NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

[vt_hokie]

Thankfully, I think most members of Congress will disagree with your assessment.

 

[dobbins]

There are few people as critical of the International Space Blunder as me. It was the wrong station when it was Freedom, and now it's the wrong station in the wrong orbit. I Never would have signed those contracts to build the wretched thing, but our representatives DID SIGN CONTRACTS. It isn't just a handshake agreement it's legal binding contracts.<br /><br />When you sign a contract you have a legal obligation to live up to it. When you make an agreement you have a moral obligation to live up to it.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

Again, orrery21, I could not disagree with you more. Methinks we have arrived at a stalemate!

 

[dobbins]

"And we have NO international obligations. *NONE* *ZERO* They are *null & void* because the VOTERS have decided that they are and *we* make the rules."<br /><br />I see no difference between that attitude and the far left that is out screeching "Bush isn't my President". Like it or not Clinton was the President of the United States and fully authorized to act it it's name just like Bush is now.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

lol.../*ad hominem deleted*/! And your "21st century space program" looks a lot like 1960's Apollo to me....

 

[drwayne]

Cut out the personal attacks folks.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[lampblack]

"Dobbins, *we* didn't make any commitments to the ISS. *I* didn't make any commitment to the ISS. Did *you* make a commitment to the ISS? No, a past President and a past Congress did."<br /><br />The problem with this sort of assertion takes one back to Political Systems 101. The agreement on ISS construction was not "Bill Clinton's agreement," or "the agreement of Joe, Dick, and Harry Congressmen who were serving in 1999 (or whatever)."<br /><br />Those people were acting in their official capacities. And although we have a different President and a different Congress now, the fact is the United States government entered into a binding agreement.<br /><br />The agreement becomes no less binding if different people happen to be holding office now. The United States (not Bill Clinton, and not the individuals who were in Congress in the 1990s) entered into the agreement. We are legally and ethically bound to abide by it.<br /><br />However tempting it might be to just hand ISS over to the Russians and be done with it, to do so would totally wreck whatever shreds of credibility we have left. And it'd likely cost billions of dollars to make up for failing to keep our promises.<br /><br />However ill-conceived those promises may have been, we need -- for very practical reasons, in addition to ethical ones -- to keep them.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Funny, you want to build a Dyna-soar that is even older than Apollo.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Funny, you want to build a Dyna-soar that is even older than Apollo.</font>/i><br /><br />One of the criticisms of Apollo is that it killed off a lot of efforts, primarily by the Air Force, that would have led to a more effective access to LEO. However, the tight timeline dictated by President Kennedy led to a diversion of manpower and money to the capsule-driven system we now know so well.<br /><br />Don't forget, Neil Armstrong earned his astronaut wings not in Gemini but in the X-15.<br /><br />By the way, there is a new biography of Neil Armstrong out: "First Man : The Life of Neil A. Armstrong"</i>

 

[dobbins]

Armstrong's flights on the X-15 didn't reach the 50 mile mark for a set of Astronaut wings.<br /><br />Here's something for the folks that think a CEV based on Apollo is "old fashioned" 60s technology.<br /><br />http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/graphics/a/a9z23.jpg<br /><br />That is a World War II A-9 Projekt Amerika bomber that would have been the upper stage of the A-10. It was based on Eugen Sanger's antipodal bomber idea from the 1930s. The Dynasoar and all the other space planes grew out of this Nazi era idea. Capsules are a far newer concept than this 1940s technology.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> the fact is the United States government entered into a binding agreement.</font>/i><br /><br />But that binding agreement includes an exist clause!<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">We are legally and ethically bound to abide by it.</font>/i><br /><br />Ignoring the exit clause, there is also the issue of "when" and "how" the ISS is "completed". Obviously the term "completion" has been a continuously moving target. "When" it was completed was supposed to be in 2003 -- and that date was announced <i>after</i> construction in orbit had already begin. Obviously at best it will be seven years late.<br /><br />The final issue is "how". It doesn't have to be the STS that flies the components up there. Griffin has announced that the new CLV <i>could</i> be used to fly the remaining components to the ISS, but additional costs would be involved (e.g., to develop a strong backbone for mounting the pieces during launch, recertifying them, developing a tug to position them, etc.).<br /><br />However, one model could be: (1) Ground STS immediately (more or less). (2) Redirect funds to accelerate CLV development plus additional capabilities (backbone, tug, recert), (3) start launching the remaining pieces via the CLV much earlier than 2012 because the the CLV will be available earlier, (4) the Lunar timeline is accelerated too.<br /><br />The ISS is completed close to the current timeline AND the Lunar mission is accelerated. STS workers would be the primary losers.</i></i>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>One of the criticisms of Apollo is that it killed off a lot of efforts, primarily by the Air Force, that would have led to a more effective access to LEO. However, the tight timeline dictated by President Kennedy led to a diversion of manpower and money to the capsule-driven system we now know so well."</i><br /><br />Exactly! And now, we're about to make that same mistake again.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Cut out the personal attacks folks."</i><br /><br />Sorry, won't happen again.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Armstrong's flights on the X-15 didn't reach the 50 mile mark for a set of Astronaut wings.</font>/i><br /><br />I believe you are right, but five of the X-15 pilots did earn their astronaut wings.</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"However, one model could be: (1) Ground STS immediately (more or less). (2) Redirect funds to accelerate CLV development plus additional capabilities (backbone, tug, recert), (3) start launching the remaining pieces via the CLV much earlier than 2012 because the the CLV will be available earlier, (4) the Lunar timeline is accelerated too."</i><br /><br />There's no way they could have a new launch vehicle ready to deliver remaining ISS components by 2012, and even if they could, that's too far down the road. We'd have the ISS completed, more or less, right now if it weren't for the post-Columbia shutdown. We're so close to having the ISS completed, at least through installation of the European and Japanese labs! After all the battles to get to this point, and all that has been spent to get where we are today, let's at least follow through with the few remaining flights needed to install the expensive completed hardware that's sitting on the ground!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Exactly! And now, we're about to make that same mistake again.</font>/i><br /><br />But today we have a much bigger economy, much better technology, and a more active entrepreneurial space effort. I think within 10-15 years LEO will belong to private space companies. My recommendation is not to worry about the capsule.</i>

 

[dobbins]

13 of the X-15 flights reached the American defination of space at 50 Miles. 2 of these reached the 100 km mark that is recognized outside of the USA. Joe Engle did get his Astronaut wings on the X-15 before joining the NASA Astronaut corps in 1966.

 

[dobbins]

The Dyna-soar was canceled in one of McNamara's abrupt changes of policy. Apollo didn't have anything to do with it.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"The Dyna-soar was canceled in one of McNamara's abrupt changes of policy. Apollo didn't have anything to do with it."</i><br /><br />That's not the story I've been told, but perhaps I'm misinformed. I forget where it was, but I seem to recall watching a television program where they attributed Dyna-Soar's demise to the Apollo program.

 

[dobbins]

McNamara was the worst Secretary of Defense ever, even worse than Rumsfield. He was infamous for sudden changes in policy and suddenly terminating programs. Dyna-soar is just one of many victims of McNamara's wild mood swings in policy.<br />

 

[drwayne]

When I think of Mac, I think "F-111" and think somewhat derisively of the term "whiz kids"<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

"And we have NO international obligations. *NONE* *ZERO* They are *null & void* because the VOTERS have decided that they are and *we* make the rules. "<br /><br />Well, If the US government borrows money from another nation and then we get new congress critters and a new president, do we still have to repay the money?<br /><br />Of course we do. Otherwise, word spreads very quickly not to sign any treaties with the US cause they don't keep their word.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Well, If the US government borrows money from another nation and then we get new congress critters and a new president, do we still have to repay the money?</font>/i><br /><br />No you don't. Of course there is a price to pay -- like no future loans, restrictions on future loans, or demands for changes before future loans are made. Governments and companies default on their debts all the time. This is why loans are rated and differnet interest rates are assigned to them -- they are an estimate of the risks that the person, company, or government will default on their loans.<br /><br />With regards to ISS, it had an exit clause written into it!!! Exiting the US obligation to ISS would be a completely legal option well within the guidelines of the treaty!</i>

 

[erioladastra]

<br />Some more info directly from Griffin... In 2004 when Bush proposed the VSE the OMB assumed that with no flights after 2010, the infrastructure would start drastically ramping down in 2008. (Ok, don't flame me - I can't explain the logic but that is what they assumed). This is apparently an assumption that the hardware side would shut down early. Of course, as Griffin pointed out, most of the cost now adays is the people to run a flight so that was an invalid assumption. O'Keefe apparently agreed with the plans (I guess because he thought like the folks at OMB). Griffin has been trying to make the case for the right amount of money to finish the Shuttle program, assemble ISS (meeting obligations etc) and begin CEV. He has not gotten any real support. Right now, everything is Katrina so they are looking to cut money anywhere they can. I can't underemphasize the impact Katrina is having here. Also, he can't really just take money from say CEV to pay for Shuttle now since OMB will not allow such budget transfers (well, they are possible, but hard to get and Griffin considers it not a viable issue). Griffin is looking into multiple options such as the linear processing as reported by NASAWATCH which would mean 8 shuttles a year. Alterernatively, options of sharing VSE people from the Shuttle program (e.g., using those on the SSME to do the SSME work on CEV, using ISS facilities for CEV tests) to 'share' the costs. There are also strong forces that want to make sure that the Shuttle stops under Bush since after 08 Bush has no control. So in short, we will have to see what comes out of the budget in Jan/Feb but there are some very serious issues here (e.g., Katrina, OMB) that are going to make it tough to find enough money to fly 19 flights but hopefully some more (combined with economies found in other ways) to fly more than just 8. When talking to him he was very pessimistic.<br /><br />Also, some people have been asking why we don't retrofit or make o

 

[vt_hokie]

If Bush isn't willing to put his money where his mouth is and fund this "Apollo revisited" stunt, then he shouldn't have proposed it in the first place! If we can't even manage to get the shuttle operating and finish the ISS, I have my doubts about NASA getting back to the moon. <br /><br />And you know, it's not like a major hurricane hitting the Gulf coast should have been a surprise to anybody. Hurricanes are a part of life, we are entering an active period in the hurricane cycle, global warming is making these storms more intense, and overdevelopment continues to occur in vulnerable areas while wetlands are destroyed. How could our government not see this coming, and not budget appropriately? If we cannot afford to support our space program and other programs while dealing with the inevitable natural disasters, then this country is hopeless!