Me,

Unless you are Mike Griffin, it is hard to read what is in the mind of Mike Griffin know what how he intends to use the study as part of his strategy to implement his top priority — Constellation. Now maybe you work for him, and have better data that I do. I can only make a guess based on what I know about him.

Since you are speaking as if you are an expert in this area, and maybe you are, I have some questions for you.

1) What is the SOW of this study? When will it be finished?

2) Who is leading it? (Mike Hawes as the new head of PA&E?)

3) Is this study being done with the support of, or at the direction of, the White House?

4) If not, why is NASA doing a study that contradicts explicit Administration policy?

5) If not, has the White House inquired about what NASA is doing, and what has NASA’s response been to the White House?

6) Assuming Mike Griffin supports this direction, how does he reconcile keeping the Shuttle going, while also keeping Constellation on schedule for an Ares 1/Orion launch in 2015 (given he needs Shuttle people, infrastructure and money for the Constellation program).

FWIW,

– Al

It isn’t as you state it. It is a legitimate study to find what it would take.

Please note that a classic bureaucratic play, when you don’t want to fight somebody head on, but you still want to kill it is to “do a study” and defer the decision to a later date.

Now, there is no way for me to know if this is what is happening, but knowing Griffin’s opposition to extending the Shuttle program (he actually wanted to terminate it much earlier), this is what I suspect is happening.

FWIW,

– Al

You make the mistake of linking Orion with Ares. The answer is easy; separate them. Cancel Ares, and pour that funding into Orion and mate it to a man-rated EELV. That can potentially completely eliminate the gap altogether. Then Congress can direct the new administrator to suggest a new architecture to implement the VSE; one based on real facts, not someone’s pet idea. Done that way, I wouldn’t be surprised if we still made the 2020 lunar landing deadline, only with a launch vehicle family firmly grounded in reality.

Yes, but admittedly, a new manifest is a first step. It sets the requirements.

blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

If the results of this study become the new plan, then the core of the VSE strategy — finish ISS and get off Shuttle ASAP so the next system can be developed — is dead. Even if we ignore the $4 billion per year (as quoted by Griffin in the article, or $20 billion total through 2015) necessary to keep the Shuttle operational and assume that the Constellation budget is not wiped out to pay for it (one helluva an assumption), Ares I/Orion shares a huge amount of infrastructure in common with the Shuttle, as noted in the leaked email. How the heck is Ares I/Orion development suppossed to proceed if Constellation can’t modify the pads, the mobile launcher platform, or the crawler? Or if Shuttle and the Ares I U/S are competing for engine test stands at Stennis?

The Senators who sent the request to the White House, as well as Griffin and the White House itself, need to be asked some very hard questions.

Do they support the additional $4 billion per year necessary to extend Shuttle operations and keep Ares I/Orion (or whatever replaces it) development on track? Are they sure that the rest of Congress and the next White House will agree to a 20-percent plus increase in NASA’s $17 billion budget when other discretionary departments and agencies enjoy inflationary budget increases, at best? When Congress can’t even pass a one-time, $1 billion increase in NASA’s budget (Mikulski miracle) to pay for the costs of Columbia recovery and Katrina damage at NASA centers? When the Presidential candidates are only jousting over a one-time, $2 billion increase in NASA’s budget?

If they don’t support such an increase or are unsure whether they or the system can cough another $4 billion, then what offsets in the rest of the NASA budget do they propose? Would they cancel Constellation? Or wipe out the science budget? Or would they BRAC NASA’s field center structure and rationalize NASA’s workforce? Those are really the only three offsets left in the NASA budget that are big enough to absorb Shuttle extension.

And setting budgets aside, what alternative do they propose to Ares I/Orion to replace the Shuttle since that program will be unable to modify the Shuttle infrastructure it needs if Shuttle is extended? Do they propose using USAF EELVs? An enhanced COTS program? Or something else? Since they’ve been uncomfortable with the workforce implications of a non-Shuttle-derived successor, are they comfortable with those implications now?

And are they comfortable with the safety implications of flying the Shuttle past 2010? Barring a multi-billion recertification as recommended by the CAIB, this is a 30-year old system with miles of wiring and scores of equipment that hasn’t been touched in that entire timeframe, even during OMDPs. It’s also a system that’s broken up on reentry and scattered debris over a handful of U.S. states.

NASA’s human space flight program is threatening to embark upon a very poorly thought out course (after embarking on a poorly thought out and failed course arising from ESAS). A lot more than just what the new Shuttle manifest would look like needs to be carefully examined here.

Sigh…

Convinced of what? This sentence makes no sense.

“Instead you need to analyze what little data is available within the context of relevant historical behavior and the current environment when determining the likely space policy of a candidate or party.”

We don’t have to determine the “likely space policy” of either remaining Presidential candidate, on the basis of a “little data”, “relevant historical behavior”, and/or the “current environment”. Each candidate has published his _actual_ space policy on his campaign’s website.

“For example, the mostly likely running mate that McCain is going to announce will be Rep. Deborah Pryce, who is strong leader in Congress and the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Financial Services Committee, a choice that explains the current information available to the public on his selection and his campaign strategy.”

This is a total non-sequitor.

What the heck does your (or anyone else’s) guess about Vice Presidential candidates have to do with whether or not the next White House and Congress will cough up the multi-ten gigabucks required to maintain Shuttle operations for another half-decade?

“But you won’t find the level of evidence you require to determine that.”

Where did I say that I was trying to “determine” (predict?) McCain’s Veep selection?

You’re the one who wants to discuss Veep picks on a space policy website, not me. Don’t drag me into your off-topic discussion.

“That requires looking beyond the data.”

Sounds like a lame excuse for not doing one’s homework and making wild guesses instead of researching and synthesizing evidence from actual sources.

FWIW…

My comments were about your “safer” shuttle (which is not workable). The unmanned shuttle is not feasible also. The whole shuttle was designed around having crew intervention. Modifications would be too intensive to make it unmanned

If this was a history debate then the level of evidence YOU need to be convinced would be possible. But in the real world such a level of information is a luxury. Instead you need to analyze what little data is available within the context of relevant historical behavior and the current environment when determining the likely space policy of a candidate or party. That is where a good analysis earns their money.

For example, the mostly likely running mate that McCain is going to announce will be Rep. Deborah Pryce, who is strong leader in Congress and the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the Financial Services Committee, a choice that explains the current information available to the public on his selection and his campaign strategy.

But you won’t find the level of evidence you require to determine that. That requires looking beyond the data.