Business, Economics, Political Commentary, Space

There Goes Another Hundred Million

8 Comments

The next (and penultimate) Shuttle flight is now no earlier than May 16th.

John Shannon said last year that it costs about two hundred million a month to extend the program, so this two-week delay cost another hundred million dollars (note that four months of that burn rate would provide enough resources for another entire SpaceX). That assumes, of course, that this delay will also push out the the schedule of the final flight. I don’t know enough about KSC flows to know if that’s the case, or if they can be parallel processing Atlantis, currently scheduled for the end of June.

8 thoughts on “There Goes Another Hundred Million”

  1. This whole escapade is a testament to the reasons why we need to get rid of the Shuttle. The system is how many decades old? And they still haven’t gotten any of it to run smoothly. If anything the system has increased in cost over its lifetime. This simply cannot be the future of manned spaceflight, we desperately need to move on, thank god we finally are.

  2. At the moment, Atlantis is ready to roll out to the VAB. They could do it now, but usually an Orbiter doesn’t sit in the VAB very long. As long as OV-105 gets moving soon, before the beta cut-out, then the last flight should launch on time. Better to get STS-134 buttoned up properly than to add another fueling cycle to the tank.

  4. The cost of Shuttle is horrendous…

    That said, I’d love to hear any opinions on whether an improved shuttle (taking advantage of tech improvements) could have been a viable option *IF* the effort had been started back when we lost Columbia. (I know it’s impossible now).

    An orbiter designed for ease of access and other changes to to reduce turnaround manhours was always something I wondered could have been possible.

    Personally, I like the capabilities of Shuttle; my main objection to it is fiscal.

    When Columbia was lost and it became apparent that we’d need a shuttle replacement in a few years, I did think that a redesigned, second generation Shuttle might be the way to go. I now realize it was impossible due to the pork mentality at NASA and in congress, becuase they would not have focused on reducing manhours and workforce (and that’s what has to be done for a viable, affordable launch system). But, i still wonder if, had the political will existed to clean out the pork rat’s nest and make decisions on actual sensible paramiters, with a sane fiscal system and goal, whether a Shuttle II might have been a viable option (with a reasonable launch price).

    I’ve always liked the capabilities Shuttle has, and I’ll be sad to see it go (though I fully realize that it has to go).

    And, a question on the Shuttle SRB’s… anyone know why they are segmented? I can’t seem to find an answer for that… It seems to me that the casing, at the very least, would be better as one structure? (such as every other SRB I’m aware of has… though admittedly those are smaller) Couldn’t one-piece SRB’s have been produced just about anywhere along the intercostal waterway? (Thiokol had to build facilities for production anyway, so why not on the waterway?.

    I dimly recall reading that Aerojet proposed building a one-piece SRB for shuttle, so it looks to me like it might have been feasible. (plus chepaer and better)

    I earnestly hope the reason we went segmented wasn’t pork (Jobs for Utah) because that would mean we slaughtered seven astronauts for pork. (plus make the system less efficient and more complex).

  5. I know it’s impossible now

    HL-20 / Dream Chaser would have some (not all) of those capabilities.

  6. Arizona CJ,

    Actually a Shuttle II was seriously considered after Challenger as the Shuttle was never intended to fly much beyond 1990. But instead President Regean just decided to built a replace Orbiter from spare parts as a stop gap while they developed the National Aerospace Plane – AKA the Orient Express.

    That said, any of the original TSTO designs considered in the late 1960’s would make a very viable Shuttle 2 today, especially when combined with the experience gained on the Shuttle and the advances in material science and avionics since then.

    But in t he U.S. we always seem to be looking for breakthroughs instead of an evolutionary path to improving technology.

    Also keep in mind that the biggest problems with the Shuttle resulted from Congress not funding the flyback first stage, replacing it with the ET and SRB, and deciding the USAF would use if for launching recon satellites out of VAFB, which determined the size of the cargo bay, payload and cross range requirement, which meant that instead of a laminated heat shield they needed to go to the tiles. Both accidents are really traced back to those decisions, as is the high operational costs for the system.

  7. Re Arizona CJ, on segmented vs single-piece SRBs: Fairly easy question to answer. Look at the Congressional District the segmented SRBs are made in. Now look at the Senator. Now add up the $$$ Morton Thiokol has raked in from this project over the lifespan of the shuttle.

    Any questions?

  8. Thanks for the replies…

    Ugh, it does look like they killed seven astronauts for pork…

    I looked around a bit after my post. Apparently, Thiokol’s proposal was rated fourth out of four, but they picked it anyway.

    This is disgusting beyond words. To me, this is the best argument I’ve heard as to why NASA and congress cannot be trusted to have anything to do with launch systems.

Comments are closed.