Extend The Shuttle?

Thank you, John Glenn, for injecting some rationality into this discussion. Every time I see the Saturn V at KSC, I think I would rather see it fly (I know IT can't but we had enough stages for at least two more flights). Let's use the shuttle for what it was intended: to shuttle crew and payload to the space station and BACK. This is a benefit no other spacecraft has - bringing big things back. Have two missions a year, six months apart, use two orbiters with the third for spares, and you could fly long into Constellation and until commercial space catches up and builds their own return vehicle.

"I just think that's the wrong way to go for the world's greatest spacefaring nation."
Finally, someone from Government,though retired, that can think, make sense, and has the backbone to speak up.
That's why John Glenn has "the Right Stuff".

How soon we forget.
From the Columbia Accident Investigation Report, pp. 210-211:

"Because of the risks inherent in the original design of the Space Shuttle, because that design was based in many aspects on now-obsolete technologies, and because the Shuttle is now an aging system but still developmental in character, it is in the nation's interest to replace the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting humans to and from Earth orbit...This conclusion implies that whatever design NASA chooses should become the primary means for taking people to and from the International Space Station, not just a complement to the Space Shuttle".

Glenn's comments about extending the Shuttle under the circumstances is so obvious it should have been a no-brainer but the the top people in charge at NASA and in the White House proves that some things are beyond the capacity of those having no brains - regardless of thew number or kind of degrees, etc

"Have two missions a year, six months apart, use two orbiters with the third for spares, and you could fly long into Constellation..."

NASA has enough money for one or the other; it cannot afford to ramp-up Constellation while operating Shuttle.

Yes, John...i think that's the point. Government should ADD more money to allow the Shuttle to continue flying until Orion is on-line. As it stands now, the budget won't support both.

And, sure there is risk with the Shuttle. But they are risks we understand, as much as possible. With Orion, it'll be a brand new vehicle that will have many unknown risks. This is risky business no matter what shape your vehicle looks like.

Now, is a 5-year gap that bad? Not really. We had a gap between Skylab and Shuttle, after Challenger, and after Columbia. But it's the reliance on other countries that seems to be the issue. I think we should really think about how problematic that gap really is.

But, if Obama wins and does postpone Constellation for 5 years, THEN we've truly got a problem. Because that 5-year postponement will cause a lot of talented folks to leave NASA, and when the 5 years is up, NASA can't just start up like it didn't miss a step. New people will need to be brought on board and up to speed, and facilities brought back online, which will cause a much larger delay.

That's the gap we should focus on...stopping work, and starting back up years later.

1) What is the REQUIREMENT for bringing back large
things from the Space Station? Who VETTED that
requirement? I can guarantee you there is no
economically rational commercial market for bringing
back 40,000 pounds at a time.

2) Given the current lack of funds, and the oncoming
train wreck of medicare spending, what is the
likelihood of any President/Congress providing
enough additional funds to NASA to accomplish
"higher priority" (to Congress) missions like
Earth science AND fly the SHuyttle and do anything
more on Constellation than Ares 1 and Orion (slowly)?

3) Unless you can show me a credible path to success
on #2, the NASA human spaceflight/space operations
community has to choose: Ares 1 or SHuttle. If
continuing shuttle flights past the current manifest
is the most important thing, then not only will
savings from retirement be pushed off, but the costs
of doing ARes 1 will increase, since there is some
commonality in infrastructure and personnel there.

4) Sometimes, in my more cynical moments, I almost wish
the Shuttle huggers success, because that will upset
the ESAS applecart, and the trade space opens up
again (including EELV and COTS-D).

5) But, because I want NASA to explore the Moon,
asteroids, and Mars, I want it to be able to pursue
*some* transportation architecture that gets them out
of LEO, and Ares 5 is the current plan. Maybe Shuttle
C or DIRECT or something else will replace it. But it
will probably be Shuttle derived, and it will definitely
not be affordable if Shuttle is flying, or an ETO
launcher is still in mid-development. Which means
exploration gets pushed to the right, all because of
a myopic fixation on the near-term ETO gap.

6) Me, I care about rebuilding the Apollo capability
more than Gemini.

I agree with John Glenn and had sent a letter on June 6 to the 30 or so Senate and Congressional members on the committees overseeing space and science, as well as my own NY representatives and John McCain and Barack Obama.

I have only gotten a template letter response from Hilary Clinton (which did mention my interests in NASA) and a very generic letter from John McCain.

None of the other representatives have responded to my letter.

I stated NASA should be given all the funds necessary to keep the shuttle flying at least twice a year until Ares/Orion is ready to safely fly astronauts. I also favor the "Jupiter" rocket approach that many NASA engineers and others have been working on, over the single SRB Ares I rocket.

Did you all know, (I read this in Aviation Week & Space Technology) that the Pentagon is or has spent $11 Billion on a new super sophisticated Presidential helicopter! Isn't it used primarily to fly the President from the White House to Dulles Airport where Air Force One (747) is based? That's a lot of money to invest in such an infrequently used aircraft.

That money and money used on other wasteful Pentagon projects could
be used to give NASA the funding it needs to fly the shuttle and develop the next generation spacecraft in less than 5 years.

Our relations with Russia have declined in recent years and future relations may decline further due to ever changing global events. Also, the fact that Soyuz capsules have had serious, almost disastrous landings recently should make us realize that we and our partner nations may wind up having no human access to space and thus will have wasted over $100 Billion dollars building a space station which could become uninhabited for a lengthy period of time.

Retiring the shuttle, as we did with Apollo, leaving a long gap in US human spaceflight is not the way to go. What will happen when we need to replace Ares/Orion in the future? Have another extended gap?

Bad idea. Sounds good on the surface. It can only happen if Congress allocates more money for NASA. Not likely. More importantly, if Congress was to allocate more money, it should go to expanding COTS. The gap is overblown. Let's concentrate on the long term here.

We should extend the Shuttle two years. We should scrap Ares I and replace it with a human-rated Atlas V and accelerate Orion. We could then have a replacement for Shuttle by 2012. The extra 4 Shuttle flights (2 per year) would allow us to stage tons of spares on ISS for post-Shuttle maintenance when we no longer have the upmass capability. We could then start development of Ares V sooner as well. This could all be done for the extra $3 billion per year that Glenn proposes. As Glenn points out, given the $3300 billion PER YEAR our government will spend in the coming years we can easily afford 0.1% of that to increase NASA's budget. The military spends more than that on toilet paper every year.

Why it takes so long to develop Ares-1/Orion with many elements of existing technology ?!
Why it will take so much money - much more than Saturn/Apollo ?
They should set the goal to have first human flight of Ares-1/Orion not later than 2012.

Well, the Air Force seems to have finally gotten tired of relying on NASA as well, and have gone off and created a mini-shuttle that will launch in December. Ironically, this is how the first version of the shuttle was to be launched, on top, not hanging off the side.

Its been a hush hush program, and nobody is saying this little vehicle cant house people. Kind of makes you wonder, I bet it could make it to the space station too....

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av020/080730delay.html

Joe

I agree with John Glenn. I can't believe that we will cut our access to the $100 billion ISS as soon as it is built for at least 5 years. The ISS will miss the shuttle not only for it's great up and down payload capbility. But also for the 7 well trained and highly motivated crew members who flew on each mission. The shuttle should fly until we have something to replace it. Yes, that means we need to spend more money initially to design and develop the new system. If a delivery company decided they needed upgrade thier fleet, they would drive thier old trucks until the new trucks were ready. They would not park the old trucks in a bone yard and pay a taxi company to make thier deliveries for them. If you think the access to space is expensive now, wait until the shuttle is gone and the Soyuz is the only ride available. I would rather pay to keep the shuttle flying and our own workforce employed than to pay inflated prices for a single seat on the Soyuz.

"1. Well, the Air Force seems to have finally gotten tired of relying on NASA as well, and have gone off and created a mini-shuttle that will launch in December.

2. Its been a hush hush program, and

3. nobody is saying this little vehicle cant house people. Kind of makes you wonder,

4.I bet it could make it to the space station too..."

1. The USAF doesn't use the shuttle and hasn't relied on NASA for more than 15 years. The USAF uses ELV's

2. It is not a "hush hush" program, just no NASA PR like most USAF launches

3. Nope. too small. This isn't a manned spacecraft.

4. Nope. It can't rendezvous

If the Constellation program does not work out, it could mean the end of NASA. In my view, the Constellation program is a test of the agencies credibility.

Once ISS is complete, there is no reason to risk lives on the shuttle. The only reason the shuttle is even operating is to build the ISS -- its the only vehicle that can haul the cargo and the US has to keep its promises to international partners. Look at all the tooth pulling that had to happen just to get a Hubble mission.

How soon we forget the Columbia Accident Investigation Report. Its time to use a safe capsule.

I don't see any reason to rehash a debate that already took place.

Although John Glenn's heart is in the right place, two facts get squarely in the way:

(1)The CAIB also recommended recertification of the orbiter fleet if operations were to continue beyond 2010. This has been "modified" to allow for the AMS flight.

(2)Cubic dollars. Doesn't STS ops consume more than 50% of NASA's budget?

If the money to comply with the CAIB and keep STS alive could be found, others have covered the practical reasons for keeping it going.

But it's never going to happen, because the money isn't there now, and if Obama wins, the only thing left operating will be the visitors' centers!

The fleet would need to be re-certified and the USA contract (KSC support particularly) would need to be extended with another lengthy negotiation to keep the system flying operationally. At the same time, the Ares and Orion contracts that have already been signed would have to be honored. Congress would have to fund both and they won't.

Perhaps we should address the gap be providing more incentives for private sector ISS crew and cargo resupply (at a fraction of NASA's pound to orbit cost) and slow Ares and Orion to provide some funds to actually operate ISS for US as well as International science.

The core problem is that neither the White House, OMB, nor the Congress have observed one of the VSE's most basic principles -- pay as you go. As much as NASA's many stakeholders want us to do more with less, bitter experience should have taught the entire community that cheaper is rarely better or, in the long run, faster.

Lets slow down the Ares/Orion effort and reduce the requirements baseline to just those stemming from lunar mission mission profiles and use the resulting funds to give the private sector richer incentives to resupply ISS and make an honest effort to reap Station's fast receding promise.

In response to the people mentioning the CAIB report, I would say:

The Shuttle has been the safest vehicle flown (over time; 27 years).

The two tragedies would not have occurred if NASA management had stopped flying the shuttle to fix the very well documented problems; o-rings and tile dings.

Before Apollo even flew on Apollo 1, there was a tragedy, which in hindsight could have been prevented (nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere). However, it was faulty wiring in the capsule that ignited the spark. On Apollo 13 the oxygen tank explosion was caused by a faulty weld and the crew was extremely lucky to have survived. They survived because in the 1970's NASA management and engineers were far more concerned with safety (over schedule), never took anything “out of nominal” for granted and NASA had not yet become the bureaucracy it is today.

If Mercury, Gemini and Apollo capsules had flown 123 missions, I am sure we would have had tragedies as well, even with the escape systems, which were limited to certain times during the flight (launch only).

Re: Me

1. You're right, USAF does not use NASA anymore. I should have been more clear. This program was originally NASA, then disappeared in DARPA for a few years, then 're-appeared' officially as a USAF program. My original wording was misleading.

2. I suppose I would call it hush-hush due to during the upgrade and mods to the system after the NASA time frame, due to the program being under DARPA, and due to there not being any direct budget for this system. If you look back, there is no line item in any budget for this system. This is why I say it 're-appeared'. No reason to bicker though, just an opinion :).

3. I would caution saying its too small in the forward compartment bay for personnel. It may not be cozy like the shuttle, but large enough for personnel. Keep in mind the relative size of the core vehicle with the remaining systems inside, there's room for personnel. It may in fact be unmanned, but its not due to size limitations. The X-40A had provisions for a pilot, and this craft is a scaled up version of the X-40.

4. I cant argue it, but I cant say it cant make it their either. The fuel system and engine, being a 7,000 engine is the same size as one of the OMS on the space shuttle. Could is physically dock with the IMS, not likely in this configuration, but it could deliver smaller payloads, or take items back if needed. But with that engine, its overall weight, and dependent on the launcher, it could possibly make it. I need to do some more digging to be sure.

Take care
Joe

"1. Well, the Air Force seems to have finally gotten tired of relying on NASA as well, and have gone off and created a mini-shuttle that will launch in December.

2. Its been a hush hush program, and

3. nobody is saying this little vehicle cant house people. Kind of makes you wonder,

4.I bet it could make it to the space station too..."

1. The USAF doesn't use the shuttle and hasn't relied on NASA for more than 15 years. The USAF uses ELV's

2. It is not a "hush hush" program, just no NASA PR like most USAF launches

3. Nope. too small. This isn't a manned spacecraft.

4. Nope. It can't rendezvous

Joe,
"I would caution saying its too small in the forward compartment bay for personnel. It may not be cozy like the shuttle, but large enough for personnel. Keep in mind the relative size of the core vehicle with the remaining systems inside, there's room for personnel"

There is no room for crew, the forward compartment is filled with the avionics to fly the vehicle. There is no room for a life support system much less a person.

The budget was never hidden. You were looking in the wrong places. It has been known for years that the USAF was going to fly it.

Station complete?
I don´t think so. The ISS was axed(CAM,US Hab module and X-38 CRV), not including the Russian modules (SPP,labs). Every time NASA thought a substitute for the STS, the plans were not considered seriously(X-30 or similar) or being cancelled in the beginning or halfway(OSP,X-33). NASA engineers recently admitted oscilation problems in Ares I, and continue to shrink the oversized Orion(6 crew), why NASA think that the ISS international partners will ride in an all American spaceship conceived for an all American project? Russians and Europeans are designing their ship indenpently, same the private companies do.
Lockheed and Boeing planned to evolve the Atlas and Delta families,with capacity similar to the Ares family.
Bigelow planned to man-rate the Atlas V 401 (6-9 tons to LEO) to serve its stations, as Lockheed thought first.
from the Americans

Pretty nice site, wants to see much more on it! :)