And remember that last time they also ‘played it safe’, and didn’t go with the optimal solution.

If I recall, the optimal Apollo capsule design has also been flight tested and the aerodynamics well understood.

This has strongly delimited, by shuttle capabilities and flight possibilities, what crew-related stuff can go to orbit. GASCan opportunities were limited and expensive, and when I came along in 2002 (I was thinking of a Hitchhiker can for a commercial idea) there was a waiting list of over 60 payloads. Even paying my own freight would not advance me ahead of those for whom NASA was paying the way, and if NASA later found a ‘more scientifically interesting payload’ it could be moved ahead of mine. That I paid for.

There was always the option of a mid-deck locker. A lot of really interesting stuff came out in the 1980s, but most of the commercial stuff struggled after Challenger and died off in the early 1990s. But there were still academic payloads (not like NASA makes grants to universities or anything). Highly automated boxes where a NASAnaut pushed a button and it had to work 100% perfectly the first time, because you never knew when it would be possible to refly a fixed package if your box went wrong.

There is untapped demand for transport to LEO. Untapped because it requires crewed operations, and for that there is only one game in town, one that is rigged against commercial efforts (a/k/a filthy lucre). We need scientists sitting at lab benches in orbit running and re-running experiments, fixing them when they go wrong, tweaking the parameters. Materials scientists running experiments in containerless processing, directional solidification, electrophoretic separations (which may have application in Lunar materials processing), vapor phase crystal growth, metallic foams, ceramics and any number of other technology areas in which the U.S. still has something of a competitive advantage that we can bring to world markets.

What is needed is regular/frequent access to orbit and in-orbit facilities in which to operate. We’re supposed to have both and really we have neither. This is why the American public is so skeptical about ‘Orion” (cue dramatic pipe organ). They’ve seen this dog and pony show before. They know there’s other stuff out there that NASA’s not really talking about (like asteroids), but they don’t know where to find the information because NASA is off blabbing about its own vision for space and the media is totally weak and doesn’t do its homework. Some of the smart money guys may have figured out by now that it is actually the space folks outside of NASA who really have their $pace $hit together. This may be why there has been a bit of partnering up of late, as well as Bigelow’s change in plans.

Dr. Peter Diamandis predicted at the ISDC in 2005 that private humans would be in orbit in five years, and folks would start stockpiling fuel in LEO for a jaunt to the Moon three years after that. Thankfully that’s beginning to look less and less like a wild prediction, but the industry still needs to perform with launches and test articles. That will attract a lot more money than powerpoint slides promising 20%+ returns in 5-7 years. Seeing success is critical right now for the public. Anything else is empty rhetoric.

A low ball bid.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/LMCE09076.xml

In addition, there’s probably some older Lightweight ET’s stored at Michaud. The Lightweights are 7,000 lbm heavier than the Super Lightweights, but they might do for crew change and empty the trash Shuttle missions to the ISS.

As for Solid Rocket Boosters, the five segment version will stay in production. The larger five segment SRB’s are what the Shuttle people have wanted to use with the Shuttle system. Five segment SRB’s aren’t just for the proposed two new launch missiles, oh no.

So no sweat. Plenty more STS components for Shuttle missions well past 2010.

The design will be retrofitted on the 11 existing tanks and incorporated into the manufacture of all new tanks.

Source: National Aeronautics And Space Administration
Date: July 27, 2004

A Critical Design Review Board of NASA managers, engineers and aerospace contractors last month approved the new design, a significant milestone in the effort to return the Shuttle to safe flight. The approval allows workers to begin incorporating the new fitting on External Tank No. 120, the tank slated for flight on the next Shuttle mission, designated STS-114.

…

“This is a fix that really gets to the root of the technical problems that caused the loss of Columbia,” said Michael Kostelnik, NASA’s Deputy Associate Administrator for International Space Station and Space Shuttle Programs. “By eliminating this debris source, as well as potential debris from other areas, we are making the Shuttle a safer spacecraft.” ( Kostelnik resinged to pursue other opportunites after July 2005’s STS 114 launch. )

…

The design will be retrofitted on the 11 existing tanks and incorporated into the manufacture of all new tanks. Lockheed Martin Space Systems will do the work at NASA’s Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. Delivery of the retrofitted tanks to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, Florida, is expected in October.

For still photos on the Internet of the redesigned bipod fitting, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight

Video b-roll of the new bipod will air on NASA Television during the Video File segment starting at noon EDT today. Beginning July 24, NASA Television will be seen in the continental United States on AMC-6, at 72 degrees west longitude, Transponder 9, 3880 MHz, vertical polarization, audio at 6.8 MHz. If you live in Alaska or Hawaii, NASA TV will now be seen on AMC-7, at 137 degrees west longitude, Transponder 18, at 4060 MHz, vertical polarization, audio at 6.8 MHz.

For information about NASA TV, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/ntv

More information on NASA’s human space flight programs is available at: http://www.nasa.gov

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/07/040727091306.htm

Assuming that the new congress doesn’t starve VSE (i.e., CEV/CLV) outright in the next FY budgetary process and CEV/CLV gains enough political traction over the next year or two, you know that the project should follow the historical trend of stretching out schedule. Space Station development stretched out 10-15 years, so CEV/CLV wouldn’t likely come on line until 2020…probably configured a lot differently than what we see today (e.g., scaled down Crew and Service module on a Delta or Atlas stack).

Until then NASA will probably try to continue flying the Shuttle at a flight rate of 2-3 missions per year.

Here’s the possible trick: I recall reading three or four years ago that NASA was contracting with United Space Alliance/Michaud to build something like three or four dozen more External Tanks. I’m going to guess that Thiokal was given a similar contract to build a corresponding number of additional Solid Rocket Boosters within a specified time frame. I can’t remember the time frame for the ET’s.

So, when Jan. ’09 arrives, the nominal Space Transportation System supply chain shutdown date, NASA may have enough Shuttle system components left over for two or three dozen more flights.

Your tax dollars at work.

…

Here’s the result of a quick Google search:

Graphic for news release banner

For release: 06/12/02
Release #: 02-150

NASA extends Shuttle External Tank contract with Lockheed Martin to September 2008

NASA has extended its six-year $1.15 billion contract to September 2008 with Lockheed Martin Space Systems of New Orleans, to provide 35 Super Lightweight External Tanks. The contract modification calls for production of six External Tanks per year vs. the current eight per year. The External Tanks are managed by the Marshall Center.

NASA has extended to September 2008 its six-year, $1.15 billion contract with Lockheed Martin Space Systems, New Orleans, to provide 35 Super Lightweight External Tanks for the Space Shuttle Program.

Under the modified contract, the 35 tanks will be produced at a rate of not less than six per year, versus the eight per year agreed upon in the original contract issued in October 2000. The modification adds $341 million to the contract.

…

http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/2002/02-150.html

All right, so it was 2002 and 35 more ET’s to be manufactured post year 2002. My question is, how many of those ET’s will have been expended by 2010?

Here’s a related question: with the Shuttle “fleet” reduced to a dynamic duo, how many launches can NASA perform per year?

Inference: They be launchin’ Shuttles well past 2010 wi’ de stockpiles o’ Shuttle stuff dem alreadys got.

Yes, that’s our space program – kill space science, retire the shuttle, decommission the ISS, and then terminate VSE for lack of funds. We have so much to look forward to, with our national space program.

Compared to what? Do you think the cost of designing, manufacturing, and certifying that corndog missile and an Apollo 2 to service the ISS won’t also be ass-tronimical?

But it is very unlikely that the next President will make the decision necessary to pay the price necessary to extend the Shuttle beyond the existing flights on the manifest.

In that case, the next Potus will have to make the decision not to complete the ISS. … Actually, that’s not the worst decision a guy could make.

The ISS will not be “finished” on M. Griffin’s schedule, and the Apollo 2 rollout will roll further and further to the right.

Face it, the Shuttle’s hard to kill. It’s like Dracula or Frankenstein’s monster. Just keeps coming back from the undead.