Mike Griffin has kicked off a study to consider Shuttle extension for five years.
The problem, not mentioned by the article, is that this doesn't close the gap, unless Ares is abandoned. Shuttle and Ares use the same launch infrastructure, and as long as Shuttle flies, pads and crawler cannot be modified for it. Nor does it allow us to permanently crew the station without Soyuz.
The only real solution (assuming that we want to pay the high costs of continuing Shuttle) is to put a capsule on something else (e.g., Atlas, or Falcon 9 if it ever flies), soon. Maybe Orion, maybe Dragon, maybe something else, but it looks like the Stick is on life support. In fact, as "anonymous.space" says over at Space Politics, it's already dead. It's just that Griffin and others have been doing CPR on the body to keep the coroner from getting to it.
What a fiasco.
Already dead? Wow, that's truly bittersweet. So what now? EELV? Direct? Muddle on with the shuttle until the next disaster in 2019 and President Bobby Jindal gives a speech on going to the Moon again by 2050?
"History doesn't repeat, but it often echoes" is a phrase that seems to apply to every aspect of the human experience except for NASA. Here, history most certainly does repeat.
Rand,
> Shuttle and Ares use the same launch infrastructure
not precisely. Ares will use 39B and there is more than one MLP...
A fiasco indeed.
At this point, why not just dust off the Shuttle-C plans from the '80s and use the same launch infrastructure for both continued shuttle missions and for heavy lift cargo capability.
At this point, they're pretty much screwed. Budgets will be getting progressively tighter as the baby boom retires, and the short window of opportunity NASA had will have closed. Time to stick a fork in NASA, they're done.
At this point, they're pretty much screwed. Budgets will be getting progressively tighter as the baby boom retires, and the short window of opportunity NASA had will have closed. Time to stick a fork in NASA, they're done.
Not necessarily. The "Keep Space Expensive" architecture may be done, but NASA can still do great things, if it wants to.
There's an alternative to spending more money: spending the same (or even less) more efficiently. If the next Administrator decides to work with private enterprise, instead of competing with private enterprise, NASA could do far more than sending four astronauts to the Moon in a tin can.
Ares I (the Stick) was a rotting corpse on September 22, 2005, I'm surprised you guys couldn't smell that.
That they weren't putting a small capsule on the Delta IV Medium in February of 2003 should have been your first hint, and the president's speech a year later your 2nd.
Three hints and your out. Get a clue, people.
I've already designed my rocket, and it solves the shuttle problem, so I'm good.
To: NASA, SPACEX, or any body?
The requirement is simple as ABC; Build a capsule for 3-5 people and launch it into orbit on top of a rocket. This will meet the minimum ISS requirements. The moon can come later. NASA did it 40 years ago using low tech rockets and non-existing computer technology.
Why is it so difficult today? What is going on with NASA? Just set the objectives and let the engineers do their work.
Why so difficult today (asks 'xyz')?
Because doing something straightforwardly doesn't suit the Minimum Money Waste Requirement (MMWR), a parameter which NASA has carefully refined over the past 40 years.
The private sector would come in terribly below the MMWR.
That would be terribly dangerous!
From everything I've read and can consider reliable sources of information, "restarting" the shuttle (which is essentially what these folks are saying should happen to extend the lifetime of the Shuttle) is the worst of all possible worlds.
This is one thing I do lay at the feet of the Bush Administration, where there is a crying need for strong leadership on this issue and a decided vacuum in that area coming from the White House. It was Bush that came up with the concept of VSE, and besides a rather mediocre speech on the future of American manned spaceflight, he has said absolutely nothing about the topic. In all fairness to Mike Griffin, while he does lead NASA, he isn't the President of the United States, and Bush certainly isn't encouraging or giving any political capital to any sort of space policy... much to the loss of NASA.
Without strong political leadership and the financial backing to make it happen, U.S. space policy will continue to flounder. The financial backing will need to come from those who are making the budget, which includes both the White House and Congress. So far, all of this sentiment to extend the Shuttle comes from Congress, with all 535 different opinions that come from that political body as well. In other words, there is no leadership on this topic.
Bush seems to be acting like a lame-duck president, and is abdicating this leadership role to whomever will end up taking over the White House in January. Neither McCain nor Obama look encouraging in terms of providing leadership as well on this issue. Even for next year, I don't see any major improvement on this issue, and that is unfortunate. JFK and LBJ at least had a real vision for NASA and what it could do, and spent their political capital to make it happen.
Not necessarily. The "Keep Space Expensive" architecture may be done, but NASA can still do great things, if it wants to.
No, I don't think NASA is capable of doing great things in this area. They had their chance, and demonstrated that, collectively, they are no longer capable of doing it. Organizational integrity has been lost.
To the extent NASA has done great things recently, its because pockets of integrity remain. But this effort would be too large for mere pockets to be allowed to do it.
>> At this point, they're pretty much screwed. Budgets will be
>> getting progressively tighter as the baby boom retires, and
>> the short window of opportunity NASA had will have closed. Time
>> to stick a fork in NASA, they're done.
>Edward Wright wrote:
> Not necessarily. The "Keep Space Expensive"
> architecture may be done, but NASA can still
> do great things, if it wants to.
> There's an alternative to spending more money:
> spending the same (or even less) more efficiently. ==
Its certainly possible to do all NASA missions and far more with a smaller budget, but its is the expense, not the missions that sell NASA to local voters and Washington. Thats why Griffen worked so hard with Aries and Orion to keep the costs up. To quote him "to maximize retention of the shuttle team." RTefit shuttles to improve safty and efficency, or design a new low cost RLV design and you could cut costs to orbit by orders of magnitude. Whichy is why such proposals have always been rejected in Washington.
If Washington can't afford (or really doesn't need) NASA waste, they really don't see a need for NASA.
When I saw the schematic for the system that counteracts the vibration issues I thought. "Wow, this this is turning into a real life POGO stick".
But we need NASA to inspire the next generation of engineers and mathematicians. Otherwise, children's all around the world will just want to become MTV reality stars or NBA baller or Tupac rapster. I mean, could you even imagine a world like that? That god NASA is still around.