The LA Times makes a big deal out of the fact that Max Faget has called for an end to the Shuttle program, as though it's of some great portent. The article implies that Faget was the designer of the Shuttle, and that this is somehow like a throwing in the towel of a former die-hard supporter. The last paragraph says:

Faget said such a program might make sense, but questioned why anybody would use the same shuttle architecture that he pioneered almost 30 years ago.

It's too bad the reporter isn't a little more familiar with space history. Unfortunately for his thesis, Max didn't pioneer this architecture, thirty years ago or at any other time, and he has never been a fan of this shuttle. Max designed the capsules used throughout the sixties, but he didn't design the current space shuttle.

He had a much different concept. He envisioned a much smaller vehicle that would be launched on an expendable, or perhaps a reusable flyback booster, and it had small, stubby straight wings. He minimized entry heating with an extreme nose-up attitude, spreading the heat of the base of the vehicle, rather than concentrating it in the leading edges.

When the requirements for a thousand miles cross-range, and sixty-five-thousands pounds of payload appeared, and the budget was cut to preclude development of a reusable booster, his concept (and "architecture") was doomed, and as this interview with George Mueller from 1989 points out, Max was never happy about it.

MUELLER: Well, the point of the problem was that it took a while to get agreement on what the configuration of the Shuttle should be. We decided we needed a fully reusable one in '68, but boy, there were a lot of different approaches. Max Faget had a radically different approach, which at least our analysis indicated wouldn't work, but he stuck through it for about a year. In fact, I think he still believes in it.

MAUER: This is the straight wing.

MUELLER: Straight wing.

MAUER: High angle of attack re-entry vehicle.

MUELLER: Exactly.

It appears to me that he's simply grabbing an opportunity to finally put a stake in its heart. Of course, most people in the business are aware of this, and will discount his comments appropriately. I'm not saying that it won't be cancelled, but if it is, it won't be because of anything that Maxime Faget says.

[via the Pathetic Earthling.]

I'd hate to see a long lull in U.S. manned spaceflight but I think Faget has made some good points. With the ISS up there the shuttle isn't really needed for experiments anymore and most heavy loads can be launched on unmanned rockets. We'd be far better off just going back to the drawing boards and coming up with something that is more economical and safer. We can just use Soyuz capsules in the mean time.

It's very debatable that relying on Soyuz can keep the station staffed and operating in the long run.

The station requires a minimum of 6 or 7 folks onboard to do what it is intended to do. The current crew of two won't do anything but keep the lights on and the pipes from freezing. The 3-member crews we've been putting there accomplish little more. Before we start using Soyuz to ferry crews up, the Russians will need to build more Soyuz craft. That takes money and a significant lead time. Money the Russians will say (probably correctly) they don't have.

You could rely on the Progress to get supplies to the station, except that it doesn't carry nearly enough. (You need something big enough food and water to keep the crew alive, not to mention future station hardware.)

In theory, another booster could be used to ferry supplies (Titan 3 or 4, Atlas, Ariane, Proton, whatever) but someone better get started building a cargo module that can dock with the station.

The Eupopean commitment to the station includes a sizable supply vehicle ATV. This is from ESA

"The ATV is an unmanned vehicle which will be put into orbit from Kourou by Ariane 5. It will supply the Station with pressurised cargo, water, air, nitrogen, oxygen and attitude control propellant. It will also remove waste from the Station and periodically re-boost the Station to a higher altitude to compensate for atmospheric drag. The first ATV is expected to be launched in September 2004. "

Up until this year NASA funded a program, at the request of Congress, to develop a system where private companies could transfer cargo to the station on expendable rockets like the EELV. This program would have eliminated our dependence on foreign providers for resupply, and allowed the station to be fully crewed while the STS is grounded. Predictably NASA cancelled the program earlier year. Their rationale, which Deputy Administrator Gregory relayed at the latest ISTP/OSP hearing, was that it didn't fit in NASA's vision of space transportation.