Shuttle Grounded: All of US Human Space Flight up in the Air

The space station can not be completed without the shuttle. It is unclear if it can even continue to be used indefinitely without the shuttle. Even if the shuttle flies again it will be nearly impossible to make the 2010 deadline for completing.

The Hubble Space Telescope will not see another shuttle, no matter the political will. By the time the shuttle is flying again and considered safe enough to fly anywhere but the station it will be too late for the Hubble.

The Vision for the Exploration of Space now needs a new time line and a new approach. If the shuttle is permanently grounded and the station is canceled the VSE can be greatly accelerated.

The Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift has been dealt a major blow. If we can not fly the shuttle because of the External tank, it makes no sense to use it in the next generation of space transportation. The other part of the shuttle architecture that was going to be maintained was the Solid Rocket Boosters, these caused the loss of the Challenger, it has always been highly questionable to launch humans with solid fueled rockets. The Shuttle hardware is 1970’s technology. The External Tank and the Solid rocket Boosters were the result of compromises and were not anyone’s first choice. NASA should go back to the drawing board for a new heavy lift vehicle, start with a blank page using 21st century technology and lessons learned from all previous launch vehicles. While keeping in mind that this vehicle will carry everything to develop of the Moon and explore Mars.

Comments

[Steve Mickler]

Good insights - I agree that moving on to a new vehicle will accelerate VSE, but perhaps the manned vehicle should be seperate from the heavy lift cargo vehicle. I know we don't agree about on-orbit assembly, but I beleive there is a way to make space travel safe, frequent and cheap if we go with a vehicle for manned lift. Simply put, the gov't could give Burt Rutan a check. There's no need to fill in the amount - Burt can do that - and there's no need to tell him exactly what we want, just promise him that there will be no paperwork and we need regular flights at under one million per trip for four or more astronauts at ten times the Shuttle's safety and one hundred times its flight rate. I suspect that it'll take him all of three years unless Spaceship two eats up too much of his time. Heck he's already drop tested a 1/3 scale model of the hybrid powered air launched capsule based system he favors!
Steve

[Karen Cramer Shea]

Separating cargo and human launches is reasonable if there is a good reason. Trying to save a few bucks on design costs isn't a good reason because any saving will be wiped out by the cost of maintaining two fleets.

I am sceptical that spaceship one will have any long term effect on space flight. Read My X-Prize entry in the RLV catagory, then come back and argue with me.

[Steve Mickler]

I agree with your comment in the RLV section to the effect that developing off-world resources is essential to developing space travel. I disagree that space travel is inherently expensive. Jim Benson of SpaceDev which makes the hybrids is saying that they are ridiculously cheap and incidently are therefore throwaway in both his Dreamchaser architecture and in Rutan's scale model. The only thing re-used is the capsule for Rutan's or X-38 copy in Benson's craft.
Rutan has already completely changed the paradigm - can you imagine what LockMart would charge for a new suborbital vehicle and how long it would take if it was developed at all? The X-33 example is front and center. Twenty million wouldn't even cover the lobbying costs much less the paperwork.
This is a case in which the gov't can do the most good by writing the check. getting out of the way and then contracting for launch services. Whenever large contractors are used cost effectiveness goes out the window. Doing things the same failed way and expecting a different result is either insane or idiotic depending on who you listen to.
Steve

[Karen Cramer Shea]

If anyone can make space travel cheap it is Jim Benson. I have know jim for longer than anyone in the space feild,I was the first person Jim met at a space conference. I have great faith in him, I am one of his stock holders. I think he is right to turn away from reusability since that seems to be a bit beyond our technology. Even Jim sometimes tries things beyond his reach, but he is a very clever fellow.

[Steve Mickler]

Jim and I exchanged emails a few years back and I must say I, too am very impressed. We shared enthusiasm for the idea of mining asteroids. I realized after looking at Spacedaily that I had confused t-space with Rutan and incorrectly assumed that the test article that Burt recently drop tested was his design. Apparently the intent is to use a Space-X upper stage rather than a hybrid. Maybe the higher Isp of the Space-X is the reason.
Steve