US Urged To Keep Space Shuttles Flying Past 2010 219
DarkNemesis618 writes "A US Representative has proposed that NASA keep the shuttle fleet flying past its planned 2010 retirement date. The move would help NASA avoid reliance on Russian rockets during the gap between the Space Shuttle retirement and the start of the Orion program. One proposal would keep the shuttle fleet flying from 2010 to 2013 while another would keep the fleet alive until the Orion program is ready in about 2015. 2011 marks the end of the exemption that has allowed NASA to use Soyuz rockets for trips to the Space Station, and they would need an extension to keep using Russian launch vehicles. NASA's other option lies in the private sector; but thus far, the progress from that quarter does not look sufficient to meet the 2011 deadline."
Race goes on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Race goes on (Score:5, Insightful)
I submit that Napoleon may have had a better grasp of human nature.
Your question could be recast as: "If ODF is there and all, why OOXML?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why can't you learn to play nice - never watched Sesame Street? Or do they promote kicking your neighbour rather than sharing on Sesame Street these days? I'm a bit out of touch.
The world isn't Sesame Street. There are no mass murderering dictators in Sesame Street. It's an artificial evironment where pure altruism works. The real world isn't like that - there's a tiny minority that regards playing nice as a sign of weakness, but unfortunately they control a few soon to be nuclear states.
Mind you, I suppose Sesame Street morality is a pretty good approximation of how you should behave, since you're unlikely to have to deal with Kim Jong Il type psychopaths in day to day life since
Re: (Score:2)
Decision-making happens in a more tactical mode.
I submit that a good approach is to broadcast nice and expect to receive the opposite; you're right, or you're pleasantly surprised.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please. Switzerland's citizens were all armed, and they had extensive fortifications and defenses: their bridges were ready to be blown, and they had artillery pieces hidden all over. They were quit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, what happens? Nothing at all. Why all the paranoia anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing is while yes it is important to think globally in regards to space exploration, it's not in your national security interest, nor national science interest to depend o
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC space.com has a list of launches and their acknowledged payloads.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't say... [youtube.com]
Seriously -- a 2% failure rate after a statistically significant number of launches is actually pretty good by orbital rocketry standards. The real problem with the shuttle is launch costs. Which was largely a design problem, which was largely a budget-cuts-while-mandating-increasing-scope problem. And rather than try and advance the state of the art, and actually put forth the funding for it, our solution is just to go back
Re: (Score:2)
So they care?
Re: (Score:2)
Nationalism and the OOXML/ODF imbroglio are simply aspects of organizational behavior.
This revelation seems to have taken you aback.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the meantime, there are essentially a fixed number of shuttle external tanks left. Why not fly those out, whether it takes until 2010 or 2012, whatever, then move on after that?
Re:Race goes on (Score:5, Informative)
But have a lot better safety record. Only 4 vs 14 crew fatalities, with Soyuz having been flying longer.
The smart thing to do would be to launch capsules on the EELVs (Atlas 5 or Delta 4), but that has severe political problems (basically, a lot of people would be out of work).
There's also the problem of the US having abandoned manned capsules over 30 years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But have a lot better safety record. Only 4 vs 14 crew fatalities, with Soyuz having been flying longer.
That's like saying that the 747 has a worse safety record than the shuttle, because something like 2,000 people have died on it, and it's been flying longer. More have died on the shuttle because it carries more people.
Soyuz has also had two fatal accidents in roughly the same number of flights; there have also been several incidents in the past few years of the reentry guidance failing and the capsule going "ballistic".
Re:Race goes on (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it unlikely Soyuz had the same number of flights as the shuttles. they have flown since about 68, from the original models to the TMA variant currently in use. I am not sure exactly how many flights were done, but I am quite sure that, being in service for about a decade longer than the shuttle makes it quite sure it had flown more missions. Also, the last failure with loss of crew (during re-entry) happened long ago, a couple design iterations back. I think it's safe to assume Soyouz-class vehicles are a very mature design and, quite probably, safer that shuttles.
There is no dishonor in having a less safe space vehicle. The shuttle is an incredible achievement. It's only unfortunate it was too ambitious.
BTW, since they are expendable, one could argument every mission ends in partial failure, with the loss of the vehicle
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's because they don't. The U.S. Space Shuttle has flown more!
At present time, the 98th Soyuz flight is docked to the International Space Station. Atlantis is sitting on the launch pad waiting to fly the 121st Shuttle mission (STS-122). Despite the fact that the first Soyuz flew 13 years before the first Shuttle, NASA has historically been the more active space agency.
"I think it's safe to assume Soyouz-class vehicles are a very ma
Re: (Score:2)
Fencepost error?
Why don't 121st and STS-122 match up?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
NASA has never been able to come up with a consistent mission numbering system. (Remember the STS numbering systems up to Challenger (51L - '5' for 1985, although it actually launched in '86; '1' for launch from Kennedy vs Vandenberg (which would have been '2' except the lauach pad was decertified for Shuttle ops before ever used) and the 'L' as
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There were a couple of STS missions planned and designated but not flown. To avoid confusion (hah) they didn't change the mission numbers when one was cancelled.
They did that not just because of canceled missions, but also re-sequenced ones. The reasoning was that keeping the same mission designations (STS-XX), but flying them out of order, was less confusing than having to go through and change press kits, mission plans, payload specifications, and everything else each time there was a schedule change. Remember, shuttle launch manifests are drawn up well in advance, and crews train for at least a year or two for a specific mission.
STS vs. Soyuz - # of manned flights is similar (Score:2)
I find it unlikely Soyuz had the same number of flights as the shuttles...I am quite sure that, being in service for about a decade longer than the shuttle makes it quite sure it had flown more missions
I can't find an exact list, but Soyuz and Space Shuttle flights do appear to be close in the number of missions. Wiki: List of human spaceflight programs [wikipedia.org]
---------------
Soyuz: (approx.)
40 - Soyuz 1-40 (orbits, plus flying to space stations Salyut 1 - 6)
15 - Soyuz T1 to T-15 (flying to Salyut 7 an
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct - including all the manned variants, the Soyuz has flow about 85 times. The Shuttle has flown nearly 120 times.
It's not the leng
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are other factors involved:
-
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Both failures? The Soyuz has a long history of significant failures - from the fatal accident on the first mission, to the computer failure on the most recent mission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't say you are wrong - I don't know. So what I don't like is not WHAT you say but that you fail to even ATTEMPT to submit any justification for your statement. How do you come to your conclusion? It seems to me it is based only on a vague feeling you developed over the years.
Best: link to statistics that support your claim.
Second-best, but still better than "opinion": add at least ONE sentence that shows what you base your statement on.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. That's just plain wrong
Soyuz has been flying since the 60s, and the spacecraft has had 5 major revisions. There hasn't been a single crew fatality on the 4 most recent.
There *have* been two major accidents on the more recent models, neither of which resulted in any fatalities.
One of Souyz 18a [wikipedia.org]'s boosters failed to fully separate during launch, which triggered a safety mechanism to fully disengage the capsule from the rocket.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It has zero abort modes for the first two minutes of flight (while the solids are burning). After that it has the "return to launch site" mode for engine failure -- which nobody really expects to work -- followed by a transatlantic abort (might work, and it least it doesn't involve flying a 180 turn and trying to find the KSC landing strip); and abort-to-orbit (for a single engine failure late in the launch.
It ha
Re: (Score:2)
Counterpoint: the high water mark of human civilisation to date was one man standing aa a podium on September 12, 1962 and saying the words that even today make me weep like a Goddamn Frenchman every time I hear or read them:
Space exploration is, in the short to medium term, an emotional, irrational, prideful folly. I find it very hard to get excited about outsourcing it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It basically was, until a big cock was elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Race goes on (Score:4, Informative)
But your "ancient servers" probably don't date from the 1970's. Even your oldest server is probably more recent than the newest shuttle.
Re:Race goes on (Score:4, Funny)
"Urged" by whom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Urged" by whom? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps not the brightest of ideas. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that strapping yourself to a rocket and heading for space is never safe but it would be better not to make it more dangerous. At the same time, I can see that extending the life by 6 months or so would help alleviate the current pressures on the STS for the station-construction mission (but that's not what the article discusses)
I presume the reasoning for not wanting to rely on the Russian crew launch system is that any souring of the American-Russian relationship could make the deal problematic. How about if it were via ESA and the forthcoming Soyuz operation at French-Guiana? Would this side-step some of the possible relationship issues?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey NASA can go waste all the billions they want, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to wars which suck up a lot more money and produce even less useful results than NASA.
It's too bad the privatized companies (Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, SpaceX, Armadillo) can't ramp up development to meet the need. Oddly enough, *their* space race will produce the only results that will actually lower the cost per pound to orbit.
It's too bad we're all so scared of failure these days. Consider that during the development of aircraft, a lot of people died. A lot of people died just trying to cross the Atlantic. We didn't halt aircraft development every time some lunatic in a biplane was lost in a storm. But for some reason, we're afraid to blow up the occasional person to get into space. We need to get over that. A lot of people are going to die before we're able to easily leave the planet as easily as we currently visit another continent. That's just a reality and no amount of double checking is going to change that.
Well, for test flights anyhow, we could always use that Humanoid Robot (REEM-B) some guy spent three *whole* years developing!
Re:Yes, but on the bright side... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, but on the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Since most people that go up do come down, I would be more than happy with those odds if given the opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps we are so risk averse, that humans will soon look like turtles carrying little nerf cottages on our backs so nothing can harm us.
slaughtering every woman and child in the heathen city we just conquered because they were, well, heathen.
Oh really? [savedarfur.org][insert picture of owl here]
Re: (Score:2)
Finding people willing to go wouldnt be a problem even if the chance of dying was 90%. The problem is finding the RIGHT people. If safety standards are lowered, you'll get more nutcases and people who's brain can't quite judge risks. These are not the kind of people you want to be handling million dollar equipment.
Lastly, space is
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, in the very long term colonizing other planets sounds like a good idea. However, there is no reason you have to have people in space to develop the technology to make this possible - go ahead and build a moon base - just don't put any people in it until there is a real reason for them to actually be there. You ca
Re: (Score:2)
China doesn't mind blowing people up for the glory of the empire. This is why the next people to step foot on the moon and the first people to step foot on Mars will be Chinese. The US is no longer in the space race.
Follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is that this is a national economy thing and has nothing to do with flight-worthiness or risk analysis.
An Object Lesson (Score:2)
Consider the B-52. It's been flying for over 50 years. It's not expected to perform all air tasks -- there are other planes for specialized work. Thus, the Buff doesn't get worn out because it's able to be kept up. There are more advanced planes flying. But the Buff is still flying too.
The shuttle could be kept flying for 50 years as long as the
Re: (Score:2)
The builders happened to hit the mix just right, and even with 'strip to the frame' refits every so often it's showing it's age. For example, it's not really rated for operation in hostile airspace anymore, instead it's a standoff plane - launching cruise missiles rather than dropping bombs.
The shuttle is much more of a white elephant. We don't have enough launches to obtain the body of knowledge a
Politics as usual (Score:4, Insightful)
I like how the congressman describes it as an "arbitrary" date for decomissioning and that the risks won't increase overnight. I say send a congressman up on every mission after the shuttle's sell by date.
They probably can be used effectively for many years, but that doesn't mean that they should. Every bit of extra maintenance and upkeep performed on an old system, every bit of extra testing to make sure parts still function and every investigation into a failure will slow the space program and new developments. This is pork politics no matter how it's dressed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the thrill that space flight still has, such that you do get billionaires buying flights, I think that such a requirement would actually increase the odds of the shuttle program continuing.
Even if only 10% of congress want rides, that's still 73 people wanting to go up.
There will be NO Orion (Score:2)
What about the Phoenix? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a great many possible designs, ranging from NERVA and ROVER-style to nuclear-lightbulb style engines. It's a lot of promise.
Private Sector (Score:2)
NASA's other option lies in the private sector; but thus far, the progress from that quarter does not look sufficient to meet the 2011 deadline.
4 years to deliver a space shuttle replacement, yeah lets bet on that option. If NASA and our government were serious they would have offered some sort of financial assistance, say dollar for dollar matching on R&D or startup capital. I mean, just sitting around 'hoping' for the private sector to bail out your space agency does not seem like a very good plan. All of this worrying, aka planning, should have been done a long time ago.
This one is about jobs, not security. (Score:3, Informative)
But it would make sense to continue flying the shuttle until one of the alternative systems is in place. As soon, as it is in place, the NASA shuttle ppl should be wound down. Quickly. But this pub is simply up to the same tricks as those from 200X; run up a moster deficit.
WOW. U are kidding, right? (Score:2)
Those brave pilots... (Score:2)
Yeah, I know. I cannot compare a rusty old relic with a well maintained shining example of top NASA technology, but even so, hats off to the people brave enough to fly into space in something designed in the early 70s. In real terms is probably not that different to people who fly Sopwith Camels for the hell of it - just more spectacular and better publicized when it goes wrong.
This should not suprise anyone (Score:2)
The shuttles *scare* me, and here's why. (Score:2)
They are *well* past the original design lifetime of the pressure vessels on the shuttle. Additionally, there is no m
Back to the past? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually servicing satellites is something that (except for rare cases like the Hubble) ends up costing more than it would to just send a new one up there.
Additionally, the limited useful life of the Orion will mean that the spacecraft won't have to be cobbled together from one-off copies of parts that went out of production two an
Allow competition from US launch companies (Score:2)
it takes two years to order parts (Score:2)
Private industry (Score:3, Informative)
Although it says this in the summary, the linked article doesn't seem to actually have anything to support this claim. In fact, it's looking like according to their current schedule the private SpaceX Dragon crew/cargo capsule [wikipedia.org] will be flying demonstration flights 2008-2010. With an additional purchase commitment from NASA, they could probably finish and be able to transport cargo and crew to the ISS even sooner.
http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php [spacex.com]
Goodbye shuttle replacement program #54. (Score:2)
Re:Spend (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure that the STS as it was finally created could ever be called a 'responsible' use of resources but right now, it's the only manned launcher the USA has so they've got to work with it until Orion becomes available.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Spend (Score:4, Informative)
This misses the point. The problem is that NASA told congress that they could indeed keep flying the shuttle while developing Orion, for an extra $1B per year. Congress said, "great. keep flying the shuttle, develop Orion, and do it without the $1B." NASA is not getting enough money to do both. The point of retiring the shuttle is to free up that ~$6B/year and spend it on the next-generation launch system, Orion, instead. We can't do both without a significant increase in budget, which is just not going to happen.
As for not having American access to the Station in the interim, we'll just have to deal with paying the Russians. Unless the NASA COTS [wikipedia.org] system works out. Elon Musk over at SpaceX [spacex.com] may very well have his Dragon [wikipedia.org] capsule and Falcon 9 launch vehicle ready about that time to take over from the Shuttle.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
NASA is like any other government
Re: (Score:2)
Here's just a few money-making ventures available to an orbital station:
These are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"For comparison, NASA's FY 2008 budget of $17.3 billion represents about 0.6% of the $2.9 trillion United States federal budget." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget [wikipedia.org]
0.6% of the federal budget is not a lot of resources to be devoting to the promise of space travel, especially considering the possible rewards.
As for commercial benefits, there are some (and there are other, non-commercial benefits), but why does a government agency have to do things that have commercial benefits? Won't, you know, co
Re: (Score:2)
Some would ask, what would happen if we took half that and invested it in green energy, such as wind, solar, nuclear, and oil replacement technologies such as cellulostic ethanol?
I personally think that we can and should do both. Arguements will always exist for prioritization.
But then I think that we should of had a replacement for the shu
Re:Spend (Score:5, Interesting)
It comes down to asking "what is the commercial benefit of live"?
This conversation happened and says it all:
Q: Why did you climb that mountain?
A: Because it is there.
What do you live for? What is "the economy" for? No economist would ask such a question. Because the ENDS of the economy are not subject of that science, only how to best achieve it. What those ends are, what people values in life, is NOT a subject of economic debate - at least not as real economists are concerned (sure there are those who want to impose their values on you but that is their personal issue and not subject of the science called "economics").
It comes down to this: If there are enough people with enough power to get their will then whatever it is they want it gets done. Period. That's how everything works. Democracy too. Only distribution of power is different in different societies.
So, if you don't want that anyone goes to space, convince them or become powerful enough to prevent it. But don't ask for the purpose - there is none. Each person has to decide for themselves what they want from/in life. That is true whether you're an atheist or a devoted catholic (I'm an atheist who ended up on two catholic pilgrimages
Imagine an intelligence waaaaay beyond human capabilities. Of what use is it? It's a great computer, not more! Without feelings, desires, there is NOTHING to drive it towards some end. There is no logical reason to do ANYTHING. You can ALWAYS ask "why", endlessly! At some point you have to decide you don't give a d..., or you never have a reason to act, ever. That's also why very intelligent people, with IQs far above average, are NOT the most successful ones in life. Sure, *some* intelligence sure helps, but at some point it gets much more important to feel the inner DRIVE to live and so things, and NOT ask questions "why"! That's (the main reason) why a dyslexic Richard Branson is a multi-Billionaire and 180+ IQ writer Stanislaw Lem (one of my favorites) only wrote lots of very thoughtful and philosophic books, with an increasing air of skepticism and melancholy.
So maybe you are too intelligent if you keep asking "why"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[snip]
So maybe you are too intelligent if you keep asking "why"
Re: (Score:2)
"Because I am the government, and I decide what is best for the people"
I suppose historically this would have come down to:
"Because I am the king (i.e. I am better at fighting than you, or my Ancesters were and therefore I command the loyalty of others who are better at fighting than you are)"
These days I suppose the real situation is:
"Because I've decided to make a living out of playing the power/politics game and this is a piece on my chess board; if you
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it means you can go space-shopping with all your space-buddies.
Seriously though... since when has space been about (immediate) commercial benefit? Some of us are still interested in the science way more. That science will (and does) lead to commercial benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
Can anybody explain the commercial benefit to space travel?
There are numerous commercial benefits some of which have mentioned by other people, but one that has not yet is GPS. Maybe this came out of the defense budget but the underlying research into putting satelites into orbit was done as part of the original space race. This spawned a real world benefit which now everyone is coming to rely on.
Given the significant resources spend for NASA, is this monies better off spent elsewhere or is this spent responsibly?
Maybe. But then the US spends far more on defense. Some of this defense budget is about defending the US from foreign attack but an awful lot is just pissed up the wall
Be Carefull (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not a commercial benefit, but one of the least mentioned byproducts of the space program was the creation of hundreds of thousand of well-paying jobs. National prestige is all well and good, but what will get you reelected in November is jobs.
The promise of new aerospace-related jobs and the secondary employment that followed it was the leverage that Lyndon Johnson used to get other Senators to vote for the space program in the first place.
NASA's budget is tiny. (Score:2)
"Significant"? NASA's funding is a tiny, tiny part of the budget.
From the following: Putting NASA's budget in perspective [thespacereview.com], July 2007.
LC-39C (Score:5, Informative)
LC-39C was originally projected as a third Saturn V pad in a line north of LC-39B but was never constructed although a stub of it's intended crawler-way points towards the north from the dog-leg in the LC-39B crawler-way. There were actually a total of three unbuilt platforms to the north as part of an 'Advanced Saturn' program but the other two look like they'd need significant land reclamation.
The existing crawler-transporters should be sufficient to handle both the STS and Ares I as NASA is building brand-new MLPs for the Ares system.
Compared to the total cost of the Ares/Orion system, a new LC-39 pad would like like a bargain.
Something I forgot; the VAB. (Score:2)
It'd be interesting to know how NASA intends to work this as the crew-launching Ares I is a long, thin stick whereas the Ares V is an ostensibly shuttle-shaped two boosters and a central LH2/LOX tank.
The only thing I can think of is that they might crane platform-inserts into position when servicing an Ares I and then use the existing Shuttle platforms when servicing an Ares V.