Perhaps there's hope for NASA yet

From testimony at Griffin's confirmation hearing:

"With regard to the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Griffin noted that in the
1960s the Gemini program took only three years and the development of
the Apollo capsule only about 6 years from award to fruition. He said
2014 is too far out for flying for the first time a vehicle he compared
to the Apollo capsule.

³'President Bush said no later than 2014. He didn¹t say we couldn¹t be
smart and do it early,' Griffin told members of the Commerce Committee.
'That would be my goal. It is unacceptable to me that it should take
from 2005 to 2014 to do the same thing² the country did during the
1960s.'"

http://space.com/news/griffin_hearing_050412.html


--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.angryherb.net

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in
message .com...
From testimony at Griffin's confirmation hearing:

"With regard to the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Griffin noted that in the
1960s the Gemini program took only three years and the development of
the Apollo capsule only about 6 years from award to fruition. He said
2014 is too far out for flying for the first time a vehicle he compared
to the Apollo capsule.

³'President Bush said no later than 2014. He didn¹to say we couldn¹to be
smart and do it early,' Griffin told members of the Commerce Committee.
'That would be my goal. It is unacceptable to me that it should take
from 2005 to 2014 to do the same thing² the country did during the
1960s.'"

http://space.com/news/griffin_hearing_050412.html


--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.angryherb.net


But, then there was a kind of goal that was very well defined, i.e., land on
the moon and come back in the decade.

This time, surely, the emulation of what was done then is not the goal. If
the goal is longer stays and a versatile vehicle for shall we say, other
uses, then someone has got to define whether its one vehicle, several, or
whatever.

For what reason do you want to stay on the moon? Last time it seemed, that
at every place they went it was much the same. They surely need to visit the
poles and the other side.

If those are all the same as well, why do you want to be there?

I'd be much more interested in what will be done to protect people out there
from radiation. It seems this is the one thing that could scupper the whole
'human' side to exploration.

Brian

--

Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
From testimony at Griffin's confirmation hearing:
3'President Bush said no later than 2014. He didn1t say we couldn1t be
smart and do it early,' Griffin told members of the Commerce Committee.
'That would be my goal. It is unacceptable to me that it should take
from 2005 to 2014 to do the same thing2 the country did during the
1960s.'"

Yeah. Nice words. But budgets speak louder than words. Until NASA has
money to built that mythical CEV, it won't get built. Apollo had very
specific mission requirements: go to the moon and back. An capabilities
other than that were not a requirement , even if Apollo was capable of
doing them. So even once CEV gets some budget, there is no garantee that
it wohn't be cut the minute there is some cost overrun.


And CEV still doesn't come close to replacing the shuttle. NASA also
needs to develop a cargo tug with automatic docking/berthing
capailities, it needs to develop a disposable remote manipulator arm for
that cargo tug, or develop a CEV that can have an arm in it that is
returned safely to earth. Oh and it still needs to develop a replacement
for the MPLM.

And what will NASA do with an astronaut corps during all the years it
won't have a manned space programme ? Shouldn't it close its astronaut
school now and stop training shuttle astronauts ? Isn't that wasted
money ? For the few flights that remain, they don't need to grow the
number of astronauts.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:48:51 -0500, John Doe wrote
(in article 1113414527.fc87c2f4603d6724f069707f71eff22b@teran ews):

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
From testimony at Griffin's confirmation hearing:
3'President Bush said no later than 2014. He didn1t say we couldn1t be
smart and do it early,' Griffin told members of the Commerce Committee.
'That would be my goal. It is unacceptable to me that it should take
from 2005 to 2014 to do the same thing2 the country did during the
1960s.'"

Yeah. Nice words.

So are yours, JF, except they're full of logical fallacies that don't
follow from one another.

But budgets speak louder than words. Until NASA has
money to built that mythical CEV, it won't get built.

Your grasp of the obvious is truly astounding.

Apollo had very
specific mission requirements: go to the moon and back. An capabilities
other than that were not a requirement , even if Apollo was capable of
doing them.

Which has exactly WHAT to do with your previous point?

So even once CEV gets some budget, there is no garantee that
it wohn't be cut the minute there is some cost overrun.

"So"? Not at all. You're comments are completely disjointed from one
another.

And CEV still doesn't come close to replacing the shuttle. NASA also
needs to develop a cargo tug with automatic docking/berthing
capailities,

It "needs" no such thing. You have to posit the mission of CEV before
you decide what it "needs" to do.

it needs to develop a disposable remote manipulator arm for
that cargo tug,

Why?

or develop a CEV that can have an arm in it that is
returned safely to earth.

Why?

Oh and it still needs to develop a replacement
for the MPLM.

Why develop a replacement? It developed it in the first place.
Besides which, if the Europeans, Japanese and Russians want to maintain
the ISS beyond the end of U.S. participation, they already have the
ATV, HTV and Progress in development or in existence.

See, this gets back to what I said above: you need to posit a mission
before you tack on requirements. If the mission isn't to launch or
service ISS segments on an unmanned, it doesn't need autonomous
capability to dock. If it isn't going to launch or service ISS
segments, it needs no RMS. Do you follow how we play this little game,
JF? Requirements come FIRST, capability to meet those requirements
follows.


And what will NASA do with an astronaut corps during all the years it
won't have a manned space programme ?

It will have a program (one 'm', no 'e'), albeit one on stand-down
until the new vehicle is ready to fly.

Shouldn't it close its astronaut
school now and stop training shuttle astronauts ?

That's a lower-level policy decision than what's going on in D.C. now,
which are confirmation hearings for the new candidate Administrator.
Be that as it may, however, the answer is obviously no. NASA didn't
stop training during the pause between Gemini and Apollo, or Apollo
through Skylab, or Skylab through ASTP, or ASTP through STS. So why
stop training now?

Isn't that wasted
money ?

Isn't it wasting money to hide your identity even though we know who
you are? Then why do you do it?

For the few flights that remain, they don't need to grow the
number of astronauts.

No, they don't need to "grow" the corps; they do need to maintain it
against attrition.

--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.angryherb.net

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:48:51 -0500, John Doe wrote
(in article 1113414527.fc87c2f4603d6724f069707f71eff22b@teran ews):


Shouldn't it close its astronaut
school now and stop training shuttle astronauts ?

That's a lower-level policy decision than what's going on in D.C.
now,
which are confirmation hearings for the new candidate Administrator.

Be that as it may, however, the answer is obviously no. NASA didn't
stop training during the pause between Gemini and Apollo, or Apollo
through Skylab, or Skylab through ASTP, or ASTP through STS. So why
stop training now?

Isn't that wasted
money ?

Isn't it wasting money to hide your identity even though we know who
you are? Then why do you do it?

For the few flights that remain, they don't need to grow the
number of astronauts.

No, they don't need to "grow" the corps; they do need to maintain it

against attrition.

Come to think of it, I can't think of a time when there would have been
no astronauts in training. Certainly not in the gaps between Mercury
and Gemini, and Gemini and Apollo. Even during the transition between
Apollo and the Shuttle there probably wasn't a break as the astronaut
office would have quite a say in certain design aspects of the vehicle
(cockpit layout).

I remember reading in "Deke!" that the first shuttle simulator at JSC
was being assembled while the ASTP crew was in training. Crews would
have had to be in there to make sure everything worked. ALT only
followed two years after ASTP, and as operational shuttle flights were
hoped for by 1979, the Shuttle OFT crews probably went into the
training cycle as soon as ALT ended.

If history is a lesson and if NASA is really serious about this, we
should at least start seeing mockups or initial simulators in the next
couple years. Note, I stress if they are serious because 2010 is not
far away.

-A.L.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:53:47 -0500, Andrew Lotosky wrote
(in article .com):

If history is a lesson and if NASA is really serious about this, we
should at least start seeing mockups or initial simulators in the next
couple years. Note, I stress if they are serious because 2010 is not
far away.

The issue isn't really if *NASA* is serious (it is *always* serious
about its projects). The real issue is if the Administration itself
and Congress are serious. That question (or rather, those two
questions) will determine if the U.S. continues its efforts toward
sustaining a manned spaceflight capability for LEO or beyond.

--
Herb Schaltegger, GPG Key ID: BBF6FC1C
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
http://www.angryherb.net

Andrew Lotosky wrote:

If history is a lesson and if NASA is really serious about this, we
should at least start seeing mockups or initial simulators in the next
couple years. Note, I stress if they are serious because 2010 is not
far away.


In the past, funding had been made prior to the end of the previous programme.

This time around, the argument is that funding will become available
once the Shuttle stops flying.

Until there is real funding, NASA can't start to do real work on the
mythical CEV. And Until there is a clear definition of what the CEV will
be doing and how often, how the hell is NASA supposed to plan the size
of an astronaut corps ? Will CEV make 2 flights a year to the moon ?
Will it make one flight to the moon, mait 10 years and then one flight
to Mars ? Will it make monthly flights to the ISS, assuming the ISS is
still there ?

Shuttle now has a very defined and finite mission. The current crop of
astronauts is probably already way too big, especially since NASA need
not worry about retirements more than 5 years from now, and it won't
need a whole astronaut corps during the years/decade when there are no
manned flights, it will need a couple of seasoned astronauts to verify
designs of CEV, test out simulators etc.


Had the US policy stated last year provided for immediate funding for
the CEV, my opinion would have been different. Until there is real
money, CEV is nothing but a pipe dream, at a time where Shuttle has a
hard politically imposed "end of life".

CEV won't be able to build a moon base "Alpha". At best, it will emulate
Apollo missions and be able to tug a LEM to do short term lunar
excursions. No advancement there. NASA would need to develop unnamed
lunar cargo carriers in order to completement the crew-only LEM. (If CEV
remains in orbit, it is useless for lunar construction).

So, if we don't even know when/where the money will come for CEV, the
question of funding for development of all the other vehicles needed to
replace/expand the shuttle hasn't even been asked yet.

I applaud the goal to go to Mars. But the current plan is just a pipe
dream to appease the pro-space voters while NASA is quietly preparing to
wind down manned space programme because there is no real replacement
for the Shuttle and no plan to continue US support of the space station
beyond the delivery of the last module.

With no manned space programme and no special capabilities that russian
or europe won't have, what will the USA use to barter for a crew seat on
Soyuz to go up to the station after 2010 ?

Won't the US segment become the equivalent of an abandonned ship that
can be claimed by anyone since the USA will no longer be in a position
to service it ?

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in

It will have a program (one 'm', no 'e'), albeit one on stand-down
until the new vehicle is ready to fly.

Maybe not so long a standdown, either:

From http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-12-145.cfm:

"Mr. Griffin, who currently heads the space department of Johns Hopkins
University's Applied Physics Laboratory, ridiculed the 2014 target date for
completing development of the next-generation U.S. space vessel, known as
the Crew Exploration Vehicle. He noted the target leaves a four-year gap
between the end of the space shuttle program and the launch of the new
vehicle, a gap during which the United States would have to rely on Russian
vessels for human access to space."

From
http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dl...2/1007/news02:

"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's current timeline calls
for the shuttles to be retired in 2010, five years before a new craft,
currently designated as the Crew Exploration Vehicle, will be available.
Griffin, who worked previously as NASA's chief engineer and associate
administrator for space exploration, said there is no reason why it should
take so long.

"It seems unacceptable to me," Griffin said, noting NASA developed the
Gemini spacecraft in just more than three years and the Apollo vehicles in
about six years."

"Jon S. Berndt" wrote:
the Crew Exploration Vehicle. He noted the target leaves a four-year gap
between the end of the space shuttle program and the launch of the new
vehicle, a gap during which the United States would have to rely on Russian
vessels for human access to space."

And forgot to mention that just last year, when Bush announced the plan,
CEV was to make first test flight in 2008 and be ready for normal use by
2010, leaving no gap at all.

So now, in the space of one year, before real work even begun, there is
a slip of 4 years and still no budget in sight.

John Doe wrote in
news:1113516337.4e200d13d08dfa34ddca1e60b6a16eda@t eranews:

Andrew Lotosky wrote:

If history is a lesson and if NASA is really serious about this, we
should at least start seeing mockups or initial simulators in the
next couple years. Note, I stress if they are serious because 2010 is
not far away.

In the past, funding had been made prior to the end of the previous
programme.

This time around, the argument is that funding will become available
once the Shuttle stops flying.

Until there is real funding, NASA can't start to do real work on the
mythical CEV.

You are under some severe misconceptions regarding CEV funding. CEV *is*
getting substantial funding prior to the retirement of the shuttle fleet.
In fact, adjusted for inflation, CEV is getting quite a bit more funding
prior to shuttle retirement than the shuttle itself got prior to Apollo-
Saturn retirement in 1975.

Shuttle now has a very defined and finite mission. The current crop of
astronauts is probably already way too big, especially since NASA need
not worry about retirements more than 5 years from now, and it won't
need a whole astronaut corps during the years/decade when there are no
manned flights, it will need a couple of seasoned astronauts to verify
designs of CEV, test out simulators etc.

A "couple"? Hardly. Have you even bothered to check the history of Apollo
astronauts who worked on the space shuttle program and hung around to fly
on it? It was a lot more than a couple, I can assure you. The shuttle/CEV
transition will be the same. There are more than a "couple" astronauts
assigned to CEV *right now*.

Had the US policy stated last year provided for immediate funding for
the CEV, my opinion would have been different.

Then your opinion should have been different, had you been paying
attention. NASA started funding CEV almost from the day Bush announced the
program. They did so by cancelling SLI and OSP, and reprogramming their
remaining funds to CEV. That amounted to almost $1 billion in FY04 alone.

CEV won't be able to build a moon base "Alpha". At best, it will
emulate Apollo missions and be able to tug a LEM to do short term
lunar excursions. No advancement there. NASA would need to develop
unnamed lunar cargo carriers in order to completement the crew-only
LEM. (If CEV remains in orbit, it is useless for lunar construction).

This is another misconception you have about CEV. CEV is not a single
vehicle, but a modular set of vehicles in the same sense that Apollo CSM/LM
were. An unmanned lunar cargo module would become part of CEV when it's
time to start working on lunar bases. That time is not now, because CEV is
using a "spiral" development approach. Spiral 1 will be LEO only, analogous
to Apollo CSM Block 1. Future spirals will add more capabilities. There is
no need to rush on developing the lunar capabilities since this is not a
crash program like Apollo; first lunar return is not anticipated until
2015-2020.

So, if we don't even know when/where the money will come for CEV,

*We* know when/where the money will come for CEV. *You* apparently don't -
and apparently aren't interested in finding out, since all the information
I've given here has been publicly available for months.

With no manned space programme and no special capabilities that
russian or europe won't have, what will the USA use to barter for a
crew seat on Soyuz to go up to the station after 2010 ?

Hopefully there will be options other than Soyuz after 2010.

Won't the US segment become the equivalent of an abandonned ship that
can be claimed by anyone since the USA will no longer be in a position
to service it ?

No. Maritime salvage law does not apply to space. Hell, maritime salvage
law doesn't apply to government-owned ships anyway.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.