NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

[mattblack]

I fear you could be right.<br /><br />GO CHINA!!! <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>

 

[erioladastra]

"The number 8 is something the owner of NASA Watch pulled out of his rear end. "<br /><br />No - NW info came from reliable inside sources and is accurate. OMB, which seems to have Bush's ear is pushing for no Shuttle funding post FY08. Apparently, that plan had been worked with O'Keefe, he just didn't bother to tell anyone. It is more than just next year's budget but proposed life of Shuttle. The number 8 is what NASA is hoping is feasible with the current budget proposals. Griffin is taking this threat very seriously and has a lot more info than we have.

 

[flameira]

From www.nasawatch.com :<br /><br />"...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."<br /><br />I'm speechless...

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Engineers make things, got that?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Actually, you're wrong. Engineers don't make things. They do a variety of things, including research and design, but they don't "make things".<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The scientist that figured out the math of orbital mechanics was Newton<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Good thing he did that, or the engineers' rocket would never have made orbit.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Apollo 11 mission was flown by pilots instead of handing the whole thing over to a scientist. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />And that mentality lived on in the shuttle. Now we have a shuttle that cannot land unmanned because the pilots wanted job security.<br /><br />Now, back to the original point: space travel should not be a show. As a taxpayer, I don't want $100 billion spent on a flag and footprints show, even if it gives Beer Belly Joe that warm patriotic feeling in his tummy. <br /><br />- I'd be happy seeing $100 billion spent to find out how to divert an asteroid - something you require both engineers and scientists for. <br />- I'd be happy seeing $100 billion spent to find out how to use a space mirror to generate electricity<br /><br />I don't however want us to be in the position of having no defensive capability when an asteroid is on a collision path because we spent all our money in sending a bunch of over-paid pilots to jump around on the moon in a pogostick competition.<br /><br />FYI: I'm a chemical engineer, now working as a consultant.

 

[dobbins]

"Now, back to the original point: space travel should not be a show. As a taxpayer, I don't want $100 billion spent on a flag and footprints show, even if it gives Beer Belly Joe that warm patriotic feeling in his tummy"<br /><br />Better that than blowing billions on worthless crap like investigating the effects of microgravity on tadpoles. At least the people who are paying the vast majority of the costs get warm feeling instead of nothing at all.<br /><br />The fact that the public you despise so much isn't getting anything out of the ISS is why they don't care if you lose your overpriced toy.<br />

 

[tmccort]

<br />Dobbins are you familiar with the term "straw man"?

 

[dobbins]

"Dobbins are you familiar with the term "straw man"?"<br /><br />Haven't you noticed that I'm giving people a dose of their own mecidine? That I'm showing them the same scorn they show towards the public that is paying for the space program and/or the proponants of maned exploration?<br />

 

[tmccort]

<br />What?

 

[gsuschrist]

Funding in the USA is not secret. O'keefe, Griffin et al (including Bush) have no more access to funding info for NASA than you or I do for 08 and beyond. The President is not concerned about the minutia of funding for NASA 1, 5 or 20 years down the road. He has NO control other than a negative one, the Veto. Funding for NASA is controlled by the Congress and that means you and I. <br /><br /> The only exception under U.S. law is spending for programs directly impacting national security (secret military research, development, etc.) and programs like the Shuttle, ISS, etc, would not be covered under those provisions.<br /><br /> We live in a democracy. If you want more dollars for NASA then emphasize that to your Rep. Don't Email. Write and phone. The squeaky wheel gets the oil!

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"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."</i><br /><br />It makes absolutely no sense to get to "U.S. Core Complete" if you're not going to go further, as the additional solar arrays and Node 2 serve no purpose other than to provide power and a physical connection to the European Columbus module, the Japanese Experiment Module, and any other modules that might be added.

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>he fact that the public you despise so much isn't getting anything out of the ISS is why they don't care if you lose your overpriced toy<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Um. Do you read posts, or just randomly respond to push your agenda? You imply that I am supporting a continued investment in the ISS. Please show me where I said this.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Funding for NASA is controlled by the Congress and that means you and I.</font>/i><br /><br />I generally agree with your post, but I just wanted to point out that the President gets the budget ball rolling by submitting a budget request to Congress. The degree of similarity between this proposed budget and the budget that lands on the President's desk for signature depends on a number of issues (e.g., if the party of the President also controls the houses of Congress).<br /><br />There are about two dozen people who are really important: the chairperson and vice chairperson of the appropriation and authorization subcommittees related to NASA in the Senate and House of Representatives. I urge people to send letters to these people (in addition to your local representatives).<br /><br />Finally, you probably want to send a letter to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the White House (aka the President's Science Advisor), Dr. John Marburger.</i>

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Haven't you noticed that I'm giving people a dose of their own mecidine? That I'm showing them the same scorn they show towards the public that is paying for the space program and/or the proponants of maned exploration? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Again, random assumption of the point of view of others. You are not giving anyone a "dose of their own medicine". You are simply picking at a phrase in a post and trying to push your own agenda in a rather acrimonius way, and insulting the scientific community that not only makes space travel possible, but also researches the very drugs that keep you alive.<br /><br />FYI, if you'd bothered to ask me, you'd have found out that I am not at all a proponent of manned exploration - ISS, shuttle, or any other. In fact, my point of view is that there is no purpose for manned exploration. <br /><br />-NK

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"As for the anti-bush rant, a knee jerk reaction from some Democrats to the VSE is expected simply because Bush proposed it."</i><br /><br />Why do you automatically assume that I'm a Democrat? The immediate response is to assume that someone is either Republican or Democrat... not that one might be independent and criticising the Republican Party based on its own merit. But that's the extent of American thinking these days... "black or white," "Democrat or Republican," "patriot or anti-patriot," "winner or loser"...<br /><br />I will not deny that I lean toward the left on many issues, but for the record, I am an independent. I don't vote strictly along party lines, and I have certainly voted for Republicans...an example would be Senator Arlen Specter in this last election.

 

[dobbins]

"I am not at all a proponent of manned exploration"<br /><br />But you act like it's a personal insult if someone isn't a proponant of funding space science.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Griffin ... has a lot more info than we have.</font>/i><br /><br />I certainly hope that is the case. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></i>

 

[radarredux]

>> <i>"...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 /> /> <i><font color="yellow">I'm speechless...</font>/i><br /><br />I was wondering about that line myself. I came to the following <i>tentative</i> conclusion: None of the proposed timelines showing anything being accomplished in Pres. Bush's time in office (ending Jan. 09), so Bush cannot get any politcal wins from NASA. On the other hand, another major failure (e.g., loss of another shuttle) could have negative implications for NASA, Bush, and ultimately his agenda.<br /><br />So, no upside potential (to Bush) with flying the shuttle during his term, but definite possible downside potential during his term.</i>

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But you act like it's a personal insult if someone isn't a proponant of funding space science<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Again, where do I imply anything like this? Please point it out. I view it as insulting to scientists when someone considers the scientists that make space travel possible "stupid". <br /><br />Please stop making false statements about people write. Take the trouble to read their post, and ask for clarification, instead of jumping to erroneous conclusions.

 

[dobbins]

the scientists stupid?<br /><br />No, I consider many of the proponants of science over maned spaceflight to be crass and self centered. There are more than a few who would gladly cut the entire maned program to get funds for their own agenda, who insult the people who support maned space flight, and who cry like babies if I treat their science agenda with the same contempt they have for maned space flight.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">criticising the Republican Party based on its own merit.</font>/i><br /><br />The Republicans have been doing a pretty good job of criticizing Republicans lately. I think the most important people calling for cuts at NASA are Republicans -- the deficit hawks are finally starting to wake from their long slumber.<br /><br />The proposed cuts at NASA (at least as led by the Republicans) are not so much a critique of NASA or the VSE but as part of a larger realization that tough decisions need to be made thoughout government in order to get spending under control.</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"The proposed cuts at NASA (at least as led by the Republicans) are not so much a critique of NASA or the VSE but as part of a larger realization that tough decisions need to be made thoughout government in order to get spending under control."</i><br /><br />Are you saying they're finally starting to see what should have been obvious years ago? I have an idea, though. Instead of gutting worthwhile programs like NASA and compromising our nation's leadership in science and exploration, how about rolling back the irresponsible tax cuts that we never could really afford or maybe stop spending hundreds of billions on this hopeless bloody mess in Iraq that had nothing to do with terrorism.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">how about rolling back the irresponsible tax cuts</font>/i><br /><br />There is a lot being discussed including rolling back some of the tax cuts, cutting more social programs, cutting major military programs, and delaying the senior drug prescription plan. In short, there is a lot of pain to go around.<br /><br />One problem that isn't discussed much in the general media is about 2010 the Social Security expenditures will start exceeding revenues. In theory, Social Security will start drawing down its savings account, but that money has already been spent. So where is the money going to come from to cover these losses?</i>

 

[n_kitson]

Don't let the facts get in the way of your ramblings.

 

[arkangel1]

Don't be turned off with NASA. Be absolutely against the moronic idiots in the US Senate, Congress, Supreme Court and the White House. That is where the traitors of our once great nation reside.<br />I was at Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center during it's greatest accomplisments (1958 to 1992 and 627 launchings ago)<br />Wake up America! You have been sold down the river. Only YOU can change it, IF it can still be changed?<br />Ark

 

[dobbins]

The fact is the science advocates have done more damage to NASA's popular support than any other factor.<br />