It's not the president of the USA that runs the HSF program. It's being handled for him by an agency called NASA.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/31/2014 03:03 pmIt's not the president of the USA that runs the HSF program. It's being handled for him by an agency called NASA. You know that the President runs that agency called NASA.
The US HSF program was scrutinized by the Augustine Committee. However, that committee didn't issue a plea to Obama to continue flying the shuttle; it only listed limited continuation of STS flight as an option to limit the HSF gap. But that option came with a big IF.
Quote from: 93143 on 03/29/2014 07:58 pmIt was by no means a done deal by the time Obama showed up.Actually yes it was. NASA top management under Obama's predecessor Bush Jr. had seen to it that it was. By the time the presidency and NASA administrator changed it was it was for all purposes and intents practically and financially too late to try to extend the STS program.
It was by no means a done deal by the time Obama showed up.
There was one mostly complete and one approximately half-complete External Tanks at Michoud that should have been completed and flown as STS-136 and STS-137.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/31/2014 03:03 pmThe US HSF program was scrutinized by the Augustine Committee. However, that committee didn't issue a plea to Obama to continue flying the shuttle; it only listed limited continuation of STS flight as an option to limit the HSF gap. But that option came with a big IF.You mean the recertification? IIRC that was established to be a red herring. Most of it had been done already in the course of a mid-life review; the bulk of what the ASAP was asking for was done prior to every single flight.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/31/2014 03:03 pmQuote from: 93143 on 03/29/2014 07:58 pmIt was by no means a done deal by the time Obama showed up.Actually yes it was. NASA top management under Obama's predecessor Bush Jr. had seen to it that it was. By the time the presidency and NASA administrator changed it was it was for all purposes and intents practically and financially too late to try to extend the STS program.Then why were there no less than two serious, insider-supported attempts in 2011 (Holleran and CSTS) to resurrect Shuttle on an ongoing basis? One of which (Holleran) involved modernizing the whole supply chain with private money, and was stymied not by SSP-related issues but by the repurposing of infrastructure for SLS?
At the very least, a few extra flights could have been added without having to restart the supply chain, stretching the manifest a couple of years and resulting in a minimized gap (assuming Ares was replaced by a properly-funded Jupiter).
Minimizing the gap from at least 7 years to at least 4 to 5 years (assuming those few extra flight - 3 at best- would have been done in 2-3 years) does not sound like minimizing to me. A not-so-long gap is just as bad as a long gap.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/31/2014 05:06 pmQuote from: woods170 on 03/31/2014 03:03 pmIt's not the president of the USA that runs the HSF program. It's being handled for him by an agency called NASA. You know that the President runs that agency called NASA.No, the NASA administrator does that for him. NASA falls under presidential direction, but Obama's got Bolden to handle the details for him.
Maybe its time to redefine ISS into a space gateway station vs. a pure science research program.
There was one mostly complete and one approximately half-complete External Tanks at Michoud that should have been completed and flown as STS-136 and STS-137. ... However, there are two flaws in my above statements - there was no money and little political will to do the above,
In the end, no matter what a President makes for "policy" the Administrator ends up dealing with what support Congress gives for any specific program with a little leeway depending on his abilities to "finagle" finances and avoid running afoul of any of the aforementioned "higher-ups" in the process.
...a private very, VERY heavily financed effort to operate STS commercially for a while ...
Quote from: Prober on 03/28/2014 09:57 pmMaybe its time to redefine ISS into a space gateway station vs. a pure science research program.ISS cannot be repurposed for that. An assembly and servicing station would be a completely different geometry.
Quote from: RanulfC on 04/04/2014 05:19 pmIn the end, no matter what a President makes for "policy" the Administrator ends up dealing with what support Congress gives for any specific program with a little leeway depending on his abilities to "finagle" finances and avoid running afoul of any of the aforementioned "higher-ups" in the process.It's a shame, but there it is, roughly as you report. Remember also how Bolden stonewalled Congress on the release of various reports and studies over the last few years.
I have this naive notion that had NASA been more accomplished in decades past, then Congress would grant them more leeway on prioritizing their work. It would also help matters a great deal if Presidents would take a serious interest in NASA (not to overlook other agencies), and make reasoned judgements on priorities, rather than focus on improving their golf scores.
I kinda wish we COULD elect a President on a "space" platform, and that's about the only way it would get done but I can still dream
Quote from: RanulfC on 04/04/2014 06:02 pmI kinda wish we COULD elect a President on a "space" platform, and that's about the only way it would get done but I can still dream BTW, I'm running again as a write in candidate for Prez in 2016.
what Kool-Aid have you been drinking?
Yes, I mean the recertification. Augustine Committee was well aware of the mid-life reviews but nevertheless attached the recertification "IF" to the shuttle-extension option. That doesn't sound like a red herring to me, but more like an attempt to invoke additional caution for a system that was already flying longer than it ever was supposed to.
The fact that the insider-support extension attempts for STS were stymied by repurposing of infrastructure was not SLS-invoked but CxP invoked.
by the time Obama became the president it was clear to most people that extending shuttle (beyond two extra flights) was really not an option.
Quote from: 93143 on 03/31/2014 11:15 pmAt the very least, a few extra flights could have been added without having to restart the supply chain, stretching the manifest a couple of years and resulting in a minimized gap (assuming Ares was replaced by a properly-funded Jupiter).Minimizing the gap from at least 7 years to at least 4 to 5 years (assuming those few extra flight - 3 at best- would have been done in 2-3 years) does not sound like minimizing to me. A not-so-long gap is just as bad as a long gap.
And the cost of keeping the shuttle on life support like that would've likely sucked enough money out of the room to delay both SLS/Orion and commercial crew by another year or two, completely wiping out the gap reduction benefit gained.