Griffin: Shuttle-CEV Gap Unacceptable

How quickly can we build a CEV?


Herm
Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:42:14 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
Of course, this is probably a moot issue, because I suspect that Mike
is going to try to figure out a way [restire the shuttle] sooner, not
later, than 2010

I think that Griffin might well do that. If so, Bush's so-called
non-promise will turn out to be true.

"So-called non-promise"? You're the only person, as far as I can
tell, who has fantasized that it ever was a "promise." (Hint: In the
real world, as opposed to Planet Kuperberg, when people make promises,
they generally use the word "promise.")

Herm wrote:
How quickly can we build a CEV?


If past results are any guide, it should be
possible to get an uncrewed boilerplate into
space in 3-5 years and a crewed vehicle into
low earth orbit in 6-8 years. It took about
three years to fly a rudimentary Apollo
boilerplate and six years to orbit a manned
Apollo. (It would've been five years if the
AS-204 fire had been avoided). It took about
five years to get Enterprise into the Approach
and Landing Test series. It took about nine
years to orbit a shuttle, which was a much
more ambitious project than CEV.

- Ed Kyle

In article .com,
Ed Kyle wrote:
How quickly can we build a CEV?

If past results are any guide, it should be
possible to get an uncrewed boilerplate into
space in 3-5 years and a crewed vehicle into
low earth orbit in 6-8 years...

As Griffin himself pointed out, Gemini is a better example: it went from
a vague concept to a preliminary unmanned test in 3 years, with a first
manned test about a year after that and a fully operational spacecraft
around six months later. And at that, it was held up by both sheer bad
luck (the gap between first test and first manned flight would have been
shorter had sustained bad weather in autumn 1964 not repeatedly delayed a
second unmanned test) and novel technology (the project lost perhaps a
year to the paraglider and the fuel cells, and the latter were also the
main difference between the first manned test and the operational Gemini).
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
If past results are any guide, it should be
possible to get an uncrewed boilerplate into
space in 3-5 years...

Past results aren't necessarily a guide. Apollo had basically a blank
check...

On the other hand, despite a firm intent to avoid novel technology as much
as possible, Apollo ended up doing a lot of things for the first time,
which hurt both the cost and the schedule. A lot of that technology is
now available off the shelf.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

On 16 Apr 2005 17:12:43 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Herm wrote:
How quickly can we build a CEV?


If past results are any guide, it should be
possible to get an uncrewed boilerplate into
space in 3-5 years and a crewed vehicle into
low earth orbit in 6-8 years.

Past results aren't necessarily a guide. Apollo had basically a blank
check. NASA today has to operate under both budget constraints and an
abundance of political correctness (e.g., 8As and minority/women-owned
businesses, etc.). That was then, this is now.

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
I hardly find it surprising that the wording of a speech and the
wording of a document intended to outline and translate that speech
into action items diverge somewhat.

Except that O'Keefe's VSE document is not the only one that executes
Bush's space policy. Bush's 2006 budget requst for NASA also has that
function. It quotes Bush's vow to can the shuttle by 2010 verbatim.
So it could be the difference between promotion and execution, or it
could be the difference between Bush and O'Keefe. O'Keefe is now gone;
Bush is not.

It would at least be foolish politics for Bush to keep reminding
Washington of the 2010 date if he didn't plan to stick to it. Foolish
policy from George W. Bush is no surprise, but foolish politics would
be out of character.

--
/\ 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 *

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 12:08:21 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
I hardly find it surprising that the wording of a speech and the
wording of a document intended to outline and translate that speech
into action items diverge somewhat.

Except that O'Keefe's VSE document is not the only one that executes
Bush's space policy. Bush's 2006 budget requst for NASA also has that
function. It quotes Bush's vow

Now it's a "vow"?

You're hilarious, Gregg.

It would at least be foolish politics for Bush to keep reminding
Washington of the 2010 date if he didn't plan to stick to it.

Since the 2010 date is the policy, why not state it as such? That of
course doesn't mean that (like any policy) it can't change, if
circumstances require it.

Greg Kuperberg wrote:
[...] It quotes Bush's vow to can the shuttle by 2010 verbatim.

Greg, look. This thread is not helping your general credibility
in any way. You are obviously so wrapped up in disliking Bush
and the manned space program (and you have explicitly admitted
to those dislikes before) that you are attempting to microparse
and quote lawyer a nonissue to death.

The underlying question... is the Shuttle program going away
or not... is a perfectly valid one. As is exactly what it's
going to be doing between now and end of program.

However, those questions have with one exception been answered:
it's going away... everybody in the political, budget, NASA,
and contractors community agrees so, and by something very
close to the end of 2010. And it's only going to fly ISS
missions, with the sole exception being unless a Hubble
repair waiver and Hubble repair mission budget get approved.

Even if you are right and Bush has functionally promised to
shut it down by Dec 31 2010, and it turns out it's somewhat
into 2011 or some such, the only valid response is "So what?".
That doesn't change either of the big questions' answers.
It's a scheduling detail which is contengent on several
years worth of complex space operations. Spaceflight
schedules slip all the time, and everyone associated with
it knows that.

There is no there here. There is nothing worth arguing about.
There is no issue to keep harping on.

All you're doing when you post in this thread is making your
irrationality on these topics stand out more.

Knock it off.


-george william herbert

In article ,
George William Herbert wrote:
The underlying question... is the Shuttle program going away
or not... is a perfectly valid one. As is exactly what it's
going to be doing between now and end of program.

Sure, that's the question that I have in mind too. As I see it, it is
not all clear that the space shuttle is going away in 2010 or close to it.
Some powerful people can't stand the thought of a "gap" in American manned
spaceflight. One important Senator even called it a threat to national
security! So I'm not just trying to prove that Bush has no credibility.
On the contrary, on this question, I still hope that he's exactly right.
I hope that the invisible hand of executive power shoves aside anyone
who tries to rescue the Shuttle between now and December 2008.

--
/\ 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 *