Posted on 05/11/2003 3:43:33 PM PDT by anymouse
The House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee held a hearing today on NASA's proposed Integrated Space Transportation Plan and the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program in particular. It was the first opportunity for focused Congressional review of the OSP proposal since NASA first submitted its plan last November. Witnesses included Hon. Fred Gregory, the NASA Deputy Administrator; Hon. Dale Myers, former NASA Deputy Administrator; Dr. Jerry Grey, Director of Science and Technology Policy for the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), and Dr. Michael Griffin, former NASA Chief Engineer and Associate Administrator for Exploration.
While NASA defended its Orbital Space Plane plan as a program that will provide "multiple benefits," the non-NASA witnesses all expressed varying degrees of skepticism and concern about NASA's approach. For example, Dr. Griffin testified that, "It scarcely needs to be said that it will be extremely hard to justify the development of such a vehicle, at a cost of several billions of dollars, for such a limited purpose as OSP will have, given the requirements envisioned for it today." Dr. Grey added: "One troubling fact is the current OSP development cost estimate, which, although admittedly premature, ranges from $9 billion to $13 billion. Whatever happened to the $1.2 billion Crew Return Vehicle...?" An interesting alternative to starting up a totally new Orbital Space Plane program was offered by Mr. Myers, whose study team concluded unanimously that "an Apollo-derived Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) concept, with a 4 to 6 person crew, appears to have the potential of meeting most of the OSP CRV Level 1 requirements."
Reacting to the testimony offered at the hearing, Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee stated:
"NASA hasn't yet convinced me that the Orbital Space Plane should be our main transportation goal for the next decade. There are still too many unanswered questions surrounding this program. I think we need to see what the Board investigating the Shuttle accident has to say before we lock ourselves into an expensive new Orbital Space Plane initiative."
Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX) added:
"NASA's proposed Orbital Space Plane program won't deliver a Space Station crew return vehicle until four years after we need it, and it will cost billions of dollars more than the X-38/CRV program that was cancelled by the Administration. I think that 's both shortsighted and wasteful. We can do better."
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) offered the following comment:
"It seems that NASA is trying to develop the perfect vehicle, but has not yet decided what it needs to carry, or where. I believe that once the Administration develops a vision for the future of the NASA mission, the bright people at NASA and in the associated industries will be better able to rise to the challenges before them."
Apprised of the results of the hearing, Rep. Ralph Hall (D-TX), Ranking Member on the Science Committee offered his own thoughts:
"Unless we decide to stop flying the Space Shuttle and the Space Station, our highest priorities should be to build a crew escape system for the Shuttle and a simple, robust crew return vehicle for the Space Station as soon as possible."
That's merely because they haven't figured out a way to steal from the program and buy some votes with the proceeds.
Give 'em time. They'll figure it out...
Because it can't vote for them, no votes no money for you, that's the DEMONCRAT way.
"It seems that NASA is trying to develop the perfect vehicle, but has not yet decided what it needs to carry, or where. I believe that once the Administration develops a vision for the future of the NASA mission, the bright people at NASA and in the associated industries will be better able to rise to the challenges before them."
No, what's really needed is for the private sector to be unleashed. The main problem with manned space travel is that it is in the hand of government bureaucrats. Government bureaucracies are only innovative when they are new. NASA needs to go back to its NACA roots and be more or a pure research organization than an operations organization.
Perhaps before conquering Pluto, she needs to conquer the space between Saturn and Neptune.
Ms. Jackson is a bona fide moron but passed muster because of race.
She fits the race express chute which denigrates truly intelligent and capable black people.
Sad.
If SJL gets it, maybe the Administration can get it. The Admin should also clear the deck for action by setting up a Land Office to register claims to celestial resources and serve one-year notice that the US is withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. The barrier to space development is legal, not technological.
So is Boris.
I think--from what I've seen--the OSP is just another boondoggle. Launching it using expendible launchers is dumb. What has to happen is that (a) the 'expendibles' must be retro-man-rated (an expensive proposition) or somebody (b) raises his magic wand and declares them man-rated, which they are not.
The whole concept is dumb.
As I've said before, I've been a propulsion engineer for 28 years, a real 'Space Cadet' dreaming of humans out in the Solar System. Columbia made me change my thinking.
I now believe the only way we can become a spacefaring civilization is to pour all of our money into developing space elevators ("skyhooks"). Use the boosters we've got but don't develop any more. It might take 50 years and cost $500 billion but it will be worth it.
And the only justification for man-in-space is a vital task that robots cannot do. I can think of precisely two: (1) Return to the Moon; (2) Send people to Mars. We are not going to do either (at least in my lifetime). The war on terror is perfectly capable of absorbing NASA and all of its programs; another 9/11 (or bigger) strike [which I believe inevitable] and kiss NASA good by.
--Boris
The rats will not invest in the future of space, they want every nickle to buy votes from the poor and down trodden.
The NASA people I worked with at KSC were clinton butt-boys and girls all the way, regardless of the fact that he and his sidekick AlGore had cut their budget 30%, sold out their jobs to Russia, and saddled them with that little lickspittle Goldin. The older I get, the less I understand human nature...
My office was just across the isle from NASA on the LCC third floor, and I was told by my manager to take down all the anti-clinton articles I had plastered all over my bulletin board. I always assumed that order came from NASA.
But as you say, 20,000 NASA votes is just a drop in the bucket, election-wise.
Also, derelict satellites should be fair game just as derelict ships at sea are. Lots of salvage value up there...
I don't buy the arguement that we should abandon the shuttle fleet because it is thirty years old. The technology is still unmatched in many areas, like the main engines, for instance.
Things like the data acquisition systems are antiquated, but so what? The cockpit switches and meters are of better quality than you will find on any airliner today. And hell, the data recorder survived a mach 15 reentry and free-fall from outer space.
The structure of the shuttle is mostly just like an airliner (except for the boron struts). Airliners take off and land hundreds of times per week for up to 50 years without exceeding their fatigue life.
The oldest shuttle has experienced only 25 cycles, not exceeding 3-Gs. I don't see the problem. Would you give up your `57 Chevy after making 25 cross-country trips?
Absolutely. Government hardware such as Spacelab and Mir might be difficult to gain title to, but defunct Loral and GE commsats would have already been written off for tax purposes and therefore considered abandoned private property even under the UN Outer Space Treaty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.