NASA--Comming up a little short of the mark, comrad.

[Taur]

In case you have forgotten, and judging by the lack of press you have, there are 3 stranded astronauts on the Int'l Space Station.

After the shuttle exploded NASA told America not to worry because there was enough supplies on the Station to last months. That the US would not need the help of the Russians as we would launch a Shuttle mission of our own to get our own crew left on the Space Station shortly. Months later with supplies dwindling the US restated their position reguarding a rescue mission of our Astronauts And, thanks to a resupply mission by the Russians they extended the supplys to last till May, but still left the Astronauts on board the Station to be brought home by NASA.

As of right now Russia is planning another mission. This time it will be a rescue mission to bring home our Astronauts some time in late April to early May. Of course if that fails there is always the Russian escape pod that can be used in the event of an emergency.

Something tells me JFK is turnning over in his grave right now.

[Bee]

pretty sad state of affairs.

[Tekneek]

Congress has slashed the budget such that NASA has had to beg other countries to help them. It was either that or stop doing it altogether.

I don't recall NASA saying when another shuttle was going to be launched after Columbia's disaster. All along they said return to flight was pending the coming reviews and analysis. There is a significant chance that a US Space Shuttle will never be launched again.

[cthomer5000]

NASA just said they wanted to use those shuttles until 2018 or so.

[tucker342]

Originally posted by cthomer5000
NASA just said they wanted to use those shuttles until 2018 or so.

ummmm they didn't quite make that goal.

[Tekneek]

They still have 3 of them, and those 3 could handle the rest of the manifest themselves. How did they not make that goal? They had already been discussing the possibility of retiring Columbia anyway.

NASA didn't "just say" they wanted to use the Shuttle until 2018, that happened at least a few months ago as part of a budget review. I think it was even 2002 when they made that decision.

[Taur]

(Reuters Photo)

NASA Looks to Keep Shuttles Flying Until 2022
— By Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Even as the fatal mid-air break-up of shuttle Columbia is being investigated, NASA said on Monday it is exploring ways to keep the remaining three space shuttles flying until 2022.

Will another replacement orbiter be built, as Endeavour
was built to replace Challenger?

Probably not. In fact, you can probably bet on it never happening. A space shuttle like those we have now can not be made again for the same reasons that Enterprise probably will not be brought into active service. Not only are the tooling and design manpower simply no longer in existence, the cost would be nearly the same as starting from scratch with an all new design for future shuttle type craft. And no, there are not enough spare parts left over to cobble together a new shuttle as was Endeavor.



I love it. In one article Nasa is saying that the shuttle program is good for another 20 years and then in another article it is saying the shuttle is so far out of date that it would be impossible to build another shuttle.

Kind of like showing up to a Chevy plant and asking them to build you a brand new 1977 Corvette Stingray.-----And, what the hell is a Vacum Tube? No wonder you have to be in your 40s or 50s to become an astronaut.

[cthomer5000]

The fact that they couldn't even build it has to make you wonder about the safety of it.

[Tekneek]

The reason they cannot build it is because Rockwell has completely taken apart the assembly line. Just because Ford can't roll out a 1992 Taurus (not looking up whether this is a safe vehicle or not, just making a hypothetical) because it would be cost prohibitive to setup the assembly line again for only one of them does not mean it is inherently an unsafe vehicle.

Seems you guys don't get the full picture before you fire off some bullets. The cost of production of any vehicle after the production areas no longer exist is not going to be relative to the quality or safety of said vehicle. Since when has that EVER been the way things worked in the real world? WHY would Rockwell maintain the facilities required to produce Space Shuttles when there was never intended to be another one made? You guys act like these are assembled in just any old shop with a few saws, nails, and a hammer.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Tekneek
The reason they cannot build it is because Rockwell has completely taken apart the assembly line. Just because Ford can't roll out a 1992 Taurus (not looking up whether this is a safe vehicle or not, just making a hypothetical) because it would be cost prohibitive to setup the assembly line again for only one of them does not mean it is inherently an unsafe vehicle.

Seems you guys don't get the full picture before you fire off some bullets. The cost of production of any vehicle after the production areas no longer exist is not going to be relative to the quality or safety of said vehicle. Since when has that EVER been the way things worked in the real world? WHY would Rockwell maintain the facilities required to produce Space Shuttles when there was never intended to be another one made? You guys act like these are assembled in just any old shop with a few saws, nails, and a hammer.

But clearly we're not talking about a mass-produced item. They made what, 5 or 6 of these?

I dont know if an assembly line is really what we're talking about here. I'd imagine the entire shuttle was put together with some machines moving around outrageously heavy parts, and many people bolting, fusing things together, etc...

It sounds to me that if they cannot assemble another one, that they may not have the necessary replacement parts if one shuttle needed sizable repair.

[Tekneek]

"It’s not just a need for parts too complex to find on eBay: The shuttle’s entire manufacturing base is essentially gone. Most subcontractors who built individual portions have either been bought up by competitors or went on to other jobs. The assembly line at the Air Force’s fabled Plant 42, in Palmdale, Calif., that fashioned the original shuttles has long since been retasked."

Manufacturing components may be far less difficult than assembling all of the parts into an entire vehicle.

"I don't think you could build a new shuttle if you wanted to. All the production facilities were shut down and I'm not sure the tooling is still there," said John Logsdon at the Space Policy Institute of George Washington University.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Naw they just moved the money over to JPL.

NASA had already talked to the Russians many weeks ago regarding this. They are still grounded and refitting the avionics and upgrading other systems on an older shuttle will take longer even if the investigation had finished in a week.

All this does is put the Prometheus project on hiatus because the thought of a nuclear propulsed spacecraft would be shot down with the current conditions.

[Tekneek]

We have already missed one previously scheduled launch, involving Atlantis. It is sitting at Kennedy awaiting the day it finally gets to finish preparations and roll out to the pad.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Yeah but they had never planned on building another shuttle anyways. The next step was a nuclear propulsion spacecraft for manned missions. Atlantis still had to be refitted and NASA was grounded.

If NASA had launched Atlantis on the proposed launch date anyways, you would have seen a huge backlash because the investigation was/is not completed. This type of thing is nothing new, you can compare it to the grounding of the Concorde fleet for commericial airlines.

[Tekneek]

I was just saying that it wasn't like they were about to enter a down period anyway, and that everything is still on schedule. It sounded to me like that was what was being said. Atlantis was ready to fly. The delays now are for the investigation and the possibility of redesigns.

[Taur]

So what is the current thought on bringing home our 3 stranded astronauts?

Will we allow the Russians to launch a resuce mission or will we make our astronauts use the Russian escape pod?

[HornedFrog Purple]

I think letting the Russians go up there and get them is the far safer solution. The escape pod has actually never been used and has only been tested in simulations, it's a total last resort in case the ISS is falling apart. This is not a structural emergency.

[Tekneek]

The 'escape pod' is a Soyuz vehicle, which is what they would send up there to get them anyway.

[kcchief19]

The "escape pod" is just that -- it's designed for escape if there is a catastrophic failure which makes escaping the station a much better bet than staying on the station. Sending a Russian rocket or a shuttle up is a better bet than using the "escape pod."

Building a new shuttle would be impractical from several points of view, among them that the people and facilities necessary to build a shuttle aren't there anymore, but also the cost.

Space technology takes years to develop. The space shuttle was in design and production for more than a decade, which means that the design of the shuttle is based in large part on early/mid 1970s technology. Like most spacecraft, the shuttle was outdate before the first launch.

Thirty years have passed. It would be smarter on multiple levels to design a new craft that it would be to build a new shuttle. When my 1992 Cavalier crapped out, why would I go out and have Chevy build me a new 1992 Cavalier when I could get a new car for less money with better features?

No doubt NASA has had its problems. Management has been chief among them. A few years ago, they launch the "faster, cheaper, better" philosophy which was pitched out the window shortly after the Mars probe disappeared. Now they have Sean O'Keefe running the show, who is the first head of NASA with no previous aerospace experience since the beginnings of NASA. He's a bean counter. On numerous occassions O'Keefe has contradicted his science people in the investigation and has clearly alienated a lot of people at NASA.

[Tekneek]

Guys. There is no "escape pod." That whole project to create one has been scrapped due to budget restrictions.

This is from one of the many Q&A's posted at spaceflight.nasa.gov :

Question: In the event that the space station crewmembers had to abandon the station in an emergency, where could they go as a place of safety, and how could they get off the station without a waiting shuttle?

Answer: The space station crew, in the event of an emergency requiring that they vacate the station, would use the three-person soyuz spacecraft docked to the station to return to Earth. The soyuz is replaced with a new one every six months. A transfer crew ferries the new vehicle to the station, then returns to Earth after a few days' visit in the older one.