NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">NASA has an attention deficit disorder.</font>/i><br /><br />Having worked continuously on putting a space station into orbit for over 20 years now doesn't seem to imply attention deficit. I would say they have an obsessive compulsive disorder.<br /><br />If it takes NASA 26 years of spending US tax dollars to build out a space station to support the same number of American scientists that Skylab did in a single launch almost 40 years earlier, NASA does indeed have a problem, but ADD isn't it.</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"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."</i><br /><br />Then maybe it really is a hopeless case, given the average intelligence in this country. But then, I pretty much lost all hope when 51% of voters decided to give the Bush regime a second term!

 

[dobbins]

Mixing partisan politics with space advocacy is also pretty stupid. A Space program requires bipartisan support.<br /><br />Are there any more groups you want turn into opponants of the space program today?<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Mixing partisan politics with space advocacy is also pretty stupid. A Space program requires bipartisan support."</i><br /> <br />I don't know how you can avoid bringing politics into discussion of a program that is very much a political animal.

 

[dobbins]

Avoid making it a Democratic or a Reoublican thing. Keeep your views about either party out of it, and certainly the ones that don't have a damn thing to do with the space program.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

Are you referring to my reference to religious fundamentalist idiots? I think that does have something to do with the space program. How can you support research into the origins of the universe, for example, while pandering to a bunch of people who think that Earth is only 5000 years old?

 

[dobbins]

NASA has enough foes without dragging more into the mix.<br /><br />Are you aware that one of those "idiots", Tom DeLay, is also one of the biggest suporters that NASA has in the US Congress?<br /><br />I Fully understand that the science community has issuses with creationists, but that brings us back to one thing that you still haven't grasped. NASA is NOT a private playground for scientists. Trying to make it into one has undermined it's support among the general population.<br />

 

[erioladastra]

Lets try and steer this back to some facts...<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 />No, that is not what is going on. Nor is it as one poster stated, posturing:<br /><br />"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 /><br />Griffin was blindsided by this and is not happy. There is a lot of politics involved and it is not clear how this will play out. I suspect that once congress finds out it will cost around $8B (B!) to break the internation congtracts they will scream but we all know how government works - no one will commit and things will just slide to some decision is made.<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."<br /><br />Well first thing is you need a budget for that. Second, you can't just turn off Shuttle like that and retool. But even if you had the HUGE budget that would take there is no way physically that you could build it that fast. <br /><br />"The early pieces of the station would be pretty long in the tooth before either of those launch systems fly. "<br /><br />Yes. Keep in mind it costs MILLIONS of dollars annually to maintain the hardware on the ground. Plus as it sits, it degrades - batteries lose life, folded solar arrays get damaged etc. So you will add cost to repair the equipment while you build the new crafts. Which since th ebudget is not all up front, will take many years.<br /><br />"This sounds like NASA may be preparing for a potential budget cut (perhaps related to Katrina). "<br /><br />Yes, that is what is going on. The federal government is going ot take a big cut next FY and NASA is already seeing some pain. I

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"No real progress in 2008 will probably mean killing or revamping VSE which means more lost time and starting over..."</i><br /><br />Let's hope so! Maybe we'll get someone who recognizes that a new RLV is the way to go, not a 1960's style parachute landing capsule launched on an antiquated rocket!

 

[dobbins]

If you read the actual memo you will learn that it concerns replying to the OMB's request for information on the FY07 budget. The OMB has never been a friend of NASA, that dates back to the Apollo era. OMB is always looking for budget cuts.<br /><br />The whole thing is about formulating a plan for discussions about next year's budget, NOT an operational plan.<br /><br />There is no mention of the number of flights being reduced, there is a request for information about what effect it would have on the number of flights.<br /><br />The number 8 is something the owner of NASA Watch pulled out of his rear end.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Are you aware that one of those "idiots", Tom DeLay, is also one of the biggest suporters that NASA has in the US Congress?"</i><br /><br />If he really believes that "creationist" nonsense, then he is an idiot, whether he supports NASA or not. Not to mention the fact that he's also apparently a criminal...

 

[dobbins]

The STS has already proven that a RLV isn't economically viable with present launch rates.<br /><br />RLVs have to be serviced, you have to have a minimal sized work force to do the servicing regardless of the number of flights. If the employment costs of your service crew costs you 2 Billion a year and you only fly 1 flight that flight will cost at least 2 billion dollars, not including any parts replacement. If you fly two flights a year then you are looking at least a cost of 1 Billion dollars per flight. If you fly 4 flights then it's a half billion per flight. This holds right up to the point where the number of flights requires more employees.<br /><br />That math is one of the reasons why the STS is so expensive to fly. It will be the same for a new RLV. They don't make sense if you don't have a operational schedule that is far busier than anything NASA is going to do in the foreseeable future.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

Now you are attacking someone who has done far more than you will ever do to get the ISS financed.<br /><br />And you acuse other people of being stupid!<br />

 

[n_kitson]

1. Without the "stupid science snobs" there would be no space program<br />2. Without the "stupid science snobs" there will never be spin-offs from the space program<br /><br />If beer-belly Joe and his foam finger value the thrill of some footprints on the moon at such a high level, then why is there not a handful of profitable, privately funded companies out there landing on the moon? It's because beer-belly Joe is not prepared to pay for his patriotic thrill.<br /><br />On the other hand, the "stupid science snobs" are prepared to invest their entire careers into designing beneficial science programs and lobbying for the funds to execute these programs.<br /><br />Let's take another analogy, I don't see the typical beer-belly Joe cheering the mapping of the human genome. Does this mean that the "stupid science snobs" that spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to map the genome should not have done this, and rather developed the female version of Viagra so Joe can shag her during every Superbowl ad break? <br /><br />- NK

 

[dobbins]

Engineers built the space program, not the ivory tower types that want to blow billions to study the effects of microgravity on the mating habits of fruit flys.<br /><br />Unlike the science snobs the average citizen is smart enough to realize that fact.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

An update from nasawatch:<br /><br /><i>Mike Griffin recently had lunch with the President's Chief of Staff, Andrew Card. According to a number of poeple, in his retelling of that lunch, Griffin has told a number of people that the topic of the Space Shuttle came up. As Griffin recounts the conversation to people, Card is purported to have said words to the effect that the President is concerned about the Space Shuttle's safety, that he'd like to see it retired as soon as possible, and that the White House would not be all that upset if it never flew again. </i><br /><br />This is getting ridiculous. I can live with reducing the remaining flights from 28 to 18 or 19, but come on! After investing many years and many billions in ISS, we're not going to spend the relatively small incremental amount to finish the damn thing and maybe make it semi-useful? The space shuttle is no more dangerous today than it was prior to STS-107. In fact, with the lessons learned and the contingency procedures in place, it's safer. If the administration doesn't have the stomach for flying the space shuttle and completing ISS, then it certainly doesn't have the stomach for taking a risk on an unproven system to send humans to the moon!<br />

 

[n_kitson]

You may not be aware of this, but it is rather hard to do science without engineering, or engineering without science.<br /><br />- Engineers design the rocket, scientists figured out the Isp of the fuel that will lift it off the ground<br />- Engineers plotted the orbits of the shuttle, scientists figured out the laws of physics to make these calculations possible<br /><br />In response to my second point: So, obviously scientists mapping the human genome was a waste, according to your logic.

 

[tmccort]

<br />"science snobs"? Wow, that pretty damn ignorant...

 

[dobbins]

Engineers make things, got that?<br /><br />Von Braun was an engineer. Faget was an engineer.<br /><br />The scientist that figured out the math of orbital mechanics was Newton. For almost 300 years the primary use of that math was casting astrology charts, until engineers made rockets.<br /><br />NASA was formed around the NACA, a group that did good solid research engineering, NOT pure science.<br /><br />When some of the scientists were handing out scare stories about spaceships being instanly destroyed by metors if they ventured beyond the atmosphere engineers designed the equipment to find out what was there. <br /><br />Shoemaker is typical of the NASA science crew. He pitched a hissy fit when the Apollo 11 mission was flown by pilots instead of handing the whole thing over to a scientist.<br /><br />That prima donna attitude is typical of the scientists.<br />

 

[dobbins]

What else do you call some twit with an elitist attitude of "I'm doing science, everyone that doesn't kiss my butt is stupid"?<br /><br />That is a snob.<br />

 

[tmccort]

<br />Who exactly is saying that?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">we're not going to spend the relatively small incremental amount to finish the damn thing</font>/i><br /><br />$30 billion is still a pretty big number even if it is small compared to other parts of the economy.<br /><br />Here is a conspiracy theory (with absolutely no evidence): Bush sees ISS as competition with a potential commercial market (most prominently, Bigelow), and he would rather see ISS hobbled than potentially compete with a budding commercial enterprise.<br /><br />Certainly Bigelow isn't flying anything today, and he may never fly a successful space facility, but (1) if scientists really do want a facility for microgravity research, then (2) Bigelow could attract paying customers. However (3) he may need investor dollars to finish his plans, and (4) ISS will scare away those investor dollars. Thus, kill ISS and let the market work its magic.</i>

 

[mattblack]

Perhaps the Shuttle flight rate should reflect which ISS components are actually finished as of the end of FY2006, then fly them to at least U.S. "Core Complete" stage. They were talking about this even before Columbia. It would take, at minimum, about 15-18 months to arrange a Hubble mission from the "Go" stage. I say fly each orbiter 1x time each in turn after Hubble and then stop. Would that be by end of FY2008? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[thinice]

<i>"...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 />The early pieces of the station would be pretty long in the tooth before either of those launch systems fly.</i><br /><br />And nobody will need these newly-launched modules with old equipment anyway. Maybe just as a sleeping space. I think, with current pace HLV will fly around 2020 (if ever).

 

[frodo1008]

thinice, please forgive me as you just happen to be the last one in the thread post line, and this post needed to be attached to something.<br /><br />I think there is hope here. The hope being in the form of a mainland Chinese space station with military possibilities! When this happens we will see the more conservative members of congress running amock, and throwing gobs of money at NASA! The only question then becomes, will it already be too late?<br /><br />I know that this is a political statement, but government funding is by nature political, and so is indeed fair game for such threads as this.<br /><br />The politicians are now about to do the same thing to NASA that was done in the early 1970's, and resulted in the current magnificent but highly flawed STS system. No, I don;t believe that it is really Katrine now or any other reasonable excuse for destroying the program again that is the problem here. Once again, WAR in all its ugly stupidities rears its ugly head, and down goes the space program once again. At least I am some 63 years old, and won't have long to see its current demise!!<br /><br />GO CHINESE GO!!!!!