posted 08-29-2008 12:24 PM               

Shuttle extension assessment

The SSP [Space Shuttle] program in conjunction with Cx [Constellation] and ISS have been asked by the administrator to put together some manifest options to assess extending shuttle flights to 2015. SSP would like to have some options developed for review by senior management by the end of September. The result of the review might be a formal budget assessment of a option(s).

We will start by using the manifest team to put together a option(s). I would like to start getting some initial thoughts next week. What I want to do is focus in on initially is what would make sense given the current conditions with ISS and Cx. We have been encouraged not to focus on a certain set of assumptions or costs. We will probably develop multiple options. In my initial discussions with John these are the things I would like to think about:

• We cant just spread out the 10 flights to 2015, that does not support ISS requirements
  
• We will need some new ETs and that's the long lead item so we may need a little "streching".
  
• We will have to put orbiters in OMDP
  
• We don't want to get in the way of Cx development by holding on to facilities they need (HB3, MLP, Pad , Crawler, Engine Test stands etc)
  
• Flight rate is not given
  
• Don't necessarily need all 3 orbiters either

We want to focus on helping bridge the gap of US vehicles traveling to the ISS as efficiently as possible.

The Iran/North Korea/Syria Agreement (INKSA) Waiver expires in 2011. While this sounds far off, due to the three-year lead-time required for Soyuz production, this issue is a pressing matter now. The question to be answered is: if the waiver is not extended, how will we return our astronauts from the ISS? How will this affect U.S. presence on the ISS? This topic is at the front of everyone�s mind due to the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

NASA has been tasked to study options regarding extension of the SSP to support the ISS. The problem is that the Shuttle was never designed as a primary crew return vehicle. Soyuz-type vehicles are needed for this type of mission. The key item to keep in mind is that whatever is decided cannot impact the Constellation transition.

posted 08-29-2008 01:37 PM               

Wayne Hale knows a lot more than we do - but he hasn't been privy to these plans.

The question is - how much would have to be reassembled to keep the flow of the shuttle missions to 2015?

posted 08-29-2008 11:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Meek:
Yikes. 10 more flights, give or take? That seems improbable, given what Wayne Hale wrote about this week.

---

10 more flights? Where have you read this? From the original post, my understanding was that it's not feasible to extend the remaining flights over 4.5 years (mid-2010 to 2015).

posted 08-29-2008 11:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
From the original post, my understanding was that it's not feasible to extend the remaining flights over 4.5 years (mid-2010 to 2015).

---

But flying two shuttle flights a year until 2015 is exactly the kind of option NASA is now looking at, according to NASA officials and the email sent Wednesday by John Coggeshall, Manifest and Schedules manager at Johnson Space Center in Houston.

posted 08-30-2008 09:31 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
If you follow the links though to Orlando Sentinel and NASASpaceflight.com, you'll see that the plan is to add 10 more flights to the existing manifest

---

Suppose a big hurricane happens to drop by the ET manufacturing plant before 2010, then what? Nobody thought of actually building a couple of extra tanks, just in case something goes wrong? Then if unneeded, scrap them.

posted 08-30-2008 09:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
Nobody thought of actually building a couple of extra tanks, just in case something goes wrong? Then if unneeded, scrap them.

---

posted 08-30-2008 10:07 PM               

Interesting how this has come about now as it sounds almost like somebody is hitting a "panic" button of sorts. But even if things aren't critical, these budget numbers do need to be crunched as the presidential administration is going to be changing here in about 6 months and that might also mean a change of NASA administration as well.

posted 08-30-2008 11:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
Perhaps you'd like to fund the $10 million to produce two more tanks, and then store them in your back yard until they are needed.

---

By the way: Use of the VAB: "High Bay 2 is used for external tank (ET) checkout and storage and as a contingency storage area for orbiters. High Bay 4 is also used for ET checkout and storage,".

posted 08-31-2008 01:51 AM               

And here comes the torching and the politics lecture....

posted 08-31-2008 02:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSpace86:
Am I the only one here who thinks it is absolute nonsense to a) not have a vehicle ready and spend 5 years without going into space (this is the USA!!! There should always be a way to get into space!!) and b) that we have to rely on the Russians!?!?

---

posted 08-31-2008 07:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by alanh_7:
I am I wrong in saying this?

---

The cost of such an activity -- both in time and money -- was considered too high, especially in the light of another of the CAIB's recommendations that the President set a new goal for NASA to strive toward (the CAIB found that the lack of goals led to NASA becoming complacent).

Once the President outlined the Vision for Exploration and made it clear that it would be accomplished within NASA's existing budget, it became too expensive to operate both (or all three, ISS included) programs at the same time.

It should be noted in connection with this study, that the CAIB recommendations were just that, recommendations and the 2010 date was somewhat arbitrary in its selection. NASA has also restructured the way it inspects shuttles between flights such that it addresses some of the concerns that led to the re-certification caveat, and the others could be handled through orbiter maintenance down periods.

posted 08-31-2008 08:47 AM               

IMO, NASA will still have to choose... and it would seem that it makes more sense to accept risk in ISS access rather than accepting additional risk in development of the new spacecraft. The only other realistic option seems to be a change in the vision/mission statement.

If you're going to go to the moon and Mars, you need a new spacecraft. That should take clear priority over continuing to fly the shuttle.

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out...

posted 08-31-2008 11:36 AM               

• Does this agreement prevent U.S. astronauts from flying on the Soyuz?
  
• When does this go into effect?

posted 08-31-2008 04:04 PM               

We did have a backup plan, now we are faced with having to deal with a foreign power that may not want to play well with the rest of the world, and may have thought they had a barrel over our space programs. We need to have a backup plan in place and that is to keep the orbiters flying till Ares/Orion is ready to fly.

posted 08-31-2008 05:45 PM               

The first component of the system, a U.S. Oxygen Generation System was installed inside Destiny in 2007. A Water Reclamation System, a new toilet and two new astronaut quarters will be added to Destiny with the launch of Endeavour in November.

posted 09-03-2008 01:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by E2M Lem Man:
We did have a backup plan, now we are faced with having to deal with a foreign power that may not want to play well with the rest of the world, and may have thought they had a barrel over our space programs. We need to have a backup plan in place and that is to keep the orbiters flying till Ares/Orion is ready to fly.

---

If you are concerned about our Russian friends and don't want to rely on the Soyuz, sorry. Even if we kept flying the shuttle for an extended period, we would still have to rely on the Soyuz as a lifeboat. The shuttle does not have the capability to remain at the station for extended periods of time and we really must have a lifeboat. Wish we had finished the Crew Rescue Vehicle (aka X-38) but the national leadership cancelled that program for budgetary reasons and almost 10 years ago now we knew that we would rely on the Soyuz for the lifetime of the station. And don't even think about operating the station without all our international partners. We are all in this together. In fact, it is a source of pride and wonder that International Space Station is the largest cooperative program ever undertaken by a large group of international partners. Wish we could take the lessons learned at ISS on how to work together and get them to apply to other areas!

posted 09-03-2008 03:12 PM               

If the CEV is not ready, then why the heck are the shuttles being retired so soon? I already read Hale's story on how they have to convince people to produce parts... well, the orbiters were intended to fly 100 missions each... that is a total of 400 flights. Did they not think ahead and make a big enough surplus to have spare parts? Did we really land on the moon? Common sense, geez.

posted 09-03-2008 04:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSpace86:
I already read Hale's story on how they have to convince people to produce parts... well, the orbiters were intended to fly 100 missions each... that is a total of 400 flights. Did they not think ahead and make a big enough surplus to have spare parts?

---

For example, as a human, you're rated to live 100 years. Knowing that, did you and/or your parents pre-purchase 5,050* birthday candles?

posted 09-04-2008 04:38 PM               

Q: I meant are you talking about a couple of flights a year, what sort of options are on the table?

Griffin: I'm not asking for them to tell me what it would take to do five flights a year. I'm asking them what it would take to do a couple of flights a year, primarily crew rotation and ISS resupply. So that's what I'm asking. But we need enough variation in what they look at to get a sense of how it trends, where the knees in the curve are. I mean, if I ask a point question, I'll get a point answer but it won't be that informative.

Q: Any assumptions in this? Retiring an orbiter, for example, anything else?

Griffin: I want them to tell me. I asked them to tell me what would happen in terms of the impacts if NASA receives additional money from the Congress or a new administration in order to, you know, fly shuttle while keeping the Constellation elements on track and also to assess it if it had to be done within a constant top line like we have today.

Q: What does that mean?

Griffin: Well, OK, there's two possibilities and a range in between. Suppose someone says I want you to keep flying the shuttle, but I want you to keep Ares and Orion on track so tell me how much money you need to keep flying shuttle extra?

Q: And have Orion ready in 2015.

Griffin: Exactly. That's one question. Another question, the other end of the spectrum is, I want you to keep flying shuttle and I'm not giving you any extra money so tell me what happens to Ares and Orion, how badly are they delayed? And then there's a spectrum of options in between. Suppose I give you some money, but not enough? So we're trying to get a handle on what the range of options and impacts are.

Q: Is there some point, based on manufacturing capability or whatever, where you can't keep flying shuttle without significant new money?

Griffin: Well, yeah, that point would be reached if we ripped up the tooling at Michoud (Assembly Facility where external tanks are built) and put down tooling for the Ares tanks.

Q: I thought you were pretty much there.

Griffin: We're coming up on it, but it hasn't happened yet.

posted 09-06-2008 09:11 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
NASA has to entertain the possibility that absent an agreement for Soyuz (and a Shuttle post 2010) there will not be a way to reboost ISS and prevent orbital decay (unless something like the European ATV can come to the rescue). As depressing as it sounds, they may have to look at using one of they remaining flights to attach augmented propulsion as a contingency for a controlled deorbit burn.

---

Your statement, while a bit depressing considering the enormous resources that have been put into the ISS, has a great deal of merit.

People need to understand that there simply were not enough resources available to have a contingency plan that overlaps Shuttle and Orion. It is (IMO) unlikely that the Orion can be built within the existing budget even if we stop flying the shuttle as currently planned -- which means likely delays in fielding Orion. If you keep flying the shuttle, the budgetary shortfall only gets worse.

Politically, the difficult thing about attaching a controlled de-orbit module to the ISS is that it will be viewed as a decision to give up on a very, very expensive piece of orbital hardware.

At this point, it certainly does no good to say, "What a bunch of idiots? Why didn't they plan for this?" We are where we are, so we should look for the least-bad way forward.

Why did the "idiots" in the 1970's create a space shuttle with dangerous SRBs and an expensive, disposable external tank when it was originally envisioned as a fully re-usable system? Monetary constraints.

The circumstances today are different, but many of the driving forces remain the same.

posted 09-06-2008 12:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
NASA has to entertain the possibility that absent an agreement for Soyuz (and a Shuttle post 2010) there will not be a way to reboost ISS and prevent orbital decay (unless something like the European ATV can come to the rescue).

---

posted 09-06-2008 01:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
How was that demonstrated?

---

Regular ISS reboosts are needed to overcome the effects of residual atmospheric drag, which made the Station lose about 50 m in altitude per day during August. On 13 August, for the fourth time since arriving in April, ESA's Jules Verne ATV was used to raise the orbit of the 300-tonne Station to an altitude of around 355 km above the Earth's surface.

Several times ATV has also been able to provide an alternative means of attitude control (i.e. orientation control) to the ISS. On 27 August, for the first time, Jules Verne ATV was also used to perform a debris avoidance manoeuvre, steering the Station clear of potentially dangerous space debris.

posted 09-06-2008 06:31 PM            

Obviously funding was a major issue, but after the Columbia Investigation Board report, safety became an even bigger issue. Blame for "the gap" therefore rests with the failure to plan for a new launch system until a disaster made it essential.

posted 09-06-2008 11:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by capoetc:
Why did the "idiots" in the 1970's create a space shuttle with dangerous SRBs and an expensive, disposable external tank when it was originally envisioned as a fully re-usable system? Monetary constraints.

---

Monetary constraints were one reason for choosing the SRB. The other is technical/technological, as quoted by engineers when they reflect on "a fully-reusable system"- no way it would have flown in the 20th century (from Dennis Jenkins' chapter in "To reach the High Frontier" - I've mentioned this in another thread somewhere...)

posted 09-07-2008 12:41 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
As depressing as it sounds, they may have to look at using one of they remaining flights to attach augmented propulsion as a contingency for a controlled deorbit burn.

---

For the record, and without regard to the underlying truth of the proposition, I do not believe the Russians would ever admit -- nor do I think they believe -- that they need us to help them operate the ISS. Yes, there are actions we could take to hold ISS hostage, or even prevent them from using it -- power management stuff, for example. We will not take those actions. Practically speaking, the Russians can sustain ISS without US crew as long as we don't actively sabotage them, which I do not believe we would ever do, short of war. So I will not make the argument that "dependence" works both ways. We need them. They don't "need" us. We're a "nice to have".

They will tell us to extend shuttle... There is no other politically tenable course. It will appear irrational — heck, it will be irrational — to say we've built a Space Station we cannot use, that we're throwing away a $100 billion investment, when the cost of saving it is merely to continue flying Shuttle.

In a rational world, we would have been allowed to pick a shuttle retirement date to be consistent with Ares/Orion availability, we would have been asked to deploy Ares/Orion as early as possible (rather than 'not later than 2014') and we would have been provided the necessary budget to make it so. The rational approach didn't happen, primarily because for OSTP and OMB, retiring the shuttle is a jihad rather than an engineering and program management decision.