Does she feel the military should develop its own fighter jets, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines etc?
Unfortunately, the FY 2011 Budget Request does not provide the means to ensure that the extension and full utilization of the space station can be realized. We are already planning to fly 10 fewer missions in completing the space station than had been planned in 2005. As a result, 10 flights' worth of flight-ready payloads--averaging between 40,000 to 50,000 pounds per flight--were essentially relegated to storage warehouses where most of them remain today, ready to fly, ready to use, but with no guaranteed "ticket to ride" to be of any use to the station. What is most important to remember, is that the decisions about which instruments and equipment to swap into the remaining flights were based on the internal assumption of the need to support the ISS through 2015--not through 2020.The result of this is that we do not know how many, or which, of those "grounded payload" items might actually be needed in order to ensure the station can be supported and maintained safely and reliably until 2020. Not only that, we do not know which, or how many, of these payloads are simply too large or too heavy to be carried to orbit by any existing vehicle other than the space shuttle. And finally, we do not know what additional items might need to be ordered, manufactured and delivered in the future, or what launch vehicle capacity will be needed to deliver them to the station. This is simply not the way a great nation should conduct its civil space program. This is not the way to ensure that a decision and pronouncement to continue operations through 2020 will not become an empty gesture due to the deterioration, damage, or failure of equipment and systems vital to providing the oxygen, water, power to make the ISS habitable and to support scientific research.
I wonder why Hutchinson is more concerned about launch vehicles than spacecraft. Is it because more people in Houston work on SSP than on Orion? Or because she doesn't really believe beyond LEO is going to happen any time soon? Something else?
Quote from: OV-106 on 02/26/2010 10:10 pmSomeone please convince me why commercial crew is going to be the savior that everyone thinks and hopes. It WILL create an aerospace bubble, which means after NASA funds most of the development, it will not only then buy the "services" (plus any additional overhead they create by requirements that are not even going to be released for another 10 months, which will be charged back to the government) but also have to subsidize the companies to keep them in business because the market cannot support all these potential vehicles by itself.If a single provider were contracted to provide a crewed service, then NASA's flight rate would probably be sufficient to sustain that service. That would provide incentive for the provider to put their own money into the development, like COTS. The flight rate would keep the service price attractive to other customers.But even if the development is successful & timely, that still leaves us with Soyuz as the backup. To avoid this, NASA will be funding four different development programmes.Since they'll share 1/4 of the flight rate each, ISTM per-mission costs will be higher, so less attractive to other customers. The flight rate will also give a low return on investment, and together with the political risk of yet another cancelled NASA programme, I can't see why any of those providers will put any of their own skin in the game.Won't NASA end up supporting four separate (but smaller) "standing armies", with the higher per-flight costs discouraging private enterprise, so NASA doesn't get the cost-sharing that it might hope for?I wonder if SpaceX expected this sort of environment when they put together their business plan for crewed Dragon?Martin
Someone please convince me why commercial crew is going to be the savior that everyone thinks and hopes. It WILL create an aerospace bubble, which means after NASA funds most of the development, it will not only then buy the "services" (plus any additional overhead they create by requirements that are not even going to be released for another 10 months, which will be charged back to the government) but also have to subsidize the companies to keep them in business because the market cannot support all these potential vehicles by itself.
Because we have a Space Station that we have assured way to support and use just as we are finishing it up and having spent so much money.
Quote from: OV-106 on 02/27/2010 03:34 pmBecause we have a Space Station that we have assured way to support and use just as we are finishing it up and having spent so much money.That doesn't require a new launch vehicle.
Um, what? Iridium still owns and operates those satellites. http://www.iridium.com/
I don't have much of a problem with Shuttle extension, except for the fear it will be abused to develop an SDLV. Contra Ben ISS support can be done with EELVs. Betting the farm on SpaceX was stupid at best, but probably malicious. EELVs should have been involved from the beginning. SpaceX is a great addition, but not proven as a workhorse.
Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development.
Quote from: OV-106 on 02/27/2010 04:21 pmYet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. OK wise guy, what payloads exist for the Shuttle that cannot be flown on EELVs? Flight hardware in parking lots in Japan doesn't count, unless you can tell us where the money to get it operational will come from.
LOL, you just proved my point....You chose a sat system where there was thought to be a market, went bankrupt anyway and then was purchased for "pennies on the dollar".
You compare that to the case where there is as of yet no firm plan on how this public/private partnership will work, but the intent of "multiple providers" to be funded by the government to get to operational status and once there the market cannot support.All the while, ISS hinges on the balance....and this is the idea everyone thinks is going to "open up" space to everyone?What happens if ISS fails because we walked away on the hope and assumption these providers come online? The current COTS plan is already a year or two behind the original advertised date and yet no one is ready to still deliver cargo. Is manned access going to be that much easier?What happens when we fail to support ISS and then the sliver of a market, ISS - the only current destination for these providers, is no longer capable of supporting the "believed" need? Will companies still want to invest their own private capital. Nope....and these efforts fail.What then do we get out of it? No capability whatsoever and a "technology development" program with no focus on what those technologies will ever be used for and no firm date if and ever they are used.Some people need to just open up their eyes here.
I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV. Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion. Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today.
No need to get defensive. Simply pointing out the facts, I'm not sure why folks who want to defend this plan so hard get like this when simple statements of truth are made. Could a fully stocked MPLM-like vehicle with prop tug/bus-like system attached to it be launched on an EELV? Maybe, however that requires *development*. Note I never said anything about hardware sitting in a parking lot in Japan. Please enjoy the rest of your day.
Quote from: OV-106 on 02/27/2010 04:21 pmI'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV. Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion. Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. Don't forget the estimated $8B for development of a SDLV, if NASA does it. If SDLV is so viable, we should privatize it and let it compete against everyone else.
As far as the ISS goes, we absolutely should not do anything that can damage its long term viability. We do have redundancy with our international partners; you must remember that. Whatever unique capabilities provided by the Shuttle need to be taken into account and scheduled in to whatever remaining flights we have left. Personally, I would like to see some sort of Shuttle extension, but let's face it: with a 1.5% failure rate, flying the Shuttle is what we call in statistics a "game of short duration." You fly a short manifest, you have a chance of dodging the bullet. You fly a long manifest, sooner or later you're going to get nailed.The administration isn't willing to take that chance. If Congress is, and is also willing to pony up the extra $2B/year for it, then great. Regardless, the Shuttle is going to end, and for two decades now analysts and committees that have looked at NASA have advocated just the free market approach proposed by the Administration. It's time for us to try. Frankly, it frees NASA up for the far more interesting work of building a planetary spaceship. I don't know about you, but given the choice to work on yet another LEO launcher or building mankind's first planetary spaceship and going down in history, I know what I would chose.
1) Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. 2) I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV. Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.3) Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today.
Quote from: OV-106 on 02/27/2010 04:21 pm1) Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. 2) I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV. Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.3) Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. 1) This is correct, but only as long as you ignore HTV and ATV, which could be flown on EELVs. 2) 1.5 billion without flying and without payloads. And even this is a maybe.3) No, it does not exist today, not even essentially. You are (correctly) pointing out the lack of US (!) spacecraft for EELVs (under 1) but you "forget" the lack of spacecraft for a SDHLV, besides the fact a SDHLV is not essentially existing today.Analyst
Bubbles are not a good thing...the very definition of them is that they are not sustainable....isn't that what this plan was *supposed* to do? To make everything "sustainable"?
As for the "high risk" of the shuttle, I suggest you familiarize yourself better if at all possible with the process and procedures. Quite honestly, that is the political misconception that yu have bought into. Furhtermore, who is to say anything else will have a better than 98.5% success rate after 130 missions. One thing is clear, even if that number is matched, it will be less capable.
As for time to "try", this is a likely result:1. ISS goes for years without the resupply that was intended.2. Operations are not sustainable. The crew is reduced, work onboard the ISS is not anywhere near what is advertised because of the short fall in ability to get experiments and spare parts there.3. Commercial providers continue to move the schedule to the right until the business case is no longer there.4. Congress and the Administration now start playing politics, blaming NASA for this and labeling commercial transport a failure.5. We end up with nothing and this is used to target the nebulous "technology development" program that will take us somewhere, someday in the future.6. NASA will be admonished by saying they cannot be trusted with the taxpayers money and the agency is a shell.7. Original mission complete?