NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

[erioladastra]

"Convince our partners to take contractual responsibility for our hardware as part of a "gift""<br /><br />Even without internation issues on legal, security etc this would open (ITAR etc would prevent such a thing - heck right now we can't even have contractors tell the Eurpeans and japanese key info) it is just not practical. We can't just take the (non-existent) owner's manual and had the keys over - they would have to essentially buy our services to operate it. Besides the huge cost for them, I doubt they could justify it to their constituencies.

 

[vt_hokie]

I don't know, I think a lot of people would be more likely to support something that could benefit them directly more than a program to send a few selected astronauts to the moon. And I'm almost of that mentality myself. For example, let's say I had to choose between funding a new supersonic commercial aircraft to have it in service within a decade, or funding a program to send half a dozen astronauts on a lunar expedition within a decade. Hmm...something that could actually benefit society as a whole, and something I myself might actually be able to use, or a PR stunt that will allow a few lucky individuals to walk on the moon for a few days. As cool as the latter might be, I'd have to go with the former!

 

[erioladastra]

"erioladastra, perhaps you should spend more time in countries besides Europe. "<br /><br />Actually, I have and the strongest support is outside of Europe. And even if was Europe, so what? Either way, it is strong support. Fortunately, your attitude is not representative.

 

[danwoodard]

The STS has already proven that a RLV isn't economically viable with present launch rates. ...<br /><br />This is true, but it is also true of expendable launch vehicles. As a result the new manned and unmanned launch vehicles will be much more expensive to operate than the existing EELVs which at least have a moderate flight rate. NASA has made the peculiar claim that the EELV contractors do not really want to man-rate their vehicle (even though the OSP contractors originally proposed using EELVs).<br /><br />If we really want to minimize cost and time we can launch the CEV on the Delta IV heavy, which is already in service. Instead we are going to build new manufacturing facilities, a new booster (based on the SRB but with minor changes like roll thrusters, pneumatic nozzel actuators, a second stage, etc., major rebuilding of the mobile launch platforms, complete rebuild of the LC-39 service structure, and a few minor mods to the Vehicle Assembly Building. Most of the shuttle workforce will be transitioned to the CEV and heavy SDV. In fact this has been stated as a goal. So how can the new vehicles possibly cost less than the shuttle?<br />

 

[dobbins]

Actually I favor using the Atlas or Delta to launch the CEV.<br /><br />Also I pointed out that RLV's aren't economicly viable, that isn't an endorsement of NASA's new launchers.<br />

 

[erioladastra]

Recent update:<br /><br />Note that the battle still rages -<br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/23/AR2005112301970.html

 

[dobbins]

Note that the Washington Post story is as full of Gloom and Doom BS as it's coverage of the shuttle press conference last week. The Mainstream Media has a serious bias towards bad news and sensationalism that is often combined with little or no knowledge of the subject they are attempting to cover. That is very true of the space program and why it's coverage generally blows chunks.<br /><br />

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">Note that the Washington Post story is as full of Gloom and Doom BS as it's coverage of the shuttle press conference last week.</font><br /><br />Well... it's gloom and doom, maybe -- but factually accurate gloom and doom, as far as I can tell.<br /><br />Fact is, NASA is gonna have to make up that $5-6 billion hole in its budget projections for the shuttle program <i>somehow</i> over the next few years. Cutting the flights (with their corresponding overhead) even further and laying off more people would seem the most obvious way to go about doing it.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[haywood]

I wholeheartedly agree Dobbins.<br />Why is it that a war always threatens any new vehicle design? It happened for the shuttle and it's happening now with the CEV.<br />

 

[dobbins]

First of all Dr. Griffin said 3 to 5 Billion dollars when he testified before Congress. The always negative media ignores Dr. Griffin's lower estimate and pulled a new high estimate out of the place it should reserve for sitting on. Dr. Griffin also said the projected shortfall won't hit until FY 2008 when planed allocations for the CEV and CLV will be needed.<br /><br />The shortfall is due to flights that should have taken place in FY 2005 and FY 2006 being pushed back because of the current delays, something the Media isn't bothering to report.<br /><br />Despite the efforts of the Media to make it sound like an immediate budget crisis there is no shortage until FY 2008. If there are no further delays there will be 2 flights in FY 2006 and 5 Flights in FY 2007. That's 7 flights before any budget problems come up. Most of the Shuttle preparations for the first flight in FY 2008 will already be done by the start of FY 2008 and the budget problem won't affect it. That's 8 flights. Going to serial processing for the rest of the program will at worst result in 2 more flights in FY 2008, two in FY 2009, and two in FY 2010. That brings us up to 14 flights at worse.<br /><br />The bogus 8 and 10 numbers that are being tossed around are based on going to serial processing right away, something there is no need for. The projected shortfalls aren't the same amount each year, they start in FY 2008 and grow as CEV and CLV costs grow. This means that even more flights in FY 2008 are a possibility with no change in NASA's budget.<br /><br />Early reports for the FY 2007 budget look like a half billion dollar increase. If that passes and it isn't cut back out in later years that means the budget will also be a half billion bigger in FY 2008, a half billion, in FY 2009, and a half Billion in FY 2010. That covers 1.5 Billion of the 3 to 5 Billion shortfall right there. Another increase in FY 2008 that is carried over to FY 2009 and FY 2010 takes care of more of the short fall.<br /><br />As

 

[darkenfast]

You are definitely right about the Post's bias. However, the interesting thing is the last sentence. Pony up, and fund both vehicles. It's almost a ray of brightness...

 

[erioladastra]

"The shortfall is due to flights that should have taken place in FY 2005 and FY 2006 being pushed back because of the current delays, something the Media isn't bothering to report. "<br /><br />Not totally correct. Griffin told me it was mainly due to the fact that OMB/White House assumed (and O'Keefe bought into) that if you retire the Shuttle in 2010 the budget drops drastically starting in 2008.<br /><br />The serial processing is worst case and possible but not likely.<br /><br />You are right about the doom and the fact that the real problem is in 2008. However, so far the WH has made it clear they are not planning on coughing up anymore. While that is not the budget being debated right now, Griffin is looking for direction from the WH right now and hopes to have a clear plan in the next few weeks. We shall see.<br /><br />The biggest problem is that a clear 2 or 3 year budget doesn't get locked down. If the partners are successful in getting their flights moved earlier, it will likely lead to more delays and fewer flights in the end.

 

[digitalman2]

Dr. Griffin also testified to congress that the shortfall was due to the retirement costs included assumptions of cost-savings occurring. In response to questions about budget issues relating to other projects he said that some other projects were incorrectly estimated. <br /><br />It is sad the WH is not offering strong support for the VSE, that is a tactical error in my opinion. <br />

 

[JonClarke]

Isn't VSE a white house initiative in the first place? The administration delievers a vision, NASA's role is to develop the architecture to achieve it, which is ESAS. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[ragnorak]

Some have suggested that VSE is actually to undermine NASA, give it a task it can't complete to finally end kill off US human spaceflight. Manned spaceflight does not have the political support it once did. China will push on because its ruling party's politburo, which rules the country, consists almost entirely of engineers, plus the usual commitment communist countries have to big projects that have political significance. Ultimately the US culture leans towards rebuilding Louisiana and not manned flight while communist nations care little for the little man (and woman) and things are done 'for the common good'. NASA's budget situation, if what support for spaceflight is genuine, just means its 2025 for the Moon return, not 2018. But if administrations after Bush do what previous administrations have done, then VSE is finished and only China will be landing on the Moon and beyond.

 

[dobbins]

"It is sad the WH is not offering strong support for the VSE, that is a tactical error in my opinion."<br /><br />If the President was strongly pushing the VSE it would politicize it. That would hurt it's chances in the long run if the Democrats take the White House in 2008. The Space Program needs as much bipartisan support as possible.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

"Some have suggested that VSE is actually to undermine NASA, give it a task it can't complete to finally end kill off US human spaceflight."<br /><br />Some people need to take their tin foil hats off and quit looking for plots where none exist.<br /><br />

 

[erioladastra]

<br />I agree totally with Dobbins on that. I think the WH has been fairly consistent (whether you like them or not you have to give them that in all their policies) - retire shuttle in 2010 and start VSE. Where it gets tricky is how fast you phase out the shuttle (really, what assumptions you make), how tight you want to interpret "completing ISS", and how soon you want to get VSE going. I don't think when the VSE was proposed that policy makers really thought about such things as trying to reduce the gap between programs so as to maintain the workforce. Even then you get two different views. Some see it as a way to maintain a trained workforce with critical experience (and I have to share this opinion having seen the opposite process) and other politicians just see it as a jobs program.

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> I think the WH has been fairly consistent (whether you like them or not you have to give them that in all their policies) - retire shuttle in 2010 and start VSE. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Not really. Remember Project Prometheus? That was their First Big Vision for Nasa. That didn't last too long.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Dr. Griffin also testified to congress that the shortfall was due to the retirement costs included assumptions of cost-savings occurring</font>/i><br /><br />The budget plan submitted by NASA through 2010 is online somewhere at NASA. It shows a substantial reduction in shuttle costs in the last few years. Apparently in the last 6 months or so, NASA has decided that those saving probably won't materialize. I don't think the change is related to the most recent delays in STS.<br /><br />There are still a number of uncertainties to the schedule -- when they will feel comfortable that they have resolved the foam problems, whether the next test flight (and presumably future monitored flights) have minimal problems, whether they have confidence to launch at night, etc. All of these could have serious impact on what is accomplished by the September 2010 retirement date..</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Isn't VSE a white house initiative in the first place? The administration delievers a vision, NASA's role is to develop the architecture to achieve it, which is ESAS.</font>/i><br /><br />The interesting change is that the Tom DeLay had to twist arms in Congress to get them to fund NASA and the VSE for the first round. Now Congress is ready to throw money at the program (apparently they have a lot of confidence in Griffin), but Congress is still looking towards the White House to make the first move (i.e., to request the funds to accelerate CVE).<br /><br />IMHO, I am starting to think NASA's success with ESAS will depend more on how long Griffin stays and less on the political leanings of any branch of government.</i>

 

[digitalman2]

Since it was Kennedy that moved the nation to set its sights on the moon, I would hope the president could think of something that would offer the democratic party reason to get behind the VSE and focus it into a bipartisan vision. Otherwise, if I were a democratic party leader, once current leadership trips up I would not hesitate to make bold plans and remind the world who made the last major call to action.