Congress, NASA differ on date of shuttle's demise

[carp]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/nation/epaper/2005/12/25/a6a_shuttles_1225.html

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />ooooh... there is an US Senator and former ASTRONAUT that has an opinion very close to mine about Shuttle retirement and CEV real timeline...<br />

 

[mikejz]

For the record Nelson was a Congressman when he was chosen to fly (he also had no engineering background, only a J.D. (As someone thinking about Lawschool, it gives me hope <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />). Pre-51L Nasa had a more 'direct' lobbying effort when it came to Congress <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.<br /><br />P.S. he was also a crappy insurance commissioner.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />you prefer to critic one of YOURS Senators to defend YOUR capsule... why do you not think that he may be right?<br /><br />I think that the "desperates' NASAwives" have invented the "apollo remake" to maintain its role and pay its employees and engineers after Shuttle's disaster... but NASA has good engineers and scientists, so, after a few years of shuttle-panic, they will find again their rationality and will change the VSE/ESAS plan in many crucial aspects (1st: CEV dimensions and weight, 2nd: CLV engines, etc.)

 

[dobbins]

Nelson's main concern is getting NASA to spend as much money on Florida as possible, so it's no surprise that he would like the Shuttle.<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

Nelson is NOT complaining about the CEV or the ISS, what he is rightfully worried about is the ability of NASA to both complete the ISS, and have the CEV actually flying within the time frame that NASA has put forward with NASA's current budget (or even worse possible budget cuts)!<br /><br />This has NOTHING to do with either Orerry21's anti ISS rants, or your anti CEV rants!! So do yourself a favor, and don't gp taking heart in this, Congress wishes to retire the shuttle, complete the ISS, and build NASA's current design for the CEV, to go back to the moon, and then on to Mars!! The ONLY thing they are concerned about here is the retiring of the shuttle too early, and leaving NASA without ANY manned capability for too long a period of time. This is a condition that Congress itself could take care of with a very small increase in NASA's budget, which I and others fully believe is going to be in the works. Mike Griffin's franckness and truthfullness with Congres is going to pay off here, as he has told them basically that ALL of these things may not be possible without some form of modest increase to NASA's budget, therefore it IS Congress itself that has to put up or shut up!! Sometimes just being straight turns out to be the best politics!! Truly amazing!!

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />politicians are not space-experts... they need time to understand what Shuttle retirement mean for space-work... "come back to the moon" is like have the sun light in their eyes... they don't see (now) the great limits of a "capsule"... but, in future, they may use sun-glasses...

 

[kdavis007]

Who should I believe.. A so called rocket expert from Washington or NASA?? I choose NASA.....

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> The ONLY thing they are concerned about here is the retiring of the shuttle too early, and leaving NASA without ANY manned capability for too long a period of time.</font>/i><br /><br />The Shuttle program has experienced several periods of extended down time, which while theoretically NASA still had manned access to space, in practice it did not (as is the case now). In light of this history, the 1-2 years of down time between the last shuttle flight and the first CEV/CLV flight is little different than what has happened at before is in fact happening today.<br /><br />Likewise, China is said to have a manned space program, even though their gaps in flight have a similar duration.<br /><br />So in many ways, this "loss" of US manned access to space during the gap is in part a semantic and/or perception issue.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">This is a condition that Congress itself could take care of with a very small increase in NASA's budget, which I and others fully believe is going to be in the works.</font>/i><br /><br />I think this is correct. While my previous paragraph just said the loss of manned access to space is a matter of perception, I also believe perception is very important to Congress.<br /><br />Ego is important, and I don't think Congress wants to watch both Russia and China launching people into space while America apparently cannot.</i></i>