Re: Should "The Stick" be scrapped?

As of 2004 nasa had budgeted $2.2 billion (#1) for return to flight
(RTF), but some of that came at the expense of other programs, such as
the orbiters safety upgrade of an electric auxiliary power unit (EAPU).
The EAPU (#2) was part of the asaps recommended safety upgrades prior
to the sts-107 tragedy, and was being developed to reduce the hazards
associated with the hydrazine powered apu's (#3). The EAPU project
was cancelled with the projects allocated $ 50 million (#4) shifted to
the shuttle programs return to flight (RTF), an act the caib described
as hallow by the asap (#5). Congress and the administration have set
reductions of nasa's funding leading up to 2010, a problem that may
not leave nasa with enough funds to complete the space shuttles
operational mission of space station construction (#1).
tom

(#1)
NASA's Space Shuttle Program: Issues for
Congress Related to The Columbia Tragedy
and "Return to Flight"
Marcia S. Smith
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/48804.pdf
page 4, par 3
" Cost. NASA's most recent public estimate of the total cost for
RTF (FY2003-2009)
was released in July 2004. RTF costs are in addition to regular shuttle
funding, although
some of the RTF money has been taken from other shuttle-related
activities (e.g.
upgrades). The July 2004 estimate was $2.2 billion, double the previous
estimate of $1.1
billion. For FY2005, NASA requested $4.3 billion for the shuttle
program. In November
2004, NASA informed Congress it needed $762 million more than expected
for FY2005.
In the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447), Congress
approved the
$4.3 billion, subject to an across-the-board 0.80% rescission.
Conferees stated (H.Rept.
108-792) that NASA could submit a request for supplemental
appropriations, or
reprogram funds from other NASA programs. Congress also appropriated
$126 million
to NASA in an FY2005 emergency supplemental for hurricane relief (P.L.
108-324).
According to a May 10, 2005 update to its FY2005 operating plan, NASA
is
reprogramming the following funds into RTF: $55 million from the
Science Mission
Directorate ($20 million from space science, $35 million from earth
science); $375.8
million from the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate ($73 million
from biological
and physical research, $204 million from human and robotic technology,
and $98 million
from transportation systems); and $331.2 million from the Space
Operations Mission
Directorate ($160 million from the space station, $170 million from
space shuttle
upgrades, and $1.2 million from space flight support).
Whether the shuttle program overall is receiving adequate funding
continues to be
a question. The CAIB noted that long term budget constraints were a
factor in the
Columbia tragedy. NASA's FY2006 shuttle budget request is $4.5
billion, with a
projection that it will decline to $2.4 billion by FY2010. NASA plans
to retire the shuttle in 2010. Whether the agency can accomplish the
remaining required shuttle launches (see
below) within such a declining shuttle budget remains to be seen."

(#2)
Nasa Glen research center,
Space Shuttle Upgrade Overview
http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/projects/shuttle/index.html
"Hydrazine is a toxic fluid which requires special handling
provisions. This results in high costs and requires long time periods
during orbiter ground servicing. NASA is currently pursuing a
replacement for the hydrazine APU called the Electric Auxiliary Power
Unit, or EAPU. The EAPU uses batteries to power a motor which runs a
hydraulic pump. The existing orbiter hydraulic system does not change.
The EAPU eliminates the hydrazine associated with the APU and is
believed to be more reliable and inherently safer."

(*3)
REVIEW OF RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN
VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND INDUSTRIES
January 2000 By:
ERI Consulting & Co.
CH-6343 Rotkreuz Switzerland
Prepared for: European Space Agency
The European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC)
Page 18
Challenger accident in January of 1986 changed most of their minds but
by no means all.
Some still clung to the belief that the accident was a "fluke" and
would never have happened if the shuttle had been launched within the
original launch envelope.
However, despite continued skepticism, since both the Rogers (1986) and
Slay (1988)
investigation teams had strongly encouraged NASA to undertake efforts
in quantitative risk assessment, two pilot studies were initiated in
1987. These two studies were focused upon single shuttle orbiter
systems: the Auxiliary Propulsion Unit or APU, and the Main Propulsion
Pressurization System. The former study was conducted by a joint
McDonnell Douglas and Pickard, Lowe, and Garrick team and was completed
in 1988 and the latter study was conducted by Lockheed with some
support from SAIC in 1989. While the studies were limited in their
scope, they showed particular weaknesses in the qualitative FMEA/CIL
approach. In particular, the APU study indicated that about 30% of the
risk was missed by concentrating on Criticality 1 CILs alone, and that
some of the major (in terms of probability contribution) Criticality 1
CILs, such as hydrazine, were overlooked in the component oriented
FMEAs."

(#4)
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/columbia/rs21411.pdf
CRS-4
"Table 2. Explanations Given in Appropriations Reports for
Congressional Changes versus Administration Budget Requests
for the Space Shuttle Program
FY2002 house: +$35m for refurbishment of the vehicle assembly
building, Senate approved + $50M for safety upgrades, conference
committee: +$25m for vehicle assembly building, +$20m for safety,
upgrades -$50m from cancellation of the Electric Auxiliary Power Unit
program ."

(*5)
As the caib noted Caib report vol 1 page 188 col 2 par 8
"...Space Flight Leadership Council accepted the upgrades only as
long as they were financially feasible. Funding a safety upgrade in
order to fly safely, and then canceling it for budgetary reasons, makes
the concept of mission safety rather hollow."

vze3gz45 wrote:
"... the House will give NASA money to fix this
hardware, just like House gave money to NASA to fix the Shuttle, and NASA
did a good job fixing the Shuttle.

vze3gz45

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bush says about the shuttle....and that the White House would not be all that upset if it never
    ... NASA plans for tight budget florida today ... Shuttle Atlantis rolls into the Vehicle Assembly Building ... NASA is working on a backup plan that would cut the ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: ISS slowly guts NASA exploration budget, rocket budgets
    ... Nasa needs its annual $18bn budget boosted by $3bn if astronauts are ... The panel, convened by the White House to review human spaceflight ... After the 2003 Columbia shuttle disaster, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....
    ... >>> NASA has about the same budget, adjusted for inflation, as it did ... > NASA's budget peaked in 1966 at a bit more than twice what it is today ... Since the 80s, they've had years with more shuttle flights than that, ... > kept throwing good money after bad. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
  • Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?
    ... The best thing the US government did for telecommunications was to ... Why should NASA ... year and see what kind of vehicles private industry comes up with. ... the ET on the shuttle included a vent on the nost to ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?
    ... The best thing the US government did for telecommunications was to ... Why should NASA ... year and see what kind of vehicles private industry comes up with. ... the ET on the shuttle included a vent on the nost to ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading