Author Topic: SSP aiming to find the balance between Shuttle legacy and HLV advancement (Read 23461 times)

Chris Bergin · « **on:** 02/25/2010 10:49 pm »

Rather than just quoting the hearings, used some L2 content on SSP and HLV and added the excellent quotes from Mike Snyder's Q&A with Sen Nelson:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/02/ssp-balance-between-shuttle-legacy-hlv-advancement/

Edward Carlson · « **Reply #1 on:** 02/25/2010 11:41 pm »

Very interesting article! And thanks for quoting the Orbiter guy as he was amazing.

KEdward5 · « **Reply #2 on:** 02/25/2010 11:49 pm »

Nice balance with the pro comments from Shannon. Also thought M Snyder did what I had been hoping someone with shuttle had done already by fighting her case. Really well spoken too.

northanger · « **Reply #3 on:** 02/26/2010 12:27 am »

That's a great article Chris, should help me start to grasp all the issues better (VASIMR rox

). Two quotes, first from John Shannon, second from Mike Snyder (thanks for pointing out he's an Orbiter Project manager, didn't know that!) sum things up for me:

Quote

“For now, keep doing what you are doing. The Shuttle Team’s execution of the mission, in concert with the ISS Team, is providing stability to the Agency. It is needed at this point in time and truly demonstrates NASA’s competencies to our country and our lawmakers.”

Quote

“You heard General Bolden say he wants redundant access – but when we stand down that fleet, that redundant access is gone and it becomes a foreign monopoly.

“The shuttle is the most capable vehicle we’ve ever had. I would challenge anyone who would say it’s unsafe. Clearly they do not know what we do – day in, day out – to make sure that every mission the fleet is as safe as it could possibly be.”

I'm a shuttle hugger & might not say this right, but this team has earned the right to pass the baton to whatever we do next. Extending this team doesn't make me concerned about deadlines, different flags on the Moon or commercialization.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #4 on:** 02/26/2010 12:44 am »

Thanks much

Relinked it in the article, but Mr Snyder's testimony is online:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=fe53d516-dd6b-4db5-ba9f-b86b47ddaefd

Jorge · « **Reply #5 on:** 02/26/2010 12:46 am »

Gibson was an interesting choice to testify. He was CDR of STS-61C, with PLT Bolden and then-Rep. Nelson.

Lee Jay · « **Reply #6 on:** 02/26/2010 12:52 am »

Quote from: Jorge on 02/26/2010 12:46 am

Gibson was an interesting choice to testify. He was CDR of STS-61C, with PLT Bolden and then-Rep. Nelson.

Do you know who made that choice?

MP99 · « **Reply #7 on:** 02/26/2010 12:53 am »

Chris,

minor point...

Quote

Mr Snyder also pointed towards one of the Augustine Committee recommendations

I thought the committee was supposed to come up with options without actually recommending?

Martin

northanger · « **Reply #8 on:** 02/26/2010 12:55 am »

Quote from: Jorge on 02/26/2010 12:46 am

Gibson was an interesting choice to testify. He was CDR of STS-61C, with PLT Bolden and then-Rep. Nelson.

I'm weird this way

-- but the three of them together seems to turn NASA Budget FY2011 into a shuttle mission.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #9 on:** 02/26/2010 12:57 am »

Quote from: MP99 on 02/26/2010 12:53 am

Chris,

minor point...

Quote
Mr Snyder also pointed towards one of the Augustine Committee recommendations

I thought the committee was supposed to come up with options without actually recommending?

Martin

That's a fair point Martin, as you're right

I'll swap that out with "options".

Harold KSC · « **Reply #10 on:** 02/26/2010 01:15 am »

That was far more balanced than most media outlets have been.

Martin FL · « **Reply #11 on:** 02/26/2010 01:17 am »

"once again heard the NASA administrator position himself in opposition to an extension – mainly by citing the costs involved, even though he classed the $9 billion invested into the cancelled Constellation Program – potentially less than it would cost to extend shuttle to 2015 – as a “good investment”."

So true and so transparent.

robertross · « **Reply #12 on:** 02/26/2010 01:28 am »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 02/26/2010 12:44 am

Thanks much

Relinked it in the article, but Mr Snyder's testimony is online:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=fe53d516-dd6b-4db5-ba9f-b86b47ddaefd

Thanks for the link Chris. I wanted to keep that in my files for all time. Mike mirrored many of the same comments I would make, but from being on the outside looking in. Having those comments out in the open, and directed at Congress who clearly need direction on this matter, is crucial. The point on redundancy but cancelling shuttle and relying solely on Soyuz to launch crew is so very poignant. Bravo Mike. I hope to raise a glass with you one day.

And a great article too Chris. There were a lot of great comments you made in there, not just quotes.

I'm not sure how the process could be worked, but could they (congress) implement an immediate CR to do a hold order on shuttle retirement, much like NASA did internally with CxP & Shuttle assets when HLV was being seriously looked at by Bolden? That should give them the time to evalute things more clearly, and give them breathing room. Obviously it would require more money, but even if they advocated a 1-year extension of 2 flights that would remove a LOT of pressure.

Shuttle Man · « **Reply #13 on:** 02/26/2010 02:21 am »

Michael was impressive. Chris, you should see if you can ask your JSC friends if he'd register a membername here?

Davinator · « **Reply #14 on:** 02/26/2010 02:21 am »

Game Changing HLV with shuttle hardware? What could that be?

TonyJ73 · « **Reply #15 on:** 02/26/2010 02:26 am »

From the article, a good read.

Quote

ASAP) report, which cited a need to recertify the fleet in the event of an extension, due to safety concerns. This is directly in contradiction to SSP manager Mr Shannon, who has twice gone on the record to refute the ASAP requirement by noting the recertification work that has taken place on the fleet after the Columbia disaster.

SNIP

It is highly questionable as to why General Bolden would cite the ASAP report on shuttle extension – in contradiction to his own managers – whilst dismissing the majority of the ASAP findings that were made in the same report, findings which supported Ares I and held grave misgivings about crew safety in relation to commercial vehicles.

I too found it strange he would side with the ASAP on shuttle, but not Ares or Commercial. He can have his own opinion, explain how his own SSP is wrong, but to use the ASAP, questionable is a good choice of words.

Namechange User · « **Reply #16 on:** 02/26/2010 02:32 am »

Quote from: TonyJ73 on 02/26/2010 02:26 am

I too found it strange he would side with the ASAP on shuttle, but not Ares or Commercial. He can have his own opinion, explain how his own SSP is wrong, but to use the ASAP, questionable is a good choice of words.

I find it really strange how you can side with anything in the ASAP report with regards to Shuttle. It says nothing....it simply throws out the same political misconceptions without any supporting data. THAT is the true conspiracy theory.

STS Tony · « **Reply #17 on:** 02/26/2010 03:51 am »

Great read as always. Now if they can only wake up to shuttle before it's too late.

Yegor · « **Reply #18 on:** 02/26/2010 03:54 am »

Chris,
Good article, very timely.
Thank you!

Carl G · « **Reply #19 on:** 02/26/2010 04:12 am »

Quote from: Martin FL on 02/26/2010 01:17 am

"once again heard the NASA administrator position himself in opposition to an extension – mainly by citing the costs involved, even though he classed the $9 billion invested into the cancelled Constellation Program – potentially less than it would cost to extend shuttle to 2015 – as a “good investment”."

So true and so transparent.

Makes you wonder about how mismanaged the Agency is and its the engineers that are paying with their jobs.