Boeing: Space shuttles to last into next decade

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

"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.

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

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.

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

In article ,
(Jay Masino) wrote:

NASA isn't
stupid.

but sometimes NASA is very budget-constrained.

--
Bob Noel

(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.

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

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.

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