credit NASA / caption: On 16 November 1982 Columbia approaches Edwards AFB bringing to an end STS-5
This story by space.com focuses on the prospects of US astronauts flying on China's Shenzhou spacecraft but what is more important in Hyperbola's opinion is the fact that president Barack Obama's science advisor "underscored," according to space.com, the fact that it is the Obama administration's "intention" to retire Shuttle in 2010
The comments reflect recent articles about the activation of the 30 April sunset clause for suspension of Shuttle retirement activities, which was in the NASA authorisation act 2008, and Lockheed Martin telling Hyperbola at the National Space Symposium that they had been told that come end of April the external tank dome manufacturing tooling was coming out of Michoud Assembly Facility
This blog has expressed the opinion that the political status of Florida as a key electoral state would mean that the prospect of thousands of job losses due to Shuttle - 28,000 jobs says Orlando Sentinel, of which 10,000 are direct jobs according to ex-Shuttle astronaut and Boeing space exploration systems vice president Bewster Shaw - could only mean an extension of the reusable spaceplane. NASA even studied the prospect
And if I believe people who tell me they are "good friends" with NASA space operations mission directorate (SOMD) associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier then there is a "only a 10% chance" of Shuttle being stood down next year
If true I can only assume that means that SOMD thinks it has not got a hope of flying all the remaining missions by the end of calendar year 2010 because at the moment all the indicators are that Obama does not care one jot about Florida and its fate is being sealed by a drifting space agency with no leadership, a mystery budget and the unknown unknown of a blue ribbon panel review of its core mission
To make the situation seem that much more precarious within a few days of each other the Congressional Budget Office produces some stark predications about the impact of various funding scenarios and the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) says end Shuttle sooner rather than later, the Constellation programme can't be accelerated (contrary to various exploration systems mission directorate AA's saying otherwise) and Commercial Orbital Transportation Services is not going to bridge any gap any how any when
At this point Hyperbola's view is that NASA's future is as clear as the line up of candidates to become its administrator. It would seem hard to even plan a way of bringing about a situation this bad but here it is. With apparently no Florida votes to be nurtured one wonders what parameters could be used to determine what policy the new administration will bring
In a year's time NASA's fate will probably be seen to have been sealed when it featured so low in the priorities of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That was an opportunity to give the agency with more authorisation act endorsed actions than it has dollars the resources to deliver what is asked of it
The horrible truth is probably that Barack Obama, who wished the International Space Station crew well not so long ago, just sees space as cool but really doesn't give a damn
on April 17, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply
Keeping the program going would require massive upgrades to the main engines, the TPS, the fuel tank, the boosters, the hydrolics, & the computers. All those development programs got canceled in preparation for 2010 & the current configuration is a hack.
The bigger question is where all 24,000 Fl*rida layoffs are going to fit when they come to Calif* looking for jobs.
on April 17, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply
People tend to forget that the previous Administration set the budget for 2009. In 2010, the first Obama Admin' budget will be in force. I suspect NASA may either be folded up completly or the 2010 budget merely reflects outstanding business like completion of ISS and then finito.
Unless a large number of people in the business and enthusiast bombard Obama's website with protests and suggestions to the contrary. I'm going to suggest NASA money is taken from the over-bloated(to put it mildly) Defense budget. They won't miss it believe me: the problem at the moment is how to spend what they've already got!
on April 18, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply
US astronauts flying on board a spacecraft from a former third world country because of need for transportation? It can and probably will happen as long as ISS will orbit the earth as a relict of better times past. When de-orbited, what is left? Question: is state funded manned spaceflight in the US to be abolished because of political correctness issues?
on April 20, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply
How about investigating the Jupiter Direct proposal to close the launch gap and preserve Florida jobs.
www.directlauncher.com
Engineers working on the proposals think it can fly years before Ares I
Also funding the COTS-D could create US jobs and preserve some national dignity.
SpaceX maybe competing with China within a couple of years if the right choices are made.
on April 20, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
I believe the Shuttle program will END this MAY since... the VERY COMPLEX and NEVER ACCOMPLISHED BEFORE rescue mission adds VERY MUCH RISKS to and already VERY RISKY mission!!!
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/044sm4risks.html
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/039hubbledeathtrap.html
------------------------------------------------------------
also assuming the rescue mission will succeed and no astronauts will die, a failed SM4 will have (at least) these consequences:
------------------------------------------------------------
1. the Shuttle program will end THIS MAY, ten missions before planned...
------------------------------------------------------------
2. a $3 billion machine will be lost in space...
------------------------------------------------------------
3. the ISS will never be finished so it will remain a "3 beds" hotel, and...
------------------------------------------------------------
4. the prestige of NASA (and the funds given to it) will fall to its lowest!
------------------------------------------------------------
the ONLY advantage of this VERY RISKY mission is that Hollywood will have a good subject for another Apollo13-like movie... :)
------------------------------------------------------------
so... it seems that Orion and ARES-1 will accomplish their first manned flight ONLY in 2017 ...or LATER... in other words, the fly IN ORBIT the same years that, in the 2004's VSE presentation, was planned for the first/new LUNAR LANDING... that's just a "small delay" in the "plan"... :) :( :|
------------------------------------------------------------
unforunately, I doubt the Ares-1 will ever fly... http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html
------------------------------------------------------------
the current Shuttle annual budget is around £3.3 billion, while, the extimated budget to keep two Shuttles in service after 2010, is around $2.5 billion... so, the "price" to (just) "try to" reduce (by a couple of year) the 7+ years (2010-2017) US manned flights capabilities/GAP could be over $5 billion per year!!! that's just TWICE THE "PRICE" PER YEAR to keep the Shuttle in service till 2015 to FILL the "Shuttles retirement gap" ...with the Shuttles...! :|
------------------------------------------------------------