Congress already trying to kill Shuttle replacement.

Multiple articles:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2183599

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20031027_2260.html

http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia...SPACEPLANE.htm


Amazing they seem to have already forgotten why the OSP is being built.
Of course if we lose another shuttle they will blame NASA not themselves.

On the other hand it makes a good case for going with a capsule design since
it would cut costs.

Perhaps Congress hasn't forgotten how many times Marshall Spaceflight
Center has screwed the pooch on prior programs (OSP is to be managed
by Marshall)"

Prop Module: $500 million spent on paper studies
Fastrac Engine: never worked
X-33, X-34: need I say more?

When was the last time that a system designed by Marshall actually
flew?

Oh yeah, the DART program, which is to serve as a pathfinder for OSP
(it will test the AVGS sensor suite) was quietly postponed 6 months at
the very same time that MSFC claimed that OSP was to be advanced 2
years.

OSP is failing badly, DART is in trouble, and Congress is finally
taking note of these problems.

Bottom line: not all problems are solvable by simply giving NASA more
money.

"Dholmes" wrote in message .. .
Multiple articles:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2183599

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20031027_2260.html

http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia...SPACEPLANE.htm


Amazing they seem to have already forgotten why the OSP is being built.
Of course if we lose another shuttle they will blame NASA not themselves.

On the other hand it makes a good case for going with a capsule design since
it would cut costs.

On 28 Oct 2003 07:35:22 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Perhaps Congress hasn't forgotten how many times Marshall Spaceflight
Center has screwed the pooch on prior programs (OSP is to be managed
by Marshall)"

Prop Module: $500 million spent on paper studies
Fastrac Engine: never worked
X-33, X-34: need I say more?

Don't forget OMV.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Dholmes" wrote in message
...
Multiple articles:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2183599

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20031027_2260.html

http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia...SPACEPLANE.htm


Amazing they seem to have already forgotten why the OSP is being built.
Of course if we lose another shuttle they will blame NASA not themselves.

On the other hand it makes a good case for going with a capsule design
since
it would cut costs.

There are bound to be some people in Congress who want to go to the moon or
Mars and see OSP as a diversion of funds from a better space program. If
you don't want to go into LEO, then why fund OSP.

Congress needs to revise NASA's charter to drive a stake through the
heart of the "Lead Center" concept. A technology development
organization has the wrong sort of culture to manage an engineering
development program intended to produce operational hardware. NASA
created the Industrial Operations Division to manage the Apollo Program
- from Headquarters - and it worked well. We need to create a new
organization, similar to that one and answerable only to the
Administrator, to manage all future development programs for launch
vehicles or space station or base hardware. Otherwise, the tail will
continue to wag the dog.

Explorer8939 wrote:

Perhaps Congress hasn't forgotten how many times Marshall Spaceflight
Center has screwed the pooch on prior programs (OSP is to be managed
by Marshall).

Prop Module: $500 million spent on paper studies
Fastrac Engine: never worked
X-33, X-34: need I say more?

When was the last time that a system designed by Marshall actually
flew?

Oh yeah, the DART program, which is to serve as a pathfinder for OSP
(it will test the AVGS sensor suite) was quietly postponed 6 months at
the very same time that MSFC claimed that OSP was to be advanced 2
years.

OSP is failing badly, DART is in trouble, and Congress is finally
taking note of these problems.

Bottom line: not all problems are solvable by simply giving NASA more
money.

"Dholmes" wrote in message .. .
Multiple articles:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2183599

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20031027_2260.html

http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia...SPACEPLANE.htm


Amazing they seem to have already forgotten why the OSP is being built.
Of course if we lose another shuttle they will blame NASA not themselves.

On the other hand it makes a good case for going with a capsule design since
it would cut costs.

My question stills stands:

After funding Marshall Spaceflight Center year after year for billions
of tax dollars, when was the last time that Marshall produced a space
system that worked?

BTW, other wonderful Marshall products:

ProSEDS: cancelled a week before launch
X-43A: in the drink
2nd Gen RLV.



h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 28 Oct 2003 07:35:22 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Perhaps Congress hasn't forgotten how many times Marshall Spaceflight
Center has screwed the pooch on prior programs (OSP is to be managed
by Marshall)"

Prop Module: $500 million spent on paper studies
Fastrac Engine: never worked
X-33, X-34: need I say more?

Don't forget OMV.

Dick Morris wrote in message ...
Congress needs to revise NASA's charter to drive a stake through the
heart of the "Lead Center" concept. A technology development
organization has the wrong sort of culture to manage an engineering
development program intended to produce operational hardware. NASA
created the Industrial Operations Division to manage the Apollo Program
- from Headquarters - and it worked well. We need to create a new
organization, similar to that one and answerable only to the
Administrator, to manage all future development programs for launch
vehicles or space station or base hardware. Otherwise, the tail will
continue to wag the dog.

Agree. It is also much easier to hold a new organization accountable,
because instead of inheriting people who may not be right for the job,
you get to pick exactly who you want from the start.

Explorer8939 wrote:

Perhaps Congress hasn't forgotten how many times Marshall Spaceflight
Center has screwed the pooch on prior programs (OSP is to be managed
by Marshall).

Prop Module: $500 million spent on paper studies
Fastrac Engine: never worked
X-33, X-34: need I say more?

When was the last time that a system designed by Marshall actually
flew?

Saturn, right? But that was a good one,yeah?

It's funny, actually, if you go to Marshall's homepage and check the
'history' synopsis, Marshall proudly lists the many programs which it
has managed successfully... a long list that starts in 1961 and ends
with SSME. Too bad the SSME's been around for a quarter century now.

(actually, Marshall was also responsible for the Hubble fiasco in
1990)

Oh yeah, the DART program, which is to serve as a pathfinder for OSP
(it will test the AVGS sensor suite) was quietly postponed 6 months at
the very same time that MSFC claimed that OSP was to be advanced 2
years.
it was? When did that happen?

OSP is failing badly, DART is in trouble, and Congress is finally
taking note of these problems.

Bottom line: not all problems are solvable by simply giving NASA more
money.


Your bottom line implies that at some point since 1979 Congress tried
to 'fix NASA' by giving it more money--I don't remember that
happening. Do you?

Tom Merkle

On 28 Oct 2003 16:25:20 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Explorer8939) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

My question stills stands:

After funding Marshall Spaceflight Center year after year for billions
of tax dollars, when was the last time that Marshall produced a space
system that worked?

Depends on how you define "worked." SSME, SRB and ET (including
upgrades) are all Marshall developments.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Dholmes" wrote in message
...
Multiple articles:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2183599

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20031027_2260.html

http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia...SPACEPLANE.htm


Amazing they seem to have already forgotten why the OSP is being built.
Of course if we lose another shuttle they will blame NASA not themselves.

On the other hand it makes a good case for going with a capsule design
since
it would cut costs.


Oh really? Have you priced expendables lately and factored in NASA's
overhead?

This is a good move in my book.

"Explorer8939" wrote in message
om...
Perhaps Congress hasn't forgotten how many times Marshall Spaceflight
Center has screwed the pooch on prior programs (OSP is to be managed
by Marshall)"

Prop Module: $500 million spent on paper studies
Fastrac Engine: never worked
X-33, X-34: need I say more?

Why were these Marshall problems? The programs were cancelled for
"financial reasons" by _Congress_, not by Marshall.


--
Alan Erskine
alanterskine(at)hotmail.com


Due to Optusnet's failure to deal with
the current virus SPAM attack, respond
to alanterskine(at)hotmail.com