Posted on 02/05/2003 4:43:37 AM PST by from occupied ga
I put on my nomex suit just for the occasion. :-) If I wanted popular I'd go post with the overestrogened on the day in the life of GWB with pictures thread. Vin has a lot of valid points, and the emotion needs to be stripped from the crash and the program looked at rationally. Seven teenage kids died in an avalanche in Revelstoke over the weekend. Are their families any less upset? Is this any less of a tragedy. I don't think so.
It's probably not "sporting" to kick a program when it's down - but it is long past time to replace the shuttle and its management infrastructure.
The Shuttle was born of a Faustian bargain between Congress, the Air Force and NASA. Originally, the Air Force had a design for a 2-stage to orbit, completely re-usable system called DynaSoar. The problem was the upfront costs of development. Congress panned it. So Air Force got with NASA and hammered out the Shuttle design (Air Force had some specific requirements of Shuttle capabilities). In order to sell the design to Congress, a certain General Abrahamson arranged it to so that Air Force promised that they would get rid of all those "costly" expendable launchers and use Shuttle exclusively for military satellite launches. Shuttle represented reduced upfront development costs - but higher operational costs - due to the non-reusable nature of key elements of the system - as in the tank and boosters. Boosters ain't really all that re-usable - and the refurbishment costs of the Shuttle itself are astronomical. But... in a climate where nobody could stay in one job longer than 4 years - else be labeled a "Homesteader" and get transferred to Timbuktu by MPC (AF personnel office) - who cares what disastrous decisions are taken? As long as the consequences are at least 4 years out.
Cut to the early 80's - working with Shuttle. As a First Lieutenant - I was assigned to work in a technology demonstrator "SDI" program (SDI office had not been created yet). This experiment was a shuttle sortie - meaning it stayed in the bay and all activities involved shuttle crew. But we were having a devil of a time with NASA. The timelines for our experiment were such that we needed more than the 12 hours per day of crew activity NASA would give us . We'd have these big meetings at Johnson, Lockheed or JPL - where NASA would stonewall us with their trump card "NASA crew rules...NASA crew rules." "OK, we said - let's look at the CAP - the Crew Activity Plan." They posted it on the projector and I asked, "What's that item labeled 'grooming'?"
"Brushing their teeth" they answered.
"A half-hour for that?"
"Yep. Can't be changed."
"Alright. At this point we have to look at double crews, to get 24 hour ops."
"No way. 24-hour ops would disturb the sleeping crews."
"What do you mean? How so? It's not like they're setting off bombs back there."
"Oh yeah, Lieutenant? Every time they maneuver - those vernier thrusters go off like cannon shots."
"Fine. Give'em some acoustic headphones...look, the shuttle is not supposed to be a Holiday Inn in the sky, it's actually supposed to support missions."
At this point, the meeting broke down very acrimoniously - and everybody scurried home to elevate the issue to where some sanity might prevail. It eventually did. We got 24 hour ops - at least we WERE going to get that. But General Abrahamson did us in, albeit indirectly.
Abrahamson, busy being shifted from each 4-year-or-less assignment, was eventually appointed head of SDI. He complained to Reagan that if he didn't have budgetary control of all SDI programs - he had no control at all. He got his way - which was a dumb move. Congress HATED the SDI program - but they didn't have an easy way to kill it. Our SDI activities were funded through generic AF space activities - some in launch operations, some in software development, R&D, etc. There was no budgetary item called "SDI". Abrahamson consolidated all our budgets and gave them one fat juicy target. And they nuked it. He asked for $1.7 billion in FY 85 - and they gave him $1.2 billion.
So what did Mr. Air-Force-will-use-only-Shuttle do? To save money by avoiding shuttle launch costs, he gave himself Special Dispensation and bought 10 expendable launchers for his other SDI programs - but left the rest of us lined up around the block to use Shuttle, which had a hopeless backlog of operational military satellites that trumped our technology-demonstrator priority. But at least he had the further thickheadedness to inadvertently put us out of our misery.
I got a call one morning from the Lockheed program director - who was looking for program redirection. Seems SDI had cut Lockheed's FY 85 $125 million budgetary allocation down to a laughable $20 million - but gave them no authorization to descope program goals. So she (actually "it", "He" had had a sex change - but that's another ridiculously unbelievable story) was calling me to ask for program descoping. I told 'her' - "You know I can't do that - We're not the Program Office. We're just the space operations office being wagged by the same stupid dog."
So what did Lockheed do? It spent $20 million at the rate of $125 million a year - driving toward the now-impossible goals requiring $125 million a year - until it went flat broke and stopped dead in its tracks. End of program. It legally had no choice to do anything other. Your tax dollars at work.
So, I concentrated on the four other technology demonstrator satellite/sortie programs in my in-basket - each one doomed to fly on Shuttle - supposedly. Every time NASA came out with a new launch schedule, we got farther back in the list - and delayed a year or more each time. This has a very real dollar impact - because you have to keep the development team employed working on that program until it launches. At one point, to save costs and bump ourselves up in the schedule we proposed to consolidate two of these programs, one deployment and one sortie - into a single Orbiter mission. But NASA said the wings would have to be strengthened to carry both - and that would happen...sometime in the future, and that Vandenberg would not be ready for polar launches for sometime anyway....NASA didn't even bother putting the wing-strengthening project on their schedule.
The Challenger explosion finished off all these four programs, along with many others. There is a billion dollar paper-weight down in Rockwell's Seal Beach facility - which was another SDI satellite. I used to go visit and see it being finalized through the big glass windows into the clean room. It was inspiring to watch. As for the other three sortie/satellites, I imagine they might be lobby sculptures, or maybe in a playground next to an old Sherman tank.
To summarize a long story, it has been my direct experience that Shuttle, and the stultified NASA management structure necessary to operate it, has been a disaster for the launch manifest. The Air Force has now completely backed out of the Shuttle-only posture that killed many satellites - cost us billions, and which delayed untold progress in space R&D.
Even 20-odd years ago, during the heady days of senior year at MIT's Aero & Astro department, when everybody wore their freshly-minted Shuttle T-shirts after the Shuttle was successfully tested, our professors were telling us that Shuttle was only an interim vehicle at best, and that there was no way that it was going to provide the $300/lb cost to Low Earth Orbit that would be necessary for serious space exploitation.
Now is the time to take most of our eggs out of the Shuttle basket. It is time to develop the Scramjet single-stage-to-orbit vehicle. This vehicle would be designed to take off and land from any major airport - accelerate to Mach 4 using standard turbojets with rocket-assist - then kick in the scramjets - which are essentially hollow tubes with fuel injectors - but hollow tubes which can achieve Mach 18 or better. It will cost a LOT of money. But it will open up Low Earth Orbit to reliable economic access (as well as commercial air travel to undreamed of swiftness), and routine, flexible and economical access to space will bring its own possibilities. To paraphrase the Midas ad, we have seen that the choice is "You can pay for a real option now, or pay through the nose to operate a white elephant later."
To place, repair, and retrieve orbital satellites tha vastly improve our communications, navigation, and military power. Just because Vin can't think of a good use for the shuttle, doesn't mean there aren't any.
I ususally agree w/ VIn but he should stick to Second Amendment issues where he knows what he's talking about.
I'm with you, we should use this fork in the road to move away from the costly Shuttle and set the nation immediately working on the next generation low-orbit vehicle.
Then how do they get there?
Rockets other than the shuttle of course. Those that were taken to low earth orbit by the shuttle were then sent on their way with additional rockets. The shuttle can't reach geostationary orbit, and if by some combination of staging with multiple boosters did get there it couldn't get back. Shuttle is strictly low earth orbit.
NASA is not only ignoring the potential of privatizing space programs, but has a history of actively trying to prevent it from happening. Whewn that wholly unexpected market for tourists to the ISS at $20 million per head developed two years ago, the aging Stalinists at NASA vainly tried to stop Tito from going. AFter all, even $20 million paid for a seat would not have cvered the cost of that seat on the Shuttle. When the Russians decided that $20 million would mean a tidy profit on their much cheaper Soyuz orbiters, NASA's response was to prohibit Tito from entering any "American" part of the station.
What Shuttle, as uneconomic as it may have been, did accomplish was give us thousands of hours of flight experience with hypersonic aircraft. It's tme for corporate taxpayers to use that technological experience to build a new generation of low-cost boosters.
Sorry, but I was of the understanding that only Columbia, being the oldest heaviest craft in the fleet was restricted to low orbit, and that the other shuttles could go farther. And that was why Columbia was reduced to science experiments, while the other shuttles were used to supply ISS.
I'll be back after checking the facts.
The United States developed the Space Shuttle system to improve its access to space. Since the first flight in April 1981, the Shuttle has carried more than 1.5 million pounds of cargo and over 600 major payloads into orbit. The Shuttle is the first and only reusable space vehicle, and is the world¹s most reliable and versatile launch system. The Shuttle can be configured to carry many different types of equipment, spacecraft and scientific experiments. In addition to transporting people, materials, equipment and spacecraft to orbit, the Shuttle allows astronauts to service and repair satellites and observatories in space, as was demonstrated with the successful repair of the Hubble Space Telescope in December 1993.
Suprynowicz is either not paying attention or oversimplifying to make a point. I've heard quite a few people make the point that the Shuttles are pushing their useful life and need to be replaced by a new surface-LEO vehicle.
That said, he's right about the self-perpetuation of the NASA-contractor establishment being an obstacle to progress.
Most comsats and weathersats are in geostationary orbit. The shuttle does not have the ability to reach geostationary orbit. Therefore the shuttle cannot be used for repairs to comsats and weathersats.
They only place and retrieve stuff in low orbit. All of this crap (undoubtedly gleaned from NASA) notwithstanding.
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.