And they never will. NASA =
Posted on 05/27/2010 12:01:11 PM PDT by anymouse
- A Symbol: An in-space ballerina and hypersonic flying marvel, the Space Shuttle Orbiter is almost impossible for others to duplicate and continues to generate international admiration and respect for U.S. technical capabilities.
- Full Potential Not Yet Realized: The multi-functional Orbiter has performed “as designed” on all assignments including reentry and a key role in the International Space Station (ISS) assembly. Like any new manned system, as crews and engineers become more familiar (like a helicopter) performance “in the box” improves and extending-the-box opportunities are identified. So far the Orbiter has operated generally within the box.
- Too Young For Retirement: Each remaining Orbiter has many missions and years of life remaining. The Orbiter was designed for a one hundred mission life with a factor of four (i.e. 400 flight potential). It has experienced low flight rates and has not been structurally overloaded (maximum loads occur during the boost phase and high wind shear situations have been avoided through pre-flight meteorological observations) and receives a complete examination and any necessary refurbishment between each flight.
- The System is Safe for Continued Man Flights: No critical failures have originated from within the triply redundant Orbiter itself but like any spacecraft designed for light-weight, it is vulnerable to abuse (e.g. SRB O rings, ET insulation debris); these are now known and addressable problems. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME)s were my principal safety concern through the development years but their flight record has been excellent and it may be that the integrity of recovered, refurbished rocket engines is as good as or even better than new ones. Some rocket engine incipient failures may lie undetected in ocean graves.
- Real Usability Through “Landing With Dignity”: Turnaround man hours are costly for the Orbiter, not the least demanding being the heat shield preparation and changes are continually being made to improve the situation. Even so, this relatively light-weight, first generation radiant heat shield is itself reusable and obviates having to pay for a new vehicle and other ancillary costs such as ocean recovery for every flight. Note: In depth reviews of “flown” Apollo command modules concluded that second flights of the hardware would be too costly at that time.
- New Space Initiatives Depend On The Orbiter For Identification and Pursuit: The on-orbit assembly option for a deep space manned system became more viable upon completion of the International Space Station (ISS) using the Orbiter. An “Orbiter” segment of a deep space system would be used in assembly activities, on-orbit transfers, tug functions and most importantly for the crew Earth-to-orbit and orbit-to-Earth transfer. Reliance on an Orbiter for re-entry would eliminate configuration constraints on size and shape and the weight of items such as parachutes, heat shields and landing impact structure and the energy needed to transport this otherwise useless added weight throughout the entire deep space mission. This approach essentially would trade-off these advantages against the development of an additional propulsion module for return from deep space to high/low Earth orbit. The present Orbiter would be a key mechanism in the early development of such an on-orbit assembled system.
- The Shuttle Continues to Be An Intriguing Candidate For “Commercialization”: The system is presently operational. Its payload-to-orbit delivery and other capabilities are well documented. Its risks are known and assessable for payload insurance and crew-safety considerations and industrial elements are already doing much of the work in many areas. Bailing, leasing and/or other type of agreement for use of government equipment (Orbiters, pads, control centers, etc.) is probably feasible in some arrangement. Needed is an industry, NASA-government, Congressional meeting of the minds on all related elements including government flight requirements, (e.g. ISS servicing) and commercial pricing policies. If such a government hand-off to industry could be affected it would, of course, keep the Shuttle Program available for another decade or two should presently unforeseen government needs arise (even today it would be most helpful to have Apollo supply and rescue vehicles that serviced Skylab available for use on the ISS).
- U. S. Taxpayers Have Not Yet Realized Their Full Return-on-Investment (ROI) From the Shuttle System:
o It really works; it is not just a briefing chart promise.
o It has much life remaining and could be the key to the identification and development of new systems.
o It is man-rated and safe--probably as safe as any manned system will be—no others will get over one hundred flights down the learning curve.
o The infrastructure is in place and operational and has provided industry through extensive, hands-on participation with the depth of training necessary to assume total system accountability.
o To replace the Orbiter capabilities will take decades and billions.
Decommissioning the Space Shuttle should be postponed indefinitely.
George W. Jeffs is the former President of Space and Energy Operations [including Shuttle Orbiter, Integration and Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs)] at Rockwell International. He is also the former President of the Space Division, North American Aviation-Rockwell International [including Apollo Command and Service Modules and the Space Shuttle Orbiter]. He is also a helicopter and fixed-wing pilot with multiengine and instrument ratings.
Space ping.
Extend shuttle!
Get external tank production back up and fly shuttle on a limited basis until we build the next US vehicle.
Relying on russians to get the the space station we just built is insane!
Not to mention we safeguard the massive investment that is the space station by having shuttles ready to repair and rescue it if something bad happens. Shuttle has unique abilities.
Not even close to the trillions wasted in entitlement programs.
I don’t want to read this. This depresses me.
have we turned the space station over to the Russians??
Maybe it’s just me, but the fact that 50% of the original space shuttle fleet has been lost to catastrophic failures in the last 25 years seems to be an indication that the whole program isn’t nearly as safe as this author makes it out to be.
In any case, using the shuttle to boost satellites or cargo into space is an extremely stupid idea. Why waste the time and money using a man-rated vehicle for heavy-lifting?
Hey! That wasn't wasted, it bought lots of votes!
I thought the space industry has known for years that traditional rockets -- both manned and unmanned -- are far more effective at delivering people and payloads into space when measured on a unit cost (e.g., dollars per ton) basis.
Nothing you say? Space Shuttle Spinoffs
That leaves out the secret (to this day) military missions it flew, the satellites it launched that serve us and expand our knowledge of the universe (the Hubble, above all), and keeping up our superpower status.
That’s why I added that last part, which you apparently didn’t read.
1. Fill all the seats on each flight. The going rate of $20 Million paid to the Russians for their Soyuz rides could be used to offset the launch costs.
1. Fly the Tanks into orbit. We throw them into the Indian Ocean when a little more propellant they could be flown into space. Let Exxon or one of the other fuel companies pay for the external tank and once in orbit these tanks can be assembled into tank farms to hold propellants. they can also be used as modules to be fitted as maintenance and warehouse facilities.
3. sell the shuttles to FedEx, UPS or some other transport carrier and we can open the Earth Lunar highway!
<4> Use some of those tanks in orbit to build the Lunar colony which would then be transported to the moon.
5. The shuttle experience can be the seed upon which the new dreamers will begin our trek to the Stars!
Read my paper about Space University at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/NorthTexasSpace/files/
Enjoy
Neil Armstrong: "America is respected for its contributions it has made in learning to sail on this new ocean. If the leadership we have acquired through our investment is simply allowed to fade away, other nations will surely step in where we have faltered. I do not believe that would be in our best interest."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.