Here's a BBC story that mentions Administrator Griffin's frustration:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7612790.stm--- CHAS
No additional money of significance is going to be provided to accelerate Orion/Ares, and even if it were, at this point we can't get there earlier than 2014 . . . .
I have two questions for you guys:If the administration completely defunded the ISS now as a protest against the Russian invasion of Georgia and decommissioned the shuttle in 2009 instead of 2010, how much money could be realistically freed up? And as Griffin's email seems to imply, if it's true that the schedule for flying Ares/Orion depends on funding levels more than anything else, if the funds freed up by defunding the ISS and an early shuttle decommissioning were channeled into Ares/Orion instead, could the Ares launch date be moved up to perhaps 2013 or 2012?
...What really bothers me is that if billions and billions are spent on extending the shuttle for the sole purpose of going to the ISS, the extension will come at the cost of delays in the lunar exploration program-as Griffin himself points out--not to mention "what that does for U.S. leadership in space in the long term."...
According to multiple government and industry sources, Shawcross [White House examiner of the OMB] is believed to represent a group of mid-level White House staffers who shepherded Griffin through his confirmation and his early months as Administrator. This group constitutes a faction that has been hostile to the Shuttle and station's role at the center of the human spaceflight program, and have believed for years that termination of both projects were needed to reinvigorate U.S. space policy and make room for more advanced exploration missions, such as lunar bases and manned trips to Mars.Quietly, and out of the limelight, this group has collectively played a crucial role in the drafting and implementation of President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration. In the process, they also repeatedly clashed with O'Keefe during his tenure, something widely known in Washington space policy circles but rarely reported in the news media.
It's pretty clear from Griffin's memo that there would be little hand wringing within the present administration if the ISS were defunded now rather than in 2016.
What really bothers me is that if billions and billions are spent on extending the shuttle for the sole purpose of going to the ISS...
With spares in place for shuttle till 2016 and Orion/DIVH taking over human duties ~ 2014, throw in the possibility of flying shuttle unmanned via RCO capability for the last few years to fulfill contracts.
Quote from: bubbagret on 09/17/2008 09:16 pmWith spares in place for shuttle till 2016 and Orion/DIVH taking over human duties ~ 2014, throw in the possibility of flying shuttle unmanned via RCO capability for the last few years to fulfill contracts.Can't just throw unmanned shuttle in. It's not a done deal and is probably not worth the cost to make it happen. It would be much cheaper and less risky overall to fly all the missions with crews.
Quote from: Warren Platts on 09/17/2008 04:14 pmIt's pretty clear from Griffin's memo that there would be little hand wringing within the present administration if the ISS were defunded now rather than in 2016.Unless there's corroboration from another source, it doesn't seem that clear. By this thinking, this is the same administration that could have proposed giving up on ISS and Shuttle after the Columbia accident. At a time when there may have been a better political opportunity to do so, there was no attempt to kill ISS. In fact, the opposite was true: the ISS was viewed as important enough that the Bush Administration endorsed continuing Shuttle in order to finish ISS assembly before concentrating on exploration goals. Congress officially endorsed those goals in the 2005 authorization.
According to multiple government and industry sources, Shawcross [OMB examiner] is believed to represent a group of mid-level White House staffers who shepherded Griffin through his confirmation and his early months as Administrator. This group constitutes a faction that has been hostile to the Shuttle and station's role at the center of the human spaceflight program, and have believed for years that termination of both projects were needed to reinvigorate U.S. space policy and make room for more advanced exploration missions, such as lunar bases and manned trips to Mars.
Quote from: psloss on 09/17/2008 09:24 pmQuote from: bubbagret on 09/17/2008 09:16 pmWith spares in place for shuttle till 2016 and Orion/DIVH taking over human duties ~ 2014, throw in the possibility of flying shuttle unmanned via RCO capability for the last few years to fulfill contracts.Can't just throw unmanned shuttle in. It's not a done deal and is probably not worth the cost to make it happen. It would be much cheaper and less risky overall to fly all the missions with crews.Just nibbling on bits and pieces in Chris's story. None of this, I realize, is actually a done deal. As for less risky, risk is part of why I threw in the RCO twist. Lots of people bring up the risk involved in launching crew on the shuttle. So if Orion does become available, in the speculated time frame from my previous supposition (and the costs were not prohibitive), the RCO option is available to reduce that crew risk. That is, if orion does turn out to be so much safer than shuttle.
Just nibbling on bits and pieces in Chris's story. None of this, I realize, is actually a done deal. As for less risky, risk is part of why I threw in the RCO twist. Lots of people bring up the risk involved in launching crew on the shuttle. So if Orion does become available, in the speculated time frame from my previous supposition (and the costs were not prohibitive), the RCO option is available to reduce that crew risk. That is, if orion does turn out to be so much safer than shuttle.
Wow! I love this stuff! Why left handed (not just using his/her left hand)?