Discussion Proposal to keep Shuttles till 2017

[insanity]

So, a private firm wants government subsidies to continue running an increasingly antiquated platform?

 

[orb]

And one more from Florida Today:

USA shuttle pitch a long shot
Contractor proposes twice-yearly launches to bridge spacecraft gap​

 

[N_Molson]

Seems rather realistic to me, and better than nothing.

 

[Urwumpe]

Seems rather realistic to me, and better than nothing.

Wrong. It is actually worse than nothing. It means that money is allocated into keeping infrastructure running, that would be needed elsewhere much more urgent for finally managing the jump away from the Shuttle.

It is like giving an alcohol addict in rehab a beer, and telling him, if you only drink one or two per evening, it is not that bad.

 

[N_Molson]

I didn't say it was a good idea, I meant it was logical given the current situation of the NASA, the hyper-specialized workforce "problem" and the lack of political will... There will be no other US manned spacecraft available soon. Even the Dragon is years away from a manned mission to ISS. Not to mention the still very unclear status of the Orion program.

From a personal point of view, I think the Shuttles made their time. But I don't think that the USA are ready to rely entirely on international cooperation for manned missions. And "international cooperation" means Russia and SoyuzTMA-M anyway...

 

[Urwumpe]

I didn't say it was a good idea, I meant it was logical given the current situation of the NASA, the hyper-specialized workforce "problem" and the lack of political will... There will be no other US manned spacecraft available soon. Even the Dragon is years away from a manned mission to ISS. Not to mention the still very unclear status of the Orion program.

Look, you can't tell simple workers that they should be agile and mobile enough to find a new job, if they are unemployed, it is their own guilt, and then defend a few highly qualified engineers from the same fate.

Of course, the Space Shuttle program is nothing that gives you many good chances to improve your CV and mostly used antique technology, but such engineers have still much better job chances as somebody who was on the assembly line of Ford for 20 years (Well, both used antique technology).

And in history, NASA had often gaps. It is nothing automatically bad. Sometimes you need to take your time for something, so it can become good. The error in thinking is, that the gap can't be filled by Dragon or similar. Even flying by Soyuz would be a luxury that was unthinkable in the five year gap between Apollo and Shuttle. or the shorter gaps because of Shuttle accidents. How bad is the gap really?

I would rather take the gap, if this frees resources for flying without any gaps in the future. Which would mean: No longer putting all eggs in the same basket. Neither for any NASA vehicle, nor for any SpaceX or Orbital Sciences product. If NASA wants to do what NASA can do best, they should invent all the annoying low level stuff and badly needed standards for giving the US spaceflight industry more momentum.

 

[T.Neo]

I really get annoyed when people boo-hoo Russian launch capability to the ISS. Soyuz has seen much work launching US astronauts to the ISS, it and Roskosmos are fully up to the task.

Soyuz has always been the true crew workhorse of the ISS. The Shuttle was the construction vehicle, mostly, with a side-role in resupply.

Now that the USOS is due to be complete by the end of the shuttle program and following Russian and European infrastructure is planned to be launched at the end of the year, and ATV and HTV capabilities exist to expand on the capabilities of Progress, Soyuz can definitely support the crew role.

I would also not discredit the progress of Dragon. While nothing is instant, it is showing quite impressive progress. Cargo version first, a crewed version would arrive later of course- but that already allows a US return capability from the station...

I don't really know, if people are worried about trust between the US and Russia. We have to remember that US hardware is bolted to Russian hardware, 300+km above the Earth, travelling at over 7 km/s. Said hardware is also the sole reason for US manned presence in space right now, and has been so for 7, 8 years.

If the US cannot trust Russia with launching their astronauts on their (proven and reliable) spacecraft, a task that said spacecraft has performed for over a decade, then they should as of now cancel the ISS program and put manned spaceflight activities on a hiatus for the forseeable future.

 

[orb]

Keeping Shuttle flying is only one of proposals, which most probably will be rejected. NASA is already seeking for extension of the contract for Soyuz launches for them - Roscosmos: US Space Agency Seeks Soyuz Launch Extension to 2017.

 

[Phillips]

NASA should just retire the Shuttle, then use a Sidemount SDLV.
But if they did have a private shuttle, it just seems weird.

Post shuttle is a crazy time.