US Urged To Keep Space Shuttles Flying Past 2010

DarkNemesis618 writes "A US Representative has proposed that NASA keep the shuttle fleet flying past its planned 2010 retirement date. The move would help NASA avoid reliance on Russian rockets during the gap between the Space Shuttle retirement and the start of the Orion program. One proposal would keep the shuttle fleet flying from 2010 to 2013 while another would keep the fleet alive until the Orion program is ready in about 2015. 2011 marks the end of the exemption that has allowed NASA to use Soyuz rockets for trips to the Space Station, and they would need an extension to keep using Russian launch vehicles. NASA's other option lies in the private sector; but thus far, the progress from that quarter does not look sufficient to meet the 2011 deadline."

Comments

Race goes on

[eebra82]

It's been 60 years since Sputnik took off. You'd think the "who's got the biggest cock" race would be over by now. The current shuttles are getting a bit old now and the most recent problems/accidents/tragedies indicated the very same thing. Maybe Russian rockets is the safest route for now?

Re:Race goes on

[smittyoneeach]

You'd think the "who's got the biggest cock" race would be over by now.

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon"--Napoleon
I submit that Napoleon may have had a better grasp of human nature.
Your question could be recast as: "If ODF is there and all, why OOXML?"

Re:Race goes on

[mpe]

Well, I have ancient servers running on ancient Linux variants as well, just for showing off to Windows users. But it doesn't mean they are suitable for mission critical data.

But your "ancient servers" probably don't date from the 1970's. Even your oldest server is probably more recent than the newest shuttle.

Re:Race goes on

[mpe]

The Russian rockets only have similar demonstrated reliability to the shuttle.

But have a lot better safety record. Only 4 vs 14 crew fatalities, with Soyuz having been flying longer.

The smart thing to do would be to launch capsules on the EELVs (Atlas 5 or Delta 4), but that has severe political problems (basically, a lot of people would be out of work).

There's also the problem of the US having abandoned manned capsules over 30 years ago.

Re:Race goes on

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I have ancient servers running on ancient Linux variants as well, just for showing off to Windows users. Congratulations for the most pathetic reply of the day.

Re:Race goes on

[icebrain]

But have a lot better safety record. Only 4 vs 14 crew fatalities, with Soyuz having been flying longer. That's like saying that the 747 has a worse safety record than the shuttle, because something like 2,000 people have died on it, and it's been flying longer. More have died on the shuttle because it carries more people.

Soyuz has also had two fatal accidents in roughly the same number of flights; there have also been several incidents in the past few years of the reentry guidance failing and the capsule going "ballistic".

Re:Race goes on

[rbanffy]

"Soyuz has also had two fatal accidents in roughly the same number of flights"

I find it unlikely Soyuz had the same number of flights as the shuttles. they have flown since about 68, from the original models to the TMA variant currently in use. I am not sure exactly how many flights were done, but I am quite sure that, being in service for about a decade longer than the shuttle makes it quite sure it had flown more missions. Also, the last failure with loss of crew (during re-entry) happened long ago, a couple design iterations back. I think it's safe to assume Soyouz-class vehicles are a very mature design and, quite probably, safer that shuttles.

There is no dishonor in having a less safe space vehicle. The shuttle is an incredible achievement. It's only unfortunate it was too ambitious.

BTW, since they are expendable, one could argument every mission ends in partial failure, with the loss of the vehicle ;-)

Re:Race goes on

[Shakrai]

Meh, it works for Switzerland

It "works" for Switzerland because they are a landlocked mountainous country with little natural resources surrounded by friendly neighbors. Switzerland came dangerously close to being invaded by Nazi Germany during WW2 and probably would have been (sooner or later) if Barbarossa hadn't turned out so badly.

The Swiss model isn't going to work for nations like Russia or the United States (too big, too much economic clout, too involved in World affairs). It isn't going to work for nations with unfriendly neighbors (Israel, Pakistan, India, Taiwan). It isn't going to work for nations located on natural invasion routes between stronger powers (Poland, the Low Countries, etc).

but keeping a bunch of decrepit shuttles just for the sake of not being all chummy with Russia is sad

It's not about "not being chummy" with Russia. It's about retaining a native space launch capability and not relying on other nations to do it for us. As a random example: Why the hell is Europe deploying Galileo? Shouldn't they just rely on GPS and the United States? Are they trying to "not be chummy" with us?

See the point?

Re:Race goes on

[agengr]

"I find it unlikely Soyuz had the same number of flights as the shuttles."

That's because they don't. The U.S. Space Shuttle has flown more!

At present time, the 98th Soyuz flight is docked to the International Space Station. Atlantis is sitting on the launch pad waiting to fly the 121st Shuttle mission (STS-122). Despite the fact that the first Soyuz flew 13 years before the first Shuttle, NASA has historically been the more active space agency.

"I think it's safe to assume Soyouz-class vehicles are a very mature design and, quite probably, safer that shuttles."

They are statistically the same. Both have lost two crews, and when you consider the number of people flown safely to the number of people lost, they both have around 98% success rate.

The Soyuz TMA (the most recent Soyuz variant) has had some frightening close calls lately. It's interesting to note that when Endeavor had a dinged heat-shield tile, the media was circling NASA like hawks. But when the *second* Soyuz in 4 years lost guidance/navigation on re-entry and subjected the crew to a bone-crushing, high-G, hundreds of miles off-course re-entry, it got just a blurb in trade magazines.

Re:Race goes on

[icebrain]

There were a couple of STS missions planned and designated but not flown. To avoid confusion (hah) they didn't change the mission numbers when one was cancelled. They did that not just because of canceled missions, but also re-sequenced ones. The reasoning was that keeping the same mission designations (STS-XX), but flying them out of order, was less confusing than having to go through and change press kits, mission plans, payload specifications, and everything else each time there was a schedule change. Remember, shuttle launch manifests are drawn up well in advance, and crews train for at least a year or two for a specific mission.

"Urged" by whom?

[MollyB]

from TFA:

U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon, a Republican whose Florida district includes the Kennedy Space Center, proposed extending the shuttles' lifetime to close the gap until their replacement ships, called Orion, are ready for their first manned flights in 2015. I think it is natural and logical Mr. Weldon takes this position. However, is crew safety being ignored in this calculation?

Re:"Urged" by whom?

[Cally]

It's faith-based aerospace... as in, when you launch, you pray it doesn't go boom.

Perhaps not the brightest of ideas.

[reality-bytes]

TFA seems to suggest extending the STS life while also cutting costs. This sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I know that strapping yourself to a rocket and heading for space is never safe but it would be better not to make it more dangerous. At the same time, I can see that extending the life by 6 months or so would help alleviate the current pressures on the STS for the station-construction mission (but that's not what the article discusses)

I presume the reasoning for not wanting to rely on the Russian crew launch system is that any souring of the American-Russian relationship could make the deal problematic. How about if it were via ESA and the forthcoming Soyuz operation at French-Guiana? Would this side-step some of the possible relationship issues?

Re:Spend

[reality-bytes]

The spend is justified simply because (and a certain well known physicist will back me up) if we do not learn to leave this rock we, as a race, will ultimately perish here.

I'm not sure that the STS as it was finally created could ever be called a 'responsible' use of resources but right now, it's the only manned launcher the USA has so they've got to work with it until Orion becomes available.

Yes, but on the bright side...

[tekrat]

Now they can launch that telescope thingie that was going to be left to wither because all the remaining flights have been scheduled for finishing the ISS -- and with delays, they still won't be done by 2013 anyhow.

Hey NASA can go waste all the billions they want, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to wars which suck up a lot more money and produce even less useful results than NASA.

It's too bad the privatized companies (Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, SpaceX, Armadillo) can't ramp up development to meet the need. Oddly enough, *their* space race will produce the only results that will actually lower the cost per pound to orbit.

It's too bad we're all so scared of failure these days. Consider that during the development of aircraft, a lot of people died. A lot of people died just trying to cross the Atlantic. We didn't halt aircraft development every time some lunatic in a biplane was lost in a storm. But for some reason, we're afraid to blow up the occasional person to get into space. We need to get over that. A lot of people are going to die before we're able to easily leave the planet as easily as we currently visit another continent. That's just a reality and no amount of double checking is going to change that.

Well, for test flights anyhow, we could always use that Humanoid Robot (REEM-B) some guy spent three *whole* years developing! ;-)

Re:Yes, but on the bright side...

[Anonymous Coward]

But for some reason, we're afraid to blow up the occasional person to get into space. We need to get over that.

You first.

Re:Yes, but on the bright side...

[entrigant]

But that's just it, isn't it? There are many, many people who will GLADLY take the risk and be "first". Anyone who wishes to deny us a space program has no right so say no on the grounds of danger if there are people who understand and willingly accept the danger deciding the benefits far outweight it. Me first? Sure, point me to the shuttle.

Follow the money

[mach1980]

Is it that hard to imagine why senators want US dollars to be spent in their home states instead of going to Russia?

My guess is that this is a national economy thing and has nothing to do with flight-worthiness or risk analysis.

LC-39C

[reality-bytes]

The obvious solution to this problem would be to construct pad LC-39C as an Ares platform.

LC-39C was originally projected as a third Saturn V pad in a line north of LC-39B but was never constructed although a stub of it's intended crawler-way points towards the north from the dog-leg in the LC-39B crawler-way. There were actually a total of three unbuilt platforms to the north as part of an 'Advanced Saturn' program but the other two look like they'd need significant land reclamation.

The existing crawler-transporters should be sufficient to handle both the STS and Ares I as NASA is building brand-new MLPs for the Ares system.

Compared to the total cost of the Ares/Orion system, a new LC-39 pad would like like a bargain.

Re:Spend

[mha]

This questions is invalid.

It comes down to asking "what is the commercial benefit of live"?

This conversation happened and says it all:
Q: Why did you climb that mountain?
A: Because it is there.

What do you live for? What is "the economy" for? No economist would ask such a question. Because the ENDS of the economy are not subject of that science, only how to best achieve it. What those ends are, what people values in life, is NOT a subject of economic debate - at least not as real economists are concerned (sure there are those who want to impose their values on you but that is their personal issue and not subject of the science called "economics").

It comes down to this: If there are enough people with enough power to get their will then whatever it is they want it gets done. Period. That's how everything works. Democracy too. Only distribution of power is different in different societies.

So, if you don't want that anyone goes to space, convince them or become powerful enough to prevent it. But don't ask for the purpose - there is none. Each person has to decide for themselves what they want from/in life. That is true whether you're an atheist or a devoted catholic (I'm an atheist who ended up on two catholic pilgrimages :-) thus far). For atheists that's clear, but also religion teaches that what you do in life is YOUR choice, god doesn't tell you. (It does say you get judged afterwards but more about HOW and not WHAT you did). So if I decide my purpose is to get to Mars then that's it. If I kill people to get what I want I leave human values behind. If I can convince enough people (with enough resources) to help me (or if they want it themselves anyway) there is no use asking the question "why". Because I want it.

Imagine an intelligence waaaaay beyond human capabilities. Of what use is it? It's a great computer, not more! Without feelings, desires, there is NOTHING to drive it towards some end. There is no logical reason to do ANYTHING. You can ALWAYS ask "why", endlessly! At some point you have to decide you don't give a d..., or you never have a reason to act, ever. That's also why very intelligent people, with IQs far above average, are NOT the most successful ones in life. Sure, *some* intelligence sure helps, but at some point it gets much more important to feel the inner DRIVE to live and so things, and NOT ask questions "why"! That's (the main reason) why a dyslexic Richard Branson is a multi-Billionaire and 180+ IQ writer Stanislaw Lem (one of my favorites) only wrote lots of very thoughtful and philosophic books, with an increasing air of skepticism and melancholy.

So maybe you are too intelligent if you keep asking "why" ;-)

Politics as usual

[El Yanqui]

Politics too often trumps science and common sense. Here's a congressman who wants a lucrative deal in his district, that's the story.

I like how the congressman describes it as an "arbitrary" date for decomissioning and that the risks won't increase overnight. I say send a congressman up on every mission after the shuttle's sell by date.

They probably can be used effectively for many years, but that doesn't mean that they should. Every bit of extra maintenance and upkeep performed on an old system, every bit of extra testing to make sure parts still function and every investigation into a failure will slow the space program and new developments. This is pork politics no matter how it's dressed up.

Re:Spend

[Shooter6947]

[the STS is] the only manned launcher the USA has so they've got to work with it until Orion becomes available.

This misses the point. The problem is that NASA told congress that they could indeed keep flying the shuttle while developing Orion, for an extra $1B per year. Congress said, "great. keep flying the shuttle, develop Orion, and do it without the $1B." NASA is not getting enough money to do both. The point of retiring the shuttle is to free up that ~$6B/year and spend it on the next-generation launch system, Orion, instead. We can't do both without a significant increase in budget, which is just not going to happen.

As for not having American access to the Station in the interim, we'll just have to deal with paying the Russians. Unless the NASA COTS system works out. Elon Musk over at SpaceX may very well have his Dragon capsule and Falcon 9 launch vehicle ready about that time to take over from the Shuttle.