And Now Buzz Aldrin

Buzz Aldrin has been interviewed on his Space Czar commandments and found to support the myth of The Gap.

"Meanwhile, I also very strongly suggest that instead of retiring the shuttles [in late 2010] and buying rides with the Russians for five, six, or seven years to get to our $100 billion space station, a highly undesirable situation, we stretch out the flights of the five remaining shuttle orbiters to 2015."

Five remaining shuttle orbiters? Really?

I simply don't get why people are so set on framing the debate of Shuttle extension as an alternative to buying seats on the Soyuz. As has been said before: the problem isn't boldly going, it is boldly staying. The Shuttle can't do that with its 14 day on-orbit endurance. So even if you keep flying the Shuttle you're still going to have to buy a couple of Soyuz every 6 months to use as lifeboats.. or wait for Orion CRV to be ready.. should be around 2015.

I thought Buzz got this and he was only advocating for Shuttle extension to build his cycler.. apparently suggesting continuing the Shuttle to do a task the Shuttle does "well" - on orbit assembly - isn't good enough anymore. I guess everyone wants to pile on the Russia bashing.

Comments

  1. Anonymous9:36 PM

    I have a lot of ISSUES with the shuttle program. However in light of what has been offered as replacements "splash down capsules". Fly the damn thing until some company can offer a better more enabling alternative than a frickin splash down capsule. There are several other low-cost alternatives to splash down capsules. When I see a company with the resources of Boeing come forward with a capsule concept in the 21st century it gives me great concern.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kelly Starks1:19 AM

    Have to agree. If you really worry about on orbit stay time, the Orion systems were derived (and simplified) versions of the old extended duration orbiter systems. it would certainly be cheaper and better to make longer duration shuttles, then fielding Apollo on steroids capsule.

    Personally, I think more consideration should be given to our not wanting to downgrade our capacities in space as a argument for keeping shuttle; but not relying on other nations for space access is certainly a part of it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. QuantumG8:04 PM

    Anonymous, your argument that anything without wings is a step backwards is not shared by the biggest wings advocates in the business.. please try to raise the level of discussion.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Disabling OS-X Device Removal Warnings In Yosemite

Image
If you're anything like me you've probably seen the Disk Not Ejected Properly message so many times that you've forgotten how annoying it is.. despite the fact that you never even wrote anything to the usb drive that you're yanking out of your Mac the operating system insists that you remove it "correctly". You're supposed to click the eject button. Why? I dunno, Apple seems to think that if you can write to it then the operating system might have written to it - and being Apple, they probably have. Well ya know what? Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me. Note: this will not fix your external drive disconnecting when your Mac goes to sleep. For that problem try disabling "put hard drive to sleep when possible" in both the Battery and Power Adapter tabs of the OS energy saver settings. What appears below is a dirty hack for deliberately removing a warning that Apple insists on showing you every single time you yank out a usb stick. ...
Read more

Rebirth Of The Spaceship

Image
Over the last year the space advocate community has splintered into two major groups in answering the question "where should we go next?" Moon First or Mars First . This division was present in the Review of Human Spaceflight (aka Augustine) committee's final report in late 2009, with the surprising conclusion that there isn't the funds for either, suggesting a number of intermediate destinations first - including asteroids. However, as few people consider asteroids to be truly interesting destinations for the human utilization of space ( except me! ), the debate rages on. Many Moon First advocates are "Mars Next" advocates while most Mars First advocates are "Moon Again?" detractors. The former claim that Mars exploration will benefit from lunar exploration, particularly in experience and risk reduction, and perhaps the procurement of propellant. The latter claim that lunar exploration is just a distraction and want to avoid the risk of be...
Read more

Living Inside An Asteroid

Image
Deriders of the new NASA direction have latched on to the announced human asteroid mission in the 2025 timeframe as something they "can't imagine" and therefore is not worth doing. Of course, the administration is talking up the "science" that can be done on an asteroid, and how this could better inform us should the need arise to divert or destroy one that threatens Earth. This is good politics as nothing motivates like fear, but for those of us who think the human spaceflight program is really about preparing us to live at the future homes of humanity, asteroids would seem to be just a stop on the way - I disagree. As I've written previously, the new NASA direction isn't about asteroids - it isn't about destinations - it's about going and specifically, it's about going to Mars. I'm not sure NASA knows yet why they're going to Mars, but they're focusing on the technology to get there and get back safely, and some of the ...
Read more