Re: US/Russia Space Troubles

From: Eric Chomko (echomko_at__at_polaris.umuc.edu)
Date: 01/03/05 

Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 19:06:46 +0000 (UTC)

Charles Buckley (rijrunner@friiSTOPSPAM.com) wrote:
: Joann Evans wrote:
: > Ed Kyle wrote:
: >

: snip

: >>
: >>I'm starting to think that it is time to shut it (ISS/STS) down.
: >>To restructure NASA and start, with some clean-slate ugency,
: >>whatever comes next. My opinion solidified when I read a Pravda
: >>story yesterday that said, in essence, that Russia should work
: >>to beat the US to Mars.
: >>
: >> - Ed Kyle
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Try not to find yourself unintentionally in league with those who
: > would be quite content with shutting down NASA manned space activities,
: > and replacing them with...nothing.
: >

: Is it okay to intentionally do so?

: At some point you have to balance cost/reward. In this case,
: maintaining manned space flights in the existing programs is
: far more about meeting obligations than any actual benefit
: of the program itself. Probably in terms of meeting obligations
: it is worth it, but beyond that it is not worth it. If we are having
: this problem now, what will it be like in a few years after ISS
: completion when Shuttle is not flying and CEV is just starting it's
: ramp up of funding? We're looking at a 4 year gap post-Shuttle
: now allowing for any schedule shifts. And, if Russia is realistic,
: they are going to have to be wondering whether the US will continue
: with ISS after the final assembly flight.

: Not sure which way this goes though. With or without Shuttle/ISS,
: there is going to be a heck of a fight funding any follow-on program.
: It might be easier to get funding if it is the only game in town.
: But, it is very hard to get any sense of urgency in the program
: if you are still flying. We have gone through periods of no manned
: US flights before and somehow survived without even having the
: option of contracting alternative modes of flight. It is now a question
: of when, not if, we enter another period of having no operational manned
: vehicles. We can stay in the current one and admit that Shuttle just
: is not going to cut it, or we can limp along a few more years and then
: enter a scheduled hiatus.

: I guess the other question is whether the model of a state run
: space agency works. What are its objectives? What is its achievements?
: What is its development cycle?

I thought the Bush space initiative was to answer all that? You seem to be
rehashing the old CAIB issues that the president supposedly had addressed?

Eric

Relevant Pages

  • Re: US/Russia Space Troubles
    ... > would be quite content with shutting down NASA manned space activities, ... And, if Russia is realistic, ... there is going to be a heck of a fight funding any follow-on program. ... US flights before and somehow survived without even having the ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Japans Moon Ambitions - Theyre KIDDING, Right ?
    ... Ed Kyle wrote: ... > putting it roughly into the same success rate ... has one failure in four flights. ... Some reporter reports it as if it was an official program. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: US/Russia Space Troubles
    ... > Ed Kyle wrote: ... U.S. manned space program. ... It won't even take a mission failure to ... More such waste could kill manned space flight ...
    (sci.space.policy)