A gap in orbital human spaceflight on U.S. vehicles will occur after STS-133 (or after STS-135 if that mission flies). Other than a Shuttle schedule stretch (i.e. inserting delays between the remaining Shuttle flights), is there now any practical way to close the gap?Assume Obama and Congress are in perfect accord; assume shortening of schedules through added funding; assume a greater tolerance of LOM/LOC risk; assume anything else within reason. I'm not asking about visiting ISS; just getting people to orbit. Is there still a way?
to close a "human spaceflight gap" in US, Pull SpaceShipOne out of Smithsonian.For orbital, tough call. Yes, maybe a Gemini rebuilt would work.
Quote from: sdsds on 12/24/2009 12:07 amA gap in orbital human spaceflight on U.S. vehicles will occur after STS-133 (or after STS-135 if that mission flies). Other than a Shuttle schedule stretch (i.e. inserting delays between the remaining Shuttle flights), is there now any practical way to close the gap?Assume Obama and Congress are in perfect accord; assume shortening of schedules through added funding; assume a greater tolerance of LOM/LOC risk; assume anything else within reason. I'm not asking about visiting ISS; just getting people to orbit. Is there still a way? Augustine Committee said Orion won't be operational until 2017 (NASA still says 2015), but Augustine also said that the alternative, commercial "space taxis", would be operational until 2016 at the earliest. As far as I'm concerned, neither option can, at this point in time, realistically claim to beat the other, time-wise. (One option is funded and underway, however, while the other is an idea posited by a Committee.)So no, no gap-closing unless shuttle keeps flying. My question is what's wrong with a "gap"? NASA astronauts will continue to orbit Earth during the entire interim, will continue to fly on Soyuz, and will, at some point, begin to be supplied by systems launched from the U.S. (albeit powered in part by Russian rocket engines on Ukrainian-built boosters). - Ed Kyle
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.
Quote from: ares-mojo on 12/24/2009 06:49 amThe 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.Why would we invade the sovereign territory of an allied country? Is this how you propose to get an "international partner" to help pay for NASA's stuff? My view is that this level of international drama would not help us close the gap.
Quote from: savuporo on 12/24/2009 12:49 amto close a "human spaceflight gap" in US, Pull SpaceShipOne out of Smithsonian.For orbital, tough call. Yes, maybe a Gemini rebuilt would work.Rebuild Gemini?Wouldn't it be cheaper to just keep flying the shuttles?
Quote from: Nascent Ascent on 12/24/2009 02:58 amQuote from: savuporo on 12/24/2009 12:49 amto close a "human spaceflight gap" in US, Pull SpaceShipOne out of Smithsonian.For orbital, tough call. Yes, maybe a Gemini rebuilt would work.Rebuild Gemini?Wouldn't it be cheaper to just keep flying the shuttles?Actually no, Gemini was, don't forget, designed to be built in short-order with as much off-the-shelf hardware as possible. A student research group in Alabama has been doing a lot of preliminary work on redoing Gemini's original landing profile with the parasail. Adapting their work, could easily get it going by the time the shuttle ends in 2012. http://www.aio50.org/