NASA faulted for lack of shuttle-fleet plans (GAO report)

OC Register ^ | 2/14/04 | Maggie Fox - Reuters

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON

[Frank_Discussion]

""The shuttle will now be needed for another two decades," the GAO report reads."

Shuttle is decommissioned in 2010. GAO needs to get with the program. I mean it. If we are going to have a space program that is actually going to be led in a particular direction, then GAO needs to stop trying to hijack the plans in place.

They serve a purpose, and that is to check the accounting of government programs. Pretending that a particular program is going to do something other than what it SAYS it will be doing is a bad way to do accounting.

[Frank_Discussion]

"Originally designed to be used for 10 years, the aging shuttles are not as safe as they could be, and there is no replacement in sight."

CEV is the replacement.

Another instance of the GAO deliberately ignoring the plan. Jerks.

[marron]

Oh, good grief. Can we just put the Post Office in charge of America's space program? Could it be any worse?

Can we not find anyone at NASA who really wants to go into space, and put him in charge? Outside of that they have no function. Take us into space, or retire to Chocolate Bayou and get out of the way.

[norraad]

It is & always has been a flying breadtruck, even the bread companies don't keep them that long.

I think UPS keeps the browns going longest of all, maybe they should consider sponsorship, it worked for NASCAR (.."everbody loves the truck.").

[Darksheare]

"NASA has not figured out how to upgrade the three remaining shuttles to make them safe and usable for at least the next 15 years"

How about not using the environmentally friendly but heat shield tile killing foam on the main tanks for starters?
That foam is what doomed Columbia.
The shuttle had bits of the previous foam mix bash into it much the same way without ill effect.
The NEW formulation has always eroded the tiles.

And how about they actually honestly MOVE on plans to build a workable replacement without putting unrealistic and insane restrictions on it.
NASA has no imagination at the helm it seems.
The guys that have the guts and the vision aren't in control.

[Frank_Discussion]

Read my posts above. This is the GAO acting like the president and O'Keefe never said anything. Shuttle becomes a venerated museum exhibit in six years. NASA is moving on, but GAO doesn't want to believe it.

[jpsb]

How about building a few more, improved shuttles? If we lose the shuttle it will be like losing the Saturn 5 all over again. Nothing we have or plan on having can put men or materials in orbit like the shuttle. Shuttle C has the same lift capacity as Saturn 5!

Build more shuttles! And don't launch in the freezing cold then they are covered in ice, and get rid of the damn PC foam that keeps falling off and crashing into the orbiter. Use the old unPC foam that did it job.

[tet68]

Part of the problem is we should have had 100 shuttles by now.

Imagine there were only ten 747s and two of them crashed,
same deal.

Have never figured out the mind set that says you plan on a certain number but when the cost gets too high you cut the number, the cost multiplies by 3 so you get half as many at twice the price!

Government!

Actually the UPS idea is really good, if you could show them
it was profitable, all the shuttles would be painted brown!

[jpsb]

Part of the problem is we should have had 100 shuttles by now.

Exactly 100% correct. We should be exporting shuttles to Russia EU, Japan and yea even the Chinese. there aint' nothing wrong with the shuttle that couldn't be fixed by building and flying and improving them.

[Darksheare]

LOL!
UPS, same day shipping from orbit.
Not too sure how that bureaucracy mentality works myself.
It's weird.
But, bureaucracy usually exists solely to waste funds and justify it's own existence.

[Don Joe]

How about building a few more, improved shuttles? If we lose the shuttle it will be like losing the Saturn 5 all over again. Nothing we have or plan on having can put men or materials in orbit like the shuttle. Shuttle C has the same lift capacity as Saturn 5!

Build more shuttles! And don't launch in the freezing cold then they are covered in ice, and get rid of the damn PC foam that keeps falling off and crashing into the orbiter. Use the old unPC foam that did it job.

Naw, don't throw more good money after bad. Buy out the Energia/Buran system from the Ruskies on the cheap, use the Buran part of the system to wrap up the ISS boondoggle, and then use the Energia components for unmanned heavy lift missions.

Meanwhile, use the money saved (billions, if not trillions of dollars) to develop a modern SSTO system.

[supercat]

Part of the problem is we should have had 100 shuttles by now.

There are a few types of missions of which the Shuttle is uniquely capable. Generally, though, I suspect that single-use spacecraft will have a lower per-mission cost than "reusable" ones in any mission for which they're suitable.

Sure, being able to pilot a spacecraft onto a runway is pretty neat, and for some missions it's essential. But a spacecraft which can be piloted in such fashion must of necessity be heavier than one which is designed to fall into the ocean. And getting all that extra weight into space costs money.

Other than missions which require bringing down more stuff than will fit in a Suyuz (and some such missions do certainly exist) what other benefits does the Shuttle have over the Russian's mass-produced Soyuz craft?

[King Prout]

"A year after the shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas, killing all seven astronauts aboard, NASA has not figured out how to upgrade the three remaining shuttles to make them safe and usable for at least the next 15 years, the General Accounting Office said."

mayyyybe 'cuz... it cannot be done?

[jpsb]

And what would a modern a SSTO system look like? The thing is, in spite of all it's warts, the shuttle is a good system. I really believe it can be improved and can evolute into a great system. I have always liked the idea of a space plane, still do, but a space plan can't do heavy lifts the shuttle can. In a shuttle C configuration the shuttle can lift 100+ tons into orbit. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water again, like we did we the Saturn 5.

[jpsb]

The shuttle is more then just a launch platform, it is also a work platform in orbit. And allows astronuats to repair and upgrade systems like Hubble. (Or retrieve for repair on earth).

[jpsb]

well if it can't be done then we should stop flying them and fire NASA.

[King Prout]

yes.

[King Prout]

or, build a set of new shuttles to the original airframe specifications, out of titanium as was originally planned, with modern computers and avionics, etc... instead of trying to retrofit three ancient and battered pieces of kudged-together crap.

[RightWhale]

GAO needs to get with the program

No kidding. GAO conducts studies by request of the House, the Senate, or the White House. This report would have been commissioned a couple years ago by someone who may not be in office this time next year. Their report probably was written a year ago mainly and is being published now. We'll have people walking on the moon again before GAO issues their fiscal analysis on the moon base plan, but someone has to request the analysis.