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

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How challenging can Soyuz training be, anyhow? They basically strap themselves into that tin can and wait to reach orbit,<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You might want to re-read this story<br />The training that at least the tourists go through apparently is not the easiest kind. I remember reading another article about ms. Ansari where she said its not really a walk in the park either.

 

[erioladastra]

"So why do they need the shuttle once the station is fully completed if it isnt political"<br /><br />1) For up/down mass of scientific payloads. Soyuz is not adequate.<br />2) For repair equipment. Right now we are trying to stage everything we can but just like the SARJ shows we can have unexpected problems and we will still need BIG upmass capability which you won't have without the shuttle.

 

[erioladastra]

"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. "<br /><br />Since Soyuz will still be the escape vehicle, americans train now on it and will continue to do so.

 

[radarredux]

>> <i>"So why do they need the shuttle once the station is fully completed if it isnt political"</i><br />1)... 2)...<br /><br />I would add<br />3) To avoid losing losing critical personnel, contractors, and capability.<br /><br />I recently read that a $1 million cut in the manned space program (to delay the program and redirect funds elsewhere) takes $1.4 million to recover because of the need to either retain the capability or restart the capability.

 

[acid_frost]

I was under the impression that SpaceX "Dragon" would be making up the gap of the retired Shuttle and the readiness of the Orion. Am i not mistaken? According to their site that is the case they are laying out and what NASA is hoping for. As for Administrations and such, NASA should go more private to perhaps bring in more or simply farm out the work so that NASA doesn't need to rely on worthless Administrations to keep us in space.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />A

 

[steve82]

If Obama gets elected this may very well be what happens.

 

[qso1]

erioladastra:<br />Since Soyuz will still be the escape vehicle, americans train now on it and will continue to do so.<br /><br />Me:<br />Do they recieve the full Soyuz training curriculum or do they do an abbreviated version? <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]

1207:<br />Politically, the Congress will NOT be sitting still with a FIVE year grounding of US Human Space flight.<br /><br />Me:<br />Don't bet on it, they seemd fine with the four year hiatus between the ASTP mission and STS-1. Carter was the first President of the space age not to have a single American human space mission take place on his watch.<br /><br />1207:<br />Now, whether or not anything comes of it is another matter. I would bet money that the present Shuttle launches WILL not go off as scheduled and so the program will end when the ISS is built.<br /><br />Me:<br />I don't expect some of the shuttle flights to go of on schedule either and I agree that the shuttle will retire once its ISS missions are fullfilled. Will that occur in July 2010? Maybe, but it may be a few weeks or months later. We all pretty much know how things sometimes go in the shuttle world. Though it hasn't been publically mentioned that I know of, ISS was probably the main reason the shuttle program wasn't halted permanently after Columbia.<br /><br />The private industry effort is growing to be sure. Its just a matter of time now to see if their plans shape up to being anywhere near reality. <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>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Don't bet on it, they seemd fine with the four year hiatus between the ASTP mission and STS-1<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The sky didnt exactly start falling post Challenger or post Columbia either. Both had more than two years of "gap" after the accidents.<br />And once again, even if SpaceX or COTS competitors wont be flying people by that time to orbit, somebody WILL be flying people suborbital, and thats still manned spaceflight. No gap, regardless of what NASA does.

 

[3488]

Hi no_way,<br /><br />The USA will still have a minimum five year gap in meaningful manned spaceflight <br />from home soil post STS & pre Orion. There is<br />no escaping that fact.<br /><br />A few suborbital joy rides by wealthy hobbyists with deep pockets is not really <br />what anyone would call meaningful spaceflight. <br /><br />COTS is just a waste of time & money, when NASA could instead be properly funded & develop the<br />Orion CEV in a shorter timeframe, rather than relying on amateurs who so far, <br />have been less than reliable. <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>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"A few suborbital joy rides by wealthy hobbyists with deep pockets is not really <br />what anyone would call meaningful spaceflight."</font><br /><br />Andrew, what exactly do you consider meaningful spaceflight? Those "joyrides" are only a beginning. Without them, human spaceflight will never advance beyond the ability of a select and relatively small number of government employees getting an occasional chance to go to space. Is that what you want?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"COTS is just a waste of time & money, when NASA could instead be properly funded & develop the Orion CEV in a shorter timeframe, rather than relying on amateurs who so far, have been less than reliable."</font><br /><br />And should NASA <i>not</i> be "properly funded" what then? Should the entire effort to become a spacefaring species be held up until proper funding of national space agencies is in place? History, and current politics, would suggest that you are wishing for something that isn't going to happen.<br /><br />Besides, those private efforts, which you often denigrate, will not interfere in any way with NASA funding and may in the long run provide cheaper and more reliable access to space. Isn't there room for both private <i>and</i> public efforts?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[docm]

And I'd bet that the vast majority of engineers working on Ares I wish they were working on anything else. It's the higher-ups that are enamored with it, not the grunts who probably prefer Direct 2 or EELV's....anything but "the stick". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[3488]

Sorry guys, it is just so sad to see NASA being killed off by a thousand cuts.<br /><br />NASA has achieved so much in the fields of both Manned & Unmanned Spaceflight<br />& it seems the long term future lies with wealthy private individuals with deep pockets<br />& wealthy fare paying passengers.<br /><br />Chances are I am wrong & need to gem up a lot.<br /><br />I fully retract my statements, sorry docm & swampcat. I was stepping way out of line.<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>

 

[erioladastra]

"Don't bet on it, they seemd fine with the four year hiatus between the ASTP mission and STS-1. Carter was the first President of the space age not to have a single American human space mission take place on his watch. "<br /><br />What you are forgetting is that the PLANS were to have a smaller gap and things stretched out. Here, we know we are having a BIG gap and it is very likely to expand. People are far less likely to 'hang on for that'. Plus unless the next president clearly makes it a priority I can see massive amounts of people leaving farily soon.

 

[vulture2]

"suborbital joy rides by wealthy hobbyists with deep pockets" is a pretty good description of the early decades of commercial aviation. When I was young it was still rare to travel on a vacation by plane. Eventually the technology advanced and the cost declined. The role of NACA was to serve the aviation industry and help it achieve its goals. Today NASA cannot advance technology because it's spending its budget on obsolete but heavily subsidzed ELVs that compete with industry.

 

[kosmonavtkaa]

Comments at NASAWatch on the Bill. One gets the impression that the Congressman doesn't like Russia much? <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" /> "RUSSIA IS NOT A RELIABLE PARTNER" etc... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[grdja]

No, I'm sorry, but difference from Wright brother's first plane and Boeing 787 is much lesser than difference from Space Ship 1 and R7. It will take literally hundreds of times more energy to go to orbit and return, craft has to have thermal protection for reentry... <br /><br />Only realistic contender is SpaceX, and yet they haven't launched anything into LEO. Not even a grapefruit. And even if Falcon 1 starts flying and delivering payloads, it's a tough question whether will in the end launch prices be any different that current ones.

 

[Huntster]

>> Partnership in space exploration and ABM facilities in Czech Republic - where is a connection??!!! <br /><br />It's not a direct connection between events, it's fear that because the U.S. opposes Russia's assistance of hostile countries and Russia opposes the anti-missile system, Russia might hold the U.S.'s lack of a space transport system over their head and deny access the the ISS. In reality, this is an extremely remote possibility, in my opinion, since Russia is significantly invested in the program themselves and the ISS would be unusable without U.S. ground support. This is simply a case of Congressional paranoia and grandiose statements aimed at making himself look strong in the eyes of his constituents. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kosmonavtkaa]

<font color="orange"><i>"a throwback to the Cold War era..."</i></font><br /><br />The Congressman describes himself! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

photoneye,<br /><br />Judging from history, I would say that the Russians are far more committed to the International Space Station than the United States is. The Russians have consistently focused on learning to live and work in space, whereas the United States seems interested only in displaying their technological leadership.<br /><br />If the U.S. were truly committed to off-planet exploration, they would forget about building a launch vehicle which duplicates the capabilities of existing rockets, and focus on developing hardware for use on the Moon.<br /><br />I am wondering if the staffing levels of the ISS will ever reach the planned for 6 crew members? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[qso1]

huntster:<br />It's not a direct connection between events...aimed at making himself look strong in the eyes of his constituents.<br /><br />Me:<br />Well stated. <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>

 

[frodo1008]

Well we wanted the Russians to become capitalists, and so they have! If they wish to sell arms and nuclear technology to other countries that we don't like then that is what we (the US) has trained and wanted them to do. We are still the number one seller of arms and technology to the world, do why would we object to the Russians doing what we already do??<br /><br />I am an American and I say that is a bit on the hypocritical side of thinking!!<br /><br />Besides, the Russians would then give up the most lucrative source of funding for their own space efforts with the US? I really don't think so!<br /><br />Also, it is NOT against the Monroe Doctrine for a European country to sell anything it wishes to any South American country, that is capitalism people, and if this dinosaur of a congressman does not like it then he should become a Communist!!<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[qso1]

This is true...we definetily wanted the Russians to be more like us ideologically. Now that its happened somewhat, it might be a case of "Be careful what you wish for". <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]

Some years back, the United States and Soviet Union were the largest arms exporters in the world. One need only look at the military forces of other countries to see that the predominent equipment is either U.S. or Soviet.<br /><br />Seem it has a lot to do with both communism and capitolism. Both competing for the edge. Whether that edge is in space, nuclear weapons, or conventional arms.<br /><br />Both nations have valid reasons for getting into this position. <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>

 

[thereiwas]

The difference between an offensive and a defensive weapon is just in <i>when</i> you push the button. Once a missle is in place you can change your mind at any time about that.<br /><br />Russia put those missles in Cuba in response to something the US was doing in Europe.