Posted on 02/04/2003 6:02:28 PM PST by RCW2001
No shuttle replacements seen for a decade
5 February 2003 01:40
By Chris Stetkiewicz
SEATTLE, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Aviation experts believe NASA will not replace the lost space shuttle Columbia for about 10 years, sticking to a schedule that may force the agency to rely more on Russia to supply the International Space Station.
Building a replica shuttle would be too costly, leaving a next-generation "orbital space plane" due to enter service around 2010 as the earliest possible relief for the remaining three shuttles, which could keep flying for decades to come, according to experts advising NASA and the White House.
Columbia, which disintegrated over Texas on Saturday, killing all seven astronauts on board, was the oldest shuttle in the fleet. It was deemed too heavy for space station docking, but the vehicle had been expected to carry out a range of science experiments in space that might now be shifted to the newer shuttles.
"The remaining three shuttles will be fully booked for space station crew launches and resupply. Some of that can be done with Progress and Soyuz (Russian spacecraft), but shuttles were the mainstay for the science experiments," said Norine Noonan, dean of math and science at the College of Charleston and a NASA Advisory Council member.
Last November, NASA pushed back plans to retire the shuttle fleet in 2012 and retooled its Space Launch Initiative to focus on breakthrough technologies to reduce space flight costs to facilitate a complete shuttle replacement.
As part of that program, Boeing Co. , which bought the Rockwell unit that built the shuttles and is now a primary shuttle contractor, plans to test fly its space plane technology demonstrator, the X-37, in 2004.
The pilotless, 27.5-foot-long (8.5-metre) X-37 will be dropped from a B-52 bomber at 45,000 feet (14,000 metres), testing its aerodynamics and its ability to resist the blazing heat spacecraft endure when re-entering Earth's atmosphere.
SHUTTLE REPLICAS UNLIKELY
The shuttle, deemed extremely reliable despite the Columbia disaster on Saturday and the Challenger explosion in 1986, which also killed seven astronauts, uses decades-old technology and has been out of production since the Endeavour was built in 1987.
Rather than scrambling to resurrect that program, costing billions, most experts advocate staying focused on the space plane, which would ship crews and supplies to the space station and pave the way for a full-scale shuttle successor.
"I don't think you could build a new shuttle if you wanted to. All the production facilities were shut down and I'm not sure the tooling is still there," said John Logsdon at the Space Policy Institute of George Washington University.
Still in the design phase, the space plane would be launched on expendable rockets -- later replaced with advanced, reusable launch vehicles near the middle of the next decade.
"The orbital space plane would be much wiser (than a new shuttle) and the question is whether you could advance that timetable. It certainly would not be inexpensive," said Robert Walker, a former U.S. representative who chaired a presidential commission on the future of the U.S. aerospace industry.
Official cost estimates are not expected until 2004, but analysts say building a new, two-stage shuttle replacement could cost $30 billion or more.
RELYING ON RUSSIA
Russia is considered a full partner in the International Space Station and has delivered "very robust technology" and reliable supply missions, although "we have not had such a good experience with them in building components," Walker said.
Soyuz ships make fine crew taxis, but have limited capacity for scientific experiments, meaning NASA may need to spend its limited cash on Russian launches if the current shuttle fleet gets bogged down with science missions, or in an emergency.
"It's my understanding that the Russians don't have many vehicles left to pick up the slack. So they are going to ask for money to fill in," Walker said. "That's a very important decision: to develop your own program or pay the Russians." (Additional reporting by Deborah Zabarenko in Washington)) ((Reporting by Chris Stetkiewicz; Editing by Peter Cooney; Reuters Messaging: chris.stekiewicz.reuters.com@reuters.net. e-mail: chris.stetkiewicz@reuters.com 206-652-8365))
Duct tape is like the Force. (Star Wars) It has a light side, and a dark side, and it binds the universe together.
Ok, stuff falling off the External Fuel Tank (EFT) damages the tiles. So, turn the shuttle around! Mount it on the EFT backwards. Then the sh*t will hit the cargo bay and the tail (who really cares?).
I proposed this to NASA tonight (well, it was really my brother-in-law who works there) and they said "send the drawings!"
They did. It was named Buran ("Snowstorm"). They flew it to orbit once, unmanned. They were much too smart to send people up in it, or to base their space program on it.
The trillion-dollar money hole can't even accomodate as many people as the shuttle!? What's the thing there for!?
ISS is there to give the Shuttle something to do, which in turn justifies the Shuttle program.
The shuttle needs somewhere to go, and it can't go anywhere useful.
My next question is why isn't NASA providing a safety net for our astronauts. The Columbia, due to its age, was much heavier than the newer shuttles. As a result, it couldn't be lifted up to an orbit similar to the space station. That being the case, the question is why did NASA spend over $90 million to refurbish the Columbia when is was essentially unsafe as there was no way to evacuate a crew?
If NASA wanted to continue using the shuttle for experiements, rather than using the space station, then why did NASA not use the newer shuttles and send them into a higher orbit so that the crew could hook up with the space station in an emergency? In this situation, the shuttle could have docked with the station, had the tiles inspected and replaced if possible. If not, the shuttle could have been jetisoned and the crew returned to earth on a later shuttle.
Perhaps I am just a simpleton, but can someone with knowledge explain why my system would not work. I think this is the real question that NASA needs to answer.
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.