Replies

The current White House proposal does not see the new vehicle until ten years from now. They suggest ending the shuttle and station program in 2010 (four years prior to the launch of the Bush capsule design).

This proposal, while exciting in some ways, appears to be a method to end the US space program's future development of space commerce, research, and experience.

It is wise in focusing ISS activity on medical research, but the plan fails to defend our nation's need for the following:

1. Strong materials science research
2. Propulsion research
3. Development of newer, more efficient rocket engines
4. On-going use of the ISS at a level of STS flight ops to make the program worthwhile

Ending the STS program in 2010 is premature because the newer vehicle will not be around until 2014.

2010 is supposed to be when China is landing on the moon again.

Unless the White House and Congress reprioritize NASA in an authoritative fashion, we have just ceded control of space to the Chinese.

"It is wise in focusing ISS activity on medical research, but the plan fails to defend our nation's need for the following:

"1. Strong materials science research"

How so?

"2. Propulsion research"

The Prometheus program is already looking into the issue, and will handle the next-term propulsion development for Mars transit.

"3. Development of newer, more efficient rocket engines"

See #2, and also understand that the Space Shuttle Main engine in its current form is very efficient and capable, and I expect it will be used in some form. Much research has been done already on aerospike engines, as well, and their maturity wouldn't take that long to achieve. Finally, there has been recent discussion of resurrection of the F-1 engines from the Saturn program, and they are still state of the art in some ways. The development has been taking place, but in an unorganized fashion. The exciting thing is, if the research efforts are truly refocused under the plan, we'll have a lot of options.

"4. On-going use of the ISS at a level of STS flight ops to make the program worthwhile"

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Truly, I don't really see it, no sarcasm at all.

"Ending the STS program in 2010 is premature because the newer vehicle will not be around until 2014."

Year 2013 for Lunar landing, I recently heard/read.

"2010 is supposed to be when China is landing on the moon again."

And if their progress is really that swift, watch for a significant compression of our timeline. Politically, we don't want to look like the Chinese are prodding us, so following a much different schedule is advantageous for the moment.

"Unless the White House and Congress prioritize NASA in an authoritative fashion, we have just ceded control of space to the Chinese."

I seriously doubt that.