Restart Shuttle

Shuttle concept most capable.
Posted on February 25, 2012 by Bob
Another excellent paper– Commercialization of shuttle by shuttleCom.

Shuttle concept most Capable
Many are critical of the shuttle, they say it is not economically viable.  Did you expect a vehicle as capable as the shuttle that is pushing the envelope to go into service and meet all the original design goals during the first design iteration and to be financially viable too?
Look at the history of other complex systems which ” push the envelope”. How many shuttles do you see flying on a regular basis?
Even if USA proposal was to have commenced, the shuttle at this iteration would require some gov support.

Eventually it could evolve into a financially sound operation.  DOD operation would be integrated into shuttle services.  Other LV would of course continue to be used for missions appropriate to those LV’s.

The shuttle would continue to evolve into an improved design.  The shuttle concept supports a logical progression to earth orbit and to other destinations more distant from earth.
Failure to utilize the shuttle and improve it will essentially cede control of China.

Commercially operated shuttle for 1/3 cost
NASA knew right answer– operate shuttle commercially–wanted to spend more
Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 8:52 PM 0 comments  There was a solution and NASA knew it. That solution was to commercialize the STS Space Shuttles and use them in conjunction with a new Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch vehicle, such a Shuttle-C. Shuttle-C could have been built for about $10 billion or about the same money wasted on Constellation before it got cancelled. A Shuttle-C could have lifted some 70,000kg into space. Sharing resources, facilities, and even missions would have reduced the cost for both the Commercial Shuttles and the Shuttle-C. NASA demonstrated the ability to operate the Shuttles at reduced cost when it started shifting people from the bloated Shuttle program to Constellation because this reduce Shutle flight costs from about $1.3 billion to only $750 million. Something NASA kept sayind couldn’t be done. The simple fact is the Shuttles died because NASA and the Aerospace Industry didn’t want a couple of billion dollars a year flying the Shuttles, they wanted the $200 Billion + building Constellation. At the price you could have flown the Shuttles on over 200 missions. So the Shuttles died and our manned space program was slaughterd for pork. Now they are promoting SLS, which is a vehicle with no mission other than pork.
What kind of people are leading US Space Program? Are they Brain Dead?
What kind of people are leading US Space Program?? Are they Brain Dead?
Posted on January 15, 2012 by Bob
We have a capable, reliable vehicle in a museum on which we have spent 100 of billions. We depend on this capability to service systems in orbit (HST, ISS, unknown national security assets) on which we have invested 100 or more billions. Replacement vehicles are 10 years or more away and none of them have the capability of the shuttle such as payload, use of arm, EVA capability, runway landing. We are spending 60 million 6 times a year for Russian transport to the station on a vehicle which does not meet NASA’s manned rating requirements ( read ASAP minutes on this subject, read NASA analysis of Soyus & Hale blog).

Failure to continue the shuttle concept will result in an inferior design solution.  The commercial solutions now in work greatly under estimate the difficulty of the mission and are not adequately
funded.

The shuttle is unbelievably capable, three papers cover its history and potential they are:
The Case to Save the Shuttle
On the Early Retirement of the Shuttle
Nonsensical retirement of the Shuttle.
Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 8:13 PM 0 comments

Posted in Space news | Leave a comment | Edit
Commercialization of shuttle
Posted on February 25, 2012 by Bob
Commercialization of Shuttle by ShuttleCom
Commercialization of Shuttle—-credit Shuttlecomm
The following contains several reasons why the Space Shuttle must be privatized instead of given to museums.
 
Point #1:  EVEN WITHOUT A SHUTTLE PROGRAM, NASA WILL STILL HAVE TO PAY TO MAINTAIN THE SHUTTLE FACILITIES
According to the Augustine Report, NASA will still have to pay at least $400M per year if no domestic rockets are launched using Shuttle facilities (i.e., Russia or SpaceX).  Plus any Shuttle derived launch vehicles, such as Ares I and V, will have to pay up to $1.5B per year to maintain the Shuttle facilities.  Whereas ShuttleCom will cost share the burden of maintaining the facilities, NASA will have the full burden of $1.5B/year if it flies the Ares launch vehicles, which are not intended for commercial operation.
 
Point #2:  THE SHUTTLE WAS NEVER GIVEN A CHANCE:
Although the first flight of the B-52 was nearly 60 years ago, it continues to fly as a result of upgrades.  NASA has spent many $B on studies to upgrade the Shuttle to improve upon the time and cost to process at the Kennedy Space Center, however almost all of the upgrades were NEVER implemented.  In essence, the Shuttle is still a 70′s launch vehicle.
As a result:  In its best year (1985), there were only nine Shuttle flights, with Discovery flying four times that year. 
 
Point #3:  THE ORBITERS HAVE PLENTY OF LIFE LET IN THEM
Although the orbiters are designed for 100 flights each with a safety factor of 4; Discovery has only 38, Atlantis has 32, and Endeavor has just 24 flights.  Procedures have been implemented to replace seals and other time dependent parts and the effect of time has little bearing on their flight readiness.  The orbiters could be flown for several more decades even under the most aggressive launch schedule, if allowed to be re-certified after 100 flights.
 
Point #4:  SHUTTLECOM WILL AGREE TO A GUARANTEED COST REDUCTION PER FLIGHT EACH YEAR
NASA can easily realize a cost reduction of access to space because as part of ShuttleCom’s Agreement, ShuttleCom will guarantee a specific annual reduction (between 10% and 20%) on the basic fee charged to the government for each dedicated Shuttle flight. 
 
Point #5:  THE AEROSPACE COMMUNITY WILL BE ACTIVE IN NASA- SPONSORED SHUTTLE UPGRADES 
As part of NASA’s Agreement with ShuttleCom, NASA will develop upgrades to the Shuttle as well as a Space Tug.  In order for ShuttleCom to meet the guaranteed cost reduction targets, NASA must develop certain Shuttle upgrades and hardware that will improve upon Shuttle operability.
 
Point #6:  THE PRIVATIZED SHUTTLE REPRESENTS THE ONLY MEANS OF FOSTERING REAL SPACE TOURISM FOR THE NEAR FUTURE.
As ShuttleCom increases the flight rate, the price of each mission will reduce.  Only the Space Shuttle has the means to transport and retrieve up to five manned capsules (i.e., FIVE SpaceX Dragons) at a time in its payload bay plus 5 passengers in the crew compartment.  It is very possible to conceive that each space tourist would pay between $2.5M and $5M for an orbital flight; most likely to an orbital hotel.
 
Point #7:  THE SHUTTLE REPRESENTS THE BEST MEANS OF ENABLING A LUNAR MISSION
A Shuttle-C vehicle can transport up to 72 metric tons into orbit at a time.  The Shuttle-C has not been pursued in the past due to the high cost of the Propulsion and Avionics equipment Module (PAM) that is expended after each flight.  A privatized Space Shuttle, that has been modified as ShuttleCom as requested, will be able to retrieve the PAM and save $175M to the cost of operating the Shuttle-C.
 
Point #8:  THE SHUTTLE IS A NATIONAL TREASURE
NASA has spent over $200B on the Space Shuttle Program since the 70’s and it is a point of pride worldwide to America’s space program, which should not be abandoned.  The newest orbiter, Endeavor, cost $3.2B when it replaced Challenger in 1987.  The $200B investment by NASA in the Shuttle program represents more than 10 years of the entire FY 2011 National Aeronautics and Space Administration budget.
 
Point #9:  ABANDONING AMERICA’S ONLY MEANS OF MANNED FLIGHT BEFORE A DOMESTIC ALTERNATIVE IS AVAILABLE IS A NATIONAL SECURITY RISK
After the Shuttle retires, NASA will have no manned-rated vehicles for the near future.  NASA has been directed by the current administration to only STUDY a new launch vehicle until 2015.  NASA has contracted Russia to fly astronauts to the Space Station until 2014 for $55.8M each.  After which time, Russia can charge whatever they want
NASA’s plan to retire the Space Shuttle without an alternative manned-rated launch vehicle is a grievous misappropriation of Tax Payer money as well as a National Security Risk.
 
OTHER:
Within the next 12 months, NASA plans to retire the Space Shuttle and spend $28M to clean up the Orbiters just so they can be given to museums.