No, it implies that I’m trying to explain the reasoning of the people who are making that argument. It does not necessarily follow that I believe it myself.

I want to challenge an implication in your statement above. Specifically, you state that it is not bizzare to state that letting Shuttle workforce go, and re-assembling it for the CEV is a national security issue. This implies that you think it is reasonable to make national security argument here.

Why is it a threat to “national security” if we lose the Shuttle workforce, and have to re-assemble the workforce later?

Let me propose a measurable test of whether this is a national security issue.

Does anybody on the “National Security Council” or the DoD even care if the Shuttle workforce is let go, and has to be rehired later, or whether there was a gap between Shuttle and CEV?

If so, who are they, what did they say, and when did they say it?

– Al

The quote by John Young could easily be a remake of something Henry Ford would say. And just as pertinent.
When they start making CEV’s as fast as Model T cars, then we can proceed with all the other things.

Not at all. In the former, the workforce (and its critical skills) is retained with the expectation that the shuttle will resume flights; in the latter, the workforce is laid off and must somehow be re-assembled when CEV starts flying.

Not at all. In the former, the workforce (and its critical skills) is retained with the expectation that the shuttle will resume flights; in the latter, the workforce is laid off and must somehow be re-assembled when CEV starts flying.

Apparently, shuttle flight gaps due to safety improvements are OK but the “Shuttle to CEV gap [is] a threat to US national security”.

Bizarro.