Replies

GET BACK ON THE HORSE!

Bump to that. No delay in our shuttle launch schedule. Ask for volunteers among the astronauts. We'll get them. The original estimate was that we'd lose 1 shuttle every 75 flights. Well, maybe it's actually 1 shuttle every 58 flights. Our astronauts have always known this and they are willing to pay the price if they have to. And that is not taking their lives lightly. It's recognizing that space exploration is important and that it is worth a few lives if that is what it takes.

Our astronauts are willing to go. Exploration isn't for the timid. New frontiers are not for the timid.

Let's build another shuttle to replace Columbia and start designing a replacement fleet. I hope we don't have to hear a lot of complaining over the cost. We're spending almost as much for a B2 bomber as we spend on a space shuttle these days.

"If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life."
- Gus Grissom, Commander, Apollo 1, speaking a few weeks before his death in the Apollo 1 fire

Clinton destroyed the orbiter manufacturing facilities. Rockwell International in Downey employed thousands of brilliant engineers, craftsmen, and support personnel. In the late 1990's, Clinton chose to eliminate most of the funding to the team. They were slowly let-go and the team downsized until Rockwell International sold the assets to Boeing. Boeing moved the team to Huntington Beach, and essentially scrapped the yard because no construction was going to ever occur again on the STS program.

There will not be a replacement for OV-102.

It is wiser for us to create a new vehicle and a new future that is not so dependent on 30 year old structures.

Our generation needs a new future in spaceflight.

43 must now set that course.

Simply returning to flight is not an option. Too many parts were lost in the accident. When you lose one of a few structual parts and you only have 3 parts left, it tells you that there is a flaw in the government's approach to space.

We should be encouraging commercialization of spaceflight to low-earth orbit. NASA needs to get back to deep-space exploration, aviation R&D, and rocket engine development.

My priorities would be:

1. Complete STS-107 Accident Review
2. Create procedures to safe guard the ISS assets, including exploring use of Soyuz for the next two years as the only vehicle to go to ISS. Downsize crew on ISS to two crew for the next two years.
3. Commit Federal Gov't R&D to rocket engine research and hypersonic technology drivers with intent to build engines capable of accelerating vehicles to low-earth orbit
4. Build a new manned space program based upon effort to commercialize low-earth orbit (private space station facilities and launch capabilities) and government funded exploration into higher earth orbit and even cis-lunar space. This creates private funding to develop vehicles to ISS and the private station. Government funding for "deep" space exploration is needed to research and develop the stages to fly to GEO or cis-lunar space.