Last Sunday's New York Times printed a rebuttal by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin to the New York Times Editorial "Mismanaging the Shuttle Fixes" published on August 19th.
The Aug 19th editorial suggested that all future shuttle flights be canceled, and that the U.S. Manned Space Program should be put on hold until NASA's next generation of Crew Transfer and Heavy Lift Spacecraft are ready to take over the tasks of putting our astronauts in orbit, deploying satellites, and lifting the remaining sections of the ISS into orbit for the completion of the space station.
Although recognized as an inherently flawed design by almost everyone involved in the space program, the Shuttle is the only spacecraft we have that can lift the completed segments of the International Space Station into orbit. Critical science components that were designed to fit inside the cargo bay of the NASA Shuttle.
Even with an accelerated program to bring a next generation heavy lift vehicle on line, we are still five years away from being able to deploy this new launch vehicle. In the meantime, our contract with the Russian Space Agency to deliver NASA personel to the ISS runs out later this year, and Congress and the Senate have made it clear that they do not want to be dependent on Russia for access to near-Earth space. Still, the New York Times expressed a feeling shared by many Americans.
The Times Editorial opened with:
"The troubled space shuttle program is in even more trouble than we realized. Seven members of an official review panel have just issued a scathing indictment of the process by which NASA determined that it was safe to start flying the shuttles again - only to discover that it really wasn't.
Meanwhile, NASA itself, still reeling from unexpected foam shedding on the first test flight since the Columbia disaster, has been forced to postpone the next shuttle flight until March or later while it struggles to fix the problem.
Article comments
1 - John Bill
I fervently believe that space is indeed our future, but the shuttle seems outdated. A newer, cheaper method is needed. A couple hundred million per trip is way too much. I say time to go back to the drawing board.
2 - Nick
Strapping 7 passengers to the side of a heavy lifter was always daft... NASA needs a system for getting men into orbit as cheap and reliable as the Soyuz. And a separate big dumb booster, not man rated, to get the heavy stuff up there.
To speak of missions 250000 miles to the moon, or 250 million to Mars lacks any credibility when the USA is dependant on Russia to get 250 miles into low Earth orbit.
Nick
3 - Bennett
John Bill - We are where we are with the space program. The CRV/CXV configurations are well into the design and engineering phase.
Griffin makes a good case for the use of this existing system for the next 4-5 years.
Thanks for the comment!
4 - Victor Plenty
If any other launch system in service could do the same job, I might agree with those who want the Space Shuttle fleet permanently grounded. Unfortunately, right now, nothing else in the world can do what the Shuttles do.
The Shuttles should be modified to make them as safe as possible, and carefully monitored during each mission so repairs can be made if necessary. They should not be retired until replacement systems are available.
They have safely completed numerous missions already. They can finish their tasks and carry us through to the next generation of vehicles.
5 - Bennett
"Strapping 7 passengers to the side of a heavy lifter was always daft..."
Agreed Nick. It seemed like a good idea at the time... dear zeus!
Regarding the plans for Moon/Mars, if we don't move in that direction, there will be no progress.
With the plans for the CXV/CRV as a Saturn 5 in-line design, based on the shuttle tank hardware and engines, proven heavy boost technology, NASA can get the new launch vehicle space worthy within the five year term.
6 - Bennett
Victor - Absolutely dead on. Thanks for phrasing it so well.