2 year mission with only half the crew landing for 2 weeks. That was stupid. My point was that was the point where NASA started this habit of quitting.

Now they built space station ISS, and are planning a trip to the moon and are talking about harvesting fuel from the moon again. Won't they learn? The moon can be used to test Mars hardware, but there's nothing on the moon that will help you get to Mars. It's a distraction, not a stepping stone and not a fuel source.

But ISS is well underway, most modules are built and waiting for launch, and NASA needs the precedent of actually finishing something. You really do need to test life support in zero-G. That's best done in LEO, not the moon. I would like to skip the moon entirely. Perhaps we can talk about that after the new president (who ever that may be) is elected in 2008. Right now VSE is floundering and may be cancelled as well. NASA and congress have this habit of cancelling everything.

As for ridiculous delays and costs for shuttle, I can now say I have first hand experience. I tried to bid to replace a 16-year-old computer for a diagnostic workstation for one of the shuttle components. United Space Alliance posted the opportunity on NASA's web site, first with a Request For Information, then those companies they deemed qualified received the full Request For Proposal. I responded to the RFI, and did get the RFP. They wording of the RFP implied a more time than I require to do the job, and more people than I need. Actually I'm an expert in exactly that computer system, and I could finish the job single-handed. It took about a month after the deadline for the RFI before I got the RFP. When I did the RFP included a clause that said every bidder had to attend the pre-bidder's conference, and they had to get security clearance. They said "foreign nationals" (read not American citizens) require 3 weeks for security clearance but they sent the RFP package 20 days before the conference. Obviously trying to pull a fast one. I did find someone who lives in Florida willing to represent me, but when I asked United Space Alliance about it they said they would expedite clearance for myself. On the very day it was time for me to leave for the conference, they denied my attendance. They said since my company is "foreign" owned (a Canadian company) they wouldn't let my American associate represent me either. I appealed this. NASA got me in contact with a Canadian government owned corporation which exists to help Canadians land contracts out of the country, primarily defence contracts in the US. They did help and got me in contact with the Canadian department of International Trade. United Space Alliance claimed the ITAR prevented me from bidding, but there's a clause in ITAR that lets Canadians bid. Then they claimed I wasn't registered with a Canadian program required under the American ITAR, but application for that Canadian program was already filed and Canada doesn't let you even apply until you have a contract you're bidding on. In other words that qualification was fulfilled. Then they said they had to complete the project quickly and NASA requires they file something called a TAA which requires 6 months to process. Private companies would take 2 weeks for the entire process of seeking suppliers to selecting a supplier and getting the project started; the RFI took 2 weeks after it was posted before closed, another month before the RFP was issued, another 2 months before the bid was due, then United Space Alliance reserved up to another 6 months before selecting a contractor. They're hardly in a position to use time constraints as an excuse. Besides, if a TAA really does take 6 months they should have started the process as soon as they received my response to the RFI. That would have been completed 3 months before my bid was submitted. So instead they'll select an American contractor, and major contractors have a habit of ensuring the project requires the maximum number of employees permitted and the maximum time; thus charging the maximum price. They also have a habit of following the exact letter of the bid rather than finding a better, quicker, less expensive, more reliable way of achieving the goal. The wording of the RFP demonstrates whoever wrote it doesn't know that computer. The solution implied in the RFP is the least reliable way of doing it.

But the real kicker is when I asked the United Space Alliance person why she sent me the RFP package and didn't tell me until the last minute that a Canadian wouldn't be permitted to bid. She said "I wanted to hear what you had to say first." So she wanted to scam my ideas. NASA has procedures in place to deal with sealed bids. They ensure technology solutions and business plans are not revealed to the competition, even if someone else lands the contract. Obviously United Space Alliance doesn't have the same degree of ethics as NASA. I was hoping to establish a business relationship so I could get further contracts. I thought I could do that by fulfilling this contract extremely well, quickly, and inexpensively. But this demonstrates it doesn't matter what I do, I'll never be permitted to do business with United Space Alliance. I don't think they want the least expensive bidder, I suspect they want to increase the cost they charge NASA to pad their profit margin.

I hesitated before telling the space advocacy community what's happening. But I'll never land a contract with United Space Alliance anyway. If I ever do land a contract it'll have to be directly with NASA.

So if you guys want to see the shuttle fly again, you're going to have to convince NASA to kick United Space Alliance's big fat ass.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-30 21:18:08

"NASA needs the precedent of actually finishing something"

Even if that something is useless, dangerous, and ruinously expensive all at the same time? No, I don't think NASA does. Better for NASA to admit the ISS has no signifigant function in the VSE and comitting to the original scope of the station would be just shy of suicidal.

I really don't think that we'll be using Lunar fuel for anything except refueling reuseable landers for Lunar trips. As has been discussed on many occasions, there are worthwhile things to do on the Moon, and right now the political directive is Moon first. That doesn't mean that NASA is going to going to use it for a fuel depot.

Yes, the NASA buracracy is a ponderous mess, but right now it is just not feasable to make the problem go away overnight. The ISS/Shuttle debacle and pressing the CEV into service are time sensitive projects, time NASA doesn't have.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-06 11:44:03

Moving forward with the goals for
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Demonstrations to the ISS.

A very tall order that even Nasa has failed to meet when using the shuttle.

Boeing's Delta and even Lockheed's Atlas retro fitted with proper guidance for last mile docking to the station. Either of these could do the job but as for it not being expensively filled with pork barrel costs it is just not possible for Nasa to continue to use these companies.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-08 07:15:39

ATK shuttle Booster contract for remaining flights needed to complete the ISS appears to be for 19.

Shuttle booster maker to design new rocket

The contract's value is unknown, company officials said, because the engineering, development and testing of the new launcher is being done in concert with the firm's existing $370-million-a-year contract to deliver solid rocket boosters for up to 19 more space shuttle missions.

Lets see how much each booster costs..
2005 - 2010 is 5 years multiply by 370 million equals 1.85 billion
19 flights multiply by 2 booster each equals 38

costs per booster is 48.68 million approximately

SpaceNut · 2005-12-08 08:24:59

Weighing in on the ISS is senator Hutchison: U.S. should attempt to finish building space station

The lawmaker urges the country to reach out to China and others to share costs and Congress should be prepared to spend more to ensure the nation maintains its global leadership in the exploration of space.

"America needs to bring all of the countries of the world together, be the leader," she said during a visit to the Johnson Space Center, where she met with Michael Coats, who became JSC's director in late November.
The lawmaker outlined a strategy to include China in the space station and encourage the use of the station for scientific purposes by other federal agencies, private companies, universities and nonprofit research organizations.

Thou China has proven that it can launch an stay a few days in space does it really show that they are really ready to go to the ISS yet.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-11-23 03:22:43

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#77 2005-11-23 05:52:30

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#78 2005-11-23 08:04:32

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#79 2005-11-23 08:47:12

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#80 2005-11-23 11:23:55

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#81 2005-11-23 13:34:15

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#82 2005-11-23 13:59:37

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#83 2005-11-23 14:26:03

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#84 2005-11-23 14:32:02

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#85 2005-11-23 15:16:06

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#86 2005-11-23 16:02:46

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#87 2005-11-26 06:41:31

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#88 2005-11-29 13:11:52

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#89 2005-11-29 13:38:15

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#90 2005-11-30 09:40:23

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#91 2005-11-30 10:21:03

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#92 2005-11-30 13:51:45

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#93 2005-11-30 14:28:38

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#94 2005-11-30 14:51:15

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#95 2005-11-30 16:21:20

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#96 2005-11-30 17:48:23

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#97 2005-11-30 21:18:08

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#98 2005-12-06 11:44:03

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#99 2005-12-08 07:15:39

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#100 2005-12-08 08:24:59

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer