(Add http://www.) flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/05/219100/nasa-funding-problem-threatens-orions-march-2015-launch.html

It’s too bad that Ares I/Orion requirements and technical content weren’t designed with adequate budget and schedule margin from the get-go to better absorb these kinds of past and likely future funding hiccups. This problem will haunt NASA, possibly even on an annual basis, until Ares I/Orion is fundamentally rescoped or replaced.

“However, the AMS-02 is an international collaboration of at least 16 countries.”

Thanks Mr. Fansome.

Anon,

The AMS-2 project is indeed by Dr. Sam Ting of MIT (a Nobel Prize winner of Physics). However, the AMS-02 is an international collaboration of at least 16 countries. My sources say that Dr. Ting’s ability to create this international collaboration is one of the reasons that it is still alive today.

Of interest to this community — unless Dr. Ting has changed strategies recently — Dr. Ting has been attempting to get back on the Shuttle manifest. There are letters online documenting his attempts. For example see the following document which reports on a November 2005 contact by Ting of Mike Griffi:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/172130main_AMS_ELV.pdf

The AMS team just held a TIM at JSC from October 22-24.
http://ams.cern.ch/AMS/Meetings/Meetings07/Oct22_24.html

The CERN site has a good amount of information on the AMS-02 status at
http://ams.cern.ch/

You can also find a lot AMS-02 information at the NASA JSC website at
http://ams-02project.jsc.nasa.gov/

– Al

My apologies for skipping over your very long post. I acquire value from contributions, but this exceeded by available time.

Mr. Matula made one assertion, that has some relevance, but he misses the point (me thinks).

MATULA: But again the arrows of China’s space efforts are pointing in one direction. And they will move slow but sure in that direction without any official announcements least they run into a road block and lose face. That is how China works.

Mr. Matula,

I agree that the arrrows of China’s space efforts are clearly pointing to an increasingly capabile Chinese space program.

I also agree with you that Chinese prestige will play some role.

However …

1) The long-term goal & objectives of the Chinese space program are unclear — as Chinese leadership has made no statements on this issue.

You have been challenged to provide data. What you have provided is weak at best, and clearly not definitive.

2) There are MANY long-term goals that China could pursue in the long-term that would be supported by their existing development plans. Putting humans on the Moon is only one of many possible long-term goals.

Considering these two points — I have to ask myself “Why would you leap to the conclusion (and it is a leap, unsupported by the facts) that China currently has a plan to put humans on the Moon in the next several decades?

I can only conclude that you are hoping to recreate a space race.

I don’t blame you for trying, but I think it will fail until there is hard proof that China is racing us to the Moon.

Everything we see suggests China is not even racing to develop a space station in Earth orbit — they are moving at a slow methodical pace.

– Al

I agree.

But its was you that provided Oberg’s editorial as evidence of an existing Chinese human lunar program. I simply pointed out that:

1) The editorial doesn’t provide any actual evidence of such (only speculation about a hypothetical future program), and

2) The editorial actually raises points against the possibility of a future Chinese human lunar program.

If you don’t believe the statements in your own source material, then you shouldn’t present that source material as evidence to buttress your logic.

“Sounds like you are grasping at straws to defend your view.”

Again, I’m referencing a source you provided (the Oberg editorial). Don’t blame or criticize me for pointing out that your sources throw up strawmen that contradict your own arguments.

“Also you are assuming they will use a LOR model like we did… Saturn V class booster.”

I made no such assumption. In fact, I repeatedly pointed out the lack of physical evidence for Chinese human lunar activities unrelated to heavy lift here:

“That said, a human lunar program — the development of… reentry testing, lunar lander testing, erection of communications infrastructure, etc. — is an extremely hard thing to hide, especially in the Google Earth era. And, at least for now, there’s no reported physical evidence, at least in the public domain and that I’m aware of, that would support the contention that China is pursuing a human lunar program.”

There is no physical evidence for a Chinese human lunar program, with or without a heavy lift launch vehicle.

“The presence of their space station makes a EOR model far more likely… Again review some of the proposals for Lunar Gemini.””

Several points here:

First, China has no space station. China only has a projection in their current five-year plan to maybe pursue a space station in the next five-year plan. At best, we can say that there is a plan to get to a plan for a future Chinese space station. And even then, China is still making noise about joining the ISS partnership.

Second, even the designs that have been floated for China’s space station cannot support a lunar architecture. There is no in-space propellant provisioning capability in those designs, certainly not on the scale necessary to fuel an EDS. In fact, China’s space station is likely to consist of little more than the temporary docking of two modified Shenzhou in the Apollo-Soyuz model.

Third, the various Gemini-based lunar architectures did not involve any space stations. None existed at the time. The Gemini circumlunar, lunar landing, and lunar rescue architectures all involved EOR and/or LOR between modified Gemini capsules, Centaur upper stages or Titan transstages, and open cockpit lunar landers.

“Not knowing your background or experience I felt it is critical to make sure your understood this since you seem hung up that there is no official announcement.”

Again, please drop the condescending tone and please don’t make assumptions about what you imagine another poster knows and what his hang-ups are. There’s no need to impugn and insult other posters. Stick to the logic and facts, not the other poster’s “background or experience” or what they “seem hung up” on. Argue the post, not the poster.

Furthermore, I’m not “hung up” on an “official announcement”. I readily acknowledged that we cannot rely on documents and quotes here:

“I agree that we shouldn’t rely solely on official statements and documents to gauge progress in China’s space programs. We need to rate those statement and documents against the physical evidence for or against Chinese development of human lunar (or other) capabilities.”

And, of course, no such physical evidence for a Chinese human lunar program exists.

“As pointed out, under their planning system there will not be any for many years, not until discussion of the appropriate 5 year plan begins.”

This is just flat-out false. Each five-year plan incorporates projections for activities that fall in future five-year plans, including lunar exploration activities, as I previously showed here:

“China’s five-year plans include important goals beyond the five-year cycle. For example, the current (11th) plan references the Chang’e 2 mission (a lunar robotic rover in 2012, during the 12th cycle) and the Chang’e 3 mission(a lunar robotic sample return in 2017, during the 13th cycle).”

And, of course, none of these projections include any human lunar plans or goals.

“Since your knowledge of China and its tech capability seems outdated based on assumptions in your posts I felt it was important you understood that China is built around 5 year plans.”

For the umpeenth time, please drop the condescending tone and please don’t make assumptions about what you imagine that another poster knows or doesn’t know. There’s no need to impugn and insult other posters. Please stick to the logic and facts and drop the ad hominem insinuations and attacks. Argue the post, not the poster.

“BTW China is not the technology back water you think from your posts,”

I never wrote (and actually disagree with the statement) that China is a “technology [sic] back water [sic]”. Please show where I stated such.

“its become a location of cutting edge research, especially for U.S. firms. Here is just one recent example from the auto industry.”

Huh? What does the U.S. auto industry have to do with the price of tea (or the state of government aerospace programs) in China?

Please stay on topic. Quoting at random from unrelated articles that turn up in Google searches for “China” and “technology” does not advance a very specific discussion about the existence or non-existence of a Chinese human lunar program.

“And their announced goal for a lunar sample return indicates they will be done.”

No they won’t. Bringing lunar rocks back through the Earth’s atmosphere intact, and bringing taikonauts back through the Earth’s atmosphere alive, are two very different technical challenges — in terms of mass, scale, thermal limits, allowable g-loads, etc. The former does little to prepare for the latter. China will still need to conduct tests for human reentry from a lunar trajectory.

“Just a docking in lunar orbit after a launch from the surface will be demonstrated as part of that mission.”

This assumes that China will not send its lunar sample back to Earth directly from the lunar surface. Even if China pursues a LOR sample return architecture, rendezvous and capture of a small, likely passive, sample cache is a very different technical challenge from the rendezvous and docking of two, human-sized, likely active spacecraft. The former does little to prepare for the latter.

“However here is evidence China is already creating the diplomatic foundation for building that communication infrastructure by establishing partnerships with strategic countries. Tracking and communication stations in Venezuela and Nigeria would easily provide them with the equivalent of the NASA’s Deep Space Network.”

You have to be kidding. You really think that China has engaged Venezuela and Nigeria for the purposes of building a deep space tracking and communications network, and not to buy oil?

I know we’re all space cadets here and the world sometimes seems to revolve around its space programs, but this is a ridiculously fantastical proposition.

“I wonder how many barrels of Venezuelan oil an Venezuelan astronaut walking on the Moon would be worth to China”

Why would Venezuela (or any other nation) wait a couple decades or more for China to put one of their nationals on the Moon when they can buy Soyuz seats today? The question we should be asking is how much oil Venezuela would be willing to pay for a seat to LEO. And figuring out Venezuela’s upper limit is pretty simple, given that the Russian competition offers seats on Soyuz for something like $20-25 million.

And that amount of oil ain’t gonna put even a dent in China’s oil consumption.

“BTW, just so everyone here is clear on what the official China plan is here are a couple of links provided by one of my MBA students from China who is interested in space… The lunar exploration project is expected to conduct lunar orbit exploration in 2007, with its purpose of obtaining 3D surface images to analyze surface element content and physical distribution of the moon, and also probe into the soil characteristics and earth-moon space environment. At about 2012, soft landing and automatic walk-through on the moon are possibly achieved, followed by automatic sample recycling up to 2017.”

Congratulations. Your Chinese student pointed you to the same five-year plan, with the same projections for Chinese lunar robotic missions, that I already laid out here:

“China’s five-year plans include important goals beyond the five-year cycle. For example, the current (11th) plan references the Chang’e 2 mission (a lunar robotic rover in 2012, during the 12th cycle) and the Chang’e 3 mission(a lunar robotic sample return in 2017, during the 13th cycle).”

Read and comprehend other folks’ posts before reflexively responding, please.

“Oh, and in case you missed it here is what China’s former deputy chief of the nation’s Manned Space Flight Project, Hu Shixiang, had to say on China 5 year space plan… According to Hu, China will send its first lunar probe satellite in 2007. There are three stages for China’s moon probing, that is, orbiting, docking and returning.

In the first stage, orbiting, there will be three-dimensioned graphs of the lunar surface. Researches will be focused on the content and distribution of elements on the moon surface, detection of the depth of the lunar soil and space environment between the earth and the moon.

Researches for the second stage, docking, include the launch of a docking vehicle to land on the moon.

For the third stage, returning, in addition to moon surface investigation, sample collections from the moon and returning to the earth will be carried out.”

Again, congratulations. You once again managed to repeat the projection for lunar robotic exploration contained in China’s current five-year plan, which I already laid out here:

“China’s five-year plans include important goals beyond the five-year cycle. For example, the current (11th) plan references the Chang’e 2 mission (a lunar robotic rover in 2012, during the 12th cycle) and the Chang’e 3 mission(a lunar robotic sample return in 2017, during the 13th cycle).”

Read and comprehend other folks’ posts before reflexively responding, please.

“Interesting, testing docking technology in lunar orbit as part of their sample return mission, isn’t it?”

The quote doesn’t say that China will be “docking” in lunar orbit. It says that they will be docking on the lunar surface, i.e., a lander and rover.

“Actually their entire lunar agenda is interesting if its only for science, wouldn’t you say?”

Well, I’m a space cadet, so I’d say, yes, a lunar exploration program from China or any nation “is interesting if its [sic] only for science”.

What’s your point?

“But I know nothing will budge you from your views.”

That’s wrong on two counts:

1) It’s not a “view” that I or anyone else possesses. There’s no opinion involved. Either China does or does not have a human lunar program. And they clearly do not. No such program or goal appears in any of the projections in China’s five-year plans. Those projections do not anticipate a decision to start such a program until after 2020. The head of China’s space agency says that no such decision has been made. And there is no physical evidence in what would be a highly visible program that China is pursuing such a program currently.

2) A change in any of the conditions above, or an announcement by China’s premier or another national leader above the space agency head, would demonstrate evidence for the existence of a Chinese human lunar program. In such an event, I would readily admit that China either appears to be, or is in fact, pursuing a human lunar program.

Don’t mistake lack of evidence for opinion. They’re not the same thing.

“And since I have much work to do in my day job of teaching global business and marketing”

Yes, I’m sure that teaching assistantship is of world-shaking importance. (Rolling my eyes…)

“I will just leave this board to you to use for your soapbox that China should not be a factor in U.S. space planning.”

I never made such a statement. In fact, I repeatedly stated that China should be a factor in U.S. civil space plans here:

“Worse, the focus that Griffin and a few NASA field center congressmen place on a non-existent Chinese human lunar program in an outdated, Cold War, missile gap-type effort to prop up Constellation distracts us from the real threats and opportunities that China poses, both in space activities and in other realms. When it comes to China, I’d rather that NASA and our nation’s leadership focus on reality, rather than spinning self-serving myths.”

And here:

“Instead of using China as a foil to prop up budgetary support for a failing program, I wish Griffin was focused instead on where there are real opportunities to usefully engage the Chinese space program and where there are real threats that NASA technology could be critical to overcoming.”

Just because China doesn’t have a human lunar program doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t accord real Chinese space activities (e.g., anti-satellite testing) a high degree of attention.

“Adios”

Ci. (That’s pinyin mandarin for “Adios”.)

[[[there may be insurmountable obstacles to such a hypothetical vehicle (e.g., barge transport through the contested Taiwan Straits).]]]

Thousands of cargo ships, including PRC and Taiwanese, travel the straits every year. Why would Taiwan want to start a war by seizing a barge with a booster? It would make about as much sense as Cuba grabbing one of the Saturn V’s off of south Florida in the 1960’s… And if there is a war between China and Taiwan there will be more to worry about the safety of a barge with a rocket on it. Sounds like you are grasping at straws to defend your view.

Also you are assuming they will use a LOR model like we did. The presence of their space station makes a EOR model far more likely. And greatly reduces the need for a Saturn V class booster. Again review some of the proposals for Lunar Gemini.

[[[Please drop the condescending tone. We don’t to tell another poster that they “need to understand” China’s five-year plans in order to mention or describe China’s five-year plans to them.]]]

Not knowing your background or experience I felt it is critical to make sure your understood this since you seem hung up that there is no official announcement. As pointed out, under their planning system there will not be any for many years, not until discussion of the appropriate 5 year plan begins. Since your knowledge of China and its tech capability seems outdated based on assumptions in your posts I felt it was important you understood that China is built around 5 year plans. BTW China is not the technology back water you think from your posts, its become a location of cutting edge research, especially for U.S. firms. Here is just one recent example from the auto industry.

upi.com/NewsTrack/Business/2007/10/29/gm_to_set_up_250m_china_research_center/1157/

GM to set up $250M China research center
Published: Oct. 29, 2007 at 10:27 AM

[[[BEIJING, Oct. 29 (UPI) — General Motors Corp. said Monday it would set up a $250 million alternative-fuel research center in Shanghai, China’s largest city.

“China has the potential to become a leader in the adoption of alternative propulsion systems,” Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said at a Beijing news conference.]]]

and

[[[GM will also establish a China Automotive Energy Research Center with Beijing’s Tsinghua University and GM’s strategic partner in China, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. Group, the U.S. automaker said.]]]

Also your statement [[[And currently there is no physical evidence that China is pursuing a human lunar program.]]] is based on a red herring, that they would be doing every step now, not when its needed to be done. So let’s deal with it.

As for the re-entry tests, why would China be doing those now for a mission a decade away. They will come when they get closer to launch. And their announced goal for a lunar sample return indicates they will be done. Just a docking in lunar orbit after a launch from the surface will be demonstrated as part of that mission. See the quotes from the 5 year plan at the bottom.

And if they decide to go with a Saturn V class launcher it will also appear, but not util after the Long March 5 is flying. The key is to see the long lead time elements are emerging. And their new spaceport, one suitable for lunar mission with a logistic infrastructure capable of supporting large rockets, is one of the long lead time items you would expect in a lunar plan.

And as for the global communication infrastructure, that will also be developed closer to launch when its needed. However here is evidence China is already creating the diplomatic foundation for building that communication infrastructure by establishing partnerships with strategic countries. Tracking and communication stations in Venezuela and Nigeria would easily provide them with the equivalent of the NASA’s Deep Space Network. Add http://www

nytimes.com/2007/05/24/world/asia/24satellite.html

Snubbed by U.S., China Finds New Space Partners

By JIM YARDLEY
Published: May 24, 2007

[[[Not only did China design, build and launch the satellite for Nigeria, but it also provided a huge loan to help pay the bill. China has also signed a satellite contract with another big oil supplier, Venezuela. It is developing an earth observation satellite system with Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Peru and Thailand. And it has organized a satellite association in Asia.]]]

And again, points out a motive for a lunar goal. Prestige in space for other developing nations that have been “exploited” by the west with resources China needs. I wonder how many barrels of Venezuelan oil an Venezuelan astronaut walking on the Moon would be worth to China, especially if it allows Venezuela to remark about how the U.S. hasn’t been to the Moon in over 50 years

BTW, just so everyone here is clear on what the official China plan is here are a couple of links provided by one of my MBA students from China who is interested in space. Add http://www

cnsa.gov.cn/n615709/n620682/n639462/94761.html

Eleventh-Five-Year-plan of the Science Space Program” issued by COSTIND
Date 2007-03-19

[[[During the “eleventh five years”, it’s also expected to further promote the manned space flight and moon exploration project, HXMT and returnable air space scientific experiment satellite programs.

The manned space flight project is required to obtain key technology for astronauts’ extravehicular activity and space vehicle coupling, develop short-term unattended, or long-term autonomous flight space laboratory as well as research on microgravity& space life science, space astronomy and space physics, etc, Carrying out subsequent research on manned space flight.

The lunar exploration project is expected to conduct lunar orbit exploration in 2007, with its purpose of obtaining 3D surface images to analyze surface element content and physical distribution of the moon, and also probe into the soil characteristics and earth-moon space environment. At about 2012, soft landing and automatic walk-through on the moon are possibly achieved, followed by automatic sample recycling up to 2017.]]]

And again, the motive…

[[[As a global frontier discipline, the space science is a forum showcasing the scientific strength of various countries, and also an important engine for scientific development. Therefore, space science research and exploration play a crucial role in promoting our space technology development in an all round way. (Zhangtao)]]]

Oh, and in case you missed it here is what China’s former deputy chief of the nation’s Manned Space Flight Project, Hu Shixiang, had to say on China 5 year space plan. (just http:// NO www

english.peopledaily.com.cn/200603/07/eng20060307_248674.html
[[[China will continue to make breakthroughs in the technology of manned space flight project. Space walks, as well as rendezvous and spacecraft docking will be carried out in the next five years. China has made some achievements in the two technologies, which are the key to establish space labs and space stations, according to Hu.]]]

and

[[[According to Hu, China will send its first lunar probe satellite in 2007. There are three stages for China’s moon probing, that is, orbiting, docking and returning.

In the first stage, orbiting, there will be three-dimensioned graphs of the lunar surface. Researches will be focused on the content and distribution of elements on the moon surface, detection of the depth of the lunar soil and space environment between the earth and the moon.

Researches for the second stage, docking, include the launch of a docking vehicle to land on the moon.

For the third stage, returning, in addition to moon surface investigation, sample collections from the moon and returning to the earth will be carried out.]]]

Interesting, testing docking technology in lunar orbit as part of their sample return mission, isn’t it? Actually their entire lunar agenda is interesting if its only for science, wouldn’t you say?

But I know nothing will budge you from your views. And since I have much work to do in my day job of teaching global business and marketing I will just leave this board to you to use for your soapbox that China should not be a factor in U.S. space planning. Adios

I’m glad Ray was able to successfully post that link. Mine bounced.

As Ray said, it’s a nascent effort. But if either the $100 million Florida partnership or the $760 million Bigelow space transport services contract pay off in the timeframe Bigelow desires (circa 2010) or even a few years thereafter, either in combination with or separate from COTS, it will really beg the question of why NASA is spending taxpayer dollars on Ares I/Orion. Even more so if the next White House (a la Clinton) has deferred the human lunar return effort and there is no cost-sharing with Ares V.
That will leave NASA’s human space flight program with just ISS. And even that may be hard to support from the taxpayer’s perspective if Bigelow’s modular space stations take off.

I’m not saying it will happen, but were I the NASA Administrator and interested in saving the nation’s human space flight program, I would be much more interested in leveraging these developing private capabilities to do the things that the private sector is not doing (such as heavy lift, in-space propellant provisioning, actual exploration), rather than duplicating their capabilities (with more ETO transport and continued ISS build-out). The former is the proper government role. The government won’t be able to successfully compete with the latter over the long-term.

FWIW…

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=4850

Since this is presented as just being in the concept stages, we don’t know whether Florida will determine it’s in its interests to invest, or if they do, how much the investment will be. However, at this point it seems like it would be in NASA’s interests (in terms of the ISS crew and cargo gap and other space access needs) to encourage this partnership. A new round of COTS funding, sized in proportion to the urgency of shrinking the gap, would make sense. The award this round of COTS funding could be made contingent on the awardee(s) having an attractive amount of financial backing such as what you could expect from the Bigelow/Florida deal. NASA could even protect its money by mandating that the COTS winner doesn’t dip into the COTS funds (or much of them) until using more funds from other investors and achieving more technical milestones. Of course NASA’s technical ISS space transportation requirements would have to blend with Bigelow’s requirements for this to work. Flexibility is needed.

Similarly, the NASA COTS investment should make the Bigelow/Florida investment more attractive by increasing the chances that the Florida LEO transportation would be realized (assuming the COTS winner was supported by the Bigelow/Florida investment). Florida would have an incentive to step up to the plate in a significant way, since NASA would not award this round of COTS without major financial backing from other investors.

If this worked, it also could relieve some of the Florida/Shuttle workforce political pressure of the gap. From the Presidential political point of view, the Florida part of the Shuttle workforce is the most crucial part, if recent Presidential elections are a guide. The COTS effort would only remove pressure from the Shuttle follow-on; it wouldn’t replace it. The Shuttle follow-on would be able to focus on lunar transportation (or whatever ambitous effort the next President has), with ISS support only in a backup role.

Of course there are other interests that need space access that should be supportive of efforts like this. For example, the DOD should be interested in supporting solutions that involve shared use of EELVs, or solutions that have a credible chance of resulting in improved space access (ie cheaper, more reliable, etc). Even a small investment by DOD standards could result in big long-term rewards when directed to this critical area (space access) and when magnified by investments by like-minded partners like NASA, Bigelow, and Space Florida. I’m not sure when having too many partners gets unmanageable, but it should be workable as long as the interests of all of the parties align.

You took the words right out of my mouth — in fact I think you did take these words right out of my mouth! In any case, I fully agree. In my view, the principle values of the Space Station will prove to be learning how to construct things in orbit and to provide a market for COTS-like efforts. Both of those objectives could have been adequately served by calling the Space Station complete after the loss of Columbia. Alternatively, for what it’s cost to keep the Shuttle program running, we could have rebuilt all the elements to fly on EELVs and had money left over. (However, that ignores the political realities that are keeping the Shuttle in business. . . .)

Even now, ISS assembly could still be terminated after the Japanese module is up in 2008, saving two-plus years of Shuttle costs.

Great idea, but unfortunately this too ignores the southern Congressional deligations.

L. Riofrio: One of these missions could deliver Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to ISS,

If we were going to expand the Space Station further, a far better addition would be the Japanese large centrifuge, which could have been used for learning things you need to know to get to Mars.

— Donald

Unless more money is added to the NASA topline, extending Shuttle operations would only defer, not shorten, the gap. Ares I/Orion rely on the Shuttle program’s shutdown and the consequent freeing up of the Shuttle budget to get over their development hump. If NASA is still flying Shuttle in 2011, that money is not available to Ares I/Orion and their IOC just gets bumped out another year into the future.

“One of these missions could deliver Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer to ISS, which will please Europeans to no end.”

I thought AMS was an MIT-led, all-U.S. project. Did ESA contribute? As expensive as that sucker is and as little as it needs from ISS, it should have just been turned into an unmanned Explorer mission a long time ago.

“At the rate ISS schedule is slipping, Shuttle missions past 2010 will be required anyway.”

That may become true if Griffin or his successor insist on finishing the ISS assembly sequence as currently planned. My 2 cents is that the U.S. should have just bought off the Europeans and Japanese after Columbia, called ISS complete at that point, and put all those years of Shuttle money into something more useful. Even now, ISS assembly could still be terminated after the Japanese module is up in 2008, saving two-plus years of Shuttle costs. Although the VSE set a deadline for Shuttle retirement of 2010, there was nothing in the VSE that would have prevented NASA from shutting Shuttle down earlier.

There are several, good, editorial-style posts at rocketsandsuch.blogspot.com about how Griffin/NASA is really gambling with astronaut lives and the future of the human space flight program by continuing to fly Shuttle rather than cut ISS assembly short. I tend to agree — it is a little insane to continue flying people on and building such a huge and expensive infrastructure around a vehicle with a 1-in-60 or so demonstrated LOC/LOM.

FWIW…