DeCastro just brushes off the risk of additional Shuttle losses as a solved problem, which is a bit staggering. Foam losses continued post-Columbia and NASA was clearly terrified of losing another shuttle after RTF. Continued operation of an aging fleet does not increase safety margins.
DeCastro's ability to ignore Shuttle's political effects in terms of preventing development of alternative vehicles capable of supplanting it (ie EELVs) is also a bit staggering. Back when it was actually an appropriate time to replace Shuttle, Shuttle alternatives were viewed politically as threats to Shuttle. Only a string of extravagant failed attempts at Shuttle successors were permitted. Now that time has run out, further Shuttle manifest extension would further delay alternatives but DeCastro ignores this.
Quote from: stealthyplains on 09/02/2011 04:43 amDeCastro's ability to ignore Shuttle's political effects in terms of preventing development of alternative vehicles capable of supplanting it (ie EELVs) is also a bit staggering. Back when it was actually an appropriate time to replace Shuttle, Shuttle alternatives were viewed politically as threats to Shuttle. Only a string of extravagant failed attempts at Shuttle successors were permitted. Now that time has run out, further Shuttle manifest extension would further delay alternatives but DeCastro ignores this.This is unfortunately true. (that Shuttle's existence prevented alternatives from being developed) Shuttle extension would only have pushed the current situation further down the line.
I mean responsible families who rely on their family car don't trash their current vehicle without first planning or acquiring a replacement. They don't wait until Monday morning when they have to go to work and finally realize that they better start saving up and thinking about getting a new car. And now in the meantime they're stuck relying on their neighbor (who may or may not be reliable or friendly).If our government and agencies can't provide this basic level of planning and foresight then I'm sorry, they are worthless.
Remember, Columbia was too heavy "in the rear end" to effectively fly an ISS mission.
Quote from: Nascent Ascent on 09/02/2011 07:25 amI mean responsible families who rely on their family car don't trash their current vehicle without first planning or acquiring a replacement. They don't wait until Monday morning when they have to go to work and finally realize that they better start saving up and thinking about getting a new car. And now in the meantime they're stuck relying on their neighbor (who may or may not be reliable or friendly).If our government and agencies can't provide this basic level of planning and foresight then I'm sorry, they are worthless.That's a little unfair to NASA......
Responsible families who rely on their family car don't trash their current vehicle without first planning or acquiring a replacement.
Think of NASA like a guy who gets an inheritance and spends it on a nice shiny new top of the line car for his family.
Fantastic article."I worry more about the loss of the critical NASA personnel who are skilled in the planning, training, and operation of Human Space Flight.“Without something to operate, it is highly likely that NASA will lose its core ‘operations’ capability and will have a difficult time rebuilding that capability. The probable loss of skills in NASA will manifest itself in a costly and slow return to the current level of efficiency and safety."Is a very important quote from him.