Shuttle Retirement Date Starts To Move To The Right

What are the ramifications of loss of crew and vehicle during these missions?
Missions that will require manufacturing of a purpose to fly? What critical missions remain for shuttles unique ablilities after station assembly is completed?

Is it worth dying for is what I am asking?

When a safer vehicle is only a few years away?

I am all for risk, when the reward is there.

What is the reward for risking human lives and NASAs reputation of continued shuttle flights? Other then continued shuttle flights?

>When a safer vehicle is only a few years away?

Really - exactly how many years is that? When something new is *supposed* to fly is generally a whole different story than when it *will* fly.

"What is the reward for risking human lives and NASAs reputation of continued shuttle flights? Other then continued shuttle flights?"

The retirement date will only extend to 2011 if NASA can't complete the remaining 8 missions (this excludes the HST flight in May) to the International Space Station.

Other than that, the space shuttle program ISN'T being extended...it's only being allowed more time to process and complete its final, already-scheduled flights.

The reward is having the space shuttle program, and this era of human spaceflight, end on a successful note...and show that NASA can fully bounce back after a tragedy like Columbia.

What are the ramifications of losing people on ANY space mission? The Shuttle is the only vehicle that can bring heavy loads up to the Station, and so it must bring any Control Moment Gyroscopes, etc up. If we are gonna fly Node 3 or the Cupola or the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer - we have to risk people.
And the Orion/Constellation will be a new vehicle with all of the unknowns of a new vehicle - we will find out a lot about it. Most of that will be learned the hard way.
In summary, the Orion/Constellation will be (for several years) less safe than the Shuttle.
If we lose a vehicle and crew on one of the early Orion missions, how much of a delay will that cause? A big delay I would bet.

>Missions that will require manufacturing of a purpose to fly? What critical missions remain for shuttles unique ablilities after station assembly is completed?

This provision just gives NASA another year to complete the 9 missions that the original White House budget already funded for 2010. If I'm not mistaken 5 shuttle missions is the most NASA has ever done in one year. There are 4 more shuttle mission scheduled for this year and 6 schedule for 2010. I think it is a good a ideal to have any extra year to finish those mission because you know sometime they get off schedule.

As I understood it the 2010 date is because the shuttle needs to be recertified after that - is that correct? If so, what is the nature of that process and how much is it likely to cost (directly and indirectly via changes to systems/process)?

Furthermore Wayne Hale said on his blog that suppliers of necessary components have shut down, so could extra ETs and so on even be manufactured?

Missions that will require manufacturing of a purpose to fly? What critical missions remain for shuttles unique ablilities after station assembly is completed?

This provision just gives NASA another year to complete the 9 missions that the original White House budget already funded for 2010. If I'm not mistaken 5 shuttle missions is the most NASA has ever done in one year. There are 4 more shuttle mission scheduled for this year and 6 schedule for 2010. I think it is a good a ideal to have any extra year to finish those mission because you know sometime they get off schedule..

Ypu have yet to prove that the obsolete spam can will be any safer. It will have none of the Shuttles capabilities with only 1/5 the passenger volume and none of it cargo capacity. The Shuttle is not dangerous. NASA managemment is. Both Shuttle fatlaities were the result of criminal negligence on the part of NASA, not the design of the vehicle.

I say we take one shuttle out of service and use it as a prototype for the next generation. Test new guidence, propulsion, and thermal protection.
You spam canners can hardly wait for a return to the 60's

The title of this post is misleading and ambiguous. The langauge in the Senate bill is clear. No new shuttle missions are being created or planned. The bill asserts only the necessity of extending the retirement date of the space shuttle to complete the remaining nine missions 'if necessary'. Given the history of delayed shuttle launches the amendment included in the Chairman's Mark makes sense and even provides funding for that extension should it become necessary. Of critical importance is retaining the technical expertise needed for manned space flight. Senator Nelson represents the interests of the citizens of the state of Florida and has every right to want to preserve and extend jobs for his constituents. Every elected Representative and Senator acts in this manner. Nelson is no exception.

>What are the ramifications of loss of crew and vehicle during these missions?

The same as if we were launching the Ares 1 with the Orion spacecraft. What are the ramifications if we don't launch? Would the American public start to wonder why we spend money on a space program but don't launch anything?

>Missions that will require manufacturing of a purpose to fly?

Who is manufacturing purposes to fly missions? Hubble needs to be repaired and the rest of the missions are service missions to complete the station. These missions have been planned for years. There are a couple missions on the end that are resupply missions, but were only being held as contingency if there was time and money available to fly them.

>What critical missions remain for shuttles unique ablilities after station assembly is completed?

This plan to extend the program does not add any new misions. It simply gives NASA more time to perform the missions that are already planned on a schedule that will actually help mitigate risks associated with schedule pressure.

>Is it worth dying for is what I am asking?

This is the fundamental question for any type of manned spaceflight. However, if we don't strive to face these risks and overcome them by understanding/mitigating them to the best of our ability we will cease to become a world leader in technology and exploration.

>What is the reward for risking human lives and NASAs reputation of continued shuttle flights?

How about keeping the worlds greatest manned space launch engineering, logistics, and operations knowledge base and infrastructure intact. FYI, most of this knowledge is kept in the hearts and minds of contractors. What happens when this is dissolved when the shuttle program ends and everyone goes on their way and then 5-10 years down the road we need to start launching vehicles again. Then you will be arguing why didn't NASA keep these people and now we have to pay through the nose to get them to come back and provide the knowledge necessary to get the vehicles off the ground.

Jack,

these are not "additional" Shuttle flights. These are simply currently-manifested flights that could be flown in FY2011 if they could not be flown in FY2010.

The Shuttle has fixed costs of $3+ billion per year. As of now the FY2011 budget does not have funds for these fixed costs. Senator Nelson is trying to provide those funds, so that if the remaining flights need to continue into FY2011, they can, instead of being rushed during FY2010, or not flown at all.

- Jim

Ok, finish the final mission of the shuttle as already planned by postponing retirement. I'm on with that no problem. But no more without a very compelling reason.

If President Obama thinks GM and Chrysler are moving too slow with respect to their restructuring, then NASA and their contractors are downright dead in the water with respect to getting the shuttle replacement designed and built. Time to start turning over the old, mossy stones at these institutions, Mr. President...

As Graham mentions, there's the 2010 CAIB recertification recommendation to consider:

"develop and conduct a vehicle recertification prior to operating the shuttle beyond 2010 and include recertification requirements in the Shuttle Life Extension Program..."

source: www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10254

It's one thing to fix and fly the Shuttle after the Challenger accident. It's one thing to fix and fly the Shuttle after the Columbia accident with the rationale that the U.S. needs to honor its international agreements with respect to the ISS, even with the problems and risks revealed by the accident investigation. It's something completely different to keep flying the Shuttle after the recommended recertification date without recertifying it (them).

So ... does the $2.5B include recertification funds? Do we start recertification now, so it's ready in case needed in 2011? What happens if there's a fatal Shuttle accident and no recertification was done? Is Obama willing to take personal blame for a 3rd accident, after all that was learned from the first 2, after the CAIB recertification recommendation, and when it could be argued that the flights were done just for Florida votes?

This isn't a clear-cut decision. There is something to be said for Sen. Nelson's point about schedule pressure. However, there is always the option of dropping the last couple ISS resupply missions if the schedule is delayed somewhat. A major delay could alter the equation, though.

It seems like there are better uses for $2.5B. A portion of that could be used to start what should have been started around 2005 or so: encouraging commercial crew transport for the ISS. This would likely be based in Florida, providing a more long-term solution to at least part of the Florida jobs problem than continuing the Shuttle a few more months (especially if more business is found for the resulting service(s) involving ISS tourists, Bigelow module transport, Dragonlab flights or their equivalent from other vendors, etc).

After that there would probably still be considerable funds left over from the $2.5B to do lots of productive and cost-effective work using commercial suborbital services, funding new Centennial Challenges, building focused science smallsats and science instruments, doing more space station science and engineering work, etc.

"If I'm not mistaken 5 shuttle missions is the most NASA has ever done in one year. "

9 in 1985 pre-Challenger.

8 post-Challenger during a 12 month peroid in the early 90's.

We're running out of hardware now. It's gotten so bad that we're writing up and recertifying hardware in house so we can fly it again. Fastener lead time is two years +. If extended, this will be difficult to support!

It is very positive that Congress will give the money to finish out the scheduled STS launch program. A lot of people were bitching that NASA was not fairly treated to pay back the return to flight costs. This makes up for it.

Currently, the Agency (all Centers and contractors involved) are in a 'big moment' to re-learn how to build a new man rated vehicle, for both general service LEO and lunar injection missions. Not too easy.

The STS 'LEO Truck' is 1973 technology, with many electronic improvements. It is time to move on. The thermal design is too fragile and prone to fail again. Too bad the argument about the loss of lift and mission abilities for the new solution is valid.

The bottom line is, NASA is regressing to slave its self to ISS human delivery, and possibly not much more.

Hopefully the next Administrator will be a visionary who will convince the Administration that Constellation is just stop gap, and we need to start developing the truly next generation system in parallel to completing Constellation.

Continuing to fly these tired old buckets is a disaster just waiting to happen again! The whole space program needs to be stopped and reevaluated. The US can nether afford or justify the current program and going to MARS will never happen in this century and why should it when we can’t pay our current bills and more people are losing their jobs every day. There are more then enough things NASA could do here on planet Earth for the betterment of Mankind. We don’t need people in unemployment lines watching NASA fly and to the editor, NO all the space program does is make some contractors a little richer and a few people get to keep their jobs. NASA needs to work on better electric cars n trucks, hydrogen fuel cells, clean coal technology, and better cheaper fuel efficient aircraft! Back to the Moon and on to Mars for what?

to wtf, here's a vision, recertify and upgrade the shuttle to continue as a heavy lift vehicle, it does not even have to be manned if everyone is so worried. Build an interplanetary space ship next to the space station and use that to go to the moon and mars instead of a costly and one-time Jules Verne shot on a vehicle that looks to be delayed at least 18 months and has a ton of problems.

This is only a non-binding funding reccomendation that is never signed into law. It is just a guideline to inform Congress. The real work is with a new NASA authorization and actual cash from an appropriations bill.

Way to go Senator Nelson! Savor your hollow victory.

>...and why should it when we can’t pay our current bills and >more people are losing their jobs every day. There are more >then enough things NASA could do here on planet Earth for >the betterment of Mankind. We don’t need people in >unemployment lines watching NASA fly...

And so your solution is to axe the space program? NASA isn't a jobs program but WTF good will it do anyone if the entire NASA workforce is also standing on the unemployment line with you??

@ Bernie:

"Both Shuttle fatlaities [sic] were the result of criminal negligence on the part of NASA, not the design of the vehicle".

That's BS. Faulty designs of SRM joint & o-rings killed Challenger. Faulty design of ET thermal insulation and a inherently fragile design of Orbiter TPS killed Columbia.

Management didn't catch signs that the faulty designs were hazards, but if the design faults hadn't been there, the accidents wouldn't have happened.

The reason the CAIB recommended replacing the Shuttle was that it isn't apparent that there is ANY solution to the ET insulation/Orbiter TPS design problem given the Shuttle's basic configuration.

Pro space, Anti-Extension

The only thing to do with a shuttle extension, after assembly is logistic modules and crew rotations. But it doesn't do much for crew rotations either since the Soyuz have to be cycled out. And for cargo, COTS, ATV, HTV and Progress should be able to handle much of that.

No more than 2 years and 4 missions after Sept 2010.

Why risk flying the shuttle when you have a nice out in Sept 2010. And why spend the billions to keep it limping along when that could help speed up the future.

It's a feel good thing. That's it, feeling good with no real substance. Must be the idea of a baby boomer.

@Steven A.

>>> feeling good with no real substance.
>>> Must be the idea of a baby boomer

Ah! %^) Many of them in this business and politics still at the helm...

Even though it may be the greatest air/space vehicle ever built, it was not a good idea in the first place. It has kept us in LEO for 30 years! So much time lost instead of exploring. The only (save for DOD applications) real reason for it was to use it to go to a station which is only starting to come online now... Too bad.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/intro.htm

"Faulty designs of SRM joint & o-rings killed Challenger."

Launching in freezing weather had nothing to do with that? Did the shuttle look at the thermometer and decide to launch itself?

The recertification problem is a valid one, in that it will divert a significant amount of funding from other needs. Remember that in FY11 Ares & Orion funding is supposed to massively ramp up just in time to accelerate development - that can't happen if the shuttles need to both be recertified and flown 2-3 times because the manifest from 09 & 10 has slipped those last ISS missions into FY11....

The CBO did a study on this years ago that showed the massive danger to other parts of the NASA budget if either Shuttle retirement was delayed, or if there was not enough political support to boost spending on the next generation vehicle in the FY11-15 timeframe - the CBO estimated that NASA would need to in this cases gut things like Aero and Earth Science.

With all due respect to the Shuttle haters a comparison of the ratio of astronauts lost vs total flown between Soyuz and Shuttle are:

Total Astro/Cosmonauts Flown
Soyuz: 258 over 111 missions
Shuttle: 760 over 125 missions

Lost Astro/Cosmonauts
Soyuz: 4 on 2 missions
Shuttle: 14 on 2 missions

Ratio:
Soyuz: 4/258 or 1.55%
Shuttle: 14/760 or 1.84%

When you add the cargo capacity of the shuttle to any analysis you see how much more of a capable vehicle the shuttle is. The Shuttle to date has had no docking accidents with either the Mir or ISS. The Progress almost killed 2 cosmonauts and one astronaut.

And as I have posted before when you look at the cost of shuttle to deliver the same number of astronauts and same amount of cargo compared to the Soyuz/Progress it is very comparable.

Flying the Shuttle one year beyond it's "certification" is not a huge added risk. It's not like the vehicle design is good one day and bad the next. I have to think any meaningful certification of the Shuttle is based more on the number of flights and not elapsed time. We are not talking about additional flights here, just spreading them out at a reasonable rate to reduce arbitrary schedule pressure. $2.5 billion and 1 year more for Shuttle could not do anything to accelerate CxP. It has been 3 1/2 years since ESAS and we are still not at PDR. No acceptable amount of time and money can save that program. NASA Code M is no longer capable of development. Human space flight is too atrophied from operations and no one knows how to design. I am dealing with these ops folks every day and they are clueless about design and development. Don't get me wrong, they are smart folks. If I wanted to operate a system, they would be the best. But they do NOT know the design process and it is different than operations. Unfortunately, they cannot admit this and therefore cannot be helped because they already know everything. The entire development program is run by ops people and it is failing miserably.

The Shuttle does have some design issues, but let there be no doubt that it was poor management that killed 14 astronauts. Had they stood down and fixed the problems, these accidents wouldn't have happened (in the case of foam shedding, instituting the existing flight rules are sufficient to lower the risk back to more acceptable levels even if there is no clear design fix). Had we not stood down when there were cracks in the SSME flow liners or hydrogen leaks during tanking (c. 1989), we could very well have lost the vehicle and crew for those issues as well.

Extending the Shuttle almost certainly means the DEATH OF COTS, and is likely to set the commercialization of space back for decades. With Shuttle, NASA will no longer need commercial cargo to ISS and certainly won't need commercial human transportation. Retirement of Shuttle is the only way NASA can justify ... or afford ... purchasing commercial resupply services. After 50 years, let's end the government monopoly on LEO transportation and focus NASA on exploration beyond LEO. Change is difficult, but retiring Shuttle on schedule is the right change for NASA and the nation.

I'm alarmed that there is so many cries of 'Doom! Doom!' from both sides of the argument over this. I freely admit that I have been guilty of this myself on occasion.

I suppose that is also clear that some balanced analysis is in order.

Firstly: The shuttle is nearing the end of its workable lifespan. A lack of spare parts and the general age of the technology is making it increasingly costly to operate. That means indefinate extension is simply not possible.

Secondly: Orion is a /fait accompli/ now. We are too far down the development track to change the crew vehicle design without massively increasing the gap, possibly to more than a decade (please note that I do not believe that this applies to the Ares-I CLV).

Thirdly: Shuttle extension does NOT rule out the introduction of COTS-C and the CRS service. If anything, it ensures that there is a smoother transition between shuttle-based resupply and CRS resupply. It also helps reduce the pressure to fly on the CRS contractors somewhat.

Finally: This bill proposes a reasonable postponement of the shuttle's retirement NOT an extension (extra missions). I think that there is a very good argument to ensure that the shuttle completes its last task - assembling and supplying the ISS - before an honourable retirement.

What is my dream scenario?

Money should be available to ensure that the Shuttle finishes all manifested missions (including AMS and any remaining logistical flights). I cannot see this pushing the retirement of the shuttle further 'right' than mid-2012.

In 2012, with a bit of luck, the COTS cargo launch systems should be in working order and ready to replace MPLM as the primary US cargo upmass/downmass carrier to the ISS.

In 2013, all major work on Orion will be complete. Unfortunately, it is increasingly looking like Ares-I won't be ready until 2017/18 at the earliest. This is, IMHO, a pretty cast-iron argument for man-rating Delta-IVH as the CLV (even if it is only termed as an 'interim solution until Ares-I is complete'). If this is done soon enough (for example, beginning this year), it is possible that Orion-based crew rotation and using Orion as an alternative lifeboat to the Soyuz, will be possible from the end of 2013.

At the same time, the CLV development team must have it emphasised to them that there are no blank cheques, bottomless pits of money and infinitely-extendable schedules. If Ares-I cannot make a 2015 entry into service, then it is necessary to replace it with something that can.

@ Winger:

"Faulty designs of SRM joint & o-rings killed Challenger."

"Launching in freezing weather had nothing to do with that? Did the shuttle look at the thermometer and decide to launch itself?"

Temperature was a contributing factor, but the root cause was the bad field joint design. Otherwise why did NASA spend $3B and three years redesigning the SRM joints? Management mistakes were certainly made, but Challenger could have launched in those temps with the current design.

Nobody hates Shuttle.

However your numbers are just that, numbers. Please make sure you add this below about Soyuz to them.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_disaster :
Soyuz accidents have claimed the lives of four, versus fourteen for Shuttle accidents (however, the maximum capacity of the Shuttle is larger than that of the Soyuz, resulting in a higher death toll per incident). No deaths have occurred on Soyuz missions since 1971, and none with the current design of the Soyuz. Including the early Soyuz design, the average deaths per launched crew member on Soyuz are currently under two percent. However, there have also been several serious injuries, and some other incidents in which crews nearly died.

Shuttle design has major flaws whether you like it or not. It is not in any way meant to devalue the vehicle. But would you keep driving your car if you knew it had potentially fatal steering. TPS is a MAJOR issue with Shuttle (as it is with any re-entry vehicle). It looks like the Orion team is probably going with a new version of AVCOAT instead of the tile-like PICA (see http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09306sp.pdf and http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/10/323585/nasas-orion-heat-shield-decision-expected-this-month.html).

When NASA reorganized the shuttles' manifest in 2005 to reflect the minimum flights necessary to complete the station, they wisely moved the delivery of critical spares to the end, leaving the definition of "complete" up to the government. When 2011 rolls around, if all of the major modules are delivered, the station has no missing parts, the American people can consider it complete, their international obligations met. What are the two unpressurized logistics flights? Without them, the station has a shortened expected life span. 'Still gonna be longer than our expected attention span! * * The last two flights are a bonus, not schedule pressure, but an incentive to make every effort to launch, safely, before 2011. If NASA is invited to take its time, is there still an incentive for the fix-it crew to come in on weekends and work into the night? Or will some smart aleck play the hero by dragging his feet, thereby saving hundreds of jobs for yet another year. (Tell me there is nobody at KSC who thinks like this...)

That's BS. Faulty designs of SRM joint & o-rings killed Challenger. Faulty design of ET thermal insulation and a inherently fragile design of Orbiter TPS killed Columbia.

(Quote)

The joints were fine as long as they were operated withing the design parameters. Thiakol warned of the ptential failure under the abnormally cold temperatures and NASA told the engineers to "Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat!"

As originally concieved, the Shuttle was never to fly without an EVA capability and a TPS repair kit. The mismanagers of NASA waived that requirement. Even after seeing the foam strike the wing, NASA mismanagers denied it could cause a problem and continued to do so until the chicken gun proved otherwise. Had it been done correctly, Columbia would have done an EVA and patched the wing with the TPS repair kit it should have been carrying.

Challenger would never have happened if the Thiakol engineers were listened to. Both incidents were criminal negligence oin the part of the mismanagers of NASA.

@Bernie:

Yes, those decisions were man-made.

However, a capsule-like vehicle with a launch-abort system (LAS) will/should mitigate these issues. Of course, if the design is "right", simpler is usually better. Then again, unlike what a lot of people think/thought, even in this business, a LAS is NOT simply a rocket on top of a capsule on top of a launcher (especially when said launcher is a solid booster). It is far more complicated than that. But, if done right, it provides an escape system that Shuttle lacks. So we'll see. As for the TPS, tile-like systems are an engineering nightmare because of the required gap-fillers if nothing else. In addition, protecting the wing leading-edge on ascent requires a fairing of some sort which adds mass to orbit, all unnecessary mass (note that Orion seems to be under a fairing too). The only reason Shuttle has wings was to get down/cross range so that it could land in the US or at specific locations around the world with some limited control. Wings are mostly useless during re-entry. Similar performance might be achieved without the wings but it is another story.

Therefore, a shuttle-like vehicle is probably not on the board for the forseeable future.