The US could annex French Guyana (is after all in "the Americas"), then have the Soyuz facilities upgraded for HSF and eh voila, no gap IF of course Russia sells Soyuz capsules + Soyuz-FG rockets.
i dont understand... if you're going to bite the bullet and make new components to stretch out the shuttle into 2012, why not bite a little harder and make a bit more and stretch it out to 2015 or even further?why the self-imposed deadline? the shuttles are performing very nicely now with a minimum of problems and in the big scheme the extra cost would seem to be a drop in the bucket (well, considering how much we're spending these days - just increase the debt ceiling by only .001 percent should cover it).
i dont buy it. you would have all the design, testing, prototyping, etc to do. all that work for something that would only fly for a few missions/years? it probably would cost 75% of Orion.it would be less costly and make more sense stretch funding to the shuttles and to accelerate orion.
Quote from: Nascent Ascent on 12/24/2009 03:43 pmi dont buy it. you would have all the design, testing, prototyping, etc to do. all that work for something that would only fly for a few missions/years? it probably would cost 75% of Orion.it would be less costly and make more sense stretch funding to the shuttles and to accelerate orion.Orion and Ares themselves are something that probably would only fly for a few years before ending up in a museum.Constellation is pretty much Apollo all over again and we all know what happened to Apollo.
Quote from: Nascent Ascent on 12/24/2009 03:54 pmi dont understand... if you're going to bite the bullet and make new components to stretch out the shuttle into 2012, why not bite a little harder and make a bit more and stretch it out to 2015 or even further?why the self-imposed deadline? the shuttles are performing very nicely now with a minimum of problems and in the big scheme the extra cost would seem to be a drop in the bucket (well, considering how much we're spending these days - just increase the debt ceiling by only .001 percent should cover it).Because the next time the shuttle systems fails, there will be hell to pay politically for NASA.I would not want to be in the room when Congress investigates NASA for a LOC event during a shuttle extension only implemented for appearance reason (just to close the gap).Once ISS is completed the Shuttle NEEDS to be canceled. Let NASA run out it's ISS construction flights in the safest manner it can, not artificially hurried or stretched, then put the orbiters in the museum.The gap is not an engineering issue, its a funding issue, and at this point it's not worth the extra money it would take to close it. Luckily the cold war is over and the US can buy seats on Soyuz, and there is an outside change commercial crew transport might come online before Ares.All that said, the funniest thing that could ever happen is we shut down Shuttle, and go to Soyuz only, then Soyuz has a LOM (or god forbid a LOC) event and get's shut down for a year or more for investigations by both NASA & RSA. Interesting question, if Soyuz has an LOM event, and has to be shut down, and Soyuz is the only human access to ISS, how long can ISS function with no new crew?
That was my point.We're going to be losing so much by the early termination of the shuttles.Hell, if the shuttles are that unreliable then why fly them at all? I think a few more flights for each shuttle until 2015-16 is a reasonable risk that would maintain continuity. The shuttles are safer now than they have ever been.We'll have to spend the money we saved eventually when it comes to restaffing, etc.
You realize that the gap is more than a funding *or* an engineering, it is a staffing gap as well. No shuttle flights == nobody to support those flights == nobody to manage the follow-on system == total USHSF collapse. No staff means no US launches for human space flight.
Humanity has an almost limitless capacity for achievement. All that stands in the way is money and politics.
Quote from: butters on 12/24/2009 10:01 amHumanity has an almost limitless capacity for achievement. All that stands in the way is money and politics.Fixed that for ya. Money is merely the means of translating your achievement to my achievement and vice versa. Politics is a money sink that produces no achievement.
However, money is created (and destroyed) by banks. Depending on how you look at it, governments and banks are both financial institutions or both political institutions.When you have an idea to do something, you either lobby a banker or a politician to get the money to do it. The banker lets you spend depositor money, and the politician lets you spend taxpayer money.If money were just a medium of exchange, then the explosion of progress in the past 300 years would not have been possible. Money is also a bill of debt, allowing people to spend money that they didn't earn.
It's true that governments and banks aren't productive in their own right, and they often allocate money quite recklessly.
So the question is: can we prosper without governments any more than we can prosper without banks?
is there now any practical way to close the gap?
Because the next time the shuttle systems fails, there will be hell to pay politically for NASA.I would not want to be in the room when Congress investigates NASA for a LOC event during a shuttle extension only implemented for appearance reason (just to close the gap).Once ISS is completed the Shuttle NEEDS to be canceled. Let NASA run out it's ISS construction flights in the safest manner it can, not artificially hurried or stretched, then put the orbiters in the museum.
Quote from: Downix on 12/24/2009 04:50 pmYou realize that the gap is more than a funding *or* an engineering, it is a staffing gap as well. No shuttle flights == nobody to support those flights == nobody to manage the follow-on system == total USHSF collapse. No staff means no US launches for human space flight.But the Staffing issue is more political than real. All programs but Direct will lead to a MASSIVE staff reduction. And Direct becomes less likely every day.The only thing that would save a good portion of the jobs lost after shuttle retirement would be another HLV sitting on the pad the day the orbiters ride off to museums. There is nowhere near the budget out there for something like that.The Gap has been a known factor since the day shuttle retirement was announced, but we have not chosen to make the hard decisions to eliminate it. Now that we are nearly within a year of the last Shuttle flight, it's a little late to try to close the Gap."No shuttle flights == nobody to support those flights == nobody to manage the follow-on system == total USHSF collapse" You are likely right, but that is what we have been choosing to happen for the last 5 years, we are sort of stuck with it now.
It is my understanding this is one of the reasons that one of the MPLM's (Leonardo, Raffaello or Donatello) will be packed with supplies, upgraded with extra shielding and left on the ISS as an extra room on one of the last shuttle missions. No other launcher can bring the upmass.
Quote from: phantomdj on 12/26/2009 01:35 pmIt is my understanding this is one of the reasons that one of the MPLM's (Leonardo, Raffaello or Donatello) will be packed with supplies, upgraded with extra shielding and left on the ISS as an extra room on one of the last shuttle missions. No other launcher can bring the upmass. Incorrect, EELV's can lift the same mass.