A Florida Today article today goes over expectations regarding the FY07 NASA budget proposal, including plans not to cut the number of remaining shuttle flights. One reason forwarded for retaining the scheduled 19 or so shuttle flights is allow the shuttle to launch key modules provided by ISS partners Europe and Japan. One member of Congress, though, doesn’t buy it. “One of the arguments that NASA uses is that we have a contractual obligation to 15 other countries with the ISS,” said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL). “There is no sympathy for that argument with the Congress.” Feeney said that if there is another foam-shedding incident with the shuttle (or presumably another problem of similar seriousness) “it’s going to be really hard to save at that point, really hard to save” the shuttle program.
Even without any problems Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL) warns of problems ahead: “Our ability to fund the shuttle and the space station while we continue to develop a replacement for the shuttle in the context of funding the war in Iraq and recovering from Hurricane Katrina, rebuilding New Orleans, we have some very difficult challenges we have to address.”
I keep saying this again and again – we need to retire the shuttle, and figure out an alternative – Russias done it with some of there modules, and we can easily do it
I agree. While I believe the Space Station is critical to our goals as a near-term logistics market, it is obvious, now, that the Space Station is capable of surviving without the Space Shuttle. If we stopped wasting so much money on the latter vehicle, we could afford to fund alternative Station logistics and develop some new way to get the remaining modules into orbit.
However, that ignores the politics, which requires continuing employment for the Shuttle work force. Whatever non-Shuttle plan we come up with probably has to take that into account.
— Donald
Sure, go ahead, retire the shuttle prematurely and
waste all the saved money away on VSE and ESAS.
America is already committing suicide.
Just hurry the process up.
Kill the ISS too.
In the past, there has been no stronger supporter of the Shuttle than I. But, it is no longer premature to let this program go. Ideally, it’s time for a second generation Shuttle. Since that is neither financially nor politically in the cards, we need to move forward with something we can afford and know we can do, i.e., a souped up capsule. But, when any vehicle spends most of its time in the garage, it’s time to buy a new one.
Hopefully, some of the alt.space crowd can come up with a new generation shuttle. But, for that to work, they need a market, which means that the Space Station (and a lunar base, if possible) needs to be there and the Space Shuttle’s giant government-paid-for payload bay needs to be out of the picture.
— Donald
Im not saying I necassarily want it to go into VSE – I want a program thats better than VSE and ESAS. But the shuttle is most definatly not that program. But we do not, and frankly should not, amke it seem as though the only way to get the station is with the shuttle.
If your ‘program’ were the development of next
generation launch vehicles, as it should be,
then operating the shuttle to support such
a test program would certainly be beneficial.
Not VSE and ESAS though, you got that right.
f your ‘program’ were the development of next
generation launch vehicles, as it should be,
then operating the shuttle to support such
a test program would certainly be beneficial.
What do you mean?
Are you advocating something that can be transported to LEO in a Shuttle’s cargo bay, such as an Apollo capsule or an X-38?
“There is no sympathy for that argument with the Congress.” Feeney said that if there is another foam-shedding incident with the shuttle (or presumably another problem of similar seriousness) “it’s going to be really hard to save at that point, really hard to save” the shuttle program.
Schedule the Hubble servicing mission for
no later than summer 2007.
Are you advocating something that can be transported to LEO in a Shuttle’s cargo bay, such as an Apollo capsule or an X-38?
No, I advocate returning engines from launch vehicle
test articles and upper stages. RL-10s. RL-60s.
IPDs. SSMEs. Methane and Alcohol engines.
Astronauts. Whatever. The vehicles stay.
Why send them all the way to orbit,
only to return them. We only want
the engines back, until we can
learn how to do it better.
The STS will allow us to do that,
as an interim solution in the
development process.
It’s a tool.
http
I don’t know exactly which method I would use – Maybe give T/Space or Spacedev’s Dreamchaser a chance, or The Silver Dart
Hell, maybe we can go all out and go after an elevator. But the modicum of improvement that VSE is over the Shuttle (and, I do think it is slightly better) is not nearly worth it if we were to look at other options.
No, I advocate returning engines from launch vehicle
test articles and upper stages. RL-10s. RL-60s.
IPDs. SSMEs. Methane and Alcohol engines.
Astronauts. Whatever. The vehicles stay.
I don’t understand. You say, “The vehicles stay,” but rocket motors from upper stages are returned.
You seem to overlook the porblem of how to bring upper stage rocket engines back to Earth without installing the rocket motors in a re-entry vehicle.
Why even bother to bring the upper stages back?
Currently they are discarded.
I propose not discarding them.
Here we have an expensive piece of high
quality hardware, a hydrogen tank,
and oxygen tank, and a space rated
restartable reusable cryogenic engine.
Why would I want to return any of that?
Why would I want to discard any of that?
How freakin hard is that to figure out?
On the other hand, we want the boost phase engines.
NASA – the discardable space agency.