backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 99 comment(s) - last by kc77.. on Sep 10 at 6:55 AM
NASA officials continue to discuss what to do if the space shuttle must be retired and astronauts can't fly to space aboard Russian craft

Emails from NASA Administrator Michael Griffin show a growing level of discontent regarding the looming shuttle retirement and the U.S. space agency's plans to return to the moon by 2020.

"My own view is about as pessimistic as it is possible to be," Griffin wrote in an August 18 email citing a possible mission extension as unsafe and an unnecessary monetary drain on resources.  He later described the White House's attempt to shut down the space shuttle as a "jihad" against space technology that has helped NASA greatly over the years.

"Extending the shuttle creates no damage that they (the next administration) will care about other than to delay the lunar program. They will not count that as a cost," he said. "They will not see what that does for U.S. leadership in space in the long term. And even if they do, they have a problem in the short term that must be solved."

According to Griffin, there are one-in-eight odds of having another shuttle disaster if 10 more manned missions are launched after 2010.  Even with the one-in-eight odds presented by safety officials, Griffin still is having his team investigate the possibility of launching two manned missions per year just to make sure the ISS still have American astronauts and supplies so the space station can come closer to completion.

During the five-year gap after the shuttle is retired, NASA will be forced to rely on the Russian space program to get astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station (ISS).  Because of growing political tensions over the recent Russia-Georgia conflict, NASA administrators and other space officials have been weary of relying so heavily on Russia.  

A legislative exemption necessary for NASA to pay for seats aboard the Russian Soyuz spacecraft was somewhat well supported before the fighting skirmishes between Russia and Georgia.  But because of the fighting between the two sides, U.S. politicians are not as willing to pay for the seats, which means that the American portion of the ISS may be left unmanned for at least half a year.

An email obtained by The Orlando Sentinel last month indicated NASA was looking into how realistic it would be to extend the mission of the current shuttle until Orion is completed in 2014 or 2015.

The United States has been desperate to try and complete the ISS before the shuttle is retired, a move that would ease NASA's dependence on Russia.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Need more elbow grease.
By JKflipflop98 on 9/8/2008 4:53:25 AM , Rating: 2
Imagine with today's technology, if we put the same amount of nationalistic emphasis on space travel that we did back in the 60's.

Wouldn't that be something wonderful?




RE: Need more elbow grease.
By Bcnguy on 9/8/2008 5:48:56 AM , Rating: 1
IMHO even a good goal like that is a bad thing when its for the wrong reason. Just think no worth it.

I mean nationalistic feelings always need someone to blame or hate. That's why always brings worst colaterals than expected.


RE: Need more elbow grease.
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 8:01:35 AM , Rating: 3
So having a national goal to aspire to is a bad thing? Why do we need to hate or fear anyone else to have that?

Being the first country to have a permanent moon outpost. That's a hateful or fearful message?


RE: Need more elbow grease.
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 12:19:16 PM , Rating: 3
I think his point was that it is hard to rally the nation to such a goal without a boogeyman to rally against. I am all for a moonbase as soon as practical. But how many Americans really are? In the 60's it was obvious that the moon project was to beat the Russians there for nationalist purposes. If the Russian space program did not exist it is doubtful there would have been a crash program to land on the moon.


Retire or Retread
By Karpydiem on 9/8/2008 10:36:44 AM , Rating: 3
Why retire them to sit in a grassy field and waste more taxpayer money keeping them painted for tourists. How about launching them all into space with a tank re-fit and use them as busses between the moon and earth orbit? Or heaven for bid an emergency return vehicle for the space station. Are we really so stupid as to not realize that other countries are going to put bases and mining operations on the moon as fast as they can. Maybe we can use the shuttles to run their helium 3 and ores to the earth for a fee instead of giving tax payer money away for once. If we don't stop and take the lead back in this race then we are too stupid to last as a nation.




RE: Retire or Retread
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 12:21:14 PM , Rating: 3
No one is going to be mining the moon and sending back anything for a long long time. The cancellation of the shuttle without an adequate replacement, which I think is an awful move, won't really impact this.


RE: Retire or Retread
By Tryek25 on 9/9/2008 9:52:12 AM , Rating: 2
I think that as an emergency return vehicle the shuttle may be a tad unfeasible because of its weight. It would make it hard to boost the ISS's orbit every once in a while due to the added weight of the Shuttle. As a shuttle from here to the moon... It would definitely need more fuel than it can store just to leave earth's orbit.


Jihad ?
By Strunf on 9/8/2008 11:56:35 AM , Rating: 4
Not long ago we would say a crusade against this or that instead of a jihad... I guess the crusades became old fashioned, that said it's quite funny to see a jihad being done by Christians.




Strangelove
By Comdrpopnfresh on 9/8/2008 2:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
"We must not allow for a orbital-personnel gap!"




Priorities - Another angle
By concerned1 on 9/8/2008 6:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
I too think we need a better sense of priorities when it comes to the spending of tax-payer dollars. I could not agree more that our missions to space have yielded many advancements over time, but our present involvement in the ISS is in my opinion, a big waste of money. But what seems to be an even bigger waste of money is the idea of scrapping the space shuttle for a GIANT STEP BACKWARDS. The Orion spacecraft, as it is currently being designed, is a 100% disposable system (like Apollo), where NOTHING gets recycled or reused. Many of it's proponents have said that by using older, proven technologies, it can be made safer and cheaper. But at what price? Without a space-shuttle like workhorse, there will be no heavy lifting capability (except for unmanned), and the cost of sending manned missions into low earth orbit will (pardon the use of the word) SKYROCKET. This endeavor (another well chosen word) seems to be a carefully orchestrated move on the part of Aviation and Space contractors to leverage the government into spending $$$$$ (BILLIONS) on R&D into a new spacecraft that will undo the advances we've made with the shuttle program. Please, tell your congress-person and senators that you want them to re-think the shuttle retirement, and SCRAP the Orion project.




Priorities
By ZimZum on 9/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Priorities
By straycat74 on 9/8/2008 7:20:42 AM , Rating: 4
The purpose of government is not to give every citizen food and shelter, but to protect them and to allow them to make their own way (AKA Freedom). If the government were to feed and house everyone, then where would the money come from? And would we be free? Last time someone provided me with food and shelter, I had a curfew, and other limitations on my life.


RE: Priorities
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 8:07:39 AM , Rating: 4
But...but...that means lazy people can't get sh*t for free! And those who make bad choices in life will have to live with them! The inhumanity!


RE: Priorities
By gamerk2 on 9/8/2008 8:22:15 AM , Rating: 2
Here's where people get confused:

If people make bad decisions in the stock market, or in life in general, they should not recieve a free bailout. The .com collapse, for instance, involved millions of dollars being invested in companies that never turned a profit. That being said, there should be a minimal layer of saftey; not enough to live confortably on, but enough to support people to get some type of job (even a minimum wage one).

On the other side, however, there needs to be some entity which makes sure that businesses play by the rules. One of my biggest arguements against de-regulation, is that both times it has been tried (Regan and Bush 43), there have been massive accounting scandles uncovered, due to a lack of oversight. While the concept is not a bad one, when it comes to business, neo-cons (note: i did NOT say Republicans) belive in the best of businesses.

In todays example, Freddie and Fannie may well have "adjusted" its books to make them appear more profitable. Now, should stockholders who lose a lot of cash in the bailout be held responsable for investing based on those reports? Should government step in and remove their CEO's multi-million dollar retirement packages and re-distribute it among those hurt? These are the issues which gets lost in all the debate, and will likey be ignored.


RE: Priorities
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 12:16:14 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
One of my biggest arguements against de-regulation, is that both times it has been tried (Regan and Bush 43), there have been massive accounting scandles uncovered, due to a lack of oversight.


Actually, the accounting scandals uncovered by the Bush Administration occurred mostly during the Clinton Administration. Of course, Clinton was a famous neo-con.
BTW, it is Reagan not Regan.


RE: Priorities
By gamerk2 on 9/8/2008 8:13:16 AM , Rating: 1
Thats a narrow way of looking at things.

Government is responsable for ensuring the long-term well being of its citizins. If that means ensuring that everyone has food and shelter, then that is the course they should take.

Your argument also has a major flaw: You seem to argue that people have the right to do most whatever they want (outside of the things that are universally illegal, of course). Its the typical De-Regulation arguement: Government should not be responsable in our day to day affairs. Of course, these are the people who want the government to bail them out when companies go bad because of illgial activity, that could have been caught beforehand with some decent oversight... Ita a cath-22: government oversight is a necessity (despite what Neo-cons believe) to ensure that the economy stays on track, yet is an anti-capitalistic principle (according to Adam Smith at least...).

As for money, as you increase the amount of people with money to spend, more money is pored into the economy, giving the government more money to play with. Thats one reason why Europe pays for everyones education; they believe, correctly in my mind, that a highly educated workforce will get better paying jobs, and thus will spend more on goods, growing the economy and providing the government more money. Of course, such a view is incompatable with American Capitalism...

To each his own I guess...


RE: Priorities
By FITCamaro on 9/8/2008 9:28:08 AM , Rating: 2
No government oversight is a bad idea. But so is too much. And we've got far too much now.

And you're going to look at Europe? Their unemployment is worse than ours. And many of their educated want to come to the US to escape the insanely high taxes. The British especially.

Yes a highly educated work force will get better jobs. But its not the governments job to provide it to you. Yes every kid should get a basic education. But beyond that, it should be up to the individual to make sure they get a good education and succeed in life. And don't tell me that the poor don't have the opportunity. In this country you can go to a state school and get financial assistance to help you get through. You might have to take out some loans, but you can do it. I did. I have the $60,000 in loans to prove it.


RE: Priorities
By gamerk2 on 9/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Priorities
By JustTom on 9/8/2008 12:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
The only way government can make any product cheaper than the private market is by distorting the market. Since it makes the rules it obviously has the power to do so.
A better argument would be to say since government has no profit motive it can better distribute its product to the population. Lack of the need to make profits allows government to deliver goods or services in a universal manner. It is obvious some goods and services are better handled by the government, police and the military being good examples. The question is which ones are and which ones aren’t?


RE: Priorities
By masher2 (blog) on 9/8/2008 12:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
> "It is obvious some goods and services are better handled by the government, police and the military being good examples"

Depends on who you listen to. Read Vernor Vinge's "Peace War" series (especially the interstitial novella) and you might come away with a different conclusion about the effectiveness of private police and military forces.


RE: Priorities
By