(Split Thread) Post Shuttle Retirement?

[spacefire]

but, I sure hope there will be a lot more CEVs built than shuttles! A bigger workforce MIGHT be needed in ten years. pay their salaries, if you want to keep them, it will still be cheaper than flying the shuttle <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[erauskydiver]

IMHO it is unrealistic to think that you are going to sustain a hearty moon/mars program with a staffing footprint smaller than the shuttle. You said it yourself, there will be a lot of hardware. That means a large LFP and supply chain. <br /><br />We could really debate this until we are blue in the face. Only time will tell for sure. I support the way Griffin is going on this. He knows that his workers are a valuable resource. He knows that people are important. Without people, there would be no point to any of this anyway.<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">so much of the reduction can be achieved simply by natural attrition.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree, and I believe natural attrition is generally the most graceful way to downsize when possible. But there are always a few potential "gotchas" with any plan. Two off the top of my head are:<br /><br />(1) How do you keep the skilled people around until the last shuttle flight in 2010 so that it is as safe as possible? Employees will be retiring over the next 2-3 years. Others will be offered jobs elsewhere. Do you replace these people when the shuttle still needs to fly, or does the last shuttle launch with a skeleton support crew?<br /><br />(2) The people that remain might not have the right skill sets. When IBM went though a major downsizing (early 90s?), they offered a voluntary early retirement program among other incentives for people to leave. The result is that <i>the best</i> people left knowing they could get other jobs, leaving on average a less competent employee base. How do you keep the best people in the skill areas needed most while encouraging "others" to leave?</i>

 

[najab]

The best way to avoid these problems is to encourage people to stay on past retirement, the opposite of the more common "pay people to leave" approach.

 

[j05h]

>Keep 'em flying until we're cutting metal. <br /><br />There is every likelyhood that keeping Shuttle flying until the CEV & HLV are ready will prevent those systems from ever flying. Shuttle/Station have already had a hand in scuttling plenty of NASA projects.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[erauskydiver]

So what happens when you cancel the shuttle, and then CEV development gets cancelled before it ever flies? Then you are really SOL.

 

[spacefire]

then you disband NASA and use its budget to set up a series of prizes to spur competitions for private companies to achieve various milestones in spaceflight.<br />That's how aviation technology evolved in its early age, not by having a government agency running things. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

>So what happens when you cancel the shuttle, and then CEV development gets cancelled before it ever flies? Then you are really SOL.<br /><br />No, I'm not SOL but NASA would be. I'm waiting for Bigelow and Musk to shake the world up. NASA does neat stuff, and I fully support the VSE, but NASA has never been about getting the common people into space. We need a first generation of pioneers, people willing and technically capable to go and live out there. We need to explore and build cities and ships and grow trees. Out there. NASA has little to do with that. The explorers of the past largely went in search of pirate booty, not as part of official Exploration Agencies. This applies to Cortez, Pizarro, Leif Erikson and the Corte-Reals - it's about prestige and wealth and saying "I did that." NASA cancels the CEV and tanks on the whole VSE? Bummer, but it doesn't change the fact that we need a generation of pioneers willing to go out there. The rockets are there, the tech to start this is in place. We need product development, guts and just a couple of deep pockets. For so many reasons, we need human development in space, NASA has to lead, follow or get out of the way. Griffin seems the best thing to happen to the agency in decades.<br /><br />NASA never promised me a flight, if they botch the CEV, bummer. I want them to succeed, they should have done much more than circle Earth my whole life. If they fail and close their manned spaceflight down, it's just a loss of eye-candy for me (in aggregate). There are plenty of sources for spaceflight, and more coming online. It would be a shame and loss, but my money and hopes are on Burt Rutan, Elon Musk, Gary Hudson and other people with skill and vision. <br /><br />It should be in my sig: we need a first generation of pioneers.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacefire]

Indeed. NASA might explore the planets and whatnot, but it will not colonize them or exploit their resources. <br />Commercial drive, not science alone, will demand for more exploration and extension of our habitat, eventually taking humankind to the stars! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tempel1]

Dear friends <br />Go here please:<br />http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-release-details.cfm?newsID=117 <br />” The spacecraft's VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE SUN is at about 26 kilometers per second (about 59,250 miles per hour). Cassini is now more than 9 million kilometers (almost 6 million miles) from Earth”. <br /><br />Since our probe is launched from the earth, it has already a velocity of 65,000 miles per hour (earth's velocity). <br /><br />Why have NASA engineers steered Cassini on this trajectory? <br /> http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_cassini_trajectory_02.gif&cap=The <br /><br />Instead of increasing Cassini's velocity they have slowed down it at 59,250 miles per hour. <br /><br />NASA engineers think the earth is the center of our solar system and don't consider earth's velocity. <br /><br />In this wrong way Cassini has travelled for 2 200 000 000 miles to meet Saturn. <br /><br />Cassini would have been able to fly along a straight line travelling for less than 1 000 000 000 miles. <br /><br />65,000 miles per hour (earth velocity) + 36,000 miles per hour (spacecraft's velocity) = 101,000 miles per hour <br /><br />1 000 000 000 miles : 365 days : 24 hours : 101,000 miles per hour = 1.13 years <br /><br />If NASA engineers considered the earth's velocity, Cassini could meet Saturn in one year! <br />