you have got to be joking...that's the return vehicle for mankind's biggest space venture?
forget where it landed...those guys are totally berserk to get into the thing in the first place...can you say 'blazing tin can'?
YIPES!

We need more private sector spacecraft. This will develop more jobs and opportunites. Also, the industry will need to be sure safety guidelines are established and met.  

Perhaps it might be a better idea to reduce shuttle fights to a minimum rather than stopping altogether. As for a critical problem causing the crew to be stuck and slowly starve to death, that's absurd. First, the supply ships are of a different design so won't share the flaws with the soyuz. Second, if it came down to it, they know the soyuz works. If it has a flaw, then that becomes "usually works". Rather than let the crew die in space, they would just go ahead and launch, and hope for the best. Chances are it would be ok. You don't want to take that risk, but if you had to, you could.

The Soyuz has been operating for twice as long as the shuttle with no fatalities. It is generally reliable. In the house subcommittee meeting last week, NASA representatives said that the problem is likely due to a design change or a manufacturing change.

I think that NASA needs to accelerate the private sector replacement and the orion. It's not an "either, or" situation.

Orion is slated to be operational right about the time that the station's life is supposed to be over (in 2016) The COTS companies, including Boeing, think that they can be ready come 2010 for manned flight.

On April 14th NASA came out with their final RFP for CRS, the follow on for COTS. COTS really is just a demonstrator thing. CRS is where the full on long lasting shipping deal is.

No private american space company will be ready in time. Any attempt to speed up the Orion program will likely increase risk for failure early and then  years of delays. Helping the Russians maintain better quality control is likely the only reasonal option.

We paid some very intelligent people to give us forthright feedback after the Columbia tragedy. Their overwhelming recommendation was to retire the shuttle as soon as possible. This is not the time to start second-guessing that recommendation. That leaves us with the two other options. Can it be made any more acutely apparent that BOTH of those options needed to be kicked into high gear? I have stated previously on this forum that I believe SpaceX to be the only affordabe (and at this point the only technically viable) private-sector option. Lots of other companies are making noise and thumping their chests, but no-one else has placed any hardware beyond the atmosphere, let alone has two products actively in accelerated development. The only problem is, we have heard much from them lately..  (yes- that is a not-so-thinly-veiled request for an update- are you listening, Elon?)

As far as Orion/Aries goes- NASA either needs a boost to the old checkbook, or they need to place a *lot* of other programs/people/facilities/egos on hold while they get their butts in gear and actually produce something other than under-budget/behind-schedule predictions.

I have never seen an organization in more dire need of a sense of urgency and productivity. Exactly how many people are being paid to produce... nothing to date? Do these people have no shame? Have they no sense of pride or drive toward accomplishment?

It is obvious that none of these people have ever had to earn a living in the private sector. It may actually be time to abolish NASA and start over from scratch with people who do not suffer from a sense of tenure or entitlement. It can be argued that we may see a return on investment in NASA-related materials and hardware, but as a taxpayer I do not believe we are getting our money's worth out of the bloated labor force in our Space Program, and that is a shame- are YOU listening,, Michael Griffin?

The private sector would be best only if safety guidelines are used. They are many great ideas and inventions that could be used. We need to look outside of Nasa and stop the navel gazing to once again become number 1 in space. As in everything that is good we make it to be a business and ruin it for the love of money and not mankind!!

It is going to be a tall order to fill and if setbacks don't lead to quitting, I believe Elon and SPACE-X are the next big thing in space transportation.

I find it very interesting that the Russians are using the same technology they developed in the 60's and not a whole lot different then what they developed for Yuri's flight in 1961. 40+ year old technology and we still can't make it work correctly? Of course the Shuttle has its own problems -- it failed once on deorbit -- but to suggest that astronauts will die of starvation because we can no longer supply them is simply ridiculous. Both the Russian progress tanker and the new European automated tanker can provide all the food and fuel necessary. Both of these technologies are now proven and workable.

Why can't our country speed up the development of the new Orion spacecraft and launch vehicle? Probably for the same reason that Russia is not developing its new Clipper space plane -- funding.

If we want to supply the station, and keep people coming and going we need to do the math and provide the funding. The Orion will work just fine, and provide a very safe vehicle for the return to earth, safer then either the Shuttle or the current Russian Soyuz.

This is also the perfect time for private companies to get involved in the design of a vehicle for this purpose. However, I caution that it will always be more difficult than what anyone expects, -- one of the reasons that we use the same old technology to do this in the first place.

Kevin Cousineau
Lompoc, CA  

Considering the things that NASA has given the world in general and the U.S. in particular, I think its a darn shame that their budget is so small. The future of our country and of our species may someday depend on the space spending we are not doing now.

It might not be such a bad thing if Russia and the U.S. parted ways in the space industry.  This might lead to more competition, and a greater increase into the notion that it is important to colonize the moon or Mars first.

Anything to get the space program into its full glory again.

I think it is all for the best. We will be forced to speed up the new system, and extend the old system, as well as keep a better eye on everything that is coordinated..... there was no backup in the original plan, and I found it to be unacceptable, so this change in tho't will make things better, not worse. I don't care who is to blame.... We MUST keep the  program moving forward, if we ever expect to move beyond our current efforts.

You can bet that it won't be cost effective to depend on the Russians after the space shuttle is retired.  It's not just business 101, it's business!  Once they have us over the barrel, they just keep raising the cost.  Bark twice if you don't believe that will realy happen!

Ok, thanks to everybody, nothing is as bad as it looks.

I myself being in private space sector, I speculate the 3rd option is the 'only' answer.

Rep Weldon's opinion seems a bit melodramatic.  We could 'supply' them indefinitely even if we could not get them down immediately.  The history of the Soyuz unit indicates that it is something of value.  Shutting down the shuttle is going to put huge stress on the Soyuz production line (ala Oberg) and that means somebody needs to put some real money into this project either into Soyuz or Orion, or probably both.

The shuttle was a boondoggle from the beginning... move forward. NASA spent the past 20 years suppressing competition. Private industry CAN overcome the obstacles.

Could one more new shuttle be the answer? We know the
technology works and would take the pressure off of hurrying up the next generation ship. Giving Nasa time to get it right the first time.
That's what makes real world mechanical and budget sense to me.

I’m not sure I understand that reference to too many women. I have a daughter and two full grown granddaughters. They know how to read. It would tick me off, someone suggesting they weren’t follow procedures as well as their male counterparts.

As a former employee of NASA with 40 years experience manufacturing space hardware I can tell you that NASA no longer has the ability to duplicate the spectacular achievements of the past. Affirmative action and politically correct hiring programs have caused a brain drain on NASA that has devastated it's capabilities from the Dr. VonBraun days. The inept and incompetent civil servants currently employed at NASA are all tenured so don't expect any change soon.

Dollar for dollar, nothing in the history of the US has produces more technical achievement, more social change and more real results than the space program.  Our whole society has been shaped by it and the technology and scientific research that have come from it.  From computers to microwaves, to telephone service to weather forecasts, GPS and so on.  It is amazing to me, given the return on investment, that the NASA budget is still so thin.  They need better PR and a much more visible PR and education team as well as to do a lot more to educate people about the truth and facts of what they have managed to do.

I agree that NASA needs a huge shot in the wallet, needed to since the 70’s when Congress committed a national crime in not continuing the Saturn program and has all along since then while typical of our Congress, important, world changing things could have been done and instead, we decided to fling more money at poorly conceived social programs that produce nothing more than another generation of pigs at the trough.

Increase funding hugely to get the next gen spacecraft going faster, increase spending hugely to supplement private development, release the restrictions on private launch facilities and selling services abroad to help companies pay for such things and lastly, provide funding to develop a manned payload capsule for our current generation of unmanned, workhorse satellite launchers so that if you just need a bus to get someone up and down, then you have one.

Of course, Boeing could have the Delta-IV heavy human-rated in about a year and at a tiny fraction of the cost of developing the Ares I from scratch (and with none of the potentially-catastrophic design flaws), but NASA won't have that because such a simple and cost-effective solution belies their primary purpose: to be a massive jobs program for favored congressional districts.  This, of course, was exactly the same kind of thinking that gave us the remarkable but disastrous Space Shuttle in the first place.  Oh well, if we just let our congressmen roll over for this nonsense again we're just getting what we deserve.

Jules Verne can deliver 6.7 Metric tonnes of water, fuel, and bags of supplies. That's 5 times a Russian Progress load. Resupply will not be a problem. Nor is being stranded on the station. A Soyuz spacecraft "ballistic landing trajectory", while not comfortable, is an acceptable back up reentry mode.

Stopping the finger pointing and getting down to the business of safe construction and operation of the ISS is what is important. I propose scaling back the Shuttle program rather than end it in 2010. This would be the safest way to not overburden our European and Russian resupply and crew exchange partners.

Retire one Shuttle. Limit the remaining two Shuttles to a crew of four on flights. If possible, on the current Shuttle's chassis, install four ejection seats on the upper flight deck. Columbia had two ejection seats during the initial test flights.

We could bridge the gap with a scaled back Shuttle program until Orion becomes operational and at less cost and less risk to our astronauts. The USA would not be out of the space business for 5 years.

It's too bad no one asks our presidential candidates about these options for the future, I'd like to know how they weigh in on this... I hope the Russians will develop their Kliper spacecraft and that we will have something more serious than "Apollo on steroids"

I have been a Space fanatic for over 45 years.  I watched that "One Small Step..." live.  But now I think space has run its course of discovery of new materials/procedures that are actually usable by the masses.  I think all money and energy spent on it from here on out is just a waste.  As we run out of fossil fuel all explorations should be closer to home and focused on usable energy for those of us confined to one G.  It's unfortunate the shuttles are going away soon; but it's going to be really unfortunate in the future when we look back and say "We could have quit this foolishness before all those people died for nothing".  I think we've been very lucky - why push it?  This was our wake-up call; but I doubt we'll heed it. Spend the same amount here for jobs in renewable/usable energy projects to replace the manufacturing jobs we've all lost.  What possible thing is out floating around in the nothingness that we've not already explored?  I fear we are all soon to be very sorry for not focusing our efforts on the surface of the good old Earth.  How about another "One small step for MAN..." that really means it.

It almost doesn't matter what the truth is. "Move along, nothing to see here" will be the official line for anything short of a smoking crater with a Soyuz at the bottom of it. They start with that line until someone proves otherwise, then they lie about misleading everyone. The Putin and Bush governments have become indistinguishable in that regard.

It's a pity that we've wasted more than 25 years on the shuttle.  If something similar to the Constellation system had been developed in the 70's and deployed in the 80's instead of the shuttle, NASA would have had the safe, reliable, reusable, and relatively cheap vehicle that the shuttle was supposed to have been.  Can you imagine where we would be in space by now if that had happened?  The Space Station would have been completed years ago; we'd be constructing the first of our lunar colonies (yes, plural) and plans would be underway to go to Mars (if we hadn't gone ahead and did that first rather than build the lunar colonies).  We started from nothing and created a system, even with setbacks, that put an American on the Moon in 8 years.  Just 8 years.  Why is it going to take 8 years or more just to get back to Earth orbit?  Put the money into it and get Constellation/Orion into space as fast as possible.  If we could redivert just one year's worth of Congressional earmarks we'd probably have more than enough money.

It's time for NASA to reassess its priorities. Get Orion online. Go back to the moon. Forget about manned Mars exploration. Put money back into space science.

And how about a few dollars for exploring the oceans - water on Mars is interesting, but we know so little about what's at the bottom of the water on our own planet.

I agree that private sector space flight is a very viable option, as long as you keep NASA's hands out of it. Remember the so called shuttle step ups, x-class ships that they were developing for such a mission (lifeboat), only to have their shells sitting in some hanger? NASA has the means but not the spirit to succeed in developing a lifeboat or rescue system for the ISS. Anyone can get to space. It's the coming down in one piece part that folks have a problem with. Here NASA awards a contract to the folks building Falcon as a delivery vehicle for satellites and it hasn't had a success making it to orbit yet. Where's the logic in that? Oh yeah, NASA says it will work. Eventually.

The new Orion/Aries program is the right way to go. The space shuttle was ill conceived, overly complicated and problem-prone from the beginning. The private sector needs continued encouragement, but anyone thinking that private companies will be ready to send men and women into space any time soon is dreaming. We need an administration that can wake up NASA and run a large government program like we used to be able to do in the 1960s.

I think that we need to do all three. Spend the money to extend the shuttle fleet for a couple more years, spend the money to accelerate the Ares/Orion development, and continue to fully fund the COTS efforts.

NASA needs an enema. Back in the day they developed the Apollo spacecraft in a very few years and took it to the moon! The Orion is a return to that spacecraft design philosophy and you would think it would be quick to resurrect albeit with new computers. NASA abandoned their  fly into orbit technology (SSTO, NASP, etc) that would truly raise the bar on safety and flexibility.. but luckily the Rutan brothers showed what's possible with that superior design philosophy with SpaceShip One.  I worked for NASA at both JSC and MSFC and I must say cobwebs grow on those folks before they can make a decision and actually do something. Get congress out of the spacecraft design business and let NASA do what it CAN and probably wants to do without all the bureaucratic overhead.

Unfortunately, the private sector answer will not help the manned spaceflight problem. While it would be good to be using private manned spacecraft, that's not going to happen reliably for 20 years at least. Regarding the first 2 options, they could do both. Speed up Orion some and let the shuttle fly another year or two. One things for sure, they need to decide soon, something hard for Congress to do.

What is just as disturbing, is NASA's and the Russian Space Agency's "ho-hum, these things happen sometimes" attitude.

actionforspace.com:

No Soyuz fatalities? Which space history have you been reading? I can think of 4 guys who might disagree with you, were they still alive to do so.

if the americans would stop paying for two wars and end its occupation of other lands the money, time and effort saved would be perfect for its space program. now all america's space eggs are soon to be in russia's basket. brilliant!

Mr. Smyth, it's a reliable old blazing tin can.

Sadly it is time to GIVE IT UP. The US policy is to move out of space and we are moving fast in that direction. NASA has made it clear years ago that they are less interested in putting people in space then small robots. While the rest of the space faring people continue to move forward to the best of there abilities NASA has been slowly moving backwards. The ORION space ship is the biggest goof and waste of money since the 'star wars' program of the '80's. If the American public really wanted to be number one then we would. Budgets would reflect the interest and the people in government that are supposed to be representing us would see to it that NASA had a better person running it.
It is time that the citizens of the United States realize we are no longer number one and we will soon be at the whim of another nation to put an American Astronaut in space.    

US technology is definitely falling behind. Education is degrading and interest in the sciences is waning. We are looking at developing an Apollo era/style of launch system for the 21st century? Come on now! One of the original space shuttle designs included a completely reusable system with a lift vehicle, that takes off and lands like a plane, and a detachable space vehicle that glides back to earth. Our government deemed it too expensive. Unfortunately, politics gets in the way of great engineering. I vote for the private sector to come up with the solutions to space travel. I think Scaled Composites is on the right track. Save the rocket boost system for satellites.

SpaceX and the current flavor of COTS is not the answer. The COTS participants are all developing launch vehicles, not spacecraft. What is needed is a Spacecraft, not a small commercial launch vehicle. We need a spacecraft that crew can ride to space in and safely return home in. That spacecraft is Orion. But right now Orion is in a never-ending circle of design changes trying to put itself on a starvation anorexic diet to get its weight down from a reasonable spacecraft weight to the much lower maximum lift capacity of a deficient new, Mike Griffin-preferred Ares-I rocket. Dr Griffin wants to build another new small launch vehicle and he is unreasonably skinning Orion down to bare bones to get it. Orion is being squeezed to death just so another little rocket can launch it – maybe.

We need to accelerate the development of Orion, and let its weight be what it actually *needs* to be and fly it on a rocket that can actually lift it. If we can get Orion off the never-ending story of trying to accommodate an under performing rocket design and just let the spacecraft designers do their jobs, Orion will be ready to fly much sooner than what Griffin currently predicts. Griffin’s dates are based on what it will take to get his Ares-I rocket flying, not finishing the Orion spacecraft. Orion will actually be ready to fly a couple of years before Ares-I is ready to fly it. Then that perfectly good spacecraft will just sit there, empty, waiting on Ares-I, all while we pay the Russians billions of dollars to fly us on the Soyuz, while at the same time we lay off 8,000 Americans at KSC and MAF.

No - we need a launch vehicle that can actually fly the Orion as soon as it’s ready to go, without straining itself to use every possible ounce of power. Well there IS such a launch vehicle. There is a proposal for such a launch vehicle already out there that NASA is poo-pooing because it’s not the Administrator’s personal favorite – it’s not his Ares-I. But the Administrator’s personal favorite can’t do the job and this one can.

It’s time to tell NASA to stop holding the future of American manned spaceflight hostage to personal preference and do what’s best for the nation instead.

This launch vehicle can have Orion flying not later than 2012, with *NO* additional funding from Congress. That date can be considerably accelerated if Congress will fund that. This launch vehicle can actually be ready to fly before Orion is ready to fly on it, and it can lift twice as much as Orion’s weight – completely freeing the Spacecraft designers from the nightmare of an anorexic launch vehicle design. Go to www.directlauncher.com to see this launch vehicle, called the Jupiter-120 and read about what it can do, and how quickly it can do it.

This is a completely unnecessary situation that we are in, caused by the Administrator’s insistence that we fly Orion on HIS launch vehicle, and ONLY on his launch vehicle. It doesn’t have to be that way. There doesn’t need to be this kind of gap. We don’t have to lay off all those people. It’s completely unnecessary. We don’t need to depend on the Russians for years. We can do this ourselves, and in a reasonable amount of time.

Years ago, NASA designed this launch vehicle and actually tried to get it built, but couldn’t get the funding while the issues of the loss of Challenger were being addressed. A few years later NASA tried again, together with the Air Force. They called it the National Launch System, or NLS. This launch system got all the way thru PDR, ready to actually build the hardware, but again died because of lack of funding. This launch system works, as has been shown again and again by NASA’s own design teams. It is a NASA design, developed at the Marshall Spaceflight Center. But today NASA is ignoring it. Why? Why does Dr Griffin insist that he will not use what NASA proved before would work?

We can fly Orion on the Jupiter and minimize the gap to something extremely reasonable. We don’t have to lay off 6,000 people at KSC. We don’t have to lay off 2,000 people at MAF. We don’t have to depend on the Russian Soyuz. If we complete the development of Orion and fly it on the Jupiter, this whole situation goes away, most people on the space coast in Florida keep their jobs and their homes. Most people at MAF keep their jobs and their homes and American manned spaceflight keeps right on going, almost without skipping a heartbeat. But the time to implement this option is getting short. Griffin wants to dismantle the facilities at KSC that the Jupiter would need. He wants to shut down all the operations at MAF that the Jupiter would need. Why? So he can build Ares, which, by the way, can’t even see the light of day until years after he is gone from the agency.

It doesn’t have to be this way – not at all. Go to www.directlauncher.com and see for yourself.

I have to admit as far as space craft go, the shuttle is beyond cool.  It will be a shame to see it go... However it will not be a shame to see its high maintainance costs and efforts go.  Give NASA the money to do its thing and continue encouraging SpaceX to do their thing.  then maybe the whole "pay the russians for old technology" question will go away.

JDT...the levees at NOLA were old and reliable too...nice thought, but...it ain't gonna get us anywhere new...

I’ve been enamored with the space shuttle since I was old enough to reason. Even so, I see that the longer the shuttle flies, the less money there will be for developing the next generation of manned space vehicles. Spaceflight will always have the risks associated with the extreme velocities, pressure differentials and unknowns involved. Therefore, no country or agency with a significant manned space program will be able to fly 100% accident free. International cooperation is vital for the survival of the space station and for the future of manned space flight.  

We cant think pragmatically anymore, its all about throwing money at prolems.

Why do we have to throw out a tested and proven technology before we get one to replace it? Just keep the shuttles on the ground and ready to fly in case of emergency.  But we have to waste as much as possible and throw these things away so we can spend billions somewhere else.

Our designs are regressing. We're going from a mostly reusable vehicle to one that only has reusable capsules, based on designs from apollo.  Thats pathetic.

We should have taken what we had, and improved on it.  Taken the giant liquid fuel tank and coasted them into orbit, where they could have been used for construction projects.  We're already launcing an inherently airtight container nearly all the way to orbit.  Take it a little further and you get a bonus habitat.  Oh wait, cant do that, it doesnt require xtra spending and waste.

Until we get desperate to accomplish a goal, nothing of note will happen.

I think the shuttle and its entire system should be sold (for further operation) to the private hands. I bet Hollywood has more money and will than NASA to make this thing operational.

Action for Space: "The Soyuz has been operating for twice as long as the shuttle with no fatalities."

Vladimir Komarov would beg to differ... But he can't since he died on Soyuz 1.

Women, you can't take them anywhere without them causing problems. ;o)

OK- just checked out www.directlauncher.com. Wow- NASA really does have their head up their butts if they went for Aries over Direct's 2.0 proposal. Thiokol must be piling on the...influence. They call it "lobbying", we call it "junkets" and "perks". Too damn bad... the ideas relating to on-orbit fuel depots and the notion that THAT is where NASA should be applying themselves are right on the spot. The job of the government should be in developing infrastructure. Let private industry figure out how to best make use of the infrastructure. Orion is a fine endeavor for NASA to dally with...although they are going to theorize themselves to death on that one, too. For goodness sake, just BUILD something, works the bugs out, and get on to USING it. Enough fiddling and whining already.

It's a matter of public record that the decision to ground the shuttle fleet was made NOT by NASA engineers but by a GAO bean counter.  One has to wonder if the rationale is more about generating new jobs and more income for the 'space industry' by building what looks like retro Apollo capsules than about any genuine problems with the shuttles.  With the BUsh cronies, it's all about profit, baby.  

Take the people off the space station, strap on a booster rocket,shove it up to geostationary orbit and leave it there until we get the rest of our space program sorted out. The operations money saved would go a long way toward developing a quality launch system.  When that is done, bring the space station back down to low orbit if anyone remembers or cares by then.

I don't know if Kevin Cousineau still keeps tabs on this thread, but I'd like him to contact me if he does. I'm Ken Lizotte from Vermont, and my address is mycroft69atlivedotcom.

C'mon, Brillo. Get with it.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):