Not Unsafe, but Not Safe---Dyer /ASAP killed Shuttle based on false premise!!

? Read these about Shuttle, US WASTES BILLIONS–PUTS SHUTTLE IN MUSEUMPEOPLE, WAKE UP, SAVE Shuttle, CAN’T leave in Museum ? CAIB– Though it is not unsafe, it’s not safe, needs more studies–Shuttle in museum based on this stupidity–Disgusting Posted on January 17, 2012 by Bob Americans, are you going to put up with this ignorance and arrogance? The Shuttle is the greatest vehicle the USA has ever constructed. It should be used and improved. We are loosing this capability, throwing away 100?s of billions, disbanding this large workforce, placing orbital assets in jeopardy and the new designs (years/ decades away) are not as capable as the shuttle–not even close. Does this reveal anything about Adm/NASA? ? Shuttle “Not Unsafe” but not Safe” ?? Posted on December 29, 2011 by Bob Americans, we have shut down this shuttle program based on this kind of thinking. We need an emergency session of the House and Senate space committees to reassess this situation . We are in a crisis situation, if any of you know anyone with influence, please get them to help. Please get this to all your Congressmen and senators.  This ought to awaken all of you to the gross mismanagement of the space program by the adm and NASA. Read this,           it is not unsafe, but not safe, needs more studies. We believe it would be unwise.  DOD aircraft extensions have not turned out well. The shuttle is risky and becoming more so.  More risk than folks should shoulder. We don’t think there is full transparency to that risk. These people adm Dyrer and Gehman have essentially put a Safe multi- billion program in the TRASH, based on their emotions. Gehman–to be safe we should fly as few missions as possible before retirement.   John Shannon , SPM states that Dryer utterances are disturbing based on the recent (flights from Columbia to present) have been very clean. Shannon comments below— . ASAP—-comments “The ASAP does not, I’ll emphasize that, does not support extending the shuttle beyond its current manifest,” noted Admiral Dyer in his opening remarks to the House hearing to discuss the initial findings of the Augustine Review into the forward path for Human Space Flight. That comment was specific to safety, as cited in the Admiral’s opening statement, which gained the opening question from Mr Bart Gordon, a Democrat representative from Tennessee – who chaired the hearing. “In your comments, you made a very definitive statement concerning no extension of the shuttle,” Mr Gordon asked. “Now is that period, or is that or is that in context to 2020 (likely 2015), and would you extend it if it was recertified, or if there was a mission – or two missions – that came up in the next short period that seemed to be very important? Is there still a period where you wouldn’t go one more?” “Three quick comments: The thing that scares us the most is that kind of serial extension,” responded Admiral Dyer. “Point number 2: We take this position because we think the risk is more than what we should ask folks to shoulder – and we don’t think there is full transparency to that risk. “Thirdly, the time to extend the shuttle in the panel’s opinion was several years ago when the supply chain was still intact and when there was an opportunity to go forward with a (inaudible) program. A number of folks, who participated on the (ASAP) panel, have lived through an extension of number of Department of Defense aircraft programs after they were supposed to terminate. It is never a good experience. “I will also offer one other caution. Could you, with significant money and with recertification, extend the shuttle? Yes. The money would be impressive, it would have to go well through the supply chain, and the risk of finding things that demand even more resources during recertification is a real risk.” With the heavy tone on the risk, and with six shuttle missions still to be launched, Mr Gordon asked if NASA should be looking at one less flight – if the risk was as bad as the ASAP was portraying. That led to an astonishing claim from Admiral Dyer. “We say in the military world that the operational commander always has the authority to proceed in the face of absolute requirements – and it would be an equivalent position in the opinion of the panel. The shuttle is risky, it is becoming more so, and extension beyond what is planned through the current manifest we believe would be unwise.” Regarding Hubble repair (sts125, 2009) Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., was not happy with the decision. Last spring she asked the head of the CAIB, retired Navy Adm. Hal Gehman, to review the decision and address the issue of shuttle safety. He responded on March 5. Reviewing the actual risk posed during a shuttle mission, Gehman said, for now, and in the foreseeable future, by far most of the risk in space flight is the launch, ascent, entry and landing phases. So, he said, to be safe, NASA should launch the shuttle as few times as possible before it is retired. Though he said it was not unsafe, he also said it was not safe, either, and he called for more studies. John Shannon SPM comments “There were some disturbing remarks from the head of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). We are working to understand these concerns from a Shuttle risk standpoint,” Mr Shannon noted. “We are flying safer now, and have a better safety culture and integrated team approach with many checks and balances to ensure that we are flying as safely as absolutely possible.” Mr Shannon also cited the recent Flight Readiness Review (FRR) and Mission Management Team (MMT) decisions not to launch a mission until they were absolutely sure the shuttle was safe to carry it out. These decisions are well documented, from the continuous External Tank foam modifications from STS-114 onwards, to the Engine Cut Off (ECO) sensor/LH2 Feedthrough connector issues surrounding STS-122, to the extensive Flow Control Valve (FCV) discussions, to the GUCP (Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate) misalignment, and right through to STS-128?s LH2 Fill and Drain Valve indications – to name but a few. Also, as noted by Mr Shannon as safety culture, internal memos have shown major efforts to welcome dissent from throughout the shuttle engineering team, even when such dissent was proven to be unfounded. A “no stone left unturned” attitude was how one source described the current culture to this site. Each time a problem has been noted, it has been proven that managers have stepped back, listened to the engineering community, before making absolutely sure they both understand the problem and are in a comfortable position to launch. “We have demonstrated over the last several flows that when we are not ready to fly, we stop and take the necessary time to understand the situation before we proceed,” added Mr Shannon, who added he wasn’t even sure if Admiral Dyer was speaking of the current program, given how alien his representations were to the reality of the program since Columbia. “(I am) extremely proud of how the team has worked through recent problems. (I am) not sure if the concerns of the ASAP chairman were echoes of the past, but they do not accurately reflect the current environment. We will work to understand these comments and to be sure that we have not forgotten anything.” The reality of the actual risk – a risk that is obvious and never underestimated throughout manned space flight – was shown in the extension study report that NASA filed with the White House back in May of this year. Those findings revealed a 98.7 percent probability of safely executing each flight, which painted a very different picture when compared to Mr Griffin’s alarming 1 in 8 chance of a disaster. “The latest Space Shuttle probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) indicates that the single mission risk for loss of crew and vehicle (LOCV) is 1 in 77; stated another way, there is a 98.7 percent probability of safely executing each flight,” noted the NASA study into extending the shuttle past 2010 (available on L2). Interestingly, that study based its figures on the SSP since 1987. Had the study was based on post Return To Flight findings, it would be highly likely resulted in a risk ratio would be significantly lower – simply due to the flight history since the loss of Columbia, and the numerous modifications made since the fleet returned to action with STS-114. However, even based on the conservative study findings, the risk is not deemed to a ratio that would increase, which directly counters the Admiral’s claims. “The average risk of LOCV has remained fairly consistent over that time. This risk is predicted to remain consistent over the remaining life of the program. The primary drivers for LOCV are, in order of the magnitude of their contribution to the overall risk: micro-meteoroid/orbital debris (MMOD), ascent debris, and Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) malfunctions. “In addition, NASA will continue to evolve its PRA tools to address anomalies encountered during flight operations. By monitoring anomaly trends across different categories (for example, by whether an anomaly is due to design issues, age, operations or procedurally-induced effects, or unknown or random phenomena), NASA gains both near-term insights into Space Shuttle performance opportunities for potential safety improvements during ongoing operations as well as longer-term benefit in applying experience-based risk models to future programs like Constellation. “NASA’s safety and mission assurance strategy emphasizes the need for rigorous program and independent safety reviews, as well as continual safety improvements throughout a program’s life cycle. Improvements to both processes and hardware are made for each Space Shuttle flight, and NASA will continue to invest in prudent safety enhancements through the last mission.” The latest SSP Top Risks Review presentation on L2 shows the vehicle is becoming safer, with the latest ratio updated to 1 in 81 LOV/C, from the previous 1 in 77.  The SSP also earned praise at the preceding meeting with the Senate side of Hearing from both the politicians in attendance and Mr Norm Augustine himself – who spoke of his “astonishment” at the morale and professionalism of the program’s workforce. Such comments are a good reflection of the highly respected SSP team. However, the continued uncertainty surrounding the future of both the Shuttle Program and NASA itself is understandably starting to pay a toll, as the program is forced to press ahead of a cull of its workforce based on the current plan to end the program after STS-133. This entry was posted in Space news. Bookmark the permalink. Edit ? Read these about Shuttle, US WASTES BILLIONS–PUTS SHUTTLE IN MUSEUMPEOPLE, WAKE UP, SAVE Shuttle, CAN’T leave in Museum ? Latest Space-Related News @TeamRickPerry please support a shuttle restart in reply to TeamRickPerry2011-12-28 @teamrickperry return shuttle to flight.http://t.co/tVjOMNDh 2011-12-26 @CGasparino Do you believe shuttle retirement was wise considering use of Soyus to support ISS? in reply to CGasparino 2011-12-08 More updates… Let Congress Know Your Opinion Please provide your full address so we can locate your Senators and Represenative. Street Address City State Zip Code Recent Posts Obama, End of Space Shuttle Program What shuttle meant to me—-Restart Shuttle–Americans can do it! Shuttle could fly till 2050 says Boeing official—IT IS IN A MUSEUM China and the Moon Solar Storm Recent Comments Louis Vuitton Damier Geant Canvas Loup Noir M93079 Australia on National Security/NASA/China’s Space Plans Bob on Different approaches to access to space–discussion BUBBLE SHOOTER 2 onDifferent approaches to access to space–discussion bubble shooter 2 on Safety gone berserk–shuttle safe–return it to flight payday loans on National Security/NASA/China’s Space Plans Categories Space news Space-related Ghostnasa home page Keeptheshuttleflying blog NASA’s Homepage Redorbit homepage Sciguy Spaceflightnow home page The Case to Save the Shuttle The Coalition to save manned space exploration Thespacereview homepage Meta Site Admin Log out Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org Sent from my iPad

Eliminating our space capability JUST Plain Dumb---Guess Romney Afraid to Speak out!!!

Abandoning USA Space Capability to others will Eliminate our Capability to Defend Ourselves Credit: americasuncommonsense.com 7. SPACE POLICY AND THE CONSTITUTION #1 Harrison Schmitt Former Senator Schmitt Finds New Space Policy Cedes Moon to China, Space Station to Russia, and Liberty to the Ages The Administration announced a new Space Policy in 2010, after a year of morale bending clouds of uncertainty. The lengthy delay, the abandonment of human exploration, and the wimpy overall thrust of the policy indicates that the Administration does not understand, or want to acknowledge, the essential role space plays in the future of the United States and of liberty. Antagonism against America’s demonstration of predominance in space continues. Expenditures of taxpayer provided funds on space related activities find constitutional justification in Article I’s power and obligation to “provide for the Common Defence.” This power relates directly to the geopolitical importance of space exploration at this frontier of human endeavor. A vibrant space program sets the modern geopolitical tone for the United States to engage friends and adversaries in the world as well as building wealth, economic vitality, and educational momentum through technology and discovery. For example, in the 1980s, the leadership of the former Soviet Union believed America would be successful in creating a missile defense system because we succeeded in landing on the Moon and they had not. Dominance in space clearly constituted a major factor leading to the end of the Cold War. With a new Cold War looming before us, involving the global ambitions and geopolitical challenge of the national socialist regime in China, President George W. Bush attempted to put America back on a course to maintain space dominance. What became the Constellation Program comprised his 2002 vision of returning Americans and their partners to deep space by putting astronauts back on the Moon, going on to Mars, and ultimately venturing beyond. Unfortunately, like all Presidents since Eisenhower and Kennedy, the Bush Administration lost perspective about space. Inadequate budgeting and lack of Congressional leadership and funding during Constellation’s most important formative years undercut Administrator Michael Griffin’s effort to fully implement the Program beginning in 2004. Delays due to this period of under-funding have rippled through national space capability until we must retire the Space Shuttle in 2011 without a replacement to access to space. Now, we must pay at least $63 million per seat for the Russians to ferry Americans and others to the International Space Station. How the mighty have fallen. Not only did Constellation never receive the Administration’s promised funding, but the Bush Administration and Congress required NASA (1) to continue the construction of the International Space Station (badly under-budgeted by NASA Administrator O’Keefe, the OMB, and ultimately by the Congress), (2) to accommodate numerous major over-runs in the science programs (largely protected from major revision or cancellation by narrow Congressional interests), (3) to manage without hire and fire authority (particularly devastating to the essential hiring of young engineers), and (4) to assimilate, through added delays, the redirection and inflation-related costs of several Continuing Resolutions. Instead of fixing this situation, the current Administration did not retain Administrator Griffin, the best engineering Administrator in NASA’s history, and now has cancelled Constellation. As a consequence, long-term access of American astronauts to space rests on the improbable success of an untested plan for the “commercial” space launch sector to meet the increasingly risk adverse demands of space flight. Histories of nations tell us that an aggressive program to return Americans permanently to deep space must form an essential component of national policy. Americans would find it unacceptable, as well as devastating to human liberty, if we abandon leadership in deep space to China, Europe, or any other nation or group of nations. Potentially equally devastating to billions of people would be loss of free nations’ access to the energy resources of the Moon as fossil fuels diminish on Earth. In that harsh light of history, it is frightening to contemplate the long-term, totally adverse consequences to the standing of the United States in modern civilization if the current Administration’s decision to abandon deep space holds for any length of time. Even its commitment to maintain the International Space Station using commercial launch assets constitutes a dead-end for Americans in space. At some point, now set at the end of this decade, the Station would be abandoned to the Russians or just destroyed. What, then, should be the focus of national space policy in order to maintain leadership in deep space? Some propose that we concentrate only on Mars. Without the experience of returning to the Moon, however, we will not have the engineering, operational, or physiological insight for many decades to either fly to Mars or land there. The President suggests going to an asteroid. As important as asteroid diversion from collision with the Earth someday may be, just going there hardly stimulates scientific discovery anything like a permanent American settlement on the Moon! Other means exist, robots and meteorites, for example, to obtain most or all of the scientific value from a human mission to an asteroid. In any event, returning to the Moon inherently creates capabilities for reaching asteroids to study or divert them, as the case may be. Returning to the Moon and to deep space constitutes the right and continuing space policy choice for the Congress of the United States. It compares in significance to Jefferson’s dispatch of Lewis and Clark to explore the Louisiana Purchase. The lasting significance of Jefferson’s decision to American growth and survival cannot be questioned. Human exploration of space embodies the same basic instincts— the exercise of freedom, betterment of one’s conditions, and curiosity about nature. Such instincts lie at the very core of America’s unique and special society of immigrants. Over the last 150,000 years or more, human exploration of Earth has yielded new homes, livelihoods, know how, and resources as well as improved standards of living and increased family security. Government has directly and indirectly played a role in encouraging exploration efforts. Private groups and individuals take additional initiatives to explore newly discovered or newly accessible lands and seas. Based on their specific historical experience, Americans can expect that benefits comparable to those sought and won in the past also will flow from their return to the Moon, future exploration of Mars, and the long reach beyond. To realize such benefits, however, Americans must continue as the leader of human activities in space. No one else will hand them to us without requiring a huge economic or political price. With a permanent resumption of the exploration of deep space, one thing is certain: our efforts will be as significant as those of our ancestors as they migrated out of Africa and into a global habitat. Further, a permanent human presence away from Earth provides another opportunity for the expansion of free institutions, with all their attendant rewards, as humans face new situations and new individual and societal challenges. Returning to the Moon first and as soon as possible meets the requirements for an American space policy that maintains deep space leadership, as well as providing major new scientific returns. Properly conceived and implemented, returning to the Moon prepares the way to go to and land on Mars. This also can provide an infrastructure for space exploration in which freedom-loving peoples throughout the world can participate as active partners. Again, if we abandon leadership in deep space to the any other nation or group of nations, particularly a non-democratic regime, the ability for the United States and its allies to protect themselves and liberty for the world will be at great risk and potentially impossible. To others would accrue the benefits—psychological, political, economic, and scientific—that the United States harvested as a consequence of Apollo’s success 40 years ago. This lesson has not been lost on our ideological and economic competitors. American leadership absent from space? Is this the future we wish for our progeny? I think not. Again, future elections offer the way to get back on the right track. Tags: American Space Policy, Article I, Common Defence, Jack Schmitt, Moon Landing, National Security, Obama Administration, Space Program This entry was posted on Monday, February 1st, 2010 at 9:32 pmand is filed under 1. new policy failures, SCIENCE & ENGINEERING, Space Policy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Posted by keeptheshuttleflying.com at 9:24 AM Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook

Automated Shuttle

powered by Automated Shuttle--Space Transportation for 21st Century The Space Transportation Plan for the 21st Century Commercial Space Shuttle and Space Based Fleet “To get somewhere... we have to know where we’re going!” NASA MUST HAVE A FEASIBLE AND REALISTIC LONG RANGE SPACE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. WITHOUT “THIS” PLAN THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO STAGNATE! ·        REDUCE THE COST OF LAUNCH OPERATIONS BY DEVELOPING A COMMERCIAL SPACE SHUTTLE FLEET (See: Commercial Space Shuttle Revival and Privatization). ·        REDUCE COST OF NEAR EARTH/DEEP SPACE TRANSPORTATION BY DEVELOPING A SPACE BASED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM(S) DESIGNED TO SUPPORT ROBOTIC, HUMAN, MILITARY, AND COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND TO BE OPERATED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR (See: Space Based Transportation Plan). ·        RESTRUCTURE NASA AS AN AGENCY FOR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND SCIENCE EXPORATION. It is mandatory that this nation’s 21st century space transportation system reduce launch operations costs. The two keys factors for reducing launch cost operations is the removal of NASA (government operations) from the control of space flight operations and introducing reusable vehicles for launch, near earth, and deep space transportation. This space transportation plan is an evolutionary process for establishing reusable launch and space based vehicles. In the near term existing expendable space transportation vehicles would supplement space transportation requirements. This is the only viable concept that can provide a feasible and realistic launch system in the foreseeable future. Its development is a mandatory requirement to provide a safe human transportation system. Key to this plan is the long range roadmap that provides direction to NASA and the aerospace community. The development schedule will accelerate or decrease as the needs for exploration requirements dictate. Unlike the SLS/MPCV, the CSS provides a stair step approach outlining the strategic plan for four decades. To get somewhere…we’ve got to know where we’re going.” The funding available may cause the schedule to vary, but the direction is clear. Commercial Space Shuttle Revival and Privatization There has been an extensive undertaking to reduce the cost of expendable launch vehicles but their launch costs are still too high. There has NEVER been any determined effort to reduce the cost of space shuttle operations. It is not too late to revive the space shuttle fleet. The shuttle orbiter airframes Atlantis at KSC and Discovery at the Smithsonian can be retrofitted to commercial configuration until new orbiters can be built.   Competitive Commercial Space Shuttle (CSS) launch cost can be achieved by: ·        Use the existing Orbiter airframes and install modular quick replaceable subsystems. ·        Removing onboard piloting functions to allow unmanned mission operations. ·        Removing all civil service launch operations support. ·        Consolidation of launch and mission operations at the launch site. ·        Automation of ground and flight operations. ·        Shuttle assembly at launch pad. ·        Eliminates cost plus fixed price contracts. ·        Establishing international launch operation cooperation.   Reducing commercial space shuttle launch cost is not a technical challenge…it is a political challenge.   The following chart shows the breakdown where significant cost reductions can be achieved by privatization of the space shuttle operations: As indicated above the two remaining CSS high cost systems are the solid rocket motors (SRM) and the external tank (EXT TK). Removing thrust nozzle gimbaling would significantly lower SRM cost and removing titanium from the external tank would also lower launch cost.   What is the Commercial Space Shuttle (CSS)? The CSS uses the orbiter airframe, external tank, and SRM boosters. The orbiter is updated with subsystem components that are quickly replaceable modules to reduce vehicle turnaround time. Computer software and hardware is upgraded and the vehicle is operation without inflight piloting requirements. Crews will be flown only on missions requiring their support for onboard payloads or to be transferred to space based vehicles. On crewed missions the crew escape pods will be installed. The entry thermal protection system will have on orbit repair capability and advanced X-37 program improved tiles. Pad assembly of the space shuttle will also reduce operations cost and turnaround time. Rapid turn-around is a unique CSS feature and which supports the military requirement and provide the capability of timely intercepts of asteroids/comets that may impact earth. Commercial Launch Market for CSS The predicted average commercial medium to heavy launches for the next ten years is 11 per year. The CSS has the potential to capture a majority of these launches by offering the unique capability of satellite on-orbit checkout before release and returning faulty satellites for repair. Once the space tug is operational satellites can be serviced on-orbit or retrieve. The CSS can offer tourist flights to reduce cost of cargo delivery. 

The retirement of the shuttle is a national tragedy . Why foxnew won't cover the Caseto Save the shuttle is a shame. Also true for Boortz , Limbaugh , Hannity , Kelley, etc.