NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

[dobbins]

The shortfall is funds for the "1930s antipodal bomber revisted" Shuttle, not the new equipment program.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

Like I said, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I'd rather spend the incremental amount to maintain our existing systems long enough to complete ISS rather than trash them for the sake of some new design that's likely to develop its own problems, delays, and cost overruns.

 

[shuttle_man]

You bring up a good point as the costs which are apparently some sources telling someone else about what they heard someone else say and then did a memo or something, works on the accountant costs of flying three orbiters until 2010. Of course, we're retiring one in 2008 and one in 2009. It's not how much each mission costs, it's about the whole picture. Running one orbiter for the final three missions is going to cost about 70 per cent less in 2010 than 5 missions in 2007 with three orbiters. So yes, it's scaremongering.

 

[vt_hokie]

Huh?

 

[n_kitson]

<font color="yellow">Running one orbiter for the final three missions is going to cost about 70 per cent less in 2010 than 5 missions in 2007 with three orbiters</font><br />A lot of the STS costs are not variable costs. Reducing either the number of missions or the number of orbiters does not decrease the costs by the same ratio.

 

[dobbins]

There are some assumptions in this schedule that might not be valid.<br /><br />1. The foam from STS-114 and Katrina hitting Michoud have already delayed the program pushing flights back to later years. Any other delays could doom the chances of only having 3 flights left by FY 2010.<br /><br />2. The Shuttle is going to be harder to end than some think. When it comes time to retire the first one there will be Congress critters doing their best to keep it flying as a pork project.<br />

 

[dobbins]

Most of NASA's supporters in Congress do not view it as anything other than pork for their district.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Don't doom our children! Save the space program for the next generation!!! KILL THE *expletive* ISS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!!!</font>/i><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />orrey21, while I support your position to a degree, I doubt that anyone with decision authority reads these message boards. While yelling (even it only virtually) on the boards may make you feel better (it does for me sometimes), it won't change reality.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">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!</font>/i><br /><br />Certainly Bush doesn't not appear to be an enthusiastic supporter of the space program, but I suspect there were several factors leading to that decision.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">First</font> the proposed VSE was a response to Columbia as a lot of people were asking themselves, "Why are we going to LEO anyways?" Some have claimed the VSE, by providing some purpose for the manned space program, was really a play to save ISS -- especially since (as originally planned) virtually all the VSE money spent for the next six years was to go to the ISS.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Second</font> NASA told the administration it could fly another 28 missions for the projected budget. Now there is strong belief that at most 18-19 flights can be flown, and NASA cannot even do these flights for the budget NASA said 28 flights would cost. Add in the continuing delay of RTF, and it becomes apparent that NASA over estimated its capabilities. NASA shares some of the blame.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Third</font> the White House has continuously underestimated the costs and duration of the Iraq war. This has an impact on every part of the President's agenda, not just the VSE. In fact, as far as I can tell, just about every aspect of the President's agenda for his second term is pretty much in shambles -- remember that "political capital" he said he earned and was going to spend to advance his agendas like Social Security reform?<br /><br />So I think following the soul searching due to Columbia, the President had to propose something. And I think the expectations of both NASA (e.g., RTF, number of flights) and the White House (e.g., Iraq, budgets) exceeded reality.</i>

 

[erioladastra]

<br />Lets be clear here - Bush is funding (we can debate the amount but so far an ok amount) VSE - it is shuttle that is underfunded. And since that is not part of VSE it is not really inconcistent. Smart is another matter...<br /><br />Well as to Hurricanes, that is a whole different forum...

 

[dobbins]

From http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1005/101905mm.htm<br /><br />"Sean O'Keefe went to NASA from the Office of Management and Budget to straighten out a fiscal mess and ended up leading the agency through one of its darkest periods after the February 2003 loss of the space shuttle Columbia. To aid the recovery, O'Keefe, a protégé of Dick Cheney's during the vice president's days as Defense secretary, pulled strings with the White House to get a new vision for U.S. space exploration. In January 2004, President Bush directed NASA to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and then send them on to Mars. When O'Keefe left government in March, the agency still hadn't established firm plans."<br /><br />If O'Keefe hadn't had Cheney's backing and pushed for it I doubt that Bush would have lifted a finger to save NASA. He certainly never showed the least interest in space before Columbia, not even when he was Governor of Texas with NASA as a major employer in the state.<br />

 

[erioladastra]

"Most of NASA's supporters in Congress do not view it as anything other than pork for their district. "<br /><br />And that can be a saving grace - most of NASA's shuttle stuff is int he gulf region, the same region you are trying to rebuild from the hurricanes... Of course congress tends to view immediate actions and not think long term...

 

[erioladastra]

<br />"First..." From what Griffin has told me I don't think that was really the case. I think Bush's plan was shut down the shuttle and return to the moon. I don't think he cared about ISS one way or the other other than a half hearted feeling that we needed to meet comittments. I think if we didn't have IPs, Griffin would have shut ISS down since it didn't really fit in the VSE.<br /><br />"Second..." No. NASA came up with the 28 based on what it would take to finish ISS, not budget. Griffin, until recently, felt he had a comittment on the budget. It was thought that 28 woul dbe required but it became clear that 2010 was going ot be a HARD cutoff date. So what can you reasonably do by then...about 18-19. Griffin realized that the later flight would likely not occur but came up with the best plan possible.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

If NASA fails to meet its commitments and abandons ISS, I will likely not support any future NASA endeavors ever again.

 

[dobbins]

If NASA fails to meet the commitments to the ISS it will be because they don't have the funds to do so. Much of the budget is targeted, it is illegal for them to simply shift funds from one program to another without permission to do so.<br /><br />If you want to blame someone I would suggest you blame the politicians if they don't provide additional funds or approve a transfer of funds.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"vt, are you an American?"</i><br /><br />Yes, I am. This is me...I am a real person, let me assure you! I am an aerospace engineer who has always been a strong supporter of our space program for as long as I can remember, and I am extremely disgusted by the current state of affairs.

 

[dobbins]

The shortage of funds is for Shuttle flights NOT the VSE.<br /><br />You are sadly mistaken if you think killing off the ISS will increase support for NASA in general or for the VSE. NASA needs a broad a base of support as possible and killing off the ISS will narrow NASA's base of public support. It will also result in the foes of the VSE making the argument "They couldn't finish the space station, why waste money on a Moonshot they probably won't finish". If NASA doesn't live up to it's commitments on the ISS then people won't trust them to live up their commitments for the VSE.<br />

 

[dobbins]

"The reason that the Shuttle is losing funding is because the VSE is gaining fundage."<br /><br />Your assumptions are incorrect, the Shuttle hasn't lost any funding. Funding was planed based on one set of circumstances and now the circumstances have changed resulting in a projected shortfall in funds a few years from now.<br />

 

[dobbins]

People who support the work done on the ISS will feel they have as little reason to support the VSE as you feel you have to support the ISS.<br /><br />NASA has to have a balanced program to attract the widest support possible. If it's narrowly focused on just maned flights, or just LEO science, or just deep space probes it will lose a lot of support.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

The incrememental cost to complete ISS by delivering <i>already completed hardware</i> that is sitting at KSC waiting for launch is so small compared to what has been invested thus far, and compared to the long term dividends of a fully functional ISS, that to not complete it would be the largest mistake ever made by NASA, surpassing even the foolishness of abandoning Apollo in the early 1970's!

 

[dobbins]

orrery21,<br /><br />Either you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about and no interest in becoming informed, or you are just trolling.<br /><br />Either way carrying on a conversation with you is a waste of time.<br />

 

[frodo1008]

In some ways I do not necessarily disagree with you, but you take such a militant stand that you lose just about all credibility! The shuttle IS going to be cancelled by 2010 at the latest, and what components are still not taken up to the ISS are going to have to be taken up to the ISS by other means. Such means Probably being either the SHLV or possible even some kind of Delta IV or Atlas V Heavy. <br /><br />The rest of the world to a great extent already thinks badly of the US. Why should we give them one more reason to think even more badly or us? It is true that we could cancel out of the ISS, and just leave the other countries holding the bag completely, but I for one would think a great deal less of us for doing it. Those who say that nothing worthwhile can come out of the ISS do not seem to realize that it is a long way from being completed. If the ISS is indeed complete to the point of having at least six people on board it will be for at least quite a few years to come the largest scientific and industrial/commercial facility in space! I find it almost totally unreasonable to assume that nothing is going to come of it! Certainly, the ESA, Japan, Russia, and Canada deserve not only better treatment by us, but also in investing in the ISS themselves have shown confidence that it will yield great scientific and industrial advancement. Where else are we going to learn so much about the manufacturing and assembly of large structures in space? Where else are we going to learn to convert the many raw resources (yes, I am also a follower of G. K. O'neill's ideas) into the usable products for the expansion of humanity into space? You have another such facility in mind? I would be the first to agree that it isn't a perfect facility, but after all it isn't even finished yet!<br /><br />Also, if you think that congress in times of a large budget deficit, war, and expensive natural disasters is just going to take what would be saved in funding by canceling ou

 

[barrykirk]

Orrey, I agree with frodo. You are obviously intelligent and have an interesting perspective and I would like to hear your message. I won't necessarily agree with your message, but I want to hear it.<br /><br />But to keep it enjoyable for everyone, please restrain from strong language and general nastiness.

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It is true that we could cancel out of the ISS, and just leave the other countries holding the bag completely<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I don't know if we can cancel out of the ISS completely. The launching nation is responsible for orbital equipment. That means the US is responsible for either maintaining their contribution to the ISS in a safe orbit or deorbiting it safely.<br /><br />So, we have three options:<br />1. Convince our partners to take contractual responsibility for our hardware as part of a "gift"<br />2. De-orbit the entire station now<br />3. Continue with the status quo<br /><br />Option 1 is unlikely to come cheap. You can be sure Russia is going be asking for a substantial payoff to keep the ISS orbiting and later to deorbit it at end of life<br /><br />Option 2 may be possible, but again, a lot of negotiations will be required.<br /><br />That leaves the status quo. We're in a really difficult position if we want to exit the station business.

 

[erioladastra]

"...so few people in the world who care about the Station anyways"<br /><br />Actually, amazingly, you are quite wrong. I have traveled all over the world and am constantly amazed and the enthusiasm. The sad things is that people outside the US know far more than those in the US. Also, support in the US is actually very high. When you ask them about support they are annoyed that we are spending so many "hundreds of billions" for what we have. But when you point out the real budget, and that it is 4% of the DOD (which spends more on space), people are amazed, supportive and want more money spent.