White House considering Shuttle termination in 2006

[wvbraun]

From nasawatch.com:<br /><br /><i>Editor's 19 Sep note: David Radzanowski at OMB issued an action to NASA at the beginning of September asking the agency to provide him with an estimate of what shutdown costs would result from a termination of the Space Shuttle program in FY 2006. NASA provided a response to OMB on 9 September.<br /><br /> Editor's 21 Sep note: Reporters have been calling NASA PAO to get a comment on this NASA Watch posting. PAO's response is something along the lines of "we continue to hold regular meetings with OMB ..." i.e. no confirmation, no denial. Meanwhile, OMB PAO has been calling NASA and asking them what they should say in response to media inquiries and telling reporters to call NASA. Stay tuned.<br /><br /> Editor's 22 Sep note: The issue of whether or not to shut down the Shuttle program is still under discussion at the White House. The fact that the issue has not been dropped has a number of people involved rather concerned.<br /><br /></i><br /><br /><br />Interesting. Is this a good idea? Would it save money and make it easier to implement the VSE or would it cause more harm than good (layoffs, loss of capabilities, expertise)?

 

[trailrider]

There is no question that the issue of cancelling all (at least) manned space exploration, including the CEV/CRV/Lunar program, in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, has been raised, and will be again.<br /><br />The problem with permanently grounding the Shuttle orbiters is the loss of our industrial capabilities which could impact not only NASA but our national defense capabilities. (There is always overlap and cross-pollenization between civilian and defense technology.)<br /><br />In addition, we committed to our European and Japanese allies that we would "finish" the ISS. They depended on us, and built their modules to sizes that can only be lifted to the ISS by the Shuttle orbiters. If we renig on those commitments, there will be serious repercussions in our international relations! The attitude (which is always there just under the surface anyway) will be that the United States cannot be depended upon to fulfill our commitments if any sort of problems, natural or unnatural, of a major proportion should occur. This could create even more of a temptation to terrorists.<br /><br />People (even Aviation Week!) are not too thrilled with the plan for our breakout from LEO, because it looks like a rehash of Apollo. What is going to happen if we don't try to maintain a space capability in LEO (with Shuttle), and "someday" decide to return to space. We'll REALLY be starting from scratch!<br /><br />We all need to contact our Representatives and Senators, and urge them, in the strongest possible terms, for at least the reasons I've listed above, to NOT cut NASA's budget!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Not going to happen.

 

[vt_hokie]

If this happens, it will truly be a travesty, and I will be so disgusted with NASA for the rest of my life that I will likely not support anything that it proposes. And with the credibility lost by cancelling the shuttle program and failing to meet ISS obligations, I don't think anyone will ever believe NASA is capable of delivering on any promises it makes.

 

[gpurcell]

I think we're likely to see a phased shutdown, with Discovery phased out in FY06 or 07, Atlantis in FY 08/09, and Endeavor in FY 10.<br /><br />This will increase the funds that can be diverted to CEV development while retaining some capacity and MAKING SURE shuttle stays dead after 2010.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"It is not a NASA decision."</i><br /><br />True, I suppose. Well, to quote a bumper sticker I just saw the other day, "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry!" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[vogon13]

I think this will free up funds to replace Walmarts and trailer houses that should never have been built in hurricane susceptible locations in the first place.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[lunatic133]

nah, if kerry had won we wouldn't have a space program TO threaten cutting...

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"nah, if kerry had won we wouldn't have a space program TO threaten cutting..."</i><br /><br />I disagree. I think it would have been more of the status quo. The ISS would be completed, but we might not have much of a plan for beyond that. Still, with policies that would result in better fiscal health overall, I would argue that the space program would be less likely to be raided for funds under a Kerry administration.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>I think we're likely to see a phased shutdown, with Discovery phased out in FY06 or 07, Atlantis in FY 08/09, and Endeavor in FY 10.<br /><br />This will increase the funds that can be diverted to CEV development while retaining some capacity and MAKING SURE shuttle stays dead after 2010.<<br /><br />I think this may be coming from the "Shuttles cost this much" based on last years figure.<br /><br />As far as retring one Orbiter ahead of time (by years) the funds freed wouldn't be 'that much'. I note the cost of FY04 and FY05 as they were so high due to implementing CAIB recommedations.<br /><br />I believe it was well over $4 billion last year on RTF efforts.

 

[kdavis007]

Well I guess the Hubble is dead.. Oh Well...

 

[vt_hokie]

It's only going to take 7 more flights to get through installation of Node 2, so if they can get 17 more flights in (not including the Hubble flight), shouldn't that allow them to install all of the remaining station elements, including Node 3 and Cupola?

 

[vt_hokie]

That's what I've read, but I don't understand why. If 7 more flights gets us through Node 2, then are you telling me that 10 additional assembly flights beyond that will only get us the Columbus module and Japanese Experiment Module? What are all the other flights for? If there are logistics flights included, maybe those are the ones that should be eliminated. <br /><br />As for CEV delivering Node 3 and the cupola, I don't think that's physically possible. The CEV capsule won't have a cargo bay, obviously, nor will it have the shuttle's remote manipulator system. <edit />Okay, I see your reference to the CEV unpressurized pallet. What exactly is that?</edit>

 

[rvastro]

>>The hubble servicing mission was mentioned to be the one of the 18 remaining Shuttle mission in the Washing Post today. <<<br /><br />Excellent!! I heard about the SM-4 mission being returned to the manifest several months ago from a former astronaut. This just cements it for me that we will fly!

 

[grooble]

Guys, are all these hurricanes going to impact the space shuttle plans?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Katrina already has. I do not think Rita will.</font>/i><br /><br />Rita may have an indirect impact. Additional costs to the government, increased deficits, decreased consumer confidence, increased electric and heating bills for the NASA facilities.</i>

 

[Leovinus]

What I think is funny is that some members of this board voted Bush because they thought he'd be better for the space program. That's funny, in a sad sort of way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[astrophoto]

More anti-Bush tripe from Leo. How exactly would Kerry have proceeded with the Space program? Oh, I know .... status quo ... budget reductions to give more money to the poor ... great for space exploration.<br /><br />One question on-topic now. Have the nodes and their hardware already been built and are waiting around for deployment or are there phases that have yet to be constructed that can be nixxed without impact?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>What I think is funny is that some members of this board voted Bush because they thought he'd be better for the space program. That's funny, in a sad sort of way.<<br /><br />I think that had something to do with what Kerry's people said about NASA. I'll try to search for it. <br /><br />Edit: Interesting, it was wiped off the archive!

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">And we were right !! </font><br /><br />sad... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What I think is funny is that some members of this board voted Bush because they thought he'd be better for the space program.</font>/i><br /><br />I read about a study regarding Congressional voting records for space. Democrats were much more inclined to support space when funding went to their districts. Republicans, when compared to Democrats, were more likely to support space even when funding did not go to their districts. That is, Republicans' support for space tended to be more altruistic.</i>

 

[darkenfast]

Astrophoto, as far as I know, the Columbus lab has been built and has been sitting in Europe for some time. I think there is some Japanes stuff built as well. <br />There's an article here somewhere.

 

[darkenfast]

Politicians and the Space Program? Generally, Democrats are more hostile to the program than Republicans, but it is by no means an overwhelming characteristic. A rabidly socialist Democratic Congressman with a NASA center or major contractor in his district will scream bloody murder if someone tries to cut it. I think some of the dislike that the Left has is the result of classic liberalism being replaced by socialism as its doctrine. Liberalism promoted equality of opportunity, socialism demands equality of outcome. The Space Program requires thousands of "elites": engineers, scientists, astronauts and work of an extremely high quality. Socialism stresses the reduction of everyone to the lowest common denominator.

 

[giofx]

Well, surely dubya's wargame in Iraq will not help NASA's space program... add the worst hurricane season and the huge deficit to that and you got the pic!