Congress, NASA

Weldon still pushing his shuttle life extension bill

Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL), who is retiring from Congress, is still hoping to get his legislation that would extend the life of the shuttle after 2010 passed before the end of the year. Weldon tells a local newspaper that he hopes the SPACE Act will be “passed and enacted” this year. The bill, HR 4837, would authorize funding for additional shuttle flights (at least two a year) through 2015. So far Congress has not taken action on the bill other than to refer it to the space subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee.

Mike Griffin, in his Houston Chronicle interview, made it clear he does not support a broad extension of shuttle flights: “Given that our inherent risk assessment of flying any shuttle mission is about a 1-in-75 fatality risk, if you were to fly 10 more flights, you would have a very substantial risk of losing a crew. I don’t want to do that.”

18 comments to Weldon still pushing his shuttle life extension bill

  • That’s only a thirteen percent chance of losing a vehicle (losing a crew is beside the point–we have lots of astronauts). There are good reasons to not extend the program but this doesn’t seem like one.

  • Ray

    Thirteen percent still seems pretty high to me. It goes back to the question of whether or not what the mission is worth the risk. It might be worth it for some other program that does exploration, lowers space access costs, or something like that, but it’s tough to come up with a Shuttle mission program that’s worth the risk, even setting aside the cost of the program itself. Would those lives and vehicles be risked mainly just to compete with commercial ISS cargo services?

    In this case I’d also put a pretty high value on the lives of the astronauts, because of the high inherent value of human life, because they’re particularly valuable lives in terms of productivity and so on, and because of the media and political results of losing those lives. I wouldn’t value the vehicles as much as I usually might since they’re on their way to becoming museum pieces anyway. Another factor is the value of whatever program the Shuttles are supporting. If an accident results in another 3-year standdown, what are the costs to that program, and to maintain the Shuttle workforce while down?

  • Ray

    In the March/April Launch magazine, astronaut Walter Cunningham has an article that deals with similar issues, and briefly mentions Weldon’s Shuttle-extension efforts. Cunningham advocates $2B to keep the Shuttle flying 18-24 months longer at 2 missions per year, and another $2B to bring Ares 1/Orion 18-24 months earlier.

    I’m skeptical that $2B would keep the Shuttle flying that much longer, and I’m also skeptical that another $2B would bring Ares 1/Orion that much earlier. I also think the emergency nature of “the gap” is overrated, given all the bigger problems and opportunities in space and space policy. Commercial space, ITAR, military space, environment monitoring, space access costs, and space infrastructure all seem to be more pressing issues and opportunities for improvement than the gap and closing the gap.

    Even if we accept the $4B figure and the relative importance of closing the gap, I’d be much more inclined, if the $4B were available, to use it as an incentive for U.S. commercial space and ISS access services with efforts like COTS, X planes, or simply commercial service buys. $4B would make a huge difference in those areas, but wouldn’t likely improve things all that much if directed to the much bigger Shuttle and Ares 1/Orion budgets.

    Off topic:

    By the way, the same issue of Launch magazine has a several-page essay by Ben Bova on “The Politics Behind NASA’s History” that might be of interest to Space Politics readers. I haven’t read it yet so I can’t comment more. The issue also has articles that might be of interest to Jeff’s Personal Spaceflight readers: one (by Mario Perdue) on a Rocketplane XP model rocket, another (by Mark Mayfield) on the Virgin Galactic NYC SS2 unveiling, and one (by James Oberg) on the history and future of Soyuz space tourists.

  • Vladislaw

    I think of when historians look back at the founders of the nation and say “yes but this is what they really mean’t”. They do this by looking not ONLY at the original documents, declaration of independance, the constitition et cetera, but other documents to try and get a better overall picture of what these people wanted to achieve.

    If you look at the “original document” of NASA it is the “National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958″ that is the original FOUNDING document of the American Space Program. This is what it was charged with doing:

    (c) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:

    (1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;

    (2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;

    (3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;

    (4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.

    (5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.

    (6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defenses of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;

    (7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and

    (8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment.
    ==================================

    I Post this because we should explore more of what the “founders” truely intended for a couple of these points.
    “(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;

    I have been against the space shuttle for a very long time because of the expense, the “bang for the buck” how much per ton to LEO. As I read the charter I find that I am going to do something pretty rare, I am going to do a 180 and change my mind.

    Look at the automobile over the last 100 years, It still has four wheels, motive power, brakes, et cetera. In 100 years, I image personal vehicles will still have motive power, 4 wheels, brakes, etc. The founders of NASA believed that WHATEVER WAS developed would, like the automobile and airplane, go through that development period and should be constantly updated and rebuilt.

    Fundamentally, a vehicle LIKE the space shuttle, will pretty much ALWAYS look like the space shuttle for FORESEABLE future. So how has NASA fullfilled its CHARGED duty of “(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;” Namely the space shuttle?
    I think NASA should build a new shuttle one that is MORE useful, safer, faster, with higher performance and efficiency.

    Now How to I reconcile THIS with my LONGTERM belief that American needs to recapture a heavy lift vehicle HLV like the Saturn V if we ever really want to do something in space?

    The second point is:
    “(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies and living organisms through space;”

    Clearly NASA has failed on this point, IF you read over the early house and senate bills for NASA. If you look at what was on american television and cinema in 1958 you will find literally HUNDREDS of space movies and tv shows. Congress OF THE DAY saw THAT as our NEAR TERM future and it is clear in the record. Item 3 above uses the word “THROUGH” space. They didnt say up INTO space, or Space and land on earth. If you do your research you will find they were talking about America having vehicles that moved THROUGH the medium of space from point to point. Just like the conestoga wagon allowed you to now go fairly safely from point to point THROUGH the oceans of prairie. They were clear that THESE vehicles were NOT sats. but would be manned with equipment and supplies to travel THROUGH space.

    So my second point is America should not only REbuild the shuttle, but also build an IN SPACE ship, that is launched unmanned, docked together in space and only operates IN space, dont have to worry about launching a manned vehicle or landing it, great cost savings can be achieved by taking that out of the equation and it is clearly what the framers wanted 60 years ago.

    My third and final point is:
    (4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes.

    (5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.

    They both use the term “peaceful” activities, International Law, as it relates to this, and every treaty the USA signs onto this means one thing. Business. “The business of america is business” anyone who doesnt believe this I can give 13.4 trillion reasons why it so, our GNP and standard of living has been ‘at times’ the envy of the free world. When the framers of NASA said “peaceful activities in space” they mean the freedom of AMERICAN BUSINESS to conduct business in space and the historical record is clear on that if you read the house and senate bills and secondary documents. They CLEARLY didnt want NASA doing ANYTHING inhouse that could be pushed into the commerical sphere and bought off the shelf.

    So I believe NASA should get out of the business of LEO manned launches for astronauts to fixed points in LEO like to space stations and space ships. The exception to this should be experimental craft, two which I think should STILL be developed and operated by NASA for a period like the shuttle would be the HL 20 and the HL 42, I believe NASA should have the overall capability these three vehicles would provide for conducting AMERICA’S space activities versus america’s commerical space activities.

  • “Mike Griffin, in his Houston Chronicle interview, made it clear he does not support a broad extension of shuttle flights”

    But Griffin is apparently open to one more STS flight for AMS. Guess that’s the difference between being pressured by a legislator that still sits on one of NASA’s authorization committees versus being pressured by a legislator that is retiring from Congress. Go figure…

    “I’m skeptical that $2B would keep the Shuttle flying that much longer”

    Agreed. The annual Shuttle budget is $4-5 billion per year, almost regardless of flight rate. So an 18-24 month extension is going to run $6-10 billion, maybe a little less in shutdown mode.

    Since Shuttle averages 4-5 missions per year, it appears that Cunningham just cut the Shuttle budget in half to account for a flight rate of 2 missions per year. That’s the most common sin among uneducated Shuttle budgeteers. The marginal cost of a Shuttle flight does not scale with the overall Shuttle budget; it’s actually a very small fraction of the Shuttle budget.

    “I’m also skeptical that another $2B would bring Ares 1/Orion that much earlier”

    It won’t. Griffin has quoted the same figure but qualified it through the end of the decade (2010). Constellation would need more low billions in 2011-13 to bring Ares I/Orion two years to the left. (And that all assumes that the myriad technical problems in and beyond the GAO report do not come home to roost.)

    “I also think the emergency nature of “the gap” is overrated”

    Also agreed. Although Griffin and certain legislators have tried to use the “gap” as a budget argument for more funding (and failed), when one looks at the specifics of the argument, it doesn’t hold up. Unlike the Apollo/Shuttle gap, NASA will have lots of human systems operating and launching (ISS, Ares I/Orion tests, COTS vehicle tests, COTS vehicle operations, foreign vehicle visits) to keep its human space flight workforce sharp. And unlike the Cold War, there is no strong, technically advanced, and well funded competitor that is within years of matching, nevertheless overtaking, NASA’s human space flight capabilities. And also unlike the Cold War, there’s no national imperative to beat a close competitor in space, even if they existed. We’ve gone for longer and under much worse conditions without a NASA-owned and -operated human space transportation system. We’ll be fine this time around.

    The real threat to the future of NASA’s human space flight activities is Ares I/Orion. Whether we blame Ares I underperformance or grandiose Orion requirements, the system is down to single-strings on both Orion and the Ares I upper stage for ISS delivery. It’s another fragile Shuttle. And it can’t close the lunar architecture without imposing huge parasitic propellant tank mass penalties on the Altair lander for the lunar arrival burn and forcing Ares V to lose Ares I commonality with composite SRBs. Instead of saving dollars, it’s passing on huge development and performance costs to the lunar architecture elements (assuming they actually get funded in 2011). Then there’s the schedule, for which J-2X is the long tent pole and which the GAO report states will most likely take to 2017 to develop due to is thrust and component dissimilarity to J-2. And then there’s all the launch-ending/mass-busting technical issues in Ares I like the first-stage thrust acoustics, the thin-margin interstage, and overall flight stability. Even if better investments were not available, it would not be advisable to put additional dollars on Ares I/Orion with all these issues.

    “$4B would make a huge difference in those areas, but wouldn’t likely improve things all that much if directed to the much bigger Shuttle and Ares 1/Orion budgets.”

    Well put. To go farther, it’s not really even a choice between higher-leverage versus lower-leverage investments. It’s becoming a choice between investments in systems that can work, can deliver in a timely manner, and are relatively safe versus systems that are not likely to work and introduce needless schedule and flight risks into NASA’s human space flight activities.

    FWIW…

  • […] Weldon still pushing his shuttle life extension bill – Space Politics […]

  • John Carter

    Recently RSC-Energia notified the ISS Program Office that, post-2011 (when the current Soyuz agreement has to be re-negotiated), they are doubling the price of the Soyuz seats. Currently the seats run, depending on who you talk to, from $20M-$25M each. Since NASA will be purchasing 2 additional Soyuz seats per year from 2011thru 2014 (earliest that Orion can currently support ISS), they will be paying the Russians between $240M-$300M per year.

    When compared to operating the Shuttle @ $2B-4B per year, this is a bargin. However, consider the political ramifications of laying off up to 17,500 American aerospace workers (the number used in the Houston Chronicle article) at the same time that NASA is paying a country that is becoming more and more hostile to us hundred of millions of dollars per year for Soyuz flights, thereby keeping their aerospace workers employeed.

    While folks that follow this website will understand why this is being done, it will not play well with the average American or politican. Especially following on the heals of other aerospace losses such as the EADS win over Boeing with the Tanker contract, this will generate a lot of negative reaction to the next administration and NASA in general.

    Remember, in politics perception is reality.

  • “When compared to operating the Shuttle @ $2B-4B per year, this is a bargin. However, consider the political ramifications of laying off up to 17,500 American aerospace workers (the number used in the Houston Chronicle article) at the same time that NASA is paying a country that is becoming more and more hostile to us hundred of millions of dollars per year for Soyuz flights, thereby keeping their aerospace workers employeed.

    … Especially following on the heals of other aerospace losses such as the EADS win over Boeing with the Tanker contract, this will generate a lot of negative reaction to the next administration and NASA in general.”

    If the alternative to those layoffs is to keep Shuttle flying for several more years, it’s probably a non-starter. Except for the odd Weldon defending jobs in his district, no White House and few Congressman will want to sign up to taking a significant chance on being the politicians that sent a third Shuttle crew to their deaths and/or rained debris over another swath of the heartland for no good technical reason, especially in light of Challenger and Columbia.

    It’s harsh, but given Shuttle’s history, the potential downsides of another accident will arguably play more prominently in the political calculus than jobs.

    FWIW…

  • I agree with Anonymous here, but (while I personally would oppose this) I could see incremental additions to the manifest. First it will be AMS, then some large component on the ISS will need replacing (solar array, anyone?), then it will be something else — and we might keep the Shuttle flying for a few more missions at one or to flights a year — the most expensive option available. (Par for the course, that!)

    I recall reading recently that NASA has bought a number of “spares” for the ET and SRBs, so, unfortunately, such an outcome might even be possible.

    — Donald

  • Vladislaw

    Agreed Anonymous, a person watching this from the outside would ALMOST come away with the feeling NASA is doing everything in their power TO create this mess and torpedo manned flight. It seems like EVERYTIME they are faced with ANY decision they ultimately choose the one that will delay, cost more, take longer.

  • Vladislaw

    “Recently RSC-Energia notified the ISS Program Office that, post-2011 (when the current Soyuz agreement has to be re-negotiated), they are doubling the price of the Soyuz seats. Currently the seats run, depending on who you talk to, from $20M-$25M each. Since NASA will be purchasing 2 additional Soyuz seats per year from 2011thru 2014 (earliest that Orion can currently support ISS), they will be paying the Russians between $240M-$300M per year.”

    “NASA signs five-year $719 million International Space Station crew and cargo contract with Russia’s Federal Space Agency
    By Rob Coppinger
    In Moscow NASA has signed a $719 million modification to its International Space Station (ISS) contract with Russia’s Federal Space Agency (FSA) for crew and cargo services through 2011.
    The firm-fixed price extension covers crew rotations for 15 crew members, six in 2009, six in 2010 and three in 2011, and the delivery and removal of 5,600kg (12,300lb) of cargo.”
    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/09/213143/nasa-signs-five-year-719-million-international-space-station-crew-and-cargo-contract-with-russias.html

    My understanding was that NASA had already cut em a check for 719 million for 15 seats and cargo missions, working out to the neighborhood of 41 million per seat. So the Russians had ALREADY doubled from 20 to 41 million. If I understand you correctly they now plan to charge 240 to 300 million for TWO seats per year or 120-150 million per seat?

  • Al Fansome

    DONALD: I agree with Anonymous here, but (while I personally would oppose this) I could see incremental additions to the manifest. First it will be AMS, then some large component on the ISS will need replacing (solar array, anyone?), then it will be something else — and we might keep the Shuttle flying for a few more missions at one or to flights a year — the most expensive option available. (Par for the course, that!)

    Donald,

    It is relatively easy to add one (1) flight to the Shuttle manifest, for something like AMS-02, as we have at least one extra external tank as a backup.

    However, we are shutting down the ET assembly line, right now, as we have all the ETs we need. Many ET supplier contracts are being turned off, and those suppliers are moving on to other work. It is not that easy to turn them all back on. The key people will take on other jobs, and become unavailable.

    That said, there is reason to be concerned.

    I am not sure what is happening to the tooling. I am guessing the Shuttle huggers are trying to protect it … but even mothballing tooling that has no official purpose is costly … if I am Mike Griffin I would have somebody (or somebodies) tracking this issue quite closely, and making sure that the tooling was sold off or destroyed.

    Therefore, adding a couple Shuttle flights per year, every year, to the manifest is much more difficult. It is not impossible — we could restart the ET program, but it would be very expensive to do so. But stranger things have happened before.

    Some relevant history illustrates my general expectations of what the Shuttle mafia will to attempt to do.

    * In the 1970s, the Soviet Union’s leadership ordered all hardware related to the N-1 super-heavy-lift LV be destroyed. At least one factory manager disobeyed, as he hid the N1’s rocket engines. Those engines are the NK-33s, some of which are sitting today at Aerojet’s facilities in Sacramento, and will be used by Orbital in the Taurus II.

    * The Carter Administration ordered the cancellation of the Rockwell B1 bomber. The DOD bureaucracy gave Rockwell advanced bomber money to keep the Rockwell bomber team alive. When Reagan took office, he restarted the B1 as the B1-B.

    Could the NASA/SOMD bureaucracy somehow collaborate with the Shuttle contractors to produce the same result today?

    If I was Mike Griffin, I would be check into this.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • Thanks for your detailed analysis Al. I may be wrong, but I believe that NASA has budgeted for more than one ET spare. . . .

    — Donald

  • Al Fansome

    DONALD: Thanks for your detailed analysis Al. I may be wrong, but I believe that NASA has budgeted for more than one ET spare. . . .

    Donald,

    That would be new data. If anybody here can confirm or refute that NASA has more than one (1) Shuttle ET spare, please do.

    – Al

  • Here it is,

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/feb/HQ_C08008_ET_contract_modification.html

    I may have misunderstood. It is not clear, here, the number of parts for how many tanks are being produced. At the very least, it indicates that the production line remains open. . . .

    — Donald

  • Al Fansome

    Donald,

    Considering that …

    1) White House policy is to retire the Shuttle by 2010;

    2) Mike Griffin is strongly committed to this part of White House policy.

    Therefore, I feel confident that this contract extension is consistent with existing policy.

    I am guessing that this ET contract probably relates to the two “contingency” Shuttle flights. SOMD has been trying to get the White House to give them permission to list these as baseline Shuttle manifest missions. Perhaps they are no longer considered “contingency”.

    – Al

  • Anon

    FYI


    http://pmchallenge.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/2008/Presentation/Doug.Sander.pdf

    ET-138 will be the last ET assembled, with spares for at least one more.

  • space man spiff

    The big issue is Ares I is it’s just a terrible design and should be killed ASAP.
    The J2X also is not needed it would be better to fly the nearly finished RL-60 in a cluster of three on the EDS and remove a LOM failure mode while cutting costs.

    The Direct group made a better CLV and a lot of testing can be carried out on the EELVs before the CLV is ready.

    Other things very wrong with ESAS is they are eating their seed corn ie killing research to pay for Ares.

    There will be no moon bases or mars missions if you don’t develop high ISP propulsion and solar/NEP tugs and yes low cost access to LEO.

    I think more money needs to be given to COTS like competitions and the CEV should have stayed a fly off vs NASA designing it in house.

    Even Orion is anything but an ideal vehicle but unlike Ares it is at least workable.

    The best thing to do with the ESAS study would be to drive a stake through it’s heart and dump it down the deepest oceanic trench you can find.

    As for RLVs just because the shuttle didn’t deliver and the X33 had issues doesn’t mean RLVs are bad.

    The only thing I see what the shuttle taught is SRBs and fragile TPS are bad
    it had a better safety record then every other spacecraft before it except for Soyuz which was in it’s first incarnation much worse then the shuttle.

    The Soyuz that flies today is very different from the Soyuz of the early 70s.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_11

    Nasa never gave VTOL designs like DCY and rombus a chance and never gave TSTO designs any real study.

    They also never gave have low cost simple expendables like seadragon any serious study.

    Coming to a conclusion just because the rev 1.0 failed is stupid and maybe you should go read up on the history of airliners.
    It took many concepts before the DC-3 came along.

    BTW rev 1.0 of anything is bug ridden and expensive.

    Griffin did do one very smart thing and that was COTS it could be the smartest thing he may have done in his entire career.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>