The Bush Administration has made no decision on the end date for ISS operations. We are, of course, concerned that Station operating costs after 2016 will detract from our next major milestone, returning to the Moon by 2020. But while the budget does not presently allocate funds for operating ISS beyond 2016, we are taking no action to preclude it. Decisions regarding U.S. participation in ISS operations after 2016 can only be made by a future Administration and a future Congress. I am sure these will be based on discussions with our international partners, progress toward our Exploration goals, utility of this national laboratory, and the affordability of projected ISS operations. Again, we plan to keep our commitments to our partners, utilizing ISS if it makes sense.
Mark Max Q - 23/1/2008 1:19 PM"So, while we might wish that “off the shelf” EELVs could be easily and cheaply modified to meet NASA’s human spaceflight requirements, the data says otherwise. Careful analysis showed EELV-derived solutions meeting our performance requirements to be less safe, less reliable, and more costly than the Shuttle-derived Ares I and Ares V."Would love to hear what the EELV folks think of that.
while we might wish that “off the shelf” EELVs could be easily and cheaply modified to meet NASA’s human spaceflight requirements, the data says otherwise.
Antares - 23/1/2008 1:46 PMSing with me!:"When you own the information, you can bend it all you want." (John Mayer.)
stockman - 23/1/2008 12:11 PMQuoteThe Bush Administration has made no decision on the end date for ISS operations. We are, of course, concerned that Station operating costs after 2016 will detract from our next major milestone, returning to the Moon by 2020. But while the budget does not presently allocate funds for operating ISS beyond 2016, we are taking no action to preclude it. Decisions regarding U.S. participation in ISS operations after 2016 can only be made by a future Administration and a future Congress. I am sure these will be based on discussions with our international partners, progress toward our Exploration goals, utility of this national laboratory, and the affordability of projected ISS operations. Again, we plan to keep our commitments to our partners, utilizing ISS if it makes sense. I found this paragraph interesting in regards to ISS... it appears that 2016 retirement is FAR from a done thing after all.
Chris Bergin - 23/1/2008 11:30 AMhttp://www.nasa.gov/pdf/208916main_Space_Transportation_Association_22_Jan_08.pdfHere's the part that will make many a coffee be spat over screens in Denver etc. snip... and abort from the Delta IV exceeds allowable g-loads. snip
edkyle99 - 23/1/2008 11:31 AMI see the most important theme here as follows. Griffin thinks he is building an architecture to go to Mars, not to ISS or even to the Moon really. (Never mind that Congress just zeroed the Mars budget!) The Ares/Orion architecture will look better cost-wise than any alternative under the assumption that it will be used for Mars. But what if it is not used for Mars? - Ed Kyle
Thomas - 23/1/2008 2:46 PMI'm glad to see Griffin emphasizing that the switch to the 5 segment booster/J-2X upper stage was for the purposes of reducing the cost/development time of the Ares V and not due to any inherent weakness in the SRB or SSME..
edkyle99 - 23/1/2008 2:31 PMI see the most important theme here as follows. Griffin thinks he is building an architecture to go to Mars, not to ISS or even to the Moon really. (Never mind that Congress just zeroed the Mars budget!) - Ed Kyle
Jim - 23/1/2008 12:02 PMQuoteThomas - 23/1/2008 2:46 PMI'm glad to see Griffin emphasizing that the switch to the 5 segment booster/J-2X upper stage was for the purposes of reducing the cost/development time of the Ares V and not due to any inherent weakness in the SRB or SSME..That is after spin. Ares V was to use the SSME also. The change was due to issues with airstarting the SSME and making it expendable. Sound like a weakness to me