Slashdot Mirror
US Urged To Keep Space Shuttles Flying Past 2010
DarkNemesis618 writes "A US Representative has proposed that NASA keep the shuttle fleet flying past its planned 2010 retirement date. The move would help NASA avoid reliance on Russian rockets during the gap between the Space Shuttle retirement and the start of the Orion program. One proposal would keep the shuttle fleet flying from 2010 to 2013 while another would keep the fleet alive until the Orion program is ready in about 2015. 2011 marks the end of the exemption that has allowed NASA to use Soyuz rockets for trips to the Space Station, and they would need an extension to keep using Russian launch vehicles. NASA's other option lies in the private sector; but thus far, the progress from that quarter does not look sufficient to meet the 2011 deadline."
It's been 60 years since Sputnik took off. You'd think the "who's got the biggest cock" race would be over by now. The current shuttles are getting a bit old now and the most recent problems/accidents/tragedies indicated the very same thing. Maybe Russian rockets is the safest route for now?
Full Tilt
TFA seems to suggest extending the STS life while also cutting costs. This sounds like a recipe for disaster.
I know that strapping yourself to a rocket and heading for space is never safe but it would be better not to make it more dangerous. At the same time, I can see that extending the life by 6 months or so would help alleviate the current pressures on the STS for the station-construction mission (but that's not what the article discusses)
I presume the reasoning for not wanting to rely on the Russian crew launch system is that any souring of the American-Russian relationship could make the deal problematic. How about if it were via ESA and the forthcoming Soyuz operation at French-Guiana? Would this side-step some of the possible relationship issues?
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
The spend is justified simply because (and a certain well known physicist will back me up) if we do not learn to leave this rock we, as a race, will ultimately perish here.
I'm not sure that the STS as it was finally created could ever be called a 'responsible' use of resources but right now, it's the only manned launcher the USA has so they've got to work with it until Orion becomes available.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Now they can launch that telescope thingie that was going to be left to wither because all the remaining flights have been scheduled for finishing the ISS -- and with delays, they still won't be done by 2013 anyhow.
;-)
Hey NASA can go waste all the billions they want, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to wars which suck up a lot more money and produce even less useful results than NASA.
It's too bad the privatized companies (Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, SpaceX, Armadillo) can't ramp up development to meet the need. Oddly enough, *their* space race will produce the only results that will actually lower the cost per pound to orbit.
It's too bad we're all so scared of failure these days. Consider that during the development of aircraft, a lot of people died. A lot of people died just trying to cross the Atlantic. We didn't halt aircraft development every time some lunatic in a biplane was lost in a storm. But for some reason, we're afraid to blow up the occasional person to get into space. We need to get over that. A lot of people are going to die before we're able to easily leave the planet as easily as we currently visit another continent. That's just a reality and no amount of double checking is going to change that.
Well, for test flights anyhow, we could always use that Humanoid Robot (REEM-B) some guy spent three *whole* years developing!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Is it that hard to imagine why senators want US dollars to be spent in their home states instead of going to Russia?
My guess is that this is a national economy thing and has nothing to do with flight-worthiness or risk analysis.
Break the sound barrier - bring the noise.
Moreover, the money spent NASA isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the defense budget
Overall, the commercial benefit to space travel is the amount of money NASA can save, companies that need satellites can save, and private space tours can make off of 60th birthday presents. The private sector will hopefully produce streamlined, easily-manufacturable rockets and shuttles that will save everyone involved a lot of money and time. Hopefully this doesn't turn out like the arms business, where private companies profit off the hardware while taxpayers foot the R&D.
That is a debate that has gone on for too long. Of course space benefits commercial. Think of the money to be made in mining ore from other planets. That is thinking in long term though. Short term it is merely for trucking millionaires into space. Mid term it could mean big money for resort owners to be the first one to rent condominiums in space or even the moon. There are a lot of people who would line up for such things. Probably not practical minded people though.
NASA is like any other government organization. They are monitored closer than private companies. Profit can get in the way of science. Due to being always in the public eye they tend to be picked on. They have there successes and their failures. Their main purpose is extend our knowledge of a vast unknown. This sometimes includes Planet Earth. There is a lot of articles on this good and bad. But the main thing is that they are indeed a key investment for our future. I am not in a position to prioritize it above other expenditures. It certainly should be a high priority.
"For comparison, NASA's FY 2008 budget of $17.3 billion represents about 0.6% of the $2.9 trillion United States federal budget." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
0.6% of the federal budget is not a lot of resources to be devoting to the promise of space travel, especially considering the possible rewards.
As for commercial benefits, there are some (and there are other, non-commercial benefits), but why does a government agency have to do things that have commercial benefits? Won't, you know, companies do that? Government agencies can do research that my have no other benefit than to simply increase our understanding of the universe, or do research that isn't profitable but still useful.
As long as they didn't use them (or have to use them) for everything, they could maintain them at a slower pace and lower cost, and keep them flying for a long time.
Consider the B-52. It's been flying for over 50 years. It's not expected to perform all air tasks -- there are other planes for specialized work. Thus, the Buff doesn't get worn out because it's able to be kept up. There are more advanced planes flying. But the Buff is still flying too.
The shuttle could be kept flying for 50 years as long as there were suitable alternatives for certain missions.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
The obvious solution to this problem would be to construct pad LC-39C as an Ares platform.
LC-39C was originally projected as a third Saturn V pad in a line north of LC-39B but was never constructed although a stub of it's intended crawler-way points towards the north from the dog-leg in the LC-39B crawler-way. There were actually a total of three unbuilt platforms to the north as part of an 'Advanced Saturn' program but the other two look like they'd need significant land reclamation.
The existing crawler-transporters should be sufficient to handle both the STS and Ares I as NASA is building brand-new MLPs for the Ares system.
Compared to the total cost of the Ares/Orion system, a new LC-39 pad would like like a bargain.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
This questions is invalid.
:-) thus far). For atheists that's clear, but also religion teaches that what you do in life is YOUR choice, god doesn't tell you. (It does say you get judged afterwards but more about HOW and not WHAT you did). So if I decide my purpose is to get to Mars then that's it. If I kill people to get what I want I leave human values behind. If I can convince enough people (with enough resources) to help me (or if they want it themselves anyway) there is no use asking the question "why". Because I want it.
;-)
It comes down to asking "what is the commercial benefit of live"?
This conversation happened and says it all:
Q: Why did you climb that mountain?
A: Because it is there.
What do you live for? What is "the economy" for? No economist would ask such a question. Because the ENDS of the economy are not subject of that science, only how to best achieve it. What those ends are, what people values in life, is NOT a subject of economic debate - at least not as real economists are concerned (sure there are those who want to impose their values on you but that is their personal issue and not subject of the science called "economics").
It comes down to this: If there are enough people with enough power to get their will then whatever it is they want it gets done. Period. That's how everything works. Democracy too. Only distribution of power is different in different societies.
So, if you don't want that anyone goes to space, convince them or become powerful enough to prevent it. But don't ask for the purpose - there is none. Each person has to decide for themselves what they want from/in life. That is true whether you're an atheist or a devoted catholic (I'm an atheist who ended up on two catholic pilgrimages
Imagine an intelligence waaaaay beyond human capabilities. Of what use is it? It's a great computer, not more! Without feelings, desires, there is NOTHING to drive it towards some end. There is no logical reason to do ANYTHING. You can ALWAYS ask "why", endlessly! At some point you have to decide you don't give a d..., or you never have a reason to act, ever. That's also why very intelligent people, with IQs far above average, are NOT the most successful ones in life. Sure, *some* intelligence sure helps, but at some point it gets much more important to feel the inner DRIVE to live and so things, and NOT ask questions "why"! That's (the main reason) why a dyslexic Richard Branson is a multi-Billionaire and 180+ IQ writer Stanislaw Lem (one of my favorites) only wrote lots of very thoughtful and philosophic books, with an increasing air of skepticism and melancholy.
So maybe you are too intelligent if you keep asking "why"
I heard a series of talks from a former nasa engineer-y-type, far from comparing nasa's budget to the defence budget, he pointed out that the annual budget for nasa is less than the annual budget for clearing up the national parks after each summer's round of camps.
Politics too often trumps science and common sense. Here's a congressman who wants a lucrative deal in his district, that's the story.
I like how the congressman describes it as an "arbitrary" date for decomissioning and that the risks won't increase overnight. I say send a congressman up on every mission after the shuttle's sell by date.
They probably can be used effectively for many years, but that doesn't mean that they should. Every bit of extra maintenance and upkeep performed on an old system, every bit of extra testing to make sure parts still function and every investigation into a failure will slow the space program and new developments. This is pork politics no matter how it's dressed up.
Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
I'd forgotten that the assembly platforms within the VAB are tailored to the STS.
It'd be interesting to know how NASA intends to work this as the crew-launching Ares I is a long, thin stick whereas the Ares V is an ostensibly shuttle-shaped two boosters and a central LH2/LOX tank.
The only thing I can think of is that they might crane platform-inserts into position when servicing an Ares I and then use the existing Shuttle platforms when servicing an Ares V.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
So nursing the SS program along to do MAYBE 1 or 2 launches a year is a waste of effort. All it does is stall the inevitable. Whether it's 2011, 2013 or 2015 manned spaceflight in the USA will be over. The Vulcans aren't coming to Montana, sorry.
Whatever happened to the Phoenix? VTOL, SSTO, and a dollar-per-kilo payload to orbit cost a mere fraction of either the shuttle, the Soyuz, or the Orion.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
[snip]
So maybe you are too intelligent if you keep asking "why"
Deleted
Here's just a few money-making ventures available to an orbital station:
These are just a few off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Moonbase. That's no moonbase. It's a cheese mining facility. Chewie, turn this ship around. I'm lactose intolerant.
Theres only 1 planet of resources here. Look at how we explored Earth as an example. Think of the commercial benefit of discovering other land in the 1500 - 1800.
Well, it means you can go space-shopping with all your space-buddies.
Seriously though... since when has space been about (immediate) commercial benefit? Some of us are still interested in the science way more. That science will (and does) lead to commercial benefits.
4 years to deliver a space shuttle replacement, yeah lets bet on that option. If NASA and our government were serious they would have offered some sort of financial assistance, say dollar for dollar matching on R&D or startup capital. I mean, just sitting around 'hoping' for the private sector to bail out your space agency does not seem like a very good plan. All of this worrying, aka planning, should have been done a long time ago.
This is just pure politics and has nothing with space travel to do at all. The most sane thing would be to work with the russians that already have a very good launch vehicle that doesnt go kaboom! every other flight. Atleast until a viable alternative can be made avaliable. Lets face it, the space shuttle won because it looked like a spaceship, not because of its superior advantages to rockets. Heck, most fuel goes up in lifting the dead duck up that could have been better spent on payload.
HTTP/1.1 400
I think that some of the question is, sure, it's used for science and development. But, even for science and development, there are ways to calculate cost effectivness.
Some would ask, what would happen if we took half that and invested it in green energy, such as wind, solar, nuclear, and oil replacement technologies such as cellulostic ethanol?
I personally think that we can and should do both. Arguements will always exist for prioritization.
But then I think that we should of had a replacement for the shuttle long ago. For stuff like that your goal should be to always have a replacement available - IE by the time they can't build new shuttles, they should be able to build the replacement for the shuttle.
I don't read AC A human right
My guess is the answer is supposed to come down to:
"Because I am the government, and I decide what is best for the people"
I suppose historically this would have come down to:
"Because I am the king (i.e. I am better at fighting than you, or my Ancesters were and therefore I command the loyalty of others who are better at fighting than you are)"
These days I suppose the real situation is:
"Because I've decided to make a living out of playing the power/politics game and this is a piece on my chess board; if you want to join the game and fight me for power go right ahead"
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
If he was serious, then he would say that the shuttle should continue flying until a replacement is working and in place. That could be oriion, but it is far more likely to be COTs. The reason why he said until Orion is that it is expected to need close to the same amount of ppl as the shuttle (4K+ at Kennedy). OTH, Falcon will have no more than 100 ppl at kennedy, and 50 is likely closer around 2010. In addition, virgin is expected to come on-line around 2011 with their LEO space system, with less than 50. And finally, we have the 2'nd COTs entry. It will most likely be one that is close. I am guessing that it will spacedev (using ULA's launcher, they have an engine for the back, just need the craft, which they are looking to use the H-20 design). Spacedev would possibly be ready by 2010.
But it would make sense to continue flying the shuttle until one of the alternative systems is in place. As soon, as it is in place, the NASA shuttle ppl should be wound down. Quickly. But this pub is simply up to the same tricks as those from 200X; run up a moster deficit.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yikes, considering how often my old classic LandRover breaks down, I would not want to fly an old classic Space Shuttle.
Yeah, I know. I cannot compare a rusty old relic with a well maintained shining example of top NASA technology, but even so, hats off to the people brave enough to fly into space in something designed in the early 70s. In real terms is probably not that different to people who fly Sopwith Camels for the hell of it - just more spectacular and better publicized when it goes wrong.
Too much money involved to not get the attention of some politicians. In terms of "do-ability", the real question is how the shuttle managers will get around the lack of spares/supplies that have been minimized and/or completely shut down in preperation for the retirement date.
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
That's the problem, the resources are NOT significant! The US spends nearly as much in one DAY on Iraq as they do one YEAR on NASA. The 2007 calendar year budget for NASA amounted to 0.6% of the $2.9 trillion dollar budget. It is small wonder NASA hasn't really accomplished many high profile things. A bloody large portion of what NASA does get doesn't even make it to their space programs but to more terrestrial pursuits--like weather science. To those who'd speak of national security, terrorism, blah, blah, blah, in defense of irrational expenditures in Iraq consider this, in all of human history no factor has contributed more to the lack of national security than the way that country treats its neighbors (as in poorly). On the other side intellectual pursuits have had a long history of building bridges between nations, and peace at home as well as abroad. Even the middle-east was once known as a hub of intellectualism, known for its tolerant and peaceful people... Of course that didn't stop the warmongering, imperialist west from changing that.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I was born a week after that launch, and I just turned 50, which is traumatic enough, you insensitive clod!
Rediculous: A word indicating the writer is ridiculously ignorant.
The US also donate over 2 billion dollars every year to Israel. If you want to talk about return on investment what return do US citizens get from this? Apart from earning the hatred of large parts of the Arab world since alot of that money is donated in the form of Military hardware. The fact is that the nation of Israel would not exist if not for the US Govt constantly propping it up with massive injections of cash and tanks.
(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html)
This investment is going to have to continue indefinately as well, since there is no way that Israel will ever become self-sufficient in our lifetimes unless they invade Iran and steal all their oil.
At least with NASA there is a small glimmer of hope that they may start bringing back valuable raw materials or come up with further advancements in technology that will benefit the US.
I dont read
Dude - you just summed up my entire life stance in one post. I've always got funny looks when I try to explain this to people because most people have real trouble believing that there isn't some overriding purpose in their lives. Maybe I'll direct them at this post in future.
This is how the loudness war is killing music.
The thing that most people don't know about the shuttle is the number of pressure modules on it. These are mostly high-pressure titanium-alloy composite-wrapped spheres, with service pressures ranging to 4500 psi or so. Outside the space program, the absolute life limit of a fiber-wrapped composite pressure vessel is 15 years. After 15 years, it must be condemned and removed from service.
They are *well* past the original design lifetime of the pressure vessels on the shuttle. Additionally, there is no manufacturer who *can* make replacements at this point. It would require them to retool a line and start from scratch, and no business is going to do that for less than a king's ransom, and even if they did, it would require time to build the line and test the vessels.
In order to keep flying with pressure vessels *well* past their "expiration date", NASA has run some tests and decided the vessels were capable of (safe enough) continued service. Still, they were concerned enough to rewrite the procedures. Now, they ramp up the pressure to less than the rated service pressure, and they wait until basically the latest possible time to "top off" to the required values. This leaves the pressure vessels under full stress for less total time, but there's still the risk that they'll "go boom" (and if you've never seen what even a 3000-psi 80 cubic foot scuba cylinder can do when it ruptures... well, as Keanu Reeves would say, "Whoa...").
Anyway, they've "extended" the service life of the pressure vessels on the shuttle, but they do not have arbitrarily infinite lives. It's certainly not a single thing that is forcing NASA's hand into retiring the shuttle fleet, but you can be damn well sure that the condition of the high pressure vessels is right at the front of many an engineer's darkest fears.
In the interest of furthering discussion, I would dispute that. I've said it before, you can nuke every square meter on this planet, and assuming you survive the blasts, Earth would still be the most habitable planet on this solar system. The dream of space colonies wether in orbit, on the moon or on other planets is in my estimation centuries away, not decades as most people would like to believe. The real reason space technology should be the primary focus of human endeavor is because of all the technological breakthroughs it provides. Aside from war the space race has provided the greatest leaps in technology and other knowledge for human kind. And it is very arguable that investing in space technology pays more dividends than investing in war.
Richard Branson is only a multi-Billionaire while 180+ IQ writer Stanislaw Lem wrote lots of very thoughtful and philosophic books.
I know who I'd rather have been.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Maybe not a commercial benefit, but one of the least mentioned byproducts of the space program was the creation of hundreds of thousand of well-paying jobs. National prestige is all well and good, but what will get you reelected in November is jobs.
The promise of new aerospace-related jobs and the secondary employment that followed it was the leverage that Lyndon Johnson used to get other Senators to vote for the space program in the first place.
Why I do get the feeling that its "one step forwards and two steps back" with the Orion program, when compared with the shuttle? This thing only looks good for docking with the space station and any notion of servicing satellites is thrown out of the window.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Its dangerous to make such comments lest you be labelled anti-semite. You can make the same points by talking about US military aid to Egypt or Pakistan without inviting the wrath of the Anti-defamation league
**Life is too short to be serious**
Take the proposed budget for Orion and the current operating cost of the shuttle and use that cash to bid for commercial manned spaceflight. Change the missions to better utilize the ISS if necessary.
Seastead this.
So extending the shuttle lifetime will be one of the first decisions of the new [Madame] President. The main important parts are the troublesome rocket engines, but tiles etc. too.
This misses the point. The problem is that NASA told congress that they could indeed keep flying the shuttle while developing Orion, for an extra $1B per year. Congress said, "great. keep flying the shuttle, develop Orion, and do it without the $1B." NASA is not getting enough money to do both. The point of retiring the shuttle is to free up that ~$6B/year and spend it on the next-generation launch system, Orion, instead. We can't do both without a significant increase in budget, which is just not going to happen.
As for not having American access to the Station in the interim, we'll just have to deal with paying the Russians. Unless the NASA COTS system works out. Elon Musk over at SpaceX may very well have his Dragon capsule and Falcon 9 launch vehicle ready about that time to take over from the Shuttle.
"Significant"? NASA's funding is a tiny, tiny part of the budget.
From the following: Putting NASA's budget in perspective, July 2007.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Liv Tyler?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
until a replacement is working and in place. That could be oriion, but it is far more likely to be COTs.
By COTS I assume you mean "common off-the-shelf". Like one can just go down to Rocket-Mart and select the on-sale capsule. (The closest thing is Russia's stuff.)
Table-ized A.I.
NASA's other option lies in the private sector; but thus far, the progress from that quarter does not look sufficient to meet the 2011 deadline.
Although it says this in the summary, the linked article doesn't seem to actually have anything to support this claim. In fact, it's looking like according to their current schedule the private SpaceX Dragon crew/cargo capsule will be flying demonstration flights 2008-2010. With an additional purchase commitment from NASA, they could probably finish and be able to transport cargo and crew to the ISS even sooner.
http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php
Just give a few sample Apollo capsules to the Chinese, and they'll clone them in no-time, like they do everything else.
Table-ized A.I.
I find it unlikely Soyuz had the same number of flights as the shuttles...I am quite sure that, being in service for about a decade longer than the shuttle makes it quite sure it had flown more missions
I can't find an exact list, but Soyuz and Space Shuttle flights do appear to be close in the number of missions. Wiki: List of human spaceflight programs
---------------
Soyuz: (approx.)
40 - Soyuz 1-40 (orbits, plus flying to space stations Salyut 1 - 6)
15 - Soyuz T1 to T-15 (flying to Salyut 7 and Mir)
30 - Soyuz TM-1 to TM-30 (Mir)
15 - Soyuz TM31-34, TMA 1-11 (ISS)
---
100. Wikipedia says there were 98 manned Soyuz flights - close.
To my quick count, there were 2 malfunctions that resulted in death (4 people), several more that were close (Soyuz escape system fired on the pad before the launch vehicle exploded; re-entry landing in icy lake that almost cost lives)
---------------
Space Shuttle: (approx.)
120 manned spaceflight missions
HOWEVER, "currently, the Soyuz spacecraft family is still in service and has launched more manned space missions than any other platform."
I'll give you that the Soyuz malfunctions were early in their program, both before 1972. And that the Space Shuttle malfunctions were later in the life of the Shuttle program. So that tilts in favor of the Soyuz.
But, all-in-all, there have been about as many manned Space Shuttle Missions as there have been manned Soyuz missions. Even including non-manned Soyuz missions, it is going to be very similar. Both have 2 fatal malfunctions, so any statistical "safer" calculations are going to be the same - about a 2% chance for death.
Can anybody explain the commercial benefit to space travel? ... I assume by "space travel" you mean "manned space flight"
1) Most obviously it offers a direct benifit to commerce of directly paying money. Money spent on manned space flight doesn't disappear into the eather, it is spent on people and companies who benifit fiscally.
2) The ability to launch, recapture, return, and/or repair objects in space (anything from a communications satillite, to a millitary one, to a weather satilitte, to a spaceborn telescope). (companies pay for these services)
3) The ability to perform experiments in micro-gravity which require human intervention. (companies and government agencies pay for these services and can earn money from the produce of the resulting knowledge)
4) Commercially viable spin-off technologies like kidney dialysis machines, fetal heart monitors, and programmable heart pacemakers.
5) It looks poised to offer high-speed business travel for commercial and recreational use.
6) Space tourism.
Given the significant resources spend for NASA, is this monies better off spent elsewhere or is this spent responsibly?
Can you help me understand "signifigant" here. I believe NASA's total budget is around $14B (manned and unmanned combined), out of a national budget of more than $1500B... it's about 1%.
No surprise here. Now the Goo tube generation can say they thought they were going to get a shuttle replacement and were proven wrong. Every generation guesses wrong the first time.
You are pushing Russian stuff, yet have no idea of what COTs is WRT NASA? Exactly WHAT are you basing your statement that Russia is the closest to this on? The problem is that after America and in particular, NASA funded the Russian space agency for a decade, Russia has pulled lots of little stunts. It is possible that they did this in retaliation for a decade of being pushed around, or it was a mandate from up high, but the simple fact is, that America can not afford to pay the prices that Russia wants. Instead, the idea is to have a number of companies that can compete to provide space access. Then, and only then, will we see prices drop and have good service.
As I mentioned, there are several companies who are quite close to having this done. ALL of them will be much cheaper than Russia.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We aren't going to die here for several at least millions of years (the sun has a couple of billion years left in it). As for natural resources, currently the space program costs far more in resources than it has any chance of providing for the foreseeable future. If you take people (who are simply not needed) out of these orbiters you can drop the cost (in money and natural resources) by 10X.
No; the real problem with reverting to EELV's was political in the sense that at the time, there would have had to have been a winner or loser (Boeing or Lockheed) - and the climate; back in the 1980's when the Challenger disaster happened, as well as after Columbia; was not going to permit a monopoly to arise in that industry. (though one arose anyway - United Launch Alliance).
Man-Rating EELV's is TRIVIAL compared to the redesign work being done for Constellation - and in the end; the hard choices that are going to have to be made to hammer the contractors and subs out there as well.
Yes: it was also largely about JOBS. (killing shuttle-infrastructure jobs would have LOST the state of Florida; too many Electoral Votes for a state that is not really a swing-state, but might become so - yes; a bunch of poor little ignorant voters who are in DENIAL about the PORK upon which they dine.)
Yes: there was also a technical issue with EELV; even the Delta IV Heavy configuration isn't really big enough. AND, there does not exist the manufacturing capacity to produce EELV's of either variety at a fast enough rate to feed our commercial Spacelift industry, AND our NRO needs, AND our Manned spaceflight program AND, Science payloads, AND a Manned Moon/Mars program. Although - the current shuttle manufacturing facilities COULD be modified; (the Thiokol SRB's could just as easily be strapped to Delta/Atlas boosters, AND recovered - the external-tank mfrg is done in Louisiana - not even in Florida - and after Katrina, Louisiana is DEFINITELY a swing-state anyway - and that facility was retooled in the 1970's from other rocket manufacturing, it could just as easily be retooled again - and the employees furloughed; cut them a check and get it over with, jeez! send them to school during the retool or something.)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
NASA is actually creating deliberate barriers to companies to stop them from competing with their foolish concepts. For decades they blocked alternative access to the space station to preserve Shuttle. Now with that horrid design shown to be the boondoggle it always has been, they act with incredulous desperation that they have no timely replacement. Well DUUHHH. This sort of short sighted "management" is typical. Meanwhile we have an American launch vehicle business that is desperate for new missions and it is starved deliberately down and forced to compete with limitless-funding government-developed vehicles. If this was done with aircraft in the early 20th century we would have delayed aircraft development for decades.
I myself welcome onerous budgetary restrictions. It forces people to make hard decisions and not squander resources. Maybe with the right managers in place they will make the optimal choices. This is a possibility of course - I did not say it was probable. But with fat budgets the stupidest, least efficient concepts are still viable. Witness Shuttle.
"It's too bad the privatized companies (Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, SpaceX, Armadillo) can't ramp up development to meet the need. Oddly enough, *their* space race will produce the only results that will actually lower the cost per pound to orbit."
But will it, actually? Is there any reason to believe so? The space privatization movement keeps asserting this - that private launch costs will 'of course' be cheaper than a fully funded and nationally coordinated public effort - and seems to take it as an article of deep faith. But I've yet to hear a coherent argument as to *why*, let alone factual proof.
So far, the experience of Scaled Composites and Armadillo Aerospace is underwhelming to me, to say the least. 50 years of engineering hindsight later and with the advantage of state-of-the-art materials and computers, private groups have managed to reproduce not-quite-Mercury-level suborbital flight. That's the future?
Assuming some of these groups manage to get to the full orbital phase without killing lots of people, find a serious paying reason for manned spaceflight that NASA hasn't discovered yet, and attract far-sighted venture capital (possibly an oxymoron in itself) - what then? Has it crossed any of the space activist crowd's minds that perhaps the *reason* why the US Government hasn't been keen on massively decentralised space development is military? In that, the USAF wants to keep its current full-spectrum dominance of the high frontier, and they'd much rather work with a single compliant agency like NASA than zillions of private space cowboys toting rockets with the ability to deliver unpleasant payloads anywhere on Earth and the potential to sell that capability to interested transnational parties?
If a fully privatized manned space market actually eventuates, expect a corresponding explosion of US military space involvement to counteract all those 'potential terrorist threats'. And expect the price tag for that to not be cheap, and to come from your taxes, and your personal liberty. Combine that with space launch capacity split between a bunch of warring corporations making less profit than they initially expected, and each hiding their own innovations behind a wall of commercial secrecy, rather than releasing their science to the government, and the end result might be that the cost of space access *increases* overall.
So: got numbers to prove that won't be the case?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
The company has been in existence only 5 years. They are starting from scratch. Yet, they have had 2 launches, of which one was a total failure (spectacular, in fact). In addition, the 2'nd launch made it into space, but not the orbit desired. Now, what is the record of all the other systems out there. The chinese blew a number of their first ones. In fact, they had several failures just with the current system. Russia has lost a number of them. Brazil blew up one and lost 20 lives and a launch pad. NASA has lost 2.5 of these (apollo 1 is like a half loss). Russia has taken over a decade to get a new system built and it will likely take another 5 years. In addition, NASA is build Ares I from already designed systems and that will not launch orion until 2013-2015 (most likely 2015). IOW, that is about 9 years of work which is from already working systems.
And Spacex will most likely have a system into orbit within 6 years of start. In fact, they are likely to have a cargo system within 6, and a human rated within 7. And yet, you grip about them and call it vaporware.
Yes, you are trolling. Nothing less.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Considering NASA gets a mere 0.6% of the federal budget (granted, it's a darn big pie to start off with), I'm amazed that they can pull off what they do.
As to the 'Spending money in Space' issue, I'm reminded of a statement made by a former head of the Interplanetary Society:
"Not a single dime has been spent in space. We don't have any malls up there yet."
While seemingly ridiculous, there is a significant hidden meaning in the statement. Every dime spent by NASA is given to someone on this planet to do work; NASA spends the money on science. We as a species benefit from this when the esoteric technologies eventually 'trickle down'.
One of the most ubiquitous examples is smoke detectors. Now found in virtually every home in America and credited with saving many thousands of lives, these devices were invented by NASA in order to protect the astronauts aboard Skylab.
So when you hear the darned thing chirping, remember that it was money well-invested in NASA.