NASA Plans Three More Shuttle Flights This Year

Lonesome Squash writes "The BBC are reporting that a new fuel tank is due to arrive on Wednesday that fixes the well-known problems with insulation loss. According to the article, administrators are hopeful that they will be able to "squeeze in three launches" this year. I guess they've lowered the bar enough that even the Shuttle program can slither over it. I can only be grateful that I'm not the poor chump who has to write their press releases."

Comments

In related news

[east coast]

NASA Plans To Push Back Three More Shuttle Flights This Year To Next Year

Cost per Launch?

[Aspirator]

It's still an impressive technology, re-useability has a great appeal,
but what has the cost per launch got to now, and how does it compare
with more conventional rocket launches?

Re:Cost per Launch?

[Rei]

A couple things are wrong with that statement.

1) Shuttle launch costs are rather tough to calculate. The problem is that you don't dispose of your vehicle after launch; it's not a raw "cost to produce a new vehicle" issue. Costs are estimated by looking at the shuttle program's budget and dividing by the average number of launches per year.

The shuttle budget hasn't increased much, although it has increased. It will be up next year, then start to go down. Launches are way down during the repair time, so you could say that they're very much higher right now. However, as launches pick back up (cross fingers, yes ;) ) costs will be back similar to how they were before.

2) The Saturn V was not a cheap vehicle, even per kg. Cheaper than the shuttle, yes, but that doesn't say much

3) Mass produce a rocket that can take 88,000 kg to LEO? Sure, just 5x NASA's budget....

Mass production generally targets midsized launches. Small rockets are inefficient. Heavy lift boosters don't have the market for mass production. Heck, there's not even really a market for midsized mass production, but the hope is that if costs drop, a market will appear.

Who are you kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

If somebody said "you can be one of the 1/100000000 portion of the human race that gets to go into space, but there's a 1/25 chance you may explode in a ball of fire", who here wouldn't be all over that?

That's pretty good odds in my book. If any of you whiners have a seat you want to give up, there'll be no shortage of takers.

WHAT??? Re:Acronym fun!

[msbsod]

IMHO the death of the seven Columbia astronauts should not be ridiculed.

In memory of the lost seven astronauts, forever:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2716369. stm

Re:WHAT??? Re:Acronym fun!

[Rei]

No, the last Soyuz capsule related deaths were in 2002.

Unmanned Soyuz craft keep failing (and Soyuz has killed a *lot* of ground crew). It's been luck that the manned missions have been the ones that didn't blow up. The manned craft have had many very close calls as well - nearly rolling off a cliff, breaking through a frozen lake, etc.

Overall, Soyuz and Shuttle have similar crew safety levels. Non-crew death totals, shuttle has a far better record. Soyuz is much cheaper.

Re:WHAT??? Re:Acronym fun!

[david.given]

Unmanned Soyuz craft keep failing (and Soyuz has killed a *lot* of ground crew). It's been luck that the manned missions have been the ones that didn't blow up.

That's actually rather an oversimplification --- the word 'Soyuz' actually refers to a whole family of spacecraft.

Firstly, there's the spacecraft themselves, the bits that actually get into orbit; these are all manned. The ones currently used as ferries to the space station is the Soyuz-TMA.

Secondly, there's the launch vehicles. There are loads of these. Manned flights typically launch on the Soyuz-FG. The accident you were talking about was a satellite launch atop the Soyuz-U launch vehicle. The last and only failure of a Soyuz-FG was in 1983, over twenty years ago, and was a launchpad fire where all the astronauts got out alive --- manned vehicles, of course, are built to much tighter tolerances than unmanned vehicles.

Re:Is that really a good idea?

[Rei]

There was an editorial on SpaceDaily recently which presented an interesting perspective: that Griffin is trying to kill the shuttle program. Griffin was on the record as explaining that the cause is due to a fundamental problem with side-mount craft on tanks with cryogenic fuels: the tank's size changes as the temperature changes, causing tiny cracks that allow gas to get inside. The gas liquifies, then reexpands in the upper atmosphere and blows off foam.

Yet, they're still launching, without a fix. The obvious result is that we're going to see foam fall off. They've been removing it from the worst locations, yes, and making changes to try and make it stick around better. But it's still going to shed. Meanwhile, groups that previously supported or were neutral to the shuttle program will still be steaming over watching their favorite robotic programs slashed to pay for the shuttle in the last budget.

Then Griffin can go back to congress and say, "look, we did our best, and it can't be fixed for a reasonable amount of money. We can't afford it, so unless you can get us the money, the shuttle needs to be retired sooner rather than later." Then the issue of either backing out of ISS, paying other countries to launch our modules, or adapting a US heavy lift vehicle to launch them must be confronted.

I'm not sure that this is really Griffin's motivation or not, but it's an interesting theory.

Going to space should not be in question

[movingaloe]

Exploration always results in new and unexpected advances in science. We explored all the land, were working hard on the oceans, and as soon as we can we should explore as far as we can reach from our planet.

I applaud NASA for doing their best with their limited budget, a reusable ship based on technology that has been successful in the past is exactly what they should be doing. They have a bad track record, they need to do a few safe missions to gain public support.

Its just too bad for them (although I couldnt be happier) that the private companies are going to steal the show.