Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-21 14:08:54

Yeah, different inclinations would preclude any kind of tether arrangement

I don't see how these "spiders" could be used to change orbit either without a counterweight mechanism of some sort.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-27 08:37:28

I was sort of thinking that it would encircle the entire world. As far as tethers and counter weight, how about a simple drop line for the climber to grab onto from the intersection points of the web.

Congress, NASA differ on date of shuttle's demise

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, said there are two circumstances under which he would push to extend the life of the three remaining shuttles:
• If the international space station is not completed by 2010, because the shuttle's large cargo bay is needed to transport the space station's components into orbit.
• If completion of the space shuttle's successor, the Crew Exploration Vehicle — which is expected to continue bringing crews to the space station as well as eventually taking people to the moon — is expected to be delayed beyond 2012.

Which kind of puts us back to the question Could Space Shuttles still be Flying past 2010?

According to James Andrew Lewis, director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, abandoning the shuttle program before its time is not an option. At issue is how NASA would meet its international obligations to complete the ISS without the shuttle.
While NASA looks to trim its budget through almost any means possible, says Lewis, the answer does not lie in cutting funding for a current dilemma in hopes of meeting future needs.
"The question is, do you want to anger our international partners by reneging on our obligation to finish the space station that they've poured billions of dollars into, or do you want to finish it and risk the funds you'll need for this new era of exploration?" said Lewis.
"You can do one, but you can't do both."

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-27 12:17:43

I think its about time that somebody hit Sen. Bill Nelson with a shovel...

Look, its time to realize that this just isn't going to work, here we are looking at 3.5-4.0yr delay after Columbia to get flying again, and cramming ~19 flights into that remaining window just isn't going to happen. Its just not. The 2010 deadline is unattainable unless whole swathes of ISS componets are simply deleted.

And here we are, looking at four solid year hiatus, so why is Nelson whining and threatening to abuse that interstate commerce clause over the possibility of a four year gap between Shuttle and CEV? Why is this so "nationally strateigically vital???"

"The question is, do you want to anger our international partners by reneging on our obligation to finish the space station that they've poured billions of dollars into, or do you want to finish it and risk the funds you'll need for this new era of exploration?"

"You can do one, but you can't do both."

Lets see, who would be ticking off if we didn't finish the ISS?

-Russia, stabbed us in the back over ISS funding, Soyuz seats, and Iran
-France, who would dance on our grave
-Germany, (ditto)
-Italy
-Japan, who is losing interest anyway

Throw Italy and Japan a bone for VSE hardware, and tell the rest to go to heck. The others don't deserve for us to pour tens of billions more into the station that isn't good for anything but a few esoteric biology experiments that could be done cheaply unmanned!

Bill Nelson is a no-good worthless Shuttle Hugger

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-27 17:19:23

I came across this, which I thought embodied the whole attitude about the Shuttle and one of the little-discussed negative effects of Shuttle:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/470/1

...it almost single handedly wiped out the American rocket business for almost thirty years. Just think, if we didn't go through with the Shuttle nightmare, what could have been accomplished... A rocket with a single F-1A lower and a single J-2 upper refined and refined and refined some more would have wiped out the Ariane and have been a real competitor for Proton & Zenit with their low-tech upper stages.

Rxke · 2005-12-28 02:31:01

To quote Nelson Muntz: Ha-haa!

(I'm an European, see...)

kidding aside, you're absolutely right, but I didn't know it was that bad... That article is required reading... No wonder there are so many ex-Nasa people calling themselves disillusioned.

I've got the same feeling with ISS... Too big, too glorious-looking, but not *ready* to fulfill those glorious goals that were mentioned when it was on the drawing-boards.

Remember when the first module was finally launched, how ISS was originally planned to be in operation up to around 2015? It increasingly looks like it won't be even half-finished by then, so another piece of hardware flying well beyond its designed lifetime... MIRII indeed...

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-28 09:10:14

I've got the same feeling with ISS... Too big, too glorious-looking, but not *ready* to fulfill those glorious goals that were mentioned when it was on the drawing-boards.
Remember when the first module was finally launched, how ISS was originally planned to be in operation up to around 2015? It increasingly looks like it won't be even half-finished by then, so another piece of hardware flying well beyond its designed lifetime... MIRII indeed...

Oh but its so much worse then that! The ISS was not simply promised to be the all-singing/all-dancing panacea of space, but was actually sold because of lies. NASA and the RSA and all the rest lied to us about all the wonderful things the ISS could do, and fraudulantly ignored alternate ways to do the same thing cheaper. The whole foundation and justification of the ISS is a lie, a lie to ensure that the Shuttle would keep flying forever.

The little science done on the ISS simply can not ever hope to even begin to justify its >$150Bn cost. The science can't even justify the remaining ~$50Bn we have yet to spend on the station either! Lets say for a minute that it costs about $300M a pop to fly the CEV to the ISS, which seems to be a reasonable assumption including capsule costs. Lets say that the pressurized cargo version can stow about six full-size racks worth of experiments in addition to the supplies & spares. And lets say that it will take at least one additional flight for crew or unpressurized cargo to support each load of science racks.

Total: $100M per rack. And thats without Shuttle. Lets say instead that you built your experiment rack to operate unmanned (which most of them are anyway) and put it in THIS instead on top of a $100M Delta-IV Medium 50.

Total: A little over $100M per rack... just no ISS. Say we have a maximal twelve flights per year? Thats $1.5Bn with buying the occasional replacement plane... And say we fly a dozen a year for eleven years? $16.5Bn. Savings: ~$34Bn.

The whole point of the station, its primary true justification, that Shuttle would be wedded to it forever as the only way to build it and keep it functioning without exceeding the ~$15-16Bn budget. Remember, back before Columbia and the VSE, NASA was planning on flying Shuttle for a long time... care to guess how long? Until 2025! NASA knew that it couldn't easily afford an alternate method of even tending the ISS while simultainiously flying Shuttle without a budget increase, an increase that even today is politically risky... And that was a-o-k, as long as Shuttle kept flying - didn't matter where, didn't matter why - NASA was happy.

Flying Shuttle has long since become an end unto itself, and infact I think that this was the original true goal of the program... and since "flying Shuttle = good" was not in the brochure back in the 70's, somebody has comitted a fraud so huge, that it has cost us fourteen lives, >$100,000,000,000.00, and may well cost America a role in the future of space for nothing.

...and Bill Nelson and the ISS "partners" wants Shuttle to keep on flying

Rxke · 2005-12-28 09:31:41

The ISS was not simply promised to be the all-singing/all-dancing panacea of space, but was actually sold because of lies. NASA and the RSA and all the rest lied to us about all the wonderful things the ISS could do, and fraudulantly ignored alternate ways to do the same thing cheaper.

Ironically, the very same thing can be said about the shuttle... ('xcept that RSA bought it too, and ended up building 'their' shuttle... Which partially caused the USSR to go bankrupt, according to some sources...)

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-28 09:49:02

Well yes, I think that is pretty much obvious and unarguable by now. Once NASA was told that it had to do everything the USAF wanted and had to do it for a fraction of the money it would really cost, NASA fell into deep cynicism, giving up hope for the future beyond mere survival, and conspired to "sell" a vehicle they knew could not possibly deliver... and by nature of its scope would be un-cancelable.

The fact that it sent the RSA into a tizzy to build their own Shuttle is immaterial, they could have stuck with Proton/Soyuz and built Mir-II as a counter to SS Freedom, and either side could build anti-satelite weapons or once-around polar satelites for less then it cost to build Shuttle/Bruan.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-28 12:16:28

You will find the page 46 interesting for in order to minimize loss of crew and of mission all previous such event were charted for both the US and Russia. The chart shows the numerous shuttle SRB gas seal problems.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-28 13:06:06

Gas seal problems? They are a problem if you have a huge thin-walled tank full of Hydrogen a few inches from the leak point, but not a big deal if you are riding on top. If there is a leak, thrust drops and the rocket might pitch off course, which is easy to escape from. The booster will not immediatly disintegrate or explode.

SpaceNut · 2005-12-29 14:26:17

Reading from page 1 and 2

Using the CEV and CLV combination to service the International Space Station (ISS) results in an average annual cost that is approximately
$1.2 billion less than the current cost of using the Shuttle to service the ISS.

Have not found how many flights that this is across but even saving this on the shuttle refurb expenses is a big piece of change.

Commodore · 2005-12-29 17:55:35

Thats 3 pressurized, at least 1 unpressurized, and 2 crewed CEV/CLV flights a year.

They could do all the cargo flights for a year with 1 CaLV.

On a side note, it seems the CEV SM on a CLV, or in some cases an uprated derivitive on a EELV, could launch and dock most of the remaining components.

SpaceNut · 2006-01-03 10:55:16

Iss research into microgravity and genetic changes of
Flies take next giant step for mankind

SCOTTISH scientists have received a massive Nasa grant to work out whether humans can successfully reproduce in space and colonise other worlds.
The team have been given £800,000 by the US space agency to breed several generations of fruit flies in zero gravity and then examine any genetic changes in the insects.
The unique project is an essential first step towards discovering whether mankind can survive for generations in space and establish permanent homes elsewhere in the solar system.

Rxke · 2006-01-03 11:48:56

Hm.

First off, I'm -once again- quite dumbfounded this has not been done before...

Fruit flies, eh? Good. They have lots of experience w/ fruitflies, and their genome has been studied quite intensively, expect them to find lots of stuff, not only zero-g stuff, but also radiation related...

But again... All those years in orbit, all those billions, and they never took a bunch of fruitflies with them, I mean, WTF??? How do they want the scientific community take them seriously when they say they're doing science up there ?

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-03 12:26:43

*sighs*

Who the heck cares if we can reproduce in zero gravity? We aren't going to live anywhere without gravity! Even if we lived on space stations, they would be spinning ring or Oneil type. We've also got these cool things called "contraceptives" for coed missions.

If you wanted to find out how radiation affects embryos, then you would breed rats on the ground in front of a particle accelerator for far less then flying them. And you couldn't on the ISS anyway, because its inside the Van Allen belts and isn't subject to cosmic rays or the solar wind.

No, this is just a bone, a fluff project cooked up to keep certain pro-ISS senators happy, and a desperate attempt to make our precious and priceless "international partners" not "doubt our commitment" to continue doing pointless things on the pointless space station.

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-03 17:31:45

Do not mistake that the scientists involved in these projects do want to do the experiments that they're doing. Yes, it sounds silly, and yes we can all shake our heads, but that's how science works. Someone is learning something, and I suppose that does make it all worthwhile.

But that doesn't mean that I don't think ISS and Shuttle shouldn't be scrapped ASAP (ie, tomorrow).

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-03 18:03:22

Actually no, thats not quite how science works

Most science research either is to gain knowledge for something, an application or learning the mechanism for a product and the like. There is an unlimited amount of research ideas out there that are either unapplicable or not very applicable at all, and these are not given research grants.

Zero-gravity effects on reproduction is one of these things, that since humans aren't ever going to reproduce in space (except by accident), then this research has no purpose. Research grants are given out on the basis applicability and feasabilty, where research ideas that don't have any practical use and are just "I wonder if" are rightly denied.

Except at NASA apparently... where the regular criteria for usefulness is irrelivent, and the goal of coming up with something for the ISS to do is paramount.

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-03 18:49:50

So you're saying astronomy isn't science? Since most of what is gained from it is completely useless to our daily lives. Science is about gaining knowledge, not making products.

Commodore · 2006-01-03 19:19:07

Science is alot like a puzzle. You'll spend lots of time and money searching for a tiny little piece that only makes sense when you find all the surrounding peices.

That said, given the finite resources we have, we need to do a better job of prioritizing.

And I don't think you could find a less relevent test subject to study human reproduction than fruit flies.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-03 20:34:20

I'm not talking about some tangible economic bennefit right away, I mean at least some knowledge that is minimally useful. I am willing to admit that some questions that scientist work to answer are for simple curiosity and not a material payoff, like the origin of the universe and so on.

But this? The effects of zero gravity on reproduction doesn't strike me as a line of research whos bennefit or even side bennefit resonates with the general public that NASA serves. Its just fluff. NASA has thrown the science out the window again to justify the politics, just like the death of Skylab, Shuttle, the ISS, and Hubble debacles.

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-04 05:13:18

The main problem is that NASA doesn't know how to spend its money. If Buran can be relaunched for half a billion dollars, but the Shuttle cannot even have a decent reassessment plan for that much money (ie, years of research into whether or not the shuttle is safe only to ground it the next day), something is seriously wrong here.

If space access was cheaper studying fruit flies in zero G would not be such a silly prospect.

Grypd · 2006-01-04 05:32:57

Fundamentally the cheapest option is to design a small satelite which will be able to keep generations of fruit flies thriving then return it to Earth. It will then not need the super expensive ISS or Shuttle. Maybe without direct human interaction except that of tele control is a bit of a bane but there is also the idea that the lack of direct human interaction will ensure that the experiment remains pure.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-04 09:10:59

The big reason why Bruan would cost so much less is that Russian engineers demand way, way less money and the RSA has no shareholders to keep happy. Obviously. Comparisons with the American Shuttle program are apples to oranges.

That said, NASA will have to do better. It will have to learn to twist contractors arms and not congresses', since they won't bend any further. It will have to learn to eliminate engineers it really doesn't need... VSE with efficiency like the Shuttle program is untennable and will be quite fatal. As Griffin himself said, that if NASA can't control the costs of the hardware "we will be put out of business". I do hope that last word resonanted rather loudly with Boeing/Lockheed execs.

The solution to that idea Grypd is the X-37, a reuseable mini-spaceplane originally designed as a special high-value spy satelite when regular ones were unavailable, and possibly a light space bomber... Anyway, if the vehicles' fuel tanks were reduced and the cargo bay rearranged, the X-37 could accomodate a full size ISS science rack unmanned for ~6mo and return it to Earth. The X-37 is light enough to ride on the lightest model of Delta-IV Medium, which costs $100M or so a pop. It would cost about that same money for the CEV to fly and tend each science rack to the ISS, just without any more of this Shuttle or ISS business.

Edit: Another idea... if the pressurized cargo capsule version of the CEV can hold multiple racks, and the same version can stay on orbit for six months, then you might put experiments on it and just fly it in orbit and forget this ISS business. Reentry would be a little rougher then X-37, but you would get more science volume per launch dollar.

BWhite · 2006-01-05 16:14:58

NASA does deal for Soyuz

$21.8 million per passenger. Are the Russians

[a] Giving us a good price; or

[b] Charging a fair price; or

[c] Gouging on the actual costs?

I am not looking for the big picture just the small picture. Is $21.8 million a fair price of 1/3 of a Soyuz mission?

= =

This does give t/Space a price target.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-05 17:07:17

Well, the simple answer is:

The cost should be zero... NASA helped/was defrauded some several hundred million dollars to complete the currently orbiting Russian core modules, and Russia should return the favor.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-12-21 14:08:54

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#127 2005-12-27 08:37:28

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#128 2005-12-27 12:17:43

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#129 2005-12-27 17:19:23

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#130 2005-12-28 02:31:01

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#131 2005-12-28 09:10:14

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#132 2005-12-28 09:31:41

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#133 2005-12-28 09:49:02

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#134 2005-12-28 12:16:28

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#135 2005-12-28 13:06:06

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#136 2005-12-29 14:26:17

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#137 2005-12-29 17:55:35

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#138 2006-01-03 10:55:16

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#139 2006-01-03 11:48:56

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#140 2006-01-03 12:26:43

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#141 2006-01-03 17:31:45

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#142 2006-01-03 18:03:22

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#143 2006-01-03 18:49:50

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#144 2006-01-03 19:19:07

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#145 2006-01-03 20:34:20

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#146 2006-01-04 05:13:18

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#147 2006-01-04 05:32:57

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#148 2006-01-04 09:10:59

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#149 2006-01-05 16:14:58

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#150 2006-01-05 17:07:17

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer