One of the key issues that Congress has debated regarding the Vision for Exploration is the gap in manned spaceflight capability between the end of the shuttle program in 2010 and the introduction of the CEV, no later than 2014. Now that efforts to accelerate development of the CEV to shorten that gap seem to have been set aside because of budget problems, the gap may become an issue again. The Houston Chronicle reports that Rep. Tom DeLay and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison brought it up during ceremonies at the Johnson Space Center yesterday marking the 25th anniversary of the launch of STS-1:
At the same panel discussion – held in conjunction with other seminars at the nearby Johnson Space Center – Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who chairs a NASA oversight committee, and Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, urged the audience of NASA workers to fend off a space challenge from China by either accelerating work on the Crew Exploration Vehicle or delaying the shuttle’s retirement.
“I think we can do a little of both and close that gap,” said DeLay, whose work on the House Appropriations Committee that funds NASA will come to an end when he leaves the House in late May or early June.
John Young and Bob Crippen weighed in as well:
“I didn’t think much of that gap between Apollo and the shuttle,” Young said.
“Build it small, build it reliable, build it cheap, build it fast.”
Crippen agreed.
“I don’t think the United States wants to be a second-rate country. The space program is an excellent mechanism ensuring we don’t become that.”
The NASA human spaceflight gap following Columbia’s destruction and Discovery’s 2005 foam-shedding may; in cumulative, be longer than the gap between 2010 and the first CEV flight.
Apparently, shuttle flight gaps due to safety improvements are OK but the “Shuttle to CEV gap [is] a threat to US national security”.
Bizarro.
Apparently, shuttle flight gaps due to safety improvements are OK but the “Shuttle to CEV gap [is] a threat to US national security”.
Bizarro.
Not at all. In the former, the workforce (and its critical skills) is retained with the expectation that the shuttle will resume flights; in the latter, the workforce is laid off and must somehow be re-assembled when CEV starts flying.
Apparently, shuttle flight gaps due to safety improvements are OK but the “Shuttle to CEV gap [is] a threat to US national security”.
Bizarro.
Not at all. In the former, the workforce (and its critical skills) is retained with the expectation that the shuttle will resume flights; in the latter, the workforce is laid off and must somehow be re-assembled when CEV starts flying.
This is exactly why space flight is so expensive – we must retain the work force in order to retain funding. Unfortunately most of that money goes directly to the work force. This situation undercuts any motivation to make productivity gains.
“Build it small, build it reliable, build it cheap, build it fast.”
The quote by John Young could easily be a remake of something Henry Ford would say. And just as pertinent.
When they start making CEV’s as fast as Model T cars, then we can proceed with all the other things.
Nemo,
I want to challenge an implication in your statement above. Specifically, you state that it is not bizzare to state that letting Shuttle workforce go, and re-assembling it for the CEV is a national security issue. This implies that you think it is reasonable to make national security argument here.
Why is it a threat to “national security” if we lose the Shuttle workforce, and have to re-assemble the workforce later?
Let me propose a measurable test of whether this is a national security issue.
Does anybody on the “National Security Council” or the DoD even care if the Shuttle workforce is let go, and has to be rehired later, or whether there was a gap between Shuttle and CEV?
If so, who are they, what did they say, and when did they say it?
– Al
This implies that you think it is reasonable to make national security argument here.
No, it implies that I’m trying to explain the reasoning of the people who are making that argument. It does not necessarily follow that I believe it myself.