Abbey's no slouch, he knows the funding as well as any here. Its a zero sum game - for one to gain another must lose. If SpaceX doesn't because its actually having successes, and you run Shuttle long, that means SLS takes it in the shorts. How else do you get budget? Print money?
Quote from: Nomadd on 12/14/2010 02:15 am Let's see...He says the shuttle can carry 60,000 pounds of cargo. How much can it carry to the ISS? Payload ain't cargo. He says 5 to 6 years for anyone to have the ability to get people to orbit. People could have gone to orbit last week. Just not safely enough to meet standards. All due respect, but I've heard this several times in the past week and it's just bad luck that I exceeded my quota right here right now. When the appraisal of an admittedly great achievement by SpaceX is elevated to an assertion that people could have flown Dragon last week, it begs the question as to how well people understand the complexities of human space flight.
Let's see...He says the shuttle can carry 60,000 pounds of cargo. How much can it carry to the ISS? Payload ain't cargo. He says 5 to 6 years for anyone to have the ability to get people to orbit. People could have gone to orbit last week. Just not safely enough to meet standards.
Abbey is someone who talks to policy makers, at an institute that exists for that purpose. Such are used to framing a discussion with only the parts needed to complete the picture - if something is absent that is just as meaningful as the items that are present.
Are you saying he's making a coded message for policy makers, and doesn't care if it goes over the head of part of his audience?
Quote from: MP99 on 12/14/2010 10:48 pmAre you saying he's making a coded message for policy makers, and doesn't care if it goes over the head of part of his audience?Policy institutes only talk to policy makers, no matter the path the message takes. If he is talking as a member of a policy institute, its meant about policy, and for the ears of policy makers.Policy in this case interpreting the role of commercial vs govt given success of Dragon flight.
Quote from: nooneofconsequence on 12/14/2010 11:00 pmPolicy institutes only talk to policy makers, no matter the path the message takes. If he is talking as a member of a policy institute, its meant about policy, and for the ears of policy makers.Policy in this case interpreting the role of commercial vs govt given success of Dragon flight.All I can say here is that I know Mr. Abbey, speak with him reasonably often - saw him tonight - and I think he'd be either amused or disgusted by the back and forth argument over what he meant. Probably some of both. I can just see that slightly raised eyebrow now.
Policy institutes only talk to policy makers, no matter the path the message takes. If he is talking as a member of a policy institute, its meant about policy, and for the ears of policy makers.Policy in this case interpreting the role of commercial vs govt given success of Dragon flight.
He's concerned about the gap and implications for the U.S. More generally he's concerned about any single nation holding all the capability to take humans up and back - not because of some nationalistic viewpoint but because his view of humanspaceflight is global, and his perception is that having "just" the shuttle, or "just" Soyuz is asking for a single point failure.
That logic extends to the gap. He's suggested in the past that the nation continue to fly shuttle, and invest in commercial, bringing them along, and standing down shuttle when they're ready to take the ball of wax and run with it. That's pretty much where I'm guessing he was coming from with the interview.
One of the obvious limits is staying under the speed limit. That would be c.Gotta go!