Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Frank Sietzen's Talk At RTTM | Main | RTTM Banquet »

Good Money After Bad

Someone mentioned this during the conference yesterday, but now I've found a URL. Costs to return the Shuttle to flight have exploded, now estimated at 1.1 billion dollars.

As someone over at sci.space.policy said, "Surprise, surprise, surprise."

IMO, most of the return to flight activities are a waste of money for bandaids, similar to the foolish "escape pole" that some insisted be added to the Shuttle after the Challenger.

They should either start flying again now, or shut the program down. Wasting all this time and money on an unfixable system that's going to be retired after twenty-five flights is pointless. We still need to revisit the CAIB recommendations in light of the new policy, something that, AFAIK, has not happened since the January 14th announcement.

Fortunately, there's at least one lawmaker with his head screwed on straight (not surprising, since Pete Worden has his ear):

This most recent cost increase isn't going to sit well with some lawmakers, said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., chairman of the Senate Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee.

"We're pouring a lot of money -- $4 billion to $5 billion a year -- into the shuttle whether it flies or not," said Brownback. "There will be some real hard questions such as what are we getting out of putting more money into the shuttle."

Brownback said he would rather retire the shuttle sooner and divert its budget and accelerate NASA's plans to follow through on President Bush's vision to send astronauts back to the moon and eventually to Mars.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 18, 2004 08:45 AM

Comments

I got a Centennial Challenge" for ya!

A prize to the first orginization who figures how to deliver and install space station components using conventional equipment eliminating the need for the shuttle.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 18, 2004 08:58 AM

Let me clarify: By conventional I should have said existing or soon to exist launch systems.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 18, 2004 09:11 AM

Mike, can we fly ISS components on Proton? Then its a piece of cake. Buy 25 Proton shots and use the rest of the next five years of STS budget to build a station keeping module and a small tug.

Also, offer 90% of the STS orbiter money for the period 2004 - 2010 as a prize and someone can finish ISS with shuttle B. Two ISS components go up per shuttle B launch.

AND by 2010 we also have an SDV heavy lift system operational all for the same money NASA proposes to spend on the orbiter

AND shuttle B is an evolutionary step towards Ares.

Posted by Bill White at July 18, 2004 09:46 AM

I think many components are dependant on the orbiter for power and astronauts for assembly. I think they are also dependant on the shuttle's manupilator arm as well.

You would proabally need to launch a Soyuz with every shot to make sure the parts get correctly installed.

You would also need to make numerous mods to the flight hardware.

Is ain't gonna be some 'slap bapety bap' and go job for sure.

No one said it would be easy.

The questions are:

1) Is it possible?

2) Is it cost-effective?

3) Can it be done by the 2010 timeframe?

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 18, 2004 10:06 AM

To add:

Not to mention the US assemblies are not designed with automated docking in mind.

How many parts would be beyond fitting inside an aeroshell for a Proton or an Atlas/Delta Heavy? How many would be too heavy for those boosters to lift onche you modify them and add the aeroshell?

Its opening a whole can of worms and one solution can cause more problems.

Still, I think the question needs asked.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 18, 2004 10:13 AM

If we cancel the shuttle without a firm, agreed upon, plan for the future, we wind up spinning our wheels yet again. Everyone has a "better" plan, but no one has a set of plans everyone can get behind.

Failing that, let's fly the shuttle with the minimal amount of fixes required, with volunteer crews (I know, they are already volunteers), as needed, until a agreed upon set of plans is in place and the metal is being shaped.

We need to get back up there NOW! The longer we wait, the less likely we are to do it.

Rich

Posted by Rich at July 18, 2004 12:46 PM

Rich, if Bush has any pretensions at all of being a leader, he will determine the path we take after the Shuttle takes an Early Retirement.

Regardless of who does it and who pays for it, cheap and reliable LEO access is essential to future human space travel. Can you show me anyone who believes the Shuttle delivers that?

Posted by billg at July 18, 2004 05:23 PM

Point 1 - - ISS is NOT a safe haven. Another Columbia like accident occurs and they see it before re-entry and take refuge at ISS. There is a good chance the ISS life support system would be swamped before rescue could occur.

The crew is saved yet we are done to 2 orbiters and the ISS is non-functional.

Point 2 - - STS cannot complete ISS by 2010. With CAIB flight restrictiosn how does NASA have any hope of flying enough flights to retire STS by 2010 and finish ISS? Impossible.

So is the BushPlan to spend $5 billion per year and pretend to work on ISS only to say, in 2010, okay now we quit?

$30 - $40 billion flushed down the drain.

Point 3 - - Without STS or an alternate system to carry science racks to ISS, ISS has no available purpose after 2010. If the ESA or RSA or NASA can find an alternate method of supporting ISS without STS, do it now and finish ISS without STS.

Proton? Big enough but you need to add an Orbital Recoveries style payload stabilization module to the ISS component. Help the payload station-keep and maintain attitude control until a Progress comes slong to push it to ISS.

Proton plus a Progress tug? $100 million for the pair, right? How much for each orbiter flight?

Delta IVH? Over at NewMars.com we hammered this to death back in March and April. The consensus seemed to be that Delta IVH does not have the lift needed to get the larger ISS payloads to 51 degrees AND carry a payload stabilization module to allow station keeping until a Progress shows up and provides last mile guidance.

Shuttle B/C? My favorite. Ground shuttle orbiter now. TODAY. Orbiter NEVER flies again. Lay off ALL orbiter tile maintenance employees TODAY.

Deploy Shuttle B by 2007-2008-2009. Swap in RS-68 engines and 5 segment Thiokol SRBs.

Loft TWO ISS payload packages per launch. 12 shuttle B/C = 24 orbiter launches. Finish ISS by 2010 anyways and deploy a new cargo only heavy lift system all within the budget already allocated for STS.

= = =

Rand Simberg doesn't like SDV. Fair enough. For me, another acceptable option is to cancel ISS and STS 100% today. But Bush ain't got the guts to do that.

Setting aside Florida and Louisiana politics, here's how we deal with the ISS partners.

Ground the orbiter and cancel ISS today. Announce: "Its safety related. CAIB just cannot be complied with. Sorry ESA, RSA, Japan, but its out of our hands."

Then tell Colin Powell to do some of that diplomacy stuff he is so good at with the ESA & RSA and Japan.

Return to Moon much sooner than the current plan and take along some Japanese, French, Canadian and Russian astronauts to make nice over canceling ISS.

= = =

Another option?

ISS-2 using Bigelow TransHabs launched to 28 degrees (not 51). Agree to deliver all grounded ISS modules to ISS-2 in fulfillment of ISS partnership.

= = =

Rebuilding the orbiters so they can fly 3 or 4 or 5 more times each then be retired in pristine condition in the Smithsonian is simply daft.

IMHO, as always. -)

Posted by Bill White at July 18, 2004 07:30 PM

For me, another acceptable option is to cancel ISS and STS 100% today. But Bush ain't got the guts to do that.

That's a revealing slur.

An alternate explanation--that Bush isn't king, and can't simply cancel programs without concurrence from the Hill, from whom he needs cooperation on other matters--wouldn't cross your mind?

No, I didn't think so.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 18, 2004 10:32 PM

Actually, Rand, maybe there is a secret plan to prepare NASA, Congress and the US public for the fact that orbiter might not ever fly again. Hubble is part of that plan.

If so, Bush & O'Keefe will be praised by me. Big time. :-)

Posted by Bill White at July 19, 2004 06:54 AM

A follow up on Bush-bashing.

George Bush deserves great credit for declaring that Americans must leave LEO and go farther. He deserves that credit and it is not insignificant.

However, when his supporters seek more credit than is deserved (after all "vision without strategy is illusion" sayeth John McCain) the result is less credit being given than is deserved.

So let us praise GWB for his declaration that going in circles in ISS is not good enough for America. Bravo!

But let us not pretend that his strategy for achieving that vision is somehow handed down from God.

Posted by Bill White at July 19, 2004 07:06 AM

I think the decision to stop hubble servicing from STS was a litmus test on public reaction to just dumping the whole program. I'd say that decision failed the test based upon on the belly aching people have done. Hubble's great an all but when we have ground based telescopes that can outperform an orbital observatory. I'd say its time for an upgrade anyways so let the thing drop. Only thing that I hate about the hubble situation was that once that telescopes mission was done we were going to bring it back to earth and put it in the Smithsonian. That really would have been neat to see.

Posted by Hefty at July 19, 2004 05:18 PM

Rand, you and I are allies on this. So how did these two miss the memo? Send them the Cowing / Seitzen book, quick!

The space shuttle has that experience and is poised to answer that call through 2010 and beyond.

http://www.flatoday.com/news/space/stories/2004b/spacestory0718WNELSON.htm

Posted by Bill White at July 19, 2004 09:38 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?