A Course for Certain Failure

We have Buzz Aldrin, George Jeffs, George Abbey, Al Richardson, DeCastro, Bob Thompson, Charles Harlan, Don Nelson, Crippen & Young,  Eugene Cernan all have written papers or letters saying
Aldrin--Use & Evolve the Shuttle
Jeffs-- Nonsensicial Retirement of the Shuttle
Abbey--paper on " not returning to capsule--keep using shuttle"
Richardson--The Case to Save the Shuttle
DeCastro--On the Early Retirement of the Shuttle
Thompson--My Observations 
Harlan--NASA plan puts America at Risk
Nelson--letter to NASA Adm.--Reusable safer/ more cost effective/more capability
Crippin & Young --should continue to fly shuttle
Armstrong & Cernan Space program Embarrasing--get shuttle out of garage.

All these experts say use shuttle.  Don't go back to capsules and non-runway landings.
Krauthammer said shuttle retirement was inappropriate.
All of these knowledgable people are in agreement, we must continue to use shuttle.


Nelson letter to Bolden--key points
Under your administration you failed to replace the management  of the ill-conceived Constellation Program.  These same managers have once again reintroduced an unaffordable and unsafe Apollo era expendable crew module and heavy lift launch vehicle…the Space Launch System (SLS) Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). This obsolete space transportation system with its limited 21 day mission duration provides no foundation for the advancement of human deep space transportation and exploration. The mission site time is limited to a few days and without an MPCV airlock and robotic arm the crew EVA activity is an extreme risk environment. NASA has not identified any SLS/MPCV mission that cannot be performed with robotic spacecraft at a fraction of the cost. As you are aware the SLS/MPCV mission duration fall 609 days short of being able to conduct a humans Mars mission. As you should be aware, the manufacturing cost of the expendable SLS/MPCV components and the mission/operation cost for two missions per year could exceed $7 billion. 
 
 Your administration has misled the President and Congress about the safety of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) .  Recent published statements attributed to NASA reporting that this MPCV crew module will be ten times safer during launch and entry than the space shuttle are in error. While the planned crew escape tower may provide some improvement in crew safety during launch, there is no crew safety improvement during the re-entry phase of flight. For crew modules it is the re-entry phase of flight that is the most dangerous.  Two Soyuz crews have been lost during re-entry and two near fatal re-entries have recently occurred. Unlike the Soyuz the MPCV is forced to make water landings which places the crew and recovery team in even further jeopardy. Engineers at Lockheed Martin recognized the safety problems with crew modules and proposed a lifting body reusable crew vehicle. However NASA management rejected their vehicle and directed that they develop an Apollo era crew module…this is a death sentence for some future crew if the Orion MPCV is ever flown. Under your administration, where is “crew safety is our number one priority?” 
 
The 2010 congressional NASA Authorization Act has a provision approving the use of commercially developed vehicles. However, your administration ignored numerous requests to evaluate a commercial space shuttle . It does not take a rocket scientist to know that a reusable commercial vehicle is more cost effective and safer than the expendable launch vehicle that you have endorsed. The commercial space shuttle would provide an orderly transfer of NASA contractors to the private sector, create a competitive international cargo launcher in its unmanned flight configuration, and eliminate the costly heavy lift launch vehicle by providing launch support for space based reusable vehicles. It is the goal of every other space faring nation to develop a space transportation system using reusable vehicles. There is evidence that China will have a reusable space shuttle by 2020 . It is the only avenue that can reduce mission cost and provide safer human space transportation. By ignoring the numerous requests to evaluate a commercial space shuttle  you failed to evaluate the space based usable vehicles. Where is your justification for relegating the only reusable human transportation system to museums? A FOIA request shows the NASA decommissioning of the space shuttle has been based solely on conjecture.  Continuing on your course with obsolete Apollo era expendable vehicles is a course for certain failure. 

Sent from my iPad