NASA chief says shuttle can't complete ISS work

[Chmee]

WASHINGTON, June 16 - Dr. Michael D. Griffin, the new administrator of NASA, said Thursday that there was no way the space shuttle fleet would be able to complete the 28 flights now planned before its retirement in 2010.

A reduced schedule will lead to significant changes in how the International Space Station is assembled and supplied, he said. The station depends largely on the shuttle fleet to ferry equipment, supplies and crew members, but the shuttles have been grounded since the loss of the Columbia and its crew in February 2003.

While the space agency is still studying how many missions the shuttles can undertake once they resume flight, as early as next month, Dr. Griffin said there could be as few as 15 and no more than 23, because of the time it takes to process and fly missions.

"I'll be very strong on this," he said in an interview.

Study groups at NASA are looking into alternatives for assembling the station, the shuttle's main job, and will consult with the White House before presenting details to the other partners in the station project, including Russia, the European Space Agency, Japan and Canada.

Dr. Griffin, who assumed his post at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration only two months ago, acknowledged that in the past the United States had been accused of making important decisions itself as managing partner in the project and then announcing them to the other partners. During meetings this week at the Paris Air Show, he said, station partners were told they would be consulted once the station-assembly alternatives were vetted by the Bush administration.

"No decision will be made until we've had a chance to discuss options with them," he said. But he continued: "I can't discuss options with them before those options have been aired with my boss. And they understand that. They have the same constraints as me."

Dr. Griffin has been acting rapidly to reshape the upper management of the space program, and letters have gone out to dozens of officials telling them that they will be reassigned or will have the option of leaving NASA.

The first to announce that he would leave was Rear Adm. Craig E. Steidle, who led efforts to develop the next-generation crewed space vehicle; he made his resignation public last week. The Aerospace Industries Association, a trade group, announced on Thursday that he would join it as vice president for international affairs.

William F. Readdy, who heads spaceflight operations, told co-workers in an e-mail message on Monday that he would stay on through the shuttle's return to flight and then decide whether to take a new job within NASA or to retire.

Alphonzo V. Diaz, the agency's associate administrator for science, said in a memorandum to colleagues on Monday that he would retire "in the next several months." J. Victor Lebacqz, NASA's associate administrator for aeronautics research, announced his departure on Tuesday.

In his interview, Dr. Griffin declined to comment "on what I might do on the organizational wiring diagram" but said he was hoping to build a team of officials with "expertise, energy, integrity, the ability to see and to grasp the big picture" and to "work well with others."

Dr. Griffin said he had a tendency to make quick decisions, and he said that this sometimes put people off. So he said he has tried to surround himself with a politically sensitive team, "which by design does not allow me to make the quick decisions that I am prone to."

He also said he wanted people "who are willing to stand up to me."

"I don't want to issue edicts that people salute, say, 'Yes, sir!' and go off and implement."

Dr. Griffin repeated his goal of having a replacement for the shuttle ready shortly after its retirement, instead of allowing a gap of four to five years, as previously planned, before the nation could send astronauts to the space station or the Moon. The United States will develop this vehicle alone to assure that the nation has "unfettered, independent access to space," he said.

Link

[RedImperator]

At what point do we decide to stop throwing good money after bad with that ISS? How many other worthwile space projects can't get funding because NASA won't give up on the white elephant in space?

[Admiral Valdemar]

At what point do we decide to stop throwing good money after bad with that ISS? How many other worthwile space projects can't get funding because NASA won't give up on the white elephant in space?

The ISS is a great idea. The execution is simply flawed. The red tape, use of an ageing, nigh obsolete carrier vehicle and related expenses has made the thing a joke. It should be a hulking achievement in orbit showing what humanity can do when it works together and aid in all sorts of scientific research from mapping geological events to testing stem cells or tracking global warming.

I agree, it's a money hog and simply not working out, which can only be attributed now to the lack of any real work by NASA on a new trans-orbital truck. Thanks to Bush et al, the likes of the X-34 have been delayed or scrapped altogether. So the Russkies are taking the full brunt and they can't use all their time and rockets on this one project (there are many who use their getup for commercial applications). So the ISS is understaffed, underreplenished and not even fully operational.

Gotta love bureacracy.

[Uraniun235]

Why can't we just use a big heavy-lift rocket to push the pieces into orbit, and then send up a three-man team on a Soyuz to assemble it and come back down?

Oh wait, we can't send any money to the Russian space agency because of some political asshattery, despite the fact that the ISS and other such cooperative ventures should be above whatever petty politics are going on at the time.

Could we have had a working Shuttle replacement if we had immediately dropped the Shuttle right after Columbia burned up?

[Firefox]

Could we have had a working Shuttle replacement if we had immediately dropped the Shuttle right after Columbia burned up?

The only project even considered at the time of the STS-107 accident was the Orbital Space Plane, and that was shelved by Bush's "Crew Exploration Vehicle" bullshit, which is supposed to do the same, but be able to carry crews to the Moon and Mars.

Meanwhile, the Russians are developing a replacement for the Soyuz that looks promising, with more internal volume capable of carrying a six-person crew. Between that and the 4-6 person CEV, there'd be little excuse not to put a larger crew on the ISS.

[General Brock]

It's really to bad, the ISS did have potential, but that prime window was squandered. It is just a waste of money, I hate to admit. Hubble was a more worthy re-investment.

Not that the ISS probably isn't doing some useful scientific work, but for all the effort that went into it, the returns aren't there, and it's already in need of an overhaul. The money to get it back on track that might be better spent on other space programs.

[wilfulton]

Bring back the Saturn V.

With a 260,000 lb payload capacity, it'll have no problem getting those components up there.

Hell for that matter it won't have any trouble going to the moon either.

[Uraniun235]

That would be difficult as the facilities which produced the Saturn V components no longer exist or have been retooled toward other products. Presumably, NASA would instead prefer to use a new heavy-lift rocket design.

[wilfulton]

See, red tape kills.

[Lonestar]

Trying to remember from Entering Space... didn't Zubrin rip Gore a new one for going for the multiple-unite long-ass time to build model than the "skylab-redux", which would have been cheaper, quicker, and would have given us a heavy-lift booster again?

Not to detract from the current administration's dropping of the ball, but NASA hasn't been handled properly since, oh, the '60's.

[wilfulton]

Well bureaucracy only gets bigger, clumsier, and dumber over time. The only way you can get anything out of bureacracy is if you could invent a way to directly utilize hot air as a source of energy.

Kind of a shame really.

[Lancer]

Well bureaucracy only gets bigger, clumsier, and dumber over time. The only way you can get anything out of bureacracy is if you could invent a way to directly utilize hot air as a source of energy.

Kind of a shame really.

That's easy, install turbines in the roofs of the buildings.

[Mr Bean]

Well bureaucracy only gets bigger, clumsier, and dumber over time. The only way you can get anything out of bureacracy is if you could invent a way to directly utilize hot air as a source of energy.

Kind of a shame really.

That's easy, install turbines in the roofs of the buildings.

Those are arleady installed and running in most places, how do you think DC keeps so warm during our fun winters?

[phongn]

At what point do we decide to stop throwing good money after bad with that ISS? How many other worthwile space projects can't get funding because NASA won't give up on the white elephant in space?

Or other projects period -- SSC was cancelled since Congress didn't want to pay for both the ISS and the SSC. We should have just gone with Freedom, that thing was supposed to cost $20bn in ~1986 dollars and it would have been bigger and more capable than ISS. Meanwhile, ISS is over $100bn (current dollars) and with no signs of ever reaching its stated design goals.

[phongn]

That would be difficult as the facilities which produced the Saturn V components no longer exist or have been retooled toward other products. Presumably, NASA would instead prefer to use a new heavy-lift rocket design.

The nice thing about Saturn was not just the payload but the fact that the thing was so big. I mean, it threw Skylab into orbit in one shot. Increased-diameter Saturn Vs with the F1A would have been even better.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

Well bureaucracy only gets bigger, clumsier, and dumber over time. The only way you can get anything out of bureacracy is if you could invent a way to directly utilize hot air as a source of energy.

Kind of a shame really.

That's easy, install turbines in the roofs of the buildings.

Those are arleady installed and running in most places, how do you think DC keeps so warm during our fun winters?

With puny -1.61 celsius being the average temperature in DC area during winter, why do you even need heating?