Dear Senator,
My name is __, I am ___ and will be starting a second undergraduate degree in Physics at the University of Iowa next Fall. In February, the White House, in collaboration with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, submitted an outline for a new space policy. I have followed the proposal since this outline was released and have done my best to research and familiarize myself with it. Following the President's speech on Thursday, April the 15th, and after analyzing the finalized proposal, I was impressed and found it to be sound with one exception.

While the proposal calls for the production of a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle by 2015, and while private companies such as SpaceX and the Orbital Sciences Corporation are well on their way to flying manned missions within the next few years, there remains no immediate replacement for the retiring shuttle nor the now canceled architecture of the Constellation Program. This will mean a gap of several years during which the only means of transportation for American and international human spaceflight will be the Soyuz rocket and spacecraft operated by the Russian Space Agency. While I have no political objections to such an option, I believe it would be in the best interest of our national space program, as well as those of our international partners in space exploration, to maintain as many launch vehicles as possible.

A number of options have been suggested as to how to minimize the gap following the shuttle's retirement, and the simplest and most effective of these is to simply delay this retirement by extending the shuttle program. Several members of Congress including Senator Kay Hutchinson of Texas, and Representative Bill Posey of Florida, have submitted bills (S. 3068 and H.R. 1962 respectively) recommending that the operation of the space shuttle be extended through 2015 to eliminate any gap between the private industry taking over the business of transporting crew and cargo to Low Earth Orbit. Although these bills were drafted under the presumption that the Constellation Program would continue, which is no longer the case, the idea of extending the shuttle has merit.

For a projected cost of less than two billion dollars a year, NASA could continue operation of the space shuttle, safely, through 2015 at a rate of two flights a year. The funding for this extension could easily be acquired by allocating an additional $10 billion to NASA from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, more than $200 billion of which remains unallocated. This additional funding would have a minimal impact on the remaining unallocated funds of the Recovery Act. By flying two additional shuttle missions a year over a five year period, NASA can not only eliminate any gap in American human spaceflight, but save thousands of jobs and accelerate the new direction NASA is preparing to take. It would also serve to increase bipartisan support for the new space policy as well as future legislation.

If, after considering my proposal, you agree with this course of action, I respectfully request that you propose this compromise to your colleagues in the United States Congress.

Respectfully,
_______

(whew posting letters is a bitch)

And now, shuttle/rocket pics, as promised.

Looks good, but you know shit will never fly.

>>734020
True, there's a substantial chance he'll decline to do anything... but there's no harm in trying. And I know a number of people who've had success in writing to their congressmen.

Shuttle is dead get over it.

Also stop treating NASA like a jobs program

NASA's so poor it can't even fly coach, they have to strap themselves to the roof of the fucking plane

>>734038
Yes, the shuttle is going to be shut down regardless... eventually. What I'm proposing is simply putting that off a couple years (doesn't even have to be the full five) to reduce the gap. I for one can't bear the thought of only having one man-rated LV for anywhere from 1-5 years.

Also, night launch bitches!

>>734027
Yeah... He is never going to see this letter.

>>734095
Again, you'd be surprised.

It's a nice letter, OP, but I'm also doubtful that it will reach your congressman. Send it to a local newspaper or two, they may publish it as "An open letter to ___"

Reported, engineering has no place in /sci/.

>>734381