I wasn’t a “foreman.” I was project manager for advanced Shuttle concepts, which required an extensive knowledge of the entire system, so that we could identify areas for improvement.

Glenn knows first hand from the 1970’s the damage a spaceflight gap would do to the aerospace work force.

The “damage” wasn’t caused by a “spaceflight gap.” It was caused by massive layoffs at the end of Apollo.

Imagine if a dozen “technical entrepreneurs” in a hanger somewhere claimed they could build a better air tanker then Boeing or Airbus and demand the multi-billion dollar contract go to them.

Why would I imagine such an idiotic thing? I’ll leave foolish and irrelevant analogies to you.

I’ll also leave you in your bizarre fantasy world.

You may have been one of the 20,000 or so individuals that worked on the Shuttle for a while but I doubt if that give you more insight then an Astronaut and former Test Pilot who as a member of the Senate was there from the beginning. People who work on the factory floor as foremen rarely understand what goes on in the executive suite. Glenn knows first hand from the 1970’s the damage a spaceflight gap would do to the aerospace work force. And the damage it would do to American prestige to depend on the Soyuz to reach ISS. Those are factors that do matter.

Hopefully he will be able to counter the New Space propaganda machine and save America’s space program. But I am afraid it’s a long shot.

Especially given how many New Spacers are actually cheering for the destruction of NASA. Somehow you see it as a block to your free enterprise schemes. But destroying NASA and its work force won’t advance the New Space libertarian agenda. It will only set the nation further back in space. But the New Space propaganda machine will likely destroy any chance at a rational space policy. And so NASA won’t get what it needs, the Shuttle flying until a true replacement is ready. Instead it will just get a new spam can for astronauts in its place.

I will leave you to your NASA Bashing/New Space Hyping which seems to be the main reason the Space Politics board exists now. It definitely not a place to discuss rational space policy. But before I go I want to leave you with a good analogy for understanding what New Space really is. I know its probably useless on someone like you, but perhaps it will enlighten others lurking here.

Imagine if a dozen “technical entrepreneurs” in a hanger somewhere claimed they could build a better air tanker then Boeing or Airbus and demand the multi-billion dollar contract go to them. They argue they are qualified because they have been building homebuilt aircraft for years. People would laugh themselves silly on the idea, and if they responded to the RFP they wouldn’t even be seriously consider.

Yet if the same dozen “technical entrepreneurs” claims they are able to build a better spacecraft (which are a bit more complex then tankers) then Boeing or Lockheed you would also expect people to laugh. But instead people like you believe they are “New Spacers” and demand that the government create special funding (i.e. welfare) programs for them like COTS and COTS-D. And when they get their “homebuilt rockets” flying people like you claim it’s a revolution and some great advancement. Yea, right…

You know in the 1940’s everyone believed in flying cars. There are still a few out there promoting them, but no one takes them serious anymore. Such will be the case with New Space in a decade or so.

Rocket racing will just be a faded memory, having been far too boring to be a sport and too elitist to appeal to the masses outside the aerospace community. Sub-orbital space tourism will always still just a couple of years away. But the super rich would have gotten bored of waiting as the market fades away in law suits for broken promises. Bigelow will finally give up waiting for New Space to provide him with a way to reach his stations and just pull the plug. If Elon is lucky he may be as successful as Orbital Science is, the only survivor out of the current crop of hopefuls. But he will have learned that there are no killer apps out there for his rockets. And the rest of New Space? The rest will just be foot notes like the rocket mail fads are today.

Of course, as with flying cars, there will still be a few zealots like you hyping New Space. But the last legacy will be the damage it did to NASA and America’s space progam.

You may now continue with your NASA Bashing, Shuttle Bashing and New Space Hyping uninterrupted by logic or common sense both of which seems to have left this website.

There was no requirement that it cost less than the prize. Sorry.

It was supposed to fly weekly but is just a hanger queen after barely the X-Prize.

In what alternate reality was that supposed to happen? What medications are you on? I’m not interested, but some who want to trip might be.

Somehow I think most people on this discussion board will find that hard to believe, at least those that haven’t bought into the New Space hype that a dozen new space “experts” are wiser then the thousands of engineers and scientists at NASA and the major aerospace contractors

Why would they find it hard to believe that I worked on the Shuttle? Many people worked on the Shuttle. It hardly seems incredible that I was one of them.

Glenn is more then just a Senator, both in terms of his aerospace engineering experience and as an astronaut.

Glenn was not an aerospace engineer. And what experience he had with that discipline is at least four decades old, with nothing done in the interim in that regard.

A general tends to know far more about what is going on then the private in the trenches

I was hardly a “private in the trenches.” I was a program manager.

But I suspect if the CAIB knew in 2004 what is reality now, the long spaceflight gap, the Ares I spam can replacement, the lackof increased funding for NASA, an increasingly agressive Russia, a more objective perspective of the Columbia accident, the failure of New Space to live up to its post X-Prize hype, they would not have called for its retirement in 2010. But continue to fail to recognize how the world has changed since the CAIB.

Certainly the CAIB didn’t anticipate a desire to redo Apollo by Mike Griffin. But that doesn’t mean that the Shuttle wasn’t a failure, and that we need to move beyond it.

In any case, debating with you is a waste

The notion is certainly mutual, given how out of touch with reality you seem to be.

Gee, if that is your criteria then every spacecraft ever built, including all the New Space ventures, would be considered failures. Look at SpaceShipOne, $25 million to win a $10 million prize. It was supposed to fly weekly but is just a hanger queen after barely the X-Prize. And SpaceShipTwo always seems to be two years before starting commercial service.. And look at Falcon I.

Of course I do. I worked on it. He was just a Senator.

Somehow I think most people on this discussion board will find that hard to believe, at least those that haven’t bought into the New Space hype that a dozen new space “experts” are wiser then the thousands of engineers and scientists at NASA and the major aerospace contractors. Glenn is more then just a Senator, both in terms of his aerospace engineering experience and as an astronaut. A general tends to know far more about what is going on then the private in the trenches…. Including tge risks of leaving ISS access to the Russians alone.

But then New Space needs the Shuttle to die, so I am sure that reality will not have any impact on your continue beliefs on it. And you will continue to argue that anyone which disagrees is foolish, which is also part of the big lie technique.

But I suspect if the CAIB knew in 2004 what is reality now, the long spaceflight gap, the Ares I spam can replacement, the lackof increased funding for NASA, an increasingly agressive Russia, a more objective perspective of the Columbia accident, the failure of New Space to live up to its post X-Prize hype, they would not have called for its retirement in 2010. But continue to fail to recognize how the world has changed since the CAIB.

In any case, debating with you is a waste, so enjoy promoting your beliefs as reality.

It failed to meet its specified flight rate, it failed to meet its cost goals, it failed to meet its performance specifications, it failed to achieve its safety goals. Those aren’t opinions. They are objective facts. Just because NASA has had to make do with it for almost three decades doesn’t magically make it a success.

Do you actually think you are more knowledgable about the Shuttle then someone who has been involved in providing Congressional support for it since it was created and has even flown on it?

Of course I do. I worked on it. He was just a Senator.

Plus do you honestly think he would submit such a bill without doing his research?

What “research” did he “do”? What “research” is there to do?

He is simply expressing his opinion, as are we. The difference is, ours corresponds to reality.

As for Senator Glenn not being an expert on it – I think his record speaks for itself on the quality of your statement. Do you actually think you are more knowledgable about the Shuttle then someone who has been involved in providing Congressional support for it since it was created and has even flown on it? Plus do you honestly think he would submit such a bill without doing his research?

Yes, Griffin wants to kill the Shuttle so his Ares I is built. And New Space does as well so its COTS-D space tourist welfare program is funded so its an uphill battle, but then the lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for as a ficitional senator once said.

Being forced by bad Bush Administration decisions to beg rides on Russian spacecraft to the ISS, a station America spent $100 billion building is not, and never was a wise idea. And as more Americans realize this the more they will support Senator Glenn.

So, evidence, in detail please, to support your belief that the Shuttle was a failure…

That the Shuttle is a failure is not a “New Space” argument. And it’s not proposed that it be “scrapped ASAP.” It is to be retired after completion of ISS.

And no, John Glenn is not an expert on the Shuttle, and even if he is, so what?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5916363.html

Glenn pushes for money to extend shuttle operations

“Legendary NASA astronaut John Glenn tried to shape the spacefaring agenda of the next president on Wednesday by urging the White House and Congress to come up with enough money to extend shuttle operations for five years until delivery of the next generation of manned spacecraft.”

But then what would John Glenn know about the Shuttle….

Retiring the SSMEs would be the dumbest most cowardly thing America has ever done, besides lying America into another Vietnam war, and trashing the United States Constitutions, and the numerous other federal, international and war crimes this administration has already committed in brazen disregard for law and honor.