Keep the dream...er... funding...alive!

[Pat Flannery]

Let's fly the Shuttle till 2017!
When you are sliding into a chasm, grabbing at a cloud to brace yourself
with may seem like a workable idea:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41397955/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Since this is supposed to be a commercial enterprise, it will
interesting to see who's going to cough up the $1.5 billion a year to do
this concept...certainly not the government, as that would be the sort
of dangerous socialism that Obama is trying to stuff down our throats. ;-)

Pat

[David Spain]

Post by Pat Flannery
Let's fly the Shuttle till 2017!
When you are sliding into a chasm, grabbing at a cloud to brace yourself
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41397955/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Since this is supposed to be a commercial enterprise, it will
interesting to see who's going to cough up the $1.5 billion a year to do
this concept...certainly not the government, as that would be the sort
of dangerous socialism that Obama is trying to stuff down our throats. ;-)
Pat

Not a problem for a partnership of USA with ESA/JAXA and dare I say China?
Split 3 ways that's $500 million apiece for a guaranteed seats to the ISS.
If NASA stays in the picture; split four ways that's $375 million apiece.
However, to make this truly viable, USA should plan on a way to hangar
Endeavour for as long as it takes to refurb an MPLM as a crew transport
module. Then you'd get a whole lot more seats for that $375 million share
and a cheap and quick way to short circuit that whole, you know, rocket
development thingy....

Dave

[Pat Flannery]

Post by David Spain
Not a problem for a partnership of USA with ESA/JAXA and dare I say China?
Split 3 ways that's $500 million apiece for a guaranteed seats to the ISS.
If NASA stays in the picture; split four ways that's $375 million apiece.
However, to make this truly viable, USA should plan on a way to hangar
Endeavour for as long as it takes to refurb an MPLM as a crew transport
module. Then you'd get a whole lot more seats for that $375 million share
and a cheap and quick way to short circuit that whole, you know, rocket
development thingy....

Right now the orbiters are showing their age; I assume the idea is to
lose at least one more before they are retired, so the program can go
out with a bang and not a whimper.

Pat

[Quadibloc]

Post by Pat Flannery
Right now the orbiters are showing their age; I assume the idea is to
lose at least one more before they are retired, so the program can go
out with a bang and not a whimper.

They're just going to have two or three more flights. Tragedy is to be
avoided, not sought. I'm just thankful that we haven't already had
another tragedy, and I hope that the very few remaining flights can
also take place without any loss of crew.

John Savard

[David Spain]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by David Spain
Not a problem for a partnership of USA with ESA/JAXA and dare I say China?
Split 3 ways that's $500 million apiece for a guaranteed seats to the ISS.
If NASA stays in the picture; split four ways that's $375 million apiece.
However, to make this truly viable, USA should plan on a way to hangar
Endeavour for as long as it takes to refurb an MPLM as a crew transport
module. Then you'd get a whole lot more seats for that $375 million share
and a cheap and quick way to short circuit that whole, you know, rocket
development thingy....

Right now the orbiters are showing their age; I assume the idea is to
lose at least one more before they are retired, so the program can go
out with a bang and not a whimper.
Pat

Well we can all bicker back and forth about the orbiters' flight worthiness
and I'm certainly not expert there. The hazards are what they are for each
flight of the shuttle. I think we can all agree that a flight on the Space
Shuttle it not an equivalent risk to a commercial airline flight.

What is easier to know is the cost. At $375 million/yr as part of a 4-way
share and assuming you don't get all 7 available seats in a 4-way share the
only way this will ever economically compete with what is in the works with
Dragon is to increase the number of seats. That means putting something that
can fly crew in the cargo bay. Barring that, I think USA is just whistling in
the dark.

Dave

[Pat Flannery]

Post by David Spain
Well we can all bicker back and forth about the orbiters' flight
worthiness and I'm certainly not expert there. The hazards are what they
are for each flight of the shuttle. I think we can all agree that a
flight on the Space Shuttle it not an equivalent risk to a commercial
airline flight.

Except maybe a early de Havilland Comet. ;-)

Post by David Spain
What is easier to know is the cost. At $375 million/yr as part of a
4-way share and assuming you don't get all 7 available seats in a 4-way
share the only way this will ever economically compete with what is in
the works with Dragon is to increase the number of seats. That means
putting something that can fly crew in the cargo bay. Barring that, I
think USA is just whistling in the dark.

The whole thing has a feeling of desperation about it, as the interests
whose jobs or government funding depend on the Shuttle try everything
they can imagine to keep it flying, not for any real necessity, but
rather to keep making a buck off of it for as long as possible.
And launching an ET that has 78 of its 108 stringers at only 65% of
their rated strength on the grounds that "that is still strong
enough"...top reinforcement or not, has a distinct Challenger/Columbia
feel about it.

Pat

[Val Kraut]

Post by Pat Flannery
The whole thing has a feeling of desperation about it, as the interests
whose jobs or government funding depend on the Shuttle try everything they
can imagine to keep it flying, not for any real necessity, but rather to
keep making a buck off of it for as long as possible.
And launching an ET that has 78 of its 108 stringers at only 65% of their
rated strength on the grounds that "that is still strong enough"...top
reinforcement or not, has a distinct Challenger/Columbia feel about it.

Looking at some of the characters involved the overall, situation seems like
a bad rewrite of the opening chapters of Atlas Shrugged. Be interesting to
go back for a re-read and see which characters would get paired with todays
business and Government officials.

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Val Kraut
Looking at some of the characters involved the overall, situation seems like
a bad rewrite of the opening chapters of Atlas Shrugged. Be interesting to
go back for a re-read and see which characters would get paired with todays
business and Government officials.

I never got around to reading that, but got a kick out of Whittaker
Chambers' review of it for National Review in 1957:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback

Apparently a movie is in the offing, and if that's anywhere near as much
of a hoot as "The Fountainhead"*, it will be a must-see:
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/about

* Those poor residents of Hell's Kitchen...first they are shoved out of
their slum to make way for the giant skyscraper, then the place they
could have moved to gets blown up by its designer because someone might
put balconies on its apartments, forcing decent people driving by to
actually see this human detritus blundering about in the clean air. :-D

Pat

[Paul A. Suhler]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Val Kraut
Looking at some of the characters involved the overall, situation seems like
a bad rewrite of the opening chapters of Atlas Shrugged. Be interesting to
go back for a re-read and see which characters would get paired with todays
business and Government officials.

I never got around to reading that, but got a kick out of Whittaker
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback
Apparently a movie is in the offing, and if that's anywhere near as much
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/about
* Those poor residents of Hell's Kitchen...first they are shoved out of
their slum to make way for the giant skyscraper, then the place they
could have moved to gets blown up by its designer because someone might
put balconies on its apartments, forcing decent people driving by to
actually see this human detritus blundering about in the clean air. :-D
Pat

I wonder whether the movie will feature Rand's rewrites of
well-known legends. E.g., Robin Hood being changed to the
thieving poor stealing from the productive rich, and the
people, rather than the gods, who sicced the vultures on
Prometheus.


Paul

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Paul A. Suhler
I wonder whether the movie will feature Rand's rewrites of
well-known legends. E.g., Robin Hood being changed to the
thieving poor stealing from the productive rich, and the
people, rather than the gods, who sicced the vultures on
Prometheus.

I wonder if it will incorporate the Aristotelian view of the cosmos,
with the Sun orbiting the Earth - and not, as She thought, Earth
orbiting Ayn Rand.

Pat

[Val Kraut]

Those poor residents of Hell's Kitchen...first they are shoved out of

their slum to make way for the giant skyscraper, then the place they could
have moved to gets blown up by its designer because someone might put
balconies on its apartments, forcing decent people driving by to actually
see this human detritus blundering about in the clean air. :-D
Pat

I think Rand's original concept was this great architect designs a
beautiful building using HIS talents and the government idots screw up the
design to suit their agenda - so he does the one decent thing and blows it
up.

Now maybe there's some rewrites here too. The Bradley fighting vehicle, the
Blue water Coast Guard cutter, umm maybe even the heavy lift booster. Oh no,
the list goes on.


Val Kraut

[Quadibloc]

 I think Rand's original concept was this great architect designs a
beautiful building using HIS talents and the government idots screw up the
design to suit their agenda - so he does the one decent thing and blows it
up.

Thereby wasting the labor and materials used in the construction,
which arguably had some value too, besides the value of his IP. The
change to the design was, I think, a minor one - but this is something
I remember from an account of the work, not having read it myself.

John Savard

[Jochem Huhmann]

Post by Pat Flannery
And launching an ET that has 78 of its 108 stringers at only 65% of
their rated strength on the grounds that "that is still strong
enough"...top reinforcement or not, has a distinct Challenger/Columbia
feel about it.

I was extremely surprised that NASA is planning to launch with a heavily
modified ET obviously without doing proper testing on it (which would be
a major undertaking, I guess). I mean, the modifications will surely
change some properties of the tank? Load distribution, vibration
characteristics, ... I would really like to know if they did such things
routinely before (and never talked about it) or if this is a first
(which would be also a bit unnerving).



Jochem

[Val Kraut]

"> I was extremely surprised that NASA is planning to launch with a heavily

Post by Jochem Huhmann
modified ET obviously without doing proper testing on it (which would be
a major undertaking, I guess). I mean, the modifications will surely
change some properties of the tank? Load distribution, vibration
characteristics, ... I would really like to know if they did such things
routinely before (and never talked about it) or if this is a first
(which would be also a bit unnerving).

Not sure where one draws the line - but back in the early days of shuttle
there was a proposal to add a strong back the the tank. This would allow the
tanks to be assembled into larger structures after being carried all the way
to orbit. But NASAs evaluation at the time said a major mod would reuire
repeating the qualification tests and thus cost prohibitive.


Val Kraut

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Val Kraut
Not sure where one draws the line - but back in the early days of shuttle
there was a proposal to add a strong back the the tank. This would allow the
tanks to be assembled into larger structures after being carried all the way
to orbit. But NASAs evaluation at the time said a major mod would reuire
repeating the qualification tests and thus cost prohibitive.

NASA never liked that cheapo ET space station concept from the word go;
it got in the way of funding for a big modular space station, which is
what they really wanted to build.

Pat

[Jeff Findley]

In article

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Val Kraut
Not sure where one draws the line - but back in the early days of shuttle
there was a proposal to add a strong back the the tank. This would allow the
tanks to be assembled into larger structures after being carried all the way
to orbit. But NASAs evaluation at the time said a major mod would reuire
repeating the qualification tests and thus cost prohibitive.

NASA never liked that cheapo ET space station concept from the word go;
it got in the way of funding for a big modular space station, which is
what they really wanted to build.

To be fair, there were real issues with the ET based station proposals.
The SOFI would not stay in place once the ET was in orbit, so you'd
eventually end up with a bare metal tank. Then there is the whole issue
of thermal control and micrometeorite protection for such a big tank.

Sure you could come up with some way to make this work, but it would
likely have involved a completely unacceptable amount of EVA time.

The better way to go would be inflatable technologies (Trans-hab/Bigelow
modules). This way you can launch the thing inside the payload bay and
you actually end up with a module that has better micrometeorite
protection than the modules which make up ISS now. On top of all that,
you don't need to do EVA's to deploy the module, you just inflate it and
you're done.

Jeff

[h***@aol.com]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Val Kraut
Not sure where one draws the line - but back in the early days of shuttle
there was a proposal to add a strong back the the tank. This would allow the
tanks to be assembled into larger structures after being carried all the way
to orbit. But NASAs evaluation at the time said a major mod would reuire
repeating the qualification tests and thus cost prohibitive.

NASA never liked that cheapo ET space station concept from the word go;
it got in the way of funding for a big modular space station, which is
what they really wanted to build.
Pat

nasa really of built a free flyer, a man tended station visited a few
times a year by astronauts.

[Jeff Findley]

In article <2661db2a-01f0-481b-994d-

Post by h***@aol.com
nasa really of built a free flyer, a man tended station visited a few
times a year by astronauts.

Incoherent sentence fragments? What?

Free flyers are in some ways harder than a continuously manned station,
because when something breaks on a free flyer, there isn't anyone there
to fix it. Certainly such issues can be addressed by multiple
redundancy in just about every system, but that tends to drive up the
cost. Man tended vehicles need systems with very high reliability and
infrequent maintenance. I'm not sure ISS systems are quite up to this
level of reliability.

Jeff

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Jochem Huhmann
I was extremely surprised that NASA is planning to launch with a heavily
modified ET obviously without doing proper testing on it (which would be
a major undertaking, I guess). I mean, the modifications will surely
change some properties of the tank? Load distribution, vibration
characteristics, ... I would really like to know if they did such things
routinely before (and never talked about it) or if this is a first
(which would be also a bit unnerving).

Well, the reinforcing ring around the rib top attachment point is
aerodynamically different from normal, but Elon Musk got away with
taking the tin snips to the nozzle extension on the upper stage Merlin
engine on the Dragon capsule test flight...of course there weren't any
people riding on that one.
Doing things a bit radically on the Shuttle is nothing new, as it was
the first manned spacecraft/booster combo to have a manned all-up first
flight; they had never even done a upright test firing of a SRB prior to
the first launch of Columbia.
So if the astronauts are willing to fly on a ET they know is
structurally defective and has had a quicky fix done on it, it's fine by me.

Pat

[Mike DiCenso]

Post by Jochem Huhmann

Post by Pat Flannery
And launching an ET that has 78 of its 108 stringers at only 65% of
their rated strength on the grounds that "that is still strong
enough"...top reinforcement or not, has a distinct Challenger/Columbia
feel about it.

I was extremely surprised that NASA is planning to launch with a heavily
modified ET obviously without doing proper testing on it (which would be
a major undertaking, I guess). I mean, the modifications will surely
change some properties of the tank? Load distribution, vibration
characteristics, ... I would really like to know if they did such things
routinely before (and never talked about it) or if this is a first
(which would be also a bit unnerving).

What is heavily modified about the tank? The addition of the stringer
reinforcement? There have been similar, though smaller scale, repairs
done to tanks in the past. But you seldom heard about them since they
occured early enough in the processing flow, and never caused a delay
in a flight. Nor did they occur during a tanking, which is what
happened here.
-Mike

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Mike DiCenso
What is heavily modified about the tank? The addition of the stringer
reinforcement? There have been similar, though smaller scale, repairs
done to tanks in the past. But you seldom heard about them since they
occured early enough in the processing flow, and never caused a delay
in a flight. Nor did they occur during a tanking, which is what
happened here.

They did reinforcements to particular stringers before, but never put a
reinforcement ring around the whole tank before.

Pat

[Mike DiCenso]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Mike DiCenso
What is heavily modified about the tank? The addition of the stringer
reinforcement? There have been similar, though smaller scale, repairs
done to tanks in the past. But you seldom heard about them since they
occured early enough in the processing flow, and never caused a delay
in a flight. Nor did they occur during a tanking, which is what
happened here.

They did reinforcements to particular stringers before, but never put a
reinforcement ring around the whole tank before.

From Spaceflightnow.com:

"While crack repairs are not unusual, the cracks in Discovery's tank
are the first to be found at the launch pad, where access is more
difficult. An environmental enclosure has been erected around the
known damage site to facilitate repairs and the eventual application
of fresh foam insulation."

Show me that they are going totally overboard here, Pat.
-Mike

[Jochem Huhmann]

Post by Mike DiCenso
"While crack repairs are not unusual, the cracks in Discovery's tank
are the first to be found at the launch pad, where access is more
difficult. An environmental enclosure has been erected around the
known damage site to facilitate repairs and the eventual application
of fresh foam insulation."
Show me that they are going totally overboard here, Pat.

Hmm, does this mean they were doing this (patching up tanks) all the
time ("crack repairs are not unusual" seems to imply that)? And did they
actually qualify that hardware then?

This sounds an awful lot like "withstanding foam impacts was not a
requirement for the TPS but since we had these impacts all the time and
nothing happened we just thought it would be alright".


Jochem

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Jochem Huhmann
Hmm, does this mean they were doing this (patching up tanks) all the
time ("crack repairs are not unusual" seems to imply that)? And did they
actually qualify that hardware then?
This sounds an awful lot like "withstanding foam impacts was not a
requirement for the TPS but since we had these impacts all the time and
nothing happened we just thought it would be alright".

When they were originally designing the ET, it was supposed to have zero
foam shedding as one of its requirements.
You want to see foam shedding, just wait and see what will happen if one
of those defective stringers snaps along its length under the
aerodynamic loads of ascent, and peels clean off the intertank skinning.
This brings up a interesting question...NASA has stated that the
defective stringers are 65% as strong as they are supposed to be; does
that mean that they are _all_ at 65% strength, or they have different
strengths that _average out_ at 65%?

Pat

[Val Kraut]

Post by David Spain
What is easier to know is the cost. At $375 million/yr as part of a 4-way
share and assuming you don't get all 7 available seats in a 4-way share
the only way this will ever economically compete with what is in the works
with Dragon is to increase the number of seats. That means putting
something that can fly crew in the cargo bay.

But doesn't that mean putting more people up on a vehicle that may not be
able to return crew to Earth if a wing is damaged in ascent. Maybe you want
something like a Russian lifeboat also in the cargo bay.

[David Spain]

Post by Val Kraut

Post by David Spain
What is easier to know is the cost. At $375 million/yr as part of a 4-way
share and assuming you don't get all 7 available seats in a 4-way share
the only way this will ever economically compete with what is in the works
with Dragon is to increase the number of seats. That means putting
something that can fly crew in the cargo bay.

But doesn't that mean putting more people up on a vehicle that may not be
able to return crew to Earth if a wing is damaged in ascent. Maybe you want
something like a Russian lifeboat also in the cargo bay.

Or you have to keep two shuttles on hand. All the more reason why this really
doesn't make any sense.

Dave

[David Spain]

Post by David Spain

Post by Val Kraut

Post by David Spain
What is easier to know is the cost. At $375 million/yr as part of a 4-way
share and assuming you don't get all 7 available seats in a 4-way
share the only way this will ever economically compete with what is
in the works with Dragon is to increase the number of seats. That
means putting something that can fly crew in the cargo bay.

But doesn't that mean putting more people up on a vehicle that may not
be able to return crew to Earth if a wing is damaged in ascent. Maybe
you want something like a Russian lifeboat also in the cargo bay.

Or you have to keep two shuttles on hand. All the more reason why this
really doesn't make any sense.

Actually, now that I think about it, this is the *perfect* way for NASA to
maintain hegemony in space flight. In just a few simple steps!

1. You sell Congress on the idea of keeping the shuttle as a backup in case
Dragon fails.

2. You get a contractor to shill for the operations and farm out the cost to
as many suck... ummm partners you can con... vince.

3. Obviously this will never sell domestically, sharing fewer seats with some
freeloading foriners riding on OUR shuttle, esp if Dragon can fly more good
'ol USA folks for ~1/10 the cost, unless you increase the number of seats!
Sooooo you sell Congress on the idea that a US crew module is just the ticket
and can be had for just an incremental and contained cost to upgrade an MPLM
for more crew capacity than Dragon will ever be able to do at a far lower price!

4. Ooops! Can't fly that many folks in the cargo bay without a backup plan to
get them back down in case orbiter is damaged and cannot return. Hmm. Well you
*look* (or at least pretend to look at) a Russian lifeboat as part of the crew
cargo bay upgrade, but obviously since you're NASA you reject it out of hand
as unproven. You realize you can't con vince the partners to keep TWO
shuttles going. So... Lo' and behold... a NASA study appears that shows the
for just a *slightly* larger investment you can put wings on that modified
MPLM so that it doubles as a flyback emergency crew return vehicle.

5. Some genius at NASA realizes that hmm, now that the MPLM is winged you
don't actually need to man the shuttle and can control everything from the
MPLM.... et VOILA!

SHUTTLE GIVES BIRTH TO BABY!!!!

Life goes on! Contracts and jobs are secure! And Elon goes away because we
finance it all through PayPal! BRILLIANT!

Mein Furher! I can valk!

Dave

[Pat Flannery]

Post by David Spain
5. Some genius at NASA realizes that hmm, now that the MPLM is winged
you don't actually need to man the shuttle and can control everything
from the MPLM.... et VOILA!
SHUTTLE GIVES BIRTH TO BABY!!!!
Life goes on! Contracts and jobs are secure! And Elon goes away because
we finance it all through PayPal! BRILLIANT!
Mein Furher! I can valk!

Here comes Liberty (TM)!:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32686
It may look like Ares-1...but it's not...it has a much prettier paint
job on it than Ares-1!
And its second stage is based on the Ariane 5 core...you know what that
means...THE VEHICLE SELDOM NEEDS WASHING! :-D

Pat

[Jeff Findley]

In article

Post by Pat Flannery
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32686
It may look like Ares-1...but it's not...it has a much prettier paint
job on it than Ares-1!
And its second stage is based on the Ariane 5 core...you know what that
means...THE VEHICLE SELDOM NEEDS WASHING! :-D

Oh hell no! I hope this thing never sees the light of day. Fool me
once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

Jeff

[David Spain]

Post by Jeff Findley
Oh hell no! I hope this thing never sees the light of day. Fool me
once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

No no no. I'm sure it goes:

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, and er um... well don't get
fooled again!"

;-)

Dave

[Pat Flannery]

Post by David Spain

Oh hell no! I hope this thing never sees the light of day. Fool me
once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, and er um... well don't get
fooled again!"

Interesting how that Ariane 5 core stage never showed up on the original
Ares I design, despite how great and obvious it's supposed to be now.

Pat

[Rick Jones]

Post by Pat Flannery
Interesting how that Ariane 5 core stage never showed up on the original
Ares I design, despite how great and obvious it's supposed to be now.

Ah, but before it was to be a Great American Firecracker. Now it
seeks to be a Roman Candle...

rick jones

[Jeff Findley]

In article

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by David Spain

Oh hell no! I hope this thing never sees the light of day. Fool me
once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, and er um... well don't get
fooled again!"

Interesting how that Ariane 5 core stage never showed up on the original
Ares I design, despite how great and obvious it's supposed to be now.

That's because it's not great nor obvious. It's not great because there
would be zero political support for buying hardware from ESA for a
supposed US launch vehicle. ATK is desperate, and it shows.

Jeff

[David Spain]

Post by Pat Flannery
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32686
It may look like Ares-1...but it's not...it has a much prettier paint
job on it than Ares-1!

Stake, heart, Ares-1 pound pound pound.
Damn this thing just won't die!

Oh I see I'm using a stake of wood. I should be using a ring...
A ring shaped like an O and made of Viton...

:-)

Dave

[Pat Flannery]

Post by David Spain
Stake, heart, Ares-1 pound pound pound.
Damn this thing just won't die!
Oh I see I'm using a stake of wood. I should be using a ring...
A ring shaped like an O and made of Viton...

I'm trying to figure out just how many segments this thing's SRB-derived
first stage is supposed to have...it's got at least five, and it looks
like it might actually have six.
ATK stresses that it uses flight proven hardware...there has been only
one five-segment SRB ever fired, and that one was lying on its side, not
going up in the air.
Maybe the French second stage is supposed to have garlic in it, to take
the curse off of the Ares concept.

Pat

[Jeff Findley]

In article <U4-

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by David Spain
Stake, heart, Ares-1 pound pound pound.
Damn this thing just won't die!
Oh I see I'm using a stake of wood. I should be using a ring...
A ring shaped like an O and made of Viton...

I'm trying to figure out just how many segments this thing's SRB-derived
first stage is supposed to have...it's got at least five, and it looks
like it might actually have six.
ATK stresses that it uses flight proven hardware...there has been only
one five-segment SRB ever fired, and that one was lying on its side, not
going up in the air.
Maybe the French second stage is supposed to have garlic in it, to take
the curse off of the Ares concept.

ATK is desperate to come up with *any* vehicle which will use it's large
SRB's. Therefore, I'd look at any proposal they have with skepticism.
After all, they're the ones who pushed the (then half sane looking) crew
launch vehicle which morphed into the (quite insane) Ares I. Where is
the assurance that this vehicle won't follow the same path?

Jeff

[Ian Stirling]

Post by Val Kraut

Post by David Spain
What is easier to know is the cost. At $375 million/yr as part of a 4-way
share and assuming you don't get all 7 available seats in a 4-way share
the only way this will ever economically compete with what is in the works
with Dragon is to increase the number of seats. That means putting
something that can fly crew in the cargo bay.

But doesn't that mean putting more people up on a vehicle that may not be
able to return crew to Earth if a wing is damaged in ascent. Maybe you want
something like a Russian lifeboat also in the cargo bay.

I've argued for ages that an utterly basic requirement for space vehicles
with nasty failure modes is to have some means of getting out.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/moose.htm or similar.
Something that gives you a probability of 90% of getting to the surface
of the earth, and a 90% chance of being rescued safely.

This would be relatively inexpensive to test.

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Ian Stirling
This would be relatively inexpensive to test.

I'm not going to be the first person in that thing.
Even this one is plenty scary for the escaping astronaut on the left of
the picture: http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1032
Why do I suspect that that is Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis? :-D

Pat

[Quadibloc]

Post by Pat Flannery
Why do I suspect that that is Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis? :-D

Maybe the guy on the left of the image is upset because he missed
seeing the rest of the exhibits on display, by going through the wrong
door in hopes of seeing an egret hen.

John Savard

[Mike DiCenso]

Post by David Spain

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by David Spain
Not a problem for a partnership of USA with ESA/JAXA and dare I say China?
Split 3 ways that's $500 million apiece for a guaranteed seats to the ISS.
If NASA stays in the picture; split four ways that's $375 million apiece.
However, to make this truly viable, USA should plan on a way to hangar
Endeavour for as long as it takes to refurb an MPLM as a crew transport
module. Then you'd get a whole lot more seats for that $375 million share
and a cheap and quick way to short circuit that whole, you know, rocket
development thingy....

Right now the orbiters are showing their age; I assume the idea is to
lose at least one more before they are retired, so the program can go
out with a bang and not a whimper.
Pat

Well we can all bicker back and forth about the orbiters' flight worthiness
and I'm certainly not expert there. The hazards are what they are for each
flight of the shuttle. I think we can all agree that a flight on the Space
Shuttle it not an equivalent risk to a commercial airline flight.
What is easier to know is the cost. At $375 million/yr as part of a 4-way
share and assuming you don't get all 7 available seats in a 4-way share the
only way this will ever economically compete with what is in the works with
Dragon is to increase the number of seats. That means putting something that
can fly crew in the cargo bay. Barring that, I think USA is just whistling in
the dark.

You're thinking in terms of crew only, there is far more capability
here that STS offers than that. The uplift alone in payload is at
*least* equivalent to an ATV, actually quite a bit more since STS
orbiters can carry plenty more in external payloads on an express
pallet. But the downlift capacity is what's really important here, as
it would take several Dragon capsule flights to equal one STS. Also
bear in mind that USA managers have already made it clear that the
proposal is a "shot in the dark", and probably won't be approved.
-Mike

[Quadibloc]

Post by Pat Flannery
Let's fly the Shuttle till 2017!

If the existing Shuttle fleet wasn't already dangerously unsafe to fly
because of its advancing age, that would be a great idea for getting
more value for the taxpayer's investment. Even building new Shuttles
would have been cheaper than developing a new launch system, but
unfortunately the time for that has passed.

Penny-wise and pound-foolish seems to be the story of the space
program; it spends lots of money developing new technologies, but then
it doesn't exploit them to any great extent. On the other hand, that
is perhaps merely a superficial impression.

For example, it is true that launching ten Hubble Space Telescopes
into orbit would probably have been a lot cheaper than 10x the cost of
the one they did launch. But would ten identical telescopes really
have shown us more about the Universe than one HST... plus one new,
different, successor based on more advanced technologies - the James
Webb Space Telescope? No.

And the pressure to advance technology helps maintain American
leadership as well. It was the Minuteman II program, not the Apollo
program, that played an important role in giving us the integrated
circuit, but while the space program may not have been the _sine qua
non_ of the computer revolution, it certainly did help a bit here and
there.

John Savard

[Brian Thorn]

Post by Quadibloc
If the existing Shuttle fleet wasn't already dangerously unsafe to fly
because of its advancing age,

The Shuttle has never been safer to fly than it is now. Age is
irrelevant, maintenance and upkeep are the important factors, and the
only aerospace vehicles that get more TLC than the Shuttle fleet are
the two 747 Air Force Ones.

Sure, Shuttle still has surprises lurking under the hood, but most of
its "unknowns" are now known, while Dragon's, CST-100s, Dream
Chaser's, and Prometheus's "unknowns" are still unknown. And before
you say, "Shuttle doesn't have launch escape, the others will!",
remember launch escape systems didn't save Soyuz 1 or Soyuz 11, or
Apollo 1.

Post by Quadibloc
Penny-wise and pound-foolish seems to be the story of the space
program;

A better analogy is "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Why
get rid of the bird we have that is working pretty well (Shuttle), in
the hope we'll get those two new birds in the bush (Manned Dragon or
CST-100) four years from now?

Post by Quadibloc
For example, it is true that launching ten Hubble Space Telescopes
into orbit would probably have been a lot cheaper than 10x the cost of
the one they did launch.

I don't really understand what you're going for with that. How would
ten Hubble launches be cheaper than 10x the Hubble launch?

Post by Quadibloc
And the pressure to advance technology helps maintain American
leadership as well. It was the Minuteman II program, not the Apollo
program, that played an important role in giving us the integrated
circuit, but while the space program may not have been the _sine qua
non_ of the computer revolution, it certainly did help a bit here and
there.

Apollo gave the IC a public face that was lacking from the deeply
classified Minuteman. There's a reason we have the phrase "Space Age"
in the popular vernacular.

Brian

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Brian Thorn
The Shuttle has never been safer to fly than it is now. Age is
irrelevant, maintenance and upkeep are the important factors, and the
only aerospace vehicles that get more TLC than the Shuttle fleet are
the two 747 Air Force Ones.

Remember when NASA assured the CAIB that they could use a fiberglass
wing leading edge panel for the foam impact tests instead of a flown RCC
one, as the fiberglass one was the same strength as the real thing, and
the real one was expensive to replace?
CAIB said thanks; we'll do the test with the fiberglass one...and then
we'll do it again with a real one.
End result was a crack in the fiberglass one, and a big hole in the RCC
one.. then the info about the zinc primer on the launch tower began to
emerge...that it was washing over the orbiter when it rained and how
that was causing voids in the RCC when carbon was turning into CO2
during reentry, as well as how loose the manufacturing tolerances were
in regards to RCC panel strength.
Then of course there was all the worn wiring in the cargo bays that was
discovered and had to be replaced.
Oh yeah, I'm sure we know all the effects of age and wear from flights
have had on the Shuttle in the 25+ years of its service.

Pat

[h***@aol.com]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Brian Thorn
The Shuttle has never been safer to fly than it is now. Age is
irrelevant, maintenance and upkeep are the important factors, and the
only aerospace vehicles that get more TLC than the Shuttle fleet are
the two 747 Air Force Ones.

Remember when NASA assured the CAIB that they could use a fiberglass
wing leading edge panel for the foam impact tests instead of a flown RCC
one, as the fiberglass one was the same strength as the real thing, and
the real one was expensive to replace?
CAIB said thanks; we'll do the test with the fiberglass one...and then
we'll do it again with a real one.
End result was a crack in the fiberglass one, and a big hole in the RCC
one.. then the info about the zinc primer on the launch tower began to
emerge...that it was washing over the orbiter when it rained and how
that was causing voids in the RCC when carbon was turning into CO2
during reentry, as well as how loose the manufacturing tolerances were
in regards to RCC panel strength.
Then of course there was all the worn wiring in the cargo bays that was
discovered and had to be replaced.
Oh yeah, I'm sure we know all the effects of age and wear from flights
have had on the Shuttle in the 25+ years of its service.
Pat

I think nasa will somehow get last minute funding to keep the shuttle
flying till a replacement manned launcher is available, as part of
finally building shuttle C

otherwise America will be grounded for 5 to 10 years and totally
dependent on russia....

of course our countries finances may end manned america flying for a
generation.

truly its all up to who has the $$ to buy congressional votes....

congress doesnt work for us the work to get re elected, by big
business buying their votes for campaign contributions.

We will see what big business and the connected want..........

[h***@aol.com]

By Rob Coppinger
Special to msnbc.com Special to msnbc.com
updated 2/3/2011 9:09:27 AM ET 2011-02-03T14:09:27
Share Print Font: + - NASA is considering a plan to keep the space
shuttle Endeavour in flight-like condition after its last scheduled
mission, a move that could lead to its transformation into a
privatized spaceship rather than a museum piece.

Endeavour’s continued operation through 2017 is part of a proposal
that could receive millions of dollars in development funds from the
space agency next month.

The proposal — called Commercial Space Transportation Service, or CSTS
— would use Endeavour as well as a sister shuttle, Atlantis, to fly
two missions a year from 2013 to 2017 at an annual cost of $1.5
billion. United Space Alliance, the contractor that currently manages
the shuttle program on NASA’s behalf, has offered the proposal for the
second round of funding from the space agency’s Commercial Crew
Development initiative, also known as CCDev 2.

NASA could award as much as $200 million in the second round of the
CCDev initiative. During the first round, the agency distributed $50
million in stimulus funds to five companies to advance the development
of crew-capable replacements for the shuttles.

Some of the recipients of first-round funding — such as the Boeing Co.
and Sierra Nevada Corp. — have made proposals for second-round funding
as well. The second-round competitors also include SpaceX and Orbital
Sciences, which are already receiving NASA funds to build spacecraft
for transporting cargo to the space station.

United Space Alliance is the only venture proposing to keep the
shuttles operating rather than retiring them this year, as currently
planned.

When asked about the USA plan, NASA spokesman Michael Curie said in an
e-mailed response that the space agency would not "comment at this
time on proposals received as part of CCDev 2."

Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoicesWhile
the CCDev 2 decision is pending, NASA has decided to study the option
of keeping Endeavour in a flight-like condition at one of Kennedy
Space Center’s three Orbiter Processing Facilities, according to
documents obtained by msnbc.com. This study is to examine what
personnel and funding would be needed to retain Endeavour instead of
giving it up.

For now, NASA is sticking with its plan to send its three space
shuttles to museums after their final flights. The schedule calls for
Discovery to fly its finale in February, followed by Endeavour in
April, and Atlantis in June. After the shuttles' retirement, the space
agency would depend on Russia to send American astronauts to the space
station, at least until the spacecraft developed under the CCDev
program are ready to fly.

Curie told msnbc.com that the Endeavour study was not related to CCDev
2.

"Our baseline plan continues to be to process the shuttle orbiters for
retirement and prepare them for display after their last flights," he
said Thursday in his e-mail. "As a what-if budget exercise, we are
looking at what it would cost if a recipient was not ready to take an
orbiter right away, and if we wanted to keep an orbiter in long-term
storage for potential engineering analysis."

Some see no rush to retire
Sources familiar with discussions within NASA’s shuttle managing
department, the Space Operations Mission Directorate, have told
msnbc.com that there’s no rush to retire the shuttles. Even though
Discovery’s final mission is only a few weeks away, the directorate
asked for a detailed cost analysis for retiring that shuttle only in
January. No such requests have yet been made for Atlantis or
Endeavour.

More space news from MSNBC Tech & Science
Nature / NASA / T. Pyle Planetary six-pack poses a huge puzzle
Science editor Alan Boyle's Weblog: Astronomers behind NASA's $600
million Kepler mission say they’ve found a puzzling star system that
packs six planets inside a relatively small space.
NASA spots scores of potentially livable worlds Will Giffords' husband
fly in space? Maybe so... Cost of next Mars rover hits $2.5 billion
Endeavour is NASA’s newest shuttle. It entered service in 1992 as a
replacement for the shuttle Challenger, which was lost along with its
crew in an explosion 25 years ago. NASA gave Endeavour its most recent
major upgrade in 2005.

The decision to look into retaining Endeavour, and the evaluation of
the commercial space shuttle proposal, both come at a time when the
future of NASA’s human spaceflight effort is in flux. Congress has not
yet approved the NASA appropriations bill for the current fiscal year,
and instead the agency is operating on an extension of last year’s
budget levels.

Last September, Congress passed legislation that called for NASA to
develop a new launch system capable of sending crews into space by
2016. In a preliminary report submitted to Congress last month, NASA
said it could not meet the timetable and budget laid out in the
legislation.

Weeks before lawmakers took action, the United Space Alliance briefed
the space agency on the commercial shuttle proposal. “We discussed the
concept with NASA last summer, as part of a larger discussion on how
best to support the International Space Station,” USA spokeswoman
Tracy Yates said.

Curie confirmed that a group of contractors provided the agency with a
briefing in August. The contractors included United Space Alliance and
the Boeing Co., one of the partners in the USA joint venture. One
outcome of those discussions was that USA submitted its proposal for
CCDev 2 funding.

Six-month study
If USA receives funding, the venture would conduct a study called the
Commercial Shuttle Operations Architecture, which would last for six
months, from April through September. The study would be aimed at fine-
tuning USA’s earlier cost estimates for a commercial shuttle operation
with a workforce in Texas and Florida. Such an operation would be
covered by Federal Aviation Administration rules, would share
facilities with other commercial companies to cut down on expenses,
and would offer launches to NASA under a fixed-price contract.

Most popular British PM: Multiculturalism has failed Surf and turf:
Expired bovine meets the shoreline Egypt regime agrees to concessions
after talks Family adopts young African-American teen For elderly U.S.
woman, a safe exit from Egypt USA’s current estimated price tag of
$1.5 billion per year would represent a substantial drop from previous
funding levels, which have seen shuttle program costs rise as high as
$4 billion per year.

Advertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoicesAdvertise | AdChoicesUnited
Space Alliance says its plan would take advantage of shuttle
infrastructure and a workforce already in place. Some shuttle
production lines would have to be restarted — for example, the
operation that builds the shuttle’s external fuel tanks. But USA says
the first commercial shuttle flights could take place in 2013. That
would beat the 2016 deadline specified in last year’s legislation, as
well as the development schedule laid out by SpaceX and USA’s other
commercial competitors.

However, it’s not clear whether keeping the shuttles in operation
would make the most economic sense for NASA. Henry Hertzfeld, a space
policy expert at George Washington University, said using capsule-type
vehicles such as the ones proposed by SpaceX and other companies would
likely be cheaper than continuing to fly space shuttles.

SpaceX founder Elon Musk has said a Dragon capsule capable of carrying
up to seven passengers could be developed at a cost of $1 billion over
three years. Seats on the Dragon could be sold to NASA at a price of
$20 million per seat, Musk has said.

[Brian Thorn]

Post by Pat Flannery
Remember when NASA assured the CAIB that they could use a fiberglass
wing leading edge panel for the foam impact tests instead of a flown RCC
one, as the fiberglass one was the same strength as the real thing, and
the real one was expensive to replace?

No, I don't remember that. I remember NASA/CAIB using one of
Enterprise's fiberglass "RCC" panels as a control until they could
have a new RCC panel built (which took a lot of time), but the CAIB
demanded NASA use a flown RCC panel instead, which NASA resisted
because it didn't want to take apart a WLE.

Post by Pat Flannery
CAIB said thanks; we'll do the test with the fiberglass one...and then
we'll do it again with a real one.
End result was a crack in the fiberglass one, and a big hole in the RCC
one..

No one expected Enterprise's fake RCC panel to perform the same as a
real RCC panel.

Post by Pat Flannery
then the info about the zinc primer on the launch tower began to
emerge...that it was washing over the orbiter when it rained and how
that was causing voids in the RCC when carbon was turning into CO2
during reentry, as well as how loose the manufacturing tolerances were
in regards to RCC panel strength.

That was only a theory that was proven to be wrong. One of those
"Columbia's RCC panel failed because of x" theories, that was blown
out of the water by the CAIB impact test with a *new* RCC panel.

Post by Pat Flannery
Then of course there was all the worn wiring in the cargo bays that was
discovered and had to be replaced.

That was in the late 1990s. RTF took care of all of the
recertification items that the CAIB recommended in 2003.

Post by Pat Flannery
Oh yeah, I'm sure we know all the effects of age and wear from flights
have had on the Shuttle in the 25+ years of its service.

And you only had to go back seven or eight years to find one.

Brian

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Brian Thorn

Post by Pat Flannery
Remember when NASA assured the CAIB that they could use a fiberglass
wing leading edge panel for the foam impact tests instead of a flown RCC
one, as the fiberglass one was the same strength as the real thing, and
the real one was expensive to replace?

No, I don't remember that. I remember NASA/CAIB using one of
Enterprise's fiberglass "RCC" panels as a control until they could
have a new RCC panel built (which took a lot of time), but the CAIB
demanded NASA use a flown RCC panel instead, which NASA resisted
because it didn't want to take apart a WLE.

CAIB wanted a flown one, not a new one, as they wanted to get one just
like the one on Columbia that had done several reentries so they could
asses how one in that condition would behave when hit by the foam; if
the fiberglass one from Enterprise wasn't expected to behave like the
real one, what would be the point of doing the test in the first place?

Pat

[Jeff Findley]

In article <***@4ax.com>, bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

Post by Brian Thorn

Post by Quadibloc
If the existing Shuttle fleet wasn't already dangerously unsafe to fly
because of its advancing age,

The Shuttle has never been safer to fly than it is now. Age is
irrelevant, maintenance and upkeep are the important factors, and the
only aerospace vehicles that get more TLC than the Shuttle fleet are
the two 747 Air Force Ones.

You must be forgetting the trouble the orbiters had with their wiring.
Age was one of the primary causes of the insulation cracking and
breaking. You can't keep flying old vehicles like this and ignore their
aging systems, which spare parts become harder, and more expensive, to
procure. Some of the shuttle's systems are still 40+ years old, in
terms of design.

Post by Brian Thorn
Sure, Shuttle still has surprises lurking under the hood, but most of
its "unknowns" are now known, while Dragon's, CST-100s, Dream
Chaser's, and Prometheus's "unknowns" are still unknown. And before
you say, "Shuttle doesn't have launch escape, the others will!",
remember launch escape systems didn't save Soyuz 1 or Soyuz 11, or
Apollo 1.

Like the known SRB issues that will never completely go away. Many of
the upgrades which could have helped shuttle keep flying longer were
never funded. The systems they were to replace (like toxic OMS/RCS/APU
propellant) aren't going away either.

Post by Brian Thorn

Post by Quadibloc
Penny-wise and pound-foolish seems to be the story of the space
program;

A better analogy is "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Why
get rid of the bird we have that is working pretty well (Shuttle), in
the hope we'll get those two new birds in the bush (Manned Dragon or
CST-100) four years from now?

The bird in hand is dying and is afraid of death, but I doubt the
process is reversible at this point. The recent ET problems show that
this vehicle still isn't immune to failure.

Jeff

[Mike DiCenso]

Post by Jeff Findley
@suddenlink.net says...

Post by Brian Thorn

Post by Quadibloc
If the existing Shuttle fleet wasn't already dangerously unsafe to fly
because of its advancing age,

The Shuttle has never been safer to fly than it is now. Age is
irrelevant, maintenance and upkeep are the important factors, and the
only aerospace vehicles that get more TLC than the Shuttle fleet are
the two 747 Air Force Ones.

You must be forgetting the trouble the orbiters had with their wiring.  
Age was one of the primary causes of the insulation cracking and
breaking.  You can't keep flying old vehicles like this and ignore their
aging systems, which spare parts become harder, and more expensive, to
procure.  Some of the shuttle's systems are still 40+ years old, in
terms of design.  

Brian did address that, in fact, that goes back to the point that the
last age-related issue was retired in 1999, and a number of the CAIB's
recertification issues were addressed anyway during the stand down and
RTF-2. Besides, it's not like USA is proposing using STS for another
50-100 flights, just maybe 8-12 missions tops, and then using only the
two newest OVs with apparently primary emphasis on Endeavour over
Atlantis, while Discovery sits in storage to provide spare parts.

There are no serious technical issues with the proposal, only a
business one. They need customers besides NASA to make this work.
-Mike

[h***@aol.com]

Post by Mike DiCenso

Post by Jeff Findley
@suddenlink.net says...

Post by Brian Thorn

Post by Quadibloc
If the existing Shuttle fleet wasn't already dangerously unsafe to fly
because of its advancing age,

The Shuttle has never been safer to fly than it is now. Age is
irrelevant, maintenance and upkeep are the important factors, and the
only aerospace vehicles that get more TLC than the Shuttle fleet are
the two 747 Air Force Ones.

You must be forgetting the trouble the orbiters had with their wiring.  
Age was one of the primary causes of the insulation cracking and
breaking.  You can't keep flying old vehicles like this and ignore their
aging systems, which spare parts become harder, and more expensive, to
procure.  Some of the shuttle's systems are still 40+ years old, in
terms of design.  

Brian did address that, in fact, that goes back to the point that the
last age-related issue was retired in 1999, and a number of the CAIB's
recertification issues were addressed anyway during the stand down and
RTF-2. Besides, it's not like USA is proposing using STS for another
50-100 flights, just maybe 8-12 missions tops, and then using only the
two newest OVs with apparently primary emphasis on Endeavour over
Atlantis, while Discovery sits in storage to provide spare parts.
There are no serious technical issues with the proposal, only a
business one. They need customers besides NASA to make this work.
-Mike- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I guess they could sell tourist seats?

[Jeff Findley]

In article <b34c509e-f855-411a-95ce-

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by Mike DiCenso
There are no serious technical issues with the proposal, only a
business one. They need customers besides NASA to make this work.

I guess they could sell tourist seats?

Good luck with that. A ride on a Soyuz, at $20 million, would be far
cheaper.

Jeff

[Mike DiCenso]

Post by Jeff Findley
In article <b34c509e-f855-411a-95ce-

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by Mike DiCenso
There are no serious technical issues with the proposal, only a
business one. They need customers besides NASA to make this work.

I guess they could sell tourist seats?

Good luck with that.  A ride on a Soyuz, at $20 million, would be far
cheaper.

Heh. You haven't been keeping up on things, have you, Jeff? The price
for a Soyuz seat is upwards of 30-35 million now. STS, if it carried a
modified version of the Spacehab double module, could carry up to 2
dozen, plus another eight passengers in the crew compartment
(excluding crew) quite easily. I'm not sure how you could price
shuttle, but Soyuz is so arbitary it seems, and is getting more
expensive with inflation and the final crumbling of the old Soviet
system that hid it's real costs. If a shuttle launch marginal costs
are really around 150 to 200 million dollars as some reports have
indicated, then all you need are 10 seats to break even at 20 million.
-Mike

[Jochem Huhmann]

Post by Mike DiCenso
Heh. You haven't been keeping up on things, have you, Jeff? The price
for a Soyuz seat is upwards of 30-35 million now. STS, if it carried a
modified version of the Spacehab double module, could carry up to 2
dozen, plus another eight passengers in the crew compartment
(excluding crew) quite easily.

So a 2x12+8+2=34 squeezed into a can with no escape in case of a launch
failure?

Post by Mike DiCenso
I'm not sure how you could price shuttle, but Soyuz is so arbitary it
seems, and is getting more expensive with inflation and the final
crumbling of the old Soviet system that hid it's real costs. If a
shuttle launch marginal costs are really around 150 to 200 million
dollars as some reports have indicated, then all you need are 10 seats
to break even at 20 million. -Mike

Maybe, but not with *these* existing Shuttles.


Jochem

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Jochem Huhmann
So a 2x12+8+2=34 squeezed into a can with no escape in case of a launch
failure?

That's going to put quite a strain on the life support systems; even the
body heat generated by that many people isn't trivial and getting rid of
it could be a real problem for the existing cooling system.

Pat

[Mike DiCenso]

Post by Jochem Huhmann

Post by Mike DiCenso
Heh. You haven't been keeping up on things, have you, Jeff? The price
for a Soyuz seat is upwards of 30-35 million now. STS, if it carried a
modified version of the Spacehab double module, could carry up to 2
dozen, plus another eight passengers in the crew compartment
(excluding crew) quite easily.

So a 2x12+8+2=34 squeezed into a can with no escape in case of a launch
failure?

Crews have flown dozens of times. Only one launch failure in more than
118 missions, and one loss on reentry in that time. I think you'll
find plenty of people willing to take the risk, just as there were in
the early days of air travel.

Post by Jochem Huhmann

Post by Mike DiCenso
I'm not sure how you could price shuttle, but Soyuz is so arbitary it
seems, and is getting more expensive with inflation and the final
crumbling of the old Soviet system that hid it's real costs. If a
shuttle launch marginal costs are really around 150 to 200 million
dollars as some reports have indicated, then all you need are 10 seats
to break even at 20 million.

Maybe, but not with *these* existing Shuttles.

Yes, with these "existing Shuttles". It's pretty well known what the
marginal costs are for STS under the current government managed and
run system, I suspect that the costs could be reduced under the total
private scheme being proposed. So what if you go up to 25 million and
only eight seats. Plus an MPLM full of cargo up and a seperate cargo
down. They could actually turn a tidy profit on a per flight basis.
-Mike

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Mike DiCenso
Crews have flown dozens of times. Only one launch failure in more than
118 missions, and one loss on reentry in that time. I think you'll
find plenty of people willing to take the risk, just as there were in
the early days of air travel.

Remember how NASA found out that some of the crewmembers on Shuttle
missions had been drinking before launch?
Ever wonder _why_ they were drinking before launch?
"Okay, the odds of it going successfully into orbit are very, very, good
based on past missions...but if something _does_ go wrong, you will be
happy to know that you will all "die instantly", no matter what really
happens." ;-)

Pat

[Brian Thorn]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Mike DiCenso
Crews have flown dozens of times. Only one launch failure in more than
118 missions, and one loss on reentry in that time. I think you'll
find plenty of people willing to take the risk, just as there were in
the early days of air travel.

Remember how NASA found out that some of the crewmembers on Shuttle
missions had been drinking before launch?
Ever wonder _why_ they were drinking before launch?

The same reason the Russians do before they fly on Soyuz? Rockets are
dangerous, all of them. So is climbing Mt. Everest, but thrillseekers
do that hundreds of times a year. And don't get me started on
skydivers jumping out of perfectly good airplanes...

Brian

[Chris]

Post by Mike DiCenso
Yes, with these "existing Shuttles". It's pretty well known what the
marginal costs are for STS under the current government managed and
run system, I suspect that the costs could be reduced under the total
private scheme being proposed.

As long as someone else (the government) will pay the staggering fixed
costs, a commercial operator will pay the small marginal costs, is
that your plan? That seems like a terrible deal for NASA: they still
have to pay all the salaries for everyone who has to do the turn-
around maintenance (this is what the enormously high fixed costs are),
and presumably would still be held responsible for failure- but they
don't have any say in how the craft will be operated? It sounds like
all you are proposing is privatizing the profits and socializing the
costs of space travel.

Your plan seems like the worst of all worlds. The disadvantages of
both a government run system and a privately run system, in one neat
package!

Chris Manteuffel

[Jeff Findley]

In article <8153aa45-781c-4dd7-87a5-ba431069fbb8
@m16g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, ***@q.com says...

Post by Mike DiCenso

Post by Jeff Findley
In article <b34c509e-f855-411a-95ce-

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by Mike DiCenso
There are no serious technical issues with the proposal, only a
business one. They need customers besides NASA to make this work.

I guess they could sell tourist seats?

Good luck with that.  A ride on a Soyuz, at $20 million, would be far
cheaper.

Heh. You haven't been keeping up on things, have you, Jeff? The price
for a Soyuz seat is upwards of 30-35 million now.

Since they're the only game in town, I guess they feel free to jack the
price sky high. They're the real capitalists in this game. ;-)

Post by Mike DiCenso
STS, if it carried a
modified version of the Spacehab double module, could carry up to 2
dozen, plus another eight passengers in the crew compartment
(excluding crew) quite easily.

Since this would be a commercial venture, I wonder what the development
costs of such a module would be, especially for systems like life
support, thermal control, and etc. Packing two dozen people in a module
like this would not be an entirely trivial thing to do.

Then there is the safety side of all of this. The shuttle astronauts
wear pressure suits with parachutes in case they need to bail out. I
doubt that an extra two dozen passengers could use the existing bail out
system in a timely manner. If someone (government regulators?) decide
this is unacceptable, there may not be an economically viable fix for
the problem.

Post by Mike DiCenso
I'm not sure how you could price
shuttle, but Soyuz is so arbitary it seems, and is getting more
expensive with inflation and the final crumbling of the old Soviet
system that hid it's real costs. If a shuttle launch marginal costs
are really around 150 to 200 million dollars as some reports have
indicated, then all you need are 10 seats to break even at 20 million.

I think the Russians are trying to milk everything they can out of their
commercial manned orbital spaceflight monopoly, before it vanishes.

Jeff

[Mike DiCenso]

Post by Jeff Findley
In article <8153aa45-781c-4dd7-87a5-ba431069fbb8
@m16g2000prc.googlegroups.com>, ***@q.com says...

Post by Mike DiCenso

Post by Jeff Findley
In article <b34c509e-f855-411a-95ce-

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by Mike DiCenso
There are no serious technical issues with the proposal, only a
business one. They need customers besides NASA to make this work.

I guess they could sell tourist seats?

Good luck with that.  A ride on a Soyuz, at $20 million, would be far
cheaper.

Heh. You haven't been keeping up on things, have you, Jeff? The price
for a Soyuz seat is upwards of 30-35 million now.

Since they're the only game in town, I guess they feel free to jack the
price sky high.  They're the real capitalists in this game.  ;-)

Post by Mike DiCenso
STS, if it carried a
modified version of the Spacehab double module, could carry up to 2
dozen, plus another eight passengers in the crew compartment
(excluding crew) quite easily.

Since this would be a commercial venture, I wonder what the development
costs of such a module would be, especially for systems like life
support, thermal control, and etc.  Packing two dozen people in a module
like this would not be an entirely trivial thing to do.  
Then there is the safety side of all of this.  The shuttle astronauts
wear pressure suits with parachutes in case they need to bail out.  I
doubt that an extra two dozen passengers could use the existing bail out
system in a timely manner.  If someone (government regulators?) decide
this is unacceptable, there may not be an economically viable fix for
the problem.

Is that your issue? Then why isn't Virgin Galactic being held to the
same standard? More reliable or not, the same issue is still there,
just as with commercial aircraft; at the end of the day there's no way
to bail out of the thing, and most of the time you go BOOM! when
something goes wrong and there's a Bad Day.

Post by Jeff Findley

Post by Mike DiCenso
I'm not sure how you could price
shuttle, but Soyuz is so arbitary it seems, and is getting more
expensive with inflation and the final crumbling of the old Soviet
system that hid it's real costs. If a shuttle launch marginal costs
are really around 150 to 200 million dollars as some reports have
indicated, then all you need are 10 seats to break even at 20 million.

I think the Russians are trying to milk everything they can out of their
commercial manned orbital spaceflight monopoly, before it vanishes.

That too, which is all the more reason to get STS and other
competitors in there to break their government corporatist
monopoly! :-)
-Mike

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Mike DiCenso
That too, which is all the more reason to get STS and other
competitors in there to break their government corporatist
monopoly! :-)

" Mr. President, we must not allow...a space tourist gap!"?
The thing that no one ever brings up in the space tourist equation is
that a lot of people get nauseous and puke the first time they
experience zero g. And the more people you put into a spacecraft cabin,
the more likely it is that someone is going to miss the vomit bag and
puke into the cabin air, not only presenting a serous health threat from
others inhaling droplets of their vomit, but between the floating vomit
droplets hitting other people and the smell, causing others to get
nauseous and add to the floating mess.
In fact, it takes most people - even astronauts who have done multiple
flights - two or three days to get their "space legs" and feel totally
comfortable in zero g.
So unless your space tourist flight is intended to last more than that
period of time, the memories the people who flew it are liable to turn
them green when they think about it, like a bad sea voyage.
That's hardly a selling point for the whole concept, especially given
the cost of the ticket.
I'm keen to see how Virgin Galactic is going to deal with that problem.
Motion sickness pills are the most used item of anything in the
Shuttle's medicine kit; maybe you get the tourists blotto on drugs and
then shoot them up in a semi-comatose state, like my native North Dakota.
Can you imagine LSD?
"Man...the colors...THE COLORS!! And I'm floating around in space...LOOK
AT THE STARS!! THEY ARE SINGING TO ME!!!"
"Sir, we haven't even taken off yet."
"Hello, little space whale...is your pink nebula nice? I have a painting
of you at home...I shall care for your warm and salty eggs."
"Now sir, I must have those peanuts...they'll make you vomit on everyone
once we're aloft."
"Don't listen to her, Gracie...she's with the Japanese and will eat you!
Spock! Spock! She's trying to eat the space whale! Pinch her now! No, do
not mate with her...the time is not yet right." :-D

Pat

[Jeff Findley]

In article <3c69768f-98dc-4138-85a1-

Post by Mike DiCenso

Post by Jeff Findley
Then there is the safety side of all of this.  The shuttle astronauts
wear pressure suits with parachutes in case they need to bail out.  I
doubt that an extra two dozen passengers could use the existing bail out
system in a timely manner.  If someone (government regulators?) decide
this is unacceptable, there may not be an economically viable fix for
the problem.

Is that your issue? Then why isn't Virgin Galactic being held to the
same standard? More reliable or not, the same issue is still there,
just as with commercial aircraft; at the end of the day there's no way
to bail out of the thing, and most of the time you go BOOM! when
something goes wrong and there's a Bad Day.

It's not my issue, but I am raising it. ;-)

Some chicken little, somewhere, is going to ask, in the event that the
shuttle can't safely make it to a runway, "Why don't the guys in the
back have time to bail out, but the guys in the front seats do?".
Unfortunately "safety" has been one of the reasons paraded around to end
the shuttle program, so backpedaling on "safety" is going to make
certain talk (yes, Bob, I'm talking about people like you).

I know that a scenario which would put the shuttle into a perfectly
controlled glide, yet it can't make it to and land safely on a runway,
is vanishingly unlikely. If given the chance to ride in the cargo bay
in this manner, I'd personally take it. I'd even let myself be stuffed
into a Soyuz, sardine can style, for a trip to LEO, if given the chance.
;-)

Post by Mike DiCenso

Post by Jeff Findley
I think the Russians are trying to milk everything they can out of their
commercial manned orbital spaceflight monopoly, before it vanishes.

That too, which is all the more reason to get STS and other
competitors in there to break their government corporatist
monopoly! :-)

I'd still rather see STS stop flying this year. It's a wonderful
machine, but it's too damn expensive. I just don't see how keeping STS
flying at a much reduced rate is a good idea. The marginal cost of one
flight isn't that much, but it's the fixed costs that are the real
killer. I just have this sneaking suspicion that the US government is
still going to be footing the bill for *a lot* of the fixed costs so the
"cost" of a commercial crewed shuttle will look good. Even if the
orbiter has "US Commercial Crew" written on the side in big red letters,
NASA will still get stuck with the vast majority of the total bill.

Jeff

[David Spain]

Post by Jeff Findley
I know that a scenario which would put the shuttle into a perfectly
controlled glide, yet it can't make it to and land safely on a runway,
is vanishingly unlikely. If given the chance to ride in the cargo bay
in this manner, I'd personally take it. I'd even let myself be stuffed
into a Soyuz, sardine can style, for a trip to LEO, if given the chance.
;-)

Oh Hell Jeff I know what you mean. In the end we're all just spam in the can.
But if it makes the Chicken Sh er, I mean Littles, feel better, USA can always
come up with some half *ssed scheme were the crew compartment in the cargo bay
is ejected in an emergency (blow off the cargo bay doors?) and comes down on
parachutes for a splashdown in the ocean awaiting ocean rescue. And of course
we all know how well those ejection modules worked for the B1 Lancer.

Post by Jeff Findley

Post by Mike DiCenso

Post by Jeff Findley
I think the Russians are trying to milk everything they can out of

their

Post by Mike DiCenso

Post by Jeff Findley
commercial manned orbital spaceflight monopoly, before it vanishes.

That too, which is all the more reason to get STS and other
competitors in there to break their government corporatist
monopoly! :-)

I'd still rather see STS stop flying this year. It's a wonderful
machine, but it's too damn expensive. I just don't see how keeping STS
flying at a much reduced rate is a good idea. The marginal cost of one
flight isn't that much, but it's the fixed costs that are the real
killer. I just have this sneaking suspicion that the US government is
still going to be footing the bill for *a lot* of the fixed costs so the
"cost" of a commercial crewed shuttle will look good. Even if the
orbiter has "US Commercial Crew" written on the side in big red letters,
NASA will still get stuck with the vast majority of the total bill.

Eventually when Dragon starts flying this will all settle down and get real.
It will take at least that long for the dust to settle over what to do about
shuttle given there will be no ETs at hand and by then Dragon ought to be flying.

Dave

[Pat Flannery]

Post by David Spain
Oh Hell Jeff I know what you mean. In the end we're all just spam in the can.
But if it makes the Chicken Sh er, I mean Littles, feel better, USA can
always come up with some half *ssed scheme were the crew compartment in
the cargo bay
is ejected in an emergency (blow off the cargo bay doors?) and comes down on
parachutes for a splashdown in the ocean awaiting ocean rescue

They designed that concept after Challenger, but never installed it:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=780

Post by David Spain
And of
course we all know how well those ejection modules worked for the B1
Lancer.

By the time the B-1B got into service, the escape capsule had been
replaced by conventional ejection seats.
The F-111's escape pod was unpopular, but I wouldn't mind coming down in
a cold sea in my own boat:
http://www.ejectionsite.com/f111restore.htm
They even had paddles in it, so the downed crew could open the top
hatches and row it around.

Pat

[Jeff Findley]

In article

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by David Spain
Oh Hell Jeff I know what you mean. In the end we're all just spam in the can.
But if it makes the Chicken Sh er, I mean Littles, feel better, USA can
always come up with some half *ssed scheme were the crew compartment in
the cargo bay
is ejected in an emergency (blow off the cargo bay doors?) and comes down on
parachutes for a splashdown in the ocean awaiting ocean rescue

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=780

Designed is too strong of a word. The various escape systems were
concepts, not designs. The fact that this proposal died at the concept
stage means that developing it into a fully operational system would
likely cost billions of dollars (especially if you use NASA type cost
models). The first thing NASA would do is spend a year or to evaluating
the different concepts in order to pick one to fully develop. Add two
or more years after that to develop the concept into a fully operational
system, and it becomes obvious that such a system has little chance of
becoming operational before the shuttle program ends completely.

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by David Spain
And of
course we all know how well those ejection modules worked for the B1
Lancer.

By the time the B-1B got into service, the escape capsule had been
replaced by conventional ejection seats.
The F-111's escape pod was unpopular, but I wouldn't mind coming down in
http://www.ejectionsite.com/f111restore.htm
They even had paddles in it, so the downed crew could open the top
hatches and row it around.

Capsule escape systems have definately had a less than stellar history.

Certainly it would appear to be physically possible to make such a
system work. The problem is making it work as safely and reliably as e-
seats. E-seats have a very long history of development and operational
use. Making a capsule system work safely and reliably would likely
either take decades at a reasonable funding level (maybe a few hundred
million dollars a year).

Making such a system in a year or two, which would be required for a
"commercial space shuttle", would likely take a "waste anything but
time" approach, similar to Apollo/Saturn in the 60's. I don't think
that's going to work since "commercial" approaches typically can't
afford that sort of funding philosophy. ;-)

Jeff

[h***@aol.com]

Post by Jeff Findley
In article

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by David Spain
Oh Hell Jeff I know what you mean. In the end we're all just spam in the can.
But if it makes the Chicken Sh er, I mean Littles, feel better, USA can
always come up with some half *ssed scheme were the crew compartment in
the cargo bay
is ejected in an emergency (blow off the cargo bay doors?) and comes down on
parachutes for a splashdown in the ocean awaiting ocean rescue

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=780

Designed is too strong of a word.  The various escape systems were
concepts, not designs.  The fact that this proposal died at the concept
stage means that developing it into a fully operational system would
likely cost billions of dollars (especially if you use NASA type cost
models).  The first thing NASA would do is spend a year or to evaluating
the different concepts in order to pick one to fully develop.  Add two
or more years after that to develop the concept into a fully operational
system, and it becomes obvious that such a system has little chance of
becoming operational before the shuttle program ends completely.

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by David Spain
And of
course we all know how well those ejection modules worked for the B1
Lancer.

By the time the B-1B got into service, the escape capsule had been
replaced by conventional ejection seats.
The F-111's escape pod was unpopular, but I wouldn't mind coming down in
http://www.ejectionsite.com/f111restore.htm
They even had paddles in it, so the downed crew could open the top
hatches and row it around.

Capsule escape systems have definately had a less than stellar history.
Certainly it would appear to be physically possible to make such a
system work.  The problem is making it work as safely and reliably as e-
seats.  E-seats have a very long history of development and operational
use.  Making a capsule system work safely and reliably would likely
either take decades at a reasonable funding level (maybe a few hundred
million dollars a year).  
Making such a system in a year or two, which would be required for a
"commercial space shuttle", would likely take a "waste anything but
time" approach, similar to Apollo/Saturn in the 60's.  I don't think
that's going to work since "commercial" approaches typically can't
afford that sort of funding philosophy.   ;-)
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

It would probably cost less to totally automate the existing shuttles,
no crew means no crew escape needed.....

[Jeff Findley]

In article <18c6b02c-8b46-49a9-8364-a0320cc02eb4
@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...

Post by h***@aol.com
It would probably cost less to totally automate the existing shuttles,
no crew means no crew escape needed.....

We've been over this time and again Bob. Without a crew, there isn't
much point to flying the shuttle.

Jeff

[h***@aol.com]

Post by Jeff Findley
In article <18c6b02c-8b46-49a9-8364-a0320cc02eb4
@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...

Post by h***@aol.com
It would probably cost less to totally automate the existing shuttles,
no crew means no crew escape needed.....

We've been over this time and again Bob.  Without a crew, there isn't
much point to flying the shuttle.  
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

big loads up, big loads down.

things that wouldnt fit in a soyuz:)

once shuttle ends downmass capability will be permanetely small

[Jeff Findley]

In article <0bae91e4-501a-46ca-a0c5-3c6a40863cf1
@s11g2000prs.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by Jeff Findley
In article <18c6b02c-8b46-49a9-8364-a0320cc02eb4
@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...

Post by h***@aol.com
It would probably cost less to totally automate the existing shuttles,
no crew means no crew escape needed.....

We've been over this time and again Bob.  Without a crew, there isn't
much point to flying the shuttle.  
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

big loads up, big loads down.

EELV's can handle "big loads up". What exactly would be the purpose of
"big loads down"? Sure it's something the shuttle can do, but going
forward, what would you use the capability for?

Post by h***@aol.com
things that wouldnt fit in a soyuz:)
once shuttle ends downmass capability will be permanetely small

For a definition of small which is anything you can stuff into a Dragon
capsule, which isn't at all small compared to Soyuz. Dragon will be
equipped with a CBM, which allows for bigger payloads to fit through the
hatch than Soyuz or Progress.

Certainly MPLM's have flown up and down on the shuttle, but what's
contained in an MPLM on the way down is mostly garbage. Garbage can be
taken away from the station in any visiting cargo vessel which does a
destructive reentry (Progress, ATV, HTV, and etc.).

You've got yourself a hammer in search of a nail to justify its
existence.

Jeff

[h***@aol.com]

Post by Jeff Findley
In article <0bae91e4-501a-46ca-a0c5-3c6a40863cf1
@s11g2000prs.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by Jeff Findley
In article <18c6b02c-8b46-49a9-8364-a0320cc02eb4
@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...

Post by h***@aol.com
It would probably cost less to totally automate the existing shuttles,
no crew means no crew escape needed.....

We've been over this time and again Bob. Without a crew, there isn't
much point to flying the shuttle.
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

big loads up, big loads down.

EELV's can handle "big loads up".  What exactly would be the purpose of
"big loads down"?  Sure it's something the shuttle can do, but going
forward, what would you use the capability for?

Post by h***@aol.com
things that wouldnt fit in a soyuz:)
once shuttle ends downmass capability will be permanetely small

For a definition of small which is anything you can stuff into a Dragon
capsule, which isn't at all small compared to Soyuz.  Dragon will be
equipped with a CBM, which allows for bigger payloads to fit through the
hatch than Soyuz or Progress.  
Certainly MPLM's have flown up and down on the shuttle, but what's
contained in an MPLM on the way down is mostly garbage.  Garbage can be
taken away from the station in any visiting cargo vessel which does a
destructive reentry (Progress, ATV, HTV, and etc.).  
You've got yourself a hammer in search of a nail to justify its
existence.
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

will dragon bring a gyro back?

so now your stating downmass doesnt matter?

[Fred J. McCall]

Post by h***@aol.com
will dragon bring a gyro back?

Presumably it could, but why would you need to?

Post by h***@aol.com
so now your stating downmass doesnt matter?

Look at the records. 'Downmass' other than people has been largely
irrelevant. What do you need to bring back that weighs more than
three tons?

[Jeff Findley]

In article <b6060261-a126-4114-922d-

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by Jeff Findley
In article <0bae91e4-501a-46ca-a0c5-3c6a40863cf1
@s11g2000prs.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by Jeff Findley
In article <18c6b02c-8b46-49a9-8364-a0320cc02eb4
@k15g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...

Post by h***@aol.com
It would probably cost less to totally automate the existing shuttles,
no crew means no crew escape needed.....

We've been over this time and again Bob. Without a crew, there isn't
much point to flying the shuttle.
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

big loads up, big loads down.

EELV's can handle "big loads up".  What exactly would be the purpose of
"big loads down"?  Sure it's something the shuttle can do, but going
forward, what would you use the capability for?

Post by h***@aol.com
things that wouldnt fit in a soyuz:)
once shuttle ends downmass capability will be permanetely small

For a definition of small which is anything you can stuff into a Dragon
capsule, which isn't at all small compared to Soyuz.  Dragon will be
equipped with a CBM, which allows for bigger payloads to fit through the
hatch than Soyuz or Progress.  
Certainly MPLM's have flown up and down on the shuttle, but what's
contained in an MPLM on the way down is mostly garbage.  Garbage can be
taken away from the station in any visiting cargo vessel which does a
destructive reentry (Progress, ATV, HTV, and etc.).  
You've got yourself a hammer in search of a nail to justify its
existence.
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

will dragon bring a gyro back?

I don't know if it will, but the ISS CMG stats are here:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/spacestation/systems/docs/ISS%
20Motion%20Control%20System.pdf

From above:

CMG Statistics:
Primary integrator: Boeing
Manufacturer: L3 Communications, Space and Navigation Division,
Budd Lake, N.J.
Weight: 600 pounds
Purpose: Control the attitude of the International Space
Station without use of propellant.
Dimensions: 45 inches wide, 48 inches high and 54 inches in
length
Structure: Each CMG contains a 220-pound stainless steel
flywheel that spins at 6,600 rpm.
Removal and Installation: Only six bolts and four power
connectors need to be detached to remove the Control Moment
Gyro from the ISS Z1 Truss.

I don't think a CMG will fit through the ISS airlock hatch. But, if you
could get the CMG inside ISS, I'm not sure what would prevent a CMG from
being brought into the station and stowed on a Dragon for return to
earth since the CBM hatches are quite large.

Post by h***@aol.com
so now your stating downmass doesnt matter?

One ISS CMG is only 600 pounds. Dragon is designed to return ten times
that mass (6,614 lbs).

Jeff

[Dr J R Stockton]

Post by Jeff Findley
I don't think a CMG will fit through the ISS airlock hatch. But, if you
could get the CMG inside ISS, I'm not sure what would prevent a CMG from
being brought into the station and stowed on a Dragon for return to
earth since the CBM hatches are quite large.

How big is the existing hatch on the side of a Dragon? How big a hatch
could be fitted in a non-man-rated version? How about a version where
the walls are screwed to the base so that the base can be opened in
space (the joint would not need to be airtight after being opened and
closed, if the big returning stuff is put in last)?

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Dr J R Stockton
How big is the existing hatch on the side of a Dragon? How big a hatch
could be fitted in a non-man-rated version? How about a version where
the walls are screwed to the base so that the base can be opened in
space (the joint would not need to be airtight after being opened and
closed, if the big returning stuff is put in last)?

It would be a lot easier to modify cargo load aboard if it went through
the side hatch than if you had to to literally build the cargo into it
during capsule assembly. Getting out the calipers, side hatch size looks
to be around 24-30 inches on a side in the flown version.


Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Pat Flannery
It would be a lot easier to modify cargo load aboard if it went through
the side hatch than if you had to to literally build the cargo into it
during capsule assembly. Getting out the calipers, side hatch size looks
to be around 24-30 inches on a side in the flown version.

You see, that's why they are getting ahead of the curve in their
operation...make the hatch big enough from day one of the design, and
not only can you get cargo and people in and out through it, but you can
get people in _EVA suits_ in and out through it.
Going to need that capability?
Who knows?
But planning ahead opens new opportunities without capsule redesign.
The Apollo CM side hatch was 29 inches high by 34 inches wide, and you
could EVA from it.

[Jeff Findley]

In article

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Pat Flannery
It would be a lot easier to modify cargo load aboard if it went through
the side hatch than if you had to to literally build the cargo into it
during capsule assembly. Getting out the calipers, side hatch size looks
to be around 24-30 inches on a side in the flown version.

You see, that's why they are getting ahead of the curve in their
operation...make the hatch big enough from day one of the design, and
not only can you get cargo and people in and out through it, but you can
get people in _EVA suits_ in and out through it.
Going to need that capability?
Who knows?
But planning ahead opens new opportunities without capsule redesign.
The Apollo CM side hatch was 29 inches high by 34 inches wide, and you
could EVA from it.

If you can depressurize Dragon, I don't see why you couldn't perform and
EVA or load large cargo like this straight through the much larger CBM
hatch. You'd have to have the SSRMS hold onto a grapple fixture on
Dragon for this to work, but it should be physically possible.

Jeff

[Jeff Findley]

Post by Dr J R Stockton

Post by Jeff Findley
I don't think a CMG will fit through the ISS airlock hatch. But, if you
could get the CMG inside ISS, I'm not sure what would prevent a CMG from
being brought into the station and stowed on a Dragon for return to
earth since the CBM hatches are quite large.

How big is the existing hatch on the side of a Dragon? How big a hatch
could be fitted in a non-man-rated version? How about a version where
the walls are screwed to the base so that the base can be opened in
space (the joint would not need to be airtight after being opened and
closed, if the big returning stuff is put in last)?

The current side hatch isn't terribly big. Large cargo would likely be
loaded through the CBM hatch.

A big hatch on the side would require depressurization of the inside of
Dragon, so why not use the CBM hatch? Stick an SSRMS grapple on the
side of Dragon and have the SSRMS pull Dragon a few feet away from ISS,
depressurize Dragon, open Dragon's CBM hatch, and astronauts in an EVA
suits could then move the CMG into Dragon. Once it's secure, Dragon
could then be re-birthed to ISS for further cargo (downmass) loading.

Jeff

[Jorge R. Frank]

In article<b34c509e-f855-411a-95ce-

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by Mike DiCenso
There are no serious technical issues with the proposal, only a
business one. They need customers besides NASA to make this work.

I guess they could sell tourist seats?

Good luck with that. A ride on a Soyuz, at $20 million, would be far
cheaper.

You can't get a seat on a Soyuz for $20M nowadays. $35-40M for a 1-2
week tourist flight, $55M for an ISS seat with 6 months of CRV service
(which is what NASA pays).

And that will only get worse, for someone in the US, since the ruble is
rising long-term against the dollar (there has in fact been little to no
inflation in Soyuz seat prices *measured in rubles*; the "inflation" has
been mostly due to the falling dollar).

[Brian Thorn]

Post by h***@aol.com
I guess they could sell tourist seats?

Interesting question. No chance of it happening due to mass and
expense issues, but technically could USA do that? NASA can't by law,
but could a commercial Shuttle operator?

Brian

[Mike DiCenso]

Post by Brian Thorn

Post by h***@aol.com
I guess they could sell tourist seats?

Interesting question. No chance of it happening due to mass and
expense issues, but technically could USA do that? NASA can't by law,
but could a commercial Shuttle operator?

USA is talking about taking ownership and running STS as a private
operation, so if Virgin Galactic and Space X can, then so can STS,
abeit they'd probably need some sort of "grandfather" clause to
accomadate the lack of escape system. Of course I doubt that USA would
be aiming for any big space tourist niche, just hauling cargo to ISS
and more importantly, bringing down large downmass and volume payloads
that the other vehicles can't.

It might also be that USA could dust off the old privatization studies
they did for STS in the mid to late 1990s, and start offing STS for
some large satellite launch using a cryogenic stage that is filled
with the excess propellants from the ET once the shuttle has flown
through all the main abort modes.
-Mike

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Mike DiCenso
It might also be that USA could dust off the old privatization studies
they did for STS in the mid to late 1990s, and start offing STS for
some large satellite launch using a cryogenic stage that is filled
with the excess propellants from the ET once the shuttle has flown
through all the main abort modes.

They didn't even want a fueled Centaur back there, much less something
you have to fuel during ascent.


Pat

[Jochem Huhmann]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Mike DiCenso
It might also be that USA could dust off the old privatization studies
they did for STS in the mid to late 1990s, and start offing STS for
some large satellite launch using a cryogenic stage that is filled
with the excess propellants from the ET once the shuttle has flown
through all the main abort modes.

They didn't even want a fueled Centaur back there, much less something
you have to fuel during ascent.

Using the Shuttle as a crewed and resuable third stage adaptor seems to
be about the definition of launcher absurdities.


Jochem

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Jochem Huhmann

Post by Pat Flannery
They didn't even want a fueled Centaur back there, much less something
you have to fuel during ascent.

Using the Shuttle as a crewed and resuable third stage adaptor seems to
be about the definition of launcher absurdities.

I'm still trying to figure out how the plumbing on this concept is
supposed to work.

Pat

[Mike DiCenso]

Post by Jochem Huhmann

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Mike DiCenso
It might also be that USA could dust off the old privatization studies
they did for STS in the mid to late 1990s, and start offing STS for
some large satellite launch using a cryogenic stage that is filled
with the excess propellants from the ET once the shuttle has flown
through all the main abort modes.

They didn't even want a fueled Centaur back there, much less something
you have to fuel during ascent.

Using the Shuttle as a crewed and resuable third stage adaptor seems to
be about the definition of launcher absurdities.

But it worked quite well for years back in the Shuttles early days,
and satellite rescue was also demonstated, thus more niche markets for
a fully privatized STS to tap into. Plus Pat is rambling here
somewhat, the Boeing proposal got around the issue of launching with a
cryo stage by fueling the stage after the shuttle left the atmosphere,
and thus could safely vent in case of a failure that forced an early
aborting of the mission using cryo prop that would be carried up and
run throught the orbiter anyway.
-Mike
-Mike

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Mike DiCenso

Post by Jochem Huhmann
Using the Shuttle as a crewed and resuable third stage adaptor seems to
be about the definition of launcher absurdities.

But it worked quite well for years back in the Shuttles early days,
and satellite rescue was also demonstated, thus more niche markets for
a fully privatized STS to tap into.

It didn't work; once the government subsidies on the launch costs were
removed, the launch cost was nowhere near competitive with expendable
launchers.
But don't worry, if the Shuttle was completely privatized, launch costs
would not only drop, but ULA would make a profit...by cutting back on
all the safety inspections and maintenance, while at the same time
hiring more low-cost labor to work on it.
I don't see any reason why minimum wage part-time workers couldn't do
this; it's not rocket science you know.
Somewhere back there at the beginning of the Shuttle program, there was
a case of some inmates from a minimum security prison that were shipped
in to help them attach tiles to the bottom of a Shuttle orbiter (I think
it was Columbia).
I can't find this incident online yet, but it was a minor scandal at the
time...sure has a nice Soviet feel to it though, doesn't it? :-)

Post by Mike DiCenso
Plus Pat is rambling here
somewhat, the Boeing proposal got around the issue of launching with a
cryo stage by fueling the stage after the shuttle left the atmosphere,
and thus could safely vent in case of a failure that forced an early
aborting of the mission using cryo prop that would be carried up and
run throught the orbiter anyway.

Did you catch the problem with your fuel-during-ascent concept yet?
The residual fuel is going to be at the bottom of the ET's LOX and LH2
tanks; that's no big deal for the SSME's as they are lower than the
bottom of the ET's rear dome, so the propellants just gravity feed into
the SSME's turbopumps or use the acceleration during ascent to keep
thing's going were they are supposed to.
But with your concept, the cryogenic booster in the cargo bay is going
to be _above_ the level of the LH2 tank rear dome, so you are going to
have to pump the LH2 uphill to fill its tank...and do it against the
launch g's toward the end of the SSME burn as well.

Pat

[Brian Thorn]

Post by Pat Flannery
But with your concept, the cryogenic booster in the cargo bay is going
to be _above_ the level of the LH2 tank rear dome, so you are going to
have to pump the LH2 uphill to fill its tank...and do it against the
launch g's toward the end of the SSME burn as well.

Yeah, that sounds a bit much to be trying on the Shuttle. However, the
same concept (propellant crossfeed) comes up from time to time as a
way to increase performance of Delta IV-Heavy (pumping prop from the
outboard boosters to the core) so evidently the "pumping uphill
against the g's" problem is not insurmountable.

Brian

[Jeff Findley]

In article <***@4ax.com>, bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

Post by Brian Thorn

Post by Pat Flannery
But with your concept, the cryogenic booster in the cargo bay is going
to be _above_ the level of the LH2 tank rear dome, so you are going to
have to pump the LH2 uphill to fill its tank...and do it against the
launch g's toward the end of the SSME burn as well.

Yeah, that sounds a bit much to be trying on the Shuttle. However, the
same concept (propellant crossfeed) comes up from time to time as a
way to increase performance of Delta IV-Heavy (pumping prop from the
outboard boosters to the core) so evidently the "pumping uphill
against the g's" problem is not insurmountable.

The LOX high pressure turbopumps on the SSME's boost the LOX pressure to
30 MPa (4,300 psi). The LH2 high pressure turbopumps on the SSME's
boost the LH2 pressure to 45 MPa (6,515 psia).

That is more than enough pressure to overcome 3g's of acceleration for a
"vertical" distance of a few tens of feet (SSME's to tanks in the
payload bay).

I'm not saying this would be a trivial thing to do, or that the trade-
off in complexity, safety, and mass of the cross-feed system would be
worth it. I'm just saying that there appears to be no physical reason
that LOX and LH2 couldn't be pumped rapidly from one stage to another
given that high pressure, high volume, LOX and LH2 turbopumps already
exist and have worked quite well on the SSME's.

Jeff

[h***@aol.com]

Post by Jeff Findley
@suddenlink.net says...

Post by Brian Thorn

Post by Pat Flannery
But with your concept, the cryogenic booster in the cargo bay is going
to be _above_ the level of the LH2 tank rear dome, so you are going to
have to pump the LH2 uphill to fill its tank...and do it against the
launch g's toward the end of the SSME burn as well.

Yeah, that sounds a bit much to be trying on the Shuttle. However, the
same concept (propellant crossfeed) comes up from time to time as a
way to increase performance of Delta IV-Heavy (pumping prop from the
outboard boosters to the core) so evidently the "pumping uphill
against the g's" problem is not insurmountable.

The LOX high pressure turbopumps on the SSME's boost the LOX pressure to
30 MPa (4,300 psi).  The LH2 high pressure turbopumps on the SSME's
boost the LH2 pressure to 45 MPa (6,515 psia).
That is more than enough pressure to overcome 3g's of acceleration for a
"vertical" distance of a few tens of feet (SSME's to tanks in the
payload bay).
I'm not saying this would be a trivial thing to do, or that the trade-
off in complexity, safety, and mass of the cross-feed system would be
worth it.  I'm just saying that there appears to be no physical reason
that LOX and LH2 couldn't be pumped rapidly from one stage to another
given that high pressure, high volume, LOX and LH2 turbopumps already
exist and have worked quite well on the SSME's.  
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

is the ET large enough to hold the extra fuel?

[Jeff Findley]

In article

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Mike DiCenso
It might also be that USA could dust off the old privatization studies
they did for STS in the mid to late 1990s, and start offing STS for
some large satellite launch using a cryogenic stage that is filled
with the excess propellants from the ET once the shuttle has flown
through all the main abort modes.

They didn't even want a fueled Centaur back there, much less something
you have to fuel during ascent.

Actually, the proposal to fill the Centaur in flight *is* the proposal
to get around having a fueled Centaur during launch. The original
concern was that an early abort (like Return To Launch Site) wouldn't
give enough time to safely vent the LOX and LH2 on the Centaur before
the orbiter had to land.

Once you get to the point in the flight where an engine(s) out would
cause an Abort To Orbit, fueling the Centaur makes sense. This is
because if an Abort To Orbit did happen, you would have plenty of time
to stop fueling the Centaur and vent it to vacuum before performing a
de-orbit burn and landing.

Jeff

[h***@aol.com]

Post by Jeff Findley
In article

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Mike DiCenso
It might also be that USA could dust off the old privatization studies
they did for STS in the mid to late 1990s, and start offing STS for
some large satellite launch using a cryogenic stage that is filled
with the excess propellants from the ET once the shuttle has flown
through all the main abort modes.

They didn't even want a fueled Centaur back there, much less something
you have to fuel during ascent.

Actually, the proposal to fill the Centaur in flight *is* the proposal
to get around having a fueled Centaur during launch.  The original
concern was that an early abort (like Return To Launch Site) wouldn't
give enough time to safely vent the LOX and LH2 on the Centaur before
the orbiter had to land.
Once you get to the point in the flight where an engine(s) out would
cause an Abort To Orbit, fueling the Centaur makes sense.  This is
because if an Abort To Orbit did happen, you would have plenty of time
to stop fueling the Centaur and vent it to vacuum before performing a
de-orbit burn and landing.  
Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

is the ET large enough to carry the extra fuel needed?

[Jeff Findley]

In article <efa2e00b-0397-4637-a70a-9908cd96a2f4
@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>, ***@aol.com says...

Post by h***@aol.com

Post by Jeff Findley
Actually, the proposal to fill the Centaur in flight *is* the proposal
to get around having a fueled Centaur during launch.  The original
concern was that an early abort (like Return To Launch Site) wouldn't
give enough time to safely vent the LOX and LH2 on the Centaur before
the orbiter had to land.
Once you get to the point in the flight where an engine(s) out would
cause an Abort To Orbit, fueling the Centaur makes sense.  This is
because if an Abort To Orbit did happen, you would have plenty of time
to stop fueling the Centaur and vent it to vacuum before performing a
de-orbit burn and landing.  

is the ET large enough to carry the extra fuel needed?

It was a proposal, and I'm going from memory, so I'm not sure. A
detailed history of Centaur is here:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf

It includes quite a bit of information about Shuttle-Centaur.

Jeff

[Mike DiCenso]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Mike DiCenso
It might also be that USA could dust off the old privatization studies
they did for STS in the mid to late 1990s, and start offing STS for
some large satellite launch using a cryogenic stage that is filled
with the excess propellants from the ET once the shuttle has flown
through all the main abort modes.

They didn't even want a fueled Centaur back there, much less something
you have to fuel during ascent.

Who's "They", and what the hell is an 'aluminum falcon?
-Mike

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Mike DiCenso

Post by Pat Flannery
They didn't even want a fueled Centaur back there, much less something
you have to fuel during ascent.

Who's "They", and what the hell is an 'aluminum falcon?

That was a great parody.
The new Family Guy "Return Of The Jedi" parody ("It's A Trap!") is
pretty good also, as it points out that Princess Leia and Mon Mothma
(her of the dead Bothan spies) are apparently the only two human women
in the universe.

Pat

[Jeff Findley]

In article <8c66b9c8-c09b-4d02-9142-

Post by Mike DiCenso
Who's "They", and what the hell is an 'aluminum falcon?

Robot Chicken, FTW!

Jeff

[Brian Thorn]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:29:17 -0500, Jeff Findley

Post by Jeff Findley
You must be forgetting the trouble the orbiters had with their wiring.

No, that was the late 1990s problem I mentioned in my reply to Pat,
and it was caught by NASA and solved. The post-107 RTF addressed this
problem.

Post by Jeff Findley
Age was one of the primary causes of the insulation cracking and
breaking. You can't keep flying old vehicles like this and ignore their
aging systems, which spare parts become harder, and more expensive, to
procure.

We're only contemplating eight more flights, though.

Post by Jeff Findley
Some of the shuttle's systems are still 40+ years old, in
terms of design.

So are the 737's and 747's, still flying daily in large numbers (sure,
they've been upgraded over the decades, but so have the Orbiters). And
some of the systems in the KC-135s are pushing 60 years old. Should
they all be grounded too, until we build KC-X?

Post by Jeff Findley
Like the known SRB issues that will never completely go away. Many of
the upgrades which could have helped shuttle keep flying longer were
never funded. The systems they were to replace (like toxic OMS/RCS/APU
propellant) aren't going away either.

I'm not sure these were meant to keep the Shuttle flying so much as to
reduce costs (especially the non-toxic OMS and electric APUs) in the
face of the failure of X-30 and X-33 to lead to a Shuttle replacement
in the 2000s as expected, and Shuttle facing extension to 2020.

Post by Jeff Findley
The bird in hand is dying and is afraid of death,

Because it is leaving a void, with both of its intended replacements
now footnotes to history and none of its current proposed successors
are funded.

Post by Jeff Findley
but I doubt the
process is reversible at this point.

USA, the people who actually handle things, think differently.

Post by Jeff Findley
The recent ET problems show that
this vehicle still isn't immune to failure.

Of course not, but neither are Dragon, CST-100, or Dream Chaser. Not
bird in hand, but Devil you know?

Brian

[Jeff Findley]

In article <***@4ax.com>, bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

Post by Brian Thorn
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 08:29:17 -0500, Jeff Findley

Post by Jeff Findley
but I doubt the
process is reversible at this point.

USA, the people who actually handle things, think differently.

To quote Governor William J. Le Petomane (Blazing Saddles, 1974):

We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen!
We must do something about this immediately! Immediately!
Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!

Seriously though, I don't doubt it's possible, but I just don't believe
that the costs can come down enough to make this an economically viable
alternative to ending the shuttle program this year. Without ending the
shuttle program, it's going to be extremely difficult to get funding to
"find a way forward" in today's tough economic/political climate.

Jeff

[Brian Thorn]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:24:11 -0500, Jeff Findley

Post by Jeff Findley
Seriously though, I don't doubt it's possible, but I just don't believe
that the costs can come down enough to make this an economically viable
alternative to ending the shuttle program this year. Without ending the
shuttle program, it's going to be extremely difficult to get funding to
"find a way forward" in today's tough economic/political climate.

On that I agree. I was arguing the point that the Shuttle Orbiters are
not in fact the old and moldy deathtraps that has been the primary
complaint about USA's proposal.

Brian

[Quadibloc]

Post by Brian Thorn
I don't really understand what you're going for with that. How would
ten Hubble launches be cheaper than 10x the Hubble launch?

Launch costs would be the same. I'm thinking of the design and
production costs. If HSTs were built on an assembly line in mass
production...

John Savard

[Val Kraut]

keep the (wet) dream alive?

[Jeff Findley]

In article

Post by Pat Flannery
Let's fly the Shuttle till 2017!
When you are sliding into a chasm, grabbing at a cloud to brace yourself
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41397955/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Since this is supposed to be a commercial enterprise, it will
interesting to see who's going to cough up the $1.5 billion a year to do
this concept...certainly not the government, as that would be the sort
of dangerous socialism that Obama is trying to stuff down our throats. ;-)

This proposal won't go anywhere. It's just throwing good money after
bad.

Jeff