Griffin on Loss of U.S. Space Leadership

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

These stats are meaningless. Hard the cargo bay been full of passengers it
wouldn't have changed the overall safety of the program at all.


How about if the cargo bay had been full of all the heads of NASA's
departments?
Think that little O-ring problem would have been dealt with a bit
sooner? ;-)

Pat

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...

The fact is that the U.S. space shuttle is a flawed system
that has failed to maintain a U.S. human presence in space,
in stark contrast to Russia's Soyuz system.

Yes, too bad the Russians haven't been able to live up to their promises for
number of Soyuz and Progress craft.

And NASA has lived up to its promises? The U.S. gave up on
living up to its ISS commitments back in 2001-2002, when
Goldin's NASA overran the ISS budget so badly that Congress
said "enough". NASA has not, and never will, provide full
crew capability, has not provided a rescue craft, etc. Meanwhile,
the U.S. is talking about abandoning ISS altogether in a few
years.

Today, Russia is the partner pulling the weight on ISS. During the
past three years, Russia delivered six U.S. astronauts to ISS at
no charge on six Soyuz flights (along with seven Russians, three
Europeans, and one space tourist). During the same period,
Russia, with no major hiccups, delivered nearly 28 tonnes of cargo
to the station on eleven Progress freighter missions, provided
station reboost, and provided continuous crew rescue capability.
NASA managed one flawed shuttle flight to ISS with seven
astronauts and an unannouced cargo mass that appears to have
been in the 2-4 tonne range.

- Ed Kyle

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...

The fact is that the U.S. space shuttle is a flawed system
that has failed to maintain a U.S. human presence in space,
in stark contrast to Russia's Soyuz system.

Yes, too bad the Russians haven't been able to live up to their promises for
number of Soyuz and Progress craft.

And NASA has lived up to its promises? The U.S. gave up on
living up to its ISS commitments back in 2001-2002, when
Goldin's NASA overran the ISS budget so badly that Congress
said "enough". NASA has not, and never will, provided full
crew capability, has not provided a rescue craft, etc. Meanwhile,
the U.S. is talking about abandoning ISS altogether in a few
years.

Today, Russia is the partner pulling the weight on ISS. During the
past three years, Russia delivered six U.S. astronauts to ISS at
no charge on six Soyuz flights (along with seven Russians, three
Europeans, and one space tourist). During the same period,
Russia, with no major hiccups, delivered nearly 28 tonnes of cargo
to the station on eleven Progress freighter missions, provided
station reboost, and provided continuous crew rescue capability.
NASA managed one flawed shuttle flight to ISS with seven
astronauts and an unannouced cargo mass that appears to have
been in the 2-4 tonne range.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle ) wrote:
: Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
: "Ed Kyle" wrote in message
: ups.com...
:
: The fact is that the U.S. space shuttle is a flawed system
: that has failed to maintain a U.S. human presence in space,
: in stark contrast to Russia's Soyuz system.
:
: Yes, too bad the Russians haven't been able to live up to their promises for
: number of Soyuz and Progress craft.

: And NASA has lived up to its promises? The U.S. gave up on
: living up to its ISS commitments back in 2001-2002, when
: Goldin's NASA overran the ISS budget so badly that Congress
: said "enough". NASA has not, and never will, provide full
: crew capability, has not provided a rescue craft, etc. Meanwhile,
: the U.S. is talking about abandoning ISS altogether in a few
: years.

: Today, Russia is the partner pulling the weight on ISS. During the
: past three years, Russia delivered six U.S. astronauts to ISS at
: no charge on six Soyuz flights (along with seven Russians, three
: Europeans, and one space tourist). During the same period,
: Russia, with no major hiccups, delivered nearly 28 tonnes of cargo
: to the station on eleven Progress freighter missions, provided
: station reboost, and provided continuous crew rescue capability.
: NASA managed one flawed shuttle flight to ISS with seven
: astronauts and an unannouced cargo mass that appears to have
: been in the 2-4 tonne range.

Yes, yes, all that said, we've had some mishaps. Not to make excuses, but
one disaster and a serious scare has had impact on the whole STS program.
I agree the Russians have kept much of the ISS going in lieu of us not
being able to. That's what partners are for. We shouldn't badmouth them,
agreed. But, we shouldn't be badmouthed given our mishaps either, as
badmouthing really serves no real purpose.

Eric

: - Ed Kyle

On 22 Feb 2006 08:07:37 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...

The fact is that the U.S. space shuttle is a flawed system
that has failed to maintain a U.S. human presence in space,
in stark contrast to Russia's Soyuz system.

Yes, too bad the Russians haven't been able to live up to their promises for
number of Soyuz and Progress craft.

And NASA has lived up to its promises?

Nope. But our failure to live up to obligations shouldn't be reason to
excuse others of the same failings. Where, afterall, are the six
Progress flights per year Russia agreed in 1994 to provide? Where is
the Universal Docking Module, the Docking & Stowage Module, and the
Russian Research Modules, all of which would have made life easier on
ISS during the Shuttle's unfortunate standdown. NASA's failings are
largely because its launch system killed a crew. Russia's failings
seem to be large because they can't be bothered to fund what they
promised to fund. Russia has done some serious screwing around, and
you seem to want to kiss the ground they walk on.

The U.S. gave up on
living up to its ISS commitments back in 2001-2002, when
Goldin's NASA overran the ISS budget so badly that Congress
said "enough". NASA has not, and never will, provide full
crew capability, has not provided a rescue craft, etc. Meanwhile,
the U.S. is talking about abandoning ISS altogether in a few
years.

Well, not before its scheduled EOM in 2015, anyway. Post-2010 NASA
seems to be heading toward using commercial suppliers for cargo
delivery. If they were planning to abandon ISS altogether in a few
years, the Shuttle would certainly have been cancelled after 107. And
there is no reason to believe that termination of NASA operations on
ISS will mean the end of US presense there. US interests could quite
easily be turned over to some commercial operator by then.

Today, Russia is the partner pulling the weight on ISS. During the
past three years, Russia delivered six U.S. astronauts to ISS at
no charge on six Soyuz flights (along with seven Russians, three
Europeans, and one space tourist). During the same period,
Russia, with no major hiccups,

I wouldn't say that. TMA-1 came dangerously close to killing its crew
when it faulted to a ballistic entry. The last TMA gave mission
control a good scare during undocking, too. Russia told us, when they
deigned to tell us anything that is, "oh, don't worry, just minor
problems." But isn't this pretty much what NASA was saying about foam
falling off the External Tank before 107?

Brian

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:20:56 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

NASA's failings are
largely because its launch system killed a crew.

If you ignore all of the budget cuts to ISS science over the years,
and continual rescoping of the program. It has been dramatically
mismanaged (as in fact the entire manned space program has). At least
if the goal was to build a useful space station. But of course, that
never was the real goal.

True, but the US science budget cuts don't really impact our partners
much. Kibo, for example, hasn't changed in size despite the
Freedom/Fred/ISS follies (and Japan has only recently started
seriously complaining about the delays, in the late-90s and early 00s,
the delays suited them just fine.) The Hab module was being talked
about getting reinstatement in the budget (or replaced by a Stretched
Node 3) at the time of Columbia and OSP was still a going concern
then, too. So it was the 107 accident that really hit US participation
in ISS and killed the Hab and lifeboat. Before that, things were being
drawn out a lot (to be fair, this was somewhat Russia's responsiblity
too) but not much had actually been cancelled.

Brian

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:18:38 -0600, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

NASA's failings are
largely because its launch system killed a crew.

If you ignore all of the budget cuts to ISS science over the years,
and continual rescoping of the program. It has been dramatically
mismanaged (as in fact the entire manned space program has). At least
if the goal was to build a useful space station. But of course, that
never was the real goal.

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 22 Feb 2006 08:07:37 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
ups.com...

The fact is that the U.S. space shuttle is a flawed system
that has failed to maintain a U.S. human presence in space,
in stark contrast to Russia's Soyuz system.

Yes, too bad the Russians haven't been able to live up to their promises for
number of Soyuz and Progress craft.

And NASA has lived up to its promises?

NASA's failings are
largely because its launch system killed a crew.

And because it has been unable to return the launch system to
operation more than three years later.

Russia's failings
seem to be large because they can't be bothered to fund what they
promised to fund.

Russia has increased funding to its space agency in recent
years at a rate far in excess of NASA's increases.

Russia has done some serious screwing around, and
you seem to want to kiss the ground they walk on.

I am merely pointing out that Griffin's claim of U.S. human
space leadership is not supported by the flight history
since 2003. During the last three years, Russia has
led in human spaceflight while the U.S. program has
sputtered and flailed with little result for massive cost,
and while plans are laid to mothball and shut down the
remnants of the stunted U.S. program to replace it with
something that basically resembles the Russian system.
If the new U.S. program is modeled after Russia's, who
is providing "space leadership"?

- Ed Kyle

On 23 Feb 2006 07:04:51 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:


And because it has been unable to return the launch system to
operation more than three years later.

Well, except for that flight last summer, and the one scheduled for
three months from now...

Russia's failings
seem to be large because they can't be bothered to fund what they
promised to fund.

Russia has increased funding to its space agency in recent
years at a rate far in excess of NASA's increases.

When you start at rock bottom, there's hardly anywhere to go but up.
And evidently it hasn't gone up enough yet, as we're still waiting on
the 6 Progresses per year they said they'd provide, and there is still
no sign of the UDM, DSM, RMs, etc. Granted, we're in no position to
complain (and we don't, until someone starts saying how wonderful the
Russians are), but the fact remains...

Russia has done some serious screwing around, and
you seem to want to kiss the ground they walk on.

I am merely pointing out that Griffin's claim of U.S. human
space leadership is not supported by the flight history
since 2003.

Who said we're limited to post-2003?

During the last three years, Russia has
led in human spaceflight while the U.S. program has
sputtered and flailed with little result for massive cost,

But during the previous 15 years, the US launched five times as many
manned space missions and delivered an amount of material to low Earth
orbit which far exceeds that of Russia.

and while plans are laid to mothball and shut down the
remnants of the stunted U.S. program to replace it with
something that basically resembles the Russian system.

Well, so does every other manned space system in history except for
the Space Shuttle. CEV really doesn't much resemble Soyuz to me, by
the way. It sure looks a lot like Apollo, though. And how many guffaws
and how much complaining was there when Lockheed's lifting-body CEV
was unveiled last year? That was something very different, and almost
no one liked it. Now that we're back to a Gemini/Apollo/Soyuz style
system, people are *still* whining.

If the new U.S. program is modeled after Russia's, who
is providing "space leadership"?

A big if.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 23 Feb 2006 07:04:51 -0800, "Ed Kyle" wrote:

I am merely pointing out that Griffin's claim of U.S. human
space leadership is not supported by the flight history
since 2003.

Who said we're limited to post-2003?

This is the post-Columbia era at NASA, which began
in 2003 and continues to this day. This is the era that
Griffin is speaking in and, therefore, talking about.
What happened during the previous 5 or 15 or 40 years
is irrelevant.

- Ed Kyle