[X] My Assistant

[elakdawalla]

The Planetary Society has issued a call to action, for people to contact House Science Committee Chairman Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) to demand that NASA not cut their 2006 spending on science priorities like Europa before their 2007 budget has even taken effect; and to demand that they reconsider their priorities in the 2007 budget. Go to our Space Advocacy page for more on how to participate in this campaign. Please participate!

--Emily

[dvandorn]

One more time....

The issue is *not* whether to proceed with VSE or not. The issue is whether to allow the U.S. to withdraw entirely from manned spaceflight. The Shuttle cannot keep flying after about 2010. If we do not develop at *least* the CEV and the CLV, the U.S. cedes the entire realm of manned spaceflight to Russia and China.

Now, if money were being diverted from UMSF because of CaLV and LSAM development, I could agree with you, aPhil. But it's not. No significant money is being spent on either yet. Until and unless money starts flowing into CaLV and LSAM development, what Griffin is doing has nothing to do with funding VSE. It has to do with trying to ensure that, come early next decade, the U.S. has a manned spaceflight capability. Period.

-the other Doug

[PhilHorzempa]

One more time....

The issue is *not* whether to proceed with VSE or not. The issue is whether to allow the U.S. to withdraw entirely from manned spaceflight. The Shuttle cannot keep flying after about 2010. If we do not develop at *least* the CEV and the CLV, the U.S. cedes the entire realm of manned spaceflight to Russia and China.

Now, if money were being diverted from UMSF because of CaLV and LSAM development, I could agree with you, aPhil. But it's not. No significant money is being spent on either yet. Until and unless money starts flowing into CaLV and LSAM development, what Griffin is doing has nothing to do with funding VSE. It has to do with trying to ensure that, come early next decade, the U.S. has a manned spaceflight capability. Period.

-the other Doug

I couldn't disagree with you more. The CEV and CLV are only the FIRST elements
of the VSE. You might have noticed that those projects did not exist before Bush's announcement,
in January 2004, that launched the VSE.

Also, I am not against the CEV and CLV. What I am against is the siphoning of funds
away from unmanned Space Science in order to speed up the development of the CEV
and CLV. The unmanned side of NASA has been very successful and very productive
and should not be made to suffer because of poor planning by NASA and the US
Government.

NASA's manned spaceflight program has suffered from a lack of planning and
from the fiscal drain of Shuttle and ISS. Griffin is trying to reverse this and I give
him credit. However, it took about 30 years to get into this mess and Griffin cannot
undue that in only 5 or 10 years. It will take time.

Therefore the US may have a manned spaceflight gap of 4 or 5 years after the Shuttle
is retired. That is regrettable, but in no way does that mean that unmanned exploration
of the Solar System and the Universe should suffer. Compared with manned spaceflight,
the unmanned programs have been very efficient with their funds.

If the Congress and the President are so concerned with a manned flight gap, then
they should pony up the funds to shorten that gap. So far, going by the budget that he
submitted, the President doesn't seem so upset. We shall see what the Congress does.

Again, I am worried about this year's NASA budget setting a precedent. I hope that
Congress doesn't allow that to happen, as it will endanger the funds for unmanned
Space Science next year, and the year after that, and into the indefinite future.


Another Phil

[dvandorn]

If the Congress and the President are so concerned with a manned flight gap, then
they should pony up the funds to shorten that gap. So far, going by the budget that he
submitted, the President doesn't seem so upset. We shall see what the Congress does.

The President proposed the VSE and then made it clear he had no intention of funding it to the levels required to maintain his own stated schedule. I don't see any change in Bush's attitude here, at all. He never was willing to fund it properly. Congress either needs to stand up and face the funding issues (since the White House can't or won't), or yes -- we WILL see Griffin go crazy trying to get $25 billion worth of 'action' a year out of NASA on a $7 billion budget. The results of which will NOT be good for space science, or for ANY NASA program.

I disagree with you that NASA has been getting itself into this position for 30 years -- they've been planning (and funding) Shuttle follow-up vehicles for 20 of those 30 years. Talk about money that's gone down the drain! VentureStar (the most costly dead-end program), the CRV and the OSP -- all had money spent on them to one degree or another. (A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money...)

CEV/CLV are only the latest stab NASA has taken at coming up with a Shuttle replacement. So VSE isn't driving NASA's identified need for a Shuttle replacement -- that's been going on for nearly 20 years. VSE may have helped define an *approach* to their latest stab at a Shuttle follow-on, but CEV/CLV is simply the latest in a string of heretofore-failed projects designed to allow us to retire the Shuttle system when the time comes.

But don't lay the blame for needing to get the CEV/CLV up and running on VSE. That blame lies on those who have tried, and failed (spending several billion dollars along the way) to create a Shuttle follow-on for the past 20 years.

-the other Doug