It would seem from the pol itself that by far the greater majority here ARE concerned to some degree about the Shuttle-Orion gap. Especially as it is now far from clear that there will even BE an Orion at all!
On another thread I made the following post about this very subject in response to anothers' post, and so as not to have to do it all over again, here it is in cut-and-paste mode:
"As to your second point, this really has a tendency to upset me! It is total unmitigated Bull that the shuttle is totally dead. That is what the pro Ares I and such bean counters at NASA WANT you to think! And once again, even if the Congress people themselves are not technologically conversant, their staffs are! The only point that the shuttle is now even somewhat dismantled is the main tank! Here is why stating that the shuttle is so dead is just baloney!
(1) If ATK can do design work on the new five segment motors, then is it not possible for them to still produce the same four segment motors that they have been producing all along? Of course it is! And keeping the shuttles flying on those four segment motors just might somewhat mitigate the loss of the Ares I to ATK, and keep their congress people relatively quite over that loss, ever think of that as a political ploy by NASA?. And all that at a far lower cost than developing the new motors.
(2) The orbiters themselves were designed for a lifetime of 100 flights each, do you or anybody else even begin to think that they are anywhere near that limit? Not only are they not, but as recently as only a few years ago a large amount of taxpayer money was spent in totally upgrading the cockpits to newer digital standards! Should that investment now be wasted? Oh, I am well aware that the shuttle is a difficult and dangerous system to keep flying, but guess what, so will anything else be that is going from a standstill on the launch pad up to 100+ miles high and some 17,500 mph in the bargain! And the astronauts are even more aware of this than anybody!
(3) Rocketdyne is still very capable of maintaining the current crop of SSME's, which like the orbiter cockpits have recently been rebuilt for greater safety margins that even before. And these engines have never been responsible for bringing any shuttle down!
(4) The ONLY main segment of the shuttle system that has to some extent been been shut down is the main tank. And just why could even that not be started up again?
(5) Yes, the shuttle IS expensive to fly, but just what makes anybody here think that the Russians (who we have made excellent capitalists of) are just going to sit still and not soak us totally to get our people up to the ISS for at least several years, if the shuttle is truly killed off? That is, if some kind of political tensions do not just have them stop us from going up to the ISS at ALL!! To the very space station that we the US taxpayers have paid at least some 80% of!! And once again, if an old ex aerospace worker such as myself can see this, do you not think it possible for congressional staffers (whose very job it is to see these things) to not also see it???
(6) Besides this, even if each shuttle was to only fly once per year until another system is capable (dragon, Orion, I really do not care what system, as long as it is an American system) of taking astronauts and materials to the ISS, (and remember that the shuttle can carry many times the amounts of materials up to and back from the ISS than ANY other system now, or even contemplated to the ISS) it would only mean some three flights per year of the shuttle system. If we can afford the six flights or so that we have been making for some time now, then only three should not be that difficult!!
(7) And finally, while the Russian equipment itself is very good, I as a patriotic American do NOT want us to have to just go on our knees to the Russians. Russians that may just not always be even as friendly towards us as they now are (and relations are not at this time even that good)!! Does it not seem possible that might just be one of the reasons that Congress does not seem to be so enthusiastic about just taking the shuttle off line before we have something else that is a proven system for doing what it now does so very well? I do hope that this new committee chaired by Augustine can see this, because if they can't, then I am very afraid that some congressional committee may very well see it, much to the detriment of NASA!!!
So, in total, while I can go along with killing the Ares I (at least partially, saving what can be saved), and giving additional funding to the COTS program. I can not go along with killing the STS system until a suitable replacement is actually launching successfully! If that means that the same Congress that I am almost certain is going to feel the same way, giving NASA a reasonable boost (such as a continuing 10% increase over inflation as an addition to their budget each year) then I am reasonably certain that they might just do so!
However, I must admit that nothing is totally certain in this life, except death and taxes......
The ONLY reason that NASA's current bosses want the shuttle out of the way is to be able to use every cent for the Orion project. But that project, and the Ares I rocket are already so bloated as to budget that I think this special committee under Augustine might just be there to legitimize getting rid of it! NASA is NOT going to want to admit that they have basically wasted some $7 billion on such a turkey as the Ares I however, and quite frankly understanding the mood of a very recession weary America, I can't really say as I blame them. So, they are going to state that at least they can save the work on the second stage (such as the Orion Capsule , and the J2X Engine), and then also state that the work on the five segment SRB is also going to eventually be useful perhaps? This might just be the origin of their statements that if they kill the Ares I then they also kill the Ares V, which is another smoke screen by none engineering types of administrators for pure political reasons.
You know, it is really sad to me, but back in the 1960's under such greats as Wernher Von Braun and George Webb NASA truly was a great organization! They actually gave their contractors far more freedom in design and building the rockets that got us to the moon the first time around. But now I must admit to no longer being so sure anymore.....