Orion won't fly until early 2015

[radarredux]

The following quote is from an article on C-17 production, but much of this (good and bad) can be mapped to NASA's manned space program:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b><font color="yellow">Boeing will stop work on C-17 aircraft</font>/b><br /><b>Only military cargo jets currently under Pentagon contract will be built</b><br /><br />Boeing Co. on Friday said it will cease ordering parts for C-17 military cargo jets that are not under contract or firm commitments, a step that could mark the end of the aircraft’s production altogether.<br /><br />The company said without further C-17 orders from the Pentagon or foreign buyers it expects to begin reducing the size of its work force as early as 2008, and complete the shut down of production facilities by mid-2009.<br /><br />Boeing has notified suppliers who employ more than 7,000 workers in California, Missouri, Georgia and Arizona. There are roughly 25,000 U.S. jobs tied to the C-17.<br /><br />Boeing is under contract by the Air Force for 190 C-17s. The last plane is expected to be delivered by October 2009.<br /><br />This is the second time Boeing has threatened to halt production of the C-17. Last year, the company went so far as to hold a supplier day on Capitol Hill to lobby members of Congress for continued support.<br /><br />Swayed by the potential loss of tens of thousands of jobs, lawmakers agreed to designate an additional $2 billion to buy 10 more C-17s in its fiscal 2007 budget on top of the 12 that had been initially requested by the Air Force.<br /><br />“We had hoped to keep the production line active and viable to protect this important national asset affordably while the U.S. government completed its decision process on the future of the C-17 program, especially in light of the current concerns over the aging C-5A,” said Dave Bowman, vice president and C-17 program manager for Boeing, in a statement.<br /><br />The aerospace manufacturer said due to a 34-month lead time in bui</b></p></blockquote>

 

[josh_simonson]

I call BS on that. NASA was grounded for about 4 years after columbia (okay there was 2 RTF flights), and they didn't go to hell in a handbasket. Between 2009 and 2015 there will be a number of test launches. This will keep things running the the VAB and pads. It won't be the end of the world, but it will be expensive.

 

[vulture2]

It's time to get realistic about ESAS. Far from reducing risk, its obsolete technology makes success impossible because it can never carry humans to the moon at a cost we can afford.<br /><br />In contrast, COTS is perfectly in line with NASA's mission, because NASA's mission is to advance the technology of flight. Whether the current COTS proposals ever carry a passenger is irrelevant as long as we learn something from their construction and testing that will bring the day closer when human spaceflight is not only possible, but practical. <br /><br />Still, only NASA would pay two companies that have never launched a payload to develop radical new launch vehicles and spacecraft, and call it COTS, which meant (until the words were inelegantly revised) "Commercial Off the Shelf".<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">NASA was grounded for about 4 years after columbia (okay there was 2 RTF flights), and they didn't go to hell in a handbasket. ... It won't be the end of the world, but it will be expensive.</font>/i><br /><br />Even longer was the delay between Apollo and the Shuttle. Certainly NASA will survive, but it will be difficult. In many ways, this is more like the Apollo/Shuttle gap than the Shuttle/Shuttle gap following 2003. In the latter case, everyone knew the same vehicle was going to fly. The same parts were going to be needed. The same contractors were involved. The same launch crews were going to be involved. The procedures were going to be largely the same.<br /><br />This transition will be different. I am willing to bet NASA is already notifying some contractors that their services/products will no longer be needed after this year.<br /><br />Also, NASA has a greying workforce, and I bet with the last flight of the Shuttle, a lot of people will opt to retire before the next manned launch. The delta in terms of people and contractors between 2010 and 2015 will be much larger than the delta between 2003 and 2006.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It's time to get realistic about ESAS. Far from reducing risk, its obsolete technology makes success impossible because it can never carry humans to the moon at a cost we can afford.</font>/i><br /><br />You call it "obsolete technology", I call it "mature technology." When you embark on a large, complex endeavor, you want to build on a foundation of mature components.<br /><br />The problem is that the stable of "mature technologies" that NASA can draw upon has not changed much over the decades. This is one of my pet peeves -- NASA should have a well-funded and politically protected program to create and mature new technologies.</i>

 

[spacester]

vulture2, you have sound ideas but your solution lives in a fantasy world, and one with a long delay in development besides.<br /><br />ESAS does not try to do everything. It provides the framework for a lunar infrastructure upon which commercial and international space organizations can build. COTS <b>is</b> perfectly in line with NASA's mission but so is ESAS. Your unofficial mission statement is inaccurate. Griffin needs to cover multiple eventualities with multiple development programs. <br /><br />NASA does not have to get people to the moon efficiently. They are a government agency. It cannot happen that way, and Dr. Griffin knows it. What NASA can do is provide the "stretch capability" that leads the rest of us into space.<br /><br />If NASA can land men on the moon anywhere they want with safety, performance and operational margins, AND get a beachhead established at the most strategic spot on the globe, that will be a major conduit for commercial space to express itself.<br /><br />Among other things, there will be the opportunity to kick NASA's hind end and get there first and with less cost. If we fund Griffin and keep him at the helm, that's the kind of thing he will do. He would dearly love to do more things like CATS. Multiple eventualities are a certainty, it's a question of managing outcomes. NASA under Griffin would welcome alternate and less expensive lunar transportation services. But as the man himself has said, from his point of view commercial programs are not about helping NASA spend its money.<br /><br />ESAS will provide multiple business opportunities. Myself, I plan to get into food commodities, and when the population gets big enough, I'll specialize in Beermaking. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> That comes after the glass-making stint.<br /><br />There will be across-the-board opportunities for space entrepreneurs once NASA gets their base set up.<br /><br />I didn't like the hijacking of the TLA (Three Letter Acronym) 'COTS' either - but I'm gett <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture2]

>>ESAS does not try to do everything. It provides the framework for a lunar infrastructure upon which commercial and international space organizations can build.<br /><br />The problem is that ESAS sucks up the very resources that we need to develop practical manned spaceflight. The cancellation of the X-33, X-34, DC-X, and X-37 come to mind. In theory, we will have to cancel the Shuttle and Station as well to get the funds to pay for the VSE. <br /><br /> />>If NASA can land men on the moon anywhere they want with safety, performance and operational margins, AND get a beachhead established at the most strategic spot on the globe, that will be a major conduit for commercial space to express itself. <br /><br />Only if NASA pays the development costs; there are no other customers. None of the new "entrepreneurial" space firms have survived unless they got government contracts that paid for virtually all of their initial launches. If industry, with NASA funding, can develop practical systems for human spaceflight, great. That's in line with the NASA mission. But in that case why should NASA spend most of its budget for the next 20 years to build an entirely separate infrastructure with existing but impractical technology first? It's like returning to the South Pole 30 years after Amudsen and Scott, but with bigger and faster dogsleds. In reality no one set foot on the Pole again until 1957, when they could do it safely and inexpensively with modern aircraft developed, in part, with NASA technology.<br /><br />I'll specialize in Beermaking.<br />It may be of interest that enlisted personnel at even the smallest Antarctic bases virtually always found ways to produce alcohol...

 

[holmec]

'It's time to get realistic about ESAS. Far from reducing risk, its obsolete technology makes success impossible because it can never carry humans to the moon at a cost we can afford.'<br /><br />Well yeah, if the Democrats keep pulling the money away! Its not the technology, its the politics that did this one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

'The problem is that ESAS sucks up the very resources that we need to develop practical manned spaceflight. The cancellation of the X-33, X-34, DC-X, and X-37 come to mind. In theory, we will have to cancel the Shuttle and Station as well to get the funds to pay for the VSE.'<br /> <br />Development is always costly. You just can't get away from that. X-37 and successive projects are still continuing. X-33 was unmanned. X-34 was a tesbed, simular to X-37. DC-X was beat out by X-33. None of those could even replace the shuttle or launch men in orbit. And on top of that those projects did not go through the Congressional scrutiny that ESAS did.<br /><br />I also hate it when people say that ESAS is obsolete when its not even built. The long life of Soyuz system proves that its not an obsolete system, but a very relevant one. It also confirms that maybe the Apollo project designers got it right the first time.<br /><br />Winged spacecraft is not a mature technology (generally speaking). The Shuttle orbiter was one of the first. Now we have an inherit design flaw in the system. Its workable and manageable, but not desirable. SpaceShipOne has given us another piece to that puzzle (reentry using aeronautics not computers for orientation, and that brings down costs considerable). The Air Force is insitant on winged space craft and thus is pressing on with the X-37 and in consecutive projects to some end unknown as of yet (at least for me). So winged space craft are very costly (so far) as opposed to capsule and modular space craft.<br /><br />Now NASA is not the only space organization in the world. RSA and ESA, China and India are the other contenders for the moon. Not to mention the science that Universities are interested in, both geological and astronomical. So to say that NASA is the only end client is just short sighted because a lot of people can benefit from the exploration NASA does. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

'Only if NASA pays the development costs; there are no other customers. None of the new "entrepreneurial" space firms have survived unless they got government contracts that paid for virtually all of their initial launches. If industry, with NASA funding, can develop practical systems for human spaceflight, great. That's in line with the NASA mission. But in that case why should NASA spend most of its budget for the next 20 years to build an entirely separate infrastructure with existing but impractical technology first? It's like returning to the South Pole 30 years after Amudsen and Scott, but with bigger and faster dogsleds. In reality no one set foot on the Pole again until 1957, when they could do it safely and inexpensively with modern aircraft developed, in part, with NASA technology. '<br /><br />This is simply untrue. Transformational Space is pressing on without government money with their air lauched rocket and capsule. Biglow did not have governemt contracts when it lauched Genesis1. The spin off of SpaceDev, I don't think has any government contract but is developing a lifting body orbiter based on HL-20. Then there's a company in Texas developing a rocket based on DC-X with no apparent government money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"NASA will survive, but it will be difficult."</font><br /><br />You should not equate US manned spacefight with NASA.<br />There could be NO FURTHER MANNED MISSIONS and NASA<br />would still have more work to do exploring the solar system<br />and the universe than it could pay for with its budget. <br /><br />Maybe you mean that without manned missions the public <br />and congress would lose interest and defund NASA. I don't know,<br />but I would hope that interest in what lies under the ice of Europa, <br />the haze of Titan and the surface of Mars would remain despite<br />the lack of manned flights. As well as interest in studying the origins<br />of our universe and looking for planets outside of our solar system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

"X-33, X-34, DC-X, and X-37"<br /><br />Yes, yes I know the history. But the central point here I'm trying to get you to understand is that this is NOT the past. We have been blessed with a terrific administrator and there's a new Sheriff in town.<br /><br />ESAS is NOT SLI and NASP and VentureStar and all the rest of them. I bashed them all, they were "doing it wrong". I waited and waited for a program that "does it right" and this is it. We just need to fund it and follow Griffin's lead.<br /><br />Using history as your sole guide to the future almost never works. History only informs, it does not constrain.<br /><br />"There are no other customers".<br /><br />Wrong. Just wrong. I'll show you on my new site, this summer.<br /><br />The political reality is that it would be grossly irresponsible for the NASA Admin to not provide his Government with Government owned and operated flight hardware providing Government personnel with access to at least LEO, and his boss has specified he needs to get us to the moon as well.<br /><br />I think if you read that carefully, you will agree with it. In that case, I suspect what you are thinking is that private operators can do it better, faster, cheaper. I happen to agree with that statement, but it remains a statement of fact not in evidence. <br /><br />The beauty of ESAS, if they continue to "do it right", is that it provides infrastructure - at government cost levels, deal with it - while providing a myriad of opportunities for private operators to get in on the grand enterprise. Not sucking on the Government teat for income, but doing business with other space entrepreneurs in the Government- built industrial and Recreation park. You just don't see it yet. I do because I've been waiting for it.<br /><br />Without Mike Griffin, I'm with ya, but your NASA bashing is outmoded. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />. . . produce alcohol . . . ah but I'm talking a real, live, properly fermented beer . . . anyone can make a still, beerm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">Well yeah, if the Democrats keep pulling the money away! Its not the technology, its the politics that did this one.</font><br /><br />Hold on there partner, yer getting off on the wrong track here.<br /><br />It is the Grand Old Party, the Republicans, who failed to pass a budget and forced the newly elected 110th Congress to pass a Continuing Resolution to fund NASA at the previous year's levels.<br /><br />It is the Democrats who are in position to restore the funding. Perhaps even increase it, as unimaginable as that is to many here.<br /><br />It is the politics, you got that part right, but please inform yourself before making statements of fact like that. This is a problem I am actively working on, so had to correct you here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

(I'm not Hijacking the thread, I promise. This is my version of the announcement before the formal announcement, my McCain/Letterman Show moment. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> )<br /><br />In response to the opening post, I hope people realize this is not an announcement that needs to be accepted as fact, right?<br /><br />This is a statement from an Administrator dutifully telling his oversight bosses what the consequences are to his (and OUR) space program given the unanticipated and immediate loss of funding thanks to the jerks in charge of the 109th Congress.<br /><br />You want a new villain, a politician to blame for NASA's failures? Everybody likes to kick Tricky Dick Nixon around and rightfully so, but right now, Dennis Hastert and his bag of idiot cronies are looking to be the villains for the next 30 years. Is that what you want?<br /><br />Please tell me I'm not the only one here outraged by this continuing resolution BS. Is everyone else content to just watch history pass right in front of their eyes in high definition and never do more than watch?<br /><br />I plan to submit my new site to the search engines Monday morning, I'll have a better sign-up method than just e-mailing me by then, and what I'm doing exactly will be a little more clear by then. But the basic mission statements are clear:<br /><br />I want to form a network of well-informed space advocates, a network matching our US Conrgress district for district, people who can establish a rudimentary relationship with their Congressperson.<br /><br />I've got a LOT of personal opinions but as the leader of my website's lobbying efforts, it is critical that I maintain a simple, core message so as to have a Unanimous Consensus at at least one level. We space advocates have just a "wee bit" of a reputation for being fractious. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Having a core statement that everyone can agree to, I am providing a vehicle for all you folks here - lurkers especially wanted - to n <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

>> <i>"NASA will survive, but it will be difficult."</i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">You should not equate US manned spacefight with NASA. <br />There could be NO FURTHER MANNED MISSIONS and NASA <br />would still have more work to do exploring the solar system <br />and the universe than it could pay for with its budget.</font>/i><br /><br />You are quite correct; my choice of words was not very precise.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Then there's a company in Texas developing a rocket based on DC-X with no apparent government money.</font>/i><br /><br />That would be (I believe) Blue Origin, the company funded by Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos.<br /><br />If you go to Blue Origin's home page, the first thing you see is "We are Hiring". Bigelow is also hiring. SpaceX is also hiring. I suspect this will pose an interesting challenge to NASA during the lull between 2010 and 2015 -- or maybe even before.<br /><br />With the Shuttle program shutting down and ISS building and assembly complete in about 3 years, I bet some of the best engineers and managers are already looking for new opportunities. It might be a challenge for NASA to keep the top team members in place all the way until the very last Shuttle flight.</i>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">It's like returning to the South Pole 30 years after Amudsen and Scott, but with bigger and faster dogsleds. In reality no one set foot on the Pole again until 1957, when they could do it safely and inexpensively with modern aircraft developed, in part, with NASA technology. </font><br /><br />Ok, when exactly will the National Aeronautics and Space Administration invent the time machine required to make a technology transfer to one year before its founding in 1958?

 

[Boris_Badenov]

<font color="yellow"> Ok, when exactly will the National Aeronautics and Space Administration invent the time machine required to make a technology transfer to one year before its founding in 1958? </font><br /><br /> I think he's talking about the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[no_way]

There is a white elephant in the room, and nobody is talking about it.<br /><br />Problem with the "gap" ? Start working on them moon launchers immediately. Problem with money ? Stop throwing money down the rathole. Problem with international partners ? Do a charity thing and give the elephant away to them.<br /><br />The solutions are obvious. Everyone involved will be happier, including the Smithsonian for getting a chance to have certain iconic flying bricks still in one piece. Be a pity if they'd have to scrape for them all over texas again.

 

[spacester]

Just a quick note for those interested. I had to postpone launch of my site one week. "Real world" stuff intrudes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[galactichalo]

Aderholt worries NASA work at risk<br />http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1177492780283840.xml&coll=1

 

[johns805]

Hi: It seems to me that retiring the space shuttles in 2010 would not be prudent. I think our (U.S.) cordial relations with Russia re: the ISS may not be as stable as we think. An example: The Russians, perhaps they view it as a threat, are unhappy with a U.S. plan for an anti missile defense system in Europe... Putin recently has been perceived to be reverting back to a Soviet like autocratic style, etc....If near term relations go south, the ISS program could very well be in jeopardy....I seriously doubt a proven private industry alternative to the shuttle can be operational in what is right now about 2 1/2 years time more or less....Somehow, I think the shuttles still have enough future flights in them for as necessary supply-crew ferry trips to the ISS until Orion is able to take over....This is all contingent on getting a plan and the funding to make it so....Due to the uncertain terran geopolitical realities, I just think it's way too risky to do nothing to fill the gap as it now stands....Trust but prepare! My 2 cents! Best Regards! ~JBK

 

[MeteorWayne]

It really doesn't make too much difference whether it's prudent or not.<br /><br />It's a done deal, and it's likely too late to change that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

"his boss"? I think you give "his boss" waaay too much credit for this "vision" thing.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">think you give "his boss" waaay too much credit for this "vision" thing.</font><br /><br />Ah, the irony . . . <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> . . . I loathe dubya, always have, always will. But the Prez is the boss of NASA.<br /><br />I'm the guy who argued in 2004 that the VSE was nothing more than a campaign ploy, and that anyone who thought dubya was going to be the champion of Space Flight was deluded. I was right, of course. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br />I'm a fan of Griffin, not his boss. I consider it a political miracle that we have him as the NASA Admin. Seemingly every cabinet secretary is corrupt or incompetent or both, but somehow we got Griffin at NASA. Go figure. But he needs full funding to make anything happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>