Griffin: Shuttle-CEV Gap Unacceptable

This is news. From congressional testimony reported at:

"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=753&e=1&u=/ap/20050412/ap_on_go_co/nasa_chief&sid=84439559"

" Griffin also agreed with senators that there was an
unacceptable gap between the planned retirement, no
later than 2010, of the space shuttle, and the launch
some five years later of the next-generation manned
vehicle, called the Crew Exploration Vehicle."

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (news, bio, voting record),
R-Texas, who heads the Commerce Committee's panel on
science and space, said such a hiatus was "a security
issue for our country."

Griffin concurred: "I do not believe we would wish to
see a situation where the United States is dependent
on any partners, reliable or unreliable" for access
to space."

"Ed Kyle" wrote in
ups.com:

This is news. From congressional testimony reported at:

"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=753&e=1&u=/ap/20050412/ap_o
n_go_co/nasa_chief&sid=84439559"

" Griffin also agreed with senators that there was an
unacceptable gap between the planned retirement, no
later than 2010, of the space shuttle, and the launch
some five years later of the next-generation manned
vehicle, called the Crew Exploration Vehicle."

As I suspected would be the case; the retirement of the Shuttle
will have to be pushed back, or funding and development of
CEV pushed up. More likely the former than the latter, given
the way Congress does things.

--Damon

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:48:21 -0500, in a place far, far away, Damon
Hill made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

" Griffin also agreed with senators that there was an
unacceptable gap between the planned retirement, no
later than 2010, of the space shuttle, and the launch
some five years later of the next-generation manned
vehicle, called the Crew Exploration Vehicle."

As I suspected would be the case; the retirement of the Shuttle
will have to be pushed back, or funding and development of
CEV pushed up. More likely the former than the latter, given
the way Congress does things.

It doesn't say that it has to be closed--just that four years is
unacceptable. Griffin obviously plans to move the 2014 date up.

Damon Hill wrote:
As I suspected would be the case; the retirement of the Shuttle
will have to be pushed back,

So who exactly do you think will be brave enough to take responsibility
for keeping the shuttle flying past 2010?

Currently we have a fixed date to stop flights, and if a shuttle is
lost then Congress can blame NASA for screwing up. If Congress tell
them to keep flying til 2014 and a shuttle is lost after 2010, NASA
will blame Congress for telling them to keep flying.

Do you think there's a single person in Congress with the balls to take
that responsibility?

Mark

wrote in
ups.com:

Damon Hill wrote:
As I suspected would be the case; the retirement of the Shuttle
will have to be pushed back,

So who exactly do you think will be brave enough to take responsibility
for keeping the shuttle flying past 2010?

Currently we have a fixed date to stop flights,

The "fixed" date is in fact completely arbitrary, so stretching it will not
require much bravery.


--
JRF

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

In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
So who exactly do you think will be brave enough to take responsibility
for keeping the shuttle flying past 2010?
Currently we have a fixed date to stop flights,
The "fixed" date is in fact completely arbitrary, so stretching it will not
require much bravery.

It would require the courage, or maybe the cowardice, to contradict a
direct and explicit promise from the President of the United States to
the American people.


--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \ Home page: http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~greg/
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

wrote:
Damon Hill wrote:
As I suspected would be the case; the retirement of the Shuttle
will have to be pushed back,

So who exactly do you think will be brave enough to take
responsibility
for keeping the shuttle flying past 2010?


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?

- Ed Kyle

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
Stating a policy is not a "direct and explicit promise to the American
people."

What part of "In 2010, the Space Shuttle will be retired from service"
do you not understand?

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \ Home page: http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~greg/
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

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.

Mark

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