Angry Astronauts Write Letter

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
Which is as it should be. The problem is that we are being asked to
admit them into the club YESTERDAY, before they've demonstrated said
progress. We're basically betting the ISS farm on them, with very
little justification for doing so.

We're not betting the farm just yet. Orbital has one of the contracts and
they've got a lot of practical experience building and flying satellite
busses. Admittedly Orbital's design does not return anything to Earth, so
it's very unlikely to evolve into a crewed vehicle. Also, the latest
proposal from the Administration brings back Orion as a CEV sort of vehicle
for ISS. A crewed capsule isn't an easy thing to do and I don't object to
having multiple backup plans (paying or trading for Soyuz, Progress, ATV,
and HTV flights are always options too).

But what I want out of NASA (or Congress/Senate) is a clear policy (or law)
which states that when the commercial providers finally do mature their
vehicles that NASA will cease and desist their government designed (Orion)
vehicle flights to ISS and let the commercial providers take over that
market. One of the biggest challenges for the startups is raising enough
money in an environment where they are seen as competing with the
government. When the government threatens to step in and wipe out your
market at the blink of an eye, it's kind of hard to convince investors that
you've got the "right stuff" and will eventually turn a profit and provide a
return on their investment.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Administration brings back Orion as a CEV sort of vehicle for ISS.

I sure wish folks would stop naming spaceship projects "Orion". I
can't
stop thinking of the coke-machine lobbing out nukes every 10 seconds.

Nils King Hammer