AW&ST Reporting NASA Proposing Early Shut Down of Shuttle Flights
|
|
Thread rating:  |
John - 14 Sep 2007 17:19 GMT "Early Shuttle Termination Eyed Sep 11, 2007 By Craig Covault/Aviation Week & Space Technology
NASA is proposing to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that the space shuttle program be terminated six months early, in March 2010 instead of by Sept. 31, 2010, Shuttle Launch Director Mike Leinbach says.
The Web site NASASpaceFlight.com first revealed the plan last week. NASA's Office of Public Affairs labeled the report as incorrect.
But NASA Associate Administrator for Space Flight Bill Gerstenmaier made a presentation to OMB about the early termination last week, Leinbach tells Aviation Week. "We have been studying it for six weeks," Leinbach says.
Rita Wilcoxon, director of launch vehicle processing at the Kennedy Space Center, said that OMB reacted positively to the idea.
The plan would be part of the next NASA fiscal budget. If adopted, it would call for a planning target of March 31, 2010 for termination of the shuttle program, and would include the launch of the STS-131 and STA-133 logistics missions to the International Space Station. Those flights had earlier not been funded.
Under the plan, the March 2010 date would be NASA's termination target for shuttle operations, providing margin against weather and technical delays to ensure that NASA could make the Sept. 31 national target date set out earlier by President Bush, Wilcoxon says.
NASA is not asking for any additional shuttle funding in the plan, according to Wilcoxon. And extra funding left over in the budget from an early shuttle termination would first go to pay for termination costs and employee retirement plans, then into the Constellation program.
An early termination would be achieved by beginning to bias the launch dates of the remaining flights toward that target date. It also adds use of the orbiter Atlantis two more times than planned and would add margin to ensure NASA achieves unmanned Ares booster flight-tests as early as possible.
The plan is to announce the new target by early October, Leinbach believes."
Jorge R. Frank - 15 Sep 2007 01:54 GMT > "Early Shuttle Termination Eyed > Sep 11, 2007 > By Craig Covault/Aviation Week & Space Technology
> Under the plan, the March 2010 date would be NASA's termination target > for shuttle operations, providing margin against weather and technical > delays to ensure that NASA could make the Sept. 31 national target > date set out earlier by President Bush, Wilcoxon says.
> An early termination would be achieved by beginning to bias the launch > dates of the remaining flights toward that target date. It also adds > use of the orbiter Atlantis two more times than planned and would add > margin to ensure NASA achieves unmanned Ares booster flight-tests as > early as possible. These are the key paragraphs. The objective here is not to end the program early - any savings through early termination is gravy - but to increase the margin in the schedule to ensure the full manifest can be completed by the deadline.
hallerb@aol.com - 16 Sep 2007 21:55 GMT > > "Early Shuttle Termination Eyed > > Sep 11, 2007 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > increase the margin in the schedule to ensure the full manifest can be > completed by the deadline. theres no way the program will end on any schedule till we have another accident.
theres no enough time to launch the remaining flights so you make it worse? compressing it futher?
just one tech trouble that causes a safety stand down will get the schedule tossed in the garbage.
flights will end in 2014 unless theres another accident
Brian Thorn - 17 Sep 2007 02:28 GMT >theres no enough time to launch the remaining flights so you make it >worse? compressing it futher? Leaving Atlantis in the rotation (instead of retiring after STS-125) eases schedule pressure, rather than increasing it. It means the 2008-10 flights won't have to be unnecessarily stretched out so that Discovery and Endeavour can be ready for rescue launches within 60-ish days of each other's launches.
With Atlantis in the mix, the schedule can be completed by March 2010, giving them seven months cushion to fly out the manifest if more problems crop up (NASA flew three Shuttle missions in five months last year). But remember, despite your predictions of impossibility, the only thing that has hit the Shuttle schedule since RTF2 in July 2006 was that damned freak hailstorm. Even the Tropical Storm and semi-rollback last August didn't cause Atlantis to miss its STS-115 window.
Brian
hallerb@aol.com - 20 Sep 2007 03:14 GMT > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:55:42 -0700, "hall...@aol.com" > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Brian which makes it more likely it will get grounded again. Unless managers decide to just roll dice and fly till more die. In the past schedule before safety has occured, put on your manager hat:(
Jim in Houston - 20 Sep 2007 09:57 GMT
>which makes it more likely it will get grounded again. Unless managers >decide to just roll dice and fly till more die. In the past schedule >before safety has occured, put on your manager hat:( Please explain why this is more likely it will get grounded again. If that was in the cards, wouldn't that happened after this most recent foam incident? I can accept the notion (not fact) that yielding to schedule pressure contributed to Challenger, but not Columbia. Columbia was an error rooted in over-confidence, and poor communication. Seems to me that NASA is constantly working to increase communication, and participating in launch decisions, as is evidenced by the implementation of the additional FRR. With all due respect you seem convinced that the Shuttle is fatally flawed, and unable to consider otherwise. Regards, Jim in Houston.
Contrary to popular opinion RN does not mean Real Nerd! Teddy Roosevelt's mother said: "Fill what is empty, empty what is full, and scratch where it itches"
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
John Doe - 20 Sep 2007 17:37 GMT > I can accept the notion (not fact) that yielding to schedule pressure > contributed to Challenger, but not Columbia. Columbia was an error > rooted in over-confidence, and poor communication. There is a difference now. With the shuttle program winding down, some of the mentality may be changing. There may no longer be such a great urge to ensure long term viability of the vehicles. There may be a greater acceptance of letting a vehicle fly with a few (non critical) broken items etc etc.
And with contracts winding down, you may start to see some "patching" instead of "fixing". And if spare parts for certain items become limited, they may decide to allow such parts to fly an extra flight before being replaced for instance.
On the other hand, some of the critical equipment may be seeing greater care since they know they have to make it last longer with replacements no longer possible after a certain time.
Jim in Houston - 20 Sep 2007 19:45 GMT
>There is a difference now. With the shuttle program winding down, some >of the mentality may be changing. There may no longer be such a great >urge to ensure long term viability of the vehicles. There may be a >greater acceptance of letting a vehicle fly with a few (non critical) >broken items etc etc. The work on the landing gear would seem to nullify this thought.
>And with contracts winding down, you may start to see some "patching" >instead of "fixing". And if spare parts for certain items become >limited, they may decide to allow such parts to fly an extra flight >before being replaced for instance. I might buy into this one except for the fact that they allowed Endeavor to undergo the recent major refurbishment. That process was fully completed.
>On the other hand, some of the critical equipment may be seeing greater >care since they know they have to make it last longer with replacements >no longer possible after a certain time. I would think that would hold true for all of the equipment. Regards, Jim in Houston.
Contrary to popular opinion RN does not mean Real Nerd! Teddy Roosevelt's mother said: "Fill what is empty, empty what is full, and scratch where it itches"
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Brian Thorn - 20 Sep 2007 23:49 GMT >> Leaving Atlantis in the rotation (instead of retiring after STS-125) >> eases schedule pressure, rather than increasing it. It means the >> 2008-10 flights won't have to be unnecessarily stretched out so that >> Discovery and Endeavour can be ready for rescue launches within 60-ish >> days of each other's launches.
>which makes it more likely it will get grounded again. Care to explain?
>Unless managers >decide to just roll dice and fly till more die. In the past schedule >before safety has occured, put on your manager hat:( Where is safety being compromised (or schedule being placed over safety) by not retiring Atlantis? Retiring Atlantis (a decision that pretty much everyone thought was bone-headed in the first place) was to be a cost-saving move, not a safety move.
With Atlantis still in the mix during the last eighteen months of the Shuttle program, NASA gets a more natural rhythm of Shuttle processing and launching. That should increase safety versus the "fits and starts" that would have been necessary with Discovery and Endeavour alone.
Brian
BradGuth - 23 Sep 2007 07:04 GMT On Sep 16, 1:55 pm, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > "Early Shuttle Termination Eyed > > > Sep 11, 2007 [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > flights will end in 2014 unless theres another accident There will likely be another accident or perhaps via some other R&D ABL or SBL hit that'll cause the demise of a given shuttle. With so much that could go wrong, such as impacting so much as an empty beer can of space debris, is why those manned shuttle missions are going to become a thing of the past, at least until a robust version of a mostly titanium and composite bssalt craft can replace our extremely old and frail shuttle craft. - Brad Guth -
|
|
|