Re: Boeing: Space shuttles to last into next decade

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >, Larry Dighera
> writes:

>While the cost to operate the shuttles may be great, imagine the cost,
>in today's dollars, to build a replacement and train the personnel.
>Compared to the cost of operating existing shuttles, it would be many
>times greater.

Blame it on NASA. If there is a lack of alternative "heavy lift" capability,
it's only because over 20 years ago, NASA mandated that all future government
payloads be designed around the shuttle, and all alternatives to the shuttle be
scuttled. This was in order to make the shuttle a "necessity" to America's
space program.

The reality was that the economics of the shuttle were complete fantasy, and
NASA knew it. (hence the mandates leaving the US with few alternatives until
the French, Russians, and Chinese started filling the void) We could (and
perhaps should have) gone on building disposable Saturn-like boosters (500k
pound payloads, vs the shuttle's 30k to 40k). The R&D was paid for, and the
support costs would be a fraction. (A typical shuttle mission costs somewhere
around half-a-billion)

John

[Ron Natalie]

"JohnMcGrew" > wrote in message ...

> Blame it on NASA. If there is a lack of alternative "heavy lift" capability,
> it's only because over 20 years ago, NASA mandated that all future government
> payloads be designed around the shuttle, and all alternatives to the shuttle be
> scuttled. This was in order to make the shuttle a "necessity" to America's
> space program.
>
Yep, believe it. Spent a bit of time at Martin trying to figure out how to boost
payloads into higher orbits from the shuttle cargo bay (using a recycled upper
stage from the Titan project). Made little sense.

[Jay Masino]

JohnMcGrew > wrote:
> Blame it on NASA. If there is a lack of alternative "heavy lift" capability,
> it's only because over 20 years ago, NASA mandated that all future government
> payloads be designed around the shuttle, and all alternatives to the shuttle be
> scuttled. This was in order to make the shuttle a "necessity" to America's
> space program.

That's interesting, since NASA routinely sends payloads into orbit on
spacecraft other than the shuttle. The three that I work on (EOS/Terra,
EOS/Aqua, EOS/Aura) are all non-shuttle payloads. If I remember right,
Terra and Aqua were launched using Atlas Centaur rockets, launched from
Vandenburg AFB in California.

> The reality was that the economics of the shuttle were complete fantasy, and
> NASA knew it. (hence the mandates leaving the US with few alternatives until
> the French, Russians, and Chinese started filling the void) We could (and
> perhaps should have) gone on building disposable Saturn-like boosters (500k
> pound payloads, vs the shuttle's 30k to 40k). The R&D was paid for, and the
> support costs would be a fraction. (A typical shuttle mission costs somewhere
> around half-a-billion)

The Shuttle's purpose was more than just lifting payloads. It's both a
scientific platform, as well as a on-orbit repair station.

-- Jay


__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

[AES/newspost]

In article >,
(Jay Masino) wrote:

>
> The Shuttle's purpose was more than just lifting payloads. It's both a
> scientific platform, as well as a on-orbit repair station.
>

Little to completely negligible meaningful science actually done with or
on the shuttle; shuttle launches for repair missions of unamnned
orbitals cost more than rebuilding and relaunching a new copy of the
same item; plus limiting the unmanned orbital to an orbit reachable by
the shuttle generally significantly compromises its performance.

[Jay Masino]

AES/newspost > wrote:
> Little to completely negligible meaningful science actually done with or
> on the shuttle;

That's a matter of opinion. There's are dozens, if not hundreds of small
experiments that are carried out on every shuttle mission that the public
doesn't neccessarily know about. I'm sure those scientists feel that
their work is worthwhile, and I suspect that the scientific community in
general does too.

> shuttle launches for repair missions of unamnned
> orbitals cost more than rebuilding and relaunching a new copy of the
> same item; plus limiting the unmanned orbital to an orbit reachable by
> the shuttle generally significantly compromises its performance.

For a small satellite, that may be true, although the turn around time
may be important, depending on the mission. For a large, expensive
satellite like Hubble, I doubt that "relaunching a new copy" is a viable
short term fix to any problems it might encounter. The next generation
space telescope is still several years away.

NASA doesn't force a spacecraft team to use a shuttle accessable orbit.
Terra, Aqua and Aura can't be reached by the shuttle, and they're worth
billions of dollars each. I think, from a shuttle repair standpoint, if a
particular satellite can be reached by the shuttle, and if the economics
and mission timeline dictates that it's worth repairing, it becomes a
canditate for repair. If not, it doesn't get repaired. NASA isn't
stupid.

-- Jay

__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
AES/newspost > wrote:

> > The Shuttle's purpose was more than just lifting payloads. It's both a
> > scientific platform, as well as a on-orbit repair station.
>
> Little to completely negligible meaningful science actually done with or
> on the shuttle; shuttle launches for repair missions of unamnned
> orbitals cost more than rebuilding and relaunching a new copy of the
> same item; plus limiting the unmanned orbital to an orbit reachable by
> the shuttle generally significantly compromises its performance.

You can't do much man-in-space science during unmanned missions.
Of course, the people who don't want manned missions don't care
about that science.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Jay Masino) wrote:

> NASA isn't
> stupid.

but sometimes NASA is very budget-constrained.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Fry]

(JohnMcGrew) writes:

> Blame it on NASA. If there is a lack of alternative "heavy lift"
> capability, it's only because over 20 years ago, NASA mandated that
> all future government payloads be designed around the shuttle, and
> all alternatives to the shuttle be scuttled. This was in order to
> make the shuttle a "necessity" to America's space program.

This same kind of thinking happens all the time in other areas. For
instance, here in Sacramento, a Light Rail system (dubbed "Late Rail"
by local wits) was installed at hundreds of millions of dollars a few
years ago--in spite of an analysis by the area planning agency that
expanding the bus fleet would be cheaper and provide better service.
What happened after Light Rail was installed?

First, all the outlying express buses--which used to run around the
'burbs picking up people, then make a non-stop run downtown--were
turned into feeder buses for LR, because nobody would ride the damn
thing otherwise. Then people's commute time *doubled* because now you
had to wait for two vehicles, and the LR made stops that the buses
didn't.

Second, just about everybody who rides it regularly has stories of
harrasment and abuse by young or mentally ill riders. Unlike a bus,
where the driver can see what's going on and take action, the LR
trains have a single isolated driver so there's no authority figure to
squelch the perps.

Finally, building the rails and buying cars is hugely expensive and
only possible because Uncle Sugar picks up most of the bill--like the
Shuttle.

Someday this house of cards is going to collapse. The sooner the
better I guess.

[Bob Fry]

(Jay Masino) writes:

> AES/newspost > wrote:
> > Little to completely negligible meaningful science actually done with or
> > on the shuttle;
>
> That's a matter of opinion. There's are dozens, if not hundreds of small
> experiments that are carried out on every shuttle mission that the public
> doesn't neccessarily know about. I'm sure those scientists feel that
> their work is worthwhile, and I suspect that the scientific community in
> general does too.

"The truth is, [the Columbia flight] had finally been launched as much
to clear the books as to add to human knowledge, and it had gone
nowhere except into low Earth orbit...performing a string of
experiments, many of which, like the shuttle program itself, seemed to
suffer from something of make-work character--the examination of dust
in the Middle East (by the Israeli, of course); the ever popular ozone
study; experiments designed by schoolchildren in six countries to
observe the effect of weightlessness on spiders, silkworms, and other
creatures; an exercise in 'astroculture' involving the extraction of
essential oils from rose and rice flowers, which was said to hold
promise for new perfumes; and so forth. No doubt some good science
was done too--particularly pertaining to space flight itself--though
none of it was so urgent that it could not have been performed later,
under better circumstances, in the under-booked International Space
Station...[The astronauts] were also team players, by intense
selection, and nothing if not wise to the game. From orbit one of
them had radioed, 'The science we're doing here is great, and it's
fantastic. It's leading-edge.'

"Columbia's Last Flight" by William Langewiesche, The Atlantic
Monthly, November 2003.

[BZ]

Jay Masino wrote:

> JohnMcGrew > wrote:
> > Blame it on NASA. If there is a lack of alternative "heavy lift" capability,
> > it's only because over 20 years ago, NASA mandated that all future government
> > payloads be designed around the shuttle, and all alternatives to the shuttle be
> > scuttled. This was in order to make the shuttle a "necessity" to America's
> > space program.
>
> That's interesting, since NASA routinely sends payloads into orbit on
> spacecraft other than the shuttle. The three that I work on (EOS/Terra,
> EOS/Aqua, EOS/Aura) are all non-shuttle payloads. If I remember right,
> Terra and Aqua were launched using Atlas Centaur rockets, launched from
> Vandenburg AFB in California.

That's true, ....today. But by the 80s (hence the 20 years ago) NASA (and the
government at large) did mandate that the shuttle would be the platform for all
government launches, including military. In addition, the shuttle was supposed to
somehow make money with commercial launches for private satellites in the USA, and
the rest of the world too. Production was being terminated for Delta, Atlas, and
Titan rockets.

The design of the shuttle itself reflects this. Remember, the shuttle design had at
least as much to do with politics as it did with aerodynamics. In a post Apollo era
of massive cutbacks, the shuttle need the DoD's support and funding to get approval
by the Nixon administration. To win DoD (Air Force, mainly) support, the cargo bay
was built to handle large DoD satellites. The wing design was much larger than what
would be optimum for NASA.

Why? Because all government launches included polar orbit launches, which were to be
launched from Vandenberg AFB. The larger wings were needed for the cross range
needed to allow the Shuttle to glide back to Vandenberg (or somewhere else
convenient) in case an engine was lost prior to orbit insertion. Also, DoD payloads
had very wide measurements. The compromises needed to support the DoD greatly added
to the weight of the orbiter. A planned booster engine, which was supposed to
provide a one time go-around capability, had to be deleted early on because of these
constraints.

In addition, and no less importantly, the larger wing design necessitated a much
larger thermal cross section in reentry, and also meant the orbiter would be spending
much more time in the hottest area of reentry. The tile system was created to meet
this requirements. It is ironic that the design constraints not used for today's
shuttle are what help to make the shuttle so dangerous.

The shuttle would be used for higher altitude (and deep space probe) launches too.
How would it do this? Two orbiters, Discovery and Challenger were modified to
support the Centaur upper stage, which is a liquid fuel rocket. Ports were added to
the orbiters to allow the Centaur to be fueled and vented, plus the necessary
controls. Centaur never flew on the shuttle. After Challenger's accident NASA
reevaluated the wisdom of liquid rockets in the cargo bay.

[TANGENT: The recently demised Galileo probe to Jupiter was originally designed to
use the shuttle / Centaur, and after shuttle flights resumed post-Challenger
accident, it had no method of launch available. (The revived non shuttle launch
program had not been cranked up again yet to support it). So it was launched from
the Shuttle, but Venus, Venus (again) and Earth's gravity was used to get the probe
to Jupiter in an ingenious roundabout route. After launch the high gain antenna
never deployed, possibly because it was in unplanned storage for so long while
Shuttles was grounded. The low gain antenna saved the day after new compression
software was uploaded to the probe and the entire Deep Space Network was configured
to talk to Galileo.]

By the mid 80's the shuttle program was getting out of control. The schedule was
getting increasingly crammed on the now-declared-operational shuttle. To get enough
launch revenue (this made sense to somebody in government fantasyland), launches were
to be increased to once a month, and then nearly every two weeks (24 per year). But
there were only enough parts for two shuttles. Remember, Challenger's 51L launch was
delayed to that cold January morning partly because Columbia's prior 61-C launch was
delayed about a month, and parts needed to be flown (via a T-38 IIRC) from the
Columbia to Challenger. Columbia's landing was also delayed, due to weather, and it
was not able to land at KSC, as originally planned. The ripple effects of one delay
in this tight environment could affect the entire launch schedule for 12 months, or
more. Every time an orbiter was cannibalized for parts, the risks increased due to
exposing them to possible servicing problems.

In the end, the shuttle just wouldn't be able to perform at Vandenberg, despite the
changes that were made to its initial design for polar launches there. Unlike
launches from KSC, Vandenberg polar launches would not benefit from the earth's
rotation. KSC launches go in orbit, aided by the boost of the earth spinning to get
the craft up to orbit speed. But Polar launches are roughly perpendicular to the
earth's rotation, so there is no boost at all. This means that much more power is
needed from the engines.

An attempt was supposed to be made to develop a lighter solid rocket booster design,
but the Challenger accident cut all of this short. After the accident, the Vandenberg
shuttle launch facility was mothballed. Only then was the Titan IV (Martin
Marietta-now Lockheed Martin) program begun to launch big DoD payloads (and the NASA
Cassini spacecraft, due at Saturn on July 4 2004.). The DoD/NASA finally realized
that expendable rockets really would be needed, shuttle or no shuttle. Also, NASA
got out of the commercial and DoD launch operation business a few years after the
Challenger accident. The manufacturers and the USAF took this over.

By the way, at Vandenberg, huge structures had been created to shield the orbiter's
new pad from prying eyes during DoD missions. Support and vehicle assembly buildings
were constructed, and a runway was lengthened to support orbiter landings. Even a
seaport was constructed. Vandenberg's first space shuttle launch was to occur mere
months after 51-L landed safely. The launch area, SLC-6 or "slick 6" was dogged by
poor workmanship and allegations of drug use by construction workers. It was rebuilt
to launch Athena, and now Delta IV (Boeing) rockets.

By the way, a decision was made to make a set of "structural spares" of large
fuselage and tail parts (vertical stabilizer, rudder, wings, elevons, etc) during the
construction of Discovery and Atlantis, to repair a fuselage in case there was
accident damage. These spares would later be used to build Endeavour. The
Challenger accident occurred just before shuttle production facilities were to be
ramped down. Also the later shuttles (Discovery, Atlantis, Endeavour) have much
fewer thermal tiles, because advances in material technology allowed more thermal
blankets on the upper fuselage instead.

>
> > The reality was that the economics of the shuttle were complete fantasy, and
> > NASA knew it. (hence the mandates leaving the US with few alternatives until
> > the French, Russians, and Chinese started filling the void) We could (and
> > perhaps should have) gone on building disposable Saturn-like boosters (500k
> > pound payloads, vs the shuttle's 30k to 40k). The R&D was paid for, and the
> > support costs would be a fraction. (A typical shuttle mission costs somewhere
> > around half-a-billion)
>
> The Shuttle's purpose was more than just lifting payloads. It's both a
> scientific platform, as well as a on-orbit repair station.

That's true, but the design limitations of the shuttle were based on launching
military payloads, most of which never launched on the shuttle, and never will.

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >,
(Jay Masino) writes:

>That's interesting, since NASA routinely sends payloads into orbit on
>spacecraft other than the shuttle. The three that I work on (EOS/Terra,
>EOS/Aqua, EOS/Aura) are all non-shuttle payloads. If I remember right,
>Terra and Aqua were launched using Atlas Centaur rockets, launched from
>Vandenburg AFB in California.

Oh, they do now, but only after the Challenger disaster left us almost
completely without any launch capability!

>The Shuttle's purpose was more than just lifting payloads. It's both a
>scientific platform, as well as a on-orbit repair station.

The "on-orbit repair station" concept was a non-starter for two reasons:

1) The shuttle only reaches a low orbit of a couple hundred miles. There are
few satellites in that orbit. Almost all are in higher orbits between 10,000
and 22,000 miles.

Of course, NASA had an answer for this. In the '70s, NASA actually
contemplated a "rover", which would be carried up and deployed by the shuttle,
would boost itself up the required higher orbit, retrieve the errant satellite,
bring it back to the shuttle, which would then return to earth. Of course,
after the shuttle concept was sold, the "rover" concept was shelved as both too
expensive and unworkable.

2) It never made economic sense to "repair" satellites. Most of the cost of a
satellite is in R&D, launch, and support operation. When one fails, the
operator really doesn't want it back. They'd rather launch a new, updated one.
(when's the last time you took your consumer electronics in for repair vs just
replacing it? Does it make sense paying $300 to fix your 486 PC when you can
get a brand new one for $400?) Either way, there aren't many satellites worth
half-a-billion, which is what a shuttle launch costs.

John

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >, Bob Fry >
writes:

>Finally, building the rails and buying cars is hugely expensive and
>only possible because Uncle Sugar picks up most of the bill--like the
>Shuttle.

But it does generate generous political cash donations from contractors, and it
employ hundreds of people who pay union dues and will always vote the
status-quo.

John

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >,
(Jay Masino) writes:

>For a small satellite, that may be true, although the turn around time
>may be important, depending on the mission. For a large, expensive
>satellite like Hubble, I doubt that "relaunching a new copy" is a viable
>short term fix to any problems it might encounter. The next generation
>space telescope is still several years away.

For what we've wasted on the shuttle, we could have launched a dozen Hubbles.
Loosing two or three would have been a non-issue.

John

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >, BZ >
writes:

>This means that much more power is needed from the engines.

Actually, it meant that payload had to be reduced to the point to where the
shuttle could boost little more than itself to these orbits, making it useless.

John

[AES/newspost]

In article >,
(JohnMcGrew) wrote:

>
> For what we've wasted on the shuttle, we could have launched a dozen Hubbles.
> Loosing two or three would have been a non-issue.
>
> John

Not to mention that forcing the Hubble to be launched by the shuttle
(for political reasons) meant that the Hubble was limited to a much
lower orbit than would have otherwise possible and desirable: view of
some of its targets periodically obstructed by Earth, and exposed to
substantially more space debris.

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >, AES/newspost
> writes:

>Not to mention that forcing the Hubble to be launched by the shuttle
>(for political reasons) meant that the Hubble was limited to a much
>lower orbit than would have otherwise possible and desirable: view of
>some of its targets periodically obstructed by Earth, and exposed to
>substantially more space debris.

But hey, it employed and enriched allot of donors & voters. And when it
eventually gets zinged by a piece of space debris, we'll have to go up and fix
it again, making for a spectacular IMAX film.

I am afraid that in 50 years or so when the definitive history of this period
is written, the Shuttle will go down like the Concorde: A technical
achievement certainly, but a total commercial/economic failure.

John

[AES/newspost]

In article >,
(JohnMcGrew) wrote:

> I am afraid that in 50 years or so when the definitive history of this period
> is written, the Shuttle will go down like the Concorde: A technical
> achievement certainly, but a total commercial/economic failure.
>

At the taxpayer's expense in both cases, and in the first case at least
accompanied by a great deal of corruptive dishonesty on the part of
those promoting it

[JohnMcGrew]

In article >, AES/newspost
> writes:

>At the taxpayer's expense in both cases, and in the first case at least
>accompanied by a great deal of corruptive dishonesty on the part of
>those promoting it

Such things are usually at the taxpayers expense. If they were worth doing
economically, someone else would have done it on their own.

John