NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

[vt_hokie]

According to http://nasawatch.com/:<br /><br /><i>Among the options currently under consideration in response to this memo is reducing shuttle processing to a single shift (with large layoffs) to support a flight rate of 2 shuttle missions per year. This would, of course, dramatically reduce the number of flights available to build the ISS (7 ISS, 1 Hubble) which would almost certainly result in the inability to place international partner elements on-orbit. Stay tuned.</i><br /><br />I swear, if this happens, it will forever turn me off to NASA and our pathetic excuse for a space program. I will be absolutely disgusted to see the ISS left in a partially complete state, without even the Columbus or JEM, and NASA will lose all credibility in my mind, as it will have proven to be incapable of following through on a long term project or of meeting its obligations to international partners. <br /><br />The Bush administration is proving to be just as destructive to our space program as it has been to everything else of value, I'm afraid. But for those of you who are excited by an Apollo style capsule and the new so called "vision" for exploration, I wish you luck. Best case scenario - you'll get a space program worthy of the 1960's! More than likely you'll get the LEO version of the "CEV" tin can and not much else.

 

[robotical]

It's getting to the point where they need to either fly the missions necessary to actually complete the ISS or just cancel it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

A Program that has a 60s look and 21st century technology is better than a program that is flawed 1970s technology.<br /><br />As for the anti-bush rant, a knee jerk reaction from some Democrats to the VSE is expected simply because Bush proposed it. That isn't just a slam at Democrats either, there are just as many Republicans who would have had the exact same reaction if President Clinton had proposed it.<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

There is plenty of capability in the proposed SDHLV to launch the remaining ISS modules with a tug of some kind - FGB, Parom or an Earth Departure Stage. Cloning the STS cargo pay, essentially making Shuttle-C, will enable completion of the ISS. <br /><br />These memos, along with the "probably not May" by Wayne Hale are indications that they are considering very alternate routes that include outright cancellation of Orbiter stack.<br /><br />I mentioned in another post that it would be forward-looking for NASA to fast-track CEV for flight in 18-24 months instead of 5-7 years. Just Do It. As it stands right now, we don't have a manned spaceflight capability. Copy Gemini's timetable and get the US out of this spaceflight gutter.<br /><br />Josh<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacefire]

I don't think the US wants to have any part of ISS anymore. Correction: I don't think the US <b>CAN</b> have any part of the ISS anymore, as that would obvioulsy require the use of the shuttle. The 'RTF' was just the beginning of another hiatus which could very well end up in the mothballing of the remaining shuttles with no more flights being done. Right now the target date for the next launch is May 2006, but who knows if it won't be postponed again and again till forever.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"...as that would obvioulsy require the use of the shuttle."<br /><br />No. NASA could make use of the HLV for bringing up the remaining components and employ the privately developed crew/cargo transfer vehicle for access to the station.<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

and, of course, of course, relying on unbuilt hardware has always yielded the promised results. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It's getting to the point where they need to either fly the missions necessary to actually complete the ISS or just cancel it.</font>/i><br /><br />Some here may be shocked <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> to read that I am not a big supporter of ISS, but at the same time I see value in keeping operations going even if on a skeleton crew level. Keeping a (small) core team together in manufacturing, launch operations, and mission control may cost less than cancelling them altogether and then reconstituting these teams 4-5 years down the road.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">he early pieces of the station would be pretty long in the tooth before either of those launch systems fly.</font>/i><br /><br />That is a certainly a risk.<br /><br />The context of the memo is not entirely clear. It includes the line: "<i>It is incumbent on us to develop an executable option, or face the risk of a less desirable option being imposed upon us.</i>" This sounds like NASA may be preparing for a potential budget cut (perhaps related to Katrina). If that is the case, the new launch vehicles may not be ready any sooner than originally planned.<br /><br />If, on ther other hand, the plan is to shift the savings from shuttle operations into accelerating the new launch vehicles, then it might be possible to launch the remaining elements on the HLV before the existing elements get too old.</i>

 

[dobbins]

The plan may be to make things look as dire as possible if there is a budget cut. It's an old political trick to ward off cuts. "If you cut our budget these horrible things will happen".<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I swear, if this happens, it will forever turn me off to NASA and our pathetic excuse for a space program.</font>/i><br /><br />If scientists still see value in microgravity research and are willing to pay for it, then Bigelow or others would probably benefit by such a decision by launching commercial space facilities for much less money and smaller operational costs. That is, Bigelow would launch a facility and then rent space to scientists; scientists would factor this rent into their budget proposals.<br /><br />If scientists don't see value in microgravity research, then why spend an additional $30 billion to complete ISS?</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The plan may be to make things look as dire as possible if there is a budget cut. It's an old political trick to ward off cuts.</font>/i><br /><br />Possible. The memo also includes the lines: "<i>...identify the potential range of fiscal liabilities from any failure to meet International Partner commitments. Such liabilities should be as specific as possible, with potential liens to Agency budget projections...</i>"<br /><br />In other words, some of the assumed savings may be eaten by legal costs. Didn't the Navy have to pay a lot after cancelling the A-12 airplane?</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"If scientists don't see value in microgravity research, then why spend an additional $30 billion to complete ISS?"</i><br /><br />I believe many scientists do, and can probably make a stronger scientific argument for a fully functional ISS than can be made for a "flag and footprints" mission to the moon. <br /><br />More importantly, most of the money has already been spent, and the hardware is built and waiting to fly. To cut the program now would be foolish and counterproductive. As for Bigelow, I'll believe it when I see it. Right now it's just fantasy, with the same long, hard road ahead of it that we've had to navigate to get to ISS.<br /><br />And as for using the shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle, forget it. In the unlikely event that it does ever materialize, it'll be many years down the road. Unless they could have it within 5 years, I don't see that as even being a remotely viable option.

 

[n_kitson]

I'm doubtful that the remaining pieces can be launched on a SDHLV for a number of reasons:<br /><br />1. I hypothesize that the acceleration forces on the unmanned SDHLV will be above the design limits of the components. These components were designed to fly on a shuttle, which gives a fairly gentle ride. Perhaps someone with a deeper understanding of both launch vehicles can comment?<br /><br />2. This would call for some kind of remote docking technology - the as yet non-existant space tug. Highly unlikely that this will be built.<br /><br />Finally, if the shuttle is not going to do anything useful in the next 8 trips, it may as well be retired now.

 

[barrykirk]

The shuttle provides a gentle ride?<br /><br />You've got two solids on a lighter platform than the SDHLV.<br /><br />The thrust to weight ratio of the shuttle at launch is really high.<br /><br />Where the shuttle provides a really gentle ride is on re-entry.

 

[dobbins]

"I believe many scientists do, and can probably make a stronger scientific argument for a fully functional ISS than can be made for a "flag and footprints" mission to the moon."<br /><br />Fat chance, they have been pushing Microgravity research for the past 20 years and the public has responded with a huge yawn. Real exploration interests the public. Developing new technology they can use interests the public. They could care less about the effects of Microgravity on yeast cells.<br /><br />The public was interested when the space program meant men exploring new frontiers. The more the pure research types dominated the program the less interest the public had in it.<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1072<br /><br />The current news makes me seriously wonder whether Bush's plan all along was simply to kill our manned space program, as many cynics postulated from the very beginning. It's the way the Republicans do business these days...instead of killing it outright, create the illusion of supporting it by promising the impossible down the road in exchange for cutting what exists today, knowing that the promises will never become reality. It reminds me of the way they want to "privatize" Amtrak in order to supposedly "improve" passenger rail, when any student of railroad history knows that virtually all forms of transport require subsidies of some sort and all major passenger rail systems around the world require government support. Bush wants to kill passenger rail, plain and simple. Guess it's too safe and efficient...people should be driving Hummers instead!<br /><br />I really don't see anything good coming out of this "Vision for Space Exploration", and it's really a tragedy that this is what has become of our space program.

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Fat chance, they have been pushing Microgravity research for the past 20 years and the public has responded with a huge yawn. Real exploration interests the public. Developing new technology they can use interests the public. They could care less about the effects of Microgravity on yeast cells. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />At this stage, space is not for "generating public interest". We don't spend $100 billion to give beer-belly Joe a patriotic thrill.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I believe many scientists do, and can probably make a stronger scientific argument for a fully functional ISS than can be made for a "flag and footprints" mission to the moon.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree that as of right now, there doesn't appear to be much science value as specified in the VSE -- at least with the manned portion. There are robotic orbiters and landers planned that will probably provide a lot of scientific data before the first footprints. And right now, beyond just a few sorties of four astronauts for two weeks, there are no other concrete plans for the VSE. But that is independent of what I am saying here.<br /><br />I believe that if scientists show up with money in hand, someone will figure out how to take their money.<br /><br />A lot of science can probably be done on a facility placed in orbit on a single launch and controlled through a combination of man-tended (i.e., not 24x7x365), tele-operated, and automated operations.</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Fat chance, they have been pushing Microgravity research for the past 20 years and the public has responded with a huge yawn. Real exploration interests the public. Developing new technology they can use interests the public. They could care less about the effects of Microgravity on yeast cells. <br /><br />The public was interested when the space program meant men exploring new frontiers. The more the pure research types dominated the program the less interest the public had in it."</i><br /><br /><br />Yeah, public support really kept Apollo going, didn't it? If we base our space program's goals solely on a fickle public's desire for entertainment, then I guess it really is a lost cause, as we'll never do anything truly worthwhile. <br /><br />I agree fully with the conclusion of that spaceref article:<br /><br />"NASA has an attention deficit disorder. At some point NASA has to grow up and decide to finish things they promised the taxpayer, politicians, and foreign partners that they'd do - and not walk away from these things when the luster fades or the money is tight - or when the going gets tough."<br />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>...whether Bush's plan all along was simply to kill our manned space program, as many cynics postulated from the very beginning<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I don't really see what he stands to gain by killing human space exploration. The funds are insubstantial, and far more can be gained by, say, overhauling Medicare.<br /><br />I do agree that the "vision" is just fluff. Originally it was a cheap way of getting the votes from highly educated science and engineering types, who would typically have voted democrat. Now, it's just irrelevant and it is definitely not being driven aggressively by the administration anymore.

 

[dobbins]

That elitist attitude is why "beer-belly Joe" isn't interested if footing the bill for you to have an exclusive playground for scientists in LEO.<br /><br />Science snobs looking down their noses at the taxpayers who are paying the bills for NASA is killing the space program.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

Yeah, public support really kept Apollo going, didn't it? <br /><br />Public support imploded when they didn't see the Apollo Astronauts doing anything other than picking up rocks for scientists to play with.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Science snobs looking down their noses at the taxpayers who are paying the bills for NASA is killing the space program."</i><br /><br />I disagree. Lack of strong leadership is what's killing the space program, although a largely stupid public that cares more about what teams are going to the Super Bowl or who Paris Hilton is sleeping with than they do about science certainly doesn't help! <br /><br />And then when you see how many religious fundamentalist idiots there are in this country, it really doesn't bode well for the future. I can see a day when China is sending humans to Mars while Americans are arguing over whether evolution should be taught in schools and demanding that we teach children that the Earth is flat, because somewhere in the Bible it says so!

 

[dobbins]

That "stupid public" that you disdain is who is paying the bills, a fact that science snobs seem to be too "stupid" to learn no matter how many times it bites them in the rear end.<br />