John Glenn Pushes for Shuttle Extension

Will somebody please listen to this man? Why pay Ivan when we can pay ourselves instead. Imagine a Soyuz malfunction grounds that spacecraft and results in loss of the ISS. Can you imagine the fingerpointing on Capitol Hill?

LMAO! This blog continues to amuse me. Okay, so why don't we use the much acclaimed "commercial" spacecraft?

I guess this is why they called it a "gap" in HSF. Politics as usual... LOL, John should know, launching a rocket is more than flipping a switch.

One year of Shuttle extension will pay for six SpaceX's. Two months will pay for COTS-D.

martijn.
I doesn't matter what a shuttle extension will "pay for", the fact remains that for today the only space crafts that can reach the ISS are Soyuz and and Shuttle.

There will be finger pointing with any accident of any launch provider.
What makes the Soyuz, with its decades of service, more prone to fail than a commercial startup?

I'd be more concerned with people overusing the "cost" argument.
Lets not forget that everything tends to be politics with the Russians. So its not unlikely that they'd price their services just a few bucks below the going rate for commercial launches.

They make take a loss, but it stifles western competition and brings more future customers their way.

How many realize that we have to depend on Soyuz until we have a vehicle capable of staying at the station for 6+ months? That is reality and continuing to fly shuttle will not solve it. Actually in my opinion taking shuttle money and getting a vehicle that can meet this requirement ASAP is what we need to do while buying seats until that happens. Shuttles can only visit the station for two weeks max and the crews cannot stay aboard without an emergency escape vehicle. It does carry a large payload but multiple small payloads are far less cost without the inherent major accident chances endangering a crew is still a better long term solution. Finally, bringing shuttle back to flight at this time is 2 years or longer and billions or more in time and cost. The problem is we didn't plan around this schedule or cost wise and we will have to live with it. Soyuz has been reliable and we will have to depend on that. And we can always barter a bit with the Russians between manned flights and cargo flights. Let's get this over with and get moving on our own next generation vehicle.

"Can you imagine the fingerpointing on Capitol Hill?"

There may be fingerpointing ON Capital Hill, but they will be pointing TOWARD Pennsylvania Avenue. Deservedly so.

I believe that the probability of a catastrophic Soyuz failure is lower than a malfunction of a critical system on ISS, or accident, that could require abandonment/evacuation. It's probably even less likely that there'd be an international crisis where Russia gets ticked off with the U.S., and its allies, to the point of 'blockading' human access to ISS (and it that were to happen then human access to space would be the least of our problems).

As for cost, my hunch is that our friend Maxwell is right and the Russians will do all they can to keep their cost/kg below that of Space-X/Cygnus to drive them out of business (just like we in U.S. did to Europe/Canada in the 60s and 70s by selling fighters barely over 'at cost' prices).

It'd probably make more sense for the U.S., and Europe, to really cooperate (as in starting NOW, no more thumb-twiddling) in developing a joint Orion-lite/CTV that could be launched via a single core ELV be that Atlas-V, Falcon-9, or Ariane-5. The U.S. has more experience in capsules and the propulsion module for Europe's ATV would make a fine 'Service Module'.

Alas this would probably be considered too 'visionary'. Oh well.

We can fund COTS D for only $300 million, far, far less than the 9 billion and counting that we have already dumped into Ares 1, which we are throwing away. Of course, the only thing worse than throwing away the 9 billion we have spent on Ares 1, would be to spend more money on it.

By the way, if Soyuz was no longer available, shuttle can't support the ISS, because there would be NO life boat and the shuttle can't stay up there for more than a few weeks. So extending shuttle does NOT save the ISS, it just takes money away from other programs, that can be more productive.

Maxwell,

The problem isn't that NASA would buy Russian because they're cheaper than a U.S. commercial provider... they are required by law to buy domestically. The problem is that NASA tends to prefer buying from a foreign government space agency rather than dealing with a U.S. commercial provider.

- Jim

Frank, I'm a little surprised at you.

I've felt for years that the shuttle shouldn't be completely retired until most of its many varied capabilities were in fact replaced by one capability or another. There's only one small problem: the government of the United States - both of the political parties, two Presidents, several Congresses - have made it absolutely clear that they will NOT provide the funds necessary to keep the space shuttle program flying and available, while:
1. Reinvigorating NASA as a technology- and innovation-engine for the nation; something my agency hasn't been for years; and,
2. Grooming 'replacements' of one sort or another - whether purely government-owned and developed, government/private partnerships, etc.

Politics is the art of the possible. When the entire body politic has decided it will not do as 'we' want, then just continuing to opine away on what we 'should' do is worse than worthless - it can actually be harmful, since it keeps us from honestly working the issue.

Dave Huntsman
Bay Village, Ohio

Jim - um no, that's wrong. NASA can't buy what doesn't exist yet. They need a working spacecraft NOW. The commercial vehicles under development aren't ready yet.

I'm surprised Glenn said this. Isn't there a minimum of a TWO YEAR wait to restart manufacturing of shuttle external tanks? You'd still be paying the Russians to get astronauts up to ISS.

Who is going to go to Congress to ask for funding for Soyuz, an extended Shuttle program AND funding to build a replacement on top of that??

If the politicians ready cared about the gap, they would have already funded COTS D. Is COTS D guarantied? Of course not. But for very little in funding, it can be activated immediately and give us a chance at lower cost access to the ISS in as little as 3 years.

Look at the 4.5 to 7 billion that is being talked about being spent on Orion Lite and that craft WON'T even be able to take astronauts to the ISS. It is also many years away. Will the ISS even still be there, by the time it's done? The administration is willing to spend this kind of money on Orion Lite, but congress is unwilling to fund $300 million for COTS D. Something is terribly wrong.

Funny part is that DOD does that all the time, i.e. ask Congress to fund continued manufacturing and operations of an existing platform while funding development of it's replacement. So it's not like the model is one Congress is unfamiliar with.

Could the money for Constellation be redirected to make a manned EELV, instead of canceling the program out right? Just because you disagree with the architecture doesn't mean you can't build some other architecture and still call it "Constellation".

OH not this again! Listen up! The shuttle has had more fatality's than Soyuz in its life so this argument is without merit not to mention the fact of the cost and the fact that continuing STS ( Methuselah ) will just keep up parked in LEO that much LONGER! Please can we just let it go quietly to the air and space museum please?I am not an STS hater hell I think it is one of the most beautiful technical marvels of the 20th century oh that's right this is the 21 st century,enough said .

Damn the Gravity!

Sidebar : If we could create a launch vehicle to LEO as good as Soyuz we wouldn't have to "depend" on them. Oh that's right we tried to Ares and went way over budget and basically dropped the ball. Nasa has noone to blame but themselves and poor Cx management.

So Mr. Glenn is proposing either:

1) Exploration and COTS should be gutted in the current budget to make room for the $3-4 BILLION per year baseline Shuttle program + mega $$$$$ required to turn back on its production line ? All to back up a Russian system that's FAR less likely to suffer a failure than Shuttle.

or

2) No cuts to "Shuttle replacement" content needed because he has located a mystery funding source to provide a top line plus up to fully fund Shuttle and its restart costs.

By the way, John, in the time it will take to restart Shuttle production (~2 years) guess who we'll have to depend on to get to ISS anyway........yep, those evil Russians.

Extend shuttle, minimal flights. This is beyond obvious to do right now. Glenn is right.

Ares I, let it die, go straight to developing SDHL now, call it Ares V if you like. No years of delay.

Orion, two variants. BEO and ISS Taxi. Loft it on SDHL rocket.

Commercial give them a piece of the action as soon as they demonstrate they are able in building block steps. Either their rockets for Orion Taxi or their own crew modules.

Congress.... PONY UP!

All this is chump change compared to the spending in other areas congress authorizes regularly and quickly these days.

"Let's not forget that everything tends to be politics with the Russians."
Unintentional humour?

SpaceX has a long way to go before it can match the Russians in confidence and competence. The Russians will also charge a premium for Soyuz Flight Engineer training. Eventually both should keep each other 'honest' until the Chinese get into the act. Then there are the other potential people carriers: SpaceDev, Blue Origin, Masten, ....Boeing.
You wait for hours and then three or four come along all at once!

With three fingers pointing back at themselves. Deservedly so.

Whilst applauding the sentiment, there is NO money in Europe for this sort of program. We will be struggling to maintain our existing commitments. I also doubt that the US: DoD/ Congress/ Fox 'News' Network will allow the tech transfer. Also 'ahem': X-38. Whilst it may have slipped you by, the French and the especially the Germans have not forgotten that little debacle!

Hey, is Soyuz man rated to NASA man rating standards? My sources tell me it is not, so what gives? My sources also tell me Saturn V wouldn't meet today's man rating standards?

So, if it isn't rated to NASA standards, why are we putting our astronauts in harms way?

If the politicians ready cared about the gap, they would have already funded COTS D. Is COTS D guarantied? Of course not. But for very little in funding, it can be activated immediately and give us a chance at lower cost access to the ISS in as little as 3 years.

Indeed. Back in the day, Gemini went from concept on January 3, 1962 to first human test flight on March 23, 1965. Just a bit more that three years. Commercial companies could probably do today what the government did back then.

You know, just once, I wish this country would decide to build a kia-class spacecraft instead of a ferarri- or a kenworth-class vessel (for those that don't know a kenworth is a heavy duty commercial transport truck--the kind you see on tractor-trailer rigs). There is nothing wrong with lowered expectations if gets the job done.

So, if it isn't rated to NASA standards, why are we putting our astronauts in harms way?

The Shuttle isn't man-rated either.

Keep the shuttle going until NASA develops a shuttle derived replacement for both manned and heavy lift flights. Its that simple!

We'd preserve the precious NASA work force and its private vendors while still developing a shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle that will make it a lot easier for us to launch huge space stations and space vehicles within cis-lunar space to return to the Moon and beyond.

Marcel F. Williams

Oh yes, I'm well aware of X-38 and its demise as lifeboat to ISS, and long before that how happy Europe was when the originally planned 11 Spacelab flights were cut down to 4 after they had spent a fortune to develop it.

They DO have the funding despite our own media's op-eds forecasting the demise of European aerospace as far back as the mid seventies (and yet they did succeed with Ariane-5, the Columbus module, ATV, and robotic exploration missions). It wouldn't be that difficult to integrate a U.S. capsule (say Orion-lite) onto the ATV's (which has already flown and docked to ISS) propulsion stage. In fact, one year ago ESA signed with EADS Astrium in Bremen, Germany, for the Advanced Reentry Vehicle (ARV).

http://www.esa.int/esaMI/ATV/SEMNFZOR4CF_0.html

Bottom line, while they still have some ways to go they are catching up fast while, at the same time, we keep downsizing and throwing our expertise out the window as quickly as we can.

I do agree 100% with you that, alas, our own media and various (myopic) interests would derail this type of cooperation even before it started.

Interesting. I'm glad to see you may be coming around and seemingly agree that we need a better transition to protect our near-term interests while planning for the longer-term.

This was the comment you left on this site just slightly over a month ago in regards to my Op-Ed ( http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/05/an-editorial-th.html ):

"I'm sorry but in today's budget climate (which is likely to get worse) the shuttle eats NASA alive.There is no funds left over for advanced technology development or anything else. The only justification would be to evolve the shuttle into a SD HLV. With NASA increasingly talking about new designs that use liquid boosters, it looks like the shuttle is headed for retirement - unless significant funds are added to the NASA budget just for it. And would that be a prudent use of extra HSF funding?"

Only partially true. Yes, the Soyuz are docked for 6 months at a time to act as an emergency escape vehicle for if and when the situation would arise that require it.

However, that said, anything that "grounds" Soyuz jeopardizes the station. Many have said, within the administration and elsewhere, we need redundant access. Once shuttle stands down, that goes away for an undetermined and unknown amount of time.

With shuttle still active, at the very least, we could still take a crew, equipment, supplies, etc to the ISS for proper maintenance and other activities. We could stay for approximately two weeks at a time until the point ISS can be permanently crewed again.

Shuttle can also perform crew rotation. What if the accident that "grounds" Soyuz is a problem during entry (as recently experienced)? With nothing else, we are potentially jeopardizing the ISS crew.

Finally, at this point in time there is no "next generation vehicle" with a determined cost and schedule for entering service. People may not like that fact but it is what it is. Therefore, it is unwise to just "get it over with" when you don't know when your next thing will be starting.

Therefore, it is unwise to just "get it over with" when you don't know when your next thing will be starting.

That depends on the fine print. If Shuttle extension leads to an SDLV and an expectation of significant exploration soon, then the Obama administration will likely be against it. And that is of course exactly why many people who are currently employed by the Shuttle program want Shuttle extension. Rationalisations follow easily, but economic interests determine the desired outcome.

What???

Part of this mess was caused by the decision to launch Orion exclusively on Ares I rather than allowing for at least ISS launches on EELV's. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

I have seen the light.

SHOW .... ME .... THE .... MONEY.

The fact is, there is no money to carry on with STS, except perhaps by gutting the future. Congress has lacked he political steam for true increases in the NASA budget for at least the last 6 years. And they approved cancellation of STS several times since 2004.

So yes, the finger points at Capitol Hill AND at the White House going back at least 30 years. And there's no point fantasizing about a giant 5-year plus-up. Something tells me the arguments this year will be about cutting spending, not increasing.

It is that simple? It is costly and at a point that just continuing means restarting a large manufacturing and support effort at even more cost. It is not that simple. Whether the space geeks want to realize it or not, the US (along with every other country almost) has a major budgetary issue and NASA has to be considered as a part of that. There is not going to be another $2 or $3 billion to keep shuttle flying longer while attempting to develop major new launch vehicles and spacecraft. Sometimes hard decisions have to be made and sometimes they hurt for a while.

As far as I know it would take approx 2 years to get new ext. tanks for the shuttle. If that's truly the case then it's game over.