John Glenn is arguing for an extension of the Shuttle program. I don't really give a rip what he thinks, but a lot of people on the Hill (particularly on the Democrat side) will take him seriously. The problem is that it's not just a matter of coming up with more money. NASA has to do pad modifications at 39 A and B to accommodate the new vehicles, and they can't do that if they continue to fly Shuttle. I suspect that it will also start to get pretty crowded in the VAB if they're doing Ares and Shuttle simultaneously.
Sometimes, I think that the best thing that could happen to American space policy would be a Cat 5 hurricane hitting the Cape, and scraping it clean.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here's more from Robert Block at the Orlando Sentinel. Note the comment about there being no appetite on the Hill for a Shuttle extension.
[Update a few more minutes later]
Mark Whittington once again demonstrates his legendary prowess at reading miscomprehension. I agree with Jon (though I'm not going to vote for Bob Barr). As I said, probably the most effective (and perhaps necessary) step toward a revitalization of NASA would be a Cat 5 at the Cape. I don't think that anything less can shake the space industrial complex up sufficiently to get any kind of new thinking or direction.
"Sometimes, I think that the best thing that could happen to American space policy would be a Cat 5 hurricane hitting the Cape, and scraping it clean."
LoL. Not that it really has any effect on hurricanes but I'll feel vindicated, nonetheless. I'll make sure to do my part in assisting the burgeoning space industry by billowing tons and tons of sweet CO2 into the atmosphere.
"Mark Whittington once again demonstrates his legendary prowess at reading miscomprehension."
Really? How?
"Sometimes, I think that the best thing that could happen to American space policy would be a Cat 5 hurricane hitting the Cape, and scraping it clean."
One doubts that the thousands that would die in that event would agree with that sentiment.
One doubts that the thousands that would die in that event would agree with that sentiment.
No one would die in the event, unless they were foolish. Floridians know how to handle hurricanes.
Why trade Shuttle, a known quantity, for Ares?
In fact, how can they start to build the infrastructure for Ares if the design isn't finished and they keep changing something as basic as the dimensions of the vehicle? At best they can clear the rubble away.
NASA isn't the only government entity that would benefit from a Cat 5 hurricane (metaphorically speaking). The CIA and the Dept of Agriculture also come to mind.
"No one would die in the event, unless they were foolish. Floridians know how to handle hurricanes."
While I was being flippant about the death toll, I need to point out that your statement above is idiotic. The last cat 5 Hurricane to hit Florida was Andrew in 1992, which killed 69 people and caused 44 billion in damage, second only to Katrina.
John Glenn's testimony helps advocates for DIRECT, IMHO, given their assertion that the Jupiter 120 could loft crew by 2012 if the project started by late spring, early summer of 2009.
NASA isn't the only government entity that would benefit from a Cat 5 hurricane (metaphorically speaking). The CIA and the Dept of Agriculture also come to mind.
I'm not sure that the government entities would benefit, but the rest of us would. Anyway, in the case of NASA, it wouldn't be metaphorical--it would be literal. The VAB can't handle more than a Cat 2. It would probably instantaneously retire the Shuttle permanently.
Mark, your 69 dead is a far cry from the thousands you mentioned in your previous comment.
Mark, your 69 dead is a far cry from the thousands you mentioned in your previous comment.
And the new codes instituted since Andrew would likely make the toll of a future storm much lower.
Your point about the existing infrastructure suggests another advantage that private industry has over USG: depreciation. Once a private company has depreciated the value of a capital asset down to nothing, it's more likely to scrape it for something new, and then depreciate that. The USG, on the other hand, is less likely to spend several $billions to construct a new cape infrastructure than it is to spend yearly hundreds of $millions to tweak it.
John Glenn seems to have succumbed to some misconceptions about the VSE, such as that the proposed moon base would be used as a departure point for Mars rather than a learning ground for the techniques needed for future Mars missions. It seems like the only real support for the shuttle program now comes from politicians who like the associated economic goodies. Even the astronauts who fly it seem to support the shuttle mainly because it's been their ticket into space (ref: John Young, Mike Mullane, etc.) It's an inherently flawed system which costs too much to operate, and isn't as reliable as it should be.
The danger switching from the shuttle to a new system is that the new system could have flaws of its own, such as limited payload or high costs. We're seeing the warts on Ares now that development is progressing. For all the rhetoric surrounding DIRECT or EELVs, I suspect that a detailed assessment would reveal significant problems with them as well. As my boss puts it, make sure you properly appreciate the girl you're with, because you never know whether that attractive silhouette on the horizon is a prettier woman, or just some guy in a kilt. (I'm just going to apologize for that analogy in advance, but I think it's a fairly apt summary of a common problem in technology development.)
"Mark, your 69 dead is a far cry from the thousands you mentioned in your previous comment."
Rick, didn't I say I was being flip in the first case.
"And the new codes instituted since Andrew would likely make the toll of a future storm much lower"
Perhaps, rhough as late as 2004 Ivan, which made landfall in Alabama as a cat 4, still killed 14 in the Florida panhandle. Still a little higher than, "No one will die."
I had a caveat on the "no one will die." And fourteen is a lot closer to "no one" that it is to "thousands," which is what I was responding to. If you want to say after the fact that you were being "flip," OK, but it looked like the sort of foolish statement that you typically make to us.
Mark, the hypothetical death toll from a Cat 5 hurricane clearing away NASA's Florida assets is quite removed from the issue Rand raised - whether or not national space policy would be improved by a fresh start. Even your hypothetical victims (whether 16 or "thousands") might be able to admit that "Yeah, getting rid of the Shuttle and all of its associated infrastructure would result in a more modern, efficient national space program that takes today's realities into account."
Actually, I disagree with the OP. I think that the best thing for space exploration, and for the USA in general, would be something like the events in "Debt of Honor" by Tom Clancy. Clean up the cesspit that is American politics and start again. Of course, the benefit would depend on having somebody like Jack Ryan handy.
Before anyone responds negatively to that, I would also say the same of the Palace of Westminster; if Al Qaeda chooses that place for their first WMD target (which would probably take out Whitehall as well) the country would benefit immensely. Guy Fawkes had a point; so did Timothy McVeigh.
The inability to conduct pad modifications at 39A and 39B would make a good case for launch on EELV. Ares V isn't taking off any time soon anyway, if ever.
"Rick, didn't I say I was being flip in the first case."
Shut up, Shittington. Your cow-school bachelor's degree in history doesn't qualify you to comment on matters of space policy, science, or engineering. Moreover, your utter lack of basic reading comprehension skills and inability to frame even simple logical arguments brings even your claimed bachelor's degree into question. You lack any training or experience in what you're amateurishly "writing" about (and I use that word loosely), and are the laughingstock of every other commenter on every other space-related website. Grow a brain cell or two, work up some self-awareness and shame, and leave space to the experts, you ignorant rank amateur.
"Debt of Honor" is where I gave up on Clancy's fiction--sheesh, the way he contrived to make his Jack Ryan character POTUS still gives me a rash. I can still read his non-fiction stuff, though.
For all that, I would be interested to see the results of an opinion poll using Fletcher Christian's idea of demolishing the actual physical seats of our governments (with a condition of no loss of life, taken in the various English-speaking democracies.
I don't think democratic rule would be destroyed, just that if various Parliaments and Congresses had to concern themselves with getting their cushy offices rebuilt, they might leave the rest of us alone for a few months. Being left alone by them for just a few months would be so nice. Just for a few months, please.
Please excuse me now, I have to wipe these tears from my eyes.
The problem with any organization and all governments is that people are corrupt or corruptible and often lack the ability to reason. In an absolute sense we all lack that ability if you ask yourself, "do I also say exactly and completely what I mean?"
I've always appreciated Rand's precision in his use of language. I'm envious actually.
It always astounds me when someone can put forth an argument that is both wrong and biased with such ferver. How? I want to be on the side of the truth, whatever it is. I just can't understand why some people don't. I'm not talking about misunderstanding. I'm talking about people that change there positions only in cases where they've been caught. They have no shame. It just confuses me.
Engineering (in my mind) is where the product can be tested against the goals. If you can agree on the goals the rest is just, well... engineering. It doesn't have to be perfect (can't be) but it should be easily measured (relatively speaking) against the goals.
Jupiter (reuse of shuttle components) feels like a jobs retention program but with some good arguments. I keep thinking, if our goal is to get mass in space, the Saturn rockets (some not realized but planned) does a better job than anything else proposed AFAIKS.
I don't care if it's been there, done that. We can work on better concepts, but if the goal is what it is. Isn't building what we already know works the best way to accomplish that goal? Building Saturns doesn't mean the payload has to be the same either. This may sound like the same argument for the jupiter project, but I don't believe it is. Instead of F1's, perhaps they buy Merlin 1C's. Although 9 Merlins don't seam as powerful as 5 F1's?
Von Braun overbuilt the Saturns because he knew they would under estimate the final payload. It was a good decision that got us to the moon in 8 years. Let me shut up now.