U.S. urged to keep space shuttle flying past 2010

[frodo1008]

LBJ was out of the presidency long before the arguments over the shuttle took place. It was Nixon that set NASA's budget in such a manner that the only thing left of Von Braun's original plans to go on to the moon for a full time base, and then go on to Mars could never be done. The only thing to survive such a budget was the shuttle. And it barely made it through, with the help of the military which made it the kind of vehicle that it eventually became. Which was eventually an economic failure without the other things to give it a higher purpose. True, a magnificent failure, but a failure none the less.<br /><br />So now we have another war, do you think that NASA's budget is going to survive this one any better than it survived the other one?<br /><br />Unfortunately, and very sadly, I think not!! <br /><br />I really, really, really wish it were otherwise!!!

 

[bobblebob]

"The United States should keep flying the space shuttles past their 2010 retirement date to avoid depending on Russia to fly astronauts to the International Space Station"<br /><br />So this is more about not wanting Russia to be the only ones flying to and from the station? Nothing to do with crew safety in flying a shuttle well past its sell by date?

 

[3488]

I do not see the issue of Russia making trips to the ISS being a problem.<br /><br />NASA astronauts can still be trained & go aboard Soyuz, until the Orion CEV is ready to go.<br /><br />Perhaps it is politics, but from an engineering view point, there is no real problem with Soyuz<br />making the trips during the interum, post STS & pre Orion CEV.<br /><br />True the American manned spaceflight from home soil will be grounded for a while, but NASA<br />is working on the post STS program, so no matter what, it will not be a permanent situation. It is<br />a matter of time only.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[bobblebob]

Politics was the primary reason i was thinking of. Like you say there shouldnt be a problem using only the Soyuz to get them up there. So why do they need the shuttle once the station is fully completed if it isnt political, just to have an American manned missions during the 5 or so years between STS and Orion?

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I am betting that Orion, as envisioned right now, will not fly. Ever. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Oh, how are you going to compensate for the your loss on that bet? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

I don't see the point.<br /><br />Why risk your astronauts on spacecraft that is not safe rather than one that is?<br /><br />Is there a foreign policy reason? <br /><br />Obviously Weldon wants his voters to see him as conservative rather than liberal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

ThereIWas:<br />It would end NASA manned spaceflight. It would not end all manned spaceflight. It probably would not even end manned spaceflight from Weldon's district.<br /><br />Me:<br />Correct, I forgot to specify NASA human spaceflight but at the moment, only three nations and one individual have ever actually sent humans into space and if NASA manned spaceflight ended, that would be the end of human spaceflight in Weldons district (What other district does NASA launch humans into space from?), and the U.S. at least until the private sector takes it over.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

frodo1008:<br />NASA's budget is far too small to be even on the radar of any new administration,<br /><br />Me:<br />It was detected by both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama's radars in recent weeks. NASAs budget has been held to unrealistic levels for decades based on the false premise (One Obama uses) that cutting NASAs budget will benefit other worthy causes.<br /><br />frodo1008:<br />NASA may even see an increase (a small increase, but a possible one at least).<br /><br />Me:<br />This is indeed possible, but if recent history is a guide...thats all NASA is likely to get. The last full year of the Clinton Presidency saw the largest of four budget surplusses. That surplus was $236B dollars or far larger than NASAs annual budget, yet no real change at NASA resulted. In fact, NASAs budget was reduced during the record surplus years.<br /><br />1999 NASA was allocated $13.665B dollars, down from S14.206B dollars the previous year. The 1999 surplus was $124.360 B dollars.<br /><br />2000 NASA was allocated $13.442B. The 2000 surplus was $236.993 B dollars.<br /><br />frodo1008.<br />The only thing that I think may doom NASA...<br /><br />Me:<br />If anti human spaceflight critics get their way, they will use the shuttle retirement and eventual ISS retirements to doom NASA for good. Unfortunate but maybe this is kind of meant to be. Had the shuttle not been an economic failure, these budget problems would have long since gone away because the shuttle would have by now allowed commercial space ventures to become operational sooner than they will likely be now.<br /><br />frodo1008:<br />Remember, it was the Viet Nahm war that doomed NASA to the shuttle in the first place.<br /><br />Me:<br />Vietnam was often cited as a reason we couldn't afford large NASA budgets but Vietnam and larger NASA budgets went away three plus decades ago. Fact is, any excuse to cut or hold NASA funding to low levels will do. I noticed the Clinton Admin didn't do the opposite during his four surplus years.<br /><br></br> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

willpittenger:<br />Actually, Vietnam was only one of the reasons why President Johnson (BTW: a Democrat) moved to spend less on Gemini and Apollo. He also had his "Great Society" plan to pay for.<br /><br />Me:<br />Though a lot of people blame Nixon. The budget numbers bear out your claim that Johnson moved to spend less, starting in 1967.<br /><br />1966:<br />NASA record budget of $5.9 B dollars.<br /><br />1967:<br />NASA budget began a long series of declines. The 67 budget was $5.5B dollars followed in 68 by a $4.7B dollar budget...$4.2B dollars when Nixon was sworn in.<br /><br />It is true that as frodo1008 pointed out, the Nixon Admin refused to fund the Von Braun plan except for the shuttle. I mentioned the long period of declines and except for 1972 and possibly 1975. NASA budgets were consistently cut under Nixon.<br /><br />Contrary to another popular belief...NASA budgets were cut under Carter. Almost the entire Carter Presidency is characterized by NASA budget increases, but this simply reflects the shuttle programs increasing need for funding because otherwise, Carter was not that NASA friendly. Especially considering his V.P. (Walter Mondale) who was one of NASAs most ardent critics.<br /><br />BTW, my budget numbers are from "The World Almanac And Book Of Facts". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

bobblebob:<br />Politics was the primary reason i was thinking of.<br /><br />Me:<br />I pretty much agree. The only technical reason to have shuttle continue flying during the hiatus would be the difference in payload and crew capacity vs Soyuz. This applies more to payload than crew. Though the reason is largely political, you gotta admit, it looks bad for the so called "Worlds only" superpower to be unable to send humans into space because of poor budgeting.<br /><br />Talk about reliving the 1970s, another hiatus in manned spaceflight? Bet nobody predicted that in 1981. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>but NASA<br />is working on the post STS program, so no matter what, it will not be a permanent situation. It is<br />a matter of time only.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Actually, that is not assured. Those budget problems have a way of growing. There has been much speculation on this board as to whether or not a Democratic President would kill Orion or at least delay it in order to save a comparative handful of dollars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[3488]

The scenario is that there will be at least a five year gap in American manned spaceflight<br />from home soil post STS & pre Orion, what ever happens.<br /><br />I wonder if NASA is going to send astronauts for Soyuz training any time soon, to bridge<br />the gap between STS & Orion?<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

I would guess NASA is probably going to wait out any decision on training astronauts for Soyuz until they see if the next Presidential Administration will actually fully go through with the Constellation program. Considering nominal shuttle training is two years or so and NASA has till 2010 at the earliest for shuttle retirement...they could easily hold off on Soyuz training till probably mid 2009 latest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<In the very same thread, if you remember, i bet against SG that there wont be four shuttle launches in 2007. I won that bet, not that i am particularly proud or happy about it. ><br /><br />Were you the guy who also predicted that the shuttle would not even fly four more times before 2010?

 

[gunsandrockets]

<That is not possible. The J2X is the long pole and it can not be ready by 2011 no matter how much money you throw at it. ><br /><br />That seems awfully pessimistic considering the original development history of the J-2.

 

[qso1]

Even in the 1960s Apollo was sometimes called a crash program, meaning accellerated. These days maybe it should be called a "Creep" program considering how much longer everything takes to develop, even when the technology is not pressed that hard. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...i bet against SG that there wont be four shuttle launches in 2007. <br />I won that bet, not that i am particularly proud or happy about it.</font><br /><br />So what's the 2008 bet? Although a fantastic accomplishment, the shuttle<br />program has been a big disappointment as far as the vision of its making<br />flight to LEO "routine" is concerned. It's really disappointing to see them<br />struggling with the latest (fuel gage) problem which looks more like the <br />type of problem seen in the shakedown phase in a new program.<br />It's bewildering to see a mature shuttle program, nearing its end <br />dealing with what looks like a "newbie" problem.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"...i bet against SG that there wont be four shuttle launches in 2007.<br />I won that bet, not that i am particularly proud or happy about it.<br /><br />So what's the 2008 bet?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I wouldnt know, i originally bet with s_g because we were in the middle of year, and i thought it highly unlikely that there wont be unforeseen delays in any of the remaining launches, like there always are every now and then.<br /><br />For all i know they could plan to launch ten times this year.

 

[no_way]

Yes i saw that, the 122 slip made six from five. All of the orbiters have to fly twice.<br />Thats quite a workout.

 

[bobblebob]

How much contingency is left now to complete the ISS before 2010? Everytime a launch gets delayed one of the MMT say they have enough contingency to complete the ISS, but this time must be running low the more delays we're getting

 

[larper]

I am betting on 4 launches next year. Meaning, I would have bet on 3/5, but now am betting on 4/6.<br /><br />Which means, that basically, 2 years after the 2010 termination commitment, they are 2 launches behind. Given 4 years total, that would be ~4 launches behind schedule in 2010. Meaning that they will have to attempt ~4 launches in 2011, which I would wager would be 3 actual, meaning that there is a 2012 launch. Which is what I have based my prediction on all along. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Its a moot point. Some astronauts already begin or end their shifts at ISS via Soyuz. All have to be trained for emergency egress -- regardless of how they arrive or leave.<br /><br />Edit: Corrected typo. There are some things that a spell checker can't catch. This was one of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[tanstaafl76]

I'm sure you mean it's a moot point unless we're sending someone to the ISS that can't speak <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

Soyuz training in any case is no showstopper. As you pointed out, the astronauts already have some experience and training with Soyuz. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[lampblack]

How challenging can Soyuz training be, anyhow? They basically strap themselves into that tin can and wait to reach orbit, with the computers handling all the hard parts. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>