Actually I did read the entire thread over some days but I did not think that the implications of a change of administrations had been fully debated or discussed.
Long lead items no longer procured? Certainly true, but in government, things can be turned on again as fast as they get turned off.
Again, I would not bet two cents on seeing any orbiter fly in 2011 other than on the back of a 747 to its final retirement site. But in politics, speaking in absolutes only results in much crow being served. It can happen. In fact, I'm making tentative plans to make sure my five year old son gets to see a shuttle fly before its too late.
mborgia - 20/12/2006 9:36 PM
Long lead items no longer procured? Certainly true, but in government, things can be turned on again as fast as they get turned off.
Can you name an example of a U.S. manned space vehicle or launcher that was "turned on again?"
mborgia - 20/12/2006 9:36 PM
But in politics, speaking in absolutes only results in much crow being served.
Is that an absolute?
mborgia - 20/12/2006 9:36 PM
Long lead items no longer procured? Certainly true, but in government, things can be turned on again as fast as they get turned off.
Doesn't matter, they are "long lead" items so if they are turned on again in 2009, it may be 2013 before the items are ready. gov't can't control everything
"In adddition, it is a virtual certainty that the Republicans will regain control of the House of Representaives for 2009 and its new leadership will also be very fiscally conservative."
mborqia: I suggest you go back and reread your tea leaves. With the string of fiascos and scandals that resulted in the Republicans losing 30 seats in the House and six out of seven contested seats in the Senate it is likely to be a long while before the R's see control in the House again. If anything, look for a further increase in the Democratic majority in the House. Barring a further health set back by the Democratic Senator from South Dakota which could tip the Senate temporarily into a 50/50 tie, the Senate's Democratic majority is also likely to increase in the 2008 elections where the Republicans must defend 22 seats compared to only 12 incumbents up for reelection for the Democrats. How will this effect space? Difficult to tell, but it does seem that there is a loose bipartisan majority for space exploration, the ISS has survived numerous attempts to kill it and now seems assured, and the VSE should be well on its way to producing hardware needed to get to the Moon. Barring technical failures that prove the concepts NASA is pursuing cannot work, I think VSE goes forward -- maybe a little faster or slower, but it should continue to progress toward its goal. Remember, NASA essentially had to make a major change in its goals anyway. The space station will be built in a few years and the shuttle is basically on its way out regardless. Its difficult, dangerous, and too expensive to fly -- making it impossible to afford new manned vehicles unless there is a dramatic increase in the NASA budget -- something that none of us believes is in the tea leaves for the near future. Whether or not it ends in 2010, the shuttle will end soon and something has to replace it not simply as a taxi to the ISS but as the vehicle that carries forward the US manned space program. I think its clear that Orion will be that vehicle, even if there is controversy over what booster will be used to get it into space (Ares, EELV, Direct, etc.).
gordo - 20/12/2006 7:17 PM
Was it not a CAIB recommendation that the shuttle should be retired in 2010, or thereabouts?
Not in literal meaning, but perhaps in intent. The actual CAIB recommendation reads as follows:
R9.2-1: Prior to operating the Shuttle beyond 2010, develop and conduct a vehicle recertification at the material, component, subsystem, and system levels. Recertification requirements should be included in the Service Life Extension Program.
Now, such a recertification as the CAIB envisioned would be quite expensive (think billions, not hundreds of millions) and would take years, not months. As described to me by a CAIB staffer, the intent was to force the US government to either "shit or get off the pot". In other words, if you're going to keep flying the shuttle past 2010, then at least make a real investment to keep it flying safely, or cut your losses and develop something else.
--
JRF
I agree - as long as NASA seriously follows the CAIB safety recommendations, any Shuttle extensions beyond 2010 will require years of delays and huge extra budget costs.
Even with the discussions/arguments over the Ares/Orion plans, they are sill more expediant/cost-effective than extending the Shuttle program past its current shutdown date.
Excellent assessment, stargazer. Thank you.
Jorge - 20/12/2006 10:49 PM
gordo - 20/12/2006 7:17 PM
Was it not a CAIB recommendation that the shuttle should be retired in 2010, or thereabouts?
Not in literal meaning, but perhaps in intent. The actual CAIB recommendation reads as follows:
R9.2-1: Prior to operating the Shuttle beyond 2010, develop and conduct a vehicle recertification at the material, component, subsystem, and system levels. Recertification requirements should be included in the Service Life Extension Program.
Now, such a recertification as the CAIB envisioned would be quite expensive (think billions, not hundreds of millions) and would take years, not months. As described to me by a CAIB staffer, the intent was to force the US government to either "shit or get off the pot". In other words, if you're going to keep flying the shuttle past 2010, then at least make a real investment to keep it flying safely, or cut your losses and develop something else.
--
JRF
The bottom line is that after Columbia, it became clear to everyone that NASA needs a grand vision again.
This is a huge forum, so I think Moon and Mars questions don't need to be posted on Atlantis' forum!
Thread deleted back.
nathan.moeller - 31/10/2006 11:01 AM
Atlantis only had five flights scheduled after Columbia. STS-115, STS-117, STS-120, STS-124 and STS-126. If it is assigned to fly STS-125, it will be ATLANTIS' 6th post-Columbia mission. Sorry for the misunderstanding. There's a lot of info going around L2 about the Hubble mission if you want to register for that 
Is there any safety issue if Atlantis got her 6th flight for HSM-04 in 2008+ when her last OMDP was finished in 2000 ?
According to STS history, no strange to have more delays of schedule. So, if NASA really assign Atalantis for Hubble, probably Atlantis has to shift STS-126 to another orbiter, so that HSM-04 can be finished in 2008.
Thought a little bump was on order.
