The Gap Myth

Clara Moskowitz has published an article that tries to dispel a half dozen myths about the new space policy. Rand Simberg published an article back in May which tried to do the same. Whenever I read these articles I tend to see more myth usage than busting. As I've tried to articulate before, there's a lot of misunderstanding of the so-called "Gap" which neither of these articles bust.

No discussion of Shuttle retirement makes sense if you don't mention two important things:

  • The Soyuz has always been the vehicle used to rotate crews to the ISS as it has to act as a lifeboat - something the Shuttle can't do with it's 14 day on-orbit endurance.
  • Ares I/Orion was supposed to be ready when the expedition crew size went from 2 to 6. It was clear it wasn't going to be, so NASA bought more seats on Soyuz which upped the required production of Soyuz, which increased the average price per seat.
It should be clear, the myth here is that The Gap has much to do with Shuttle at all. Suppose the Shuttle had kept flying and Ares I/Orion had continued to be the train wreck that it is, how would that change the situation? Well, it wouldn't. NASA would still need to buy more Soyuz vehicles because they need lifeboats for the increased crew size on the station. Remember, the Shuttle can't act as a lifeboat.

As a result of this framing of The Gap we get people calling for Shuttle extension without explaining how that would solve the lifeboat shortage. I should say, not everyone misunderstands The Gap, I've had discussions with people who suggest such things as buying Soyuz vehicles and launching them in the Shuttle cargo bay as on-orbit backups. It's not a great idea, as the Soyuz only has a 6 month endurance, but it at least recognizes what the real problem is.

Comments

  1. Kelly Starks8:01 AM

    Kind of a moot point. Yeah the shuttle was scheduled to retire about now, and Soyuz or Orion weer supposed to be used as the Lifeboat/crew transport after that. But the point of concern of the gap is without shuttle or something, NASA can't launch people anymore. It will have no ships of any kind, so really it will stop being a real maned space program like post Apollo, but with no follow on in sight. Even worse then that, it will be forced to buy rides on the soviet Russian developed Soyuz ships that were in our shadows '60's.

    ReplyDelete
  2. QuantumG8:06 PM

    So what you're saying is it's all about preeminence? If that's the case, stop bagging the Russians to make yourself feel better.

    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

Mars Direct Without Super Heavy Lift

Image
For a decade or two now the proponents of Bob Zubrin's Mars Direct have been bemoaning the lack of super heavy lift (any vehicle that can lift more than 50 ton to LEO). While few advocates claim a heavy lift launch vehicle is the only component of the Mars Direct plan which is missing, most consider it a necessary prerequisite. Before I tell you why I think that's simply wrong, let's just make a quick list of all the other things we still need: decent life support, space suits for Mars, rovers that run on methane/LOX, the ISRU propellant production system, bigger entry/descent/landing systems than have ever been flown, portable field equipment for the science mission, artificial gravity generation, and the habitat itself. Oh yeah, and a space rated nuclear reactor. The beautiful innovation of the Mars Direct plan was the use of the Mars atmosphere to produce the return propellant so it doesn't need to be carried all the way from Earth. Without this simple idea t
Read more