Posted on 02/01/2003 8:26:17 PM PST by Magnum44
NASA Unlikely to Build New Space Shuttle Sat Feb 1, 6:15 PM ET
By MATT CRENSON, AP National Writer
NASA (news - web sites) is extremely unlikely to build a new space shuttle to replace Columbia, according to experts, leaving the space agency with the three remaining orbiters as its entire fleet for the foreseeable future.
The next generation of reusable space vehicles is at least 10 to 15 years off, said Donald H. Emero, who served as the shuttle's chief engineer from 1989 to 1993.
"I think the country will not invest in any more shuttles," Emero said Saturday.
Until a few years ago, NASA was exploring several designs for vehicles to replace the space shuttle. But NASA's new administrator, Sean O'Keefe, has shelved those designs and committed to operating the space shuttle for the next 10 to 15 years. The fleet's primary mission during that period will be constructing and servicing the international space station (news - web sites).
Discovery, the oldest of NASA's three remaining shuttles, has been in service for 18 years. Endeavour, built at a cost of about $2 billion to replace the Challenger after that spacecraft exploded shortly after takeoff in 1986, has been flying for a decade. Atlantis, the third remaining shuttle, has been in use for 17 years.
NASA's shuttle fleet was grounded for nearly three years following the Challenger disaster, as investigators struggled first to determine what had caused it to explode with seven astronauts on board and then to fix the problem. In the hours after that accident, few could have guessed that the cause would be a rubber "O-ring" — stiffened and cracked by low temperatures.
At that time, NASA had sufficient spare parts to assemble Endeavour as a replacement for Challenger. But today the space agency does not have that capability.
Emero said the investigation of Saturday's accident could take as long as that inquiry, but doubted it would because Challenger was destroyed by such a minor defect that was difficult to find.
There is no doubt that the remaining space shuttles will be grounded for some time pending NASA's investigation of the Columbia accident.
"Certainly there is a hold on future flights until we get ourselves established and understand how this happened," said space shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore.
The next shuttle mission on NASA's flight schedule is a March 1 trip to the space station by the Atlantis orbiter.
During the 1990s, NASA spent billions of dollars investigating a radical design to replace the space shuttle. The X-33 vehicle would have had a dramatic "lifting body" design propelled by a type of rocket that had never been used in spaceflight. But persistent engineering problems led NASA to abandon the vehicle in 2001.
The next generation of reusable space vehicles is at least 10 to 15 years off, said Donald H. Emero, who served as the shuttle's chief engineer from 1989 to 1993.
"I think the country will not invest in any more shuttles," Emero said Saturday.
The guy is entitled to his opinion, and it's probably worth more than most because of his background.
But, he did last serve on the Shuttle program 10 years ago, which I would imagine to be an eternity in the technological world. It's certainly at least half-an-eternity in the political world. What the country is willing to invest in today is lightyears from what it was willing to invest in at the beginning of the clinton administration, when last Mr. Emero served.
In an alternate universe, where terrorists did not bring down the WTC. NASA is not a priority--alas--nor was it during the Clinton years.
--Boris
Thank you very much for your insight. I hope Enterprise is pressed into service if need be. Gene would be proud.
"It cannot take twenty to build a new orbiter."
Oh yes it can. Lemme tell ya why. In the 1960s, they threw money at every problem. I knew guys who had an idea on Monday and had an article in test by Friday. They accepted failures because test failures are a chance to learn. One fellow told me he designed a new injector over the weekend and had it fabbed and tested by Friday and 'My boss never knew I was doing it'.
Now, we are "success oriented" (foolhardy) and a failure of any component brings down a Congressional investigation upon thy head. Look at the hoo-ha when a missile-defense test fails--as if they are all supposed to be successful.
Tests cost money--and that is what we are unwilling to spend.
The Russians advanced a generation or more ahead of us in liquid-rocket technology because they had no economy and therefore no way to count the cost of anything. They defined rocket technology as a 'national defense asset' and just kept their guys running design-test-build cycles on equipment that would never fly. Just to keep the team 'hot'.
They tested until blood came out of their ears. On the NK-33 engine they decided to test one to destruction and ran a single engine for 26,000 seconds (about a third of a day) before it failed.
In the US, NASA has become a culture of entrenched feifdoms with hardening of the mental arteries. Goldin was a disaster, and O'Keefe (an accountant) should always be portrayed wearing a hood and holding an axe.
==========================
A fellow came in a while back promoting software which (he said) would 'eliminate the need to test'). We listened politely to his pitch. Any questions? Just one: mine.
"If humans were angels, every device we made would work perfectly forever. Every single failure that happens is one you did not or could not foresee. Because if you could forsee it, you design against it. Because we are fallible beings we use test to show us where we did not foresee--or could not imagine--a failure mode. So how can your software do what you say?"
Silence. Looking at shoes. Everyone in the audience was grinning.
=====================
An example. One of the Space Shuttle engines burned up during the test phase. Guess why? The main LOX valve (liquid oxygen) was a tad too small; it had a little too much pressure-drop, and it 'whistled'. The vibration rubbed a set-screw against another part. In an oxygen-rich environment, this is like rubbing two sticks together; the oxidizer regards heated metal as fuel and will happily burn it if friction makes it hot enough.
A set-screw and a whistle. The injector was actually pretty interesting to look at after the test; it resembled a fanciful modern-art sculpture of melted metal. Roughly 25 pounds of steel evaporated in the main injector. Not to be found.
These are lessons we have forgotten and do not wish to relearn.
--Boris
P.S. My job is analysis but I am a big fan of test!
I concur. I've spent my life in rocket propulsion. One day I told my boss--director of "Advanced Programs"--'look, if we want to become a space-faring society, we've got to give up rockets. Stop developing new ones. Keep the ones we've got. And throw every dime into a space elevator.' It is the only technology which is both theoretically feasible and which can reduce the cost-per-pound to orbit to somewhere in the affordable range.
--Boris
Outmoded? Most of us don't drive cars as old as the shuttles...
It is time to move on to a better idea. We need to get off this damned rock and see what is out there....
Next Stop Mars!
Like the Apollo/Soyuz program, which amounted to a massive technology transfer in one direction? I knew guys who worked on that program and they told me that the knew that every single meeting they had was bugged, I mean both the joint meetings and the "private" ones.
Like the Russian performance on the Space Station? Clinton used it as a way to funnel money to the Nomenklatura, which made a swift U-turn and wound up in Swiss bank accounts? No problem, comrade, we'll have NASA send you another $60 million while your hardware gets later and later and oops we gotta get the Naval Research Labs to cobble together a replacement for your part for more $millions built out of spare parts--oops, cancel that one, put everything in a warehouse and spend a few more $million on 'shut down costs'...
--Boris
I think that time-frame (for the new generation) is about to get bumped up. Bigtime. Rather than replace the Columbia, I believe President Bush will soon give a rousing speech and call for a brand new state-of-the-art orbiter system to replace the Space Shuttle and be in place by the end of this decade. I base this on the confident declaration yesterday made during his speech that clearly states we will not abandon space and that the "journey will go on." Bush does not usually make bold statements that he can't back up.
And it's decreasing every year due to immigration and low US birthrates.
We aren't the same country anymore.
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.