posted 03-03-2010 04:52 PM               

Hutchison Introduces Bill to Close Gap in U.S. Spaceflight

Keep Shuttle Operational or U.S. Forced to Rely on Russia, China to Reach Space Station

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, today introduced legislation to close the gap in U.S. human space flight that will occur if the space shuttle is retired before the next generation of space vehicle is developed. Senator Hutchison's bill would allow the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to extend the shuttle's service as work continues on the next generation of American space vehicle. Companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the House of Representatives next week by Reps. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Florida) and Bill Posey (R-Florida).

"We must close the gap in U.S. human space flight or face the reality that we will be totally dependent on Russia for access to space until the next generation of space vehicle is developed," said Senator Hutchison. "If the space shuttle program is terminated, Russia and China will be the only nations in the world with the capability to launch humans into space. This is unacceptable."

Hutchison said the Obama Administration's budget proposal was "short-sighted and represents the wrong direction for U.S. space policy."

The Administration proposes to retire the shuttle as scheduled while discontinuing years of work on development of a new launch vehicle and provides no short term solution to deliver critical equipment and components to the International Space Station that are essential to extending the life of the station until 2020.

"Not only are we turning our backs on 40 years of American space superiority, we are giving up vital national security and economic interests to other nations. This must not be an 'either or' proposition where we are forced to choose between continuing to fly the shuttle to service the station and maintain our independence in reaching space, or investing in the next generation of space vehicle. We can and must do both. By maintaining our independence from other nations in reaching space, the U.S. can fully realize the research potential of the space station as a national lab," Hutchison said.

The Human Space Flight Capability Assurance and Enhancement Act would:

• Make shuttle retirement dependent on the availability of replacement capabilities for comparable size crew and cargo delivery, whether government-owned or commercial, (assuming a rate of 2 missions a year), or until it is conclusively demonstrated that the space shuttle cargo capabilities are not needed to ensure space station viability;

• Require International Space Station (ISS) operations and full utilization through at least 2020, and further establish the ISS National Laboratory operating mechanisms and procedures;

• Provide for the acceleration of a government-owned human space flight capability to as close to 2015 as possible;

• Expand support for Commercial Orbital Space Transportation (COTS) to support ISS -- both for cargo and for eventual crew launch capability;

• Reaffirm long-term goal of moving beyond low-Earth orbit whether to the Moon, Mars or alternative destinations;

• Provide for the near-term evaluation of heavy-lift rocket launcher design options, including shuttle-derived options, to enable the expansion beyond low-earth orbit and accelerate the start of vehicle design activity; and

• Authorize top-level funding for all of NASA's mission activities, but would only address the human space flight policy issues.

posted 03-04-2010 10:03 AM               

At this stage you have "camps" at the extreme edges of "PoR" or bust and "Bold New Idea" with many of the influential folks and key players taking those positions--now. But when it becomes clear, as I believe it will, that neither of those are going to be sustainable, then a middle ground will be sought. But it has to be articulated as an option, and THAT is the true purpose of this bill.

...The hope is that having a reasonably cohesive, credible alternative "on the table" can provide an eventual rallying point for a path forward, or at the very least a focal point for the serious discussion of what that path should entail.

posted 03-04-2010 12:09 PM               

"The first question I asked when I came back to NASA was, 'Could we extend the shuttle?'" Garver said in response to a question on the subject. "I was told by the entire shuttle NASA folks that, in fact, that time had come and gone. It was not an issue of money at that point, it was an issue of second-tier suppliers, there would be at least a two-year gap between our last flight and the next one, et cetera." That situation, she said, was a result a previous policies: "We inherited what we inherited."

posted 03-05-2010 12:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
...they are not serious about a manned future for NASA.

---

posted 03-05-2010 04:19 PM               

"If the space shuttle program is terminated, Russia and China will be the only nations in the world with the capability to launch humans into space. This is unacceptable."

posted 03-08-2010 01:57 PM               

Regardless of the President's spin in mid-April, without additional funding, his remarks about spaceflight will be hollow. No matter what side of the aisle one sits with respect to the plan, the latest review said with certainty that at least $3 billion more per year is required to sustain ANY manned spaceflight program. The small bump in funding proposed will not do it.

I believe the President's apparent lack of any technical background is not serving him well. Many do not agree with the President's plan have their point of view not because of jobs. Some who do agree have web sites with weekly video programs promoting commercial flight so THEY can go to Mars. A nice thought, to be sure, but the result of reading lots of science fiction and watching too much Star Trek. If they cracked a few engineering books and took a couple of business classes, their opinion would most likely be changed. The President's plan, or more accurately, lack thereof, is simply bad for the future of US manned spaceflight: it ends it.

posted 03-08-2010 02:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
...what was unknown until February 1st was that the US government is officially getting out of the manned spaceflight business.

---

quote:

---

...the latest review said with certainty that at least $3 billion more per year is required to sustain ANY manned spaceflight

---

quote:

---

If they cracked a few engineering books and took a couple of business classes, their opinion would most likely be changed.

---

posted 03-08-2010 08:18 PM               

The US will no longer have the capability to launch humans into low earth orbit at will. They will have to rely on Russia or some other nation to get there. There is no government contract for a new vehicle; there is no existing commercial vehicle. No commercial company has a contract with anyone to build and deliver a vehicle. Also, there is no track record to support any belief that a commercial company can fly a manned spacecraft within the next five years if a contract were awarded. The only thing any company has is "seed money" and the US has the "hope" that some commercial company will step up and build a vehicle for a market that does not exist beyond the US government and a couple of other occasional astronauts.

There is a big difference in being in the airplane business and being a passenger in someone else's airliner. The same is true with manned spacecraft.

Allow me to offer one final example in this thread. There are a number of commercial launch vehicles which service the satellite market, so there is a market. Please consider rocket engine development for these vehicles. Let's review the billions of dollars the US companies have spent developing new engines for these vehicles. Please allow me to list the new rocket engines in which commercial companies have spent a billion dollars or more of their funds in development cost during the last 10 years:

Ok, now let's list the new rocket engines in which US companies have spent a billion dollars or more of their money for development during the last 20 years:

That's right: none. Now, one expects the US manned spacecraft business, which does not exist since no commercial orbital spacecraft has ever been built by anyone anywhere, is going to step up with lots of money and super high risk and fill the void. If one truly has such faith to believe they will, the only other thing I can add is that I truly hope they are right.

posted 03-09-2010 07:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
Ok, now let's list the new rocket engines in which US companies have spent a billion dollars or more of their money for development during the last 20 years

---

• Merlin 1C / Merlin
  
• AJ26 (commercial derivative of the Soviet N-1's NK33 engine)

posted 03-09-2010 11:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
AJ26 [rocket engine] (commercial derivative of the Soviet N-1's NK33 engine)

---

posted 03-09-2010 01:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
Now NASA will try to build the Russian RD-180. We will "copy" them as they have done us?

---