edkyle99 - 17/3/2008 12:20 PMHouston Chronicle editorial goes a bit far with "when the next generation Orion space vehicle is finally ready to carry our astronauts back to the moon sometime before 2020, they may find Chinese counterparts already there and working".http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5624425.html - Ed Kyle
Paul Adams - 17/3/2008 2:14 PMMy personal preference (sorry Jim!) is two shuttle flight a year from 2011 onwards until Orion is ready. There seems to be a growing consensus to make somthing like this happen. NASA needs a cash injection to continue with a reduced shuttle program and the full speed development of shuttle.
psloss - 17/3/2008 2:15 PMQuotePaul Adams - 17/3/2008 2:14 PMMy personal preference (sorry Jim!) is two shuttle flight a year from 2011 onwards until Orion is ready. There seems to be a growing consensus to make somthing like this happen. NASA needs a cash injection to continue with a reduced shuttle program and the full speed development of shuttle.I see the same conventional consensus within the industry and its oversight about "the gap." But beyond those groups, it's been pretty quiet. (It would very quiet if this weren't a presidential election year.) It seems to me that something has to change to move things off the status quo...are there some recent examples/quotes from representatives that have less of a political stake (i.e., their constituents don't have a large stake in jobs related to NASA human spaceflight projects) in NASA who are now committed to supplemental appropriations for human spaceflight?
edkyle99 - 17/3/2008 4:05 PMQuotepsloss - 17/3/2008 2:15 PMQuotePaul Adams - 17/3/2008 2:14 PMMy personal preference (sorry Jim!) is two shuttle flight a year from 2011 onwards until Orion is ready. There seems to be a growing consensus to make somthing like this happen. NASA needs a cash injection to continue with a reduced shuttle program and the full speed development of shuttle.I see the same conventional consensus within the industry and its oversight about "the gap." But beyond those groups, it's been pretty quiet. (It would very quiet if this weren't a presidential election year.) It seems to me that something has to change to move things off the status quo...are there some recent examples/quotes from representatives that have less of a political stake (i.e., their constituents don't have a large stake in jobs related to NASA human spaceflight projects) in NASA who are now committed to supplemental appropriations for human spaceflight?What would a low-budget (relatively), low-flight-rate STS program look like? Would NASA be able to do everything with one orbiter, one OPF, etc.? Could Ares I build up in one VAB High Bay/LCC while STS simultaneously stayed minimally active? What would the orbiters carry? How many crew? How much would it cost? - Ed Kyle
Paul Adams - 17/3/2008 2:14 PMMy personal preference (sorry Jim!) is two shuttle flight a year from 2011 onwards until Orion is ready. Paul
clongton - 17/3/2008 3:28 PMOrion/CLV needs all the money from a shut down STS program in order to come to life. If you don't shut down STS, Orion/CLV won't happen. We must choose: money for STS -or- money for Orion/CLV. There is not enough money to do both, even in a diminished capacity. Given the looming economic climate, there is likely to be even less funding available in the coming years. It's one or the other.Flying Shuttle costs between $4-$5 billion per year, regardless of whether you fly twice or 4-5 times. The cost of any one specific flight is a very tiny piece of the annual cost of maintaining the entire infrastructure to support STS. So cutting down to 2 flights would contribute almost nothing at all. Orion/CLV desperately needs that money, all of it, or it will never fly.
edkyle99 - 17/3/2008 4:51 PMShuttle wouldn't, or at least shouldn't, be kept flying without extra funding from Congress, on top of what is needed for Constellation. The question is this. Would Congress ever think that the cost to fill the "gap" would be worth paying?
Patchouli - 17/3/2008 5:10 PMCall me crazy but maybe Von Braun and his team got that split right the first time around.
Patchouli - 17/3/2008 2:49 PM I will say how the CLV and Orion are being developed is foolish at best and it could be done better,cheaper and faster.
psloss - 17/3/2008 4:19 PMQuotePatchouli - 17/3/2008 5:10 PMCall me crazy but maybe Von Braun and his team got that split right the first time around.Von Braun took advantage of a political opportunity (and to his credit he was ready to do so), but he didn't create that opportunity.
Patchouli - 17/3/2008 4:49 PM F-9 as backups so even if Ares fails completely we would still be ahead in lift capacity.
Jim - 17/3/2008 6:02 PMQuotePatchouli - 17/3/2008 4:49 PM F-9 as backups so even if Ares fails completely we would still be ahead in lift capacity.Why is this always thought of as a given? Spacex is not a viable backup
Patchouli - 17/3/2008 5:10 PMWorst case we switch to L1 staging of the mission and use Hohmann transfers for cargo which includes landers.