No more American manned spaceflights

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

What I was still trying to say though is that they're pushing their life expectancy.

Not even close to it. None of the shuttles is past 40% of their life expectancy based on number of flights per.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Targan

I very much applaud the above posts calling for the internationalisation of space and the sharing of space resources but I'm surpised such views are being openly expressed on this forum.

"Internationalization" of space has been a reality for many years. The ISS is just one example. But you're making a serious mistake in thinking that internationalization automatically equates to UN involvement or that it requires the UN to happen. It doesn't. Nor should it.

Originally Posted by Targan

In the not-so-distant past there have been shrill posts decrying UN. I had the impression that many (a significant minority or maybe even a majority) of Americans think the UN is an evil organisation intent on imposing a world government and stealing away Americans' hard won freedoms.

It's not evil. It's inept. The rest of your assertion is essentially correct.

Originally Posted by Targan

Personally I'm a great supporter of the UN (although I think it is perpetually hamstrung by the veto powers of the permanent Security Council members)

It's that power that blocks the UN from being truly abused by nations with nasty agendas. It helped check the USSR during the Cold War, and it's kept the US from being even more overbearing than it was while Bushes were in office. The problem with the SC isn't the veto power. It's non-democratic regimes having the veto power.

Originally Posted by Targan

and I'd love to see the UN used as a means to help all of humanity benefit from the bounties of space. Luna would be just a start. The asteroid belt contains absolutely vast mineral riches. The atmosphere of the gas giants could be mined for almost limitless amounts of Helium-3.

It's precisely the UN why there isn't more commercial development of space. A certain treaty destroys any incentive because individual nations, much less private concerns, cannot lay claim to anything beyond Earth's atmosphere. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as it prevented a massive "land grab" years ago. But now that technology, and commercial interest, has advanced to the point where it's feasible to begin tapping the wealth in the rest of the solar system there's no framework that permits it. It's been under discussion in the UN for well over a decade and there's little hope that any agreement will be coming out of the UN anytime in the next decade.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Not even close to it. None of the shuttles is past 40% of their life expectancy based on number of flights per.

Afraid so. It isn't just a matter of counting up the flight time. They're nearly falling apart. There's only so many times they can be refurbished and the parts replaced. The OVs are in bad shape, leading to disproportionate maintenance costs and safety issues. Just look at the budgeting figures, the maintenance costs keep rising as do the failures. It takes on average now no less than 3 months to get a shuttle capable of a subsequent launch. Even NASA stopped defending the STS and sees them as a money pit.

They need to be replaced with a new model with a different mission design. IMO, NASA should takes some lessons from the Europeans. Their agency launches more rockets and with a better success rate and cost than anyone. It costs the space shuttle 5000$/per kilo of cargo... it costs their European competitors only about 2-3000$/ per kilo of cargo.

Old age and an expensive cost killed the STS.

I've seen nothing said differently in any journal, but if you have something that shows that they aren't past their time, I'd like to read it.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

They need to be replaced with a new model with a different mission design. IMO, NASA should takes some lessons from the Europeans. Their agency launches more rockets and with a better success rate and cost than anyone. It costs the space shuttle 5000$/per kilo of cargo... it costs their European competitors only about 2-3000$/ per kilo of cargo

This essentially part of the problem with NASA. They had nearly 30 years to come up with a successor or cheaper alternative to the Space Shuttle, and what they came up with was the Orion/Constellation project which was only formulated in 2005 right towards the end of the Shuttle's life span, and was a hugely ambitious and vastly expensive programe to replace the Space Shuttle with what the Space Shuttle had originally been designed to replace in the first place. The Ares V rocket which was the ultimate launch system of the whole project for a manned moon shot was designed to have a maximum payload capacity of 188 tons to LEO and 71 tons to the Moon, and has variably been described as a Saturn V on steroids.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by RN7

This essentially part of the problem with NASA. They had nearly 30 years to come up with a successor or cheaper alternative to the Space Shuttle, and what they came up with was the Orion/Constellation project which was only formulated in 2005 right towards the end of the Shuttle's life span, and was a hugely ambitious and vastly expensive programe to replace the Space Shuttle with what the Space Shuttle had originally been designed to replace in the first place. The Ares V rocket which was the ultimate launch system of the whole project for a manned moon shot was designed to have a maximum payload capacity of 188 tons to LEO and 71 tons to the Moon, and has variably been described as a Saturn V on steroids.

I agree.

[RN7]

A manned Mars mission or even a Moon shot is unviable at the moment due to the economic problems effecting most of the world. Currently only Russia could send anyone to the Moon and it couldn't even think of affording it, while China has the money and ambition but not the technology.

America with an injection of funding has the technology to develop both Lunar and Mars capable launchers and spacecraft, but the US civilan space programe has been so badly managed that no US administration is going to fund it.

I think a Mars mission is probably a generation away and we are looking at mid 21st century at the very least. By that time its likely that the political and technological field will have changed. I can still see America as one of the leaders, but China may be the main competitor as others fall off or realign themselves. A Joint mission may be on the cards, we might even see two missions with America and China each leading a rival consortium of nations.

[RN7]

Matt I think Ed Crawley "Flexible Path" would be the way to go for America's space programe, however I think the US civilian space programe would become a bit chaotic if an unregulated commercial sector started taking charge or having a dominant role in it, not that NASA's hitherto management of it could be called anything but chaotic. The Russian and Chinese space programes, and in fact the US military programe seems far more ordered and practical. Maybe if you put the USAF in charge of NASA's budget and then invited the commercial sector to take a greater role and attracted foreign space agencies to participate it might work.

[Matt Wiser]

Except for a few fanatics over on spacepolitics.com, there's hardly anyone saying that the Commercial Sector should take over all of HSF. What NASA has in mind is the commercial sector taking over the ISS support mission, first with cargo, then crew rotation. They'd rather spend the money buying the service from American companies rather than the Russians. The Russians aren't happy at the prospect, as you'd expect. Congress views the commercial sector as the least of two bad options (they'd rather have NASA handle the mission, but know the money's not there). NASA would have oversight of commercial flights to ISS re: crew safety, and the FAA would be overseeing other aspects of U.S. commercial space flights-whether it's for NASA, another space agency (NASA is in charge of safety for all NASA-sponsored astronauts-the Japanese, ESA, Canadians, etc.), or a space tourism flight. Congress, though, insisted in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that Orion be capable of backing up the private sector if they can't handle the mission, and Lockheed-Martin (Orion's prime contractor) has said that they can man-rate an existing rocket by 2014 if they got the go-ahead for to do just that, and to have Earth orbit flight test of Orion as well.

Lockheed-Martin, btw, has indicated that they can fly an Orion Asteroid Mission in 2019. If that's the case, then lunar exploration gets speeded up.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Matt Wiser

Congress, though, insisted in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that Orion be capable of backing up the private sector if they can't handle the mission, and Lockheed-Martin (Orion's prime contractor) has said that they can man-rate an existing rocket by 2014 if they got the go-ahead for to do just that, and to have Earth orbit flight test of Orion as well.

Lockheed-Martin, btw, has indicated that they can fly an Orion Asteroid Mission in 2019. If that's the case, then lunar exploration gets speeded up.

America has one significant advantage over all its competitors in space with the possible exception of Russia. This would be the size and technological capability of its commercial aerospace and space industry, which to an extent is a legacy of the Cold War and the Military-Industrial Complex. A similar and more politicaly controlled space industry exists in Russia, but if you think America is having a hard time financing its space projects on its own just imagine how hard it is for Russia. Although other countries have space programes, they are to a varying degree politicaly controlled and funded.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by RN7

in fact the US military programe seems far more ordered and practical. Maybe if you put the USAF in charge of NASA's budget and then invited the commercial sector to take a greater role and attracted foreign space agencies to participate it might work.

Good grief no! The USAF only seems "more ordered" because as a non-civilian agency they are better at hiding their screw-ups. The USAF is much less efficient, hard as that may be to believe, than NASA at managing budgets. And it's been USAF involvement (meddling) with the shuttle program that has been a major contributor to the STS being the mess that it's been, right from the beginning. The original NASA designs were much more practical and elegant, including SSTO. It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by RN7

...NASA seems to have been punished for bad management and the squandering its resources by the politicians and bureaucracy that runs it, at the expense of its highly capable scientists, engineers and astronauts.

Well said. The Apollo program did its job so well that the political support for Apollo withered on the vine. Ever since then, NASA has been run by bureaucrats, not scientists and engineers.

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.

This underscores the problem that military men are military men. Putting the USAF in charge of the US space program would be like putting the US Navy in charge of merchant shipping. Without making any claims about the degree to which space has been militarized already, we should pursue a philosophy of minimizing and retarding the militarization of space instead of giving militarization a de facto embrace by bringing the USAF into it any more than they already are. Sooner or later, there will be an armed presence in space far more significant than anything we can point to today. At one end of the spectrum is a set of competing forces busting budgets in Cold War fashion to ensure that each nation’s commercial interests in space are “protected” against interference by the forces of competing nations. At the other end of the spectrum is a small constabulary-type force in operation to enforce agreed-upon rules for all commercial interests regardless of national origin. We should pursue policies to get as far towards the latter end of the spectrum as possible.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Good grief no! The USAF only seems "more ordered" because as a non-civilian agency they are better at hiding their screw-ups. The USAF is much less efficient, hard as that may be to believe, than NASA at managing budgets. And it's been USAF involvement (meddling) with the shuttle program that has been a major contributor to the STS being the mess that it's been, right from the beginning.

When I stated USAF control would lead to a more ordered civil space programe, I meant it would lead to less showmanship and less bureaucracy and more sense. Also the USAF is a bit more multi-dimensional than NASA in regard to not just having to focus on orbital and space related activities. Is there a comparable air force which does a better job than the USAF?

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

The original NASA designs were much more practical and elegant, including SSTO. It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.

Which SSTO projects are you refering to?

The Rockwell X-30 was cancelled in 1993 because NASA couldn't design it to cary a crew and a small payload with the US DOD wanted, which I think was quite a reasonable request.

The Lockheed-Martin X-33 was cancelled in 2001 after a long series of technical difficulties and after NASA had invested $922 million and Lockheed Martin another $357 million, which in turn led to the cancellation of Venture Star, as X-33 was a subscale technological demonstrater for the Venture Star project.

Then there is Blackstar which nobody seems to know much about other than claiming it doesn't exist, and its not a NASA project.

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Afraid so.

'Fraid not.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

They're nearly falling apart. There's only so many times they can be refurbished and the parts replaced. The OVs are in bad shape, leading to disproportionate maintenance costs and safety issues.

You live in Bangkok. I live 20 miles from the shuttle launch pads at Kennedy Space Center. My neighbors and I work at KSC. You seem to know things that those of us who actually work on them don't. The orbiters are no more "falling apart" than commercial airliners with similar flight hours and frame stresses are. And commercial airliners fly for decades, thanks to similar maintenance and periodic refurbishments as the shuttles go through. Actually, a better comparison would be military cargo transports.

BTW, look up when the last B-52 rolled off the assembly line.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

It takes on average now no less than 3 months to get a shuttle capable of a subsequent launch.

That's mostly due to red tape and massively redundant safety checks in the wake of two disasters. The actual work only takes a couple of weeks.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Even NASA stopped defending the STS and sees them as a money pit.

They've always been a money pit. It was a bad design from the get-go.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

It costs the space shuttle 5000$/per kilo of cargo... it costs their European competitors only about 2-3000$/ per kilo of cargo.

You should compare apples to apples. Such as cost to LEO of the Delta or Atlas models comparable to the ESA launchers. The STS is not used to haul commercial sats into space, and the ESA has no booster that can lift the loads the shuttle's been lifting. Hell, there is no in-production booster that can. If there was the shuttle would have been retired years ago.

Originally Posted by Fusilier

Old age and an expensive cost killed the STS.

No. Bad design, a penny-pinching pound-foolish Congress, bad PR by NASA, and bad program management by NASA (leading to two major disasters) killed the STS.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

'Fraid not.

Then I guess we won't be agreeing, that's all.