Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

RobertDyck · 2006-07-31 07:51:18

Two pictures of Ptichka taken at Baikonur in July 2005. It's being actively worked on by Molniya, the company that built the Burya program orbiters.

dicktice · 2006-07-31 07:52:29

"Nonsense! Google confirms only what the Russians boast. "

I use Googled in the dctionary sense now accepted as a verb. The Google company of course didn't confirm any Russian claims. I'll look into the ultimate source to confirm the truth and get back at you.

"Totally inconceivable? At what point does something so unlikely, so improbable crosses the threshold into effective impossibility? Obviously, your threshold is set solidly outside the realm of reason, very likely biased by Russia-worship too."

Your phrase "effectively impossibility" would've been better, but I didn't think of it. If it was totally impossible then it'd be purely historical, but not totally conceivably still lets us kick the idea around--which is what you did. Good on you! My threshold isn't set anywhere. I try to speculate in the sense of brain-storming. Surely you're not opposed to a little brain-storming now and then? Biased by Russia-worship? Where in the world did you get that idea from my innocent little post?

"We won't have to wait long. Atlantis is going up at near the end of August."

Your evident eagerness to see the next Space Shuttle launch, to continue the assembly of the ISS, matches mine.

RobertDyck · 2006-07-31 08:11:59

Come on guys! It's July 31, the Mars Society conference starts this Thursday. We don't have time for a protracted debate. If ISS fails expect funding for VSE to be slashed as well. Success breeds success, failure breeds failure. NASA hasn't had a success with its manned space program since Shuttle and Hubble, and those are wearing out. It isn't like they've sat in a warehouse, they've been in active use for decades. But where's the success? All manned spaceflight projects since Shuttle has followed a pattern: come up with a good idea, waste time and money arguing before any progress begins, pause all progress with protracted delays after every tiny hitch, waste more time and money arguing whether the project should continue, finally find the budget has "somehow" ballooned to several times its original price and use that as an excuse to cancel the project. Note "somehow", look at "wasted time and money". The ISS is yet another example of this, but its budget is so big that it will affect Congress like no other project. Failure of ISS will kill funding for any manned mission to Mars; VSE will become a Moon only project and will follow the same pattern to cancellation.

So we have a choice: squabble over whether ISS should have been started in the first place and kill all manned space flight, or finish with a success and move onward. As I said, no serious work on SDV or The Stick (now called Ares 5 and Ares 1) will even begin until Shuttle is decommissioned. NASA doesn't have money for both. Shuttle won't be decommissioned until ISS construction is finished. So ISS is the pre-requisite to any manned space exploration.

Tell me guys, how many people are going to the Mars Society conference this year? Will you participate in "The Great 2006 Mars Blitz"? You could ask congressmen yourself whether failure of ISS will kill VSE, but that's dangerous; simply asking the question could put the idea in their mind. It's better to push for Mars and give them a clear vision how to accomplish that and do so affordably.

RobertDyck · 2006-07-31 08:26:13

I'm a computer programmer, engineer, and businessman. I don't care whether the supplier is in this country or that. I'll buy from whichever company can provide the best quality product at the best price. Whether the company is in Russia, France, Germany, UK, or America doesn't matter. The cold war has been over for a very long time, so drop the propaganda!

dicktice, don't think I'm attacking you. I've had arguments with GCNRevenger since he first appeared on this board. His intransigence has long since pissed me off. He appears to be bent on destroying all space exploration because his wonderful GCNR engine lost funding. Sure that engine had benefits, but it was only one engine. Human space exploration can be done with other engines, it's long since time to take a constructive approach. GCNRevenger is not constructive.

You're continuing to argue simply leads to a definite conclusion: you have abandoned manned space exploration.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-31 18:01:37

or choose to ignore is that Buran was maintained by the Russian military in flight ready status, ready to fly on 3 days notice

Says you. I don't believe it, not after all those years since it actually flew, never even being really spaceworthy in the first place, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the lack of a mission for a military spaceplane. You have no proof, only a claim that they are "actively working" on one Shuttle supposedly in 2005. It doesn't make sense, no rocket to launch it on, no launch pad to launch it with, and no mission for it to fly. Why would the cash-strapped Russians waste money on it today? I also find your choice of terminology very interesting and emblematic; that if we don't "believe" you then we are "ignoring reality" or something, particularly when you make claims... difficult to believe. This theme is prevelent throughout your posts.

He said they did a study and determined it would cost between 60 and 100 million US dollars to restore infrastructure...That gives us a precise figure

Yes, and the Russians said that their ISS modules would be "free," several hundred million dollars of "free." It does no such thing. Come back when the people that would actually spend the money estimate how much it ought to cost even very roughly.

You also try to claim anything that's more than 5 minutes old is obsolete, worn out, or otherwise gone

Five minutes? No, actually Bruan's last flight was almost precisely 1,000,000 minutes ago. Bruan flew only once unmanned, its computer too primative to do things like ISS rendezvous and perhaps wrecking the structure like Rxke says, and now you are all set to trust it? Space shuttles are complex, Bruan and its sister ships cannot possibly be far more durable or easily refurbished as the US fleet and I doubt we could easily restore them after twenty years. Even the support and technical base just wouldn't be there. There is nothing special about the Russians that exempts them from this, its a matter of engineering.

American commercial industry tries to prevent that with all things so they can continue to sell the same equipment over again. Cars are a prime example, they can be built to last a century but auto manufacturers deliberately design them to fail

Now, what were you saying about propoganda? Cars that could last a century? You have no idea what you are talking about, the kind of mechanical riggors that vehicles withstand. And sometimes building a dozen nylon bearings is cheaper than one steel one. You are hung up on this due to radical environmental fundimentalist idealogy about "expendability is immoral" or something if memory serves.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-31 18:31:12

We don't have time for a protracted debate.

So come on everybody! Lets just jump on Robert's bandwaggon and sign on his dotted line without thinking about it!

You kind of waited until the last second, didn't you Robert?

If ISS fails expect funding for VSE to be slashed as well. Success breeds success, failure breeds failure... Failure of ISS will kill funding for any manned mission to Mars

Says you. The failure of Shuttle has brought new life to NASA, and not a giant budget cut. If the ISS never lives up to its billing as this mega space research hub, I don't think there will be much outcry.

squabble over whether ISS should have been started in the first place and kill all manned space flight

You make it sound like lucid cost/bennefit discussion when good money is being thrown after bad is as bad as NASA quibbling that wrecks projects before the fact; they are not. Again, you also claim that "if the ISS doesn't suceed then NASA is doomed," which I don't think it would be.

Shuttle won't be decommissioned until ISS construction is finished...

To distill things down a bit, your plan would not get the ISS done any faster than Shuttle would, and your plan would probably fail while Shuttle will probably suceed. If you are so gung-ho about the ISS, the very last thing you should want is for Shuttle to stop flying.

ask congressmen yourself... push for Mars and give them a clear vision how to accomplish that and do so affordably

Ah! The true reason for your posts... Yes! Affordable by sending big boat loads of money overseas to other countries, Congressmen will love to hear that.

RobertDyck · 2006-07-31 18:50:05

The attitude of "America good, anything non-American bad" is incredibly annoying. It also works against the purpose for which NASA was created. Remember the whole space race existed to form alliances, so why piss off other countries or exclude them from participation in space projects? It doesn't make sense.

If you want to know where I got the "3 days notice", start reading Encyclopedia Astronautica by Mark Wade. His information is from declassified Russian documents, and everything else he can get his hands on. Also read the website by Molniya, the manufacturer of the Buran orbiter. They have a lot of documents about Buran development. That's also where I got the 2005 pictures of Ptichka. Nothing like getting it directly from the horse's mouth. They didn't say what was done to it or how much work was done, but several Russian websites repeat that Ptichka was 98% complete in 1993, is fully complete now and they all repeat the "rumour" that life support has been added.

Buran did have an mission. It was maintained by the Russian military ready to fly on 3 days notice as long as the US military maintained Shuttle launch facilities at Vandenberg. They stepped down their alert from "3 days notice" once Vandenberg was mothballed. Since Vandenberg wasn't dismantled, only mothballed, they mothballed Buran too. The Russians feared the American Shuttle would be used to snatch a Russian satellite, or space station module, or deploy a combat satellite in polar orbit over Russia, or some other aggressive military mission. Buran was maintained to counter military missions of the Shuttle.

So you think Russian hardware is primitive. That claim has been made more times than I can count. Remember Buran was developed after Soyuz and Progress. If they can dock, why do you think Buran can't? It's primary mission was to supply the Mir space station. Do you really think its guidance system is less sophisticated than Progress?

The car analogy is simply a very clear demonstration of principle. I know one auto-mechanic who is very critical of a few car makers for using nylon bushings for stabilizer arms when previous joints use stainless steel ball bearings. The cost of the part doesn't matter, labour cost to replace it costs more than 100 bushings. When you buy something expensive it's supposed to be permanent, not self-destruct after a short time. As long as everything falls apart you'll never get ahead and always remain poor. It's about economics, not some "radical environmental fundamentalist ideology". I'm tired of spending the largest portion of my take-home pay on car loan payments, repairs, maintenance (oil & filter changes), insurance, and fuel; only to have the vehicle start to fall apart just before it's paid off. My last cell phone broke, the microphone stopped working so no one could hear me, but the manufacturer refused to repair it. They said it's discontinued, as if that's an answer. I don't care if they sell new ones, they have to repair what they sold. It turns out they considered it obsolete and discontinued by the time it first reached retail stores. Now that's a problem. (Ps. Don't buy Audiovox.) At several hundred dollars per phone they have to last many years, not thrown away every year or two. It's about money management; anything expensive must be permanent, for your entire life.

As for space hardware, the government deals with billions instead of thousands, but the principle is the same. Once something that expensive is built it must remain working for decades. If it can't then it's a bad investment. Congress will not approve spending unless it can remain working. As for Russian hardware, they just haven't fallen into the propaganda of believing things "go away". America used to build durable goods, Russia just hasn't given up.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-31 19:01:25

engineer

Apparently not a mechanical engineer, cars that could last a century indeed... They would weigh 19,000lbs and take two hours to go from 0-60mph with 32 gallons to the mile too I imagine.

I don't care whether the supplier is in this country

You may not, but people a bit more important do... Congress!. Money going out of government and back into American industry is one thing, money going out to foreign countries and not coming back is another. I wouldn't like it either, and so would many Americans. Nothing propoganda-istic about that.

He appears to be bent on destroying all space exploration because is wonder GCNR engine lost funding.

Haha! Oh my... if not for the little fact that the GCNR engine never had real funding to begin with. No no, I'm just "bent on destruction" because I discredit Robert with his wild space schemes and make believe about Russian engineering or American politics.

I have no illusion about the GCNR engine's near term viability, infact I think we ought to put it on the shelf until much later after we have at least a small Mars base before considering development.

time to take a constructive approach

= Agree with me

GCNRevenger is not constructive... You're continuing to argue simply leads to a definite conclusion: you have abandoned manned space exploration

Oh for crying out loud, dicktice might have a point about me pulling the Russia worship card on him without enough reason, but me being against manned spaceflight? Haha, thats the most ludicrous thing you've said yet on this thread.

What I am against is this litany of wild ideas you keep coming up with Robert, often based on little or nothing, and then trying to push them and get us to sign on to your little scheme. When people like you try to gain credibility, it accomplishes nothing more than to discredit all of us as crackpots, shysters, and senseless dreamers. You are the worst sort of AltSpace'er.

RobertDyck · 2006-07-31 19:10:22

You kind of waited until the last second, didn't you Robert?

No, I've been talking about this for years and send it on the Mars Homestead list a couple weeks ago. I'm surprised you consider this new.

your plan would probably fail while Shuttle will probably suceed.

My plan reduces Shuttle flights to 5 instead of 28, and flies European, American, and Russian launch vehicles at the same time permitting the whole thing to be finished much quicker. At 4 launches per year the Shuttle will take 7 more years to complete ISS. Or do you think restoring Energia to flight will take as long as developing it from scratch?

Ah! The true reason for your posts... Yes! Affordable by sending big boat loads of money overseas to other countries, Congressmen will love to hear that.

Again, so annoying! The International Space Station is just that, international. Are you so incapable of cooperating with your partners that you can't understand simple cost calculations? If 8 launches of ATV/Ariane 5 cost less than 5 launches of MPLM/Shuttle then it's more economical to do that. In this age of multinational companies most of the work is done overseas anyway, so why are you obsessed with nominal American firms?

Look. The purpose for the space race and the Apollo program was to develop international alliances and trade. This obsession of excluding all things space from other countries defeats the point. If that's going to continue to be your goal, then the options are to either ignore you or stop all space exploration all together. The International Space Station is the greatest icon for international cooperation. America has proven it can't operate the Shuttle reliably, and ISS is way behind schedule. It's time to utilize all the partners of ISS to complete the project. Yes, that means everyone except American and Canada contribute to Energia, and Canada could make a contribution to Ptichka, but American would contribute only to the Arianespace hardware to replace Shuttle flights.

RobertDyck · 2006-07-31 19:19:28

time to take a constructive approach
= Agree with me

You're not constructive.

What I am against is this litany of wild ideas you keep coming up with Robert, often based on little or nothing, and then trying to push them and get us to sign on to your little scheme. When people like you try to gain credibility, it accomplishes nothing more than to discredit all of us as crackpots, shysters, and senseless dreamers. You are the worst sort of AltSpace'er.

You keep calling for either abandoning everything and following your single line with nuclear thermal spacecraft, or continuing the current practices without change. Current practices won't get us anywhere; we've seen that. It's been how long since Apollo was cancelled? 2006 - 1972 = 34 years. During that time the only manned space achievements we have to show is a Shuttle that people don't trust, and a space telescope that others want to de-orbit. We went from Mercury astronauts wearing a US Navy pilot pressure suit while sitting on an ICBM to men walking on the Moon in 8 years. What has been achieved in the last 34 years is pitiful at best. JPL has made some significant achievements, but manned space flight is a cash cow for contractors while achieving nothing. It's time to cut costs while at the same time produce results; I don't see any way other than cutting out current contractors entirely.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-31 19:31:48

Remember the whole space race existed to form alliances

Um, what? Nooo, I don't think so. It was to fight a war of idealogy against our (US and Canada) enemy, the Soviets.

why... exclude them from participation in space projects? It doesn't make sense.

Sure it does, because we keep winding up paying for our "partner" Russia to do their part, and international amalgumation of different hardware in a single system has thus far been arguably a disaster.

Nothing like getting it directly from the horse's mouth

Especially when that "horse" would just love a big pile of money to put the "finishing touches" on the Russian orbiter. Nonsense, the Russians are well known for forcing deadlines on vehicles that are by no means ready in order to counter American capabilities. Case in point early Soviet nuclear submarines, which were often launched half-finished, just to beat the USN. They might have gotten the shuttle to the pad, but I very much doubt it would worked, especially after all those years. I don't think NASA could fly a Shuttle after the long storage and degredation the Russian counterpart did at all, much less quickly. Bruan may have been maintained as a paper deterrent to Shuttle, if the Soviet military believed this to be the case or not.

When you buy something expensive it's supposed to be permanent, not self-destruct after a short time.

I suppose the fact that Shuttle is the most complex machine ever made by man, ever, is reason enough to forgive you for your ignorance. Shuttle, and its Russian counterpart, are not simply the vehicle in the hanger but is an entire program, and large complex programs don't keep well for long periods. Certainly not twenty years with a vehicle tested only one time.

I'm tired of spending the largest portion of my take-home pay on car loan payments... (etc etc)

Would you please stop whining about your life and stay on topic? I do believe that was what initiated the "little spat" last time.

anything expensive must be permanent, for your entire life.

Spoken like a true senseless dreamer in desperate need to be kept as far away from space decisions as possible.

but the principle is the same. Once something that expensive is built it must remain working for decades. If it can't then it's a bad investment.

Its really not, if the thing that money is for is incredibly difficult or complicated, and is a wonder it works at all (like space shuttles). The cost of a project and its longevity have nothing to do with eachother, your argument entirely hinges on context. Your "how long something should" last is an absolute without any bearing or sense.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-31 19:48:53

You're not constructive

Says you. Stopping bad plans (and planners) is constructive.

You keep calling for either abandoning everything and following your single line with nuclear thermal spacecraft

Abandoning? No, I don't think I've called for that in a long long time. And unless someone comes up with something better, superhigh temperature nuclear thermal propulsion of some sort seems like the clear choice... when we get around to needing it some day. I especially like to champion nuclear technology to counteract environmentalist anti-science dogma about it.

or continuing the current practices without change. Current practices won't get us anywhere; we've seen that.

Why yes, because I think that the VSE can work and establish humanity both on the Moon and on Mars perminantly, so I support it. "Current practices" probably have the best combination of financial plausability and political support available.

the only manned space achievements we have to show is a Shuttle that people don't trust

And Shuttle's day will soon be over, as soon as is politically practical.

and a space telescope that others want to de-orbit

Well yes, since its not worth fixing nor would be reliably prolonged if we did try.

to men walking on the Moon in 8 years

For double NASA's budget today. NASA is planning on 12-14 years or so, the first third of which Shuttle will still be in operation. And back to the Moon with much bigger payloads, safer vehicles, plus with a possible path to Mars hardware. Sounds like NASA will do pretty well by me.

What has been achieved in the last 34 years is pitiful at best

No argument there.

I don't see any way other than cutting out current contractors entirely.

This is asinine! Even talking like that dooms you to irrelivence in the eyes of anybody that matters, and talking like that in our names tarnishes us too. And you chide me for wanting to get rid of the ISS now but say things like this?

Edit: While we're talking about friends, I have an aquaintence that actually did work for NASA for a time. He believes that four out of five people who work on big NASA projects are contractors. So we should just go and fire 80% of the workforce?

RobertDyck · 2006-07-31 20:13:29

Remember the whole space race existed to form alliances
Um, what? Nooo, I don't think so. It was to fight a war of idealogy against our (US and Canada) enemy, the Soviets.

And what exact facility was destroyed or other damage caused? The only thing the race did was convince countries to ally with America rather than the Soviets. It was about alliances.

why... exclude them from participation in space projects? It doesn't make sense.
Sure it does, because we keep winding up paying for our "partner" Russia to do their part, and international amalgumation of different hardware in a single system has thus far been arguably a disaster.

How long has Russia been waiting for America to launch it's modules? Russia keeps flying American astronauts and supplying them with a Progress. It goes both ways, you aren't in any position to point fingers.

Nothing like getting it directly from the horse's mouth
Especially when that "horse" would just love a big pile of money to put the "finishing touches" on the Russian orbiter.

I suggested Russia pay for Ptichka and fly the SPP that they designed and already built and paid for. The only "help" would be Canada providing a CanadArm.

Nonsense, the Russians are well known for forcing deadlines on vehicles that are by no means ready in order to counter American capabilities. Case in point early Soviet nuclear submarines, which were often launched half-finished, just to beat the USN.

And Apollo 8 was designed as an unmanned flyby of the Moon, Apollo 9 was to be the manned flyby. But Russia just completed an unmanned flyby with a Soyuz launched by N1. America had to do something to gain a space first, Apollo 8 was launched when it wasn't ready. NASA was just lucky nothing catastrophic went wrong. You could argue the Soviets were lucky the N1 didn't blow up, considering it's flight record; but NASA was equally lucky with Apollo 8. Those in glass houses...

They might have gotten the shuttle to the pad, but I very much doubt it would worked, especially after all those years. I don't think NASA could fly a Shuttle after the long storage and degredation the Russian counterpart did at all, much less quickly. Bruan may have been maintained as a paper deterrent to Shuttle, if the Soviet military believed this to be the case or not.

Buran (orbiter 1.01) was designed to be flown unmanned, on autopilot only. It flew once and worked perfectly. I talked to a salesman from Orbital Science who claimed there was hot gas infiltration under the Buran's heat shield tiles, but he couldn't provide any source to confirm that. I checked Molniya's website, they have a lot of technical documents on the Buran orbiter. There was less hot gas infiltration under Buran's tiles than under the American Shuttle's. After that I doubt any criticism of Buran.

I suppose the fact that Shuttle is the most complex machine ever made by man, ever, is reason enough to forgive you for your ignorance.

I've heard that claim too, but don't believe it either. An aircraft carrier with all it's systems is more complex than the Shuttle. For one thing, add all the aircraft on the carrier.

I'm tired of spending the largest portion of my take-home pay on car loan payments... (etc etc)
Would you please stop whining about your life and stay on topic? I do believe that was what initiated the "little spat" last time.

It is on topic. You accused me of being an environmentalist, but it's really about economics. And this demonstrates the principle for space technology.

Spoken like a true senseless dreamer in desperate need to be kept as far away from space decisions as possible.

Perhaps you would like to ask a congressman for multiple billions of dollars and tell him/her that it'll be thrown away with nothing to show for it.

I thought consumer goods made a good example since it's something most people can relate to, but you obviously don't get it. Let me use another example, the mining industry. They can spend billions of dollars on trucks so big a grown man standing beside one only comes up to the wheel axle. The money they spend on trucks could not be justified for just one load of ore; they run several trips per day for many years. They just keep going and going and going. The only way their cost can be justified is if they do keep going. They may require replacement tires, or a wash-down, but when their not in use they're stored in a garage where they don't get dirty and tires aren't worn or eaten by rodents. The mining industry can't afford to let sitting equipment decay, it must remain in top shape at all times and ready to go as soon as crew arrive for the next shift. If a mine is shut down the trucks are stored and guards posted to ensure no one vandalizes them or rodents eat the tires. When a mine is reactivated, the equipment may get an inspection, tire pressure topped up and oil changed, but that's all. They can't afford to replace everything. And yes, mines do shut down and come back. Metal prices fluctuate so it isn't economical to continue to operate the mine, but when prices come back the profit margin is so thin they can't afford to replace everything. When crews arrive they can't afford a long period of fiddling with equipment, they have to start processing ore immediately.

RobertDyck · 2006-07-31 20:24:37

While we're talking about friends, I have an aquaintence that actually did work for NASA for a time. He believes that four out of five people who work on big NASA projects are contractors. So we should just go and fire 80% of the workforce?

I have friends who work for NASA contractors too. One does work for one of the big 2, the others work for other companies. There are plenty of medium size aerospace companies willing to take over from the big 2. The government has tried for decades to control costs, some initiatives by congress, others by NASA; all failed. Cutting out the big 2 would be a dramatic statement to the remaining companies.

But if you don't want to do that, then there's the plan to complete ISS quickly. It doesn't say anything about which contractor does what. Michael Griffin has talked about reducing the number of Shuttle flights to complete ISS; fine this plan reduces it to a number smaller than he came up with. ISS gives us a test bed for long duration life support, while getting past it's construction permits starting on VSE. Or we can argue and drag ISS out indefinately, never even starting VSE.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-31 20:44:07

How long has Russia been waiting for America to launch it's modules? Russia keeps flying American astronauts and supplying them with a Progress. It goes both ways, you aren't in any position to point fingers.

Columbia wasn't intentional, the Russians lying about how much money they needed to build the first ISS modules was. The Russians have also used the Soyuz as a political weapon over Iran, and are also charging us their "partner" for seats. Oh no, don't even think about trying to paint this as equivilent.

I suggested Russia pay for Ptichka

I doubt they can afford it, hence the need for American dollars. Anyway, the present proprieters of Ptichka most likely embelishes its readiness to try and get money for it. Even if the Russians could afford it, they wouldn't pay, since it would be such a risk. Why else did they talk about using a Progress-derived tug with Proton or Zenit? Why not their own "almost ready" space shuttle?

but NASA was equally lucky with Apollo 8

Extremely lucky, and perhaps foolish. In either event NASA had to yeild results, and publicly, while only a half-hearted paper deterrent to Shuttle in the form of Bruan in a hanger was nessesarry. The two situations are not alike.

Edit[b]: To expound on this a little more, even that the Apollo-VIII Saturn-V did work, mothballing the program for 20 years and then suddenly restarting it for a mad dash to finish the ISS would probably not yeild a reliable launch system.

It flew once and worked perfectly.

Says the Russians, and only once is not what I would call a reliable operating reccord.

I checked Molniya's website... There was less hot gas infiltration under Buran's tiles than under the American Shuttle's. After that I doubt any criticism of Buran.

Says them, they have the most to gain by lying. And you trust them implicitly? Russia worship nonsense, particularly since you will doubt [b]any criticism.

I've heard that claim too, but don't believe it either. An aircraft carrier with all it's systems is more complex than the Shuttle. For one thing, add all the aircraft on the carrier.

An aircraft carrier is a big thing, but besides its power plant it is not terribly complicated. It is just a carefully shaped metal box, the development of which was simple by any comparison. It just has to be water tight on the bottom part, no hypersonic shockwave dynamics, no metal-liquifying temperatures, no million-pound thrust rocket engines. The reactors were probably copied from submarines too... Gosh, I don't have to do anything, you debunk your own credibility in things mechanical for me.

It is on topic...

You whining for the better part of a paragraph about your personal cell phone isn't , and you should stop. I am quite sure the average reader is capable of figuring out what "planned obsolesence" means on their own without you filling the board with your annoying personal sob stories.

the mining industry... When a mine is reactivated, the equipment may get an inspection, tire pressure topped up and oil changed, but that's all

Mining equipment is so unlike space programs that you obviously aren't willing or perhaps able to wrap your head around the enormity of the enterprise nor the fantastic amount of engineering required. Its not just the vehicle nor the pad, but the technical experience, the tools, and making up for their disuse before a hyper-complex thing like a space shuttle can be reliably used. Speaking of readers, I do think that you are insulting their intelegence with stuff like this.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-31 20:58:17

Cutting out the big 2 would be a dramatic statement to the remaining companies.
But if you don't want to do that, then there's the plan to complete ISS quickly. It doesn't say anything about which contractor does what. Michael Griffin has talked about reducing the number of Shuttle flights to complete ISS; fine this plan reduces it to a number smaller than he came up with. ISS gives us a test bed for long duration life support, while getting past it's construction permits starting on VSE. Or we can argue and drag ISS out indefinately, never even starting VSE.

Why yes, cutting your own leg off does make a pretty dramatic statement.

Your "plan" to finish the ISS actually does stipulate contractors: whoever owns Energia, Progress, and Pitchka. "Reducing the number of flights" between two different vehicles is twisting M. Griffin's words to suit your aims too.

Again, the ISS makes an awfully expensive life support test bed. Too expensive to possibly justify, even a one piece free-flier module on Ares-I or EELV with a CO2/H2O vapor tank to simulate human breath would be better. Put it in a CEV capsule with extended RCS tankage and be done with it.

Our arguing isn't going to drag the ISS out "forever," Shuttle will fly for four more years and then its done with. Then VSE will pick up steam.

I find it interesting, and perhaps dishonest, that you have suddenly morphed arguing over a crazy plan to spend large amounts of money on Russians to finish the ISS fast versus a year or so slower with Shuttle into the dread "NASA argues before projects, projects always die" bit.

RobertDyck · 2006-07-31 21:29:39

I find it difficult to believe you fail to understand that deeply. It's more plausible to believe you're deliberately misleading those who read this.

The plan I laid out was to utilize capabilities of ISS partners to finish it quickly. NASA would pay ESA for ATV, nothing to Russia. You immediately jump to the conclusion that it's all American or America pays Russia. As I said, there are other countries in the world and other partners of ISS. Europe developed Ariane, and actually they have the majority of the commercial space business. Paying Europe to replace roughly 1 year of Shuttle (16 months if it flies 4 times a year) is not "paying Russia". Since Americans like you are so obsessed with this, I suggested getting Europe, Japan, and Brazil to help Russia pay for Energia. That wouldn't include any help for Ptichka.

You also said "Shuttle will fly for four more years and then its done with". Interesting. If we use Shuttle alone to complete ISS, all those missions currently scheduled for Shuttle, then it would take 7 years without any set-backs. Shuttle's record lately has not been good; I doubt it'll work that long without a set-back of some sort. But even if it does work smoothly, you claim it's just "four more years and then it's done with". Ah hah. So we would be left with an uncompleted space station, but VSE will not start until the space station is complete. If you try to give up and abandon the station, why do you believe congress would provide funds for VSE? Sounds like a dead end to me.

Meanwhile we're arguing again with only 3 days before the conference. Every time I suggested an alternative plan to complete ISS quickly you shoot it down. The result is extreme expense for a path that has no chance for success. VSE won't even begin.

dicktice · 2006-07-31 21:53:45

Gee, it must be Sunday and raining outside, for you two to spend all that time indoors! My take on what's about to happen re. the ISS, is that the Space Shuttle is reliable enough to be trusted by the public at large, since the procedures now in place are capable of monitoring every aspect of each mission. The same goes for a Hubble service mission. The 2010 deadline is a polically-based decision only. Think of the orbiter as a DC-3 or an Electra, for example, obsolete sure, the air(ospace)frames essentially contain all-new bits and pieces each time they're adapted, but they keep on flying because the designs can't be bettered, timewise, costwise, reliabilitywise, for the jobs remaining to be done that require them. The Soyuz Program belongs in this catagory. When we have finally pulled our space-socks up, these old masterpieces of the last century can be relegated to the aerospace museums where they belong, but until then let's go for it with what we've got, guys!

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-01 07:15:32

you're deliberately misleading those who read this

= Standing against your "savior of chicken little" rhetorict about the sky is falling, and only you can save the day.

The plan I laid out was to utilize capabilities of ISS partners to finish it quickly. NASA would pay ESA for ATV, nothing to Russia. You immediately jump to the conclusion that it's all American or America pays Russia.

Why yes, because the Russians are broke. Where else will the billion or more come from for even your optimistic estimate? The Russians do not have this money, they can barely afford Soyuz/Progress, and beliefe otherwise is self-delusion. They will not be coming to your rescue no matter how much you worship them.

Building ATVs and Ariane-V rockets to make up for a Shuttle flight will also cost about one billion dollars, similar in cost to the single Shuttle flight they would be supplanting, and would take some time to build & fly. So instead of a billion going to American contractors, you have a billion going to French/Italian/German/etc contractors to do the same thing in about the same time frame. This accomplishes nothing, plus limits cargo items to the too-small 80cm Soyuz hatch.

The Europeans + Japan would balk at spending such a large fraction of their budget on Energia too, they are even more protective of domestic jobs than we are I think. Its politically untennable, and they don't care that much about the ISS either I imagine. NASA even considerd a buyout of their ISS interests if memory serves.

so obsessed with this

Sending a billion dollars or more overseas to foreigners without a good reason is something anybody ought to hesitate about. Why should we pay Europe? It won't be much cheaper nor faster than Shuttle.

Shuttle alone to complete ISS, all those missions currently scheduled for Shuttle, then it would take 7 years without any set-backs

By "finished" I mean the minimum number of flights to make Europe and Japan happy, not the original 1990's glossy poster version. Three and a half years of flights with four and a half flights anually gives us about 16 flights. Skipping the senseless PR stunt and astronomer/New York Times NASA-bashers appeasment of Hubble repair, and that would do the job by 2010. Three and a half, not seven.

but VSE will not start until the space station is complete

No dear, VSE will start when Shuttle is gone, whether the ISS is "completly finished" or not. You obviously haven't been paying attention to how little support the ISS has with NASA these days.

If you try to give up and abandon the station, why do you believe congress would provide funds for VSE?

They don't care that much now and NASA is only looking at ~16 fights, why will they suddenly care later?

Sounds like a dead end to me.

Only in your "ISS is all important" dogmatic view.

Meanwhile we're arguing again with only 3 days before the conference

Why yes, you waited until the very last second. This either makes you too foolish to sign on with or dishonest in trying to garner support without little annoyances like discussion. American's support with Congress no less, since you don't have any being a foreigner.

The result is extreme expense for a path that has no chance for success. VSE won't even begin.

Expensive? If we've been able to afford it to date, then why can't we now? And the only currency changing hands here isn't the green kind, using foreign rockets is a huge political cost reguardless how much money it saves. By comparison, Shuttle is a dirt cheap politically speaking.

Anyway, to close I refer this to the above about your apocalyptic vision of spaceflight, and how we will all be saved and taken up in the air in a nirvana of Russian/European-rocket spaceflight, saved from the evil designs of LockMart, if we just follow you.

Edit: Oh, and I think NASA can complete 16 Shuttle flights to the ISS without undue risk, its "track reccord" should be good enough if the foam problem has been beaten, as it seems it has been. Energia on the other hand, has no track reccord in recent times at all.

RobertDyck · 2006-08-01 07:47:37

you're deliberately misleading those who read this
= Standing against your "savior of chicken little" rhetorict about the sky is falling, and only you can save the day.

I don't read you coming up with any solutions to complete ISS quickly.

The plan I laid out was to utilize capabilities of ISS partners to finish it quickly. NASA would pay ESA for ATV, nothing to Russia. You immediately jump to the conclusion that it's all American or America pays Russia.
Why yes, because the Russians are broke.

Read what you just wrote. I said America doesn't pay the Russians anything, and you say America will because Russia is broke. What? Do you have a cognitive disorder?

Building ATVs and Ariane-V rockets to make up for a Shuttle flight will also cost about one billion dollars, similar in cost to the single Shuttle flight they would be supplanting,

It would cost about $1 billion for all 8 ATV flights, but that replaces 5 Shuttle flights. Simple elementary school arithmetic.

Sending a billion dollars or more overseas to foreigners without a good reason is something anybody ought to hesitate about. Why should we pay Europe? It won't be much cheaper nor faster than Shuttle.

Ariane 5 can be launched at the same time as Shuttle. Not exactly the same day, but launched in the same month. Parallel launch schedules cut total construction time by the Shuttle flights they replace; if Shuttle launches 4 times a year and Ariane replaces 5 Shuttles, then it reduces total construction time by 16 months. The Ariane 5 launch vehicle is already operational, has flown several payloads, and development of ATV is well underway. Your "why should we pay Europe" shows ignorance of economics, and lack of understanding what an International Space Station is for.

but VSE will not start until the space station is complete
No dear, VSE will start when Shuttle is gone, whether the ISS is "completly finished" or not. You obviously haven't been paying attention to how little support the ISS has with NASA these days.

Interesting; guys don't use the word "dear" when addressing other guys. I always assumed you were a guy, but you didn't fill in the gender check-box on your profile. Are you female? Doesn't make a difference, but would let me get the pronouns correct.

If you try to give up and abandon the station, why do you believe congress would provide funds for VSE?
They don't care that much now and NASA is only looking at ~16 fights, why will they suddenly care later?

They care now. Did you forget they cancelled the US habitation module after NASA announced they'll replace it with TransHAB, but made that announcement after the metal hull of US Hab was complete? They're quite sensitive about how money is spent.

Sounds like a dead end to me.
Only in your "ISS is all important" dogmatic view.

Completing a large, multi-year project and ensuring the success after spending close to a $100 billion is very important. Those who approve budgets do notice these things.

Meanwhile we're arguing again with only 3 days before the conference
Why yes, you waited until the very last second. This either makes you too foolish to sign on with or dishonest in trying to garner support without little annoyances like discussion. American's support with Congress no less, since you don't have any being a foreigner.

I talked about this on New Mars over a year ago, and brought it up again on the Mars Homestead general discussion list. I'm surprised so many people here are not subscribed there. It's generally the same community. It's only new to you. As for "foreigner", you really want to alienate all allies don't you? The Moon race only succeeded because NASA hired the Canadian Avro engineers. NASA wouldn't have completed in time without them. Even that was an international effort. Space is too vast and expensive an endeavour for one nation to go it alone, even the richest nation in the world. Oh wait, the US now has an $8.4 trillion debt, the per-capita federal debt is now double Canada's. As people on this board have noted, President Regan baited the Soviets into an arms race that collapsed their economy, but now America has fallen into its own trap. So the richest nation in the world isn't that rich any more, and is destined for financial collapse unless something drastic is done soon. And you want to cut off all international financial partnership for space endeavours. Right, that really makes sense.

RobertDyck · 2006-08-01 08:59:31

Perhaps I need to put it in terms for self-centered Americans. Most of my American friends are not self-centered, but it appears GCNRevenger is.

It's been over a year since I calculated the price for Ariane. It would take some time to calculate again, but if I recall correctly the price for 8 missions of ATV launched by Ariane 5 was $1.8 billion. The Shuttle costs $755 million per launch, so 5 missions would cost $3.775 billion. The price to the American taxpayer is lower this way. Shuttle's per-launch cost was based on 6 launches per year, it's higher at 4 per year so the cost saving is greater. That counts on ESA continuing to pay for ATV development and the test flight of ATV. If Europe/Brazil/Japan/Russia pay for Energia, and Kazakhstan is told not to charge anything extra for Energia facilities at Baikonur, then that's 16 Shuttle flights that America doesn't pay for at all. Shifting the cost of launch from America to ISS partners will require something in return. I would ask America to confirm its commitment to fully complete ISS, including Node 3 and restore the metal hull US habitat module. How much of a cost saving is this for America?

GCNRevenger · 2006-08-01 09:11:32

I don't read you coming up with any solutions to complete ISS quickly.

Oh well thats simple, because there isn't a solution.

I said America doesn't pay the Russians anything, and you say America will because Russia is broke

No, you only wish Americans wouldn't have to pay. I said that because Russia is broke, America would have to pay them to carry out your plan. Otherwise the plan wouldn't happen.

cost about $1 billion for all 8 ATV flights, but that replaces 5 Shuttle flights

No, Ariane-V costs about $200M a flight now a days, and about $100M each for ATV, so that would cost about $2.4Bn. Eight ATVs would only carry 64 racks, while five Shuttle MPLMs would carry 80. You would need ten ATVs, which now runs about $3.0Bn, which is not a vast time nor money savings over Shuttle and its $800M-$1.0Bn flight cost, especially considering you get crew rotation plus Shuttle's excess water too.

lack of understanding what an International Space Station is for

= Give other countries lots of money instead of spending it here at home where it will bennefit our economy instead of theirs.

guys don't use the word "dear" when addressing other guys

Sure they do, when they are intending to be condecending. I am male for the reccord by the way, I never botherd to update after the board switched software.

They care now

Says you. Where is your proof? NASA has announced publicly cutting the number of flights versus the "ideal," but there has been no call for Griffin's head on a platter.

Completing a large, multi-year project and ensuring the success after spending close to a $100 billion is very important.

Not when you are going to spend even more money on a project with no chance of living up to its advertised potential. Even if the ISS were totally completed to the glossy-poster configuration, it would still be a titantic failure and waste. Cutting the number of flights, modules, and so on is a sound mitigation of this disaster. Which is worse, stubbornly spending twenty billion or more you aren't required to for no bennefit or spending as little as you have to in order to avoid international hissy-fits. You are right, people do notice these things.

I talked about this on New Mars over a year ago

And then you bring this up out of the blue not three days prior and call for unconditional support for a very specific but not practical plan.

you really want to alienate all allies don't you

If these allies are like you, I do think that I will live.

The Moon race only succeeded because NASA hired the Canadian Avro engineers

Says you. Canuk propoganda. I have faith that my country in its greatness could have done without.

Space is too vast and expensive an endeavour for one nation to go it alone

We don't have to do it all, only get it started. And that we can do.

Oh wait, the US now has an $8.4 trillion debt... (etc etc)

Nonsense, people have an emotional attachment to big numbers just because they are big, reguardless of context. $8.4T is a vast sum, but not so vast in comparison to our economic strength. It is an affordable debt, we are not "destined for collapse" as the doom says preach.

And you want to cut off all international financial partnership for space endeavours

Yep, because they've been almost nothing but trouble for the last two decades. If other countries want to barter non-critical systems for rides/data/etc then fine, but hardware nessesarry to getting to the Moon and Mars ought to be domestic.

RobertDyck · 2006-08-01 09:25:56

Eight ATVs would only carry 64 racks, while five Shuttle MPLMs would carry 80.

Each ATV has exactly half the number of standard ISS racks as MPLM, however if you look at mass lift capability it's more than half. If you stuff equipment in the isle you can reduce the number of flights from 10 to 8. And that does include full water and propellant tanks as well.

RobertDyck · 2006-08-01 09:29:37

The Moon race only succeeded because NASA hired the Canadian Avro engineers
Says you. Canuk propoganda. I have faith that my country in its greatness could have done without.

Could have completed a trip to the Moon: Yes
Before the Russians: No

SpaceNut · 2006-08-02 21:24:29

RobertDyck you are correct that the current direction of fiscal funding by Nasa and of its partners do leave the ISS in a short/ uncomplete and approaching its own death before it can be of any use for the big plans of science that it was trumpeted to be.

As for doing it by the numbers to the lowest company or country that can get the job done may be the only solution regardless as to who the funds get paid to.

Also lets not forget India's space capabilities are going in our same direction at this time.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2006-07-31 07:51:18

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#227 2006-07-31 07:52:29

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#228 2006-07-31 08:11:59

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#229 2006-07-31 08:26:13

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#230 2006-07-31 18:01:37

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#231 2006-07-31 18:31:12

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#232 2006-07-31 18:50:05

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#233 2006-07-31 19:01:25

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#234 2006-07-31 19:10:22

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#235 2006-07-31 19:19:28

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#236 2006-07-31 19:31:48

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#237 2006-07-31 19:48:53

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#238 2006-07-31 20:13:29

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#239 2006-07-31 20:24:37

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#240 2006-07-31 20:44:07

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#241 2006-07-31 20:58:17

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#242 2006-07-31 21:29:39

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#243 2006-07-31 21:53:45

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#244 2006-08-01 07:15:32

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#245 2006-08-01 07:47:37

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#246 2006-08-01 08:59:31

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#247 2006-08-01 09:11:32

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#248 2006-08-01 09:25:56

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#249 2006-08-01 09:29:37

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#250 2006-08-02 21:24:29

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer