Is Griffin setting the stage for an early shuttle retirement

[vt_hokie]

If NASA wastes billions of dollars worth of completed ISS hardware and fails to follow through on what has been by far its biggest program over the last couple of decades, I don't think anyone will ever take the agency seriously again, or be willing to fund grandiose projects if NASA is to be involved.

 

[john_316]

NASA will never complete ISS and we wont have a summer launch of STS. I am willing to bet on it....<br /><br />Build more craft to explore other planets and just live life on earth for another 15-20 years while we watch China, ESA, and Russia go back to the moon and Mars while we still figure out of CLV will be SRB or HLV....<br /><br />STS will be grounded forever this year because we will need to divert funds from STS to War in Iraq.... Its all a game the admin is playing with the people.....<br /><br />Oh by the way how many big oil companies are investing in space? I bet not too many of them......<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br /><br />NASA the other "waste of space" agency!

 

[frodo1008]

While I don't always agree with you, that was a very good post. I agree totallly, if we can not fly the shuttle the very least we would have to do is to find some other way to finish what we have told our partners that we will finish. But the best choice would be to use the shuttle and then retire it and go on!

 

[tap_sa]

One way to finish ISS yet axe the STS right now would be to 'alter' all existing STS related contracts towards fast-tracking CaLV development. Make CaLV fly by 2010 and loft three ISS modules per flight. Pipedreaming, yes I know, but it's nice to pipedream a bit, eh? Technically quite possible. There's good thread about this at NSF.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Make CaLV fly by 2010 and loft three ISS modules per flight.</font>/i><br /><br />This has been my favorite approach, but there are a number of "gotchas", at least in the short run. These include, among others, (1) lack of assembly support provided by Shuttle crew and robotic arm, (2) certification of ISS components for higher G load of CaLV, and (3) need for additional side-mounted support structure in CaLV to emulate Orbiter's cargo bay.</i>

 

[j05h]

all of those issues can be taken care of. The biggest roadblock to ShuttleC/CaLV fasttrack (and ISS completion) is political. At the current rate of progress, ISS won't be completed - it is likely, IMHO, that it will not see anymore components at the current pace. Something has to give or the project will break. My vote is for cutting STS out of the picture and finding a smarter way up for the modules. <br /><br />For crew/assembly issues, i'd recommend figuring out the quickest way to increase crew size, and have a couple of specialists spend tours up there dedicated to receiving, processing and finishing the buildout. Get 3 or 4 more berths up there ASAP, get some kind of heavy lift to put the modules in orbit.<br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[revolutionary]

The Russians are not doing us any favors by keeping the ISS afloat. We need the ISS terminated. The sooner, the better. In consideration of our partners, I can't think of anything they're offering us in terms of 'future endeavors' that would warrant our spending a $100billion of our own money on something that will have very little benefit to our own space program.<br /><br />We don't need to outsource our space program to Europe and Japan. Those jobs can be done right here in the USA.<br /><br />The current situation with the shuttle is more than enough proof with regards to where our money should be spent, and it isn't on the ISS. Its on a replacement of the Shuttle or new spacecraft. The ISS is deadweight, always has been, always will be, its time to recognize that building the ISS was a mistake and move on to bigger & better things. There is no reason to compound this enormous tower of babel / error.

 

[j05h]

>The current situation with the shuttle is more than enough proof with regards to where our money should be spent, and it isn't on the ISS. Its on a replacement of the Shuttle or new spacecraft. The ISS is deadweight,...<br /><br />I agree to a point, however, I think we need orbital platforms, clunky as ISS may be. STS and ISS have been slowly consuming the rest of NASA for a generation. One of them is on it's way out, and the other has potential uses. Which would you rather see terminated if the choice is one not both?<br /><br />I hope Dr. Griffin goes through with this. It makes good sense. Declare it unoperational and move one. Please. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[john_316]

I may seem harsh when I say Nasa is not going to finish ISS but by the sounds of it it is slowly just going away. I think its a nice idea for Russia to double up on manufacturing more spacecraft for the crew but what about the station size as it is?<br /><br />Is it capable of the 6 astronauts now even if we dont send the rest of the modules and call it core complete?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[j05h]

>I may seem harsh when I say Nasa is not going to finish ISS but by the sounds of it it is slowly just going away. I think its a nice idea for Russia to double up on manufacturing more spacecraft for the crew but what about the station size as it is? <br /><br />Criticism about NASA not finishing ISS is completely warranted: at the rate they are going, the modules on the ground will have expired before launch. They are already replacing batteries and other gear in COlumbus. Soyuz/Progress manufacturing is great news! it means they are making money at spaceflight, hence expanding production. <br /><br /> />Is it capable of the 6 astronauts now even if we dont send the rest of the modules and call it core complete? <br /><br />ISS could not handle 6 fulltime occupants, there is not enough space inside nor can it handle the life support resources. Station could support 3, maybe 4 people with more Progress flights. The solution to Core Complete, IMHO, is to put the remaining hardware on EELVs with "cargo bay clones" to adapt them. Alternatively, on-the-ground integration with launch on an HLV. <br /><br />I can't emphasize this enough: we have the launchers to do this already. EELV, Ariane, Sea Launch, Soyuz, Proton, etc are all the launch vehicles we really need to open the space frontier, be it by finishing ISS, implementing VSE or via private flights. They are expensive, but so are the payloads. The payloads are what are missing, NASA is distracted by trying to be a transport provider instead of trailblazer. Totally distracted. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>