"The new bill seems to pull the rug out from under the NewSpace competitors because extending STS to 2015 palliates the "gap crisis," and makes CCDEV seems less urgent."I don't think so. NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make. Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill since they would be virtually certain to be able to send cargo up to ISS for less than the shuttle costs, and therefore it's to their advantage to hustle.The bill seems pretty good to me, at least on a first read.In the opening words of the article, Chris pointed out how Griffin sorta played the part of Brutus: he was one of the first to stab the shuttle program, right under Bush's nose. I don't get why the new administrator seems to want to make the final stab at killing the shuttle.
I don't think so. NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make. Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill since they would be virtually certain to be able to send cargo up to ISS for less than the shuttle costs, and therefore it's to their advantage to hustle.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2010 01:59 pmThe bad news is that we are spending all our money on rockets or Shuttle. But the President should have know that an HLV in 2025 wouldn't be acceptable to Congress. The HLV needs to be ready for 2020 at the latest. The President will have to compromise on the HLV. Thank God, Congress hasn't done space architecture in the past, otherwise NASA would never have gotten a single human being into orbit.Anyway, let's dissect the claim of having an HLV ready by 2025 or 2020 or at all. Where does this come from? Well, this wasn't plan until 2005, at least noone was talking about 100mt+ S-HLVs. Before 2005, most people agreed it would not be a sustainable path to base an architecture around large S-HLVs, so architectures were based on 20mt, 50mt and maybe 60-70mt rockets. We need to finally get back to common sense that was available before 2005 and Congress needs to do that too. An HLV sure is important, but it sure doesn't need to be a 100mt to LEO vehicle and an HLV without allocating a lot MORE money to payloads for said HLV is a track towards not doing anything BEO.
The bad news is that we are spending all our money on rockets or Shuttle. But the President should have know that an HLV in 2025 wouldn't be acceptable to Congress. The HLV needs to be ready for 2020 at the latest. The President will have to compromise on the HLV.
I was saying that 2025 is too far down the road. The 2025 date comes from Bolden in a press conference.
... But if STS is continued to 2015, where's the urgency for space, new or old? And suppose SpaceX and OSC fail to deliver the goods? STS will take up the slack. If there weren't any more disasters between then and now, come 2015, what's to stop Congress from saying, "Okay, lets just keep flying STS 'til the end of ISS in 2020?" That's what I was saying, with regard to the "gap crisis" and the urgency of CCDEV. The easiest way to solve a problem is to ignore it, until something bad happens. Then it's too late.
"2025" for HLV is based on Bolden's comments in a variety of press conferences and appearances now, where he has consistently said that with the President's Budget plan, an HLV should be ready between 2020 and 2030.2025 is simply the mid-point in that range.Ross.
And I have a question for the forum; "If the FY2011 Budget had been proposed by a Republican President John McCain, would there have been as much resistance to it?"
NewSpace has got plenty to do, and plenty of money to make. Their sense of urgency, I think, will continue under the proposed bill since they would be virtually certain to be able to send cargo up to ISS for less than the shuttle costs, and therefore it's to their advantage to hustle.
Yes that is what I meant. Bolden mentionned this during the press conference linked below (but he wasn't entirely clear on the exact date and he said that they hadn't yet fixed one but the mid-2020 was a reasonable estimate for an HLV at this point):
Quote from: dad2059 on 03/04/2010 03:14 pmAnd I have a question for the forum; "If the FY2011 Budget had been proposed by a Republican President John McCain, would there have been as much resistance to it?"I believe so, since I don't believe the "sides" of this are Democrat / Republican.
I believe CAIB's recommendation was aimed at a program which was going to continue operating "normally" well beyond 2010. There are a variety of options which don't require re-cert for such a small number of flights going beyond that date.I personally wonder why they can't simply be flown with a waiver and be done with it.I see no real-world reason why a Shuttle which is considered safe to fly on 30th September, 2010 suddenly needs re-certification if the launch date slips 24 hours to 1st October.Assuming the vehicles are given the appropriate level of care, and as long as SSP continue to demonstrate their excellent record of due-diligence which everyone here has witnessed since STS-114, I think this re-cert issue is one which can, and should, be given a waiver.YMMV.Ross.
Yes, like keeping the cork on their rocket during testing! Tongue firmly in cheek.
And if SpaceX or OSC fail (which ignores ULA, whom stands a far better chance)