Here is how Nasa is paying for the seed money for the starting of the CEV project. Robbing peter to pay paul. But what will we get for it in return just more delay or at least 6 months with another possible.

Article also contains who got what awards and there amounts.

Space Plan Takes A Tiny Step
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spacetravel-04zx.html

I think it shows great initiative and even daring on O'Keefe's part to press ahead and literally squeeze money out of congress to get the ball rolling. No one else could have done better in the situation.

SpaceShipOne WhiteKnight xprize contender to launch X-37 test flights.
http://www.desertnews.com/2004/September/09_02_04_NEWS_WHITE_KNIGHT.html

That is big news for scale composite but it is also an awakening of Nasa to not always do if it is not invented here we do not care approach. One can only hope that this is successful and that more of this continues with Nasa.

Firms to Detail Mars Transport Plans
Eleven contractors, including Lockheed Martin Corp. of Bethesda and Orbital Science Corp. of Dulles, are meeting today with NASA officials to present ideas for developing the transportation systems that will carry humans once again to the moon and eventually to Mars.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17041-2004Sep12.html

Harold, I don't think the choice to use Whiteknight is an awakening to NASA's Not invented here mentality. Infact i don't believe NASA has a NIH thought its a IDUTS (It doesn't use the shuttle) mentality. Anything that compete or doesn't justify the shuttle's exsistance is push aside.

SpaceShipOne doesn't compete with the shuttle, as spaceship one is just suborbital and can not get to LEO. So the use of WhiteKnight is more of a PR to try and convence us that NASA supports private industry. Scale composites is not an AEROspace builder, they are a reasearch company. They are the private sector's version of the X program anyways. Would be interesting to find out who they will sell the patents and or design of spaceship one too and what that comapany will do with it.

My bet if it is put on the market one of boeing's or lockhead's sub contractors and it will be shelved.

"Anything that compete or doesn't justify the shuttle's exsistance is push aside."

Since NASA has already accepted the fact that the Shuttle is to be retired in 2013 I can't see that the above statement has any validity.

Nasa hasn't accpeted the fact that the shuttle will be retired by 2013 anymore then they accepted the fact that the shuttle was going to be replaced by the venture star.

Retirement of the shuttle by 2013 is the goal it is not a hard date. Even if NASA (and Boeing/Lockheed who make the money off the shuttle operating costs) has "Accepted" the goal of retirement. Its dependant on both the ISS being completed, and the CEV flying. We will not be left relying on another country for puting our people in space. NASA knows this and the congressional districts that are involved in the SHuttles operations know this.

ANd thats the key here, its the congressional districts that rely's on the shuttle operating. Unless these districts (or a lion's share of them) get the CEV contracts. the CEV or the ISS is going to be furthur and furthur behind schedual.

And another note, the date.. 2013 when Bush will be out of office. SInce it is a Presidaental Innitative, once he is gone so is the reason to have it.

Barring any more (God forbid) fatal accidents of the shuttle, it will still be flying in 2017, or something that costs just as much if not more.

There was a bit of prooganda of the shuttle costs in th early 80's. In the shuttle's operating manual (that was sold to kids intrested in space) it states it costs 18 million per launch, todays dollars thats about 40m and if you take in the fact that more use brings down the cost and theat one flight every 2 weeks, thats 1 billion per year. the budget for shuttle operations is 5 times that not counting what the DoD pays for. for about 8 flights per year.

Tell me the motivation if you are on the space and science comittee and your district gets a healthy portion of that income to stop the shuttle, unless you can get something that brings more money to your district?

Long term plans can never be anything originated with a president, whithout first a super majority from congress. (Which Kennedy had for his moon shot)

What the solution is to really retire the shuttle and get a quality, inexpensive, and safe space access is? I don't know. The CEV will be many things.. but inexpensive will not be it.

I hope i'm wrong i really do.

"Nasa hasn't accpeted the fact that the shuttle will be retired by 2013"

You'd better tell them that.

You've made a lot of declarations but what do you base them on? I'm simply basing my assertion on the stated position of NASA.

I've yet to see any of the Congressmen etc. from these districts that are so dependant on the STS jumping up and down screaming for it to live on.

I base them on past NASA delcarations over the last 20 years and then what their actions are a couple years later. I used to base my assertions on what NASA says, but then when they time after time go against it. I started looking for why they don't do what they say. Everything other then JPL missions that are big ticket items, somehow use the shuttle even when the shuttle was not the best choice.

For example, the ISS. designing the modules so they fit in the shuttle's orbiter cargo hold, so that the shuttle is required to build the ISS. When the best way would have build the modules larger and use the Shuttle-C heavy booster configuration (its the shuttle without the orbiter just a bunch of main engines the booseters, the tanks and just the cargo. Allows 5+x more weight lifted to orbit, i can't recall exact numbers)

This would allow the ISS be put in space in just a few launches and save money. If I recall it was the congressmen on the Science, Space and Technology Board representing the districts who rely on shuttle money, that axed the idea.

If they jumped and screamed on the media about it, it would be unpopular nationwide, but if they vote against it in session the media doesn't pick up on it and when it comes to re-election they can say they voted to try and save jobs in their district.

I think you're basing your outlook on this on the NASA of the past, largely Dan Goldins' NASA.

I'm going to give the new leadership of NASA the benefit of a doubt for the time being. They've done very well so far. They’ve taken steps that were unthinkable during Dan Goldins tenure. They’ve done nothing to make me view them so cynically.

The adminstrator has nothing to do with the problem with NASA, the major culture of protecting and justifying the Shuttle, and there by NASA's exsistance itself, occured before Goldin's time. (All the descions regarding the basic design of the ISS)

Goldin's "Faster, Cheaper, Better" was directed mostly toward the robotic missions, while few things good came from it it was mostly a disater, due to somewhere between sloppiness or resentment towards Goldin's new policy. Goldin was unable to truely make anychanges for the shuttle or ISS. As it was compartivly a political jauggernought on the hill compared to the robotic missions.

As to the failure of the venture Star was not due largly to Goldin's impotancy, but to corporate greed. Lockhead never spent more then a few bucks outta the hundreds or millions they promised to the project. Not surprising as they hold a major stake in the shuttle, and at the Cost plus model which gaurantees them a profit. I'm not blaming the engineers on the project, but the suits.

As to why Adminstrators since Apollo have been unable to truely effect change within the Agency, to meat the goals given in a timely matter. There has not been a major reorg since appolo, where there was one at least once a year. It kept the Agency fluid and adaptable. Now they are quagmired, and resist change.

Now they are planning to reorg, but since they have the inertia of standing still to overcome. From my experiences within the corprate world, it will take a couple of more reorgs for them to become fluid once more.

If O'Keefe is truly trying to meet the "vision," then he has a harder job then even Webb did in the 60's.

Untill the reorg happens and is working and the peoplewithin NASA works with the reorg and not against it, the NASA of today is the NASA of the past.

THough curious what have the NASA of today they done well, that can be attributed to "today"