NASA says it will ground future space shuttle flights

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I swear, if it wasn't for the perception that the Press generates, NASA wouldn't hesitate to launch Atlantis is September.</font>/i><br /><br />Shuttle Commander Eileen Collins disagrees. She is responsible for the safety of the crew under her command, and I don't think she is playing for the press.</i>

 

[john_316]

Well I hope Atlantis can launch in September and I hate to say this but keep 'em going every 4 months until the ISS is complete.<br /><br />I think maybe they should shift some of the latter payloads to the Delta IV or Atlas 5 HLV's and call it a day.<br /><br />I hope CEV will at least be ready in 2010 for Launches...<br /><br />I do think Delta IV or Atlas 5 HLV's can burden the weight and cost changes to supply the final ISS components and if you think about it they might be able to add those other components to ISS that where cut out but where completed.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

Thank you, I meant them too. It has always seemed to me that if congress was so concerned about the Russians selling such information and goods to the likes of Iran and North Korea the BEST way would be to insist that NASA buy as much of the excellent but realtively inexpensive space equipment from the Russians! Russian scientists, engineesrs, and production workers that are thus kept busy building such equipment for NASA would NOT be available for other activities!<br /><br />One place that we could start would be to buy extra soyuz capsules to be available in case of emergency on either the ISS itself, or like in the current situation the possibility that a shuttle could be stranded at the ISS.<br />This would be an excellent back up to having another shuttle standing by for such emergencies. When the shuttle program has completed the ISS then I am certain that a useful purpose could still be found for the extra soyuz capsules.

 

[dragon04]

Come on, frodo.. What is the ISS going to do that Mir didn't?<br /><br />And even if the ISS CAN do more than Mir did, what sense is there in completing it 3 years before its life expectancy is over?<br /><br />Be realistic. You want the ISS to be completed at any cost and thereby sacrifice the Moon/Mars initiative just because "we said we would".<br /><br />Who CARES if Mir no longer exists? Are you saying we need to spend another 50 billion dollars to relearn what Mir has already taught us?<br /><br />I don't need a crystal ball to know that spending that much money to even learn 10 percent (and I'm being generous) more than we learned from Mir is not worth the cost.<br /><br />What is it about a space station to you personally that is more important than going back to the Moon and putting men and women on Mars?<br /><br />It seems yours is a doctrine of stagnation. Or am I wrong? And if so, tell me how.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Well this will be the forth posting of this on these boards, but I think it is just too imprtant for just a link. So here goes (remember, you wanted this reply):<br /><br /><br />This will be the third time I have presented this post, but I think the subject is indeed important enough to continue the ongoing discussion and my defense of the ISS is appropriate here. It WILL take some reading as I really do not think that this is a "Sound bite" type of subject! Here goes... <br /><br />Sometime ago I posted this over on the FS forum. Even though it is probably the longest post that I have made (and I realize that I do tend to make long posts) I thought that as we seem to be getting more negative people on M&L that it would actually be even more useful as a starter for a thread over here. <br /><br />Even in its lengthy form I think it is not as complete as I would like it, but if (as I hope ) I get responses I will hopefully be able to expand on it. Will anyway here goes: <br /><br />OK people I really wasn’t going to do this as it will result in a very long post even for me!! However, all of this anger at (1) Manned space in general, (2) NASA, (3) ISS, and (4) STS, has got to have somebody at least try to give reasonable answers. <br /><br />In the first place, it will be the manned space program that will be by far the most important in the long run. I enjoy the robotic exploration phase of the space program as much as anybody. So why would I say this. BECAUSE THE EXPLOITATION OF SPACE WILL BE FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO MANKIND THAN THE EXPLORATION OF SPACE. I know that I am guilty of shouting here, but I really think this needs emphasis! Humanity is going to have to have the ability to exploit the vast resources of the solar system within the next 100 years or our decedents are going to be in VERY big trouble. <br /><br />This is not necessarily because of NEO’s, although that is also a very real possibility in the time frame that I have given. NO, it is mainly because humanity

 

[liquidspace2k]

Well the Life Expectancy might end in 2013 or so. Mir had a life expectancy of only 5 years and it lasted 15, could have lasted longer but Russia was pressured to deorbit it and they didn't really have the money to support both Mir and the ISS at the same time. So the ISS might have the expected life expectancy til 2013 doesn't mean that the station wont be running after that, could be running a long time after that date. <br /><br />The MER rovers on Mars had a life expectancy of only 90 days and look how long they they are running for. A year and a half later they are still doing good. Should they have been stopped at the 90 day point. <br /><br />The ISS could go for a long long time. Just fix and replace the parts that go wrong and your all good.

 

[cello]

first we have to complete current iss project. i believe, station will last for much longer than predicted. station is not so far. we will found ways to add new, not designed yet, modules as needed in the future.

 

[thinice]

Apollo is like a megawatt power station in 19th century: plenty of energy, but what's for? There were no customers for it.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Without manned station on LEO the Monn/Mars initiative is nothing more tnan a sci-fi dream. An axiom.</font></i><br /><br />None of the currently considered plans for the Moon or Mars initiative include using ISS !!!<br /><br />The Apollo program did not use a manned space station !<br /><br />Zubrin's Mars Direct plan does not use a manned space station !

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Excuse me, but mentioned Mars Direct blueprint is a pure sci-fi. I prefer to read books written by REAL scientists</font>/i><br /><br />I think you disrespect Zubrin far too much. Beyond the engineering issue, he has been pounding in-situ resource utilization ("living off the land") for a long time, and now ISRU is taken for granted. Zubrin has been pounding the need for a new HLV for a long time to avoid costly construction in space, and now everyone accepts it as inevitable.<br /><br /> /> <font color="yellow"><i>The ISS is a base and an unique range-field for interplanetary flights.</i></font><br /><br />Get over it dude, NASA doesn't want or need the ISS. There are no plans to use it for planned missions to anywhere!! The US plans to abandon the ISS before the first launch to the Moon.</i>

 

[dragon04]

"Well the Life Expectancy might end in 2013 or so. Mir had a life expectancy of only 5 years and it lasted 15,"<br /><br />You're absolutely right. But I'm not willing to spend billions more dollars on the POSSIBILITY that the ISS mission will be extended.<br /><br />As it is, the ISS is scaled back to a crew of 4. So the original objectives will have to be scaled back proportionally.<br /><br />I think its sending good money after bad. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">As it is, the ISS is scaled back to a crew of 4.</font>/i><br /><br />Where did you hear/read this?<br /><br />The last I knew it was still 2 until shuttles return to normal operations, 3 once normal operations is reached (a German will be the first 3rd crew member (Russia sold one of their slots -- those little capitalists <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />), and 6 a little later.</i>

 

[BReif]

With all due respect, I see this argument over what programs should have priority to accomplish manned spaceflight goals as counter-productive. Whether we complete ISS, then move to the Moon/Mars Initiative, or abandon ISS, and head straight back to the moon may very quickly become irrelevant. What is in danger here is Human Spaceflight itself. Because the CEV is currently designed around a shuttle derived launch system, which has problems, and because there is a lack of funding and enthusiasm for CEV in public circles, CEV could end up just like the NASP, or the X-33, a cancelled vehicle program. That is a very real danger, IMHO. The result is, no human spaceflight program in the United States, perhaps for a generation, or longer. Its a SDC article by Leonard David dated today, 7/31. <br />Forget about the Moon or Mars, Mars Direct, or any other plan to any other destination. To get humans there, you have to have a human spaceflight program, and right now, that in and of itself is in danger. The Shuttle will be retired, ISS will eventually be abandoned, just like Mir was. The question is, will there be a vehicle and a program to follow it. Sitting through the lull in human spaceflight between 1975 and 1981 was tough. No American went into space between Apollo-Soyuz and STS-1. Remember those days? We could well be looking at a much longer period of time where there is no human spaceflight in the very near future. And, I am afraid, without it, public interest will evaporate, and restarting a manned program down the road (back at square one again because of the loss of experienced personnel and the loss of infastructure) may prove too difficult

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What is in danger here is Human Spaceflight itself.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree, this is a concern. The level of build-out of ISS is probably not very important in the long run, and the recent press has been amazingly negative against NASA since the initial RTF was postponed because of the ECO sensor. Eventually this media coverage may translate into general public opinion. Furthermore, NASA and its directions were hardly mentioned during the most recent election, so this may indicate indifference.<br /><br />On the plus side, however, NASA recently got a huge vote of confidence from the House during a recent Authorization Bill. I think right now the VSE has widespread support in Congess. But, with the drumbeat of media, that may change.<br /><br />To summarize my ramblings, I agree with you. We are nitpicking about the small stuff.</i>

 

[john_316]

As I said before folks the next shuttle mission shouldn't have too many delays hopefully and the ET will be fixed.<br /><br />The point-counter point is always taken on theses boards. <br /><br />At one time I was totally against ISS and one time before it I was totally pro Space Station Freedom. So with what I have seen and dealt with I think we need to get ISS core complete and afterwards if they want they can expand it as needed. <br /><br />Yeah it will be nice to have ISS or what have you in LEO for years to come. Just get it done and be done with it.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />