Re: Chicken *** NASA (was Re: Hubble good as dead)

Ray S wrote:
> shuttle has none of these qualities. We handed the next generation an
> extremely complicated and very brittle and unforgiving shuttle design that
> was stripped of all of the launch and reentry safety features we used in
> Apollo


But the current generation have also devised many plans to improve the
shuttle, apart from the post Columbia comission and requirements.

Were NASA given the ability to build new shuttles, it could use current
basic designs and greatly improve on them by implementing all the stuff
they have been wanting to implement for a decade now. The resulting
vehicle could be simpler, cheaper to operate and significantly safer
(albeit not as safe as some 1960s's capsule).

The only reason Hubble is being cannabalised is that NASA was given a
hard "shut down the Shuttle" date, instead of given a mission for the
shuttle after which it would be mothballed. This way, NASA could
complete the work of Hubble and station without so much pressure from a
scheduling point of view.

Of course, by the time NASA has to publicly admit that it won't be able
to complete all the work by 2010, but that extending the Shuttle's
lifetime would be very hard because NASA had already cancelled contracts
and not done long term maintenance, well, by that time, the
administration that set those policies into motion will be long gone and
that will be the problem of another administration.


NASA should have stood firm on refusing a hard date for Shuttle
standdown. But it didn't and now NASA will simply shutdown manned space
programme in 2010 until some mythical CEV becomes operational. The
shutdown, however long it may be, will also mean that the USA will lose
meaningful access to the space station and fall behind russians and
europeans for orbital operations.
.

Quantcast