wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
How does that differ from taking responsibility for
pressing earlier into service a brand new human
spacecraft, complete with all of its bugs? Remember
AS-204, Soyuz 1, etc?

Well, I don't think Congress will do either (most likely the shuttle
will stop flying in 2010 and CEV will never happen), but if they did
decide to bring CEV forward and gave NASA the money to do so, they
could blame NASA if they lost one. If they ignored Bush and told NASA
to keep the shuttle flying after 2010, they'd be the ones blamed,
instead... after all, having lost two, 'everyone' knows the shuttle
is
a death-trap now.


We've discussed this before, so you might do a search
on shuttle vs. soyuz reliability. Shuttle's record is
no worse than Soyuz or Shenzhou or Apollo, etc.. There
is no reason to expect that CEV would be much better.
If shuttle is a "deathtrap", it is no more or less a
"deathtrap" than any other human spaceflight system.

What shuttle has failed to do is to meet unrealistic
expectations that near-perfect spaceflight reliability
was possible.

I think everyone knows the reality of the risk now.
And, during a time when U.S. soldiers are dying in
combat for national goals authorized by Congress,
I think there is an acceptance of spaceflight risk
for national purposes if the missions are deemed
worthwhile and if reasonable efforts are made to
minimize the risk as much as possible.

Think about how many test pilots "augured in" during
the 1950s-60s efforts to advance the state of U.S.
aeronautics. They were given ejection systems, etc.,
to try to minimize the risk, but the risk could
never be eliminated.

No U.S. Congress I've ever seen would let U.S. human
spaceflight end. CEV, or something like it, is going
to happen.

- Ed Kyle