|
Author
|
Topic: Act: Fly shuttle until Orion is ready
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43239
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-16-2007 05:43 PM
   
On Monday, December 17, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. EST at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, U.S. Representative Dave Weldon (FL 15th Congressional District) will announce his proposed S.P.A.C.E. Act, legislation to allow for "additional space shuttle flights through the 'gap' in which America will not otherwise have access to space." The bill will also "provide additional resources for the Constellation project, and will have a positive effect on our national security as well as the local economy," according to a media alert from Weldon's office. According to the release: Rep. Weldon continues to be one of the leading standard bearers for NASA's Constellation program and agrees that the Shuttle program should move toward retirement. The Congressman, however, believes that the United States is about to cede space access to the Chinese and Russians for 5 years or more. In addition to the national security and technological issues, many valuable jobs at Kennedy Space Center may be abruptly lost due to this flight gap. In light of these facts, his bill is aimed addressing these critical matters. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 12-16-2007 08:39 PM
I wish him luck. But unfortunately I think winning the lottery has a better chance of succeeding. Still, I had heard of similar proposals being bandied about by other members of Congress (Kay Bailey Hutchison I think was one). At the very least, this will help put space funding on the table as an issue (which it should be during this coming election year). Maybe with Florida and Texas being a key states in Presidential elections, this will help bring it further to the forefront. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43239
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-16-2007 09:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
I think winning the lottery has a better chance of succeeding.
Congress might need that lottery win to pay for such a proposal. It's easy to say that we can pull the funds from other programs, but politically, it's not very realistic. Perhaps the wording of Weldon's bill once introduced will better outline where the funding is to be sourced, but if the money and/or political will doesn't exist to expedite Orion development today, why should anyone expect it it materialize and sustain shuttle operations for 5 more years. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6215
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 12-16-2007 11:59 PM
His House seat up for renewal next year?I think the critical issue is the loss of jobs at KSC and since he's a representative of Florida, just link the dots. Didn't someone mention that shuttle manufacturing hardware (the ET I think it was) was already being disposed of anyway? Chris. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1044
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 12-17-2007 05:41 AM
If the Shuttle fleet were to continue, they should only be used to launch more essential ISS spares and the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer.But, imho, to continue flying the Shuttles beyond 2010 is inviting a third disaster. So Mr Weldon's bill is plain wrong. |
Saturn V
Member Posts: 176
From: Golden, Colorado, USA
Registered: Nov 2006
|
posted 12-17-2007 12:10 PM
Could the money that would be spent to keep the shuttle flying for 5 more years be better spent to accelerate the Orion project, thus reducing the downtime with no space access?Richard |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 12-17-2007 01:24 PM
Personally speaking, if extra money could be found and appropriated to NASA, I'd rather see that money used to accelerate the development of Orion so that it may fly sooner than planned...instead of paying to allow the shuttle to fly later than planned.I think it's important to consider that, as long as the shuttle flies, full attention cannot be given to Orion. I'd rather get busy working on the future than prolonging the past. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43239
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-17-2007 01:32 PM
According to Florida Today, Weldon's proposal calls for $10 billion to fly two shuttle missions per year in 2011, 2012 and 2013, as well as expedite Orion development."I know this is an uphill battle," Weldon told Florida Today. "The money is there. This is an issue of priorities." |
Max Q
Member Posts: 399
From: Whyalla South Australia
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 12-17-2007 07:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
But, imho, to continue flying the Shuttles beyond 2010 is inviting a third disaster. So Mr Weldon's bill is plain wrong.
IMHO flying shuttles now is inviting a third disaster. |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1639
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 12-17-2007 09:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Max Q:
IMHO flying shuttles now is inviting a third disaster.
And flying Saturn V's wasn't (inviting disaster)? We need to keep thinking risk vs reward. Had we had the same attitude during Apollo, we would have quit after Apollo 11. |
Max Q
Member Posts: 399
From: Whyalla South Australia
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 12-18-2007 12:23 AM
Granted but the Saturn V always lived up to its hype, the Shuttle never has. It's a space truck. Very spectacular but overly complicated, over priced and disaster prone. But that's just my opinion, ignore it if you like. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1044
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 12-18-2007 04:15 AM
Max Q, I have followed the Shuttle programme almost religiously since STS-26 but all things must come to an end.Imagine that in late 2010, all the currently manifested missions have been safely flown. Now do you want to continue flying? Or do you need to fly? Orion will eventually debut and Soyuz is available until then. Besides, the US has intimated its wish to withdraw from the ISS in 2015. So why is Weldon risking astronaut lives and future space efforts for the sake of nostalgia and pride? |
spacecraft guy
Member Posts: 37
From: San Francisco, CA USA
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 12-18-2007 04:49 AM
The shuttle orbiter is very expensive to operate and maintain, but it will still be a more capable spacecraft on orbit that an Orion CEV will be. It shouldn't be an "either/or" decision. We should have the manned heavy upmass/downmass vehicle capability that the Orbiter provides, but we also need a manned vehicle that can serviced and launched a lot faster than an Orbiter. Abandoning the experience gained flying the Shuttle Orbiter is a mistake. I think it makes a whole lot of sense to keep the Orbiters flying until Orion becomes operational, more sense to have both spacecraft operational concurrently to support ISS operations and start lunar exploration. Unfortunately, JM Chladek and Robert's comments about the snowball's chance of it happening are accurate. Politics and wisdom don't go together very often. |
Rodina
Member Posts: 836
From: Lafayette, CA
Registered: Oct 2001
|
posted 12-18-2007 06:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by spacecraft guy:
It shouldn't be an "either/or" decision. We should have the manned heavy upmass/downmass vehicle capability that the Orbiter provides, but we also need a manned vehicle that can serviced and launched a lot faster than an Orbiter.
What earthly need do we have to bring down from orbit any heavy objects in the near future? At half-a-billion bucks a throw to put the shuttle up, there's no space station component worth bringing back down that cannot be more easily replaced than refurbished (setting aside the difficulty in taking components back off the station). And it ought to be cheaper to use the bigger unmanned Ares to put stuff up.It'd be nothing but nostalgia to keep the shuttle operating beyond the current end in 2010 (or a short extension to finish out the manifest). |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 12-18-2007 06:44 AM
Attempting to keep the Shuttle flying is a waste of money and risks more lives foolishly.Whatever the cost is figured to be it will run double. Whatever timeframe is discussed it also will be double. The shuttle is done, let's use the time, effort and money and move on. It's time to wrap up this edition of truckers in space that we have lived with for 25 years with little to show for it. Pay the Russians to take our people back and forth and once Orion is going, get out of the ISS as it will be a money pit and will produce little other than repairs. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6215
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 12-18-2007 08:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Pay the Russians to take our people back and forth and once Orion is going, get out of the ISS as it will be a money pit and will produce little other than repairs.
Doesn't bode well for any long spaceflight to the Moon or Mars... Chris. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6215
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 12-18-2007 08:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Rodina:
It'd be nothing but nostalgia to keep the shuttle operating beyond the current end in 2010 (or a short extension to finish out the manifest).
Wasn't the shuttle supposed to fly until 2020 (or later) before somebody got this brilliant idea of creating another new (manned) space program without the appropriate funds to go with it? Chris. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43239
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-18-2007 09:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
Wasn't the shuttle supposed to fly until 2020 (or later) before somebody got this brilliant idea of creating another new (manned) space program without the appropriate funds to go with it?
Not quite. The shuttle life extension program was in development prior to the loss of Columbia, that much is true. But after the tragedy, the investigation board identified several root causes and contributing factors to the accident, including the lack of a goal to keep the space agency looking (and moving) forward. The board also recommended that the orbiter fleet be re-certified before flying past 2010, a proposition that was projected to be much more expensive than the life extension program earlier envisioned. Taking these recommendations to heart, the Vision of Space Exploration was devised as a means of safely flying the shuttle until 2010 while developing a next generation vehicle to meet the new goal of returning astronauts to the Moon. |
BobbyA
Member Posts: 147
From: Northern Virginia
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 12-18-2007 09:42 AM
I think that the Congressman is pushing this bill just so that he can keep jobs in his district. The down-time between the two programs will mean a loss of jobs for that time. This way when people get laid off he can look them in the eye and say that he tried to save their jobs, but he didn't get enough support. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43239
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-18-2007 11:53 AM
Florida Today: Lawmaker wants $10B for shuttles quote:
In addition to $2 billion a year to keep the shuttle flying, Weldon's SPACE Act would provide: - $1.6 billion to speed the development of the new Orion space capsules and Ares rockets.
- $819 million to reimburse NASA for costs incurred returning to flight after the 2003 Columbia accident.
- $1.2 billion to bolster other NASA aeronautics and science projects that have been cut in recent years.
- "Such sums as necessary" to keep the shuttle fleet flying two missions a year until Orion spacecraft are ready to launch.
|
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 12-18-2007 12:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rodina:
What earthly need do we have to bring down from orbit any heavy objects in the near future?
There is still the potential need to bring stuff back from orbit. The logistics modules that fly to the ISS bring stuff up, but they also bring stuff back. If those modules don't fly, then the stuff either stays onboard the ISS, it gets chucked out an airlock by itself to burn up (such as the Early Ammonia Servicing Boiler) or loaded into a Progress (and later the ATVs) to get sent back to Earth in a blaze of glory. The Progress does have the ability of being set up with a small capsule internally to safely deorbit 100 kgs worth of recoverable materials (they did it with Salyut), but I don't know if that capability has been utilized with the ISS or not.Shuttle would also have the ability to act as in independent stabilization system, should something on the ISS go haywire such as when the Russian computers went offline on STS-117 this past spring. Orion can't really do that too well since it doesn't have as much mass and a smaller fuel supply. The shuttle also typically offloads excess cryo and water supplies to the ISS with each mission and do it in a quantity that the Progress can not. Granted the ESA ATV will offer that upload capability though since the ISS still won't be a 100% closed loop system as a mission to Mars would need to be. In other words, I can see a use for shuttle in a post assembly ISS world. The arguement of "inviting a third disaster" I think is not a valid one since the risk of flying shuttle or Orion is not really any greater between one or the other. With Orion, one is trading age of the craft for the relative unknowns of a new design still being tested when it does begin to fly astronauts to the station. If we are really all that concerned with another space disaster, then why do we fly astronauts into space in the first place? Just because Orion is being developed, even if it flies it will not be a guarantee we will ever go back to the Moon or on to Mars. Most of Orion's missions will be the unglamorous ferrying of crews to and from the ISS in order to do the science that doesn't grab the headlines. As for Saturn V, yes it did live up to the hype, but it didn't quite have a perfect record. SA-502 (the second unmanned Saturn V launch) is one mission where things didn't go right at all. The second stage had two engines shut down prematurely sending the booster into some weird orientations and pogo vibrations ripped some of the S-IVB LM adaptor panels off. It sent the unmanned CSM into the right flight trajectory (with help from the SM propulsion system), but it would not have made it to the moon if that were its destination. That made Apollo 8 even more gutsy as not only was it manned, it was the first flight AFTER SA-502. The engineers had that much confidence in the hardware to send three astronauts on the first journey to the moon. Yes it did fly its manned missions well, but what if that little problem found on SA-502 had waited a mission or two to rear its ugly head? The Apollo program sequence might have been a lot different as a result. |
onesmallstep
Member Posts: 1311
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 12-18-2007 02:48 PM
Let's keep in mind that the shuttle itself is a creature born of compromise - the cargo bay designed to hold DOD payloads (though very few were sent aloft in its lifetime, especially post-Challenger); no booster stage flyback capability; and the lone survivor of long-range plans for a shuttle/space station/mars mission in NASA's future.Yes, going into space on the shuttle (or Saturn V) is risky, but the benefits always outweigh those risks. Saturn did its job well, taking men to the moon and putting Skylab into orbit, but would it have made engineering (or even economic) sense to keep it around long enough to put ISS into orbit or send astronauts back to the moon? The same applies to the shuttle: will it have to be kept in service to satisfy some economic (or political) need? Or should Orion/Ares/Altair go forward as the next steps in spaceflight design, free from any of the compromises and short-cuts that affected shuttle design and performance? The decisions made today will surely impact when -not if- astronauts return to the moon, and how an expedition to Mars will look like. If it's going to be an international endeavor, then surely keeping ISS up and running will be beneficial to all, especially ESA, Japan, Canada and Russia who have invested decades of work and research (and Columbus still isn't in space). I say retire the shuttle; get Orion on-line as early as possible; and don't alienate our international partners by bailing out from ISS. We may regret it later. -Al |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 12-18-2007 08:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
Doesn't bode well for any long spaceflight to the Moon or Mars...
A long flight to the moon or to mars would not be done with a 25 year old spacecraft that has served little purpose other than flying hauling missions to a space station that has produced little.Don't get me wrong. Those who fly the shuttle are impressive people, it's an impressive craft. It has outlived it's usefulness and never accomplished much of anything on the majority of the flights that will benefit the space program long term. It has simply been a truck to haul equipment... |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 12-18-2007 09:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by onesmallstep:
I say retire the shuttle; get Orion on-line as early as possible; and don't alienate our international partners by bailing out from ISS. We may regret it later.
I agree with much of what you say. However, I say bail on the ISS asap as it will never accomplish much other than needing repairs and requiring vast amounts of money.Use that money for a US space program our international "partners" will never be satisfied with what the US has accomplished because none of them will admit that they are still decades behind the US in their space programs and they need the US more than the US needs them. Any other country can bail out of the ISS and it would not affect it much. If the US bails the impact is significant. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43239
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-18-2007 09:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
never accomplished much of anything on the majority of the flights that will benefit the space program long term
For a short time there, I thought you were describing the Saturn V. The mighty booster than von Braun built did little for the space program in the long term. It delivered a quick victory, no doubt, but was politically dead in the water as soon as we made the small steps and giant leaps. Not to mention, that the one and only time we looked to it to launch a space station, it failed at that, delivering a hobbled outpost requiring immediate repair with no ability to keep itself in orbit. Compared to the space shuttle, the Saturn V did even less for long term space exploration. At least the shuttle deployed long-lasting observatories and planetary probes, conducted thousands of science experiments and was crucial to building a space station far more capable than anything ever launched to date. And if you think that an outpost on the Moon or Mars is going to be any different than ISS operations, with repairs and 'uneventful' days, weeks and months passing by, you are mistaken (at least if we do it right). I predict that the same description you apply to the space shuttle today will be the assessment by others even before we are fully deployed on the lunar surface. quote:
Any other country can bail out of the ISS and it would not affect it much.
Were Russia to walk away from the ISS tomorrow, it would spell the end of the continuous human presence, if not the station itself. Without the Soyuz, there is no assured return for the crew, a requirement for residency by any country. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6215
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 12-19-2007 12:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
Use that money for a US space program our international "partners" will never be satisfied with what the US has accomplished because none of them will admit that they are still decades behind the US in their space programs and they need the US more than the US needs them.
And in what field(s) exactly is the US space program so far in advance with respect to other nations' space programs?And the fact "they" need the US more is precisely why Ariane was developed, that Galileo is (finally) moving forward and why the US Government has managed to alienate others. My feeling is that the US will go to the Moon (or Mars) all by itself: both are money pits with no scientific purposes (at least compared to what it will cost) at all. Chris. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 12-19-2007 08:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
For a short time there, I thought you were describing the Saturn V.
I don't totally disagree with you about the Saturn V, but is that is not the topic is it?The Saturn V was built for a specific task that was clearly defined. That task was successfully completed. We could discuss how the aftermath was squandered but that is a separate discussion. The Shuttle has never had a clear purpose or clear goal presented. It just sort of goes on year to year to year. quote:
Not to mention, that the one and only time we looked to it to launch a space station, it failed at that, delivering a hobbled outpost requiring immediate repair with no ability to keep itself in orbit.
Though the Saturn was not designed to be retrofitted to carry a space station. Blame the politicians/NASA for that hack job. quote:
At least the shuttle deployed long-lasting observatories and planetary probes, conducted thousands of science experiments and was crucial to building a space station far more capable than anything ever launched to date.
The shuttle has performed some amazing tasks, no disagreement. It has not performed enough to be worthwhile. It's role has been delegated to be a hardware hauler, little else.As for the ISS being more capable than those in the past, yes, it is. Being better that what was before does not make it a needed expenditure though. quote:
Were Russia to walk away from the ISS tomorrow, it would spell the end of the continuous human presence, if not the station itself.
There is no great purpose for a continuous human presence if the ISS has yet to live up to much more than a fix-it shop.To move forward in space exploration the US has to break from what it has done for the last 25 years. It is wasteful and it is accomplishing little. |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 12-19-2007 08:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
And in what field(s) exactly is the US space program so far in advance with respect to other nations' space programs?
The ISS could not have been built without the US Shuttle, it could not be maintained without the US Shuttle, etc. quote:
And the fact "they" need the US more is precisely why Ariane was developed, that Galileo is (finally) moving forward and why the US Government has managed to alienate others. My feeling is that the US will go to the Moon (or Mars) all by itself: both are money pits with no scientific purposes (at least compared to what it will cost) at all.
It's good that Ariane was developed. It's good that Galileo was (is) being developed.Space exploration by others should not be dependent nor dictated to by any one country. I am all for competition. No matter what the US does it will alienate others, there is no way to avoid that. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6215
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 12-19-2007 08:42 AM
Ok, I agree with you. But the ISS (in a different form) could have been built without the shuttle. The Russians have done it and so will the Chinese. Problem: The heavy-lift vehicle is missing from the inventory... but will be needed for a Mars mission. Chris. |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1639
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 12-19-2007 01:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Max Q:
Granted but the Saturn V always lived up to its hype, the Shuttle never has. It's a space truck. Very spectacular but overly complicated, over priced and disaster prone. But that's just my opinion, ignore it if you like.
I'd never ignore your opinion; I respect it. But I do like to debte these issues with others and am thankful to cS for allowing us to do it. |
Philip
Member Posts: 5968
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 12-19-2007 01:24 PM
Things should look good as long as STS-125 will be flown. Then the STS-era can end in beauty  |
E2M Lem Man
Member Posts: 846
From: Los Angeles CA. USA
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 12-19-2007 01:42 PM
I applaud the congressman's attempt to get this bill enacted. It is a little known fact that the prime contractor has a plan for continued flights thru 2012 - but the administrator doesn't want that discussed. But face the truth - with the recent issues on the ISS about the rotary joint - we need to have a backup plan for transferring heavy payloads up to ISS. As an American taxpayer - I am offended that we are giving funds to the Russians for our astronauts to get to ISS as they are still helping Iran enrich uranium, and other things. We need the Shuttle until Orion is operational! J.M. Busby |
issman1
Member Posts: 1044
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 12-19-2007 02:20 PM
It's quite rich of Weldon to disparage Russia publicly, especially as Chris pointed out how its Soyuz and Progress craft enabled America to maintain a continuous presence in space after Columbia.Personally, I would like to see Shenzhou dock at the ISS. It cannot be a truly "international" space station without China actively participating! |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 12-19-2007 02:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
For a short time there, I thought you were describing the Saturn V. The mighty booster than von Braun built did little for the space program in the long term. It delivered a quick victory, no doubt, but was politically dead in the water as soon as we made the small steps and giant leaps. Not to mention, that the one and only time we looked to it to launch a space station, it failed at that, delivering a hobbled outpost requiring immediate repair with no ability to keep itself in orbit.
The Saturn V had a clearly defined mission from the start and delivered exactly what it was designed to do. I would argue that the booster had far greater capabilities and uses beyond the tasks it was given to do and could have been integral in launching missions to Mars had the space program not lost much of it's momentum after Apollo 11 (which was not Von Braun's fault). The blame comes down to those who scrapped the booster before it had a chance to be utilized properly in other tasks. The failures of Skylab were more the product of the design of the station (and the way it was configured on the booster) than the design of the Saturn V. The Saturn did exactly what it was asked to do...bring Skylab up into orbit. Had more Saturns been available, Skylab could have been kept in orbit. This lack of Saturns was a failure of management, not the design of the booster itself. The shuttle has it's share of launching flawed technology too, though one can't really blame the shuttle for those failures...other than the two instances where the shuttle itself failed...and even those were more management failures than hardware failures. For me, the biggest failures in the shuttle design are: 1. The use of solid rocket boosters with no ability to abort or escape in the first two and a half minutes of flight. 2. The use of a thermal protection system which is vulnerable to damage during launch. 3. An overall failure of the designers to deliver a vehical that lived up to the promise (though one can really argue that the true failure was over-hyping the vehical in order to "sell" it). The Saturn V had none of these design failures. Other than one wacky flight where the bugs were still being worked out, the Saturn peformed beautifully each time. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6215
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 12-20-2007 12:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by mjanovec:
1. The use of solid rocket boosters with no ability to abort or escape in the first two and a half minutes of flight.(...) 3. An overall failure of the designers to deliver a vehical that lived up to the promise (though one can really argue that the true failure was over-hyping the vehical in order to "sell" it). The Saturn V had none of these design failures. Other than one wacky flight where the bugs were still being worked out, the Saturn peformed beautifully each time.
1. If the Shuttle is a failure because of the use of SRBs, should we consider Ares 1 a potential failure in the making? 2. Regarding the "failure" of the designers -keep in mind that they didn't get the budget to develop a fully reusable spaceship but even if they had, then "(...) Charles Donlan, an early Space Shuttle Program manager, would not miss them [fully reusable concepts]: "(...) we had a hard look at the reality of what we meant by fully reusable that we shook our heads saying 'No way you're going to build this thing in this century.' As I say, 'Thank God for all the pressures that were brought to bear to not go that route.'" (Dennis Jenkins, Broken in Midstride in Reaching the High Frontier p374-5.) As for the Saturn V, a discussion about its reliability exists in another thread. It only flew 12 times and should we consider the CSM as part of the launcher? If so, Apollo 13 was a failure (from the rocket's performance standpoint). Chris. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 12-20-2007 02:17 AM
The thing that worries me about Orion is it is going to be a string of compromises as well. So far the land landing capability is being lost due to weight, so now we have to recover the things from the ocean (operational costs going up due to US Navy support). Secondly, there has been talk of increasing booster power, yet making the SRMs single use. So, operational costs go up as a result of having to make more boosters and development costs for Ares V boosters go up as they are no longer common with Ares 1 boosters, as was one of the original intents of the Ares program. Then there are additional differences that will be made between the orbital ferry Orions and the ones planned for lunar flights, so some of the development costs and design issues are getting pushed further out (Apollo had the same issues, hence NAA went with Block 1 and Block 2 capsules). The big difference between Orion and Shuttle is NASA won't have the DoD to blame if the design doesn't live up to expectations.Engineering challenges have always been compromises, don't get me wrong. But it seems like NASA has been doing so much with so little for so long that they are now finding out they can't do virtually anything with nothing the hard way. Granted the first engineering tests will reveal what can and can't work, but the weight issues really have me concerned in spots about Orion's capabilities versus what the original plans were. Worst case scenario is it will be a fine low Earth orbit ferry to the ISS, but will need such a costly revamp to go to the Moon that it won't be worth it to try. I only hope there will be some big agency shakeup that occurs to get people back on track before things get too out of hand. As for shuttle, yes it is a big hardware hauler. But in the final analysis, that is what it was intended for and designed to do. It is not a glamorous job, but it is something that has to be done. See how much moving you can do from one house to another when all you have is a sporty compact car instead of the big moving van? The only real failing of shuttle to me has been how it was used. Both fatal accidents were the result of not taking the time to understand certain underlying problems before things happened that resulted in a loss of lives. Apollo 1 was EXACTLY the same way. As for the concerns of age. Well, if Orion goes to the moon (assuming things happen by the timeline, which I doubt it will) then it will be an eight year old vehicle by the time one flies to the moon. If one goes to Mars, it will be a 15 year old vehicle at least. Okay, maybe the physical vehicle won't be that old, but the design will be and undoubtedly elements of it will be that old if the ships are intended to have a 20 mission service life each. |
art540
Member Posts: 432
From: Orange, California USA
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 12-20-2007 08:10 AM
Ares I can be "safe" if you identify failure points and instrument those to an abort system. If Challenger had an escape system there was ample warning of impending failure with an instrumented ET and SRB linked to the escape system. However, there exist failure modes for solids that may not allow instruments and the time to escape - at least from a stable attitude of the vehicle. |
Max Q
Member Posts: 399
From: Whyalla South Australia
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 12-20-2007 09:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
I am all for competition. No matter what the US does it will alienate others, there is no way to avoid that.
There are plenty of ways to avoid it, don't treat it as a competition for a start. The days of nations taking each other on in space should in my opinion be over. How about a UNSA (United Nations) be formed to build a unilateral space agency to do it properly for the first time in years. |
Max Q
Member Posts: 399
From: Whyalla South Australia
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 12-20-2007 09:56 PM
I wonder how long the diminishing fleet of shuttles will really fly for. Lets face it Shuttle is an amazing vehicle and has done some wonderful things but the 5 orbiters never achieved their launch rate which became harder to achieve with 4 and now 3. Maybe the answer to Cheap(er) safe(er) space travel into LEO is a Shuttle but I don't think its this one. Whipe the slate clean and redesign a bold new craft that builds on the strengths of Shuttle and fixes some of its short comings. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 43239
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-22-2007 08:16 PM
H.R. 4837: To authorize the Space Shuttle to be flown from 2010 through 2015, and to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for this purpose.Full text of the 'Spacefaring Priorities for America's Continued Exploration Act' or the 'SPACE Act'. |
advertisement