The STS program may be extended by two more years...

[Moonwalker]

You are talking about a local syndrome which some of the NASA managers have suffered of, but you cannot stick that to a whole nation or to the legitimacy of a national space program. That is superficial, narrow minded, not to say unfair.

You are absolutely right that one can not stick the not invented here syndrome to a whole nation. That's why I wrote that "only people which suffer from the old nationalistic "not invented here" mentality will have a hard time" and "some people are afraid of using Soyuz because it is not a US system." I did never stick it to an entire nation

You are also absolutely right as for the legitimacy of a national space program.

But: the ISS is not a national space program It's an international space program, that is hugely dependant on international crew support by Soyuz. And there is nothing wrong in case the USA will have to buy seats on Soyuz (just because it is the USA), just like there is nothing wrong that European astronauts do also travel by Soyuz as usual. Soyuz (and Progress) is an inherent and reliable part of the ISS program -> the basic crew transportation, crew support and crew rescue system for the ISS.

The national space program of returning to the Moon and go to Mars is a different matter of course. But for now NASA has to stick with the ISS and its international partnership for at least another decade...

Now I prefer to allow Astronaut (ret) Scott Parazynski to voice his opinion:

http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2010/04/06/news/doc4bbaac8663f31963771722.txt

I think he doesn't suffer from any "not invented here" syndrome.

Of course he doesn't. But he also did not seem to realize that Constellation was not going to become "a program that could pay such huge dividends." The only huge dividends would have been to keep thousands of jobs to satisfy senators and its voters. But it would have been a short program like Apollo. Already Ares I was going to become way more expensive than STS.

We can only hope that NASA gets the chance to develope a future system on a more economical and intelligent way...

[desktopsimmer]

I think moon walkers post has got to be the longest post on this forum to date. A year or so ago I had a thought, which kind of fits here in this discussion;

we've got the international space station, why not the international crew/launcher. This could be operated from any of the space ports, sections can be made across the globe and flown to the launch site for 'final' assembly and launch. I think that would drive costs down, plus you've got a design and system that everyone is trained and familar. It's almost a no brainer. As an example (not the best, but it works) eurofighter, airbus and like mentioned before Boeing now have international partrners. Co-operation, it's the future!

[Admin]

Sadly, the only "international" LEO crew transportation option is Russian, and not because the other Space Agencies and commercial entities didn't have enough time to develop one. They didn't have the resources and know-how, and rather preferred letting NASA (and Russia) to conquer these frontiers for them.

Now, after STS is retired, everybody suddenly realize that the only option is Russian, and with all due respect, even ignoring the political issues, it us not so smart to have no alternate way of getting to and off the ISS. I can hear the screams of all those who dance today on the STS and Constellation graves, when for this or that reason, the ISS crew will be forced to spend many months in space, as it has already happened before.

/Admin   

[Moonwalker]

Sorry that I'm writing long posts, but it's actually a complex topic.

Sadly, the only "international" LEO crew transportation option is Russian, and not because the other Space Agencies and commercial entities didn't have enough time to develop one. They didn't have the resources and know-how, and rather preferred letting NASA (and Russia) to conquer these frontiers for them.

Well, European scientists and engineers didn't have less know-how than American and Russian scientists and engineers at all. Quite the opposite if we go back in history.

Actually it started during World War two in Germany, with Wernher von Braun and his team in Peenemunde (the most modern rocket research institute in the world back then, and the first place to launch a vehicle into space). Not really something to be proud of, because von Braun actually was a war criminal, but on the other hand still a phantastic visionary and engineer, who significantly influenced the US space program not only by designing the Saturn V (he also became the director of the Marshal Space Flight Center). He talked about space stations that are being supported by "Space Shuttles", long before NASA orbited the Moon manned for the first time in 1968.

Of course European engineers did not get the resources and budget to compete with Russia and the USA in space in the 1960s, simply because they did not get such an assignement politically. But the know-how was there, on the same level. The Concorde was developed in the 1960s by French and British engineers as one example. It was the first civil aircraft that used fly-by-wire (and also thrust-by-wire), and most importantly: that could fly with Mach 2 for more than two hours without using reheat. This was and still is something no other airplane can do, while also carrying 100 passengers. Concorde was even more successful than its only, Russian competitor, the "Concordski" (Tupolev Tu-144). Another example is Airbus, which is more than just a serious competition to Boeing. Airbus meanwhile sells more aircraft per year than Boeing. A few American airlines even completely change their fleet by Airbus aircraft, because it is the most modern commercial jet aircraft (now the A380, which is without competition). The US government even was looking for the A380 for their Air Force One, but Airbus denied because of understandable reasons (selling their technology to the US government might not be the best idea in terms of competition to Boeing...).

If we talk about ESA: with the tiny budget ESA gets, ESA is amazingly productive, not only because of the Ariane launchers (just look at the research fields and contributions to manned and unmanned space flight technologies, not only "Columbus"...). ESA engineers do not have any less know how than Russian and American engineers. They just don't get the budget and assignment to develope a manned system. It's a political issue, not a know-how issue.

In future Europe will operate both, the Ariane and Soyuz at Kourou, and possibly also the smaller Vega rocket. The ATV, which already services the ISS, is planned to be changed into a manned system.

If we look how Europe and meanwhile Russia and the USA manage space flight and aviation industries, I think that desktopsimmer is rather right: co-operation is the future. Also for NASA, because its current program structure is not promising at all. I doubt they will get the chance to operate a new manned system within this decade. But just like for Europe: the reason is not a know-how issue, but a political and budget issue. In fact, the most amazing outcome of NASA research and development took and takes place in the unmanned space flight and earth sciences, not in the manned space flight. something a lot of people don't think about or don't even know. The manned part of NASA is just the part that gets the most attention. But there is way more that NASA does, beside launching manned rockets in Florida. This is something the USA still can be really proud of, in terms of a national space program. Loosing Constellation is not so hard as it seems to be to some people. Constellation was canceled just early enough, before it turned into a real disaster...

[Admin]

... and the Greeks invented Mathematics and the Arabs expanded Astronomy...

Regarding knowledge and application, the proof is in the pudding. The rest is speculation and wishful thinking.

My claim is still valid Moonwalker - until that "future" comes, we are all stuck with the Soyuz and that's NOT a pretty picture.

/Admin

[Nephi]

Despite globalization, each nation is entitled to have its own interests, just as any individual is entitled to have his/her own ideals and personal/private goals.

So true.

until that "future" comes, we are all stuck with the Soyuz and that's NOT a pretty picture.

And so true again.

[Moonwalker]

Regarding knowledge and application, the proof is in the pudding. The rest is speculation and wishful thinking.

What I've mentioned about Concorde, Airbus and ESA are checkable facts, not speculation and wishful thinking. European space flight and civil aviation technologies keep up with Russian and American technology already for decades (and in case of Concorde and Airbus we even lead internationally). That Europe does not operate a manned space flight system is no proof for missing know-how. It's a political issue, not a know-how issue. But manned space flight is not the be-all and end-all anyway. It's actually a quite minor "scientific" part of space exploration and astronomy.

My claim is still valid Moonwalker - until that "future" comes, we are all stuck with the Soyuz and that's NOT a pretty picture.

Well, Soyuz already is the basic crew transportation system for the ISS for years, and the most reliable manned system (and "we all" are using it for decades already). The problem that exists is related to NASA and the corresponding policy, not related to Soyuz. It's a national US issue.

The ISS will continue to work and to do what it was intended to do without any Shuttle and Orion. And if ESA does not get the chance and budget to convert the ATV into a manned vehicle, we will see further co-operations between Russia and Europe in future, which is not a problem at all. The Cold War luckily is over

[Admin]

Developing an airplane is different than a Space Program and with all due respect, the Boeing didn't develop a "Concorde" because it never made any commercial sense, not because they didn't know or didn't have the resources. It is good you don't compare cars manufacturing

As for the Airbus, well, it took about 10 countries to join in and build a plane which can compete and today, almost beat Boeing - a single company. Regardless, you cannot compare commercial companies building airplanes having a totally different sets of priorities and goals (and customers) with building a manned Space Program which is still a national, gov-led endeavour.

If EU didn't have the resources and know-how (based on hard-data and experience), do you honestly believe that commercial entities will be willing to invest the necessary resources in manned Space Exploration (not transportation)?

I like your optimism and forward-looking claims about the Cold War - I hope you are right, but sadly facts seem to indicate otherwise - but that is not the only consideration.

What if Russia decides that it is not economical to maintain the Soyuz program AND go for the Moon AND Mars? What is they say, "Screw ISS, we put our money on the Moon and beyond?". And what if they also say "If anybody wants our transportation to the ISS, then pay double or triple etc." (and finance part of the Moon program? And what if a Soyuz disaster happens, disaster which will ground the program for months if not more, until they fix the issue? What if terrorists destroy a Soyuz launcher? Too many "what ifs" and you cannot promise anybody that none of the above can happen. Nobody can promise that. That's why the need for alternatives - and NOT until EU finished playing the catch-up game. Remaining without a backup for LEO transportation and without a national manned Space Exploration goal, is not a good thing - definitely not today.

Internally, NASA blames itself for assuming that the US public knows and understands what the STS and Constellation really are. This assumption led to Obama's easy move to try and castrate it. NASA blames itself for not passing the message good enough to a large enough audience, and focused instead on a few politicians whose set of values, as it usually is with many politicians, is questionable at best. NASA blames itself for this "marketing" flop - a flop which will cost NASA and the US the future of an American manned Space Exploration (not transportation) program and will leave the US in the second, or even third or fourth place. And just wait and see how this "cooperation" will breed new Space Exploration leaders (China, Russia and maybe EU) which will take as much credit for their achievements in Space as they can, not caring at all about "cooperation".

This will certainly happen if The People allow their Prez to rob the US of its current and future achievements.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

Developing an airplane is different than a Space Program

Indeed. But the European aviation industry nevertheless shows that European know-how is by no means behind American or Russian know-how. And I also mentioned ESA, which shows the same, and is the reason that it supports the ISS program by budget and hardware.

and with all due respect, the Boeing didn't develop a "Concorde" because it never made any commercial sense, not because they didn't know or didn't have the resources. It is good you don't compare cars manufacturing

I didn't say that Boeing didn't develope supersonic passenger jet because they didn't not know how to do so. I used it as another example that European know-how is by no means behind American or Russian know-how

By the way: Concorde was quite profitable since the 1980's, exactly from that moment on, in which Concorde was operated by Air France and British Airways only, and not by their governments anymore (which kept a huge amount of profit).

As for the Airbus, well, it took about 10 countries to join in and build a plane which can compete and today, almost beat Boeing - a single company.

The USA is a big powerful country, and a significant amount of Boeings profit is comming from the government (for military innovations). A small European nation could not just compete. They had to join (and of course they also depend on military innovations). But still the fact remains: the know-how is by no means behind American know-how. Since the early 1990s Airbus does sell the most modern civil pasenger airplanes (it began with the A330).

If EU didn't have the resources and know-how (based on hard-data and experience), do you honestly believe that commercial entities will be willing to invest the necessary resources in manned Space Exploration (not transportation)?

No. Industries will invest in transportation, and governments in exploration. SpaceX for example does offer the launch vehicle, just like Arianespace does.

What if Russia decides that it is not economical

They don't, because it is quite economical. It is that much economical that ESA will operate it as well.

to maintain the Soyuz program AND go for the Moon AND Mars?

They don't have enough money to go alone, just like NASA for sure won't go alone. Costs will explode. Compared to that, Constellation would just be a peanuts.

What is they say, "Screw ISS, we put our money on the Moon and beyond?". And what if they also say "If anybody wants our transportation to the ISS, then pay double or triple etc." (and finance part of the Moon program? And what if a Soyuz disaster happens, disaster which will ground the program for months if not more, until they fix the issue? What if terrorists destroy a Soyuz launcher? Too many "what ifs" and you cannot promise anybody that none of the above can happen. Nobody can promise that. That's why the need for alternatives - and NOT until EU finished playing the catch-up game. Remaining without a backup for LEO transportation and without a national manned Space Exploration goal, is not a good thing - definitely not today.

NASA could also abandon ISS and leave Europe and Russia alone. Many quite unlikely ifs, and, as you often like to say: just speculation

But it seems that people are still afraid of Russia...

Internally, NASA blames itself for assuming that the US public knows and understands what the STS and Constellation really are. This assumption led to Obama's easy move to try and castrate it.

Nope. The administration had to take the step, based on valid concerns. Constellation was a program that got so much criticism inside and outside NASA, from lots of engineers and qualified persons, like no other program before. The program was dramatically over-budget, and the engineering issues made it unreasonable from the standpoint of exploding operating costs and reliability.

NASA blames itself for not passing the message good enough to a large enough audience

I think that the audience has realised that the program will swallow a lot of tax money for a giantic but short Apollo on Steroids show Constellation was not something for the wide future. We need a different, more efficient approach...

[Admin]

NASA has already abandoned the ISS transportation and this is WRONG. That's exactly what I'm saying - it is wrong to do this and leave ISS without an alternative transportation system. To make things worse, Obama also cut the rest of the manned Space Exploration and I claim that he did that all for the wrong reasons. For now, I see that we are in agreement on most of the points from my previous post concerning EU, "cooperation" etc.<g>.

As for the Concorde, again it is irrelevant since it does not prove anything about ESA. I don't understand why you say "no" when you comment about SpaceX and Arianne and the ESA lack of resources to raise a feasable manned program alone. You've actually agreed with my point <g>.

Iffing the US policy is not quite the same as iffing the Russian one, considering the significant differences between their respective political systems and the way their governmental institutions are run.

"Nope. The administration had to take the step, based on valid concerns."... well, you are quick to dismiss my claim categorically, without really knowing who I talk to and to what sources I am connected. I stand behind my satements above as they are based on hard (internal NASA) facts. Sorry to disappoint but there is a huge amount of "self-flaggelation" going on at NASA these days and with good reason - regardless of why Obama decided to castrate it and the timing for this painful operation.

The "Audience" you refer to is not the "US public" by far. It is a limited group of NASA insiders, politicians and lobbysts and well, they have their own agenda and ambitions. Many of them realized that they can obtain more (political) power or better job by just bending over and doing the Prez dance, until the next Administration comes along. I read many of their reports and feedback and many sounded too much like "my tongue is deeper in Prez's @$$ than yours, so move over". Some of them sounded very much like a USSR Communist Party member reciting the Party line while the Chairman is watching him/her very carefully.

AMOF, only a tiny minority of the American public actually understands what NASA does with the Shuttle and what it planned to do with Constellation, and that's NASA's fault (or by extension, US gov's fault). While NASA is quite visible in schools, it largely ignored the 25 and 40+ "audience" and that's the audience which can put pressure on the Gov and Prez.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

Well, all I'm trying to say is that ESA does not get the resources to start a manned program because they do not get the assignment to do so. If the European leadership would decide to start a European manned program, and increase the ESA budget, we could be pretty sure they would be very well able to build a manned system that would be no less advanced and reliable than previous US and Russian systems. The know-how is there. There are quite a lot well qualified engineers and scientists working for ESA who already do amazing jobs, as far as possible regarding their assignments and budget. Of course it is very sad for such a modern place like Western Europe, that we still do not have own manned access to space. But that's a political fault, not a know-how fault. I have already mentioned what Europe is able to do an does if politicians just take decisions.

As for Constellation: the sad fact is that Constellation would have gone nowhere, not even to the Moon, less than ever to Mars. It was simply in a deadlock. AresI wouldn't have lifted off within the initially planned lifetime of the ISS. The issues related to AresI dramatically reduced the capabilitis of Orion, well the LEO version. The lunar version wasn't even on the table really. AresV had no funding, just like the lunar lander and lunar surface hardware. AresV would not have been available until the late 2020s, and the first lunar landing not until the 2030s. Even if the government would have pumped menaingless much more money into it, it would have remained a program not for the wide future simply because of the colossal costs. NASAs current program structure is anything but effective. This is definately not the way to go to the Moon and Mars in the long term. That is exactly the reason why Obama, just like any other President in his stead, simply does not have any other chance than to abort the Bush-agenda soon enough.

I still remember when Constellation and the Ares rockets were announced. The space flight forums and blogs were full of disappointment and criticism (because of the missing innovation and likely colossal costs which became true). The Constellation proponents were minor from the beginning. At that time I was still blinded by the expensive 3D videos and Apollo on steroid advertisement by NASA, without looking closely to the issues and the potential outcome which at the end indeed became sad reality. And don't forget Chris Bergin from nasaspaceflight.com who chimed in here, and what he wrote about AresI when I was still convinced of Constellation (two years ago he already said that AresI isn't going to survive)

[Admin]

Yes, you are right - in so many words you only confirm everything I say about ESA and other agencies. What you say just proves my point that NASA should not cancel any future manned Space Exploration and base its future on unrealistic commercial endeavours or it's international partners.

Currently NASA lack of manned Space Exploration is everybody's loss, especially ESA's and JAXA, less so for the Russians and for the Chinese who will do their thing and take the lead without sharing anything in the name of "cooperation".

What we are looking now is a period of false starts and global stagnation in manned Space Exploration. Sad. Very sad.

/Admin

[Moonwalker]

Well, China is another nation that now has manned access to space, but they do not take a leading role. They fly too rarely, plus it is an open secret that their manned program is not in the very best shape in economical terms. As long as China does not fly very often and does not do any science in space, China plays anything, but not a big role, less than ever a leading one. But since I'm not an opponent of China just because it is a different political system (and a dignified ~4000 years old culture) and because it is a sovereign and powerful state, I whish them good luck in space and more progress.

The nations which lead space are still the USA, Russia and Europe, not only by operating the largest artificial object in earth orbit, which can be called the most modern technology humankind has build for now. The amount of space and earth sciences that comes especially from the USA and Europe is amazing and remains leading. But manned space flight is just a small "scientific" part of ESA and NASA. It is the part which just gets the most attention because it is humans that ride on top of rockets, and not just "boring" scientific equipment, probes and satallites. But in fact, the science aboard the Shuttle, Soyuz and even aboard ISS remains relatively minor in compariosn to all the other scientific fields NASA and ESA do work at in the unmanned space exploration and especially earth bound sciences.

Anyway, Soyus is an inevitable part of the ISS from the beginning of the entire progam conception. The Shuttle and Russian Proton are the basic transportation vehicles for the modules, while the Shuttle also is a basic assembly tool. But Soyuz remains the basic crew transportation and crew support system. Anything additional like Orion for example, would have been a future benefit of course, but not an urgent necessity. Russia is a worthy and trusty partner for a long period of time already. Not relying on Soyuz because it is not a US-made and/or European-made and operated system (or "not invented here" again), is a kind of thinking that goes into the wrong direction that is to say: back in history.

The late 20th and the 21t Century is about cooperation and powerful partnerships in both, commercial and governmental space flight and aviation stuff. The STS retirement, and even more so the Constellation cancelation, is basically a US loss. STS did not become what it was intended to be, plus its costs were colossal (and a far worse sitution would have been the case for Constellation). Basically Hubble and the ISS have thrown a bright light on STS "yet again". But the dark shadows remain: Challenger, Columbia and the massive eating up of budget and resources and the resulting massive delays. NASA has to change its expensive structure. The retirement of STS and the Constellation cancelation is a chance rather than a loss. I can only hope the government and NASA managers do take the chance right. Meanwhile, the European ATV and Progress will service the ISS and Soyuz will carry crews. Nothing wrong with that. SpaceX will join in quite likely, potentially together with NASA. The only future that looks quite dark for now is the future of American astronauts.

Meanwhile the European and Russian cooperation continues, whilst Soyuz will continue to take its historical and successful journey right into the 21t Century...

[Moonwalker]

But I think we should stop it here. There are basically two sides: people who are still afraid of Russian technology and depending on it, and those who are not afraid but rather excited by Soyuz the same way as for the Shuttle and another past manned programs. So the discussion actually is an infinite loop.

Soyuz is as worthy as the Space Shuttle. And as I did theoretical for SSM2007, I would also give another five fingers away for a comparable Soyuz Mission simulator

To get back on topic: I can only hope NASA and the government wouldn't be so naive as to waste another years and billions of budget by extending the STS program. This would not restructure NASA at all, and would not bring any new program on the table.

[desktopsimmer]

I know you probably want to close the subject as what has been siad, has been said. However, I wonder why US/NASA and Russia haven't tried two options: the resurrection of Buran (1K destoryed, but 2K I believe is in storage) and the Kilper project. Kliper did look rather promising, especially it is resuable and appears to be a cheaper option and on similar running cost of a soyuz, just expensive to get it through development. If NASA/US throw a few bucks and development resources towards Russia as a joint project, maybe, just maybe, that could be the answer to the midterm problems.