No more American manned spaceflights

[Webstral]

The idea was to fly higher and faster until we had functioning spaceplanes -- originally, NASA didn't plan for a moon shot to happen until the late-1970s to early-1980s, when all the ground and orbital support structure would be in place. (These were the plans that Arthur C Clarke based his world of 2001 on.)

Now that's interesting. Yet another example of how politics can trump other considerations. One wonders how things might have evolved if this plan had unfolded as intended. We'd still be up against the question of why we'd be going back to the Moon again and again, but at least each individual trip would be less expensive with an established and reusable infrastructure in place.

[ShadoWarrior]

To be more accurate, it was Von Braun that pushed for ever-larger rockets. His personal ambition from before the start of WW2 was a very large rocket to the moon. It was the USAF that favored the idea of spaceplanes in the late 50s and early 60s. But when Kennedy set the goal, the USAF said they couldn't do it in the time frame allowed. Von Braun said he could, and so NASA went with rockets. If it hadn't been for Von Braun's influence, NASA probably would have continued developing rocket planes, successors to the X-15.

[Matt Wiser]

Here's my thoughts on this subject, and apologies in advance if they seem longwinded.

First off, Shuttle's the only HSF program I know-though my earliest memory of seeing a launch on TV was the Apollo-Soyuz mission back in '75. So when Atlantis launched, it was bittersweet, and I felt somewhat angry, because we don't have a system ready to go in 2-3 years. I blame the previous administration for starting the Constellation program and not funding it at the level NASA leadership wanted (it was underfunded by a third). If NASA leadership had their way, Ares I and Orion would have their first crewed flight two years from now, under the initial program outline. But delays with Ares I meant that it consumed money needed for Ares V (Heavy-Lift) and Altair (the lunar lander). If you're going to start a program, fund it sufficiently so that it is able to achieve its goal. Then I blame the current administration for not only continuing to underfund Constellation, but then killing it instead of finding the funds to get it back on track. (if we're spending a Billion dollars a day on the Afghan War, we can find the money to fund a first-class HSF program). And I blame the Administration for starting a program in Constellation's place with no defined mission goals, destinations, or deadlines; just a "flexible path" with only vague promises of an NEO mission by 2025 and Mars orbit by 2035. Nothing firm in between or in advance of the NEO mission.

I noted on nasawatch.com a piece back when the initial decision to cancel Constellation in Feb of last year was announced. Within 24 Hours, there were "Save Constellation" web sites, online petitions, Facebook page, youtube video, and so on. The site's author could understand: he worked on the original Space Station Freedom program back in the '80s, before it was morphed into ISS. When the decision to do so was announced, he and his coworkers were angry. A program that they had put their heart and soul into, with nights, weekends, time away from families, etc., was being taken away-unfairly, they felt. They wanted to fight back, but couldn't (no internet then, just a letter-writing campaign that went nowhere). So 95% of their work was boxed up and put into NASA archives, only to be seen by engineers, historians, and grad students. But maybe 5% of their work did make it on orbit, along with something else: the soul of the program. So when they see ISS, they see their goal: a space station manned 24/7/365, with Americans operating it, maintaining it, and controlling it from Houston. Not a U.S.-only project as Freedom was, but, in a way, they got what they wanted.

So, those of us who supported Constellation (like me), and those who were privliged enough to work on it, tried to fight back. We had some Congressional support, and fought the good fight. But, As CDR William Adama said, "This war is over. We lost." Orion survives as the new crew vehicle, the J-2X engine will likely be in the HLV, as will the 5-segment SRBs as Ares V intended, but the sprit of the program will go on. So, as NASA prepares to announce in a few weeks their heavy-lift vehicle that will send astronauts BEO, and in a few years, when that vehicle flies its first human mission to a BEO destination, we can look at it and say, "It's not quite what we wanted, but NASA is flying astronauts BEO. Not yet a lunar program, but that'll come in time." So when NASA does return to the lunar surface, hopefully in 2029 on Apollo 11's 60th Anniversary, then we can watch CNN or the NASA Channel and finally say "We did it. We got what Constellation originally set out to do: return to the lunar surface. And Gene Cernan is no longer the last man on the Moon. And maybe the first woman is stepping out. Now, let's get the hard work done on the Moon so that we can get ready for the big one: Mars."

Again, sorry if it's longwinded, but had to get that off my chest.

[pmulcahy11b]

Shado Warrior -- About your sig: I like the variation a teacher (!) taught me in high school: "Those who beat their plowshares into swords will have someone with a sword grab their plowshares and use them to beat the former plowshare user."

[pmulcahy11b]

My memories of the manned space program go back to Gemini 12, and there was one US manned drought before -- between Skylab and the first shuttle flight, when only Apollo-Soyuz flew in a six-year period. That gives me some hope for the future.

[Matt Wiser]

Not counting the stand-downs post-Challenger and post-Columbia, of course. At least we knew that the program would resume in time. As for Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz, well, they knew that Shuttle was coming along. Now, we still don't have firm details on when we'll be flying, or where, other than the vague promises I mentioned above.