Quote from: OV-106 on 03/08/2011 09:29 pmThere's a bit of a discrepency here. People claim that Bush cancelled Shuttle and Obama couldn't do anything about it. People claim Obama came in with all these fresh ideas, like above, for the purposes of going beyond LEO. So lets review:1. 2004: Bush makes statement that Shuttle should be retired in 2010. The reasons for it? Financial. He wanted to move the money to CxP but turns out that beyond bad requirements, etc neither his administration or Congress funded it accordingly to the promised levels contributing to the epic failure. a) Ignoring the minor matter of STS-107? At the time, it was clear that there had to be an EOL plan for STS. He set the timer for 6 years. b) The basic financial point being that, since 1981, NASA has never been able to build Shuttle's successor while simultaneously flying Shuttle. OV-106 (or -201) never happened.Quote3. 2009 we had Augustine as directed by the Obama Administration. Chaos ensues. Chaos is always the result when someone points out that the POR can't be completed on the current budget, and all the popular alternatives need more money as well. Is saying that the emperor has no clothes Obama's fault?Quote4. Feb 2010. Obama releases his budget without any real coordination with NASA Center Directors, etc or even Congress. Ironically, he calls for ISS extension to 2020, mainly a symbolic gesture, but no real and concrete suggestion about how to support it even though STS production at that time was still essentially stable. Chaos ensues with the cancellation of essentially everything. a) "symbolic gesture"? What, other than Shuttle extension, would convince you? b) The real and concrete suggestion was to spend $6 billion on Commercial Crew to bring multiple providers on-line as soon as possible, and close The Gap forever. You don't have to agree with it, but it is real money. c) It's only "everything" if you believe "everything == CxP". He proposed major new programs instead, with substantial funding increases.Quote5. April 2010. President Obama briefly speeks at KSC on his way to eat dinner with Gloria in Miami and KSC provides a good destination to gas up Air Force 1. The moon is labeled as "been there, done that". He kicks the BEO can down the road for at least another 5 years beyond the "2020 moon target" and minimizes the destination at the same time. He leaves after about two hours on the ground. a) All recent Presidents give speeches on the way to fundraisers. b) You know perfectly well that a 747-200 does not need to refuel to fly DC (ADW) -> MIA. c) Presidents regularly only spend a couple of hours on a single site, no matter what. The Queen isn't hosting a state visit at KSC.Quote6. ~Nov 2010. President Obama signs the NASA Authorization Act into law but makes no real statement. Not every signing of legislation gets a televised speech. That's how the Presidency works. You're using snide sarcasm to suggest that Obama was especially dismissive of NASA. What was unusual about Obama was that (a) he voluntarily proposed major changes at NASA despite the inevitable political unpopularity because he (or his advisers) believed that parts of what we were doing weren't working, and (b) he gave a major speech at NASA. That's much more personal interest than most Presidents have shown. You don't have to like his policies. -Alex
There's a bit of a discrepency here. People claim that Bush cancelled Shuttle and Obama couldn't do anything about it. People claim Obama came in with all these fresh ideas, like above, for the purposes of going beyond LEO. So lets review:1. 2004: Bush makes statement that Shuttle should be retired in 2010. The reasons for it? Financial. He wanted to move the money to CxP but turns out that beyond bad requirements, etc neither his administration or Congress funded it accordingly to the promised levels contributing to the epic failure.
3. 2009 we had Augustine as directed by the Obama Administration. Chaos ensues.
4. Feb 2010. Obama releases his budget without any real coordination with NASA Center Directors, etc or even Congress. Ironically, he calls for ISS extension to 2020, mainly a symbolic gesture, but no real and concrete suggestion about how to support it even though STS production at that time was still essentially stable. Chaos ensues with the cancellation of essentially everything.
5. April 2010. President Obama briefly speeks at KSC on his way to eat dinner with Gloria in Miami and KSC provides a good destination to gas up Air Force 1. The moon is labeled as "been there, done that". He kicks the BEO can down the road for at least another 5 years beyond the "2020 moon target" and minimizes the destination at the same time. He leaves after about two hours on the ground.
6. ~Nov 2010. President Obama signs the NASA Authorization Act into law but makes no real statement.
- Can fly only short duration- Can fly in Low-Low Earth Orbit ;-) only- Needs large buildings, heavy crawler, tons of people to operate
If there is a logistical shortfall for ISS post-Shuttle, that just means more CRS-like flights, not fewer! There's not a need for CRS if Shuttle is extended indefinitely.I still fail to see why the CRS providers need a Shuttle extension.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/09/2011 12:58 pmIf there is a logistical shortfall for ISS post-Shuttle, that just means more CRS-like flights, not fewer! There's not a need for CRS if Shuttle is extended indefinitely.I still fail to see why the CRS providers need a Shuttle extension.Earlier you just agreed there was a logistics shortfall!!...
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/09/2011 01:32 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/09/2011 12:58 pmIf there is a logistical shortfall for ISS post-Shuttle, that just means more CRS-like flights, not fewer! There's not a need for CRS if Shuttle is extended indefinitely.I still fail to see why the CRS providers need a Shuttle extension.Earlier you just agreed there was a logistics shortfall!!...I said there are logistics problems after Shuttle. I never said there aren't solutions. NASA is obviously going to have to do things differently than with Shuttle. Doing things differently doesn't mean not doing them.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/09/2011 05:18 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 03/09/2011 01:32 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/09/2011 12:58 pmIf there is a logistical shortfall for ISS post-Shuttle, that just means more CRS-like flights, not fewer! There's not a need for CRS if Shuttle is extended indefinitely.I still fail to see why the CRS providers need a Shuttle extension.Earlier you just agreed there was a logistics shortfall!!...I said there are logistics problems after Shuttle. I never said there aren't solutions. NASA is obviously going to have to do things differently than with Shuttle. Doing things differently doesn't mean not doing them.What does this even mean? I can't figure you out. I'm not sure if you are being intentionally vague or what. On the other hand, I think I have been perfectly clear. And what is NASA's batting average with "doing things differently"?
Well, then, why even try going beyond LEO?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/09/2011 06:04 pmWell, then, why even try going beyond LEO?What?
"Short duration missions": Up to 12 to 16 days depending on the configuration. Not sure it needs to be any longer and with that capability was able to do more, for longer duration than any other crewed vehicle on the books. What is "low-low earth orbit"? That doesn't even make sense. I assume that is an "infrastructure" comment. Could you expand on that more. Such as the costs, maintenance requirements, etc so that we can discuss this in more detail?
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/09/2011 06:06 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/09/2011 06:04 pmWell, then, why even try going beyond LEO?What?"And what is NASA's batting average with "doing things differently"?"Russia had a series of successful space stations without Shuttle support. Shuttle isn't absolutely necessary for station support, and now that it is leaving, we had better find out how to do things differently when it's gone. If NASA can't learn how to do even these relatively minor things differently, then NASA better stop ALL research into beyond-LEO HSF technology and systems.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/09/2011 12:48 pm"Short duration missions": Up to 12 to 16 days depending on the configuration. Not sure it needs to be any longer and with that capability was able to do more, for longer duration than any other crewed vehicle on the books. What is "low-low earth orbit"? That doesn't even make sense. I assume that is an "infrastructure" comment. Could you expand on that more. Such as the costs, maintenance requirements, etc so that we can discuss this in more detail?1. Short: You need a space station for longer experiments, you cannot fly this shuttles for longer than 2x days if I remember correctly.2. LEO: LEO goes to 2000km, Shuttle is not capable of flying in such e distance, that my comment about LLEO ;-) but don't forget my smiley3. Infrastructure: If you compare the first draws of Shuttle operations in the 1970 with current Shuttle processing you see that we are miles away from a "airplane" like model. The Shuttle system is such a wonder of engineering that you need tons of engineers to run it. With a step back to more simple crew vehicles there's my hope that also the processing goes faster and with less people overhaul.
Quote from: apace on 03/09/2011 06:14 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 03/09/2011 12:48 pm"Short duration missions": Up to 12 to 16 days depending on the configuration. Not sure it needs to be any longer and with that capability was able to do more, for longer duration than any other crewed vehicle on the books. What is "low-low earth orbit"? That doesn't even make sense. I assume that is an "infrastructure" comment. Could you expand on that more. Such as the costs, maintenance requirements, etc so that we can discuss this in more detail?1. Short: You need a space station for longer experiments, you cannot fly this shuttles for longer than 2x days if I remember correctly.2. LEO: LEO goes to 2000km, Shuttle is not capable of flying in such e distance, that my comment about LLEO ;-) but don't forget my smiley3. Infrastructure: If you compare the first draws of Shuttle operations in the 1970 with current Shuttle processing you see that we are miles away from a "airplane" like model. The Shuttle system is such a wonder of engineering that you need tons of engineers to run it. With a step back to more simple crew vehicles there's my hope that also the processing goes faster and with less people overhaul.1. We have a space station. Shuttle can fly for as long as it needs to and certainly can stick around ISS for quite a while to complete the necessary job, and longer, as has just been demonstated. 2. Shuttle can go the same altitude as ISS....and higher as necessary. It goes to the same general altitude as all commercial vehicles will go for the forseeable future. 3. This is all subjective and means little. It uses terms like "hope". Shuttle does not require "tons of engineers" to run it.
And what's your proposal to go forward? Fly Shuttle until a replacement is available?
...You suggest shuttle is not "absolutely necessary" and we had "better find out a way how to do things differently". Well, I have offered that. You seemingly have consumed the "now that shuttle is gone, everything will be wonderful" kool-aid and embraced the plan of "hope and assumption"
and try to be critical of anyone who suggests and believes we need to "look under the hood" a little more . ...
I'm done with this conversation. My B.S.-meter for you is off-scale-high.
You'll usually find, the only people who believe the shuttle should be continued are either those who gain through it doing so such as the huge amount of employees or the various companies involved, or those living in the past.These people need to wake up and realise it isn't going to be continued. It's an over bloated,wasteful, vastly expensive program.The sooner SpaceX and the others achieve crew transportation capabilities the better.
Quote from: Calorspace on 03/09/2011 10:57 pmYou'll usually find, the only people who believe the shuttle should be continued are either those who gain through it doing so such as the huge amount of employees or the various companies involved, or those living in the past.These people need to wake up and realise it isn't going to be continued. It's an over bloated,wasteful, vastly expensive program.The sooner SpaceX and the others achieve crew transportation capabilities the better.Welcome to the forum! Can you site any specific examples, I would love to see a tangible piece of data to correlate these opinions.
