Is Griffin setting the stage for an early shuttle retirement

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

askold

Guest
In his remarks at the National Space Symposium, Griffin stated that his primary goal is:<br /><br />"1. Flying the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, not later than 2010."<br /><br />Completing the ISS is goal #4!<br /><br />"not later than 2010" - does this mean that if the shuttle can not be flown safely that it can be retired early? For example, if no launches get done this year - is it over?<br /><br />Griffin may be preparing the public for some bad news.
 
V

vogon13

Guest
I think we are on track to see some scary show stopper on every remaining flight.<br /><br />Probably 4 more launches will occur, maximum, and the last one would be late 2010 or early 2011.<br /><br />Repeated safety stand downs, and continuing foam problems will be the 'recurring theme' of the final bout of launch attempts.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
>Probably 4 more launches will occur, maximum, and the last one would be late 2010 or early 2011. <br /><br />That is an awful scenario: waste the maximum amount of money and manpower with the least amount of results. If they continued "RTF" flights, the remaining modules might not be flown.<br /><br />I'm all for early/immediate Shuttle retirement, and hope that Dr. Griffin is the man to do it. The remaining ISS capabilities (if not actual modules) should be flown in a different configuration. I'm not going over them again as I'll sound like a broken record. <br /><br />I think foam will be the continued dramatic problem but that other issues will be the final show-stopper. Maybe another wrench left in an SSME, or the tin whiskers. Eh, just sounding negative at this point. <br /><br />what a mess.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
A

askold

Guest
I wish that Griffin would clearly articulate the criteria for keeping the shuttle project going rather than all this "not earlier than", "not later than" nonsense.<br /><br />This happens in business all the time - sales or profit goals are set for a divison and if they're not met - the division is gone. It shouldn't be that hard to determine the pace of progress needed to achieve the stated goals - if you can't stay on schedule, pull the plug.<br /><br />Instead, Griffin will probably continue the charade. Fewer than expected flights will be made this year, so additional flights will be added to next year's schedule. Until the project will be dependent on flying every other week in 2010.<br /><br />It's depressing.
 
E

erioladastra

Guest
<br />He tried that but it is not his call. The president has given an order and he is bound by it. I think all reasonable folks beleive there are many paths out there - for example, it is 2010 and we are 2 key flights away to finishing ISS, Congress/President will push/allow those flights to slip in 2011. But you have to have a plan and based on the president, that is the plan at this time.
 
J

j05h

Guest
>He tried that but it is not his call. The president has given an order and he is bound by it. I think all reasonable folks beleive there are many paths out there - for example, it is 2010 and we are 2 key flights away to finishing ISS, Congress/President will push/allow those flights to slip in 2011. But you have to have a plan and based on the president, that is the plan at this time.<br /><br />Dr. Griffin has an out on this: he can declare the Shuttle as to dangerous to fly. If they don't fly in 2006 I'll be calling my congressmen to advocate termination. What's been going on lately is, frankly, ridiculous. I don't just mean the accidents at KSC, but the "permanent standdown" that we are now experiencing. <br /><br />America DOES NOT have a manned space vehicle right now. That is a fact. We have a hangar queen (STS) and SpaceShipOne is retired/suborbital. If we needed to do something in orbit, right now, we couldn't without Russia's help. How does that make you feel?<br /><br />Fly it or forget it! (and fasttrack a new capsule)<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
L

llivinglarge

Guest
I just want the Shuttle off the ground...<br /><br />Take Endeavour out of that hangar and do some unpowered ALT drops to keep us amused.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">"not later than 2010" - does this mean that if the shuttle can not be flown safely that it can be retired early? For example, if no launches get done this year - is it over?</font>/i><br /><br />I believe the Shuttle can fly out its current mission of completing ISS, but the remaining flight schedule will have to be executed nearly flawlessly.<br /><br />The recent cost overruns in the Shuttle program has alienated Congress. Covering the cost of the Shuttle overruns by killing/delaying other science programs have alienated much of the rest of NASA and the space community. In short, the Shuttle has very few friends left.</i>
 
T

trailrider

Guest
"America DOES NOT have a manned space vehicle right now. That is a fact. We have a hangar queen (STS) and SpaceShipOne is retired/suborbital. If we needed to do something in orbit, right now, we couldn't without Russia's help. How does that make you feel? "<br /><br />Dr. Griffin has an out on this: he can declare the Shuttle as to dangerous to fly. If they don't fly in 2006 I'll be calling my congressmen to advocate termination. What's been going on lately is, frankly, ridiculous. I don't just mean the accidents at KSC, but the "permanent standdown" that we are now experiencing. "<br /><br />Awright, you people...LISTEN UP! You are semi-correct about the STS. We are NOT OPERATIONAL at this time! We ARE grounded UNTIL SUCH TIME AS NASA FEELS IT IS SAFE TO FLY! "GO FEVER" has killed at least one Apollo crew and the Challenger crew, and maybe Columbia's as well (depending on how you look at it)!<br /><br />It is IMPORTANT that we TRY to fulfill our obligations to our European and Japanese partners in the ISS. Otherwise we may have extreme difficulty in getting their cooperation for future ventures.<br /><br />On the other hand, having another Shuttle augur in WILL KILL OUR MANNED SPACE PROGRAM! There are Congressional election THIS year and both Congressional and a Presidential election coming in another two years. Regardless of anything, come 20 January 2009, George W. Bush will NOT be President any longer. Whether we have a manned space program after that is anybody's guess. 'FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION!" isn't just a slogan Gene Kranz dreamed up for Apollo 13. It is a FACT OF LIFE for the U.S. space program. So, if we have to slip until July or August or whenever, we better accept it! Frankly, I prefer Walt Williams' quote: "You don't get medals for on-time failures!"<br /><br />THANK OUR LUCKY STARS FOR THE RUSSIANS' capabilities to keep the ISS going. If OUR monetary support is killed, however, that WILL go away!<br /><br />So far as any of the PRIVATE programs are
 
J

j05h

Guest
Trailrider - I'm not interested in "Go Fever" - I'm interested in a sustainable, modern spaceflight system. I didn't want to repeat what i've typed before, which is that there are other ways to fulfill our international commitments. Those routes are much cheaper than STS. <br /><br />I'm all for finishing ISS and going onto the the moon and mars, but Shuttle is strangling those babies in the crib. Another Shuttle accident would indeed kill US government spaceflight.<br /><br />You don't get medals for hangar queens, either. Like I said, I'm calling my Congressmen if Shuttle doesn't fly in 06. I might even back that off to August, I'm VERY unhappy, as tax payer and tech geek, with STS and NASA's recent performance. I PAY YOU, AND I'M UNHAPPY. I'm NOT going to be supportive in tone unless it is deserved support, right now NASA is bungling things badly. They/you are buying the past (STS) with our future (CEV & robotic probes). <br /><br />Dr. Griffin is a breath of fresh air, but he really needs to take this process to conclusion, quickly. Tell Congress that STS is unflyable and that we need to move on. They have listened to him like no other recent Administrator, he just needs to take that last step. <br /><br />I didn't mention private vessels as an alternative in that post. Failure isn't an option, but cancellation sure is. <br /><br />Quickly: cancel STS, fly the international's racks on ATV or custom/HLV flight to finish ISS, restore astrobio and robotics, fasttrack capsule development and ditch the Stick requirement. Use existing rockets where possible, let NASA build the deep space craft that they are actually good at. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">It is IMPORTANT that we TRY to fulfill our obligations to our European and Japanese partners in the ISS. Otherwise we may have extreme difficulty in getting their cooperation for future ventures.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree, and I am sure Griffin agrees. The question is: <i><b>When do you stop TRYING and throw in the towel?</b></i><br /><br />During hearings with Griffin, more than one Congressman has made it clear that the "international obligation" card doesn't fly with them. There probably are a set of issues that are less than "loss of vehicle" that may still result in the Shuttle being retired before ISS is completed. My guess: loss of another large foam piece (without even striking the orbiter) in the next 2-3 missions will probably result in shuttle being retired as "unsafe".</i>
 
L

llivinglarge

Guest
NASA was so much more efficient when it didn't ***** and moan about safety.<br /><br />THINGS GOT DONE!
 
E

elguapoguano

Guest
Supposed "Go Fever" isn't the problem,we're afraid to make a mistake. Every man and woman that have flown into space know there are risks involved. And they readily accept those risks. Fly these missions, get the station finished. <br /><br />VSE can work. NASA has been restricted to LEO for over 30 years. They are trying to do it the right way design wise. Build from what you know and KISS. Besides, returning from a lunar orbit in a winged spaceplane (and to some degree a lifting body) would require an exotic TPS. With the tried and true ablative TPS used on the VSE Capsule design, the size is a bit of an issue, but it's mostly off the shelf tech. And NASA is on a budget, a tight one. <br /><br />If NASA is going to build and operate this Constelation fleet of vehicles, they need to retain the knowlege of their work force. Retiring Shuttle now could actually prolong CEV development. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"Griffin may be preparing the public for some bad news. "<br /><br />I think that's just wishful thinking.
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"I wish that Griffin would clearly articulate the criteria for keeping the shuttle project going rather than all this "not earlier than", "not later than" nonsense."<br /><br />Clearly articulate? How much more clear could Griffin get? The remaining number of flights has been laid out and Griffin has said the STS will retire in 2010. What more do you want? <br />
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"During hearings with Griffin, more than one Congressman has made it clear that the "international obligation" card doesn't fly with them."<br /><br />Which ones?
 
G

gunsandrockets

Guest
"Another Shuttle accident would indeed kill US government spaceflight."<br /><br />That's an exaggeration. Another Shuttle disaster would only end the Shuttle program, not end NASA manned spaceflight.<br /><br />"Dr. Griffin is a breath of fresh air, but he really needs to take this process to conclusion, quickly. Tell Congress that STS is unflyable and that we need to move on. They have listened to him like no other recent Administrator, he just needs to take that last step."<br /><br />If Congress really wasn't interested in 'hanging on to the past' and if Griffin really had the power to change things then the Hubble would have been allowed to die. I don't think Congress will permit the ISS to die either, even if that means pushing the junky STS to keep going longer than it should. <br /><br /> <br />
 
A

askold

Guest
"Clearly articulate? How much more clear could Griffin get? The remaining number of flights has been laid out and Griffin has said the STS will retire in 2010. What more do you want?"<br /><br />I've already said what I want - a statement from Griffin that if NASA can't stay on schedule, they'll pull the plug on the Shuttle. Right now, every time a flight is delayed, the remaining flights are rescheduled downstream (as if NASA is going to do this stuff better tomorrow than today) or missions will get cut - like the Hubble service.<br /><br />What other business can keep missing goals then just rescheduling them into the future with no accountability?
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">Which ones?</font>/i><br /><br />Don't remember. From time to time I watch the web casts of these hearings, but I don't take notes. The other point I remember clearly from watching several hearings is that these guys see Griffin as some kind of hero.</i>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">what I want - a statement from Griffin that if NASA can't stay on schedule, they'll pull the plug on the Shuttle.</font>/i><br /><br />I don't think he has the authority to make that kind of call. He can certainly be extremely influential, but ultimately a call of this magnitude will need to be made by the President and/or Congress.</i>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">What other business can keep missing goals then just rescheduling them into the future with no accountability?</font>/i><br /><br />Any organization that is a monopoly. By definition, a government is a monopoly, so it can pretty much get away with missing targets because there is no one else to turn to. In California, most union employees are now government workers, since the private companies with heavy unionized employees have generally closed up shop (because there was competition).</i>
 
L

llivinglarge

Guest
The STS program is a sick puppy that needs to get put down...
 
B

blackbirdcd

Guest
I wouldn't want to be in Griffin's shoes right now. As previously stated, our space program is in a really tight spot. I won't be surprised, however, if the shuttle is grounded earlier than expected.<br /><br />An interesting fact I got from a recent visit to KSC is that the remaining ISS components were only rated to the 3G thrust acceleration from a shuttle launch - there are no other boosters out there (or on the drawing board) that provide a smooth ride like that other than the Shuttle. As long as ISS fulfillment is on the agenda, we'll have to have the STS to build it.
 
S

starfhury

Guest
If the shuttles will not launch, ISS will never get completed and might enjoy the same fate is MIR. The U.S. and NASA might have to re-emburse it's partners for their expenditure because NASA failed to deliver on it's promises. That would at least allow the partners to join us in future projects since they won't experience a complete lost of their investments. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts