posted January 28, 2006 09:07 PM               

NASA Administrator Griffin knows this I am sure. He also knows that manned spaceflight is inharently dangerous. It is his hope to make the necessary changes in the shuttle system, service the Hubble Space Telescope and finish construction of the ISS as planned (not a smaller version). Then, and only then, NASA will end the shuttle program, even if it is many years before the replacement program is ready.

Former NASA astronaut Sally Ride agrees that another shuttle accident could mean the end of the program:
Ride: Program won't survive more failure (Florida Today)

posted January 28, 2006 09:54 PM               

* Completed does not equal complete. Philip is correct when he says a smaller ISS is the goal. The vision portrayed in NASA artwork labeled as "complete" is no longer even an option, with several modules long (and newly) canceled including the U.S. hab, the Japanese centrifuge and the Russian power platform.

posted January 28, 2006 10:33 PM               

If the HST service mission is at the end of the schedule, it probably will not be serviced and it will be left to fall into the ocean like Skylab and MIR. Griffin was therefore placating the American people by his remarks in the past that the HST will be serviced. Sounds like the HST service mission is a low priority mission for Griffin.

But the point of this thread is, if there is another major catastrophe in the manned space program, that will be the end of the shuttle and NASA. However, the loss of an unmanned spacecraft (Pluto/New Horizons, etc.) would not have the same results.

posted January 31, 2006 11:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Whenever the next disaster occurs (though I really hope it does not), will the American people realise that just a fraction of the $500+ BILLION spent on occupying Afghanistan and Iraq today could have been invested more wisely on future astronaut safety.

---

It would be really great if we could avoid non-space-related political discussion. If you want to say that more money should be budgeted for astronaut safety, that would be relevant to the discussion. There doesn't seem to use that as an excuse to bring in other political issues.

posted January 31, 2006 07:44 PM               

I also do not like censorship or intolerance of the opinions of others.

NASA is downsizing the space program because there are not enough funds to have another 1960's Apollo Program. NASA has a limited budget because the funds that could be used by NASA are being used for other purposes.

But is not only the war that is commanding all the available funds. The recovery from Katrina and national security are also very demending on funding, This is not a political statement, it is a fact. If NASA is to obtain more funding, it must come from someplace. Simply suggesting that it will come when the war winds down is not a political statement either. That is a fact.

posted January 31, 2006 08:49 PM               

Mercury/Gemini/Apollo wasn't about science. It was about national security, and for that the American people were tolerant of spending multi-billions on it. (Witness the pullout of support once America landed on the Moon and the Russians were nowhere to be found.)

The current space program is different. Until an Axis of Evil country makes it into orbit, the American people have no impetus to spend money on it. Add to that the American people are impatient - they don't want long-term benefits. Sure the space program pays back $3 for every $1 spent, sure we got nifty computers and cell phones and satellites that can and do save lives. But that's yesterday's news. (And it's not just space - you can get a highway built faster if you'll tell people it'll relieve congestion now rather than for a predicted population 10 or 20 years from now.)

posted February 01, 2006 08:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
I am in agreement with Philip and Sally Ride that another fatal accident in the manned space program would end the manned space program.

---

Except Ride does not say that in the article linked above. She says the end of America's Shuttle program, not the end of American manned space flight. There's quite a difference (I would hope).

posted February 01, 2006 10:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:
Except Ride does not say that in the article linked above. She says the end of America's Shuttle program, not the end of American manned space flight. There's quite a difference (I would hope).

FF

---

But FF, there is no other US manned space program now or for the many years into the future except for the Space Shuttle. I presumed that she meant the shuttle program, since there is no other US manned space program at this time.

posted February 02, 2006 12:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
since there is no other US manned space program at this time.

---

There's a guy on the space station right now who might disagree with you...

posted February 02, 2006 12:12 PM               

I do not expect any further accidents in the Space Shuttle program. But if there is one it will be the end of the shuttle and the end of any US manned flights for the near future (10 years or so). I do not count any astronauts who may be launched on the Soyuz by Russia. The Return to the Moon program is well into the future (2017+). We are not discussing that here.

posted February 02, 2006 12:33 PM            

In this thread, you've amended your definition of "ending manned space flight" from the dismantling of NASA and no more space flight until another generation looks at it, to talking about "the near future" and "10 years or so" until resumption.

You have the right to change your mind as much as you like, of course, but it makes it difficult to discuss anything when your meanings keep shifting. But, in truth, I was more concerned that you were quoting former astronauts saying things that they did not in fact say.

posted February 02, 2006 02:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
But if there is one it will be the end of the shuttle and the end of any US manned flights for the near future (10 years or so). I do not count any astronauts who may be launched on the Soyuz by Russia. The Return to the Moon program is well into the future (2017+). We are not discussing that here.

---

There will be flights between the end of the Shuttle program and the future lunar flights. The CEV is planned to fly by 2012, which is only 6 years away if all remains on schedule (not 10+ years). I imagine it will be making numerous trips to the ISS long before it goes to the moon.

If, God forbid, another Shuttle accident took place, my guess is that the Shuttle would be grounded permanently and work on the CEV would accelerate...as the money devoted to the Shuttle program could be re-diverted to getting the CEV completed more quickly. In that case, the CEV may fly even earlier. (As a side note, I wonder if the CEV will be given unmanned flights first, like NASA did for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo).

The only instance in which a Shuttle accident would likely end manned flight for a long time period would be if the next accident could be tied to yet another failure in NASA management to listen to the warnings (e.g. O-rings, foam shedding, etc.). Confidence in NASA might be lost if that were to happen...and congress might pull a good chunk of the funding for other programs.

posted February 02, 2006 03:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
(As a side note, I wonder if the CEV will be given unmanned flights first, like NASA did for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo).

---

Late 2009 - CLV suborbital test flight (with boilerplate CEV including recovery demo)

Mid 2010 - CLV orbital test flight (with active J2X engine and unmanned CEV)

Early 2012 - CLV orbital test flight (long-duration unmanned CEV test flight)

Early 2012 - first manned flight of CLV/CEV with manual docking to ISS

Mid 2012 - second manned flight of CLV/CEV with autonomous docking to ISS

Late 2012 - third manned flight of CLV/CEV with ISS crew rotation

(The schedule proceeds but this should answer, at least at this early date, that unmanned test flights are planned and a timeline much sooner than 2017 is underway for a new US manned program.)

posted February 03, 2006 08:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by pokey:
The HST repair mission is scheduled for December 2007. Of course, it may slip to December 2010, but that's the working date.

---

According to the US 2006 Budget, which was passed in the US House of Rep. this week, there are no funds for the Hubble servicing mission. However, there is $75-million allocated for a de-orbit mission for the HST and a request for funds to research how to service the HST without the Space Shuttle, as mentioned in the following article:
http://www.space.com/news/nasa_budget_050207.html

posted February 07, 2006 01:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by pokey:
I personally believe that the $ spent on servicing HST would be better spent on building/launching a new one. But the Hubble huggers prevail. JSC just got turned on to a Dec. 2007 flight for the final servicing flight.
I also personally believe that if there are more thermal protection issues with launches then this flight will not happen because a Hubble flight can't make the orbital plane manueuvers with the fuel on board in a timely manner to rendezvous with ISS for a safe haven.

---

My guess is that a Hubble mission would require that a backup Shuttle be available for rescue (e.g. an STS-300). If the Shuttle were to fly a Hubble servicing mission (assuming "regular" flights resume shortly after STS-121), the best scenario would be to launch the servicing mission shortly before an ISS Shuttle mission...perhaps within weeks of each other and perhaps even with two Shuttles at the launch pad (one on Pad 39A and one on Pad 39B). That might not be the plan, but it would appear to make sense.

I'm not sure what "Hubble huggers" refers to, but I think it would be hard to argue the Hubble is one of NASA's greatest successes since the end of Apollo. Ideally, a replacement for Hubble would in the works by now. Assuming construction on a "new" Hubble started today, it would still be several years before it could be operational. If nothing else, servicing the existing Hubble buys us more time until a replacement can be made. It is more cost efficient to keep using existing technology as long as it proves to be functional. Hubble continues to amaze us with it's performance and, assuming it is serviced, will continue to provide great science...which will be important in the couple of years between the end of the Shuttle program and the start of the CEV manned flights.