Fight to Save Shuttle

Joe Strout wrote in message ...
In article ,
(ed kyle) wrote:

The danger is that shuttle is abandoned, but CEV
development is subsequently stalled (for any of a variety
of possible reasons), bringing an end to U.S. human
spaceflight for the forseeable future.

That seems to assume that only the government can build a man-rated
launcher. It also assumes that the government is the only customer for
a man-rated launcher. Both of these assumptions are a bit suspect, I
think.

Taking the first one: if we really want to put some U.S. employees in
space, and assuming no shuttle and no replacement NASA launcher, then
there are several options. One (which is rumored to be part of the
plan) is to purchase launches from other spacefaring nations. But
another is to purchase launches from any other company that can provide
them.

Government IS the only customer for man-rated orbital
space launches. Dennis Tito, etc., were stunt passengers.
They came nowhere near paying their fair share for what it
really cost to develop and build the spacecraft in which
they flew. It their were big profits to be made in this
tourism business, it would have happened long ago.

Government has never built a man-rated launcher or spacecraft
- it has always paid shareholder-owned contractors to develop
and build them. In the past McDonnell Aircraft and North
American Aviation (Rockwell) built the spacecraft. General
Dynamics, Martin Marietta, Boeing, Chrysler, etc, built the
boosters. (NASA's MSFC built some Saturn first stages, but
never itself built a complete multistage manned launch vehicle).
If, in the future, it was "any other company", what would be
the difference? Government would still be writing the checks.

Taking the second assumption: space tourism is about to take off in a
big way. By the time ISS is completed and the shuttle fleet retired, we
will at least have a suborbital tourism industry. To the extent that
this industry will largely consist of U.S. companies flying U.S.
passengers, this constitutes "U.S. human spaceflight," don't you agree?


No.

- Ed Kyle

Brian Thorn wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:56:56 +0100, Bjørn Ove Isaksen
wrote:

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

Um, that was me -- not Jorge, and I was talking about the Progress,
not Proton.

Jorge has hade his case: 6,6 M$ for a passenger on the Space Shuttle. I
don't think Russia can beat that.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...6237FB5jrfrank
40206.127.4.12&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove

Jim Davis wrote in message .1.4...
ed kyle wrote:

The danger is that shuttle is abandoned, but CEV
development is subsequently stalled (for any of a variety
of possible reasons), bringing an end to U.S. human
spaceflight for the forseeable future.

Exactly what is the "danger", Ed? There was was a ~5 year gap in US
manned space capability back in the 1970s. The nation didn't miss
it.

Sad to say but manned space is not a "must have" capability.


The danger is that five years becomes ten. That development
problems (= cost overruns) create political gridlock that
stretches ten years to forever. Think about how long it
took to start building space station. Pres Reagan wanted it
built by 1989!

Human spaceflight is a "must have" if you intend to play
the space power game, because successful national space
efforts are about 1) prestige and 2) power through enhanced
defense. The latter has consumed more U.S. funding than
civilian space since about the mid-1980s - at the expense of
the former. A NASA chronically starved for funding has become
a national embarrasment rather than a source of national prestige.
If NASA discontinued human spaceflight and merely sent a robot or
two to the Moon, it would not be worth the money spent because
it would gain no prestige and would not enhance national defense.

- Ed Kyle

ed kyle wrote:

The danger is that five years becomes ten.

And exactly what is the danger in that?

successful national space
efforts are about 1) prestige

Granted, but the US has milked the prestige angle for all that it's
worth.

and 2) power through enhanced
defense.

But manned space flight contributes nothing to national defense.

The latter has consumed more U.S. funding than
civilian space since about the mid-1980s - at the expense of
the former. A NASA chronically starved for funding has become
a national embarrasment rather than a source of national
prestige. If NASA discontinued human spaceflight and merely
sent a robot or two to the Moon, it would not be worth the money
spent because it would gain no prestige and would not enhance
national defense.

How does manned space flight contribute to national defense? All
military manned space programs in both the US and USSR were all
cancelled because they *didn't* contribute anything to national
defense. What has changed?

Jim Davis

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...

Well, duh! The fact sheet describes Bush's proposed policy. I was stating
how I would modify that policy to mitigate your concern.

No offense, but I have more faith in the ability of Russian aerospace
companies to deliver Soyuzes than in your ability to modify NASA
policy.

"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
Government IS the only customer for man-rated orbital
space launches. Dennis Tito, etc., were stunt passengers.
They came nowhere near paying their fair share for what it
really cost to develop and build the spacecraft in which
they flew. It their were big profits to be made in this
tourism business, it would have happened long ago.

Umm, I didn't come near to paying the cost to develop the 747 when I flew
overseas. Virgin Atlantic seems to have done ok.

And by most reports, Tito paid more than the cost of his flight. In other
words, Energia (I think it was) made money on him.

Edward Wright wrote:

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...

There's also a very strange statement about the CEV schedule: "The
new
spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, will be developed and
tested
by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than
2014."
If the CEV will be developed and tested by 2008, what's it going to
be
doing during the six years between 2008 and 2014?

If I take the news release literally I would say about 6 years of unmanned
tests of the CEV. Or perhaps the term "first manned mission" refers to
some kind of operational mission as opposed to manned test flights.

Or perhaps, since NASA has reverted to using the term "manned",
they're planning to fly the first six years with female crews? (It
makes as much sense as anything else.)

My point was that I believe it is a waste of time to worry about the
exact wording of the press release and I believe a lot of your comments
are on that same point.

Mike Walsh

(Edward Wright) wrote in message
No company has ever demonstrated the ability to put a payload into
LEO? So, I guess all those satellites up there are a myth?

Just because a man can drive down a road in a U-Haul doesn't
make him competant as an Army logistician does it?



Will

--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: anzha@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: wbaird@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.

(William Baird) wrote in message . com...

No company has ever demonstrated the ability to put a payload into
LEO? So, I guess all those satellites up there are a myth?

Just because a man can drive down a road in a U-Haul doesn't
make him competant as an Army logistician does it?

I've seen many U-Haul trailers pull up at Army posts.

The US military uses commercial carriers for something like 80% of its
transportation requirements -- both cargo and personnel. The hoary old
analogy between NASA and military transport not only misses the point
-- NASA is not military and has no military requirements -- but
factually wrong.

Michael Walsh wrote in message ...

My point was that I believe it is a waste of time to worry about the
exact wording of the press release and I believe a lot of your comments
are on that same point.

It's not just in the press release, Mike. The President of the United
States said the same thing, so did the Administrator of NASA, and the
2014 date is even in the budget chart.

If worrying about words is a waste of time, why read this forum? It's
got nothing but words.