Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- From: "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 01 May 2005 16:08:51 GMT
Pat Flannery <flanner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1177noegjikdq7c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>
>>Now I can tell you're *really* not paying attention. Griffin really
>>wants to retire the fleet by 2010, if not sooner. There's barely room
>>to complete ISS in that timeframe as it is. Under Griffin, there
>>aren't going to be any non-ISS shuttle flights besides possibly HST,
>>and it's quite probable that the later ISS logistics flights will be
>>deleted.
>
> So after the Bush's New Space Initiative Mk. 2 gets canned in early
> 2009 (if not earlier- given the track record of developing new manned
> spacecraft that NASA has shown in the past couple of decades, I'm not
> exactly waiting with bated breath for the CEV to take flight.),
While the past record does give cause for skepticism, the circumstances are
different this time because NASA does not have the shuttle to fall back on
if CEV fails. They know that this time, they have no choice but to make it
work.
> do we
> still ground the fleet and just abandon manned flights? Or do we keep
> flying the Shuttle because we don't have any replacement for it?
> Which looks more politically likely?
It depends on whether NASA chooses a shuttle-derived vehicle to launch the
CEV lunar flights. If they do, the infrastructure will still be in place to
continue flying the shuttle. They will have to deal with CAIB R9.2-1, which
recommends a complete recertification of the shuttle at all levels if NASA
plans to fly it past 2010. That recommendation, in fact, was the main
rationale for choosing 2010 as the retirement date for the fleet -
recertification will likely be quite expensive.
If NASA does not choose a shuttle-derived vehicle, the prospects for
extending shuttle flights past the missions already planned - even if the
next president wants to - are dim. NASA is already investigating which
long-lead shuttle procurement contracts can be terminated. For example,
NASA already has enough aluminum-lithium alloy on hand to build all the
external tanks it needs. I think they're close to having enough aluminum
perchlorate for the SRBs, as well. Once they've got all the tanks they
need, they can shut down the ET assembly facility at Michoud and convert it
to some other use. Lockheed owns the tooling but, like the Saturn V
tooling, they're not going to go through the trouble and expense of storing
it if NASA makes it clear that the one-and-only customer ain't buying. That
would make it effectively impossible to continue flying the shuttle once
the tanks are all used.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- From: Scott Hedrick
- Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- Prev by Date: Re: IEEE SPECTRUM magazine: Apollo 13, We Have a Solution <- WARNING! CT Troll Thread!
- Next by Date: Re: IEEE SPECTRUM magazine: Apollo 13, We Have a Solution <- WARNING! CT Troll Thread!
- Previous by thread: Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- Next by thread: Re: Shuttle launch delayed until July
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
