posted 06-15-2010 08:31 AM               

Strangely enough the NASA press release didn't use the past tense in the first paragraph...

posted 06-15-2010 10:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
Imagine coming home with the news of your promotion to your family---"Hey I just got a promotion! Bad news is that it's the program that the President wants to shut down."

---

posted 06-16-2010 09:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
Fly those three birds, for crying out loud!

---

I'm a proponent of shuttle-derived and believe it's the best option for a future NASA heavy-lift vehicle to get humans BEO.

posted 06-21-2010 09:16 AM               

Glenn, who became the first American to orbit Earth in 1962, told NBC News that flying the space shuttle fleet beyond its currently scheduled retirement date in November would be the best use of taxpayer dollars.

"We'll spend almost as much buying our astronauts seats on Russia's Soyuz as we would to keep the shuttles flying," Glenn said. "The cost of continuing shuttle is really very tiny compared to the $100 billion investment we've made in the station, and keeping shuttle flying, we'll have the biggest spaceship ever to carry seven [astronauts] and tons of cargo."

"I believe the station has the greatest potential for research of anything we've ever put together. It's a very unique laboratory, and we're just now completing that," Glenn said.

"And instead of having a maximum effort to use the station for the research it was designed to do, here we are shutting the shuttles down."

posted 06-21-2010 10:52 AM               

Under NASA's very close direction, every manned U.S. spacecraft has been built by commercial companies. In fact, 83% of NASA's budget goes to commercial entities. Depending on commercial companies is not new. That process has included strong NASA control, oversight and safety concerns. It is a procedure developed over many years and with great care. It has worked well. Change should be made with utmost caution and only if it brings some major advantage.

What is new is placing 100% confidence in smaller, less experienced companies if the Shuttles are retired, with no backup, for extremely complex missions. I am glad to see multi-company interest in commercial space development, but at this early stage of their experience they should be phased in only after they demonstrate a high degree of competency and reliability, particularly with regard to safety concerns...

We must have a heavy-lift space launch vehicle - whether Constellation or other - if we are to keep our options open. Those options include future moon missions, building up a MARS vehicle in near earth orbit, going to an asteroid, direct launch to MARS providing heavy download to bring hardware back to earth, or projects yet undreamed of since the vehicle we develop now will have a useful life of many decades. Ideally, it should be flexible for various assignments.

A heavy-lift space work horse to someday replace the Shuttles is a necessity for our space future. The flexibility that gives to our manned and unmanned programs will be key to continued world leadership as other nations develop their manned space capabilities...

If we assume for the moment that the above decisions are all final -

-no moon base, no Constellation, ISS termination in 2020, commercial contracting-out, and December 2010 Shuttle end -

- we are hardly looking at a robust program that will provide the benefits of space leadership into the indefinite future.

posted 06-21-2010 11:06 AM               

Short Term

1. Extend the Shuttle. It is key to ISS ready access. Phase-in new space access providers only as they become experienced and have proven reliability.
   
2. Maximize research on the ISS - plan with the science community.
   
3. Use the ISS for long term MARS mission training.
   
4. Develop a fully tested replacement heavy-lift capability.

Long Term

1. Robotic exploration of MARS and other destinations such as asteroids.
   
2. Continue ISS research as long as it is making substantial contributions.
   
3. Increase preparation and planning for a MARS mission.
   
4. Determine - earth-to-MARS, or assembled-in-earth-orbit - to MARS.
   
5. Set a firm schedule --
   
6. Go for MARS.

posted 06-21-2010 01:04 PM               

Others can read for themselves, but clearly he has pointed out many of the short and long term failings of the Obama proposal, not the least of which is the potential for commercial crew to come to fruition at or near the end of ISS's operational lifespan.

posted 06-21-2010 01:50 PM            

I would like to have heard Mr. Glenn, Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan insist President Obama confirm STS-135, plus a HLV decision coming sooner than 2015. And it should be a sidemounted shuttle derivative.

Leave ISS resupply and crew rotations to the current crop of vehicles. Let Space X get Falcon 9/Dragon ready as the successor to the shuttle as quickly as is humanly possible. Orbital Sciences too.

posted 06-21-2010 06:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
I'm not understanding why John Glenn is calling for a shuttle extension.

---

posted 06-21-2010 06:59 PM               

Given the shuttle's inherent inability to reliably launch on a given date (given weather restrictions and the complexity of the vehicles themselves), the orbiters do not make a good taxi vehicle. They do however, make for great resupply and servicing vehicles.

Besides, even were we to continue the shuttle program, we would still need to rely on the Russian Soyuz for its service as a lifeboat.

posted 06-22-2010 02:06 AM            

He must have forgotten the gap between 1975 and 1981. And those between 1964-65, 1967-68, 1986-88, and 2003-05.

Later he goes on to state: "$1.5 billion a year has been estimated as the cost to keep the Shuttles flying..."

I thought that was the cost per flight already. No mention about restarting work on ET production which would be logical if the proposed HLV was shuttle derived.

Mr. Glenn also claims: "A grounded Soyuz will leave us with no access to the ISS."

posted 06-22-2010 08:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Mr. Glenn seems to be confused in that he wrote: "The US for the first time since the beginning of the Space Age will have no way to launch anyone into space starting next January." He must have forgotten the gap between 1975 and 1981.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Mr. Glenn also claims: "A grounded Soyuz will leave us with no access to the ISS."

---

posted 06-22-2010 09:30 AM            

The "gap" would not be a topic for discussion had serious thought been given to man-rate existing US rockets and having Orion able to visit the ISS. Thanks to Obama, the space station is an integral part of future NASA plans.

posted 06-22-2010 10:21 AM               

(1) fully fund the commercial crew to Space Station program proposed in the President's FY2011 budget request for NASA, and (2) accelerate the pace and funding of NASA's human space exploration projects beyond Earth orbit.

We are a diverse group, but we are only a handful of the Nation's citizens who support U.S. leadership in human space flight in general, and the development of commercial human spaceflight in particular.

posted 06-22-2010 01:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
The majority of signatories stand to benefit financially from Obama's approach

---

They also happen to be in the best position to get NASA out of its present rut.

I'm no expert on US politics, but it seems to me (even from England) that certain representatives of your Congress and Senate want Ares I and Orion made the cornerstone of US human spaceflight.

posted 06-22-2010 03:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
Some of the more recent actions seem to be vindictive against those workers and states involved in Constellation.

---

That's only 868 days from now (not that I'm counting )

posted 06-22-2010 03:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
The majority of signatories stand to benefit financially from Obama's approach (they for the most part represent commercial interests)...

---

If all of these folks who stand to make a fortune wanted to make statement, maybe they should have spent a little more time detailing their concerns rather than collecting a page full of signatures. After all, Glenn's was 8 pages and covered a great many issues.

posted 06-22-2010 05:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
Those workers in those states are also a great many voters, who, on November 6, 2012 will help put an end to this madness.

---

I predict the Tea Party will want to run Palin, but Republicans will run someone else.
That'll split the anti-Obama vote. Democrats win, but the house may go conservative. Congress is already paralyzed.

This Constellation thing has got Republicans turned upside down. In order to oppose Obama (the prime directive), they'll have to increase spending and stifle private enterprise. They'll have to REALLY ramp up spending to make anything of Ares before 2020.

posted 06-23-2010 12:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spacefest:
They'll have to REALLY ramp up spending to make anything of Ares before 2020.

---

So true. That's something pro-Constellation Democrats and Republicans did not do (or seemed reticent) during those last years of the Bush presidency.

Are we to believe that the NASA budget will double or treble if the US Congress changed or Obama were unseated? It's as unlikely as the notion of Ares I cutting the "gap".

posted 06-23-2010 11:36 AM               

Well folks, if you like the President's space policy - or hate it - here is a chance to let his Science and Technology advisors hear your thoughts. If you pass on the opportunity its your fault. OSTP has extended the invitation - don't pass on the opportunity.

Open Portion of Meeting: During this open meeting, PCAST is
tentatively scheduled to hear presentations on space policy and science, technology, and diplomacy.

Public Comments: It is the policy of the PCAST to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The PCAST expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements.

The public comment period for this meeting will take place on July 16, 2010 at a time specified in the meeting agenda posted on the PCAST Web site. This public comment period is designed only for substantive commentary on PCAST's work, not for business marketing purposes.

Oral Comments: To be considered for the public speaker list at the July meeting, interested parties should register to speak no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 6, 2010.

posted 06-23-2010 12:05 PM               

I printed out 10 copies of it and mailed it along with a personalized letter to members of Congress in both houses (4 from my home state, the rest to various members who usually tend to vote primarily on NASA issues). Reason being is snail mailed items have a higher percentage of being read by either a Congressman or an aide then an email, which can end up deleted rather quick. I felt it was an important enough issue to do so and do it to my own words rather then just tacking my name onto somebody else's petition or message. To the letter's credit, I did get three replies back from Congressional offices. So all things considered, I feel I accomplished my goal.

Funny enough, Neil and Gene were stressing almost exactly the same points in their testimony that I did in my rebuttal (not everything, but many items). Considering they are closer to the issues then I am, I find that rather interesting that a guy like me who is outside the aerospace industry and with no formal engineering education (although reads books about such subjects as part of research) can come to similar conclusions as those who have been involved with it for almost half a century.

As such, if you have feelings about this issue (one side or the other, there are different opinions and it is a free country) and are a US resident, now is not the time to stay silent. With these Congressional votes coming up, now is the time to express your concerns to the people who represent you in Washington and do more then just a 30 second sound bite.

posted 06-30-2010 02:33 PM               

There is a coherent explanation of what is being proposed, but NASA has given it little emphasis and it seems not to have registered with those trying to understand the new strategy. That strategy involves a restart -- a five-year period of building the technological foundation for the future. That restart would be followed by another five to seven years of developing new systems based on that foundation, then a series of human missions to various destinations beyond Earth orbit. There is no commitment to a specific destination on a specific schedule; that avoids the narrowing effect that was a characteristic of Apollo. To me this is a quite sensible and easily understandable strategy, if the United States wants to be in the vanguard of 21st century space exploration. But it does not follow the Apollo model of setting a date to arrive at a specific destination that gave the United States unquestioned space leadership. It will be a challenge to maintain focus and technological discipline in implementing a strategy without a "date by" goal, but a capabilities-based approach can pave the way to U.S. leadership in reaching all the interesting destinations between the Earth and Mars. To me, the greatest threat to U.S. space leadership would come from our political system insisting on staying with the Apollo-era approach to the future, not from adopting this new strategy.

posted 06-30-2010 11:00 PM               

...then a series of human missions to various destinations beyond Earth orbit...but a capabilities-based approach can pave the way to U.S. leadership in reaching all the interesting destinations between the Earth and Mars.

The only narrowing by the Apollo program was by Congress, not the program itself. The Saturn V was ready to launch space station components to LEO as well as hardware to construct a vehicle for a mission to Mars. In fact, it was lack of funding to use the Saturn V to build a station that lead, in part, to the Space Shuttle. True, not all Apollo hardware was well suited for other non-Moon missions. The LM comes to mind... and... well, nothing else, forgetting that a variant could be used to land on a large rock, which some might call an asteroid. The US had a great space infrastructure with Apollo. What did they do with it? As everyone knows, they threw it away. This same mentality is at work today within the Administration, except it is the whole organizational structure as well as infrastructure that are being tossed. The only other difference I see is that for the first time in NASA's history, the Administrator is a more than willing partner in the President's throw away plan.

The missing items at the end of Apollo, throughout the entire Space Shuttle program, and apparently into the foreseeable future: funding and leadership. The President's current budget proposal is no different than in the past: underfunded. In watching Congress and the Administration, the lack of leadership can best be envisioned by thinking of the vast emptiness of space.

posted 07-08-2010 09:06 PM               

1. One additional shuttle flight in the 2nd half of 2011

2. Immediate development of a heavy lift rocket, rather than waiting until 2015 to decide what to build.

3. Restoration of full capability for Orion spacecraft, rather than a stripped down "lifeboat"

4. Reversal of major investment in commercial providers prior to them demonstrating capability at their own expense (brilliant... who would have guessed?)

posted 07-08-2010 09:12 PM               

Oral Comments: To be considered for the public speaker list at the July meeting, interested parties should register to speak no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 6, 2010.

Now all I have to do is figure out how to cram everything into a two minute talk! It looks like there are only 30 total minutes allowed for public comment, so that means 15 folks get the chance.

posted 07-09-2010 03:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
Reversal of major investment in commercial providers prior to them demonstrating capability at their own expense

---