O'Keefe OSP Letter to Congressman Boehlert

From nasawatch.com/spaceref.com

Comments first. The following information from the letter is new:

"At this time, NASA does not plan to select a team to develop and
build an OSP before August 2004. In addition, the Administration is
reviewing the overall plan for a crew transfer vehicle to the
International Space Station (ISS) in light of overall U.S. space
exploration goals."

Is NASA deemphasizing OSP as a shuttle replacement here?

- Ed Kyle



Letter from NASA Administrator O'Keefe to House Science Committee
Boehlert regarding the Orbtial Space Plane


National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Office of the Administrator
Washington DC 20546-0001

October 29, 2003

The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert
Chairman
Committee on Science
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515


Dear Chairman Boehlert:

Thank you for your letter of October 21, 2003, regarding the Orbital
Space Plane (OSP) program. I want to assure you that NASA will only
proceed with OSP development consistent with the Administration
program and Congressional support. Nothing is currently underway that
would foreclose that condition.

Pursuant to the President's FY 2003 budget amendment, Congress
provided initial funding for the OSP. Following the loss of Columbia,
NASA took steps to enable acceleration of the OSP crew rescue
capability to as early as 2008, followed by crew transfer capability.
This is consistent with the statement in the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board Report that "it is in the National interest to
replace the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for
transporting humans o and from Earth orbit."

The resources in NASA's FY 2004 budget request are sufficient to allow
NASA to position itself for the option to accelerate the OSP
consistent with the observations of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board and desires previously expressed by some Members
of Congress. At this time, NASA does not plan to select a team to
develop and build an OSP before August 2004. In addition, the
Administration is reviewing the overall plan for a crew transfer
vehicle to the International Space Station (ISS) in light of overall
U.S. space exploration goals. As part of the FY 2005 budget process.
This planning horizon will permit ample time for Congress to fully
consider this important endeavor.

NASA requires the entire OSP system-including vehicle, booster and
supporting infrastructure-to be significantly safer than current space
transportation systems. The program requires crew survivability during
launch and reentry and emergency crew rescue capability from the ISS.
These are significant steps toward the primary goal of achieving safer
human space flight. We would be glad to provide an in-depth review of
all OSP safety features that are planned, and under consideration, for
the Committee.

The debate on the OSP program and its role as part of this overall
plan will and should continue, and we are doing nothing that will
foreclose that debate. I look forward to a continuing dialogue with
you and the Committee on the OSP program.

Cordially

Sean O'Keefe
Administrator

Ed Kyle wrote:


Is NASA deemphasizing OSP as a shuttle replacement here?


A Piper Cub isn’t a replacement for a 747.

Wake me when there’s talk about an actual shuttle replacement, not some
politico-speak "apples are really oranges" bait-and-switch scheme.

- George Gassaway

IMHO, Wes Huntress has it correct in his testimony yesterday before John
McCain's Senate committee. We made a big mistake in 1970 when we went down
the garden path that led to the huge shuttle orbiter with the 15 ft dia x
60ft long payload bay. We need to rectify error now by launching humans and
cargo separately. That's what the OSP is all about. The human launch
capability will be developed first. Then the unmanned cargo capabilty will
follow. We need to concentrate on protecting the astronauts during all
phases of the flight the way we did in the Apollo era. The shuttle
philosophy (save the vehicle and you save the crew) has to be replaced by
the design criteria we used for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (first and
foremost, save the crew regardless of what happens to the vehicle). This
means escape capsules, parachutes or paragliders, abort and land
anywhere/anytime capabilty, and ruggidized heat shields (i.e. ablators
instead of RSI tiles and RCC parts).

Later
Ray Schmitt








"ed kyle" wrote in message
m...
From nasawatch.com/spaceref.com

Comments first. The following information from the letter is new:

"At this time, NASA does not plan to select a team to develop and
build an OSP before August 2004. In addition, the Administration is
reviewing the overall plan for a crew transfer vehicle to the
International Space Station (ISS) in light of overall U.S. space
exploration goals."

Is NASA deemphasizing OSP as a shuttle replacement here?

- Ed Kyle



Letter from NASA Administrator O'Keefe to House Science Committee
Boehlert regarding the Orbtial Space Plane


National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Office of the Administrator
Washington DC 20546-0001

October 29, 2003

The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert
Chairman
Committee on Science
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515


Dear Chairman Boehlert:

Thank you for your letter of October 21, 2003, regarding the Orbital
Space Plane (OSP) program. I want to assure you that NASA will only
proceed with OSP development consistent with the Administration
program and Congressional support. Nothing is currently underway that
would foreclose that condition.

Pursuant to the President's FY 2003 budget amendment, Congress
provided initial funding for the OSP. Following the loss of Columbia,
NASA took steps to enable acceleration of the OSP crew rescue
capability to as early as 2008, followed by crew transfer capability.
This is consistent with the statement in the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board Report that "it is in the National interest to
replace the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for
transporting humans o and from Earth orbit."

The resources in NASA's FY 2004 budget request are sufficient to allow
NASA to position itself for the option to accelerate the OSP
consistent with the observations of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board and desires previously expressed by some Members
of Congress. At this time, NASA does not plan to select a team to
develop and build an OSP before August 2004. In addition, the
Administration is reviewing the overall plan for a crew transfer
vehicle to the International Space Station (ISS) in light of overall
U.S. space exploration goals. As part of the FY 2005 budget process.
This planning horizon will permit ample time for Congress to fully
consider this important endeavor.

NASA requires the entire OSP system-including vehicle, booster and
supporting infrastructure-to be significantly safer than current space
transportation systems. The program requires crew survivability during
launch and reentry and emergency crew rescue capability from the ISS.
These are significant steps toward the primary goal of achieving safer
human space flight. We would be glad to provide an in-depth review of
all OSP safety features that are planned, and under consideration, for
the Committee.

The debate on the OSP program and its role as part of this overall
plan will and should continue, and we are doing nothing that will
foreclose that debate. I look forward to a continuing dialogue with
you and the Committee on the OSP program.

Cordially

Sean O'Keefe
Administrator

"rschmitt23" wrote:
IMHO, Wes Huntress has it correct in his testimony yesterday before John
McCain's Senate committee. We made a big mistake in 1970 when we went down
the garden path that led to the huge shuttle orbiter with the 15 ft dia x
60ft long payload bay. We need to rectify error now by launching humans and
cargo separately. That's what the OSP is all about. The human launch
capability will be developed first. Then the unmanned cargo capabilty will
follow.

That's the error made in the development of the Shuttle. Without a
destination, which implies cargo capacity, the manned portion is left
without a mission. So what you propose is prestige over purpose.

You also propose tossing the capabilities of the Shuttle without
replacement, this may or may not be a mistake. Such a course should
be taken with careful thought, not knee-jerk nostalgia.

We need to concentrate on protecting the astronauts during all
phases of the flight the way we did in the Apollo era. The shuttle
philosophy (save the vehicle and you save the crew)

It should be noted that almost every other form of transportation uses
the 'save the vehicle' philosopy with great sucess. Just because the
one implementation of that philosophy in space has flaws does not mean
the philosophy is flawed.

has to be replaced by
the design criteria we used for Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (first and
foremost, save the crew regardless of what happens to the vehicle). This
means escape capsules, parachutes or paragliders, abort and land
anywhere/anytime capabilty, and ruggidized heat shields (i.e. ablators
instead of RSI tiles and RCC parts).

Forward into the past.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.